-
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts?
-
You’re using articles from a man who hates ALL real Traditionalists to attack the Society. Pathetic
-
Voris refuses to engage in any debate on the Society and he is shilling for what his largest donor wants ChurchMilitant to do and publish. He should not be taken seriously.
He should be putting pressure on bishops and priests to re-open their Churches to the faithful, instead he's writing stupid hit pieces against the SSPX which has no spiritual benefit whatsoever.
-
Voris refuses to engage in any debate on the Society and he is shilling for what his largest donor wants ChurchMilitant to do and publish. He should not be taken seriously.
He should be putting pressure on bishops and priests to re-open their Churches to the faithful, instead he's writing stupid hit pieces against the SSPX which has no spiritual benefit whatsoever.
Correct
-
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts?
Well, Voris could have found a home there with the SSPX. He was one of these said "preverts" and refuses to take the beam out of his own eye.
-
This explains why Fr. Novak is not here anymore, however what this article does not tell the readers is the why he would tell one spouse to leave the other. Knowing Fr. Novak as I do, he would not tell one spouse to leave the other unless it was for the moral or physical safety. I have know him to be criticized but the critics are always the liberal, worldly, immodest, lax Catholics in name-only type.
If the son was roughed up, then that bot must have deserved it. And what is considered "roughed up"?
Who are these accusers? How faithful are they to Catholic Tradition?
As for the other priests, there may or may not be truth to some of the stories. Some may be true and other exaggerations.
-
The fit hits the shan.
-
I'm not one to defend the Society in terms of scandals, but I'm sure if Voris looked closely, he would find a few in the FSSP or ICKSP. I only wish my memory served me right so I could start rattling them off the top of my head.
-
These priestly abuses could only happen to parents who pay no attention to their children, and who are naïve, lax, idolizers of priests. Those predators knew exactly who to pick on. They picked the children with lax parents. That is how all predators work, seeking the weak.
My children would come to me within minutes of even getting the slightest evil hint from anyone, even if it was my own brother (which would never happen). I would then take action, action which is very dangerous for my life and soul, for these things never end well. I always pray to God to remove people like that from my path, and He has always done so.
….And leads us not into temptation.
-
These priestly abuses could only happen to parents who pay no attention to their children, parents who are naïve, lax, and idolizers of priests. Those predators knew exactly who to pick on. They picked the children with lax parents. That is how all predators work, seeking the weak.
The Bottom Line that I get from the OP article is: pay attention your children and do not idolize priests as if they are gods.
-
These priestly abuses could only happen to parents who pay no attention to their children, and who are naïve, lax, idolizers of priests. Those predators knew exactly who to pick on. They picked the children with lax parents.
My children would come to me within minutes of even getting the slightest evil hint from anyone
It seems you didn't read the article.
This entire investigation by Church Militant came out of a victim coming forward in St. Mary's.
-
It seems you didn't read the article.
This entire investigation by Church Militant came out of a victim coming forward in St. Mary's.
I read the entire article, every word. I did not judge any of the persons in the article. I stated facts which apply to all predators, my advice is for parents. It applies to parents who take their children to the Novus Ordo, ICK, FSP, Sedes chapels, SSPX, Eastern Catholic......
-
Seems if we can discern that not every priest is an abuser, we should be able to discern what the information provided is, and whether or not it has merit and forget who delivered it. No love for Voris, but the article shows some criminal actions and saying it mildly, really stupid ones. In this day and age when information is readily available to all, and so many have fallen prey to the influence of the devils, priests and bishops should be taking more decisive measures to prevent scandal and abuse. Even if there were only one victim, he deserves at the very least support and concern.
-
Seems if we can discern that not every priest is an abuser, we should be able to discern what the information provided is, and whether or not it has merit and forget who delivered it. No love for Voris, but the article shows some criminal actions and saying it mildly, really stupid ones. In this day and age when information is readily available to all, and so many have fallen prey to the influence of the devils, priests and bishops should be taking more decisive measures to prevent scandal and abuse. Even if there were only one victim, he deserves at the very least support and concern.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I do think in order to put all of this in the right context, even the FSSP has skeletons, which Voris chooses not to address.
And it goes without saying, even in Novus Ordo land, there are good priests mixed with bad and both might be under a bad ordinary. If Novus Ordo adherents are able to accept this, they should be able to discern when it comes to traditionalist groups too.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBFzuEeKJ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBFzuEeKJ4)
Michael Voris is a known liar and omiter of relevant facts
which completely changes his story. The above video proves
this. This is so full of lies, it's a wonder anyone would listen
to Michael Voris.
I called him out on this issue and he refused to finisth the
discussion with me via email.
-
Michael Voris is a known liar and omiter of relevant facts
which completely changes his story. The above video proves
this.
That video (from 2015) has literally NOTHING to do with today's article.
The facts are what they are, and there are currently multiple criminal investigations now taking place worldwide as a result of the first witness coming forward.
-
I don't disagree with what you said, but I do think in order to put all of this in the right context, even the FSSP has skeletons, which Voris chooses not to address.
And it goes without saying, even in Novus Ordo land, there are good priests mixed with bad and both might be under a bad ordinary. If Novus Ordo adherents are able to accept this, they should be able to discern when it comes to traditionalist groups too.
Agreed. When people are afraid of their priests because we laity have access to so much information, but clarity and punishment by the Church hierarchy is weak or criminally lacking, no matter who the group, we need to repeat ourselves until we're blue in the face, that our clergy better get their act together because we're watching. And because this kind of abuse is so bad, we're discussing it to protect ourselves and others. I'm not suggesting we dictate solutions to any of our Catholic authorities, but we should assist the ones who care at all, to understand that they are complicit in the destruction of the Church unless they fix this.
-
I read the entire article, every word. I did not judge any of the persons in the article. I stated facts which apply to all predators, my advice is for parents. It applies to parents who take their children to the Novus Ordo, ICK, FSP, Sedes chapels, SSPX, Eastern Catholic......
I completely agree. Parents should never leave their kids alone with any priest of any group, NO or otherwise.
The fact that her abuse started in the confessional is alarming.
-
I completely agree. Parents should never leave their kids alone with any priest of any group, NO or otherwise.
The fact that her abuse started in the confessional is alarming.
It is no surprise to me, for it is the perfect private one on one place to work the seduction of anyone. That is why I said:
These priestly abuses could only happen to parents who pay no attention to their children, and who are naïve, lax, idolizers of priests. Those predators knew exactly who to pick on. They picked the children with lax parents. That is how all predators work, seeking the weak.
My children would come to me within minutes of even getting the slightest evil hint from anyone, even if it was my own brother (which would never happen).
The seduction could be of ones wife, daughters, sons, and even husbands.
-
Voris has publicly abjured his fαɢɢօty past. We can infer that he repented of those disguting sins. You're judging the man for sins to which he confessed and did penance. I respect Voris a lot more than the closeted sodomite on this forum who won't even admit that he defended sodomy in the anonymous forum right after he joined here in 2014, and thus was busted for it by an astute member right after he posted the comment. He blamed his cousin for discovering his password and logging into the forum.
The first act of true contrition is to admit wrongdoing.
Whether or not he truly repented ...
1) can truly be known only by God in the internal forum
AND
2) is totally beside the point.
Would you ordain Voris to the priesthood just because he publicly claimed to have repented? We do not know the sincerity of it. Could he have made the statement as damage control for his business venture because the information was on the verge of leaking out? Does he still have the inclinations and could he be, in a moment of weakness, susceptible to returning to his former ways? Of course. While that's true of everyone, the Church has always had great caution when it came to anyone who had ever practiced sins against nature ... even if all signs point to their having repented.
-
The fit hits the shan.
And just like it was when it hit the Novus Ordo shan, folks deny the message and discuss the messenger.
-
Michael Voris has been trying to destroy the SSPX for 5 years or longer
and telling lies to do so. Now he looks for perverts in the SSPX to destroy
them. Hey, Michael, where is your video about all the perverts in Rome ?
You could make 10 videos about that. You know about all those people
who you claim are the "real" church. The word hypocrite comes to mind.
.
However, since the SSPX has changed directions and now going in the
opposite direction of Archbishop Lefebvre, it seems like they are getting
what they deserve.
.
But, the criticism should be directed at the attempt to merge with Rome.
I'm not approving of immoral behavior, though.
-
And yet more than one saint who repented of his sin was ordained to the priesthood.
Years of repentance will tell
If and I do mean if the accusations are credible and have been reported to police then it's not wrong to report the facts along with the statement that it is reported but NOT BEEN PROVEN.
this is not was is being done.
This is part of an agenda
-
You’re using articles from a man who hates ALL real Traditionalists to attack the Society. Pathetic
A broken clock is 100% accurate 2 times a day. The article involves few people, priests and laymen, however, as far as convicted criminals there are very few priests mentioned considering the 50 years covered. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX? Don't let anyone fool you, all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pedophiles. Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage girl or a young wife? Voris had to pad the article with bad lay parishioners and also with priests who did nothing but squelch what they thought was detractions. Filter out just the priest convicted of crimes and you are left with I think 5 priests at most. To dismiss the article altogether is a big mistake, but it is ridiculous to blow this up as if 5 or 8 SSPX priests ( from 600+) is anything like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ plague in the Novus Ordo sect. Read the article in total and split out SSPX priests from laymen, and accused priest from priest who did not want to detract, and you are left with only a few bad eggs. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX? Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage or older woman?
The Bottom Line that I get from the OP article is: pay attention your children and do not idolize priests as if they are gods.
-
And just like it was when it hit the Novus Ordo shan, folks deny the message and discuss the messenger.
THIS.
So far, nobody is even discussing what is contained in the Church Militant investigation.
They are only dissing Michael Voris.
Wake up, people.
-
apollo says:
Hey, Michael, where is your video about all the perverts in Rome ?
He has made such videos. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQADupVha9U
-
apollo says:
Hey, Michael, where is your video about all the perverts in Rome ?
me: He has made such videos. Here's one:
Video above is the wrong video but it sort of covers that issue. Here's the one I meant to post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaN0ICiQZQ
-
No fan of Michael Voris, but this particular article was not written by him.
-
Ladislaus says:
Whether or not he truly repented ...
1) can truly be known only by God in the internal forum
AND
2) is totally beside the point.
A) Would you ordain Voris to the priesthood just because he publicly claimed to have repented?
B)We do not know the sincerity of it. Could he have made the statement as damage control for his business venture because the information was on the verge of leaking out?
C) [...] the Church has always had great caution when it came to anyone who had ever practiced sins against nature ... even if all signs point to their having repented.
This response is littered with so many logical fallacies.
A) Red herring fallacy
B) It's not for you to judge, if the man publicly abjured his sins. We have to take it on faith that he's sincere, just as we take it on faith that a priest's intentions to validly confer the Sacraments sincere and not sabotaged in any way. Only God truly knows. Indeed, prudence must be made when interacting with former sodomites, including not allowing children around them, but to judge them as active guilty sodomites or insincere in their contrition is wrong, and the Lord God will judge you for it.
C) Caution to former sodomites who work in the Church's ministry and/or in teaching/leadership positions over children or young adults, but not nearly on the same level with those who hold regular layman jobs with no supervision over children or mentally/emotionally susceptible and easily manipulated people.
