Author Topic: ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the Traditional Clergy (Read 26005 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2010, 03:07:25 PM »

Quote from: 008

Apart from the Society of St. John, no proof is proffered at all. Just baseless innuendo. That (destroying reputations of persons or trad churches) is mortal sin without proof.

Where do you think the SSJ priests came from? SSPX. I knew ALL of them at Winona.

I mentioned no names and wrote what I did by way of warning to parents to be alert. Almost all of the incidents I mentioned are PUBLICLY KNOWN, from the NY sede priest who was arrested, to the man teaching at a Trad school who was CONVICTED (and admitted to) molesting boys at the school (it was on the local news), to docuмented explusions from the Institute of Christ the King, to the guy I knew who left there and shacked up with his male "domestic partner" (he admitted this relationship). I have not revealed anything that isn't already publicly known and I did not mention any names. In order to give your "proof", I would had to have mentioned the names, and I didn't feel inclined to do so. You can google search and find most of the public arrest & conviction records in every case I mentioned.

Quote

The SSPX avoided most of these scandals by employeeing private detectives to follow priests under suspicion.

I'm afraid not, my friend. All the SSJ guys came from Winona. SSJ's leader went to Winona after having been expelled from the seminary in Argentina for this very reason, and the rector from LaReja sent a letter of warning to Bishop Williamson regarding him.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2010, 03:13:37 PM »

Quote from: 008

Apart from the Society of St. John, no proof is proffered at all. Just baseless innuendo. That (destroying reputations of persons or trad churches) is mortal sin without proof.

Purposefully destroying someone's reputation is a a sin even with proof. There must be a good reason to disclose such things; if the end result is the destruction of a reputation, it is purely accidental.

Detraction is the unjust disclosure of another's hidden fault.

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2010, 03:29:04 PM »

Quote

The SSPX avoided most of these scandals by employing private detectives to follow priests under suspicion. When guilty such priests were summarily dismissed. Sede pastors might follow suit, but who will monitor Sede pastors?

It is troublesome when a trad scandal is used to suggest one group over another. It is another reason why laymen should not identify too closely with any trad group.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2010, 04:44:14 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Purposefully destroying someone's reputation is a a sin even with proof. There must be a good reason to disclose such things; if the end result is the destruction of a reputation, it is purely accidental.

Detraction is the unjust disclosure of another's hidden fault.

In no case was anything I mentioned a hidden fault; it's all public knowledge (all but one incident that I have mentioned has gone into the legal system and has hit the news). Nor did I mention any names. And when I wrote about certain attachments that seminarians had (to lace surplices, etc.), I am referring in particular to seminarians who were later publicly implicated with such behaviors.

With that said, to expose someone who has certain proclivities would IMO be justified in order to prevent there being future victims. Protection of possible future victims would certainly outweigh the person's right to a good name. Not that this would be ends justifies the means; it would be protection of the innocent with the unintended secondary consequence of hurting the person's reputation.

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2010, 04:54:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Purposefully destroying someone's reputation is a a sin even with proof. There must be a good reason to disclose such things; if the end result is the destruction of a reputation, it is purely accidental.

Detraction is the unjust disclosure of another's hidden fault.

In no case was anything I mentioned a hidden fault; it's all public knowledge (all but one incident that I have mentioned has gone into the legal system and has hit the news). Nor did I mention any names. And when I wrote about certain attachments that seminarians had (to lace surplices, etc.), I am referring in particular to seminarians who were later publicly implicated with such behaviors.

With that said, to expose someone who has certain proclivities would IMO be justified in order to prevent there being future victims. Protection of possible future victims would certainly outweigh the person's right to a good name. Not that this would be ends justifies the means; it would be protection of the innocent with the unintended secondary consequence of hurting the person's reputation.

Agreed. Btw, I wasn't suggesting that you had said anything improper.