Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Pepe on May 14, 2015, 12:04:45 PM
-
Moderator note:
I would like to start off this thread with this post:
Below is a highly relevant quote concerning the topic of this thread that is taken from the earlier CI thread "Restoring the Bastions: The Church Militant at War" contributed by "nipr" in 2013. This is very likely the best and most thorough presentation of this topic available. Those who read or contribute to this current thread ought to read it with feelings of humble gratitude to so fine a Roman priest as Fr. Marshall Roberts and then weep at the heartless ingratitude of men. The truth presented here concerning Fr. Roberts only makes this writer yearn to have the Catholics be rid of Jansenist heretics like "Pepe" even more.
And may the Good Lord forgive us for the many slanders contained in this current thread against His beloved Roman priests: :pray: :pray: :pray:
Please read the following words most carefully and with an open mind and a respectful heart:
"I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.
I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.
I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.
Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.
In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.
I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.
If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.
I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.
Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.
Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.
I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.
Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.
As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.
I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.
Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest."
Posted Jul 5, 2013, 8:36 pm
The website "In This Sign You Shall Conquer" (which supports Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's Seminary) shows that Fr. Marshall Roberts is also part of the "Resistance"!
See below the page where his sermons are available on this website, along with those of Bp. Williamson, Fr. Chazal and Fr. Hewko. This association goes right back to July 2013......
Father Marshall Roberts
Jacksonville, Florida
Sermons
June 2014
June 15, 2014
June 8, 2014
June 1, 2014
May 25, 2014
May 18, 2014
May 11, 2014
Monthly Downloads
July 21, 2013
July 28, 2013
CONTACT:
1-303-549-3047
1-602-469-4469
1-502-286-0157
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND CURRENT VIDEOS VISIT
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel USA.com
His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson
Sermons
Father Damien Fox
Sermons
Father David Hewko
Sermons
Transcripts
Father Francois Chazal
Sermons
Transcripts
Father Hugo Ruiz V. (Spanish)
Sermons
Transcripts
Father Juan-Antonio Iglesias
Sermons
Father Joseph Pfeiffer
Sermons
Transcripts
Father Marshall Roberts
Sermons
Father Patrick Girouard
Sermons
Father Richard Voigt
Sermons
Fr. Thomas Aquinas (Dom Tomas de Aquino)
Sermons
Father Trincado
Sermon
http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/
Fr. Marshall Roberts Predator Priest
Fr. Marshall Roberts was another SSJ priest who resided with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator priest Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr.Eric Ensey at St. Gregory’s Academy from 1997 to 1999.
According to the Vice-Rector, Father Patrick Perez, of Christ the King Institute in Gricigliano, Italy, in 1993 Roberts was kicked out of the seminary when he formed an inordinate sɛҳuąƖ attachment to a fellow seminarian with whom he had become infatuated. Within 24 hours of the Vice-Rector being informed of Roberts’ designs on his classmate, who did not appreciate the attention, Roberts was looking for new living quarters. Roberts was eventually ordained by the SSPX in Winona by Bishop Richard Williamson and later became a founding member of the SSJ.
While at St. Gregory’s, Roberts befriended a young man from the graduating class of 1999 who later became a postulant in the Society. In a very irregular arrangement, Roberts and the postulant shared the same room and bed in a housing unit on the SSJ property.
Exploiting Traditionalist Orders The Society of St. John
www.newengelpublishing.com [cached]
...
The Fraternity has also allowed Fr. Marshall Roberts to work at St. Michael's in Scranton.
The Fraternity of St. Peter is already being sued for negligence in the federal lawsuit filed by John Doe for sɛҳuąƖ abuse while he was a student at St. Gregory's Academy.
SOUND-OFF!
www.catholictradition.org, 24 June 2003 [cached]
Bishop Timlin has now apparently given permission to Fr. Marshall Roberts of the Society of St. John to find a new home outside of the Diocese of Scranton to "serve" traditional Catholics. As a result, an e-mail alert was sent out last week by one of the Latin Mass communities that was recently contacted by Fr. Roberts. I have attached the warning below.
24 June 2003
As a third year seminarian, Marshall Roberts was expelled from the Institute of Christ the King for proposing a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship in a letter to a first year seminarian. The vice-rector of the seminary, who was presented with this letter, has confirmed this account. In addition, Mr. Rod Pead, the editor of Christian Order, who was a seminarian there at the time, has published in the August/September 2002 edition the following account of Marshall Roberts' expulsion:
...
Bishop Timlin, having performed no background checks on the SSJ members, allowed Fr. Roberts to serve as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy where Fr. Roberts attached himself to one young student in particular. Upon graduation, this student joined the Society of St. John. ...
All of this has been docuмented at www.SaintJustinMartyr.org/news/notices.html
Although I fully informed Bishop Timlin of Fr. Roberts' past misconduct, Bishop Timlin has continued to allow Fr. Roberts access to new hunting grounds. Bishop Timlin not only allowed Fr. Roberts to work at St. Michael's in Scranton, but he also permitted Fr. Roberts to teach religion at Bishop O'Hara High School in Dunmore, Pennsylvania from August, 2002 to February 2003. All the while Bishop Timlin has assured the faithful that he is in full compliance with the Charter.
Let Bishop Timlin know that we are watching him by contacting him at dio34@epix.net. And please circulate the warning below far and wide so that Fr. Marshall Roberts does not find a new flock to fleece.
Subject: WARNING! SSJ Priest from Scranton Hawking his wares!
Father Marshall Roberts has recently contacted [names withheld by request] in the South presumably under the pretext of "finding a home to serve traditional Catholics", allegedly, according to him, with the permission of Bishop Timlin.
I won't go into the details, but I thought that in the midst of scandals in the Church, it might serve the benefit of us all to know that Fr. Roberts, ex-SSPX and apparently ex-SSJ, according to a first-hand source with written information, was asked to leave the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest as a seminarian.
... I had an extensive phone conversation with Father Roberts
Third Open Letter to Bishop Joseph F. Martino
www.saintjustinmartyr.org, 15 May 2004 [cached]
Also appearing in the missal is Fr. Marshall Roberts, another predator priest of the SSJ, who was kicked out of the seminary of the Institute of Christ the King for proposing a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship to a young seminarian. Roberts appears on page five with two young boys standing before him. Particularly ominous is the ubiquitous cartoon figure of a "guiding" guardian angel with his arm around a boy named "Adam.
Alleged predator priest is chaplain at Florida church
July 3, 2006
By Matt C. Abbott
Father Marshall Roberts, a founder of the suppressed and scandal-ridden Society of St. John (formerly under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Scranton, Pa.) is currently the chaplain of St. Michael the Archangel Roman Catholic Church in Jacksonville, Fla.
The church is independent of any diocese.