Catholics should appreciate Voris publicly abjuring, and going to confession for, committing perversions against nature. He can be a voice of inspiration and reason to other fαɢɢօts who might have a moment of clarity and listen to him because he formerly lived their perverted lifestyle. That's a lot better than creeping around little boys and scandalizing them, or going to male bath houses to continue that disgusting vice.
-
Video above is the wrong video but it sort of covers that issue. Here's the one I meant to post:
.
This video is about Bishops in the US if favor of socialism and also
bishops in the US who are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It's not about perverts in Rome,
which is what I said.
.
Michael Voris has no problem with Vatican II, therefore he is a heretic.
He is also a liar. Therefore, you cannot trust what he says about the
situation in Saint Marys.
.
He appears to hate the SSPX. He claims that Archbishop Lefebvre
excuмunicated himself. That is a lie and he knows it.
-
Don't let anyone fool you, all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pedophiles.
A pedophile is one who engages in immoral behavior with
a prepubescent child, therefore, NOT all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are
necessarily pedophiles.
.
The term pedophile is being used too often when it does
not apply to the situation.
-
A pedophile is one who engages in immoral behavior with
a prepubescent child, therefore, NOT all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are
necessarily pedophiles.
.
The term pedophile is being used too often when it does
not apply to the situation.
All true. Nevertheless, a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, a sodomite, is no different than a pedophile, just the same dung in different packaging.
-
To give the benefit of doubt to the heterosɛҳuąƖ priest Fr. Duverger, who is the subject of 40% of the volume of paragraphs in the OP article. In 2013 he did not really speak English. It may be that he asked for the details in writing because he wanted to translate the confession to understand it fully. Moreover, I do not consider a heterosɛҳuąƖ man losing it for a moment (for no one has accused him of even touching them!) as being in the same ballpark as a man actually committing sodomy. It is natural for a man to be attracted to young women, that should be no surprise.
An 80 year old priest was asked by a young priest; "When will I be free of the temptations of girls"? The old priest answered, I'll let you know when I get there. THAT is why I would never let my wife help around a priory, she is too young.
-
I have spent many years with Fr. K. Novak as my pastor. I find the allegations against him ABSOLUTELY impossible to believe. The report says that during his secret meeting he advised the boy / couple to report Palmeri to the authorities...isn’t that what he was supposed to do?
The report also states that he broke up marriages. Knowing at how hard he always worked to save and restore couples in the past I can only guess that the disgruntled spouse was leading an immoral life and a danger to the family and children. Lastly, he would never...NEVER...recommend a “Divorce”...perhaps a physical separation...for physical and spiritual safety...but never a divorce.
I can’t speak for the allegations against other priests but I can say that for close to a decade I have known Fr. Kenneth Novak to be a good, and honorable priest!
-
I just watched the video.
About the time of 22:20 you see the hit piece on the SSPX.
You will learn that Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself,
and the 4 bishops that he consecrated were excommunicated and
the SSPX is a break-away Catholic group, currently in schism.
They were suspended a divinis and have no canonical status in
the church.
.
That's what you hear from CNN, MSNBC, your local novus ordo
priest and all the misinformed people. This gives a false impression
of the SSPX and most of it is false.
.
The wording is very misleading. Christine Niles says, "Fr Novak
SEDUCED a lady to leave her husband." The phrase "seduced a lady"
has very bad implications and implies sɛҳuąƖ misconduct. It would
have been more accurate to say, 'Fr. Novak ENCOURAGED a lady ..."
But as you can see from the past, that accuracy has a very low
priority at Church Militant, regarding the SSPX.
.
I'm not trying to defend immoral behavior, whatever is found to be
true. But I'm definitely opposed to lying in public videos.
.
Yeah, SSPX is in the hot seat. Anti-Catholics will be happy now as
they continue aborting 50,000 babies every day around the world.
-
I'm not one to defend the Society in terms of scandals, but I'm sure if Voris looked closely, he would find a few in the FSSP or ICKSP. I only wish my memory served me right so I could start rattling them off the top of my head.
We’ve covered Voris on this forum at length.
He’s just a reformed HIV ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a judaizer, who is funded by Opus Dei.
Opus Dei doesn’t like the SSPX, so they dredged-up all the old sex scandals they could find and released it as “breaking news”.
I have to admit, I chuckled over Fr. Wegner’s emails debating his best PR responses.
-
We’ve covered Voris on this forum at length.
He’s just a reformed HIV ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a judaizer, who is funded by Opus Dei.
Opus Dei doesn’t like the SSPX, so they dredged-up all the old sex scandals they could find and released it as “breaking news”.
I have to admit, I chuckled over Fr. Wegner’s emails debating his best PR responses.
Why is everyone shooting the messenger? Much of this video may sadly be true?
-
I can’t speak for the allegations against other priests but I can say that for close to a decade I have known Fr. Kenneth Novak to be a good, and honorable priest!
And yet!
He hasn't joined the Resistance yet. I always thought of him as a good "old school" SSPX priest, but the fact is that I really don't know him or most other priests, and most of us here don't either.
That having been said, Last Tradhican said it best:
A broken clock is 100% accurate 2 times a day. The article involves few people, priests and laymen, however, as far as convicted criminals there are very few priests mentioned considering the 50 years covered. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX?
...
Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage girl or a young wife? Voris had to pad the article with bad lay parishioners and also with priests who did nothing but squelch what they thought was detractions. Filter out just the priest convicted of crimes and you are left with I think 5 priests at most. To dismiss the article altogether is a big mistake, but it is ridiculous to blow this up as if 5 or 8 SSPX priests ( from 600+) is anything like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ plague in the Novus Ordo sect. Read the article in total and split out SSPX priests from laymen, and accused priest from priest who did not want to detract, and you are left with only a few bad eggs. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX? Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage or older woman?
The Bottom Line that I get from the OP article is: pay attention your children and do not idolize priests as if they are gods.
-
This thread is heading in the same direction as this one did: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/report-charges-cover-up-of-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-by-traditionalist-society/
-
We’ve covered Voris on this forum at length.
He’s just a reformed HIV ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a judaizer, who is funded by Opus Dei.
Is there anyone on this thread that actually wants to discuss what is reported in the OP?
Or is this just a Michael Voris bashing thread?
Does the truth of the material in the OP matter to anyone?
-
This thread is heading in the same direction as this one did: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/report-charges-cover-up-of-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-by-traditionalist-society/
The good news is that CM seems to have individually profiled by name some of the priests that the Swedish docuмentary only gave initials to, including Fr. Stephen Abraham at Broadstairs, and Fr. Philippe Peignot in France.
-
I have spent many years with Fr. K. Novak as my pastor. I find the allegations against him ABSOLUTELY impossible to believe. The report says that during his secret meeting he advised the boy / couple to report Palmeri to the authorities...isn’t that what he was supposed to do?
The report also states that he broke up marriages. Knowing at how hard he always worked to save and restore couples in the past I can only guess that the disgruntled spouse was leading an immoral life and a danger to the family and children. Lastly, he would never...NEVER...recommend a “Divorce”...perhaps a physical separation...for physical and spiritual safety...but never a divorce.
I can say that for close to a decade I have known Fr. Kenneth Novak to be a good, and honorable priest!
I concur, and I know him.
I don't know why CM included Fr. Kenneth Noak in this story, as he is NOT accused of any abuse, and the only quote available shows that he did believe the victim who reported the abuse by parishioner Peter Palmieri:
"Kyle White: "Father Novak said that he was not supposed to be talking to me. He agreed that Peter Palmeri needed to be turned in because how pedophiles work, they don't stop, and he was told not to speak with me."
That says to me Fr. Novak tried to do the right thing, but it sounds like priests above him were calling the shots.
-
Why is everyone shooting the messenger? Much of this video may sadly be true?
Most of us have heard these stories over 10 years ago. They are bad, but somewhat isolated incidents.
Managing 700+ priests in an international network is not easy.
If we want to criticize the SSPX for anything, it’s Menzingen’s unwillingness and incompetence to take action against the perpetrators.
The SSPX has many more problems concerning the Faith, more serious than old sex scandals.
But shooting Voris is okay too, cause Opus Dei represents Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ inside the Church.
-
Is there anyone on this thread that actually wants to discuss what is reported in the OP?
Or is this just a Michael Voris bashing thread?
Does the truth of the material in the OP matter to anyone?
Christine, et al. ?
-
The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, and the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
-
The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, and the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
And most of those priest are in the Vatican, not the SSPX.
-
Yes, Our Lady of LaSalette’s words are most reliable and specifically for ours times, which is the conclusion of the 5th Age of the Church (Bl. Holzhauser).
Our Lady warned that Rome would become the seat of the anti-Christ.
Yet, the SSPX Leadership wants to be a part of it?
-
The report also states that he broke up marriages. Knowing at how hard he always worked to save and restore couples in the past I can only guess that the disgruntled spouse was leading an immoral life and a danger to the family and children. Lastly, he would never...NEVER...recommend a “Divorce”...perhaps a physical separation...for physical and spiritual safety...but never a divorce.
I also know Fr. Novak, and Ekim's assessment above is true.
-
The article is clearly a hit piece. It also double dips, in the sense that several of the names/events are not being 'revealed' by CM, but were already known. I also find the information about Fr Novak out of place.
.
I did not know about Fr Angeles, although maybe that is just my own ignorance. Nor did I know about a few of the other 'improprieties' the article mentions.
.
Just because it is a hit piece doesn't mean it isn't correct in its details. Critical thinking, people. Read like adults and show an ability to distinguish between a factual claim that's either true or false (and almost always verifiable) and a narrative claim. CM has the wrong narrative but it seems like they have the right facts.
.
-
Just because it is a hit piece doesn't mean it isn't correct in its details. Critical thinking, people. Read like adults and show an ability to distinguish between a factual claim that's either true or false (and almost always verifiable) and a narrative claim. CM has the wrong narrative but it seems like they have the right facts.
.
It is amazing to me how many Traditional Catholics are completely unaware of the 2017 Swedish film that exposed the predators in the SSPX and Resistance. This is because virtually no one at the time reported on it, and some Traditionalists even tried to bury it. But, the rot must be exposed. And more importantly, the cover-up that has been conducted by the SSPX to hide their rot must be exposed. Unfortunately, it seems the leadership of the SSPX and their PR dept is even more powerful today and works even harder to dodge any responsibility for their mistakes.
-
All ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pederasts. They target young pubescent boys aproximately between the ages of 11-17, precisely because they are desireable, (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs enshrine "youth") innocent but old enough to sɛҳuąƖly "react". If ,when abused, they do react, the demonic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator "chicken hawks" accuse the victim of being "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" anyway, completely destroying the psyche and sɛҳuąƖ identity of the "prey." Many confused and damaged boys will turn to the sodomite lifestyle at that point. A new "convert' made by abuse , confusion and guilt. It is the worst kind of evil against body and soul. They know exactly what they are doing as they have given their souls over to their own wickedness as St Paul says.
-
Oh sorry- this was what I was responding to in the post above.
Quote from: Last Tradhican on Yesterday at 02:11:05 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/michael-voris-publishes-article-on-sspx-abuse/msg695915/#msg695915)
Don't let anyone fool you, all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pedophiles.
