Another point --

Look at the Mass center in Sanford, FL -- close to where Fr. Roberts is.

Does it look like this congregation needs to watch out and be extra cautious about a priest with ANY KIND of "past"?

The stereotype for Florida is that it's full of old people. Guess what? Stereotypes are seldom -- if ever -- false.

Another point --

Look at the Mass center in Sanford, FL -- close to where Fr. Roberts is.

Does it look like this congregation needs to watch out and be extra cautious about a priest with ANY KIND of "past"?

The stereotype for Florida is that it's full of old people. Guess what? Stereotypes are seldom -- if ever -- false.

So are you saying Fr.Pheiffer is safe and Fr.Roberts is not?

I have two questions.

1. Were either of these priests convicted in a court of law?

2. Is Fr. Roberts even working with the Resistance? The nice cut-and-paste job done by the OP suggests that a sermon or two exists on Fr. Pfeiffer's group website. But what date were those sermons? Anything recent?

EDIT: I answered my own question. The most recent sermons for Fr. Roberts are from June 2014 -- almost a year ago. So it's unclear whether or not he's still a part of Fr. Pfeiffer's Resistance.

If he's an independent priest now, you can't use him as a stick to beat the Resistance...

The whole thing is ridiculous if you think about it. Tradition always had occasional problems with priests. Not just "unnatural vice" but other problems as well -- money, alcoholism, worldly priests, bullying, manipulation, smooth-talking the women, leaving the priesthood to get married, starting a cult, etc.

Remember that Tradition (and the Resistance) appeals on a human level to cholerics and mavericks of all kinds. Anyone who has problems with authority will enjoy being a Traditional Catholic. I'm not saying Trads have no justification, I'm just saying that many disobedient types WILL happen to enjoy on a human level the "being aloof from Church authorities" part of the gig.

I'd bet you $100 double or nothing that there are more Cholerics in Tradition than there are in the public at large.

Tradition isn't some sort of "elite club" or "society of the perfect", and neither is the Resistance. The Resistance is nothing more -- or less -- than the continuation of the Traditional movement (non-Sedevacantist branch). Any priest or layman can stand up and say, "Enough of +Fellay's new direction. I'm resisting!"

If the Resistance leadership hand-picked each priest and layman, excommunicating everyone else, it would be (justly) accused of being a cult.

It's a classic case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't!"

Matthew, all of your most recent posts are irrelevant to the real problem. We don't need to know how low the priests have fallen, we don't need to have them convicted in court. We do not have to, and must not, judge them. There is enough evidence to be sure that there are serious problems with their orientation. There are numerous pederasty or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests running around that have never even been accused or convicted but carry on their destruction of souls. What could be more shattering for the Faith of a young boy or man than finding out that his priest has designs on him? How many young men have thus lost their Faith and left the Church in bitterness, becoming Her lifelong enemies?

The only thing that is germane here is that these two priests both have histories that should preclude them from serving families, especially an unsuspecting family of 11, as a regular priest. It isn't just giving out Communion and saying Mass, when a priest hears confessions he is totally alone with the one confessing. Grooming can begin with conversation. I imagine it usually does.

You say that they can be watched. +Williamson was told by ABL to watch Fr. U. "like a hawk". But Fr. U. was able to carry on under his very eyes apparently unhindered. My son was there, Fr. U. drew to himself the bright, the handsome and had the intention of drawing them away from the Society altogether. He would call them into his office and spend as long as two hours alone with them, attempting to convince them of his position vis a vis the Society's. If he couldn't convince them, he would apparently advise their spiritual directors that they should go. If memory serves, he was Vice-Rector! And while he was not sent away for sɛҳuąƖ misconduct, he was at the time abusing a seminarian under his direction. Vocations were lost and some of those young men have been lost to the Society and Tradition. All this was only discovered by one of the seminarians who had computer expertise and found Fr. U.'s plans hidden in some obscure file. I am not claiming that +Williamson has intentionally turned a blind eye, no, I would not accuse him of anything like that or make that judgement. For a knowledgeable man, he seems a little too trusting, though.

Apparently many men have such a hard time envisioning being attracted to another man that they almost deny it can exist in practical terms. (Oh, they can just overcome it.) I have always admired +Williamson, and after the Fr. U. debacle, I made excuses for him, but this is not right. Bottom line, there is no effective way to make sure that either of these priests stays on the straight and narrow. Age does not seem to diminish this unnatural attraction. I don't say they can't function as priests, but let them help out with old folk somewhere. It is ultimately the duty and responsibility of the parents to protect their children, not +Williamson's. So whether or not you or anyone trusts his judgement is not the question. The important thing is, parents have the right to know something like this about their priest.