Dr. Jeffrey Bond, president of the College of St. Justin Martyr (which had been associated with the SSJ before separating — well prior to the Vatican-upheld suppression), said in a July 3, 2006 e-letter (edited):
In March 2002 I exposed Roberts as one of the predators of the Society of St. John. (See my original warning here.)
As a seminarian at the Institute of Christ the King in Gricigliano, Italy, Roberts was expelled in 1993 by the seminary’s then vice-rector, Father Patrick Perez. Father Perez expelled Roberts for writing explicit love letters to a younger seminarian with whom Roberts was enamored. The younger seminarian, who did not appreciate Roberts’ advances, gave the love letters to Father Perez who then saw to it that Roberts was dismissed from the seminary within 24 hours.
Roberts later found a happier home with the Society of St. John, where [priests] Carlos Urrutigoity and Dominic O’Connor gave Roberts the freedom to pursue a ‘particular friendship’ with a boy who had caught his eye. The object of Roberts’ affections this time was a student at St. Gregory’s Academy who, upon graduation in 1999, joined the SSJ. Roberts and this boy occupied the same room on the SSJ’s property in Shohola. When Roberts later visited the SSJ in France, Roberts was given special permission to spend time alone with this boy in his room after compline.
Dr. Jeffrey Bond can be reached at jmb3@ltis.net.
VERBUM - ISSUE No. 62
Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Stockton Hill
SUMMER, 1996
Winona, Minnesota
55987 U.S.A.
Fr. Marshall Roberts, from Warsaw, Kentucky, began his studies in Winona. He went to Ecône for a year, and then spent time at the Regina Cæli house before returning to Winona to complete his studies. Even though this year’s Ordination class maybe quite large, vocations in general are not too abundant. The reasons that Fr. Roberts allocates for this are on the one hand, this secular age with its spirit of anti-self-denial, and on the other hand, a poor example of a life of true sanctity, which is displayed by most of the clergy and religious. Nevertheless, Father states that all are called to perfection, and a vocation to the religious life, with its duties and obligations, encourages lives of perfection. His contributions to the Divine Liturgy as Organist and Schola member will be greatly missed here at the Seminary. Father sees the Mass as being “central to the spiritual life. A Christian life without the Mass or Confession is unthinkable, since the ordinary channel whereby God gives grace to us is through the sacraments, and these sacraments are impossible without the priesthood.” Father will supply these sacraments, where he will help preach retreats with his fellow Kentuckian Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer, in his assignment to the Society’s retreat house in Ridgefield.
-
Fr.Roberts Has been with us for at least 8 years now and nothing like this has ever happened,these charges were never proven,and unless some one can prove them they should be quiet and stop caluminating.
-
Pepe, who are you and what are your associations?
-
It's a big problem, one of many in old Pfiefferville.
-
There are associated discussions on Cathinfo about this topic. One thread from 2013 states he became a Dominican that year (postulant at the time) and changed his name, and where passionate defenders of his character attest to his orthodoxy.
However, there have been very serious accusations detailed in this thread by clergy and other people with excellent reputations, about his alleged sodomite tendency.
In one thread, a forum member stated the following, which prompted me to be cautious in my comment:
This internet is a great medium, and has been used successfully to
keep the faithful properly informed of the snakes amongst us.But we have to make sure that , as the information touches someone's reputation, it passes the smell test:
1) Is it true (not gossip, rumour, or speculation)?
2) Is it necessary to be said ( has the problem been resolved, have the hurt parties been made whole, has the behavior been corrected, etc) ?
3) will I absolutely improve the situation by my discourse (is there a high risk it will happen again, etc)?
To read both the accusations and more current attestations, it's like we're discussing two different people.
-
This thread should be deleted. It is evil to spread this gossip.
Tell that to the seminarians, schoolboys and male novices who've been abused by this priest. Also, Mons. Patrick Perez and Rod Pead (of Christian Order) are reliable witnesses to this travesty, as are the honest Catholic journalists Mrs. Randy Engel and Dr. Jeffrey Bond (who knows the case intimately). The Truth hurts sometimes, but it's the only way. Young souls cannot be put at risk!
-
Pepe, who are you and what are your associations?
Why in the world would this honest question prompt 2 thumbs down? That's illogical.
Thumbs down perhaps because on a forum that offers anonymity for those who need or desire it, it is an inappropriate question. No one has to identify themselves before offering information.
The information offered speaks for itself. Don't shoot the messenger. If this priest did indeed live with Fr. U and Fr. Ensey, and if the Vice-Rector of any seminary has said he has a love letter from Fr. Roberts to a young seminarian (or any man) then that is more than enough not to use associate with him or put him in a position where he can do harm.
He seems to have a very long trail of problems all related to an inordinate fondness for young men. I am aware of much of the circuмstance of Fr. U., his time at the seminary and his efforts to undermine the Society. Accusations have followed him everywhere he goes and somehow he finds protectors in the episcopate. It sounds like this priest is a similar case. I find this really alarming and I agree with Elizabeth.
-
This thread should be deleted. It is evil to spread this gossip.
Dear Green Scapular,
Everything in my post is in the public domain already - just look it up. It is also is court docuмents/affidavids. Therefore it is not "gossip" or "calumny".
Pepe
-
Pilar said:
Thumbs down perhaps because on a forum that offers anonymity for those who need or desire it, it is an inappropriate question. No one has to identify themselves before offering information.
I agree with you as applied to normal commentary, but the OP is new and is resurrecting very serious information. It's reasonable to ask - not identity per se - but something more to help the reader understand the OP's agenda; i.e., his affiliation with the issue, or reason for bringing this to attention at this time. Asking for this information doesn't negate the veracity of his post.
Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.
I do agree with the rest of your commentary.
In fairness, Green Scapular, it looks like Pepe did a cut and paste of letters, etc that are public domain, from those with good reputations. One cannot just dismiss this as gossip due to that fact alone. I think we all wish it was merely gossip and could be dismissed.
-
Pepe, who are you and what are your associations?
Why in the world would this honest question prompt 2 thumbs down? That's illogical.
Thumbs down perhaps because on a forum that offers anonymity for those who need or desire it, it is an inappropriate question. No one has to identify themselves before offering information.
The information offered speaks for itself. Don't shoot the messenger. If this priest did indeed live with Fr. U and Fr. Ensey, and if the Vice-Rector of any seminary has said he has a love letter from Fr. Roberts to a young seminarian (or any man) then that is more than enough not to use associate with him or put him in a position where he can do harm.
He seems to have a very long trail of problems all related to an inordinate fondness for young men. I am aware of much of the circuмstance of Fr. U., his time at the seminary and his efforts to undermine the Society. Accusations have followed him everywhere he goes and somehow he finds protectors in the episcopate. It sounds like this priest is a similar case. I find this really alarming and I agree with Elizabeth.
I agree with you 100% Pilar - this information needs to be made known, for the protection of souls and I congratulate Pepe for having the courage to post regardless of the attacks he's getting :smash-pc:
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
-
Perevang:
Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.