-
Churches will be locked up. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
Woe to the priests and to those dedicated to God who by their unfaithfulness and their wicked lives are crucifying my Son again! Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
For there is no one left to beg mercy and forgiveness for the people. There are no more generous souls; there is no one left worthy of offering a stainless sacrifice to the Eternal for the sake of the world. OurLadyofLaSalette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
There will be bloody wars and famines, plagues and infectious diseases.Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
“The earth will be struck by calamities of all kinds (in addition to plague and famine which will be wide-spread). Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
The sins of those dedicated to God cry out towards Heaven and call for vengeance, and now vengeance is at their door. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, and the priests have become cesspools of impurity. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
-
That having been said, Last Tradhican said it best:
A broken clock is 100% accurate 2 times a day. The article involves few people, priests and laymen, however, as far as convicted criminals there are very few priests mentioned considering the 50 years covered. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX?
...
Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage girl or a young wife? Voris had to pad the article with bad lay parishioners and also with priests who did nothing but squelch what they thought was detractions. Filter out just the priest convicted of crimes and you are left with I think 5 priests at most. To dismiss the article altogether is a big mistake, but it is ridiculous to blow this up as if 5 or 8 SSPX priests ( from 600+) is anything like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ plague in the Novus Ordo sect. Read the article in total and split out SSPX priests from laymen, and accused priest from priest who did not want to detract, and you are left with only a few bad eggs. Is it any surprise that there are a few ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in the SSPX? Is it any surprise that a heterosɛҳuąƖ priest would be tempted to seduce a teenage or older woman?
The Bottom Line that I get from the OP article is: pay attention your children and do not idolize priests as if they are gods.
And what I said could have easily been said by the SSPX hierarchy, however, they will not, because they have become political intriguers. They have been playing politicians for so long now in their shadowy work with the Vatican II religion, that they have to cover for their lies, their "the end justifies the means" method of working. I on the other hand, have nothing to hide because I live by the motto that "you can't ever lie, even to save the World", therefore, I can easily defend myself. I am a real Catholic that LIVES the Faith, they are Catholic politicians afraid of their own shadows. People like that can never answer anything straight.
-
And what I said could have easily been said by the SSPX hierarchy, however, they will not, because they have become political intriguers. They have been playing politicians for so long now in their shadowy work with the Vatican II religion, that they have to cover for their lies, their "the end justifies the means" method of working. I on the other hand, have nothing to hide because I live by the motto that "you can't ever lie, even to save the World", therefore, I can easily defend myself. I am a real Catholic that LIVES the Faith, they are Catholic politicians afraid of their own shadows. People like that can never answer anything straight.
Good summary. There are too many traditional priests that have come to measure by VII sticks thinking themselves good but trying to save themselves and their positions for political or worldly gain. I found a shorter summary on the subject difficult to argue with. Can't fix that it comes via Voris, but information out in the open is not a bad thing if it wakes people up to pray for more diligent and faithful shepherds in all corners of the Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw)
-
Good summary.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw)
Like him or not, this is how you hold an organization to account for corruption.
I would expect the SSPX will be crafting a formal response now. I don't see how they couldn't.
-
(https://sspx.org/sites/all/themes/sspx_responsive/logos/header/en/district.svg) (https://sspx.org/en)
You are here:
- Home (https://sspx.org/en)
- Publications (https://sspx.org/en/publications)
U.S. District Responds to Church Militant
On April 22, 2020, the website Church Militant published a story against the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) with the inflammatory title, “SSPX—Sympathetic to Perverts.” The story, among other things, purports to expose a culture of coverups regarding sɛҳuąƖ abuse and immorality within the Society. This is false, and the SSPX calls on Church Militant to withdraw this slanderous piece of yellow journalism.
The SSPX’s Commitment to Investigation and Cooperation
As a primary and essential matter, the SSPX is committed to investigating all allegations of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct by its clergy, religious, and lay employees. The Society also cooperates with all police or other official investigations into said misconduct when it violates the law, whether civil or ecclesiastical. Though no mention of this fact is made in Church Militant’s article, the SSPX publicly informed them of this fact in a press release issued last year. Regrettably, Church Militant failed to make any mention of it. Church Militant also failed to respond to the SSPX after they asked the SSPX questions.
Instead, Church Militant repeatedly relies on hearsay, conjecture, and factual misstatements to paint the SSPX in a false light. For instance, it alleged that U.S. District Superior Fr. Jurgen Wegner is scheduled to be transferred to Austria later this year “far from the reach of criminal prosecutors[.]” Not only has Fr. Wegner never been investigated, charged, or convicted of any criminal wrongdoing, but the United States has mutual legal assistance treaties with both Austria and the European Union. Any transfer of clergy across borders, which is a routine practice of the Society to carry out its worldwide apostolate, would not place them beyond the law, and Church Militant is wrong to insinuate otherwise and that the transfer has that purpose. Fr. Wegner’s six-year term as District Superior ends in August, and his transfer has been foreseen for months before this hit-piece saw the light of day.
Similarly, Church Militant implies, without evidence, that there are numerous investigations against SSPX clergy currently underway in the United States. Justice and charity demand that the Society not disclose publicly the nature of any investigations, both to protect the good names of the innocent and the privacy of alleged victims. An accusation is not evidence, and for the SSPX or any other ecclesial or public entity to approach an investigation believing otherwise would lead to more harm than good. When criminal wrongdoing is uncovered, however, the Society’s policy is to refer the matter to the appropriate public authorities.
Individual Cases of Abuse
The SSPX does not deny that there have been serious and tragic individual cases of abuse committed by a discrete number of clergy and employees. Some of these cases are decades old, occurring before a time when a number of the SSPX’s districts, including the U.S. District, had the infrastructure in place to readily record, investigate, and report accusations promptly. That situation has since been rectified, and the U.S. District continues to update its internal policies to put them in line with best practices.
However, Church Militant again implies otherwise, noting, for example, the case of Fr. Frédéric Abbet in Belgium. What Church Militant fails to report is that the Society cooperated with the Belgian authorities and stands by the results of Fr. Abbet’s trial. This is true in other instances as well, though Church Militant neither bothered to report on such matters nor made inquiries on this matter to any official organ of the SSPX.
Prudence, Not Cover-up
Through Church Militant’s story, it wishes to expose a culture of coverup in the SSPX. Instead, it exposed its own gross lack of ethics when it took private internal correspondence, which was accidentally sent to it and quoted from it out of context. Even so, as the quoted passages make clear, the discussion did not center on covering up any public wrongdoing but focused instead on how best to respond to Church Militant’s inquiries.
It is well-known that Church Militant is not a serious journalistic enterprise but a repository of sensationalized stories, hit pieces, and videos featuring the opinions of its controversial founder, Michael Voris. Further, Church Militant has repeatedly used the SSPX’s name to generate web-clicks and revenue while hoping to stoke the fires of public controversy by baiting it into a war of words. Prudence dictates caution when dealing with a tabloid, and we will not be so baited.
The SSPX is committed to full transparency in all of these cases. We will be releasing detailed responses to every allegation.
Look up the US District's website on the Protection of Children > (https://plantoprotect.website)
(https://sspx.org/sites/all/themes/sspx_responsive/logos/header/en/district.svg)
- Copyright 2020 SSPX Society of Saint Pius X
- Terms of Use (https://sspx.org/en/node/140)
- Press (https://sspx.org/en/press)
- rss (https://sspx.org/en/rss)
- FAQ (https://sspx.org/en/faq-page)
- contact (https://sspx.org/en/contact-us-2868)
- donate (https://sspx.gifts/collections/frontpage/products/sspx-general-fund)
https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641
-
Churches will be locked up. Our Lady of La Salette 19 Sept. 1846 (Published by Mélanie 1879)
Our Lady of Garabandal said the same thing.
-
https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641
In their official response the SSPX wrote:
When criminal wrongdoing is uncovered, however, the Society’s policy is to refer the matter to the appropriate public authorities.
This is blatantly untrue. For example, there are public media reports of how one of Kevin Sloniker's child-victims in Post Falls, ID was reported to Fr. Crane by the parents, and Fr. Crane did NOT report Sloniker to the authorities.
Sloniker was busted by the police on their own.
See here from the Spokane newspaper:
Another boy said he spent one summer at the Latah farm when he was about 12. Sloniker’s attention escalated to nightly sɛҳuąƖ abuse, and Sloniker also hit him with a whip, he told police.
Several of those interviewed said they reported their concerns to the priests at Immaculate Conception Church. The boy who said he was whipped by Sloniker said he shared that with Father Patrick Crane. He also told the priest that Sloniker made him strip naked.
Crane, who now is with another Society of Saint Pius X church – Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix – was interviewed by a detective Sept. 22. He said Sloniker worked with the church camp from 2003 to 2006 and that he did not have any issues with him.
source link:
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/26/coeur-dalene-man-jailed-on-1-million-bond-suspecte/ (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/26/coeur-dalene-man-jailed-on-1-million-bond-suspecte/)
-
No fan of Michael Voris, but this particular article was not written by him.
Well, it's his organization, so I'd be shocked if it wasn't with his blessing or at least permission.
-
I just now had the time to watch the entire thing.
There was some disturbing information in there for which some of the SSPX leadership should be held accountable, but these were, unfortunately, blurred together with a number of gravely-sinful smear jobs.
1) implication that Father Kenneth Novak had sɛҳuąƖ relations with these women he "seduced" and would call upon at "all hours of the night". Father Novak agreed that the one guy should be reported ... in disagreement with his superiors. Unless they have some evidence, this is a grave slander, and Father Novak should sue them.
2) smear job of Fr. Lawrence Novak. He simply gave a character reference for a guy who would be later convicted of abuse, without any proof that he knew about any of it at the time he wrote the letter.
3) the allegation that Archbishop Lefebvre was so taken with Laudenschlager that he visited the U.S. to ordain him personally. This was before he had helper bishops and he regularly visited the U.S. to do a confirmation + ordination circuit ... even if Laudenschlager happened to be the only priestly ordinand that year. Undoubtedly there were also some deacons and subdeacons ordained. So that too was a smear job.
Plus the hit piece assumes that absolutely every allegation against the named priests was factually true. There are many examples of false abuse allegations that have destroyed good priests and bishops. Nevertheless, it's true that the SSPX should have absolutely dealt forcefully with any credible allegations of misconduct and at the very least removed the accused from access to parishioners, especially children, while the matter would be investigated.
Not to condone the ACTUAL assaults and coverups, this video/article was a total hit piece.
Now, Fr. Wegner needs to be deposed of any rank in the SSPX and sent to a monastery. Vogel should be fired. They both admit that they were aware of a long history of similar allegations against Fr. Duverger and were more interested in the PR angle than the actual fact. So it wasn't a matter of an isolated allegation that may have been fabricated. And the fact that both Fr. Wegner and Vogel knew about the long past of Fr. Duverger came out in that e-mail thread they inadvertently leaked to Church Militant. Fr. Duverger should also be removed. Despite the fact that there's no evidence presented that he actually assaulted anyone, Fr. Wegner and Vogel both admit a history of similar allegations that render him unfit for any pastoral role or contact with young ladies.
1) one allegation ... you do a thorough investigation and keep a close eye on the accused and remove hm from pastoral contact (unless the matter is grave, in which case it needs to be reported to authorities). I'm talking allegations of inappropriate conversation or what could be construed as grooming.
2) repeated SIMILAR allegations from independent sources unknown to each other, and they suddenly become credible and must be acted upon in proportion to the gravity of the accusation.
