Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Jr1991 on May 16, 2021, 12:49:25 PM
-
Fr. Fullerton will be in Florida for the early part of the week. If anyone lives close to the priory in Sanford.
I hope someone tells him to stop closing our chapels and stop preaching the Gospel of prosperity which has infected the SSPX in Florida. God Bless.
http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/calendar/florida-welcome-sspx-district-superior-fr-john-fullerton-66037
-
What do you mean, he preaches the gospel of prosperity. Evidence?
-
The SSPX closed our chapel for more than 30 years. The chapel was willed to the Society by Fr. Hopkins, an independent priest in Miami.
The Society took advantage of COVID to close the chapel- they were already desperately trying to close it down. COVID sealed the deal.
Now you have long-time parishioners, many elderly, without transportation and without a place to worship.
The SSPX has a history of selling off buildings that were willed to care for souls and not be used as piggy-bank.
http://www.sspxflorida.com/sites/sspx/files/media/usa-p-orlando/pdf/south_florida_chapels_merger_doc.pdf
-
Fr. Fullerton will be in Florida for the early part of the week. If anyone lives close to the priory in Sanford.
I hope someone tells him to stop closing our chapels and stop preaching the Gospel of prosperity which has infected the SSPX in Florida. God Bless.
http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/calendar/florida-welcome-sspx-district-superior-fr-john-fullerton-66037
Have you tried to talk to Fr. Fullerton about your concerns? Maybe you and the other parishioners can try to make an appointment with him.
-
The SSPX closed our chapel for more than 30 years. The chapel was willed to the Society by Fr. Hopkins, an independent priest in Miami.
The Society took advantage of CÖVÌD to close the chapel- they were already desperately trying to close it down. CÖVÌD sealed the deal.
Now you have long-time parishioners, many elderly, without transportation and without a place to worship.
The SSPX has a history of selling off buildings that were willed to care for souls and not be used as piggy-bank.
http://www.sspxflorida.com/sites/sspx/files/media/usa-p-orlando/pdf/south_florida_chapels_merger_doc.pdf
The novus Ordo is into buying and selling prime real estate.
-
Have you tried to talk to Fr. Fullerton about your concerns? Maybe you and the other parishioners can try to make an appointment with him.
It's too late. They are in the process of selling the chapel as we speak. The parishioners at the now-closed chapel are poor-- in material goods, not in faith. Most are displaced, so no one knows where they are.
-
The novus Ordo is into buying and selling prime real estate.
Sad, but true. The Neo SSPX has become the Novus Ordo religion with the Latin Mass—similar to the Novus Ordo indult mass.
-
Have you tried to talk to Fr. Fullerton about your concerns? Maybe you and the other parishioners can try to make an appointment with him.
Why would that help? Make an appointment to ask him to please keep open a Church which they think doesn't need to be open on Ascension Thursday. :confused:
-
Here is the PDF, in case it gets memory holed.
-
Why would that help? Make an appointment to ask him to please keep open a Church which they think doesn't need to be open on Ascension Thursday. :confused:
Because Jr1991 was asking for someone to talk to Fr. Fullerton, so I suggest that he be that someone or to take an active part in arranging that meeting with Fr. Fullerton, since only he would know what he wants specifically to be said to Fr. Fullerton. As to its possible effectiveness, Jr1991 did not mention what he though the success rate would be (May 16), although he gave more detail on the next day (May 17) which indicated it is too late.
-
Because Jr1991 was asking for someone to talk to Fr. Fullerton, so I suggest that he be that someone or to take an active part in arranging that meeting with Fr. Fullerton, since only he would know what he wants specifically to be said to Fr. Fullerton. As to its possible effectiveness, Jr1991 did not mention what he though the success rate would be (May 16), although he gave more detail on the next day (May 17) which indicated it is too late.
I guess my point was that it would be better advise to tell this person that the SSPX is finished, done, caput! They are no different than the other Ecclesia Dei societies which Archbishop himself warned not to frequent because it was dangerous to be infected with their liberalism. It must be very frustrating being in that situation but I wouldn't seek the SSPX for help, I would look elsewhere. Just my two cents. Sorry if I came off too strong in my comment.
-
I guess my point was that it would be better advise to tell this person that the SSPX is finished, done, caput! They are no different than the other Ecclesia Dei societies which Archbishop himself warned not to frequent because it was dangerous to be infected with their liberalism. It must be very frustrating being in that situation but I wouldn't seek the SSPX for help, I would look elsewhere. Just my two cents. Sorry if I came off too strong in my comment.