It most certainly is fair to ask. If "Pepe" is going to put this kind of stuff online, then he needs to identify himself, or at least, as you say, let us understand what his "stake in this" is. The accused has a right to know his accuser.
Richard: One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Father Roberts may well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am totally suspicious about "Pepe." BTW, does anyone know if you-know-who is still back there in KY? This thread started as a thinly disguised attack upon the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and their seminary. I am in no way associated with them, but It think this whole accusation is meant to sully their reputations.
To Pilar:
Baloney, Pilar! If this guy is going to come out on an open forum and out a priest, let him at least have the decency to identify himself.
BTW, from this post I expect to receive 10 'Thumbs up.' If I don't get them I will stamp my feet. :jumping2:
-
richard, that's a subjective argument.
Any Catholic would be devastated to learn their family priest had such accusations made against him, so I understand your reaction, but we must always remain objective.
To that end, the items that Pepe posted are easily investigated as authentic docuмents/accounts. Just as important, the subjects are very credible and would hardly all conspire together to make the same accusations.
However, your account of his character goes to my first comment - to read the description of him 'before' vs. those who have known him in Jacksonville and attest to his good character, is like reading about 2 different people.
-
richard, that's a subjective argument.
Any Catholic would be devastated to learn their family priest had such accusations made against him, so I understand your reaction, but we must always remain objective.
To that end, the items that Pepe posted are easily investigated as authentic docuмents/accounts. Just as important, the subjects are very credible and would hardly all conspire together to make the same accusations.
However, your account of his character goes to my first comment - to read the description of him 'before' vs. those who have known him in Jacksonville and attest to his good character, is like reading about 2 different people.
Your point being? Fr.Roberts was recommended to us by Fr.Fullerton who was district superior at the time even though he was no longer in the SSPX. It doesn't doesn't make sense do keep bringing this out year after year when he is not guilty, the person dragging this up is in danger calumny as are those who back him up and spread it.
-
Perevang: Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.
It most certainly is fair to ask. If "Pepe" is going to put this kind of stuff online, then he needs to identify himself, or at least, as you say, let us understand what his "stake in this" is. The accused has a right to know his accuser.
Richard: One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Father Roberts may well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am totally suspicious about "Pepe." BTW, does anyone know if you-know-who is still back there in KY? This thread started as a thinly disguised attack upon the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and their seminary. I am in no way associated with them, but It think this whole accusation is meant to sully their reputations.
To Pilar:
Baloney, Pilar! If this guy is going to come out on an open forum and out a priest, let him at least have the decency to identify himself.
BTW, from this post I expect to receive 10 'Thumbs up.' If I don't get them I will stamp my feet. :jumping2:
Hollingsworth, I did my part to keep you from having to stomp your feet. :wink:
But really, this is one of those times where guilt by association means something. The reputations of Fr. U. and Fr. Ensey are so compromised, their guilt so manifest that if this priest was with them, I would not be able to trust him with youth or children. Those priests mentioned all went on to disgrace themselves. None of these things can be dismissed as rumor, they are well known and public, both online and in newspapers. How long have you been traditional? Are you unaware of the events that occurred at Winona back when +Williamson was Rector?
Richard referred to a Fr. Fullerton who recommended him. Is he sure that it was the Fr. Fullerton who was the district superior for SSPX? Or could it have been Fr. Fullerton, his brother, a co-conspirator Fr. U. & Co. who left with them? I don't know, but apparently a vice-rector of the Institute of Christ the King makes the statement that this priest was kicked out due to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies and had a letter as proof. That is good enough for me. I have met priests of the Institute. Canon Hesse was close friends with them even though he disagreed with them on Vatican II. It seems unlikely that the vice-rector would lie.
At the very least, this man left the Society [?] with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests who were actively and secretly trying to undermine it, the seminary, and steal seminarians and priests also.
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
So he was tried and convicted?
-
Perevang: Simply, I'd like to know Pepe's stake in this. A former associate? a friend of someone involved? He doesn't have to answer, but it's fair to ask.
It most certainly is fair to ask. If "Pepe" is going to put this kind of stuff online, then he needs to identify himself, or at least, as you say, let us understand what his "stake in this" is. The accused has a right to know his accuser.
Richard: One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Father Roberts may well have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am totally suspicious about "Pepe." BTW, does anyone know if you-know-who is still back there in KY? This thread started as a thinly disguised attack upon the Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko and their seminary. I am in no way associated with them, but It think this whole accusation is meant to sully their reputations.
To Pilar:
Baloney, Pilar! If this guy is going to come out on an open forum and out a priest, let him at least have the decency to identify himself.
BTW, from this post I expect to receive 10 'Thumbs up.' If I don't get them I will stamp my feet. :jumping2:
Hollingsworth, I did my part to keep you from having to stomp your feet. :wink:
But really, this is one of those times where guilt by association means something. The reputations of Fr. U. and Fr. Ensey are so compromised, their guilt so manifest that if this priest was with them, I would not be able to trust him with youth or children. Those priests mentioned all went on to disgrace themselves. None of these things can be dismissed as rumor, they are well known and public, both online and in newspapers. How long have you been traditional? Are you unaware of the events that occurred at Winona back when +Williamson was Rector?
Richard referred to a Fr. Fullerton who recommended him. Is he sure that it was the Fr. Fullerton who was the district superior for SSPX? Or could it have been Fr. Fullerton, his brother, a co-conspirator Fr. U. & Co. who left with them? I don't know, but apparently a vice-rector of the Institute of Christ the King makes the statement that this priest was kicked out due to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies and had a letter as proof. That is good enough for me. I have met priests of the Institute. Canon Hesse was close friends with them even though he disagreed with them on Vatican II. It seems unlikely that the vice-rector would lie.
At the very least, this man left the Society [?] with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests who were actively and secretly trying to undermine it, the seminary, and steal seminarians and priests also.
It was Fr.Fullerton District superior,we were trying to find a priest and called the district house
and Fr.Fullerton recommended him,gees. Bp.Fellay and Bp.Williamson both new tha the was kicked out of the institute but they still let him in and ordained him,any thing else?
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
So he was tried and convicted?
I would ask YOU Mr. Richard - has Fr. Marshall Roberts SUED ANYONE for Defamation of Character, Liable or Slander? Has he threatened Dr. Jeffrey Bond, Mrs Randy Engel, Mons. Patrick Perez or Mr. Rod Pead with legal action if they do not withdraw their many written and spoken accusations against him regarding his predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? He has NOT! Why not? Because he cannot deny the undeniable TRUTH! Maybe you should try it sometime.....you might like it!
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
So he was tried and convicted?
I would ask YOU Mr. Richard - has Fr. Marshall Roberts SUED ANYONE for Defamation of Character, Liable or Slander? Has he threatened Dr. Jeffrey Bond, Mrs Randy Engel, Mons. Patrick Perez or Mr. Rod Pead with legal action if they do not withdraw their many written and spoken accusations against him regarding his predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? He has NOT! Why not? Because he cannot deny the undeniable TRUTH! Maybe you should try it sometime.....you might like it!
