CathInfo.com

Look I know people get upset when I chime in on social issues like this, but what is the fascination?  Why is this supposed to be an interesting discussion?  It is more along the lines of sensationalism like the National Enquire.  I don't see how this information edifies any one.

Wouldn't it be better to just say he appeared to have unnatural tendencies and was friendly to socialist and communistic ideas?  And then discuss facts?  or talk about why you don't think he should be canonized?

So, the reason this is coming up beause the Conciliar sect beatified Sheen yesterday, and given Sheen's reputation from some quasi-Traditionalist staunch defender of the faith, it will factor into the deception that the Conciliar Church is Catholic, that it's OK.  Sheen became a flaming Moderniist, a veritable trailblazer for the religious indifferentism of Vatican II, so this would be yet another canonization that attempts to effectively canonize the Modernist Revolution.  Just like people expose the evils of Luther, including his personal life in order to discredit his heresies, and it's perfectly justified for those reasons, so too the more people might expose the truth of Sheen, the more it undermines their attempts to leverage Sheen to legitimize the Revolution.  We're not discussing some random individual here.  I've known a few people, including one priest, who himself ended up "credibly accused" of predating upon boys, who practically LOOKED identical to Sheen and had the same "mannerisms", and evidently met Sheen a few times.  But I'm not going to out his name here, since he's been dealt with and ... no one uses him to legitimize the Modernist Revolution.  But those who emote can't make distinctions like this.  Yes, detraction is normally a very bad thing, but it's predicated upon someone's right to a good name, but one does not have a right to that name if said name is being used to perpetrate evil, i.e. if you know that someone's a predator because you found something else, you'd have not only the right but even the obligation to make that public, to prevent harm, since they do not have a right to the good name to get away with harming someone.  Similarly, Sheen's right to a good name evaporated as soon as he started enthusiastically promoting the False New Religion, the very "Ape of the Church" that he claimed the Anti-Church would be.

Ripperger is another good example. (NO orders so unreliable for exorcism, plus the Church was never public about these matters in such a manner as he is).

The doubtful NO Orders had NOTHING to do with the reliability of exorcism. The power to exorcise to tied to BAPTISM, not Orders. However, the lawful exercise of exorcism powers is dependent upon authorisation from the Church, which chooses in modern times to restrict the authorisation to persons ordained to the presbyterate, understanding that those consecrated to the episcopate possess habitual authorisation. Understand also, that the minor order of Exorcist pertains to the impartation of the minor exorcisms associated with the catechumenate and Baptism.

I am sorry to sidetrack this discussion, but that correction needs to be made.

Unreliable exorcisms in the Novus Ordo arise out of the weakened rites of exorcism found in the 1999 De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam, the new Order of Exorcism that replaced the previous Tridentine rites of major exorcism.