-
Our Lady of La Salette on the 19th of September
(1846) appeared to two youth, Melanie and
Maximum on a Mountain in La Salette,
France. Her words, spoken through Her
tears to them, are chilling and include many
admonitions that may give an answer.
If my people do not wish to submit
themselves, I am forced to let go off
the hand of My Son. It is so heavy and
weighs Me down so much I can no
longer keep hold of it.
I have suffered all the time for the
rest of you! If I do not wish My Son
to abandon you, I must take it upon
Myself to pray for this continually. And
the rest of you think little of this. In
vain you will pray, in vain you will act,
you will never be able to make up to
the troubles I have taken over for the
rest of you.
Our Lady then went on to explain that the
reason for Her continual prayers results,
in part, from failure to honor the Lord's
Day (Sunday) which is against the Third
Commandment of God; and for those taking
the name of God in vain, against God's
Second Commandment. Then Our Lady
continued with a greater concern:
The priest, ministers of My Son, the
priests, by their wicked lives, by their
irreverence and their impiety in the
celebration of the holy mysteries,
by their love of money, their love of
honors and pleasures, the priests
have become cesspools of impurity.
Yes, the priests are asking vengeance
and vengeance is hanging over their
heads. Woe to the priests and to
those dedicated to God who by their
unfaithfulness and their wicked lives
are crucifying My Son again!
God will strike in an
unprecedented way. Woe to the
inhabitants of earth! God will exhaust
His wrath upon them, and no one will
be able to escape so many afflictions
together.
The chiefs, the leaders of the
people of God have neglected prayer
and penance, and the devil has
bedimmed their intelligence. They
have become wandering stars which
the old devil will drag along with
his tail to make them perish. God
will allow the old serpent to cause
divisions among those who reign
in every society and in every family.
Physical and moral agonies will be
suffered.
Italy will be punished for her
ambition in wanting to shake off the
yoke of the Lord of Lords ... Churches
will be locked up or desecrated .•• Woe
to the Princes of the Church who think
only of piling riches upon riches to
protect their authority and dominate
with pride.
The civil governments will have
one and the same plan, which will be
to abolish and do away with every
religious principal, to make way for
materialism, atheism, spiritualism, and
vice of all kinds.
-
There was some disturbing information in there for which some of the SSPX leadership should be held accountable, but these were, unfortunately, blurred together with a number of gravely-sinful smear jobs.
.
Thanks for a good article and not freaking out like some of the other rabid dogs
who have blood in their eyes.
-
Now, Fr. Wegner needs to be deposed of any rank in the SSPX and sent to a monastery. Vogel should be fired. They both admit that they were aware of a long history of similar allegations against Fr. Duverger and were more interested in the PR angle than the actual fact. So it wasn't a matter of an isolated allegation that may have been fabricated. And the fact that both Fr. Wegner and Vogel knew about the long past of Fr. Duverger came out in that e-mail thread they inadvertently leaked to Church Militant. Fr. Duverger should also be removed. Despite the fact that there's no evidence presented that he actually assaulted anyone, Fr. Wegner and Vogel both admit a history of similar allegations that render him unfit for any pastoral role or contact with young ladies.
This correct. Fr. Wegner is no longer capable of being trusted, and Vogel is even Worse.
A thorough House Cleaning needs to from Switzerland. It won't, but it needs to.
What a way to rebut, the CM/Voris Hit Job, than by taking aggressive, spiritual action against the offenders. Not Words, But Actions!
In a fallen World that craves leadership, think of how refreshing it would be, if the World saw a Catholic Body, DO Something, rather than talk....?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4wtBRD5zw)
.
Michael Voris (Church Militant) attack #2.
He is spewing out lies about the founding of the SSPX.
It's a short version of the longer video, called "Spotlight
Investigation on the SSPX".
.
He says this SSPX cover-up almost dwarfs the world-wide
perversion of the last 20 years.
.
Hey, Michael Voris, do you have a problem with the
heresies in Vatican II ??? I didn't think so. If Vatican II
sends people to hell, no big deal, but the cover-up of
perversions is worse than anything.
.
Why don't you get upset about the desire of the SSPX
leaders to be reconciled with Rome ??
.
-
And this at 2:40, Michael Voris, the judaizer...
The only unforgiven sin is h0Ɩ0cαųst denial (https://youtu.be/8ZFv6yCnw5M)
-
WOW. #1 Evil - nαzιes, #2 Evil - Abortionists, #3 Evil - SSPX cover-up.
-
https://youtu.be/Fg_HPSG7Aww
-
https://youtu.be/Fg_HPSG7Aww
That’s what happens to Americanized Fillipinas. They start eating a lot of junk food and get fat :popcorn:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rZS443ntuA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rZS443ntuA)
-
I am an SSPX parishioner, sympathetic to the Resistance. I was sent the original article the other day by a European SSPX-attending friend, who was understandably a bit perturbed. He wanted my thoughts.
After reading the article, I, too, was a bit perturbed. Indeed, my “peace of soul” was lost for the entire remainder of the day. I thought I concealed it well enough but my wife asked me what was wrong. I played it off as “a long day,” because one really doesn’t want to say “I’m upset because a few priests we know have been accused of terrible sex crimes” around the children. My point is, these are disturbing allegations and they are liable to make anyone seriously question their “affiliation” or loyalties. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what the article intended, and is the chief evil of these sorts of articles. I wanted to have a knee-jerk reaction, but some things about the article seemed wrong.
A good night’s sleep, and a rereading of the article confirmed my initial hesitancy. When I read it the first time, my initial reaction was something along the lines of “Why in God’s name doesn’t the SSPX get it that this is disgusting? If a priest does this sort of thing they need to be castrated and burnt at the stake, and secular justice will be too merciful. The SSPX needs to do a thorough housecleaning!” As the comments section of CM website shows, this reaction is fairly typical. I imagine dramatic music and voice acting makes the video even more potent.
However, a more careful reading will show that, in spite of clearly sloppy and fairly unsubstantiated reporting and a few grammatical and punctuation errors which show just how little real editorial effort went into the piece, the piece is “well crafted” for its purpose. It was well written, in the sense that it starts off with the most scandalous/evil/dire accusation: “Fr. Angles raped a little boy who later committed ѕυιcιdє, bribed the family, and oh by the way he was totally a nαzι who loved to groom young boys”. Thus, everything in the article after that, regardless of whether it was substantial or not, takes the character of “supporting actors in this same drama.” Virtually every subsequent allegation just drags up whatever mud might exist and throws it wantonly, with the evident hope that some will stick.
Now, I never met Fr. Angles. But I did live in St. Mary’s for a few years immediately after his departure, under the rectorship of Fr. Griego. My “take” was that Fr. Griego had a very thankless job, because Fr. Angles was an extremely polarizing figure. Many in the town loved him and missed him terribly, and a few others hated him and castigated him mercilessly, and would probably even blame him if there was a drought or tornado. Interestingly enough, most of the folks who loved him were “my type of trad:” big families, educated in European (ie Catholic) history, aware of the malign influences of the Freemasons, godless enlightenment types, and yes, the Jews. Most of the folks that hated him were the type who said: “We need a good God-fearing Catholic President, because this is ‘Murica! And Father criminally undereducated my children because there wasn’t even any h0Ɩ0cαųst or social justice unit in high school history!” So, when I perceive that the strongest and most lurid “case” in the article consists of some “new” unsubstantiated hearsay (Gonzalez) and some very old allegations from an anti-SSPX article from the early 90s, uncritically reprinted even though to my knowledge some or most of the supposed witnesses never existed... it definitely lessens the credibility of the piece, to say the least.
The subsequent cases are all “old news,” in the sense that we already knew about them. The “few bad apples” comes to mind. It’s hard to weigh in on the truth of the Fr. Peignot or Fr. Abbet or Fr. Abraham happenings, because it’s “over there.” A journalist can easily dredge up some muck and spin it to fit their agenda, and it’s darn hard for anyone at a distance to make a clear judgment about guilt or innocence, let alone ascertain who knew what, who was covering for whom, etc. These men were probably all guilty of something and it seems that their crimes have come to light and they have been dealt with. (When I met Fr. Abraham in the UK in 2009, he was more or less in the same situation as Bp. Williamson: under “house arrest” and forbidden contact with the faithful. I didn’t know anything about him; frankly I assumed he had terminal cancer or something.) So while we do wish that certainly-known accusers could be impaled on a pike in the public square, it does behoove us to remember that things are not always so certain. These sins are called “secret” for a reason. I’m not trying to exonerate the SSPX leadership of all wrongdoing here, just pointing out that these cases are presented in the article as “news” when in fact they are more like “history.” And uncertain history at that.
The article clearly smears Fr. Ken Novak in a most unjust way, which will be particularly evident to anyone who has ever met the man. They try to imply that he’s some kind of cult leader/serial womanizer, which would be laughable if it weren’t so unjust and completely wrong. To me, anyone who publishes lies like this (which must clearly be malicious) loses all credibility. I mean, to the point where if they say that Pope Francis said something liberal, I would be inclined to doubt it, if the source was CM.
In summary, it seems like the only real revelations in this article are the allegations by “Jassy.” While at first blush this seems to point to terrible SSPX mismanagement, “Oh my gosh!! He said something inappropriate!! And he’s running a school?!” when you reread the nature of the allegations you perceive just how flimsy the case against the man is. At worst he was acting a bit sleazy/succuмbing to temptation for salacious information. At best he was legitimately trying to help his penitent and may have phrased himself badly in English. And there’s of course a huge difference between saying something inappropriate to a woman, and sodomizing a little boy. (Frankly even if the priest were caught at a whorehouse I wouldn’t say he deserved public shame and defrocking per se.) Being unfaithful to ones vows or committing a sin against the 6th and 9th commandments is a far cry from being a sɛҳuąƖ predator.
I thought the SSPX response was pretty good. Of course, in 2020, they could have responded with a meme or a simple “lol ur gαy” and it would have made the point just as well.
CM’s response to the SSPX was basically just a rehash of their article and a lot of hand-waving. But they proved their goal of dishonesty by bringing up the infamous “Fr. U” case. They talk about the SSPX’s great sin of harboring him, but neglect to mention how he, and anyone associated with him, were summarily expelled from the society, or how the Society warned the diocese in Pennsylvania about these priests, or how the diocese accepted them and dealt with the aftermath when they began molesting. To omit these facts which completely change the nature of the SSPX’s conduct in this case 180 degrees, tells us all we need to know about the sincerity or veracity of the article. ...which is undoubtedly why a lot of prior commenters in this thread have preferred to “shoot the messenger” rather than dive into the allegations.
-
To give the benefit of doubt to the heterosɛҳuąƖ priest Fr. Duverger, who is the subject of 40% of the volume of paragraphs in the OP article. In 2013 he did not really speak English. It may be that he asked for the details in writing because he wanted to translate the confession to understand it fully. Moreover, I do not consider a heterosɛҳuąƖ man losing it for a moment (for no one has accused him of even touching them!) as being in the same ballpark as a man actually committing sodomy. It is natural for a man to be attracted to young women, that should be no surprise.
An 80 year old priest was asked by a young priest; "When will I be free of the temptations of girls"? The old priest answered, I'll let you know when I get there. THAT is why I would never let my wife help around a priory, she is too young.