Thank you for your clarification.
-
I guess my point was that it would be better advise to tell this person that the SSPX is finished, done, caput! They are no different than the other Ecclesia Dei societies which Archbishop himself warned not to frequent because it was dangerous to be infected with their liberalism. It must be very frustrating being in that situation but I wouldn't seek the SSPX for help, I would look elsewhere. Just my two cents. Sorry if I came off too strong in my comment.
It is funny you mentioned this because many of the choir members from this SSPX chapel sing at the Novus Ordo indult mass, but they go nowhere near the independent chapel in the city's heart.
-
Because Jr1991 was asking for someone to talk to Fr. Fullerton, so I suggest that he be that someone or to take an active part in arranging that meeting with Fr. Fullerton, since only he would know what he wants specifically to be said to Fr. Fullerton. As to its possible effectiveness, Jr1991 did not mention what he though the success rate would be (May 16), although he gave more detail on the next day (May 17) which indicated it is too late.
Yes, it's too late. I passed by last week, and they have ripped down the crucifix statute of the Blessed Mother, etc.; it looks like a bomb went off—but hey, the Society was able to get what they wanted. $1,000,000 in fundraising donations from the new Novus Ordo parishioners left temporarily without a parish after the COVID closings.
-
See video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnqp3WkIHCw&t=2s
-
Yes, it's too late. I passed by last week, and they have ripped down the crucifix statute of the Blessed Mother, etc.; it looks like a bσɱb went off—but hey, the Society was able to get what they wanted. $1,000,000 in fundraising donations from the new Novus Ordo parishioners left temporarily without a parish after the CÖVÌD closings.
I'm not a bit surprised. It's all about that $$$$. I hope the faithful get someone for the sacraments, I know it must be hard.
-
I'm not a bit surprised. It's all about that $$$$. I hope the faithful get someone for the sacraments, I know it must be hard.
Sadly, it is. If you are going to make a move like this, the very least you can do is provide the faithful with a place to worship. It may be someone's home, a rented store at a shopping center, whatever. You can't take up and leave; It is a sin against charity.
-
If anyone wants to read about Fr. Hopkins(God Rest his Soul), here is an excellent article about him and the now-closed Shrine.
https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-1120-ryan-fr-hopkins.htm
-
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/short-history-national-shrine-st-philomena-south-florida-66477
Well, it looks like someone at the US District has taken notice of our comments. The article is intended to take off the heat they are receiving, so let me make some points that were not made in the article.
1) The the catalyst for the merging of the two chapels was CÖVÌD-19," said Fr. Samuel Fabula, the pastor of Our Lady of Victory. "The shutdowns and restrictions for Miami in Dade County were more restrictive than those for Davie in Broward County. When the faithful of St. Philomena were denied access to the church, the decision was made to combine the two parishes at Our Lady of Victory, which is also the larger chapel."
Governor DeSantis signed an executive order exempting places of worship from all restrictions. In other words, Churches were allowed to stay open through the limits. A Governor's executive order Tɾυmρs any local mandate. Of course, the Archdiocese of Miami went along with the local orders and closed all parishes, and the SSPX followed.
2) The Shrine was moved 25 miles north to Our Lady of Victory.
While technically correct, they don't tell you that Miami-Dade County is 1,946 square miles and is the largest county in the state and is bigger than some States. Depending on where you live, the drive can be much longer than 25 miles, and the traffic is horrific(think Los Angeles).
3) Before CÖVÌD hit, the Society had cut down on the number of masses offered at St. Philomena from three per week to two, so the writing was on the wall.
4) No effort was made to accommodate many elderly who can't travel due to transportation issues, health, etc.
5) If you make a move like this one, you need to make some accommodations for those long-time mass goers who for whatever reason can't or will not make a move to a different mass center.
I could go on, but bottom line, it may have been a good business move, but it was uncharitable. No amount of glossing over will take that away.
-
One more thing I want to mention. Fr. Hopkins would have never approved of this move. He was a priest who cared deeply about all his parishioners—he would go as far as seeking them out if just **one** of them missed mass to find out if something was wrong. He was tenacious when it came to protecting his flock.
-
Sadly, it is. If you are going to make a move like this, the very least you can do is provide the faithful with a place to worship. It may be someone's home, a rented store at a shopping center, whatever. You can't take up and leave; It is a sin against charity.
Lots of us, not just SSPX, are in the same boat. The diocese used Covid as an excuse to shut down the mission chapel where a priest came down from Quebec three of four Sundays. They sold the building in January and what looks to be four condo units are going up.