Pepe:I know Fr.Roberts,and you are wrong,and for what ever reason you have an agenda against Fr.Roberts. I don't think the Church looks with favor on lawsuits particularly for defamation we are supposed to turn the other cheek,but you sir are riled up about something or is someone pushing you to do this. Hmm.
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
So he was tried and convicted?
I would ask YOU Mr. Richard - has Fr. Marshall Roberts SUED ANYONE for Defamation of Character, Liable or Slander? Has he threatened Dr. Jeffrey Bond, Mrs Randy Engel, Mons. Patrick Perez or Mr. Rod Pead with legal action if they do not withdraw their many written and spoken accusations against him regarding his predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? He has NOT! Why not? Because he cannot deny the undeniable TRUTH! Maybe you should try it sometime.....you might like it!
Pepe:I know Fr.Roberts,and you are wrong,and for what ever reason you have an agenda against Fr.Roberts. I don't think the Church looks with favor on lawsuits particularly for defamation we are supposed to turn the other cheek,but you sir are riled up about something or is someone pushing you to do this. Hmm.
Mr. Richard, I do admire your absolute loyalty to your priest. This is a very laudable quality in a person. I am very sorry however, that in this case, your loyalty is misplaced and because of the very serious nature of the incidents referred to in letters, printed articles and court docuмents, it is your beholden duty to inform yourself properly and not to continue with only your subjective opinions......
Pepe: I have an idea why don't you and your little gang ride down to Jacksonville and either lynch the man or burn him at the stake and assuage your rightious indignation.
-
One more time, I have known Fr.Roberts for about 8 years,He has never done any thing like this while he has been at our chapel.If my understanding is correct once a man goes this way he usually doesn't stop .I don't know about the other priest but as far as Fr.Roberts is concerned he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,and unless you can come up with absolute proof positive you should just shut up.
Fr. Roberts was not merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was an SSPX seminarian, and a founding member of the corrupt Society of St. John. He was one of 18 men, living in close quarters.letters written by respectable priests, etc. He was not accidentally caught up in something perverted, or kidnapped by Urritigoity out of the SSPX seminary. The proof is very much available for anyone who cares to research the many court docuмents, etc. concerning the Society of St. John.
So he was tried and convicted?
I would ask YOU Mr. Richard - has Fr. Marshall Roberts SUED ANYONE for Defamation of Character, Liable or Slander? Has he threatened Dr. Jeffrey Bond, Mrs Randy Engel, Mons. Patrick Perez or Mr. Rod Pead with legal action if they do not withdraw their many written and spoken accusations against him regarding his predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? He has NOT! Why not? Because he cannot deny the undeniable TRUTH! Maybe you should try it sometime.....you might like it!
Pepe:I know Fr.Roberts,and you are wrong,and for what ever reason you have an agenda against Fr.Roberts. I don't think the Church looks with favor on lawsuits particularly for defamation we are supposed to turn the other cheek,but you sir are riled up about something or is someone pushing you to do this. Hmm.
We are supposed to turn the other cheek, except when we are a priest accused falsely of impurity.
-
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.
-
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.
Thank you Claudel,well said. Would that I were as eloquent as you. :applause:
-
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.
That was the thread I was referring to in my first comment, and where I read several well stated defences of Father's character.
-
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.
That was the thread I was referring to in my first comment, and where I read several well stated defences of Father's character.
Just so.
Given that the archives are this site's most valuable resource, it's a pity that accessing them isn't easier than it is. Having a good memory is about the only tool that can be brought effectively to bear at present. The Search function is virtually useless as now configured. One very helpful adjustment might be the kind of Sort function that Access and other databases utilize: the ability to arrange all the information in a forum in a variety of ways by simply clicking on one of the column headers. One might then arrange all threads in alpha order or by name or date of the opening poster/post or of the last commenter/comment.
On the other hand, would making the archives more user-friendly increase their use, whether in raw numbers or as a proportion of the site's frequenters? Probably not. Blabbing away incessantly or robo-posting à la poche will still strike most folks as more appealing than reading and reflecting.
-
… The Search function is virtually useless as now configured. …
My apologies for carelessly omitting two important words. What I meant to write was this: The home page's Search function is virtually useless as now configured. The internal Search function, however, works just fine. I see little evidence, however, that more than a handful of folks ever use it.
-
The anonymous "Pepe" is acting the part of the classic Jansenist agitator. The Jansenists work to undermine the Church first so that the Modernists can raze it to the ground later. It's a "good cop"/"bad cop" routine. This same dishonest gimmick has been used against the Catholics since time immemorial and Catholics shouldn't fall for it. Those like "Pepe" routinely make the same accusations against Bishop Williamson and there is no end to their Puritan hypocrisy: Once they have turned Catholics against the contemporary lawful hierarchy then they find fault with Pius XII, then St. Pius X, then the Popes since the Renaissance, then since the Greek schism, and on and on. Soon not even St Peter is good enough for the holier-than-thou Jansenist saboteurs. The French have a name for them: Tartuffe.
Make no mistake. These Puritan hypocrites are far more worldly than the Catholics they love to falsely accuse. It is they who would slyly introduce scandalous impurity into the Roman clergy -- if they can. This has been their repeated track-record since the Donatist heretics in Ancient North Africa.
The ladies on this thread who are absolutely right to react with horror to this accusation should understand that it has always been the likes of "Pepe" who have time and again gleefully introduced (through millennia!) the horrors they deceitfully denounce in others. Martin Luther himself was such a villain, although Lutheran hypocrisy is more openly violent and the Jansenist variety that "Pepe" practices is more sly and oily.
It is the anonymous "Pepe" who should be suspected of immoral intentions here, not the brave and intrepid Fr. Roberts. To accuse a holy Catholic priest ordained by Bishop Williamson, and who is also a close friend of priests such as Fr. Pfeiffer, of such abominations ought to alert Catholics that no good is afoot. Fr. Roberts has been cleared of all such innuendos years ago by the legitimate authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. "Pepe" is an unnamed journalist blogger with no sacramental or divine authority whatsoever. "Pepe" has already clearly shown himself to be a Jansenist hypocrite wolf in sheep's clothing by his own scandalous anti-Catholic calumny.
Fr. Roberts is innocent. The heretic "Pepe" is guilty! In a better and more just world it would be the oily character assassins like "Pepe" who would be accused, lawfully tried for their heresy and then cast into the truly purifying flames of our most Holy Inquisition. May the lasting security and happiness that would result from such true and just punishment of heretic perversion come quickly.
Maranatha!
-
Well, as my better half said on reading the information here, there are too many things he is accused of to be ignored. And I would never think Fr. Perez was lying (about the letter). I thought about it long and hard and I prayed about it too. He may be doing the work of a holy priest, but same sex attraction does not change, and so I hope he is never working with boys or seminarians. God forbid. I will be praying for him.
