CathInfo.com

No one said he's a pervert.
What was said is that he was kicked out of his order and laicised in 1989, and the warnings from the diocese continue to this day.
It was also said that he is "good friends" with Mr. Tetherow,  a confessed and convicted child pornographer.  
For him to do his own little thing in Scranton, in his own home, is one thing.  For him to be brought to a seminary is quite another.
If I find anything else about him I will post it.  

But what you are doing is attaching something immoral to Father Cordaro's status in the Diocese of Scranton.  As I pointed out, very clearly, the Diocese has a long recorded habit of liacizing priests that have done nothing immoral but are traditional priests.
He may very well be good friends with Mr. Tetherow.  It is my understanding that Mr. Tetherow is quite an adept liar and very charismatic.  He has duped a great number of people, including some very honest and trusting traditional priests.  I know of at least 2 traditional priests that are not pedos in anyway that have been misled by Mr. Tetherow.  That Fr. Cordaro is friends with Mr. Tetherow doesn't mean very much to me, at this point.  Mr. Tetherow has convinced a great number of people that he was wrongly convicted and evidence was planted.  Honest people often believe him.  Not saying, that I do, or taking up for Tetherow, but simply pointing out that he is evil enough to convince good men of his innocence.  Simply because someone is "friends" with him, doesn't make them also a pedophile.
I have no personal knowledge of Father Cordaro, only what I have heard from others who do know him and what information I have been able to gather over the years from the Diocese.
Unless you have some real evidence that Father Cordaro is indeed a pedophile or that he actually did something immoral to merit laicization, then you are quite guilty of rash judgment.
While I agree that whatever is going on in Kentucky is unfortunate, a priest deserves the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.  
To drag Father Cordaro's  name through the mud, accuse him of not being a priest, or to question his motives is uncharitable and wrong.  
If the ONLY evidence you have is that the Diocese of Scranton laicized him in 1989 and he was associated with the rotten priests from Scranton, that is no evidence at all.  Scranton laicizes priests all the time.  It doesn't mean he did anything wrong and it doesn't mean that the laicization was just.

Agreed.  
Shouldn't Cordaro have the sense to not associate with pedo priests if he isn't one?

Both you and Fanny are committing the sin of detraction with this thread about Cordero. Unless you two bring forward proof of why he was laicized, this whole thread is garbage.

Both you and Fanny are committing the sin of detraction with this thread about Cordero. Unless you two bring forward proof of why he was laicized, this whole thread is garbage.

Exactly!
Father Cordaro was a priest of the Oblates of St. Joseph.  He was removed in 1989.  20 years earlier, in 1969, he was giving speeches and working on recruitment to the seminary.  He was in a lot of papers in the Diocese.  His family is from Scranton.  In fact, his brother passed away in 2015.  
Why was he dismissed in 1989?  Good question.  I know a priest was dismissed from the Oblates because he was caught converting people on their death beds and offering traditional Masses.  
As far as I know, since Father Cordaro was laicized in 1989, he wouldn't have been associated with the Society of St. John as they were not formed until 1997 and they were watched over by the creepo Bishop Timlin.  
The were a multitude of problems with the Society of St. John, including financial matters, as well as accusations of sɛҳuąƖ assault by several students mostly accusing Ensey and Urrutigoity.  I don't believe that Father Cordaro was associated with them at the time, unless he was asked to come there an offer Masses.  When the Society of St. John was suppressed, it would have been possible to laicize all the priests associated with it, but I don't think Bishop Martino did that.
Subsequently, Bishop Martino, who was actually a friend to tradition, was put under so much pressure by liberal lay people and priests, that he had a mental break down and locked himself in his office just to find some peace.  He was practically forced to resign because the Catholics of this Diocese hated him so much.
Unless someone can identify that Father Cordaro was named in any suits of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct, drug abuse, or theft, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse a priest of something he didn't do.
Since Novus Ordo orders aren't valid, why is anyone concerned that a priest was liacized, unless it has to do with pedophilia or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity?  
Father Cordaro may be a different story.  He may have been ordained before the changes were made.