-
Lots of us, not just SSPX, are in the same boat. The diocese used CÖVÌD as an excuse to shut down the mission chapel where a priest came down from Quebec three of four Sundays. They sold the building in January and what looks to be four condo units are going up.
Very sad. There is no doubt they used COVID for this purpose; it doesn't matter what amount of spinning they do. I hope you can find a new place to worship. I have heard that the faithful in Canada under Novus Ordo Jesuit Trudeau are being brutally persecuted.
-
Anyone else sees a trend here? This fundraising effort could have been copied and pasted from my previous post,. The similarity is striking. COVID has been good for business for the Neo-SSPX.
https://www.lifefunder.com/sspx
-
See video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnqp3WkIHCw&t=2s
Thank you for this.
Any info re fr. Fabula other than he is young?
We were just informed he will be the one coming to our outpost chapel soon.
-
If SSPX is selling off chapels to raise money, I can suggest another possible avenue for revenue enhancement. Why not bring a multi-million dollar suit against Church Militant for slander and defamation of character? After all, the Society could probably get a bundle in legal settlements for any false charges brought by CM against just Fr. Pierre Duverger alone. If Duverger is still stationed there in Florida, and has not either left the organization or been transferred somewhere else, it seems to me that SSPX ignores a marvelous opportunity to build up its financial resources.
Now, of course, if CM claims are true, well then, all bets are off.
But Michael Voris, Christine Niles and CM have let it all hang out. It's all in writing. If Fr. D and many other SSPX priests have been slandered and defamed, it shouldn't be difficult for a good SSPX lawyer or two to exact tons of cash from CM. In fact, they could probably put CM out of business, and secure jail sentences for prominent CM personnel.
SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-wont-investigate-accused-sɛҳuąƖ-predator)
-
If SSPX is selling off chapels to raise money, I can suggest another possible avenue for revenue enhancement. Why not bring a multi-million dollar suit against Church Militant for slander and defamation of character? After all, the Society could probably get a bundle in legal settlements for any false charges brought by CM against just Fr. Pierre Duverger alone. If Duverger is still stationed there in Florida, and has not either left the organization or been transferred somewhere else, it seems to me that SSPX ignores a marvelous opportunity to build up its financial resources.
Now, of course, if CM claims are true, well then, all bets are off.
But Michael Voris, Christine Niles and CM have let it all hang out. It's all in writing. If Fr. D and many other SSPX priests have been slandered and defamed, it shouldn't be difficult for a good SSPX lawyer or two to exact tons of cash from CM. In fact, they could probably put CM out of business, and secure jail sentences for prominent CM personnel.
SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-wont-investigate-accused-sɛҳuąƖ-predator)
Since The SSPX hasn't done this, it implies that what Church Militant says is true.
-
Epiphany: Since The SSPX hasn't done this, it implies that what Church Militant says is true.
Well, exactly. But then I ask, why have at least two people given me a thumbs down? What did I say that invited this reaction? Did I say or suggest something that is irrelevant or not worthy of comment? But you are the only one who has commented on my post thus far.
Look, if SSPX is all about money and selling off various properties, acquired legally or otherwise, why don't they examine other avenues of income enhancement? It just seems to me that potentially slanderous claims made about SSPX priests, not only in Florida, but throughout the various SSPX seminaries and parishes in the world, provide a wonderful opportunity for monetary enrichment. Law suits could be an income mother lode.
-
Since The SSPX hasn't done this, it implies that what Church Militant says is true.
It just means ENOUGH of it is true that they don't want the extra publicity that this would bring to the whole situation, and certainly a lot of it is true.
-
Look, if SSPX is all about money and selling off various properties, acquired legally or otherwise, why don't they examine other avenues of income enhancement? It just seems to me that potentially slanderous claims made about SSPX priests, not only in Florida, but throughout the various SSPX seminaries and parishes in the world, provide a wonderful opportunity for monetary enrichment. Law suits could be an income mother lode.
"Acquired legally or otherwise"? Are they acquiring property illegally?
Remember, lawyers are expensive. And if what Church Militant says is true, the SSPX will lose.
They ARE trying other avenues of monetary enrichment:
(https://i.imgur.com/NabuE2K.png)
:facepalm: worst idea ever
-
Duverger is still Sanford; he celebrated Mass this past Sunday. As far as CM is concerned, they have entirely lost their mind. They did raise some important issues about the Society, but their hatred of Catholicism is immense. Compare that with their love affair of the Novus ordo, and you have to question their motives.