You may say I am too close to the problem to see it clearly, but sometimes being close enables a better view. In your efforts to explain and excuse the toleration of these priests, you men are meandering all over the place while the much vaunted male logic is on the shelf somewhere. The Resistance would never brook this if it were the Society. It is amusing that even though this whole thing is relative to something happening in the Resistance, so many are using it to attack the Society. Lastly, to reference one of your comments, to refuse to use the services of pedophile priests is hardly "hand picking"!   :geezer:

Quote from: Matthew

I have two questions.

1. Were either of these priests convicted in a court of law?

2. Is Fr. Roberts even working with the Resistance? The nice cut-and-paste job done by the OP suggests that a sermon or two exists on Fr. Pfeiffer's group website. But what date were those sermons? Anything recent?

EDIT: I answered my own question. The most recent sermons for Fr. Roberts are from June 2014 -- almost a year ago. So it's unclear whether or not he's still a part of Fr. Pfeiffer's Resistance.

If he's an independent priest now, you can't use him as a stick to beat the Resistance...

The whole thing is ridiculous if you think about it. Tradition always had occasional problems with priests. Not just "unnatural vice" but other problems as well -- money, alcoholism, worldly priests, bullying, manipulation, smooth-talking the women, leaving the priesthood to get married, starting a cult, etc.

Remember that Tradition (and the Resistance) appeals on a human level to cholerics and mavericks of all kinds. Anyone who has problems with authority will enjoy being a Traditional Catholic. I'm not saying Trads have no justification, I'm just saying that many disobedient types WILL happen to enjoy on a human level the "being aloof from Church authorities" part of the gig.

I'd bet you $100 double or nothing that there are more Cholerics in Tradition than there are in the public at large.

Tradition isn't some sort of "elite club" or "society of the perfect", and neither is the Resistance. The Resistance is nothing more -- or less -- than the continuation of the Traditional movement (non-Sedevacantist branch). Any priest or layman can stand up and say, "Enough of +Fellay's new direction. I'm resisting!"

If the Resistance leadership hand-picked each priest and layman, excommunicating everyone else, it would be (justly) accused of being a cult.

It's a classic case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't!"

Matthew, all of your most recent posts are irrelevant to the real problem. We don't need to know how low the priests have fallen, we don't need to have them convicted in court. We do not have to, and must not, judge them. There is enough evidence to be sure that there are serious problems with their orientation. There are numerous pederasty or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests running around that have never even been accused or convicted but carry on their destruction of souls. What could be more shattering for the Faith of a young boy or man than finding out that his priest has designs on him? How many young men have thus lost their Faith and left the Church in bitterness, becoming Her lifelong enemies?

The only thing that is germane here is that these two priests both have histories that should preclude them from serving families, especially an unsuspecting family of 11, as a regular priest. It isn't just giving out Communion and saying Mass, when a priest hears confessions he is totally alone with the one confessing. Grooming can begin with conversation. I imagine it usually does.

You say that they can be watched. +Williamson was told by ABL to watch Fr. U. "like a hawk". But Fr. U. was able to carry on under his very eyes apparently unhindered. My son was there, Fr. U. drew to himself the bright, the handsome and had the intention of drawing them away from the Society altogether. He would call them into his office and spend as long as two hours alone with them, attempting to convince them of his position vis a vis the Society's. If he couldn't convince them, he would apparently advise their spiritual directors that they should go. If memory serves, he was Vice-Rector! And while he was not sent away for sɛҳuąƖ misconduct, he was at the time abusing a seminarian under his direction. Vocations were lost and some of those young men have been lost to the Society and Tradition. All this was only discovered by one of the seminarians who had computer expertise and found Fr. U.'s plans hidden in some obscure file. I am not claiming that +Williamson has intentionally turned a blind eye, no, I would not accuse him of anything like that or make that judgement. For a knowledgeable man, he seems a little too trusting, though.

Apparently many men have such a hard time envisioning being attracted to another man that they almost deny it can exist in practical terms. (Oh, they can just overcome it.) I have always admired +Williamson, and after the Fr. U. debacle, I made excuses for him, but this is not right. Bottom line, there is no effective way to make sure that either of these priests stays on the straight and narrow. Age does not seem to diminish this unnatural attraction. I don't say they can't function as priests, but let them help out with old folk somewhere. It is ultimately the duty and responsibility of the parents to protect their children, not +Williamson's. So whether or not you or anyone trusts his judgement is not the question. The important thing is, parents have the right to know something like this about their priest.

You may say I am too close to the problem to see it clearly, but sometimes being close enables a better view. In your efforts to explain and excuse the toleration of these priests, you men are meandering all over the place while the much vaunted male logic is on the shelf somewhere. The Resistance would never brook this if it were the Society. It is amusing that even though this whole thing is relative to something happening in the Resistance, so many are using it to attack the Society. Lastly, to reference one of your comments, to refuse to use the services of pedophile priests is hardly "hand picking"!   :geezer:

Pilar: I understand what you are saying,but in the case of Fr.Roberts you need to back off, he is not a sodomite nor has he ever been .Pilar,read some of his books,read his blog ,listen to his sermons,if you have to come to Jacksonville and meet him.I don't know what happened when he was in PA but he has been nothing but a good catholic priest in the time he has been with us,enough said.