I stand corrected, I missed this part in the OP article:
"Stunned, Jassy was then put in touch with another alleged victim, one whose story has been deemed credible by state authorities and which reportedly involved not only sɛҳuąƖ grooming but also sɛҳuąƖ assault by Fr. Duverger."
The question is, what exactly does this accusation of "sɛҳuąƖ assault" consist of in detail? It could be that he just tried to kiss her or groped her momentarily.
I was chasing bikini clad girls on the beach till I was 42, at which time I came back to the Church and changed my life completely. During those wild years, girls threw themselves at me all the time because I was popular, and when I moved on from them, they were sometimes very spiteful. They could have easily accused me of sɛҳuąƖ assault many times by today's standards, just to punish me out of spite. Anyhow, what Fr. Duverger is accused of is not anywhere comparable with the actions of the sodomites.
-
In summary, it seems like the only real revelations in this article are the allegations by “Jassy.”
FYI: Jassy Jacas is her real name.
-
The story is spreading, : https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sspx-scandal-sex-abuse-michael-gonzalez/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sspx-scandal-sex-abuse-michael-gonzalez/)
-
The article clearly smears Fr. Ken Novak in a most unjust way, which will be particularly evident to anyone who has ever met the man. They try to imply that he’s some kind of cult leader/serial womanizer, which would be laughable if it weren’t so unjust and completely wrong. allegations.
True.
However, the other priests in question are legitimately in trouble with the law. Fr. Novak is not.
-
I was chasing bikini clad girls on the beach till I was 42, at which time I came back to the Church and changed my life completely. During those wild years, girls threw themselves at me all the time because I was popular, and when I moved on from them, they were sometimes very spiteful. They could have easily accused me of sɛҳuąƖ assault many times by today's standards, just to punish me out of spite. Anyhow, what Fr. Duverger is accused of is not anywhere comparable with the actions of the sodomites.
Jassy Jacas says that Duverger abused the confessional.
If true, and he doesn't repent, I'd guess that his punishment will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Who will be going to confess at an SSPX chapel, after learning that the SSPX does nothing to protect the sacrament?
-
Michael Voris gave a good response to the SSPX:
One day after Church Militant's groundbreaking exposé detailing decades-long history of abuse and cover-up in the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts), the SSPX has issued an official response (https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641), which contains a number of evasions, half-truths and inaccuracies that require a response. Most telling is not so much what the SSPX says, but rather its silence on so much of what Church Militant reported in our exposé (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts).
Ad Hominem
The SSPX attempts to justify its stonewalling, silence and lack of transparency as a refusal to be "baited" by Church Militant, which it dismisses as "tabloid journalism" whose only purpose in reporting on the SSPX is to "generate web-clicks and revenue while hoping to stoke the fires of public controversy."
Church Militant has been at the forefront of exposing corruption, abuse and cover-up at all levels of the Church, with a strong track record of serious investigative journalism exposing the grave misdeeds of predator clergy and their protectors. The McCarrick revelations, the Pennsylvania grand jury report, the resignation of Cdl. Donald Wuerl, the bombshell testimony of Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò revealing a "corrupt gαy mafia" strangling the Church — in short, the Summer of Shame vindicated everything Church Militant has been saying — often a lone voice in the wilderness — for years.
No serious Catholic with integrity would dismiss our work as merely clickbait in order to generate revenue. Thus the SSPX's dismissal of Church Militant's reportage can only be seen as a pathetic attempt at further evasion and subterfuge, more typical of the tactics of liberal, cover-up bishops we've encountered, who shoot the messenger rather than answer difficult questions about their role in protecting predator priests. We are all too familiar with such maneuvers.
'Prudence'
The SSPX's claim that it wouldn't answer Church Militant's questions as a matter of "prudence" in order to avoid a "public war of words" is also disproven by their deeply embarrassing leaked emails, exposing leadership's strategizing on how to prevent Church Militant from knowing too much about Fr. Pierre Duverger's case — a case Vogel admits would be viewed as "bizarre" by the public because he's allowed to run a school while the subject of multiple sɛҳuąƖ assault allegations — allegations known for at least two years that Fr. Wegner admitted directly to Jassy Jacas the SSPX never investigated.
The SSPX emails reveal one motive alone: how best to hide the truth from the public. James Vogel's admission about "ugly cases in France" (cases that involved the intervention of two superiors general — Franz Schmidberger and Bernard Fellay — to shuffle a pederast to another congregation, or lift his ban so as to allow him to be around children) as well as his admission that Church Militant would find a "gold mine" in Jassy's allegations suffice to expose their agenda.
It is thus laughable that the SSPX would charge Church Militant with a supposed "gross lack of ethics" for publishing the emails, when their strategizing to cover up the truth is the very definition of a "gross lack of ethics."
The Society's claim that it "cooperates with all police or other official investigations" is also demonstrably false. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation revealed to Church Militant that the SSPX stonewalled their investigation, dragging its feet in response to a subpoena inquisition the KBI submitted in November. It took months for the SSPX to respond with the docuмents, when the subpoena could have easily been responded to in a matter of two weeks or less — the expected response time for subpoena inquisitions of that nature.
The Criminal Investigation
The SSPX statement also attempts to cast doubt on the existence of a criminal investigation against multiple SSPX clergy — another false statement, as the KBI confirmed directly with Church Militant that this criminal investigation has been ongoing for approximately a year, and that it involves multiple clergy. In an email to Church Militant, Fr. Wegner himself admits there is a criminal investigation of SSPX clergy. While the name of Fr. Pierre Duverger has already been made public (thanks to the whistleblowing of Jassy Jacas), other SSPX clergy under investigation may not necessarily be known to the SSPX, and we are not at liberty to disclose their names so as not to compromise the investigation.
As to Fr. Jurgen Wegner's transfer to Austria, the assignment was announced in the middle of the criminal investigation, and comes at a highly convenient time. In spite of whatever treaties exist between the United States and Austria, the SSPX is fully aware that investigations are made infinitely more difficult when a priest is moved across state lines, cutting off investigators' access to the subject under investigation.
Church Militant has learned, however, that this is standard operating procedure for the SSPX, shuffling predator clergy — and those who cover for them — from one country to another, never informing their new flock of their priests' past misdeeds, in the hopes others will not find out. This makes the SSPX no different from "Novus Ordo" cover-up bishops who transferred guilty clergy from one place to another, never warning the flock about the priest's crimes.
The SSPX admits there have been "serious and tragic individual cases of abuse" by their own clergy — including those Church Militant exposed in our report:
As we said in our report, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Church Militant did not touch on the protection of gαy pederast Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity by then-Fr. Alfonso de Galarreta when he was district superior of the SSPX in Argentina. Galarreta was made known of multiple charges of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predation by Urrutigoity, who was a seminarian at the time, yet did nothing, leading to such exasperation by others at the seminary that a dossier of Urrutigoity's misconduct and Galarreta's failure to act was sent to Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.
There is much, much more. Church Militant is well aware of multiple other SSPX clergy and brothers all over the world who have sɛҳuąƖly groomed, assaulted and raped victims, in some cases fathering illegitimate children with them while forcing the victims to remain silent and then abandoning the children — all with the knowledge of SSPX leadership.
Church Militant has confirmed that these priests still minister in various SSPX chapels to this very day.
With regard to the SSPX's so-called cooperation with Belgian authorities in the criminal trial of Fr. Abbet, the SSPX fails to mention that Bp. Fellay (as we exposed in our report) personally sent his private secretary, Fr. Raphael Granges (a lawyer), to accompany Abbet to the courthouse daily. Granges dressed in lay clothes in order to escape notice.
The SSPX also fails to mention that an SSPX tribunal cleared Abbet of guilt years earlier when other sex abuse allegations came to light — allegations brought by distraught parents when they discovered their child had been abused by the priest. The SSPX leadership assured the parents they would handle the matter, asking that they not go public with their allegations — only for the SSPX to set up a tribunal to formally clear Abbet of guilt. It would take a secular court to deliver the justice the SSPX canonical court refused to serve.
'Lack of Infrastructure'
It's also laughable that the SSPX blames its failure to report known abusers to police on a "lack of infrastructure." As if a "lack of infrastructure" is what prompted Fellay to lift a ban on gαy pederast Fr. Philippe Peignot (found guilty of abusing an 11-year-old boy, among others), allowing him to be around more young boys.
As if "lack of infrastructure" is what prompted Schmidberger to sit on the allegations against Peignot for a year — before transferring him to another congregation, where he would go on to abuse more boys.
As if "lack of infrastructure" is what prompted Lefebvre to ordain a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator who had earlier been kicked out of the SSPX seminary for his sɛҳuąƖ propositioning of a seminarian.
As if lack of infrastructure is what prompted Fellay to limit rapist Fr. Roisnel's punishment to two years of prayer and penance in a monastery before letting him loose. Thanks be to God the police found him and delivered him to justice, rather than waiting on the soft "justice" of the SSPX.
Was it that "lack of infrastructure" that led three SSPX priests to counsel Kyle White not to report child rapist Peter Palmeri to police?
Was it that "lack of infrastructure" that prompted Fellay to move pederast Fr. Abbet to live in a priory right next door to a school, where he abused three boys and now languishes in prison for his crimes? We could go on, but the point is clear.
This "lack of infrastructure"is the exact same excuse we've heard before from so many cover-up bishops to justify their failure to report predators to police in times past, instead sending them off to do prayer and penance or go to rehab centers before placing them back in active ministry, where they often abused again.
The SSPX claims to be fully "committed to transparency." That is yet to be seen, proven by its latest statement full of evasions and deceptions, only lending further weight to our report exposing the SSPX as a bastion of cover-up and corruption, carrying on its work under the cloak of piety and traditionalism. Because of their promotion of orthodoxy and a reverent liturgy, their betrayal can rightly be viewed as far greater than that of other clergy.
Victims and witnesses of abuse by the SSPX or other clergy can contact the Kansas Bureau of Investigation at clergyabuse@kbi.ks.gov or they can call 1 (800) KS-Crime (1-800-572-7463).
-
Jassy Jacas says that Duverger abused the confessional.
It's unclear what this actually entailed. From what I saw, he proposed spiritual direction to her in the Confessional. Then in spiritual direction, he asked a lot of very detailed question about prior abuse she had suffered.
-
"Truth is the most important thing. A society built on lies and cover-ups deserves to fall, so it can rebuild on the foundation of truth. This is not the first time SSPX has been accused of harboring sex abusers. In 2017, a Swedish docuмentary hit the society pretty hard on this front. (https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/) If what Christine Niles and her sources say happened really did happen, then it needs to come out. All of it. Everything. The moral and spiritual credibility of the SSPX is on the line here. It especially needs to come out because there are people who even at this late date, hold the belief that sex abuse is a problem of liberal churches, and liberal theology. In fact, theological orthodoxy is no guarantee of moral decency."
Rod Dreher, The American Conservative
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sspx-scandal-sex-abuse-michael-gonzalez/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sspx-scandal-sex-abuse-michael-gonzalez/)
-
It's unclear what this actually entailed. From what I saw, he proposed spiritual direction to her in the Confessional. Then in spiritual direction, he asked a lot of very detailed question about prior abuse she had suffered.
From what she said, I don't think that "spiritual direction" is the appropriate term.
-
True.