-
Duverger is still Sanford; he celebrated Mass this past Sunday. As far as CM is concerned, they have entirely lost their mind. They did raise some important issues about the Society, but their hatred of Catholicism is immense. Compare that with their love affair of the Novus ordo, and you have to question their motives.
I don't care about their motives. We never would have heard about the pervert sspx priests and the priests/bishops who enabled them if it weren't for CM. I am grateful to be better prepared to protect my family.
-
"Acquired legally or otherwise"? Are they acquiring property illegally?
Remember, lawyers are expensive. And if what Church Militant says is true, the SSPX will lose.
They ARE trying other avenues of monetary enrichment:
(https://i.imgur.com/NabuE2K.png)
:facepalm: worst idea ever
I never understood that. Why not raffle a truck or family van/minivan: something practical and useful rather than luxurious? The profit margin may end up better too.
-
I don't care about their motives. We never would have heard about the pervert sspx priests and the priests/bishops who enabled them if it weren't for CM. I am grateful to be better prepared to protect my family.
Good Father.
-
I never understood that. Why not raffle a truck or family van/minivan: something practical and useful rather than luxurious? The profit margin may end up better too.
Mercedes makes big vans. Maybe luxury car is all they could get from who ever donated the vehicle.). They even make Mercedes’ rv.
-
epiphany: I don't care about their (CM') motives. We never would have heard about the pervert sspx priests and the priests/bishops who enabled them if it weren't for CM. I am grateful to be better prepared to protect my family.
Motives aside, did Fr. Duverger behave sɛҳuąƖly, over a long period of time, as CM describes, or didn't he? I am flabbergasted that SSPX parishioners in Sanford, who know the reported history of this priest, should have been in attendance at a Mass, no earlier than last Sunday, at which Duverger was the celebrant. Maybe they're all just ignorant of the many charges brought against this man in the past. This takes the Society's oft repeated "valid priests" argument to ridiculous extremes.
-
Motives aside, did Fr. Duverger behave sɛҳuąƖly, over a long period of time, as CM describes, or didn't he? I am flabbergasted that SSPX parishioners [congregants] in Sanford, who know the reported history of this priest, should have been in attendance at a Mass, no earlier than last Sunday, at which Duverger was the celebrant. Maybe they're all just ignorant of the many charges brought against this man in the past. This takes the Society's oft repeated "valid priests" argument to ridiculous extremes.
Only God and Fr. Duverger know.
Sanford has/had other pervert priests in their misdt. Vernoy protected Duverger and even helped enable.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sspx-priest-planning-defamation-lawsuit-against-church-militant-lawyer-says/
Birds of a feather?
I have a feeling congregants in Sanford have been beaten down so much that they don't give a rip anymore. And it is possible they are told from the pulpit not to believe what they read on the internet, as Fr. Pfeiffer used to tell us.
-
epiphany:
I have a feeling congregants in Sanford have been beaten down so much that they don't give a rip anymore. And it is possible they are told from the pulpit not to believe what they read on the internet, as Fr. Pfeiffer used to tell us.
The 'congregants' must give enough of a rip to show up at Mass with this guy each Sunday. In any case, it is, apparently, (presumed) validity trumps morality.
-
epiphany:
The 'congregants' must give enough of a rip to show up at Mass with this guy each Sunday. In any case, it is, apparently, (presumed) validity trumps morality.
I suspect they don't care. Look at how many congregants dress at mass in Sanford...
Vernoy and others there would be a problem for me, as well as duverger.
-
jr1991:
As far as CM is concerned, they have entirely lost their mind. They did raise some important issues about the Society, but their hatred of Catholicism is immense. Compare that with their love affair of the Novus ordo, and you have to question their motives.
This remark is rather unhinged. How, exactly, have Voris & Co. "entirely lost their mind?" Simply amazing!
Yet Jr admits that CM has raised some important issues about the Society. Yes, I would say so- issues, by the way which the Society itself would never raise, and do their best to conceal.
"(L)ove affair with the Novus ordo(sic)" Really? What specific indication of any such love affair? No group so relentlessly and doggedly pursues corrupt bishops, cardinals and priests of the NO than does CM.
Speaking of motive: I would like to know what motivates SSPX in Sanford to continue keeping Fr. Duverger within its priestly ranks, and, what is more, in positions of such prominence. They are obviously getting away with it, but why?
-
jr1991:
This remark is rather unhinged. How, exactly, have Voris & Co. "entirely lost their mind?" Simply amazing!
Yet Jr admits that CM has raised some important issues about the Society.