-
We have been through this SSJ group's behaviour a number of times in the past, and it is not profitable to resurrect it again except to say that this is another demonstration of the ineptness of the SSPX resistance so called.
They will not limit their members to those who are of proven character and who will not engender controversies such as this and others which have happened.
One has to seriously think if he wants to entrust his spiritual well being to an SSPX which has crossed over into the worldly pasture of modernism, or a so called resistance which is stumbling from one morally questionable crisis to the next.
I think that Matthew might want to consider zapping this thread. It is reflecting badly upon too many people, as well as exposing the unknowing to sordid things that disrupt their spiritual peace.
-
Good and devout human beings may easily make horrible mistakes about whom to trust. Good Catholics are duty-bound to think the very best of others. Wolves in sheep's clothing are by nature engaging and disarming, and from my observations, they always travel with a "posse" of people who help maintain the power structure. The helpers are alert to anyone who will not go along, and are poised to ruin anyone who poses a threat.
Traditional Catholics are not magically immune to the possibility of grave sin touching our lives. The Church hijacked by Modernists has been a perfect opportunity for a few gravely disordered clergy and laypeople to work under the guise of restoration of the practice of the True Faith. Without being paranoid and secretive, we just need to try to maintain a balance of mercy and a healthy guard. It only reflects badly on us if we delude ourselves into thinking we are superior, and become tempted to hide problems rather than fix them.
-
This seems to be an unfair type of censorship.
No, it's perfectly fair. It applies to every member, on both ends (giving and receiving). Even I am not allowed to be more than 17% of someone's downvotes.
Meanwhile, on the other end, every single person on the forum is thus "protected" by limiting enemy damage. There are no exceptions.
It prevents bullying, and excessive "rep" damage from one or two arch-enemies. Everyone has enemies, including Our Lord. So it's a wise system.
The system really works -- truly bad posts/members can get lots of downvotes, because LOTS OF PEOPLE participate in the downvoting. But when it's only 2-3 people, the person isn't objectively that bad, and it's good for the system to limit how much negative rep a single person can inflict.
-
This seems to be an unfair type of censorship.
No, it's perfectly fair. It applies to every member, on both ends (giving and receiving). Even I am not allowed to be more than 17% of someone's downvotes.
Meanwhile, on the other end, every single person on the forum is thus "protected" by limiting enemy damage. There are no exceptions.
It prevents bullying, and excessive "rep" damage from one or two arch-enemies. Everyone has enemies, including Our Lord. So it's a wise system.
The system really works -- truly bad posts/members can get lots of downvotes, because LOTS OF PEOPLE participate in the downvoting. But when it's only 2-3 people, the person isn't objectively that bad, and it's good for the system to limit how much negative rep a single person can inflict.
Fair enough Matthew. Thanks for explaining.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
Right on point. They dropped the ball on more than one occasion, and great scandal was the result. And here the pattern is repeated it would seem.
-
I suspect that there's a strong homo network within SSPX.
I also suspect that there are many modernist infiltrators. If the modernists could infiltrate the upper hierarchy of the Church, they could infiltrate the SSPX in about ten minutes. It was well know that if you were a polyglot (and above-average intelligent), then it was a foregone conclusion that you would be a superior in the SSPX upon ordination.
-
Who's objectively responsible for all the crimes committed against the future victims of Urrutigoity and company? Those who ordained him. Lest anyone think that I am pointing the finger at Bishop Williamson personally, it is well known that Bishop Williamson did not unilaterally make any decisions about whether or not to ordain any particular candidate. This was usually done by a vote of the seminary faculty. There were some candidates who were ordained or not ordained over the objections of the Bishop, but he deferred to their judgment. I know someone who was let go and to whom the Bishop said that he could not overrule the faculty vote.
-
ladislaus:
I suspect that there's a strong homo network within SSPX.
I also suspect that there are many modernist infiltrators. If the modernists could infiltrate the upper hierarchy of the Church, they could infiltrate the SSPX in about ten minutes. It was well know that if you were a polyglot (and above-average intelligent), then it was a foregone conclusion that you would be a superior in the SSPX upon ordination.
Modernist infiltrators in SSPX was never a question in my mind. Of course there are. A few jews, as well, I suspect. But his thing of a a homo network in the Society is really a revelation. I never thought about it for a minute. I don't say that lad is wrong, but it is, nevertheless, very disturbing.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
-
It is extremely unwise to single out the SSPX as THE group capable of being infiltrated by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
So now we have it, the real purpose of all this garbage was really the destruction of Bp.Williamson.
Ladislaus writes: When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. RUMOR? RUMOR! not Facts but RUMOR! amazing.I need a little help here just what is a RUMORanyway?
Moving on to the little lamb who writes:It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. Does this priest have a name,and while we are at it do you have a name?We all know who the alleged superior is so without having to give factual evidence(the priest's name) you can quite easily destroy the superior's reputation. Why would you do this? Oh I know the resistance has a new Bishop so you no longer need Bp.Williamson,pretty slick,not bad for a little lamb.
-
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
Imagine the grief of young men kicked out who are not perverts, but not slick enough to impress whomever.
I'm sure that most of the seminarians who don't stay, leave because they find the life is not for them. For those who wanted it with all of their hearts, it is very sad but often it is clear why they didn't have vocations. But sometimes it is just God's will for no obvious reason. It would be wrong to leave anyone with the impression that to stay at an SSPX seminary you need to be light in the loafers. On the contrary, they want manly men. Just sometimes it is hard to tell the light in the loafers guys from those who love art, choir and solitude.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
So now we have it, the real purpose of all this garbage was really the destruction of Bp.Williamson.
Ladislaus writes: When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. RUMOR? RUMOR! not Facts but RUMOR! amazing.I need a little help here just what is a RUMORanyway?
Moving on to the little lamb who writes:It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. Does this priest have a name,and while we are at it do you have a name?We all know who the alleged superior is so without having to give factual evidence(the priest's name) you can quite easily destroy the superior's reputation. Why would you do this? Oh I know the resistance has a new Bishop so you no longer need Bp.Williamson,pretty slick,not bad for a little lamb.
What an angry old troll you are Little Richard! :argue: Did I touch a raw nerve or something? :dwarf:
As Ladislaus said above " truth is truth." And Ladislaus writes: When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. But, the thing is, it wasn't a RUMOR at all, it was actually 100% true, as evidenced by the Rector of ICK at the time, Mons. Patrick Perez! Put THAT in yer pipe n smoke it! And quit being so abusive to other posters on this forum - whatever charm school you went to, you should get your money back!
Oh, btw, a BIG THUMBS DOWN while we're at it!
No little lamb you didn't hit a nerve,but obviously I did.
-
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Rumor at the time, but later substantiated by credible witnesses.
