CathInfo.com

I don't believe that most SSPX chapels have crossed that line yet.

So that other members can put Sean’s comment above in context: Bp. W. , apparently, wrote a forward to SJ’s new book. I don’t know this for certain, because I have not purchased a copy, nor do I plan to frankly. I think I've read the person who wrote it, and that is quite enough for me.

When I saw how Sean can behave online, I thought, maybe, it might be wise to report some of his bizarre behavior to the bishop, with whom we've had something of a personal acquaintance over the years. This I did, explaining to H.E. that I cared nothing about Sean’s insults directed against me and others. I was only concerned for the bishop and his reputation. Did he wish to have a continuing association with a collaborator(?) like SJ under the circuмstances? If so, it was his call. I felt I had merely done my duty in informing him, and supplying a tidbit of Sean's posting excesses.

I heard from the bishop shortly thereafter. He emailed, in part, “You may just be hearing from him.“ Well, SJ did post an apology on CI, not only to me, but a few other forum members, as well. I think it’s obvious that this apology was inspired by H.E.  

Sean’s online behavior may simply be a sign of youthful exuberance and immaturity, I don’t know. But this much seems apparent: SJ can act pretty unhinged at times. One might even speculate  that there may be a bit of a mental or emotional problem here, and that some kind of anger management therapy might not be a bad idea.

In any case, he seems to have hijacked large portions of CI topics. And Matthew, who has been known to discipline, even ban, certain posters in the past, sits by and does nothing, or says nothing. He just steps aside and let’s it all go on. It makes one wonder.