However, the other priests in question are legitimately in trouble with the law. Fr. Novak is not.
That does not excuse the slander and ruining of Father's good name.
-
Voris refuses to engage in any debate on the Society and he is shilling for what his largest donor wants ChurchMilitant to do and publish. He should not be taken seriously.
He should be putting pressure on bishops and priests to re-open their Churches to the faithful, instead he's writing stupid hit pieces against the SSPX which has no spiritual benefit whatsoever.
Do you know who his largest donor is?
-
Michael Voris gave a good response to the SSPX:
There are some valid points on both sides, and the good points made by CM and Voris are actually undermined by the layers of spin, insinuations (without evidence), and downright slander. They actually undermine their credibility by having the true factual information submerged in layers of nonsense. This was a hit piece where Voris and the presenter could not hide their disdain for Tradition, constantly making snide remarks about how Traditional Catholics think they're better than the Novus Ordo, that it's just about the Liturgy, etc.
-
I hope that Father Ken Novak sues CM and Voris out of existence.
I was actually a close friend of the Novak family. I went to Loyola Chicago and met the Novak family at the SSPX mission there, for which they were the coordinators; at the time they were at a hotel and had no church. So they took me in like one of their own as a young college student, and even came to visit up at Winona when I received tonsure. I led the Rosary on Sundays at their mission. Dr. Novak (Father Ken's dad) was my confirmation sponsor when I received conditional Confirmation. As a seminarian, I regularly stayed at their home. When Fr. Ken Novak was ordained, I gave him a small (compact) Latin Tridentine Missal that he had noticed and remarked about as a gift. Father Ken Novak is a good man, and so is his brother Lawrence. I've never found any HINT of impropriety from any of the Novaks. In the one episode reported in the video, that Father Ken met during the night in the choir loft to discuss the accused perpetrator, it's admitted that he stated the man should be reported because those types "don't change". I'm guessing he was torn out of a sense of obedience to his superiors who had told him not to discuss the issue with the accuser.
-
True.
However, the other priests in question are legitimately in trouble with the law. Fr. Novak is not.
The fact that the article even mentions this, speaks volumes as to the true aims of CM TV. The author of the article sounds very sincere and truth-seeking in her interview with Miss Jacas. Her written article/video transcription says otherwise, which is pretty standard fare for an “investigative reporter.”
Jassy sounds sincere, too. Perhaps a little unrealistic, in expecting a bunch of European priests to remove a fellow priest from all public duties, because he’s alleged to have committed sins with women. Is it right? Of course not. It’s a sin and a scandal. When she threatens to “go public,” of course the organization is going to go into damage control mode. Human nature.
-
Michael Voris gave a good response to the SSPX:
One day after Church Militant's groundbreaking exposé detailing decades-long history of abuse and cover-up in the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts), the SSPX has issued an official response (https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641), which contains a number of evasions, half-truths and inaccuracies that require a response. Most telling is not so much what the SSPX says, but rather its silence on so much of what Church Militant reported in our exposé (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts).
Sam (Samantha or whatever), where do you go to Church ?
Since you want the whole SSPX wiped out completely, I guess,
you don't need the Latin Mass, right?
-
Michael Voris gave a good response to the SSPX:
...Was it that "lack of infrastructure" that led three SSPX priests to counsel Kyle White not to report child rapist Peter Palmeri to police?
.
Just one example already mentioned before: The article says that Fr. Novak (one of those "three priests") counseled White to report it. So the above statement is inaccurate, as pointed out earlier in this thread.
Kyle White: "Father Novak ... agreed that Peter Palmeri needed to be turned in ..."
-
.
It's time for a reminder of a SAINT who dealt with this problem many years ago.
Did she go to the journalists who hate the Catholic Church and tell her story to
destroy the Catholic Church? NO.
.
I'm talking about SAINT MARIA GORETTI. She will not be popular with the Church
Militant crowd leaving replies here.
.
She prayed for the man who stabbed her 13 times and killed her.
But that was then and this is the SSPX, which needs to be taken down,
because they criticize the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II (or used to).
.
Why does Church Militant ALWAYS get off topic and throw in the LIES about
Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicating himself and the SSPX (the break-away group)
is in schism.
.
Do you see an ulterior motive here. A hidden agenda?
-
Fr Novak and Fr Cooper seem unjustly involved and for that Voris should take responsibility, reaching too far in his zeal to accuse.
He only has hearsay on them. As for the rest,
there is clearly a problem. This interview with the victim is earth shattering.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/exclusive-interview-jassy-jacas
-
.
Just one example already mentioned before: The article says that Fr. Novak (one of those "three priests") counseled White to report it. So the above statement is inaccurate, as pointed out earlier in this thread.
Kyle should have been the one to report the crime, he is the negligent one as he had the closest relationship to the victim.
-
Fr Novak and Fr Cooper seem unjustly involved and for that Voris should take responsibility, reaching too far in his zeal to accuse.
He only has hearsay on them.
Both Fathers Novak, Ken and Lawrence. Also, Archbishop Lefebvre himself. They implied that +Lefebvre was so taken with Laudenschlager that he flew all the way to the U.S. just to ordain him. There's a subtle implied nasty allegation that +Lefebvre also favored the pederasts. This was a shameless smear job, and one almost gets the impression that they RELISH the fact that they had this material with which to attack Tradition. They could have done some good had they just remained objective and stuck with factual information that had been substantiated. In refusing to do so, they undermine the actual good they could have done, but I walk away with the distinct impression that this was not about doing good for them.
-
I hope that Father Ken Novak sues CM and Voris out of existence.
I was actually a close friend of the Novak family. I went to Loyola Chicago and met the Novak family at the SSPX mission there, for which they were the coordinators; at the time they were at a hotel and had no church. So they took me in like one of their own as a young college student, and even came to visit up at Winona when I received tonsure. I led the Rosary on Sundays at their mission. Dr. Novak (Father Ken's dad) was my confirmation sponsor when I received conditional Confirmation. As a seminarian, I regularly stayed at their home. When Fr. Ken Novak was ordained, I gave him a small (compact) Latin Tridentine Missal that he had noticed and remarked about as a gift. Father Ken Novak is a good man, and so is his brother Lawrence. I've never found any HINT of impropriety from any of the Novaks.
The main accusation against him is cowardice, to prefer obedience over truth and justice:
Kyle White: "Father Novak said that he was not supposed to be talking to me. He agreed that Peter Palmeri needed to be turned in because how pedophiles work, they don't stop, and he was told not to speak with me."
I don't believe that Voris/Niles are stupid. They surely are able to prove that they indeed were told what they say they were told.
If Novak sues Voris/Niles/White, it will be word against word.
Looks to me like things look bad for Novak, whether he is guilty of the accusations or not.
-
Kyle should have been the one to report the crime, he is the negligent one as he had the closest relationship to the victim.
Christine Niles says Kyle did report the crime:
After all three SSPX clergy refused to offer assistance, Kyle took his report to the SSPX-friendly police anyway, who failed to launch an investigation, claiming the matter was hearsay.
-
There are some valid points on both sides, and the good points made by CM and Voris are actually undermined by the layers of spin, insinuations (without evidence), and downright slander. They actually undermine their credibility by having the true factual information submerged in layers of nonsense. This was a hit piece where Voris and the presenter could not hide their disdain for Tradition, constantly making snide remarks about how Traditional Catholics think they're better than the Novus Ordo, that it's just about the Liturgy, etc.
I agree. It would have been a stronger piece if he had left out Fr. Novak, which seems to be mere innuendo.
The disdain for Tradition has always been present with CM, but it is somewhat like saying the Boston Globe reporters did the wrong thing by outing the predator priests in the Novus Ordo, just because they weren't Catholics. I'm sure the Boston Globe reporters hated the Church, especially after what horrible rot they unearthed, but it was still an important work that they did.
It cannot be that the only thing that matters to Catholics is human respect. It cannot be that the only thing that matters is the 'reputation' of the SSPX, or the Resistance, or the Church as a whole.
It MUST be that the TRUTH is what matters above all.
God will not allow these secrets to remain hidden. Not in the SSPX, not in the Resistance, not in the Novus Ordo, not in Hollywood, and not in Washington, DC. It must ALL come out. That is what the end of time is all about.
-
Christine Niles says Kyle did report the crime:
In that case, there does not seem to be any legal issue. Kyle asked for Father's advice, Father told him to report the crime, Kyle took the advice and reported the crime.
-
Both Fathers Novak, Ken and Lawrence. Also, Archbishop Lefebvre himself. They implied that +Lefebvre was so taken with Laudenschlager that he flew all the way to the U.S. just to ordain him. There's a subtle implied nasty allegation that +Lefebvre also favored the pederasts. This was a shameless smear job, and one almost gets the impression that they RELISH the fact that they had this material with which to attack Tradition. They could have done some good had they just remained objective and stuck with factual information that had been substantiated. In refusing to do so, they undermine the actual good they could have done, but I walk away with the distinct impression that this was not about doing good for them.
The Archbishop's record speaks for itself. Try as they might, false trials against Lefebvre resemble those of Christ's. Voris has reached way beyond what he should to make his point, going into hearsay and calumny about good priests. That is a fact. But that doesn't mean everything Voris reveals is a smear job. The garbage reporting doesn't change a single truth against those priests who have brought shame upon the SSPX. There is still a serious story here and it obviously brings a lot of problems to priests in the SSPX. That Voris couldn't keep it all clean is an outrage, but for now, not the point. We laity have to keep our heads about ourselves. There will always be something about the delivery of truth that undermines it. Not because truth is a problem but because people are. The laity have demand a cleanup of the infiltrators because the good SSPX priests bringing the true Mass to people are worth maintaining.
-
Various related headlines at Canon212:http://canon212.com/ (http://canon212.com/)
-
Again, this interview with the whistleblowing victim is pretty revealing.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/exclusive-interview-jassy-jacas
My apologies to the SSPX priests trying under great duress to bring the sacraments to the people. Some of us laity won't tolerate subterfuge from bad priests who spoil your good names. God bless the SSPX and all those who try to maintain Catholic Tradition.
-
Fr Novak and Fr Cooper seem unjustly involved and for that Voris should take responsibility, reaching too far in his zeal to accuse.
He only has hearsay on them. As for the rest,
there is clearly a problem. This interview with the victim is earth shattering.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/exclusive-interview-jassy-jacas
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “earth shattering.”
It sounds like Jassy’s therapist connected her with another girl who may-or-may-not be credible (we aren’t a court of law and at this point much of this is hearsay) who, if HER allegations are correct, was definitely subject to some impure advances (of a sort) on the part of Fr. Duverger. Not criminal in a secular sense mind you, but, speaking as a Catholic, totally inappropriate for a priest, and certainly mortally sinful.
So, assuming the worst of the priest, that both victims are 100% correct, we have a case of a cleric having immoral and impure conversations with those he is providing spiritual direction to. She reaches out to several priests at one time or another, and nothing they say is terribly bad, wrong, or shocking. They all appear, according to her, to take the situation seriously and want to make things right. But some flip-flopping happens as to what’s been done and by whom. She threatens to “go public” and at that point, she is called by the prior in Florida, who endeavors (it sounds like, badly) to convince her that this isn’t the best solution. Which is probably true -in the sense that, making of this a big scandal is going to hurt the SSPX, drive away souls, and, as the priests certainly perceive, a horny priest who asks too many sɛҳuąƖ questions to adult women is a far lesser matter than a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pederast. (Jassy seems to miss this point and speaks of the two as equal).