Both can be and are true. As I have stated, some of their information is legitimate, but much of it is not, and they have a palpable animosity against Traditional Catholicism in general (and not just the SSPX), and this animosity ... and a desire to create ratings via sensationalism ... have polluted their work. In a way, they're doing a disservice to exposing the legitimate information by blending it with nonsense and even slander.
I really don't undertand this binary thinking, that either everything CM says must be true or none of it is true. In their case, some of it is true, but some isn't. That really shouldn't be so difficult a concept.
-
Lad:
In a way, they're (CM) doing a disservice to exposing the legitimate information by blending it with nonsense and even slander.
I Know you and others have expressed these opinions before. But when, in the past, I have asked you to explicate, you simply ignore me and move on. I am deeply interested in illegitimate information which CM may disseminate. What is it? I'm listening.
Slander is a very serious charge. It's actionable under law. SSPX should take advantage of that fact. Why haven't they?
-
Both can be and are true. As I have stated, some of their information is legitimate, but much of it is not, and they have a palpable animosity against Traditional Catholicism in general (and not just the SSPX), and this animosity ... and a desire to create ratings via sensationalism ... have polluted their work. In a way, they're doing a disservice to exposing the legitimate information by blending it with nonsense and even slander.
I really don't undertand this binary thinking, that either everything CM says must be true or none of it is true. In their case, some of it is true, but some isn't. That really shouldn't be so difficult a concept.
Exactly. In the case of Duverger and Jassy Jacobs( I think that is her name). It looks like Duverger was trying to hit on her and get her in bed. However, that does not rise to a criminal offense. Yes, it’s a sin, and Duverger should be reprimanded and held to account. However, CM takes liberties with the issue. Duverger is alleged of more serious wrongdoing in France; however, the authorities have said nothing.
I’m the one who posted the link to the Black Trad. Matters “Spotlight.” In it, I said that I believed the allegations to be true even though CM likes sensationalism to get their point across.
-
jr1991:
Exactly. In the case of Duverger and Jassy Jacobs( I think that is her name). It looks like Duverger was trying to hit on her and get her in bed. However, that does not rise to a criminal offense. Yes, it’s a sin, and Duverger should be reprimanded and held to account. However, CM takes liberties with the issue. Duverger is alleged of more serious wrongdoing in France; however, the authorities have said nothing.
Well, jr., you think wrong. It is not "Jacobs," but 'Jacas.' To my knowledge she never said Fr. D. was trying to get her into bed. Even if he had, you claim, that is not a criminal offense, and, by SSPX standards of morality, would not have meant his immediate dismissal.
Father, you say, should be reprimanded for sin. Well, if he was, it is not evident to most of us. Jacas first talked to Duverger in 2013. In the intervening nine years, it does not appear that the leadership has done much to reprimand him at all about much of anything. Fr. D. enjoys full priestly privileges. He says Mass regularly in Sandord . He hears confessions. He leads youth pilgrimages He is still the principal of the boys' school to my knowledge.
Still waiting to hear Lad tell me what nonsense and slanderous activity CM is guilty of.. He won't, of course, because he can't.
Maybe it's time for some of you to review the April, 2020 Christine Niles had with Jassy. At the very least, it would help you all to get her last name straight.
SSPX Whistleblower Speaks (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/exclusive-interview-jassy-jacas)
-
Exactly. In the case of Duverger and Jassy Jacobs( I think that is her name). It looks like Duverger was trying to hit on her and get her in bed. However, that does not rise to a criminal offense.
No, CM spun it that way, but it does not look like Father Duverger was grooming her in any way. He never so much as touched her, and for the longest time he wouldn't even respond to her e-mail (which she complained about). He asked some bizarre questions in spiritual direction ... which may have been motivated by impure curiosity, or perhaps came from an imbalanced mind, where he fancied himself some kind of psychologist who would "cure" her of her past trauma. But that's ALL that happened between them. And I apologize for having to be blunt, but she's not a particularly attractive woman. I'm sure Father Duverger could have found other options if that's what he was after.
And yet CM smeared him as a "threat to children" ... when he had never acted inappropriately around children. Men who are interested in women tend not to be interested in children. So Father Duverger would have a real case for slander, except I think the SSPX would not want all the extra publicity.
Another one who was repeatedly smeared was Father Kenneth Novak, where he was characterized as a home-wrecker, seducing women from their husbands, visiting them "at all hours of the night," etc. ... but there's absolutely zero evidence that there was any wrongdoing of the nature that was implied.
