Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Clavis David on December 26, 2017, 08:15:04 PM
-
--
-
Bishop Williamson, I am sure, did not make the invitation list for that meeting at olmc. We have no idea if he approved or disapproved of fr. Robert's attendance.
Fr. Roberts has been a "good friend" of fr. Pfeiffer (as is "fr. Tetherow") since his sspx seminary days.
B. Williamson makes mistakes just like the rest of us. He never should have approved the ordination of fr. Roberts.
The problems with fr. Robert's has no bearing on pre-resistance or post- resistance. A tiger never loses his stripes.
Maybe fr. Robert's wasn't highlighted before because he wasn't "part of" the resistance, per say. He took care of his little neck of the woods. He was not at a seminary, not at a boys school, not around a lot of boys unattended. Such is not the case now.
Based on the facts that have been presented in threads all over the internet, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, that fr. Robert's has no business around children and has no business at a seminary.
If fr. Pfeiffer let's one pervert teach at olmc, who will he let teach next? I hear fr. Urrutigoity needs a job... maybe fr. Pf is working on SSJ part 2.
Here are more links that give additional evidence against fr. Roberts.
2002:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/fimM7lNU1DA
I also informed you in March 2002 about a third ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator in the
Society of St. John, Fr. Marshall Roberts
-------
2003:
http://www.catholictradition.org/sounding-off3.htm
Dear Friends,
The priest shuffle has continued in the Diocese of Scranton despite the rosy picture of progress painted by the bishops' conference in St. Louis last week. 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.
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:
"The superiors simply turned a blind eye in some cases but not in others, as with a third year student who was sent packing overnight after it emerged that he had been harassing one of my first year colleagues. In fact, some years later this seminarian, having managed to get himself ordained elsewhere, found his way to the Society of St. John in America. It raised immediate suspicions about that highly publicised traditionalist venture, since ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs recruit their own kind and the predators help 'groom' young and trusting victims for one another. I was not particularly surprised, therefore, when allegations finally surfaced of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ molestation within the Society."
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
----------
2004:
https://carrietomko.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_archive.html?m=1
Fr. Marshall Roberts, whom we long ago exposed as the third ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ
predator priest in the Society of St. John
(http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org/news/MarshallRoberts[1].html),
-
More
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10532.60
-
I find it odd how much the general opinion of Fr. Roberts has swung so much between now and the last time he was a major topic of conversation here on CathInfo. The best conclusion I can reach is that those who really had the first-hand information about Fr. were not involved in the discussion here several years ago. At that time, there was a least one member who wrote a long statement praising Father and his abilities as a priest. As someone who's never met Fr. Roberts and only read about him here on this site, my opinion at the time was that he was someone "in the wrong place at the wrong time" when he was involved with the SSJ. Clearly, now, there are several members -- a least a couple who are longtime members here -- who know personally that his problems are not limited to his time with the SSJ.
My personal opinion of Bp Williamson's tacit approval of Fr. Roberts as a Resistance priest is that he doesn't believe that, as Fanny put it, "a tiger never loses his stripes." My hunch is that he agreed to offer Confirmations in Fr. Robert's chapel because he didn't have any recent accusations against him.
-
I seriously doubt what you say about b. Williamson.
Why should the laity have to suffer due to the sins of the priest?
I suspect b. Williamson went to fr. Robert's chapel for the laity, just like he did at a feenyite chapel.
-
I find it odd how much the general opinion of Fr. Roberts has swung so much between now and the last time he was a major topic of conversation here on CathInfo. The best conclusion I can reach is that those who really had the first-hand information about Fr. were not involved in the discussion here several years ago. At that time, there was a least one member who wrote a long statement praising Father and his abilities as a priest. As someone who's never met Fr. Roberts and only read about him here on this site, my opinion at the time was that he was someone "in the wrong place at the wrong time" when he was involved with the SSJ. Clearly, now, there are several members -- a least a couple who are longtime members here -- who know personally that his problems are not limited to his time with the SSJ.
My personal opinion of Bp Williamson's tacit approval of Fr. Roberts as a Resistance priest is that he doesn't believe that, as Fanny put it, "a tiger never loses his stripes." My hunch is that he agreed to offer Confirmations in Fr. Robert's chapel because he didn't have any recent accusations against him.
People have short memories and/or don't have all the facts. This list of pedo priests ought to be super pinned to protect the unaware faithful who are having garbage foisted upon them who can harm their children.