-
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Rumor at the time, but later substantiated by credible witnesses.
At what point in time were the rumors confirmed by Fr. Perez? Before or after Fr. Roberts was ordained?
-
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
Imagine the grief of young men kicked out who are not perverts, but not slick enough to impress whomever.
Well ... this guy really WAS over the top in terms of stereotypical behavior. He spoke with a very pronounced lisp, had that limp-wristed thing going, and even stuck out his pinky when he drank tea. It really was too much. I would not have used the strong language that Bishop Williamson did however.
-
It is extremely unwise to single out the SSPX as THE group capable of being infiltrated by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.
No, I did nothing of the sort. I was only commenting vis-a-vis the subject of this thread. I strongly suspect many non-SSPX priests of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs as well. I don't have proof, so I avoid naming names. Just my "gαydar" at work.
-
Lamb, I am in total agreement. As soon as I read Lad's post, I was absolutely floored that he didn't seem to be picking up on the irony of his comment! What you have said is more worrisome for the Resistance than anything I have yet read. :facepalm:
No irony, just a refusal to make inferences that could be tantamount to a grave sin of calumny.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like
-
Below is a highly relevant quote concerning the topic of this thread that is taken from the earlier CI thread "Restoring the Bastions: The Church Militant at War" contributed by "nipr" in 2013. This is very likely the best and most thorough presentation of this topic available. Those who read or contribute to this current thread ought to read it with feelings of humble gratitude to so fine a Roman priest as Fr. Marshall Roberts and then weep at the heartless ingratitude of men. The truth presented here concerning Fr. Roberts only makes this writer yearn to have the Catholics be rid of Jansenist heretics like "Pepe" even more.
And may the Good Lord forgive us for the many slanders contained in this current thread against His beloved Roman priests: :pray: :pray: :pray:
Please read the following words most carefully and with an open mind and a respectful heart:
"I cannot watch this go on any longer without saying something. We went through this at Christmas and here we are again.
I realize most of you do not know Fr. Roberts. I understand your suspicion these days of any priest, especially one who has been accused of something horrendous. But I'd like to give you MY impression of Fr. Roberts.
I met this good priest last Fall. I was impressed from the first moment I met him at his chapel. I knew practically nothing of the allegations against him and after meeting him such suspicions never even crossed my mind.
Now mind you, in my working years I worked alongside openly gαy men because they happened to work for the companies I worked for. In a large city that is the case. So I have been well-acquainted with the characteristics of a gαy man.
In my years in the Church I have met priests whom I suspect were gαy because I saw the same characteristics in them.
I SEE NONE OF THIS IN FR. ROBERTS.
If there ever was a heterosɛҳuąƖ man who went by the book, it is he. There is NO funny business about him in any way whatsoever. I attend his Mass weekly and only regret that I cannot attend daily. His sermons are out-of-the-ballpark good--especially the one he gave for the Sunday near the Feast of the Sacred Heart about how little devotion there is to Jesus's Heart and how little loved He is. I haven't heard these kinds of sermons since I was a kid before Vatican II. He quotes Scripture. He quotes Canon Law. He refers to Tradition when asked why this or that or what to do in such-and-such a circuмstance. He is a walking encyclopedia of Church history, lives of the Saints, you name it.
I've been searching for 51 years for a priest to answer some personal (apply only to me) questions I've had and Fr. Roberts is the ONLY priest who has been able to answer them. Again, he quotes Jesus's words and explains how they apply in the situations I asked him about. No priest has ever been able to do this for me. AND HE MAKES PERFECT SENSE. The ability to guide a soul (and I understand I am not the only one) with such precision is totally incompatible with someone in the state of mortal sin. If you don't believe me, look in your theology books. It's there. I've gotten one crazy answer with no foundations for it from priest after priest until I met Fr. Roberts.
Not only do I know him from Mass and Confession, but socially as well. He is a delight to be around. I've spoken to him privately and in a group setting. He has a very well-rounded personality and his conversation is fascinating because of his intelligence and knowledge.
Father wears the full Dominican habit all the time. I do not know his standing in the Dominican Order. He has a Dominican Third Order group in Jacksonville, FL and is starting up a Discalced Carmelite Third Order group there as well.
I will tell you one thing: It is worth moving to Jacksonville, FL to have the God-given grace to have this priest for your Mass. I've seen 51 years of priests and this one is OUTSTANDING. He encourages us to take up our cross and follow Jesus, that the servant cannot be greater than the Master, that we should pray to become holy, that our attention should be focused on God dwelling within us (if we are in the state of grace and if not, to get to confession ASAP) and our eyes should be on Heaven and not on the things of this earth. He has told me many times to "accept suffering" as that proves love of God and to depend on Divine Providence to work out my difficulties in life. HE CAUSES ME TO REMEMBER WHAT BEING A CATHOLIC IS ALL ABOUT, which I thought I knew until I met this hard-hitter priest (in the sense of nothing is trivial if it offends God). And he will spend as long a time as needed with you in confession to set your soul at ease and he lets you ask as many questions as you want.
Now you can say this is emotional and not based in facts about the allegations, but let me say this: You can read the top theologian's books on what a priest should be and this priest is IT. I know. I've read the books and have been searching for such a priest all my life.
As for his possible "reformation" -- I can't possibly see what there could have been to "reform." (Pardon me if I am using the wrong term but if I try to go back to see what was posted I'll lose this page for sure.) We recently celebrated his 17th year of ordination. He recounted to us his history with the Society and the St. John's group, etc. As I recall, he said he didn't like what was going on at St. John's and left. I wish I had paid more attention but my mind was centered on how utterly deplorable it is these days that a good priest like Fr. Roberts should have to endure so many difficulties just to be a good Catholic priest.
I am suspicious of ALL priests as I've had some things happen to me in dealing with some that are too shocking to write here so I don't automatically place ANY priest on a pedestal just because he's a priest. I learned to not do that the hard way. I've watched Fr. Roberts for months just waiting for something shocking or unpleasant to happen and the more I get to know him, the more I admire him.
Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return. Should that happen, I hope and pray Fr. Roberts will be my priest when I'm on my deathbed. I want HIM to prepare me to be judged by God. I mean this sincerely. I don't know what higher recommendation I can give a priest."
Posted Jul 5, 2013, 8:36 pm
-
Nipr has a very pure and loving Catholic heart.
-
"Let me say this: I've had cancer recently. I'm still in the time period when it is most likely to return."
Franciscan Solitary, you will be in my Rosary and Mass intentions!
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like
I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!
I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like
I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!
I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.
You always have some pat answer ready, don't you Richard? These are typical psy-op tactics.... turn an "accusation" around and question the motives of those bringing this very grave, factual information to the attention of people who need to know. Yea, that's right, discredit the messengers and deflect attention away from the main issue which is the alarming number of morally compromised priests joining the Resistance (given that it's such a small "loose association") And btw, even one is one too many! I would ask YOU "who is trying to destroy the Resistance?" Certainly not those who are trying to keep out moral corruption when they see it! But those who defend moral corruption have alot to answer for.