-
Lad: And yet CM smeared him (Duverger) as a "threat to children" ... when he had never acted inappropriately around children.
You put "threat to children" in quotes, apparently referring to CM smearing him. I've not come across that particular quote in their literature. What is more, I am not aware that CM charged Duverger with acting "inappropriately around children." Around young women, yes, a number of them.
-
jr1991:
Well, jr., you think wrong. It is not "Jacobs," but 'Jacas.' To my knowledge she never said Fr. D. was trying to get her into bed. Even if he had, you claim, that is not a criminal offense, and, by SSPX standards of morality, would not have meant his immediate dismissal.
Father, you say, should be reprimanded for sin. Well, if he was, it is not evident to most of us. Jacas first talked to Duverger in 2013. In the intervening nine years, it does not appear that the leadership has done much to reprimand him at all about much of anything. Fr. D. enjoys full priestly privileges. He says Mass regularly in Sandord . He hears confessions. He leads youth pilgrimages He is still the principal of the boys' school to my knowledge.
Still waiting to hear Lad tell me what nonsense and slanderous activity CM is guilty of.. He won't, of course, because he can't.
Maybe it's time for some of you to review the April, 2020 Christine Niles had with Jassy. At the very least, it would help you all to get her last name straight.
SSPX Whistleblower Speaks (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/exclusive-interview-jassy-jacas)
Seriously you want to play that game. "Sandord" no its Sanford. Like I said before if Fr. D is guilty of these charges he should be reprimanded and held accountable. It seems like you have an ax to grind and believe anything CM says at face value. Using your logic you would then agree with CM that the SSPX is schismatic because the Novus Ordo sect says so?
-
No, CM spun it that way, but it does not look like Father Duverger was grooming her in any way. He never so much as touched her, and for the longest time he wouldn't even respond to her e-mail (which she complained about). He asked some bizarre questions in spiritual direction ... which may have been motivated by impure curiosity, or perhaps came from an imbalanced mind, where he fancied himself some kind of psychologist who would "cure" her of her past trauma. But that's ALL that happened between them. And I apologize for having to be blunt, but she's not a particularly attractive woman. I'm sure Father Duverger could have found other options if that's what he was after.
And yet CM smeared him as a "threat to children" ... when he had never acted inappropriately around children. Men who are interested in women tend not to be interested in children. So Father Duverger would have a real case for slander, except I think the SSPX would not want all the extra publicity.
Another one who was repeatedly smeared was Father Kenneth Novak, where he was characterized as a home-wrecker, seducing women from their husbands, visiting them "at all hours of the night," etc. ... but there's absolutely zero evidence that there was any wrongdoing of the nature that was implied.
I watched the interview when its first came out, and I thought he was trying to groom her. If what she says is true. But I agree it’s a stretch to say then Duverger preys on children.
-
And yet CM smeared him as a "threat to children" ... when he had never acted inappropriately around children.
Again the question: When and where did CM smear Fr. D as a "threat to children?"
Since the phrase is in quotes, it would infer that it was lifted from a CM video or article. All I want to know is where that alleged quote can be found. Who said it or wrote it?
-
I watched the interview when its first came out, and I thought he was trying to groom her. If what she says is true. But I agree it’s a stretch to say then Duverger preys on children.
I think that's what SHE was trying to convey, and what CM was trying to say, but actually write down the facts, and he basically asked some inappropriate questions of her about her past. But that was IT. No touching, no propositions or flattery or "coming on" to her, nothing that suggested he had any kind of impure interest in her. Could he have been indulging an impure curiosity? Perhaps. But the way she described it, he was adamant that he could help fix the trauma she had experienced in the past. He sounded like an over-zealous would-be psychologist more than a groomer. She expressed how frustrated she was because he wouldn't return her e-mails for a very long time. Does that sound like grooming to you, when he was not even returning her messages?
And the worst statement about Fr. Duverger was reported by Jassy second-hand, a bizarre incident, but then it came out that the girl who told Jassy about it was known to have psychological issues and wasn't even believed by her own family.
Did Fr Duverger do other things to other women that make him suspect? Perhaps, but this one here doesn't pass any kind of smell test.
That reminds me of the whole Fr. Arzuaga episode, where this woman repeatedly let him just walk into her apartment and rape her? Zero credibility there. Did Arzuaga commit grave sins against chastity and violate his vows? I believe he admited that. But it doesn't pass the smell test of being non-consensual.
-
Again the question: When and where did CM smear Fr. D as a "threat to children?"
