Which is what I said.
I said the worst aspect so far was the cover up.
But just about every organisation covers it up. Do you think for example if a high profile Opus Dei priest was guilty of abuse, or CM had ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse happen on one of its Lenten cruises or retreats at sea they would not cover it up?
They covered up Voris's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lifestyle over 20 years for the first 12 years of his pencil twirling condemnations of Bishops.
They are the pot calling the kettle black. But I don't deny the kettle is black.
You make a good point about Voris covering up his own past ... until an NO bishop was on the verge of outing him. That's something I would want to know before allowing my kids anywhere near him. Sure, he may be an ex-sodomite, but that's like an ex-alcoholic, where you wouldn't give him the keys to your liquor cabinet.
With regard to the SSPX cover-up, obviously that's the entire point. Nobody can prevent a sodomite from sneaking in here or there. Nevertheless, there are lots of times that CM has argued cover-up, where that may not have been the case ... such as with Palmquist, or even with Angles. There's no evidence, for instance, that anyone higher up in the SSPX knew what Angles was doing. Palmquist denies that anyone at STAS other than his confessor knew anything about his inclinations, and that he did not manifest any of it openly but suppressed it all. There were other situations where it's possible that some of the SSPX didn't find various accusations to be credible.
Was there SOME element of cover-up there in the SSPX? I believe so, especially with the case of Fr. Abbet, for instance. But unfortunately CM does a disservice by mixing truth with unsubstantiated insinuations, smears against Traditional Catholicism in general (which they sneak in every few sentences in their videos), and presenting various hypotheses as if they were proven fact. But given that they pepper in fiction with fact, it makes the actual facts, the ones that SHOULD be addressed, harder to find. And, actually, because there's so much falsehood there, it even leaves people wondering about the REAL cases, whether even those are true. If someone mixes in truth with lies, one starts to have doubts about whether the truths are also not lies somehow.
So I can't understand why hollingsworth refuses to take an objective view of CM.