-
Well, the reason for Father Roberts' explusion from Christ the King were well known at STAS among the seminarians pretty much from the day he set foot there. But Marshall (at the time) spun it to the seminary staff as a fabrication to persecute him for being too traditional. Similarly, Urrutigoity said he was being persecuted for being an opponent of sedevacantism and that the allegations of his improper conduct in Argentina were also fabricated just to persecute him.
-
Stay away from Cor Mariae that's Fr.Pfeiffer's board.
Ablf3 has better records/docuмents.
I thought cor Marie put up an announcement that she was not going to allow posts regarding fr. Roberts?
It had to be buried in a thread titled "
Catholics and Protestants praying with Jews"?
-
Not all... not Christ the king.
B. Timlin can't count. He harboured perverts. B. Williamson has regrets.
I read somewhere that fr. Roberts was asked to leave the last chapel because he was caught smooching a man in the sacristy. Perhaps this happened after their glowing reviews.
What your foreign friends say doesn't matter. What the victims say does.
B. Williamson giving a priestly retreat to a pervert is a far cry from that same pervert working in a seminary, a school, or anywhere with young men.
B. Williamsons past actions make it clear that he does not have to support a priest or agree with him to bring sacraments to the faithful.
B. Williamson makes mistakes. I am sure he regrets accepting and approving the ordinations of fr. Urutigoity and Mr. Ensey, too.
Anyone who spent any length of time at SSJ is suspect and someone to stay away from, even if there weren't affidavits against him. Or will it take your son being his next victim before you see clearly?
Fr. Pfeiffer is "friends" with perverts and laicised priests (Fr. Roberts, Mr. Cordaro, Mr. Tetherow) and bringing them to OLMC.
What will it take for people to wake up and say enough is enough?
-
Well, the reason for Father Roberts' explusion from Christ the King were well known at STAS among the seminarians pretty much from the day he set foot there. But Marshall (at the time) spun it to the seminary staff as a fabrication to persecute him for being too traditional. Similarly, Urrutigoity said he was being persecuted for being an opponent of sedevacantism and that the allegations of his improper conduct in Argentina were also fabricated just to persecute him.
As did Fr. Pfeiffer in his open letter. They're all just being "persecuted" instead of being rejected for being perverts.
Nonsense.
-
Unless I’m missing something, all the accusations against Fr. Roberts were PRIOR to the newly formed resistance wherein Bishop Williamson seems to be approving of Fr. Roberts.
.. leaves one with the opinion there must be little to these accusations if EVERY superior Fr. Roberts has had has not distanced themselves from him.
On behalf of Fr. Chazal : "After that photo mentioned in the OP was taken, Fr. Roberts was again caught behaving inappropriate. Fr. Ortiz found him out, warned Father (soon to be Bishop) Zendejas, and both of them told Fr. Roberts that he was not welcome at Bishop Zendejas' consecration. This happened well before and independent of Fr. Roberts 'recruitment' by Fr. Pfeiffer."
On behalf of myself (and with Fr. Chazal's agreement) : "It is a clever tactic of (whoever you are) to try and link the two issues, i.e. insinuating that people are just "persecuting" anyone associating with Fr. Pfeiffer. It makes one suspicious when someone (like yourself) seems to know quite a bit more than the average Pfeifferite, and displays a little more cunning than those dupes. I wonder in which camp you really belong?"
-
So Roberts was turned away back in May, then was caught "acting out" in August, thus his dismissal from FL chapel. Anyone can pick up the phone and verify this.
You cannot rehab a pedo/homo.
Why Fr. Pfeiffer has gathered round himself a group of pervert priests says much about his judgment.
Reckless endangerment of the faithful is not acceptable.
-
On behalf of myself (and with Fr. Chazal's agreement) : "It is a clever tactic of (whoever you are) to try and link the two issues, i.e. insinuating that people are just "persecuting" anyone associating with Fr. Pfeiffer. It makes one suspicious when someone (like yourself) seems to know quite a bit more than the average Pfeifferite, and displays a little more cunning than those dupes. I wonder in which camp you really belong?"
Deciding there can only be 2 sides, as if everything is a black and white issue, is very narrow-minded.
If it were as simple as that, Bp Williamson would have never stepped foot in that Jacksonville chapel, not to mention assisting another priest with different-but-related problems.
-
Are you suggesting Roberts is only a little bit homo/pedo?
Is that like being a little bit pregnant?
As Fr. Chazal said he acted out prior to May, and he did again in August earning himself a boot out the door.
This is black and white and should have a zero tolerance policy.
As Fr. Chazal said, he needs to go away and do decades of penance alone.
-
No, not what I was saying.
Samuel is accusing Clavis David of being "in the other camp" as if he's either on Team A or Team B.