Since the phrase is in quotes, it would infer that it was lifted from a CM video or article. All I want to know is where that alleged quote can be found. Who said it or wrote it?
For being so fixated with this issue, did you even bother to watch that video? Jassy reported Fr. Duverger to SSPX as being a "threat to children" ... with no evidence whatsoever. CM then stated their dismay that Fr. Duverger was allowed near children after Jassy's complaint. And the SSPX representative asked her what she based that allegation on, and she had nothing.
-
I think that's what SHE was trying to convey, and what CM was trying to say, but actually write down the facts, and he basically asked some inappropriate questions of her about her past. But that was IT. No touching, no propositions or flattery or "coming on" to her, nothing that suggested he had any kind of impure interest in her. Could he have been indulging an impure curiosity? Perhaps. But the way she described it, he was adamant that he could help fix the trauma she had experienced in the past. He sounded like an over-zealous would-be psychologist more than a groomer. She expressed how frustrated she was because he wouldn't return her e-mails for a very long time. Does that sound like grooming to you, when he was not even returning her messages?
And the worst statement about Fr. Duverger was reported by Jassy second-hand, a bizarre incident, but then it came out that the girl who told Jassy about it was known to have psychological issues and wasn't even believed by her own family.
Did Fr Duverger do other things to other women that make him suspect? Perhaps, but this one here doesn't pass any kind of smell test.
That reminds me of the whole Fr. Arzuaga episode, where this woman repeatedly let him just walk into her apartment and rape her? Zero credibility there. Did Arzuaga commit grave sins against chastity and violate his vows? I believe he admited that. But it doesn't pass the smell test of being non-consensual.
I will watch the video again tonight, it has been over a year, and I may have forgotten some details. I remember another girl involved; I believe her name was Hannah- If I remember correctly, she never did come forward with her story.
-
For being so fixated with this issue, did you even bother to watch that video? Jassy reported Fr. Duverger to SSPX as being a "threat to children" ... with no evidence whatsoever. CM then stated their dismay that Fr. Duverger was allowed near children after Jassy's complaint. And the SSPX representative asked her what she based that allegation on, and she had nothing.
Yes, that is true.
-
Who was the priest who had chickens?
-
Here to put the "threat to children" issue more in focus, from a LifeSite article June 15, 2021
....Wegner apparently told Jacas that Duverger, who by that point had been re-assigned to the SSPX’s St. Thomas More priory in Sanford, Florida, was “restricted on doing Confessions and spiritual direction with women.” According to Jacas, he also said the restrictions “are so severe for him that he literally says Mass and he has to run and hide afterwards because if he is even seen talking to a woman, he's done.”
To that, Jacas says she responded, “Okay, well, what about the children?” And she says Wegner replied, “well, what proof do you have that you should be concerned about children?”
Jacas said she had two concerns: “One, if I were a mother of any of those children sending my kids those camps or that school, I would want to know if these reports were made against him. Two, it it seems like he targeted sɛҳuąƖ abuse victims, which are very vulnerable to being confused…and children are vulnerable also.”
Wegner allegedly said, “I will look into it and see if there's anything more we can do for the children's safety.”
Jacas said that she became even more upset after learning Duverger was placed in charge of running camps for kids and was tasked with leading a pilgrimage that included women on it. He was also tasked with helping at the school in Florida. Jacas told LifeSite that she believed Fr. Wegner misled her.
“I was willing to accept Fr. Wegner’s decisions up until the point I found out he was lying to me. Fr. Durverger was working with an all female faculty and wanted to plan a private pilgrimage with just him and them. I was told specifically that Fr. Duverger wasn't even allowed to be seen with a woman, yet he worked with a female faculty and they were advertising a pilgrimage with him.”
“It was not my demands but the SSPX’s own protocols that they publicly claim to follow that was [sic] not being followed,” she said.
Jacas also said that she spoke with Father Marc Vernoy, a priest stationed at the St. Thomas More priory with Fr. Duverger. “I end up saying [to him] that the only thing that would ease my conscience would be for him to inform all the parents about the reports or to remove Father Duverger from a position in which he could be hurting people.” Neither of those things happened, she said.
Jacas eventually contacted Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the SSPX, via email in early 2020 to express concern about Fr. Duverger’s ministry. Pagliarani emailed her back saying the U.S. District is in charge of Duverger and that the situation was in Fr. Wegner’s hands.... (all bold letters added)
SSPX priest planning defamation lawsuit against Church Militant, lawyer says - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sspx-priest-planning-defamation-lawsuit-against-church-militant-lawyer-says/)
-
What, precisely, is Duverger alleged to have done to Jacas again?
