Old news.

You got me thinking, though, and something needs to be said here.

When you have an organization the size of the SSPX, there is no "monolithic reality" or "flavor" that you are going to encounter everywhere you go within that organization.

When you're talking about ONE priest, or ONE chapel, then you're NOT discussing realities that everyone would probably observe if they checked it out for themselves.

But say you found out that an SSPX priest was involved in a lawsuit 16 years ago. Does that mean "SSPX" must be crossed off your "potential Trad chapels" list? By no means!

That's because it's not fundamental to the SSPX, or indicative of what you're likely to encounter when you visit one of their chapels.

If a foreigner visited the mountains of Colorado, would it be accurate for him to say "It's too cold in America -- I don't like it that cold." and cross off "America" from his "future vacation spots" list? That would be pretty stupid -- he's never seen Arizona or a few thousand other locations that are downright hot.

Even if I found out about downright serious crimes being committed by two or three SSPX priests, I'd still keep going to the SSPX. Why not? Unless the crimes are being fostered by their formation in the SSPX seminaries -- which would make it a widespread problem -- there are no fundamental reasons to avoid SSPX priests.

We're used to the Novus Ordo, where priests are fundamentally "of the world" and experience things like Freudian psychology, sex ed, worldly movies, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ doctrine, etc. during their seminary years. So I avoid all Novus Ordo priests for good reason; most of them have had a poor/defective formation. They all have modernism in their blood at the very least. That's a FUNDAMENTAL problem which affects MOST Novus Ordo priests.

If you want to criticize the SSPX, first of all you have my permission, but it must be based on facts.

Ah yes the Ferros.  

 

Father Doran wrote that in the beginning he did not believe Ferro, but now he did;
that Patricia has become seemingly unstable and vindictive in her behavior; that when Ferro and
Patricia were together, the situation was unbearable; that Ferro’s past erratic behavior was the
result of living in a continued state of exasperation with Patricia’s conduct; that Ferro continues
to persevere; and that his presence in the parish is a positive on

Here's the real deal: this priest was a woman panderer, he received riding lessons from this woman, highly inappropriate conduct.  He told everyone the man in question was mentally ill.  Without any shame.

With legal action hovering over his head, he had to change his tune, but of course he wasn't really sorry, wasn't going to fully retract his lies.  Priests like this will only slightly be reasonable when their feet are held to the fire.  Otherwise, it's full-bore, unapologetic, vicious arrogance.

Morals:

1. You don't sue a priest in a secular court. In normal times a person would be automatically excommunicated for that.

2. You never sue anyone for emotional distress to get money. That is unjust and worldly.

3. You don't recommend someone get a psychological evaluation unless you have really good reason to suspect real insanity that commits a person to an asylum.

4. After the priest did recommend a psychological evaluation, he should not have dismissed the results on his own authority.

Tell that to the victims of the molesters.  This idea that priests mustn't be held accountable for their wicked acts is not going to bind any sane person anymore.

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Telesphorus

.....  Priests like this will only slightly be reasonable when their feet are held to the fire.  Otherwise, it's full-bore, unapologetic, vicious arrogance.

In my opinion, you are absolutely correct. Again, in my opinion, these sort of priests are not as rare as we may hope.

Unfortunately, it's because a group that acts as a cult encourages the abuse of power.  It's so obvious how many of these people in these groups are primarily concerned with their social position in them.  I wouldn't be surprised if some young men in these communities enter the seminary in order to feel more powerful and to be more respected.

Tele-

   Well, that's a helluva post.

   In a mere 3 sentences, you have managed to:

1) Declare the SSPX a cult
2) Question the motives of SSPX priests for being priests
3) Question the motives of incoming seminarians

   Had you then thrown in a couple "Your Momma" jokes, the tirade would have been complete.

   And I can't resist mentioning, once again, the similarity of your sedevacantist take on things with those of the EWTN conservative.

   Interesting.

Francisco has obviously observed the petty control freak attitudes of some of these priests.

You tell people to say millions of rosaries, then hire Krah, while treating Bishop Williamson like dirt.  Seems like cynical manipulation to me.

Quote from: Seraphim

  Ah, the good old days, when people used to believe detraction was a sin....

Well, that's the problem.  SSPX priests clearly don't believe it.  They prove that by their behavior, time and time again.

It's absolutely necessary to warn people against cultish groups with dangerously abusive priests.

Sheesh!

You will read plenty of my posts attacking sedevacantism, as rigorously as I can, because I believe it to be an incredibly presumptuous position (even is technically possible), but do you ever read my posts naming and detracting individual sedevacantist clergy?

Detraction remains a sin, unless you subjectively believe the greater good requires it to prevent some greater harm.

No doubt, you would say this is precisely your case.

Nevertheless, it is something to think about before posting.