There was a discussion about St. Mary's telling a student to close his blog (because that is their policy now -- no personal websites for the students there)
The discussion swerved into talking about the SSPX itself.
I posted a pretty big post about this issue, so I thought I'd post it here too.
I agree that the SSPX isn't infallible, especially the individual priests and members. Like any legitimate branch of the Catholic Church, you have saints and sinners.
However, I support the SSPX because their charter -- what they stand for -- is rock-solid. Again, I am following the wise advice to overlook particulars and stick to principles.
The SSPX is a legitimate order of the Catholic Church, which is fighting for not only the defense of Tradition and the TLM, but the complete overthrow of Modernism and other modern errors. That is something I can believe in and fight for. I would be foolish to expect to meet only perfect people in the SSPX -- but I'll tell you what -- I can expect to meet more wise (and intelligent, pious, what have you) men and women there than in any other group. The odds are better, so I'll take those odds.
I hope you understand what I mean. I also imply that there are good people who do not attend SSPX chapels. But I believe it is the best solution for a Catholic trying to get by today -- though it's a sloppy 2nd to "Catholic Church united under a traditional pope and cardinals -- i.e., a Catholic Church not in crisis".
When that choice is denied to us, ALL OTHER solutions are going to be sloppy at best. When that is considered, I think the SSPX is doing quite well.
I have met BOTH Fr. Angles and Fr. Post. I am not omniscient, but I can say that neither of them exhibited "bad behavior" -- so if you concede that you just want them to clean up their act, I can tell you that they did so, and years ago at that! So much for that issue.
As for the "St. Mary's rules" issue, I would point out that they are a private school, and can set whatever rules they wish. If you look into most private schools, they have all kinds of seemingly illogical rules. Schools are meant to set rules and be strict. Remember, too, that you can't make an exception for ONE GUY who isn't letting his website interfere with his academic life. Schools can't be "nice" and make exceptions... a line must be drawn, and that usually is the rule itself.
I heard a story about "evil nuns" in the 1960's slapping a boy for opening his milk before the blessing before meals. But it was justified -- if they allowed it, then would they allow a boy to take a bite? If they allowed that, would they allow a boy to sit down and begin eating? And so on. With a large group of kids, you pretty much have to be strict or you have chaos.
I think the distaste for such rules comes from the liberalism which is all around us. And anyone who says they have none inside them is lying to themselves, or isn't very good at entering into themselves. I got that from Fr. Iscara -- he knows liberalism, and he told the seminarians that they almost certainly were somewhat tainted by it, and their job is to understand liberalism well, so they can root it out of themselves.
As an interesting tidbit, there are VERY FEW works in English on Liberalism. There are many in French, Spanish, etc. (both of which Fr. Iscara speak) but about the only one in English is "Liberalism is a Sin", published by TAN.
Rousseau's fingerprint is also to be found here. He was completely against "external laws" which attempted to control one's feelings and impulses. He considered such laws to be destructive of our freedom. Rousseau is another big "maker of the modern mind" who has highly influenced the modern world in which we live.