-
Good Father.
You are bipolar.
How can I be a "good father" when you also calumnate me?
"Typical dumb disrespectful punk with sodomite attitude."
"Nadir, why don’t you reprimand this young punk....."
"You are just a disrespectful punk. Get it got it good. Immature punks. "
"Most of you are pretending to be holier than thou while condoning mortal sin."
"You are ok with pot smoking, listening to satanic music. Etc."
"You totally support the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr with your satanic hippie version of traditional Catholicism"
"obese soyboys who smoke weed and spend most of their time only online"
"moron"
" in a state of mortal sin with no plans of repenting. They are trying to make mortal sin acceptable in society and in traditional chapels. They are smoking pot, watching porn, struggling with sodomy or waiting for it to be acceptable, adultery, etc. They have zero intentions of relenting for sins. "
"satan’s fool"
"behaves like a Judas"
"Go to confession."
"doesn’t even know basic Catholicism."
"smokes weed"
-
Here to put the "threat to children" issue more in focus, from a LifeSite article June 15, 2021
....Wegner apparently told Jacas that Duverger, who by that point had been re-assigned to the SSPX’s St. Thomas More priory in Sanford, Florida, was “restricted on doing Confessions and spiritual direction with women.” According to Jacas, he also said the restrictions “are so severe for him that he literally says Mass and he has to run and hide afterwards because if he is even seen talking to a woman, he's done.”
To that, Jacas says she responded, “Okay, well, what about the children?” And she says Wegner replied, “well, what proof do you have that you should be concerned about children?”
Jacas said she had two concerns: “One, if I were a mother of any of those children sending my kids those camps or that school, I would want to know if these reports were made against him. Two, it it seems like he targeted sɛҳuąƖ abuse victims, which are very vulnerable to being confused…and children are vulnerable also.”
Wegner allegedly said, “I will look into it and see if there's anything more we can do for the children's safety.”
Jacas said that she became even more upset after learning Duverger was placed in charge of running camps for kids and was tasked with leading a pilgrimage that included women on it. He was also tasked with helping at the school in Florida. Jacas told LifeSite that she believed Fr. Wegner misled her.
“I was willing to accept Fr. Wegner’s decisions up until the point I found out he was lying to me. Fr. Durverger was working with an all female faculty and wanted to plan a private pilgrimage with just him and them. I was told specifically that Fr. Duverger wasn't even allowed to be seen with a woman, yet he worked with a female faculty and they were advertising a pilgrimage with him.”
“It was not my demands but the SSPX’s own protocols that they publicly claim to follow that was [sic] not being followed,” she said.
Jacas also said that she spoke with Father Marc Vernoy, a priest stationed at the St. Thomas More priory with Fr. Duverger. “I end up saying [to him] that the only thing that would ease my conscience would be for him to inform all the parents about the reports or to remove Father Duverger from a position in which he could be hurting people.” Neither of those things happened, she said.
Jacas eventually contacted Father Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the SSPX, via email in early 2020 to express concern about Fr. Duverger’s ministry. Pagliarani emailed her back saying the U.S. District is in charge of Duverger and that the situation was in Fr. Wegner’s hands.... (all bold letters added)
SSPX priest planning defamation lawsuit against Church Militant, lawyer says - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sspx-priest-planning-defamation-lawsuit-against-church-militant-lawyer-says/)
“Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.” (1 EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO TIMOTHY 5:19)
-
“Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.” (1 EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO TIMOTHY 5:19)
Continued:
Verse 20 - "Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear."
-
Verse 20 does not continue or modify the counsel from Verse 19:
The whole chapter is a list of independent/stand alone counsels (each counsel representing a verse).
Verse 19 stands.
-
Verse 20 does not continue or modify the counsel from Verse 19:
The whole chapter is a list of independent/stand alone counsels (each counsel nearly representing a verse).
Verse 19 stands.
Moreover, this is Paul's counsel to Timothy on how to run his apostolate (i.e., with Verse 19 being how to handle accusations against priests, but verse 20 being how to handle sinful faithful. In other words, the verses are not topically connected; the latter is not a continuation of the former thought/counsel).
-
Continued:
Verse 20 - "Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear."
Sean got this one already, but I'll just add that this says "Them that sin". The whole point of what Sean quoted was how to establish if someone has sinned or not, if the person is a priest. So obviously there is no need to reprove a priest before all, that the rest may have fear, if it is not certain that a priest has sinned to begin with, which needs at least two witnesses to be established.