I think you [i.e., Pepe] do have an agenda.
I am almost certain that you are correct, richard. Fifty bucks says that "Pepe" is the former "Guest Unregistered" who started the sordid "Urrutigoity Argentina" thread in the Anonymous Posts forum in April. Surely some of you remember that farrago.
Just to recap, it soon became plain that in that thread, the aim of Pepe/Guest was, not to reveal what literally everyone over the age of 25 on this site already knew about Urrutigoity and his vile history, but to use slanted MSM reports to blacken by association the names of +Williamson, W's staff in Argentina and at Winona, +Fellay, and the rest of the SSPX past and present, along with
essentially everyone else even peripherally related to non-SV traditionalism.In that thread, wallflower was the first to spot what was going on:
Is there a point to this thread? … We have to beware of our motivations in dredging up dirty details. Morbid curiosity is a first step to our own paths turning this way. It's the same "knowledge of good AND evil temptation" all over again.
Matthew then stepped in with the following comments:
… reading sordid histories like this has the "Unsolved Mysteries" effect -- that is, as you read the opening words, you already know something bad is going to happen. The whole thing is 100% hindsight, which is always 20/20.
… I found it interesting that Urrutigoity took advantage of a Sede faction to mask his activities. There were 2 main factions in the South American district that were so separate, they didn't even speak to each other. There was so much mistrust, that it was easy to pass off the (true) allegations of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior on the part of Urrutigoity as "slander from those darn sedes!" and the other side, who disliked the sede faction, was quick to believe it!
In short, I fail to see why richard should be abused for standing up for a priest whom he has been able to observe in close quarters over an extended period of time. No one, I think, is saying that Father Roberts's past is free of big question marks,
* but surely it's plain that the man is being attacked on this thread with one-sided, largely secondhand reports well past their sell-by date. Hollingsworth is of course also completely right to question Pepe's bona fides—indeed, thank goodness
someone stepped up to the plate! Responses that cry, in effect, that "we have to think of the children" are such as are being used here, there, and everywhere nowadays to conceal a regime of vilification and subversion that has its roots in the statement "What need have we of witnesses?!" Perhaps some of you recall that exclamation's origins.
Recall, too, that not even a blizzard of down thumbs can serve to functionally effect a CathInfo-wide repeal of the prohibition, on pain of sin, of detraction and slander. Indeed, what is to be said of all those who decry the comments of those who simply want to know more about Pepe—a creature who, appearing out of nowhere, selectively dredges up materials that have little or no relevance to anything going on hereabouts—than dear Pepe seems prepared to divulge? I for one despair of the morals of those who are willing to discard, with the flimsiest of rationales, the Catholic standards of liceity for a public charge of immoral conduct. (Of course, I long ago despaired of the wits and maturity of a preponderance of CI members, so what's to notice if one more ingredient gets tossed in this odd stew?)
__________________
* See especially a thread from 2013 called "Restoring the Bastions: The Church Militant at War" in this very subforum. In it the sadly missed SeanJohnson made some excellent comments about both Father Roberts and the moral danger of scattershot judgments in the absence of hard evidence.
Topic: Fr Marshall Roberts with the Resistance (Read 28514 times)