The biggest revelation of the interview is that, surprise surprise, the SSPX is run more as a medieval religious order and not as a modern corporation, with policy manuals and an HR department. You tell a priest, he passes information on as he sees fit, and things may get overlooked or misconstrued. $10 says that an “investigation” really happened -calling a priest or two and saying “hey, has Fr. Duverger been sneaking out of the priory or using the Internet much in his own room with the door locked.” But if there’s no paper trail.... We also have to remember that these events are years old. The year is 2020, Jassy says her incidents took place in 2013. A man can make great strides in the spiritual life in a few years. So while it doesn’t make things “right” (and when a priest is sodomizing altar boys it’s far better to take a zero tolerance approach) this situation isn’t as clear-cut as some would paint it.
I don’t exonerate the SSPX of guilt entirely here, but I do think it’s a case of much ado about ...fairly little in the grand scheme of things.
-
This young lady comes across as very articulate, calm and credible.
The things she has to say about her interactions with the leadership of the SSPX, especially Fr. Wegner, are completely catastrophic for the SSPX.
"Are you scared to talk to me? Most people are scared to talk to me." How menacing.
Then he tells her she will not "get in trouble" for reporting the abuse of Fr. Duverger, who it is clear they all were already aware was a major problem.
Why would a 22 year old woman get in trouble for reporting abuse?
Fr. Wegner sounds truly evil.
They warned her that she would be "shutting down schools" by coming forward.
It's also interesting that she told Fr. Wegner, when he told her he did not have the power to remove Fr. Duverger, that "this isn't about me, this is about protecting others."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_HPSG7Aww (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_HPSG7Aww)
-
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “earth shattering.”
I don’t exonerate the SSPX of guilt entirely here, but I do think it’s a case of much ado about ...fairly little in the grand scheme of things.
Sure.
A priest asking a woman to write all the details of her childhood sɛҳuąƖ abuse into an email to him sounds entirely normal.
A priest teaching a woman how to masturbate via Facetime in order to "prepare her for marriage" sounds like "fairly little in the grand scheme of things."
Ok.
-
Christine Niles says Kyle did report the crime
In that case, there does not seem to be any legal issue. Kyle asked for Father's advice, Father told him to report the crime, Kyle took the advice and reported the crime.
Novak left the 19 year old Kyle alone and didn't care when nothing happened, and the felon could continue for years.
Whether legal issue or not, Novak is an enemy of the faithful and of truth and justice.
(Given that Kyle's testimony is true.)
-
Sure.
A priest asking a woman to write all the details of her childhood sɛҳuąƖ abuse into an email to him sounds entirely normal.
A priest teaching a woman how to masturbate via Facetime in order to "prepare her for marriage" sounds like "fairly little in the grand scheme of things."
Ok.
Sick
-
In that case, there does not seem to be any legal issue. Kyle asked for Father's advice, Father told him to report the crime, Kyle took the advice and reported the crime.
Novak left the 19 year old Kyle alone and didn't care when nothing happened, and the felon could continue for years.
Whether legal issue or not, Novak is an enemy of the faithful and of truth and justice.
(Given that Kyle's testimony is true.)
Hearsay
-
Sure.
A priest asking a woman to write all the details of her childhood sɛҳuąƖ abuse into an email to him sounds entirely normal.
A priest teaching a woman how to masturbate via Facetime in order to "prepare her for marriage" sounds like "fairly little in the grand scheme of things."
Ok.
You deliberately ignore the parts of my post where I clearly state that the priest’s conduct, if true, is scandalous and mortally sinful.
That said, I’m sorry, but if she’s over the state’s age of consent when these conversations take place, then as far as the law is concerned, it’s two consenting adults getting their jollies over the Internet, regardless of whether she is a nun, he is a priest, or the two of them are the lawfully married duke and duchess of Devonshire. And the law looks leniently on these things because regardless of the fact that they’re objectively wrong and mortally sinful, they’re also very common, because most human beings have sɛҳuąƖ desires. I work for a company with several dozen employees, and as a senior manager I can tell you stories for days about who has slept with whom. It doesn’t make it right, but people do stuff like this. Especially worldly people. And priests are human and not above temptation. So while we’d like to think that every priest is a paragon of virtue and always keeps his mind on God and his knickers belted up, that’s not always going to be the case.
So the question then becomes: as a superior you discover your junior has been engaging in this kind of conduct with parishioners. Not sodomy with prepubescent youths, mind you, but sins against the 6th and 9th with lady parishioners. A few reports have come to you. Your goal is going to be to keep it quiet, because if people know, your hands are tied. Your goal is also going to be to take steps to keep it from continuing, if you are sensible and responsible. Finally, your goal is presumably going to be some kind of punishment or corrective measures to bring the errant sheep in line. Public expulsion or public humiliation is seldom going to serve these goals. And a priest by the nature of his vocation usually works with people. So you can place him under restrictions but the nature of those might not be so obvious. It would perhaps be instructive to find out just how often Fr. D. has been in the confessional in Florida.
Where do you draw the line between “a mistake” and something that renders a man totally unfit to be a priest? Father Duverger (whom I don’t personally know) and Fr. Vernoy, and Fr. Wegner, need our prayers badly.
-
The main accusation against him is cowardice, to prefer obedience over truth and justice:
False. Did you even bother to watch the video? The kept using the expression that Father Ken Novak had "seduced" a number of women, visited them at "all hours of the night," etc. They were clearly using the term seduced with a double meaning, firstly to entice them to leave their husbands and move to St. Mary's but second with the strong implication that he was sɛҳuąƖly involved with them.
-
I don't believe that Voris/Niles are stupid. They surely are able to prove that they indeed were told what they say they were told.
Sometimes malice can get the better of one's judgement. They made insinuations against both Father Ken Novak and even Archbishop Lefebvre that were clearly unprovable and entailed speculation on motives.
Voris had better be careful in casting stones against "perverts" and alleged perverts, given that the fact that he too was a pervert and undoubtedly still has perverted inclinations. As Father Ken Novak was quoted as putting it in the video, "people like that don't change". Just watch Voris himself have a fall due to his hypocritical arrogance. We don't know the full extent of Voris' own past perversities, whether children were involved, etc.
This video was clearly malicious on the part of both Voris and Niles ... total journalistic garbage. Their contempt for the Catholic Traditional movement oozed throughout the presentation.
-
This young lady comes across as very articulate, calm and credible.
Calm and credible, yes, but articulate she is not.
-
Obviously the activity of Fr. Duverger, if true, is sinful, but apart from that the big issue is that he uses his position as confessor and spiritual director as leverage to persuade his victims to engage in the behavior. So a penitent could be sucked in to a point until she realizes what's going on and that a line has been crossed, through a certain gradualism. At first the reaction is confusion. "Well, that's extremely personal and involves some graphic descriptions, but perhaps it's necessary in order to understand what's going on with my spiritual life." It starts with stuff that's probably borderline or ambiguous and then slides over a line before the victim is aware of what's happened.
But that's not the real story here. People are prone to sin and to falling into sin, even priests. I'm sure that the devil tempts priests more than average lay people due to the harm he could cause through their fall.
Let's not lose the real story, the coverup and the reassignment of Fr. Duverger where he had contact with parishioners and children despite having become aware of prior similar allegations. Fr. Wegner and Vogel both admit that Fr. D has a history, and Vogel admitted it would seem "bizarre" that he's been stationed somewhere he could have close contact with the faithful (and even children) at a school. Vogel should be fired, and Fr. Wegner sent to a monastery and removed from any position of authority in the SSPX.
For as credible as this Jassy SEEMS to be, one could perhaps wonder whether she could have fabricated or exaggerated or distorted some things. Taken alone, it should be with a grain of salt ... although it should be investigated. But when there are multiple similar accusations, the amount of smoke should be understood as indicating the presence of fire.
-
False. Did you even bother to watch the video?
I read the transcript. And I quoted what I think is the main accusation, which (if true) is cowardice, to prefer obedience over truth and justice for multiple victims of pedophilia.
-
Sometimes malice can get the better of one's judgement.
True! Sure!
Naiveté can get the better of one's judgement, too. Never underestimate your enemies!
-
I read the transcript. And I quoted what I think is the main accusation, which (if true) is cowardice, to prefer obedience over truth and justice.
Well, I'm clearly referring to repeated accusation that he had "seduced" (their term) married women. It's not necessarily cowardice in any case. He clearly intended to advise the person to report it (contrary to advice he had received) but was conflicted in terms of how his contradiction of superiors meshed with the requirement of obedience. What was Father Novak to do, go to the police and say that some guy told him that this other guy had done something? That means nothing anyway. He was saying that the person closest to him SHOULD report it to the police. And in terms of the SSPX front, what was he supposed to do when his superior was against it? He had no authority to do anything about the guy.
It's easy to sit in some armchair and make these snap judgments, of "cowardice", and whatnot, just like this entire hit piece does without giving the full picture. Without other sides to the story, it's VERY easy to pick out one small piece of information and make implications out of context. It's no different that Prots deriving heretical theories from Scripture passages taken out of context. Of the picture of the blind me all describing an elephant as a completely different animal.
Several on this thread have fallen prey to the dishonesty and propaganda of this hit piece. It does not give a balanced, objective account but has an agenda and an ax to grind against Traditional Catholicism.
-
Voris had better be careful in casting stones against "perverts" and alleged perverts, given that the fact that he too was a pervert and undoubtedly still has perverted inclinations.
He's a fαɢɢօt and a follower of a false religion. But that doesn't mean he is not clever and successful in pursuing his mission.
-
Well, I'm clearly referring to repeated accusation that he had "seduced" (their term) married women.
You were quoting and commenting a post of mine!
-
True! Sure!
Naiveté can get the better of one's judgement, too. Never underestimate your enemies!
I just clearly sensed that their vitriol against the SSPX and Traditional Catholicism in general were over-the-top evident throughout most of the video, starting with their snide comments about Traditional Catholics thinking that they're better than everyone else.
-
It's easy to sit in some armchair and make these snap judgments, of "cowardice", and whatnot
I didn't make any judgement there. I just said what the main accusation is:
Kyle White: "Father Novak said that he was not supposed to be talking to me. He agreed that Peter Palmeri needed to be turned in because how pedophiles work, they don't stop, and he was told not to speak with me."
If that's true, then Novak covered several years of child abuse out of cowardice, out of fear of his superiors.
-
You were quoting and commenting a post of mine!
Right, I was responding to your assertion that the major accusation against Fr. Novak was cowardice. That is not correct. There were allegations that he deliberately broke up families with the insinuation that it was to seduce the wives. Again, there's zero context here. Was the husband abusing his wife and children, committing serial adultery, etc. ... without ANY context for WHY in a given situation Fr. might have LEGITIMATELY advised a wife to separate (and legally divorce) from her husband, instead implying that it was so he could get under the sheets with the wife. This video was utter garbage.
I do not dispute that some of the information appeared credible and legitimate and needs to be looked into, but a lot of it was pure trash, right down to the implication that +Lefebvre too participated in the protection of pederasts. Unfortunately, this clear bias makes me think that most of it needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt, that we have to sift through fact and fiction ... and this actually undermines any good the revelations might do.