-
I could very well get kicked off of CI for saying this, but truth is truth.
We ruthlessly excoriate the NO bishops who constantly shuffle around the predator priests and thereby enable future predations.
There's a disturbing trend here with the SSPX, and yet nobody really wants to talk about it.
Father Urrutigoity was accused of such behavior by the SSPX's own rector at La Reja. Yet not only did Father U gain admittance into Winona, but he was protected and even promoted there almost as if he were the right-hand man of the rector. He was allowed to build up a cult following there, an inner circle, despite +Lefebvre asking that he be watched like a hawk, especially if he tried to form "particular friendships".
Now we see Father Roberts. When I was at Winona, the rumor was already there at the seminary about why he had gotten kicked out of ICK. Yet he found a new home at Winona also.
Both Urrutigoity and Roberts were ordained despite these clouds hanging over them. As far as I can tell, they must have had their protectors within the SSPX.
Something stinks within the ranks of the SSPX. I suspect infiltration by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (as well as, most likely, various modernist plants).
Now one guy was kicked out while I was there because his mannerisms were "offensively effeminate" (the exact words used by Bishop Williamson upon letting him go). But perhaps he had not found any protectors as of yet (he had only been there a week or so).
I think that you need to look a little closer to home Ladislaus. Who was the rector in Winona at the time of Urrutigoity and Roberts? Who welcomed Urrutigoity into Winona in the first place, despite the pleadings of the rector of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who had kicked him out for predatorial homo behaviour?
It is a fact that a Resistance priest was sent to Ireland in January 2015, to a family of 11, to say Mass on a monthly basis, who had been permanently deprived of his public ministry by the SSPX, because of 2 separate homo predatorial allegations. the second incident involving a 14 year old French boy. This priest was sent to Ireland from Queen of Martyrs House in Broadstairs by his current superior, who did not see fit to inform the said family and when they were informed by a member of the Faithful in March, this priest agreed not to return to Ireland again. This priest still has a public ministry in the UK, with the full approval of his superior, who has put his approval in writing.
I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like
I second stbrighidswell and LAMB and can vouch for the truth of these posts. It is a scandal that Bp. Williamson sent this priest Ireland and also that he still has a public apostolate in the UK. Add to this the association of Fr. Marshall Roberts with the OLMC Resistance and for all the world the Resistance is beginning to look like SSJ Mark 2!
I see Bp.Williamson's name and the word scandal,but I still haven't seen the name of this "scandalous" priest and until I do it seems to me that perhaps it is a group of disaffected laity who have banded together to destroy Bp.Williamson.
You always have some pat answer ready, don't you Richard? These are typical psy-op tactics.... turn an "accusation" around and question the motives of those bringing this very grave, factual information to the attention of people who need to know. Yea, that's right, discredit the messengers and deflect attention away from the main issue which is the alarming number of morally compromised priests joining the Resistance (given that it's such a small "loose association") And btw, even one is one too many! I would ask YOU "who is trying to destroy the Resistance?" Certainly not those who are trying to keep out moral corruption when they see it! But those who defend moral corruption have alot to answer for.
I go to a resistance chapel why would I want to destroy the resistance? I would ask you are you a sede troll?Why are you trying to destroy the resistance? Who is this unnamed priest? Until the "messenger"can come up with a name for this "scandalous" priest then the "messenger" is discrediting himself/herself. I think you people are making it up to destroy Bp.Williamson,so put up or shut up.
-
In a general sense this is why the loose association idea is unstable. Anyone can quite easily attach themselves to this resistance, with little no screening or scrutiny being applied to them. Of course you are going to have substandard priests and associates.
There are no standards or otherwise enforced, and there is no one who can or will dislodge these people when problems arise.
One of its luminaries repeatedly refused to do anything about his wayward assistant, but, I find it hard to believe that the Bishop would run interference for one of these people. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.
-
In a general sense this is why the loose association idea is unstable. Anyone can quite easily attach themselves to this resistance, with little no screening or scrutiny being applied to them. Of course you are going to have substandard priests and associates.
There are no standards or otherwise enforced, and there is no one who can or will dislodge these people when problems arise.
One of its luminaries repeatedly refused to do anything about his wayward assistant, but, I find it hard to believe that the Bishop would run interference for one of these people. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.
JPaul writes:. If that happened then there are serious problems afoot.
Thank you! If that happened! At last somebody willing to concede that maybe just maybe this might all be heresay and inuendo.
-
I can 100 % confirm what is written here about the Resistance priest. The faithful were left in absolute shock over this. The priest was asked not to return again and I have seen an email where Bishop Williamson has said that the faithful in this resistance church have denied themselves a good priest albeit a little flawed.
This does not negate the necessity of the Resistance but my confidence in Bishop Williamson is shot. down thumb all you like
You're not going to confirm, but "100% confirm". Not shock, but "absolute shock". A bit emotional, perhaps?
You seem to be over-invested in this, as if you're not completely objective and only interested in the truth.
He ALSO said that "it could have been much worse". Now I doubt +W was referring to the fact that he could have murdered his victims and chopped up their bodies. No, I take that to mean that Fr. _____ didn't go "all the way".
You see, we don't really know much about either of these cases (Fr. Roberts or Fr. _____). We know that Fr. Roberts was mixed up in the Society of St. John. True. We know that he wasn't kidnapped by them -- also true. But what exactly DID he personally do? We are not privy to all the details.
It might have been only indiscretion and imprudence he was ever guilty of. Suggesting a really close friendship with a boy, or something imprudent like sleeping in the same bed as another man or boy.
The Society of St. John, or "Johnnies" as they were nicknamed, were really into Platonic philosophy, Platonic friendship, and the concept of deep male friendships. (Think: David and Jonathan in the Bible). Yes, we all know what that leads to in the practical realm, with fallen human nature. But not necessarily, or in 100% of cases. Maybe he was mostly sold on the "deep friendship" idea.
But even if he did cross the line into something seriously sinful, Are you saying that any man or priest becomes useless once he falls into mortal sin? That one can't build up enough virtue to fill in the "pits" left by sin?
Yes, I understand that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a unique animal -- it's a difficult sin to recover from. BUT the scarring from this sin (as with all other sins) depends on how deep the wounds went -- and how many wounds there were.
If it comes to light that Fr. X used to be a thief, just don't have him be in charge of the finances and you're good to go! If Fr. Y had an association like this, just don't let him train Altar Boys in private and you're good to go! It's not like he's doing to do anything during Mass. And there is a good chance he has reformed, from "whatever" he did in the past.