I'm saying there's nothing wrong with thinking for yourself and not picking a team. Both teams could be good, bad, or in between.
-
Fr. Pfeiffer is "friends" with perverts and laicised priests (Fr. Roberts, Mr. Cordaro, Mr. Tetherow) and bringing them to OLMC.
What will it take for people to wake up and say enough is enough?
Laicized and perverts is not being precise. Are all three ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs? If so, three strikes and Fr. Pfieffer is out. Not a good sign.
-
Laicized and perverts is not being precise. Are all three ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs? If so, three strikes and Fr. Pfieffer is out. Not a good sign.
Fr. Roberts is a perv, not laicised as I have found.
Mr. Cordaro is laicised. Not a perv as I have found, but he is "good friends" with Mr. Tetherow. They both live in Scranton, PA.
Mr. Tetherow is a confessed and convicted perv and laicised.
-
There is no proof that Cordaro was laicized, unlike Tetherow. The language used in the description of Cordaro seems to indicate suspension, not laicization, it is the same kind of language used for other vaguses and independent priests. If he was laicized, such a monitum would explicitly say so.
-
There is no proof that Cordaro was laicized, unlike Tetherow. The language used in the description of Cordaro seems to indicate suspension, not laicization, it is the same kind of language used for other vaguses and independent priests. If he was laicized, such a monitum would explicitly say so.
"This notice is to inform the Christian faithful that John
J. Cordaro, formerly a priest of the Oblates of Saint Joseph,
was dismissed from the Oblates by their Superior General on
August 8, 1989. He currently has no faculties whatsoever to
minister in the Catholic Church. Because he has no faculties,
he is forbidden to function as a priest in the Roman Catholic
Church. Furthermore, the Catholic faithful should not receive
the sacraments from Mr. Cordaro or attend his celebration of
the sacraments, wherever they may be held."
"Mr." means he was laicised.
-
No, not what I was saying.
Samuel is accusing Clavis David of being "in the other camp" as if he's either on Team A or Team B.
I'm saying there's nothing wrong with thinking for yourself and not picking a team. Both teams could be good, bad, or in between.
No, not what I was saying either.
I am voicing my suspicion that "Clavis David" belongs to Team C, or to be precise, team M.
-
All of this is an absolute mess.
Too much baggage on all sides.
Fr. Pfeiffer will dig his heels into the ground. Again, the more he is "persecuted" the more he will believe he is being faithful.
Move on and try to spread the Faith. The world is dying for the Truth -- in my honest opinion this whole fiasco with Boston is a great distraction and presents obstacles to the restoration of the rights of Christ the King in individuals and in society albeit in such small ways.
-
Problem is, there are some very good people who still support OLMC and all its errors.
It is charitable of us to expose scandals of OLMC because eventually something will resonate and wake them up, just like something woke many of us up.
I am sure they feel "stuck". They have been brainwashed that they can't go to any mass but olmc's. Where will they get sacraments if not from olmc, they wonder.
To them I say, have Faith. You must trust in Him and ask that He will provide you guidance and understanding if you remain faithful to Him.
-
Laicized and perverts is not being precise. Are all three ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs? If so, three strikes and Fr. Pfieffer is out. Not a good sign.
I contacted the oblates where Mr. Cordaro used to be. This was their reply:
These notices [in the diocese bulletin] were issued due to his reported strange behavior causing concern of his overall mental and emotional state of mind.
I am aware of an accusation that was reported by a diocese in Vermont alleging that John Cordaro had inappropriate contact with a minor. I am unable to confirm if anything came out of that case.
Therefore, in light of these serious concerns by both church and civil officials, I respectfully request that your sons NOT be alone in the company of this man or to have any affiliation with him whatsoever. Because of past allegations, prudence tells us that you must refrain from any and all association with him.
-
I contacted the oblates where Mr. Cordaro used to be. This was their reply:
These notices [in the diocese bulletin] were issued due to his reported strange behavior causing concern of his overall mental and emotional state of mind.
I am aware of an accusation that was reported by a diocese in Vermont alleging that John Cordaro had inappropriate contact with a minor. I am unable to confirm if anything came out of that case.
Therefore, in light of these serious concerns by both church and civil officials, I respectfully request that your sons NOT be alone in the company of this man or to have any affiliation with him whatsoever. Because of past allegations, prudence tells us that you must refrain from any and all association with him.
This is the kind of investigation it takes so the laity can make decisions about the safety of their families. Seems as if there are Catholics keen on tolerating scandalous priests because this is a NO matter, while omitting to do the research it takes to get answers.