Quote from: Matthew

Another point --

Look at the Mass center in Sanford, FL -- close to where Fr. Roberts is.

Does it look like this congregation needs to watch out and be extra cautious about a priest with ANY KIND of "past"?

The stereotype for Florida is that it's full of old people. Guess what? Stereotypes are seldom -- if ever -- false.

So are you saying Fr.Pheiffer is safe and Fr.Roberts is not?

I believe he is saying that if Father Roberts is helping say Mass for the Resistance, this is where he would be as it's the closest to his regular chapel.

Pilar said:Richard, I do understand what you mean, and I hope he has become as wonderful as so many who know him think. It is just that people have the right to know, and beyond that, they have the duty to protect their children. That is my main point. We all have that pesky fallen human nature that rears its ugly head repeatedly during our lives and the devil knows where our weak points are. I don't think every priest must confess his sins and weaknesses to the Faithful either, but with something like this...

Yes Pilar,all of us have the right to protect our children,you are 100% correct,but again I do not see that sort of thing in Fr.Roberts,how many years has it been since he was accused?

Franciscan Solitary has been greatly helped by Fr. Roberts according to his post and I think that is where he should be used, older people are often overlooked, shoved aside as if they were already dead. They are in need of preparation for death. I heard a resistance priest, when he was Society, once comment in a disparaging way that he had been sent to a parish with only old people as if that was a complete waste of his time and talent. What a shame. The devil attacks old people too, sometimes very violently. I have seen it with the dying. A priest can do great work there.

We have a mixed bag here in Jacksonville,we have some older people but we have a lot of young people too. I hope that when I am old and dying Fr.Roberts will be at my side as he has been for the old ones who have already passed into eternity,and while I am at it would you all please pray for my sister Alice Williams ho passed into eternity on Friday,she lived in another state and did not have a traditional Priest there for her.

Richard, may she rest in peace. My family will remember her in our rosaries.

Quote from: Pilar

Quote from: richard

Pilar said:Richard, I do understand what you mean, and I hope he has become as wonderful as so many who know him think. It is just that people have the right to know, and beyond that, they have the duty to protect their children. That is my main point. We all have that pesky fallen human nature that rears its ugly head repeatedly during our lives and the devil knows where our weak points are. I don't think every priest must confess his sins and weaknesses to the Faithful either, but with something like this...

Yes Pilar,all of us have the right to protect our children,you are 100% correct,but again I do not see that sort of thing in Fr.Roberts,how many years has it been since he was accused?

Franciscan Solitary has been greatly helped by Fr. Roberts according to his post and I think that is where he should be used, older people are often overlooked, shoved aside as if they were already dead. They are in need of preparation for death. I heard a resistance priest, when he was Society, once comment in a disparaging way that he had been sent to a parish with only old people as if that was a complete waste of his time and talent. What a shame. The devil attacks old people too, sometimes very violently. I have seen it with the dying. A priest can do great work there.

We have a mixed bag here in Jacksonville,we have some older people but we have a lot of young people too. I hope that when I am old and dying Fr.Roberts will be at my side as he has been for the old ones who have already passed into eternity,and while I am at it would you all please pray for my sister Alice Williams ho passed into eternity on Friday,she lived in another state and did not have a traditional Priest there for her.

Richard, may she rest in peace. My family will remember her in our rosaries.

God bless you Pilar,and your family now and forever.

Thank you, Richard, and you and yours also!

I feel compelled to say that I find this thread really distasteful.  We have enough problems in Tradition and the SSPX without scrapping the barrel for this type of sordid scandal.  I can't judge other peoples' intentions or read their minds but it appears to me that an effort is being made to associate the Resistance with this type of scandal.  Whether these stories are true or not is irrelevant.  It is the intention and spirit behind the bringing up of this topic that is the issue here.  The official Church is in tatters.  The SSPX and most of Tradition is fast following in the steps of Modernist Rome.  The Resistance, a tiny movement, is our only refuge.  God in his mercy is giving Traditional Catholics a second chance, because no doubt He is punishing our sins and laxity, my own most of all, by allowing the SSPX to fail.  If the Resistance is seen as an opportunity to indulge a taste for sensationalism, or complaining, or fault finding, just for the sake of it, we will be punished again.   Our Traditional Catholic Faith and the Resistance is not a game.  I'm not saying that serious problems shouldn't be dealt with.  But people who are genuinely interested in dealing with a problem will do so in a prudent and appropriate manner.  Posting this thread is just an excersise in sensationalism and gossip as far as I can judge.  We're Traditional Catholics, let's behave like ones.

What a shame most other trads don't think the way you do.