All the evidence (much of which was posted in this thread, by NIPR and others) strongly suggests that -- that Fr. Roberts is "safe" now. Again, I don't know that I'd send my son on a mini boys camp with Fr. Roberts and 2 other boys -- but that's just a question of prudence. I'm sure even Fr. Roberts would understand my concern, and that of others expressed on this thread. The fact is that he really made a mistake joining the Johnnies -- his reputation will never fully recover. He made his bed; now he has to sleep in it.
But there is enough of a priest shortage without wasting priests. Let's face it -- a Mass at a Resistance Mass center consists of a priest showing up, often at a rented facility, saying Mass for 1 hour, and leaving shortly after.
I've never heard of a deep parish life at a Resistance location -- at least nothing that requires a priest outside of Mass times. Priests are simply too busy! If there is altar boy training, it's done by the laity. Ditto for boys camps. The SSPX is large enough to organize these sort of things, but even the SSPX often draws on the laity to take care of things like training altar servers.
Back to "what would I do" -- I would certainly be willing to attend the Mass of Fr. Roberts, from what I have heard on this thread. Furthermore, I would be OK with my son serving his Mass at that rented facility. It's not like they're going to be "alone" at any time, or for any length of time.
But although I have emotions (including fear and the intense desire to "protect my children") I also try to be rational.
Do we REALLY need to be THIS careful, when the priest shows no signs of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity or any other danger at the moment? There's careful, and then there's paranoid.
-
That's almost exactly what I have been thinking Matthew, but wasn't going to post since I don't know the circuмstances at all in this case.
Whatever happened to Fr Fullerton? I think of him every once in a while but it's a hard question to broach to the family so I am just left wondering. Does anyone know, since we are on this topic?
-
The long and short of it is:
Has Fr. Roberts, or Fr. ______, done sufficient penance to correct (build up contrary virtues to oppose) whatever vice(s) they had in the area of unnatural vice, if any?
But we are missing a key element of the equation: what "damage" was done to their souls to begin with. To know how much catching up they had to do, we'd have to know how low they had fallen. But we know very little.
-
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 the % of cholerics in Tradition is greater than the % of cholerics in the population 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!"
-
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.
-
I would add that I do want to know of persistent rumors so I don't mind this being brought up. In contrast to the thread in the Anonymous forum, this one has context and a username attached. It's also focused and not just a big collection of whatever could be dredged up off Google to smear the SSPX.
I agree that Fr Roberts chose these companions so even if the rumors about him specifically are false, it's something he will have to deal with for life as a consequence of a bad choice.
But knowing there are persistent rumors and knowing what's *true* in this case are two different things. I can be aware of the rumors and take precautions if/when it's ever necessary while still reserving actual judgment about whether it's true.
And when I think about it, those are the precautions we all should be taking anyway, so it's a good reminder.
-
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?
-
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.
[/color]
That is why I often ask my wife and myself, can I trust my own thinking when all my friends agree with me and they are ALL CRAZY?
-
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:
-
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.
Is that young boy serving at the altar "old people"?
-
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.
-
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.
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...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Conciliar Church is in tatters, but harboring sɛҳuąƖ perverts had nothing to do with it?
Shuffling priests with CURRENT PROBLEMS around, into a PARISH SETTING is clearly imprudent and wrong.
What is being discussed here is clearly different for 3 reasons:
1. The length of time elapsed between the (alleged) crime and today
2. The gravity of the original crime committed
3. The situation the priest is being moved TO, e.g., a rented facility for a quick 1-hour Resistance Mass, or a seminary/boys school/N.O. parish where there are TONS of opportunities to "relapse" or even repeat-offend with no contrition in between.
It's a tempest in a teapot. We're not talking about letting priests with a past have "free reign" or go "at large". We're talking about giving them limited priest duties, given the unprecedented need Catholics have today for Catholic priests faithful to Tradition.
At the very least, it's a prudential decision. There is no Church law that says "If a priest so much as propositions another male, he is DONE! Mandatory penance in a monastery for life."
You criticize Bishop Williamson's decision, but you want us to accept your decision. On whose authority? Your authority/wisdom is somehow better than the good Bishop's?
I trust Bishop Williamson. Yes, I indeed have an ounce of trust left in my heart, even in this horrible Crisis where so many have been betrayed so often (first by Vatican II, then by Bishop Fellay, etc.)
I'm sorry that you don't have ANY clerics or bishops left that you can trust. It must be a very sad world that you live in.
Anyhow, I don't have any say in this matter, so we can disagree until the cows come home. I gave my opinion and my advice, for what it's worth.
To each his own opinion.
-
Now onto the next gem, you say he did not say what I said he said because I used the word 'albeit', let me say again that I had not time to look up my emails again as I am grabbing 5 mins here and there but my quote should have read 'depriving itself unnecessarily of the regular monthly services of a good priest, flawed though he maybe'
I owe you an apology on this point.
I should have looked up the e-mail. Apparently my memory isn't what it used to be. I just read it last week, and I didn't remember that part. I should have looked it up before I accused you of adding something.
However, the other parts about you being over-emotional stand. You seem to be very emotional about this particular issue.
I'm no friend of sodomites -- the very concept turns my stomach. But I (and those I love) haven't been touched by their filth personally, so perhaps I lack a bit of fervor in the fight against them. I treat it intellectually as a grave error and moral disorder that corrupts deeply. Even though I'm very emotional usually, I'm able to deal with this issue in a manner that is so detached I'm actually a bit surprised at myself.
I just don't understand what a once-tainted priest is going to do at a 1 hour Resistance Mass. No one has given me any reasoning why I should be avoiding such Masses today. That, by the way, is all +Williamson advised -- that the faithful attend his Masses.
And for those of you who hate +W, or want to lynch him, or discredit him, etc. you should also consider that I haven't heard from +W or anyone close to him that I should "close down this thread". So he's not on some kind of campaign to shelter homos. So I don't see any red flags.
As far as I know, he made a prudential decision, one that I not only agree with but I see his reasoning and it makes sense to my rational brain.
Like I said, you're free to disagree and follow your own prudence and advice, but you can't act like yours is infallible while I'm somehow "wrong".
-
This thread could go on forever. It's an emotional topic (in this thread, people could literally say: "Think of the children!") and emotions are running about as thick as the humid air in south-central Texas today.
Every Catholic is welcome to support whatever priest(s), bishop(s) and group(s) that he wishes. Each man is free to choose his own actions, and deal with the consequences (good or evil).
Where there is trust (or love, for that matter) there is a potential for betrayal, heartbreak, and disappointment. Isn't it then expedient that we cease trusting and loving, that we might not have to know betrayal, heartbreak, and disappointment? Again, that is for each man to decide.
What Mass center, priest, group, etc. you support is only a question of PRUDENCE. Prudence is the queen of the moral virtues, just as Charity is queen of all the virtues.
God hasn't appeared to any member on this forum to tell him exactly what-is-what about this or any other issue in Catholicism! That leaves us with only one other option -- applying our fallible human reason to what we KNOW and trying to draw prudential conclusions from those known truths -- such as an answer to the question "What should we do?"