(There’s absolutely no attempt by Matthew to stifle criticism of the SSPX. He’s even allowed your (hollingsworth’s) borderline calumnious allegations to be posted here.
I have brought no “calumnious allegations” against SSPX. I have simply passed on the in depth reporting of Church Militant about clerical abuse committed by several SSPX clergy members.
Yes, there is plenty of CI criticism of SSPX when it comes to liturgical and doctrinal issues. Just don’t cross the line too far into any alleged moral laxity. The Society has already admitted that there are priests in their midst who have committed sɛҳuąƖ abuse. But, I surmise, they don’t want specific cases discussed in detail, especially when they involve high profile SSPX clerics.
I sympathize with Matthew to an extent. He knows how litigious the Society can be. He knows that Fellay & Co. did not hesitate, for example, to threaten legal action against ++Lefebvre’s elder brother and sister, when the latter authorized the publication of a number of the Archbishop’s old sermons.
Matthew would have to go it alone, were CI sued by SSPX. He does not have deep pockets, but the SSPX certainly does. He’d lose hands down in discovery.
But Church Militant is another matter. CM has a crack team of journalists, who have gathered tons of docuмentation about SSPX clerical misdeeds. More than likely, CM could mount an effective defense against any threats of SSPX legal action. Their pockets are assuredly much deeper than Matthew’s. In the discovery phase of any pending litigation, I think, CM would have SSPX for lunch.
So I understand Matthew’s position. I think I understand, as well, why the SSPX hierarchy has, to date, not taken legal action against CM. That would be, perhaps, taking a bite too big to chew.