https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-gave-pedophile-access-to-boys

Denial isn’t just a river in Africa.

The story includes admission, multiple accusers, recorded conversations, letters, a guilty conviction...

What more do you want before you can admit the allegations are credible, and almost certainly true?

Bishop Fellay himself found them true, for crying out loud.

Church Militant is getting very desperate at this point. Michael Voris and his ilk are obsessed with pedophilia, sodomy, and male sɛҳuąƖity. His previous tendencies seem to have him hooked on these matters. I wouldn't trust him or his "journalistic network" on these matters any more than I would trust an ex-drug dealer at a pharmacy.

Although Voris is not to be trusted, the facts are the facts and here is the admission from the SSPX:

The SSPX's canonical trial resulted in a guilty verdict on June 25, 2014, resulting in a number of restrictions on Peignot's ministry — restrictions made known to the CDF, and communicated to André in a 2017 letter from Fr. Christian Thouvenot, secretary general to the superior general, after the CDF requested that the SSPX inform André of the results.

"This conclusive decree definitively prohibits Fr. Philippe Peignot from any ministry with minors, if it involves preaching retreats or recollections to youth, Catechism or spiritual direction, and all activities involving supervision or chaplaincy of pilgrimages, of formation of children in serving Mass, of teaching chant, etc.," Thouvenot wrote.

All of this is very disturbing. I think I need a break from all of this nauseating madness.

So, what is this crap about simply prohibiting someone like this from being "around children"?  Once found guilty, he should be immediately expelled from the Society and suspended and defrocked from the priesthood ... once found guilty.

I noticed right below the article that we have Rafe moderating the article.  So Rafe is still active with Church Militant.  Just as I can't understand why the convicted molesters are not removed from any priestly ministry, I can't understand why Rafe continues being employed by Church Militant. That too is a scandal, Voris.

After reading the story on multiple other sources, I can acknowledge that the allegations are true. But my statement above still stands. I would not trust CM for this kind of reporting or any other reporting for that matter.

Same.  Someone who is impartial and yet firm against the abuse should do a proper investigation.  There seem to be substantial facts here indicting some of the SSPX leadership, but it's hard to really get an objective picture due to Voris' agenda.  That's why I have stated, and now repeat, that Voris is doing a disservice to the cause.

CM, for instance, refers to the one case but alludes to other cases.  What are those and how many?  If this priest had been that perverted, I can't imagine that he would not have abused dozens of others.  Regardless of how sensational the accusations might be from this one boy/man, they still do come from a single person ... from this article.  It's always possible that the person fabricated the allegations.

Nevertheless, the SSPX should LONG AGO have developed a formal procedure, almost like a flow chart, for how to handle these cases, automatically.  So, for instance, any priest who's even accused should IMMEDIATELY be removed from active ministry.  When police officers are involved in a shooting which appears to be completely justified, they are immediately put on leave pending an investigation.  Then there should be a process for conducting an investigation, interviewing the accuser and the accused separately, and then perhaps asking the accuser to confront the accused (if they feel up to it).  Additional witnesses should be called.  Even in a he said-he said type of scenario where all you have are conflicting accounts, the priest should still be removed from any active ministry that is not in a totally controlled environment.  And of course the gravity of the accusation needs to be taken into account.  In the case of Jassy, the accusation was merely about some possibly inappropriate things that were said.  There should be a formal hierarchy of gravity, at which something like the Fr. Duverger situation would be at the bottom.

[as per the allegation]
1) Did it take place with an adult of the opposite sex?  If so, was it consensual?
2) Did it involved children?
3) Was it just words or were there actions?
4) Was there inappropriate touching?
5) Was there sɛҳuąƖ assault?
6) Was there rape?

Certain scenarios should warrant an immediate suspension (without any assumption of guilt).

WHY isn't there a policy in place?  If there were, the SSPX need merely share with a group like CM the policy, and if someone in the SSPX violated the policy, he should be called out as having done so, and the failure to follow the policy would itself be dealt with.  If a member of the SSPX was accused of having violated the policy, again depending on the gravity of the accusations, that priest too should be immediately suspended.  That too should be formally stated in the policy.  It should be mandated that this policy be promulgated to and signed by every member of the SSPX.

Is it true, as the article alleges, that this man continues to be active with +Williamson and the Resistance?  Is someone in contact with +Williamson who could inquire about the matter?

Bishop Williamson actively protected Urrutigoity, and one would believe that he would have learned from that grave mistake.

Bp. Williamson has Fr. Abraham living in his house. Therefore, how could one believe that he "learned from that grave mistake" with Fr. Urrutigoity?

I've read and heard from different sources that Bishop Williamson and Bishop Faure have taken in these Pedophile priests to save their souls. What about the endless trail of victims and their families that now have to suffer a lifetime from the abuse. They need to get these priests completely out of the Society and defrock them .One child is one to many. The society members Bishop's priests etc. that conceal need to be punished some way also, they are complicit in mortal sins .

Yes, that is surely a strange reaction:

How does facilitating the public ministry of sick priests become necessary for their salvation?

I would think placing them into proximate occasions of grave sin (ie., unnatural temptation) would have the opposite effect (to say nothing of the danger to the faithful).

Very puzzling indeed.