-
I didn't make any judgement there. I just said what the main accusation is:
And I was disagreeing with your assertion that it was the main allegation. It clearly was not.
-
Right, I was responding to your assertion that the major accusation against Fr. Novak was cowardice. That is not correct.
I (still) think the major accusation is covering ongoing pedophilia for several years, committed by a pedophile who then was convicted for his crimes. Covering it out of cowardice.
-
Hey guys, I just talked to two women who live in Saint Marys, today.
They were living here when Michael Gonzalez was shot by gang members,
who belonged to the gang that he was in. They were doing drugs.
They showed up at Michael's house and he got in a car with them and
they drove to Topeka and shot him.
.
His wife had left him. His sister was about waist high (perhaps 9 years old)
at that time.
.
Last but not least, Fr. Ramon Angles was NOT even here at that time, but
became the rector here later.
.
Ya-all want the truth and revenge and justice. Maybe you should get the
facts first. If what I heard today is true, then maybe you should consider
suing Michael Voris for libel and several other things.
.
Better be careful, who you make assumptions about. Things can look
credible when you only have one side of the story. And considering the
known LIAR that Michael Voris is, don't bet much money on his story.
-
Hey guys, I just talked to two women who live in Saint Marys, today.
They were living here when Michael Gonzalez was shot by gang members,
who belonged to the gang that he was in. They were doing drugs.
They showed up at Michael's house and he got in a car with them and
they drove to Topeka and shot him.
How do these two women know that said gang members shot Gonzalez in Topeka?
Send the testimony to Menzingen! https://fsspx.org/en/get-contact-us-7252
-
Interestingly enough, according to Google, Peter Palmeri achieved a plea bargain of two counts of “aggravated indecent liberties with a child,” whatever that may be. Most charges appear to have been dropped shortly after his arrest due to the statute of limitations having expired. He was supposed to be sentenced 4th February of this year, but I can’t find any article reporting on if this happened, or the extent of his punishment. So we may never know from court just what he did, or if he was guilty.
My sister asked a couple of her friends, ladies in the Sanford, FL parish what they thought of Fr. Duverger and all this. Both mothers of kids. Both essentially said “If Fr. Vernoy trusts him to run the school, that’s good enough for me.” One of them who has family in St. Mary’s, volunteered that Jassy Jacas was, in her words, “a troublemaker.” So, without wanting to blame the victim, it’s just possible that there are ulterior motives or an axe to grind. Something we should bear in mind.
-
How do these two women know that said gang members shot Gonzalez in Topeka?
Send the testimony to Menzingen! https://fsspx.org/en/get-contact-us-7252
.
Maybe I can get the police report. Do you want to see the police report?
Do you want to hold Michael Voris accountable if he is lying ?
Do you need for me to tell you his other lies ?
.
Where do you go to Mass ?
.
-
The county coroner’s report will be decisive:
Did he rule the death of Gonzalez murder or ѕυιcιdє?
-
OK, I just watched the full Jasy video and have come to the conclusion that her allegations are garbage. And the greatest, most salacious detail that cannot really be explained in a way that does not entail some kind of impure motivation is the one from the OTHER accuser that she repeats second hand, whose own family doubts her credibility because they consider her unhinged. I see no evidence of actual assault, and in the case of Jasy, no evidence that he was "grooming" her for anything. In fact, quite the contrary. I could write up a 45-minute discourse shredding her account. She keeps making insinuations that Fr. D would be a threat to children without any evidence, keeps referring to what happened to her as some kind of sɛҳuąƖ assault when there's nothing to back that up. I'm sorry, but this woman is full of it. Perhaps she was abused when younger and tends to see abuse everywhere. Unless there's some other testimony to back this up, by itself this doesn't stand. If I have time, I'll go through it a minute at a time to rip holes in it. My apologize to Father D that I treated this thing as credible. And the kicker that gives it away was her claim at the end that had Father Wegner said an investigation was done and nothing was found, she would have accepted that. This indicates that she herself doesn't believe that there were unambiguous sɛҳuąƖ intentions behind what Father D had said and done or that Fr. D was a threat to anyone.
-
Hey guys, I just talked to two women who live in Saint Marys, today.
They were living here when Michael Gonzalez was shot by gang members,
who belonged to the gang that he was in. They were doing drugs.
They showed up at Michael's house and he got in a car with them and
they drove to Topeka and shot him.
.
His wife had left him. His sister was about waist high (perhaps 9 years old)
at that time.
.
Last but not least, Fr. Ramon Angles was NOT even here at that time, but
became the rector here later.
.
Ya-all want the truth and revenge and justice. Maybe you should get the
facts first. If what I heard today is true, then maybe you should consider
suing Michael Voris for libel and several other things.
.
Better be careful, who you make assumptions about. Things can look
credible when you only have one side of the story. And considering the
known LIAR that Michael Voris is, don't bet much money on his story.
I don’t know anything about Michael Gonzalez. I do agree with your post; Michael Voris is a liar with a huge ego, and will twist anything to suit his agenda.
That said, according to the article (which I don’t trust but it’s the only source we have) Gonzalez was shot in 2000. Fr. Angles was rector from 1989 (I think) to 2003. So he was probably rector at the time IF the author didn’t just make up a date for the shooting.
-
Interestingly enough, according to Google, Peter Palmeri achieved a plea bargain of two counts of “aggravated indecent liberties with a child,” whatever that may be. Most charges appear to have been dropped shortly after his arrest due to the statute of limitations having expired. He was supposed to be sentenced 4th February of this year, but I can’t find any article reporting on if this happened, or the extent of his punishment. So we may never know from court just what he did, or if he was guilty.
My sister asked a couple of her friends, ladies in the Sanford, FL parish what they thought of Fr. Duverger and all this. Both mothers of kids. Both essentially said “If Fr. Vernoy trusts him to run the school, that’s good enough for me.” One of them who has family in St. Mary’s, volunteered that Jassy Jacas was, in her words, “a troublemaker.” So, without wanting to blame the victim, it’s just possible that there are ulterior motives or an axe to grind. Something we should bear in mind.
It would appear that posters here on CI are doing more real investigative reporting that the garbage Voris hit piece ever bothered to do.
-
.
Maybe I can get the police report. Do you want to see the police report?
Do you want to hold Michael Voris accountable if he is lying ?
Do you need for me to tell you his other lies ?
.
Where do you go to Mass ?
.
You react like a child!
If you have a testimony in favour of the SSPX and against Voris, send it to Menzingen. Is this advice hard to grasp? Does this advice show what my intentions are?
-
Hey guys, I just talked to two women who live in Saint Marys, today.
They were living here when Michael Gonzalez was shot by gang members,
who belonged to the gang that he was in. They were doing drugs.
They showed up at Michael's house and he got in a car with them and
they drove to Topeka and shot him.
.
His wife had left him. His sister was about waist high (perhaps 9 years old)
at that time.
.
Last but not least, Fr. Ramon Angles was NOT even here at that time, but
became the rector here later.
.
Ya-all want the truth and revenge and justice. Maybe you should get the
facts first. If what I heard today is true, then maybe you should consider
suing Michael Voris for libel and several other things.
.
Better be careful, who you make assumptions about. Things can look
credible when you only have one side of the story. And considering the
known LIAR that Michael Voris is, don't bet much money on his story.
Thanks for showing everyone you didn't watch the video.
Michael Gonzalez's sister, Theresa, describes how he killed himself while on the phone with her in front of his roommates. He also left a ѕυιcιdє note.
The facts laid out against Fr. Angles in the video include: a priest (Fr. Rizzo), a parent of a student who received a love letter from Angles, a teacher at the school who was fired for reporting Angles to the police, students who were invited to Angles' office to watch weird Hitler movies, and a dead body (Gonzalez).
You pollute this thread with your complete fabrications and you besmirch a victim of child sex abuse who is DEAD. That's vile and shameful.
You are dismissed from this discussion.
-
Wondering, Sam Smith, since you are so new here, if you are (in any way at all) affiliated with Church Militant? I don't think you answered when I asked earlier. Thanks.
-
Wondering, Sam Smith, since you are so new here, if you (are in any way at all) affiliated with Church Militant? I don't think you answered when I asked earlier. Thanks.
I missed your question. No, I don't have any affiliation with CM and I don't even follow their work closely, but this one is a bombshell that went instantly viral. I'm not a fan of Voris for the usual reasons, but I think it is good that CM reports on predators in all groups in the Church. Actually, it is a shame that CM didn't do this report in 2017 when the Swedish film came out. That film was a much more timid version of this report, but this report has many more predators identified.
-
You react like a child!
If you have a testimony in favour of the SSPX and against Voris, send it to Menzingen. Is this advice hard to grasp? Does this advice show what my intentions are?
I'm sorry I cannot respond. I have been dismissed from this discussion
by Sam Smith or Samantha Smith. Could be either one until he/she
decides to let us know which gender is on the birth certificate.
-
I'm sorry I cannot respond. I have been dismissed from this discussion
by Sam Smith or Samantha Smith. Could be either one until he/she
decides to let us know which gender is on the birth certificate.
Did you send the testimony of the two women to Menzingen? Or did you make it up, thinking that your purpose justifies your means?
-
Steven Mosher at OnePeterFive gave a very good commentary on CM yesterday.
He acknowledges CM's overt bias against SSPX, and their non-criticism policy of the Pope many years ago, prior to changing their tune later.
He says that they damage their own credibility by their bias, and says it's a shame because they uncover things that need to be addressed and it is very important work.
Start at around 25:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1747&v=1rZS443ntuA&feature=emb_logo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1747&v=1rZS443ntuA&feature=emb_logo)
-
Did you send the testimony of the two women to Menzingen? Or did you make it up, thinking that your purpose justifies your means?
I did not make it up. I'm just the messenger who heard
testimony from two women. Not court testimony, though.
.
I have been looking for a police report or death report, but
have not been able to find any yet.
.
I don't want to send anything to Menzingen, until I get some
more information, hopefully, something more official.
.
So until then, my report seems to be hearsay.
-
Steven Mosher at OnePeterFive gave a very good commentary on CM yesterday.
He acknowledges CM's overt bias against SSPX, and their non-criticism policy of the Pope many years ago, prior to changing their tune later.
He says that they damage their own credibility by their bias, and says it's a shame because they uncover things that need to be addressed and it is very important work.
Start at around 25:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1747&v=1rZS443ntuA&feature=emb_logo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1747&v=1rZS443ntuA&feature=emb_logo)
You mean Steve Skojec, not Steven Mosher.
Both talk later in the video about "Why China's Dream is the New Threat to World Order" as if they both couldn't see that nowadays virtually all governors in the western world have slit eyes, which doubtlessly are not caused by recent chinese viruses.
-
Jassy Jacas says that Duverger abused the confessional.
If true, and he doesn't repent, I'd guess that his punishment will be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Who will be going to confess at an SSPX chapel, after learning that the SSPX does nothing to protect the sacrament?
Thinking men will still go to confession at the SSPX chapels because they are not irrational hysterics like the demon which possessed you momentarily write the above.
-
Obviously the activity of Fr. Duverger, if true, is sinful, but apart from that the big issue is that he uses his position as confessor and spiritual director as leverage to persuade his victims to engage in the behavior. So a penitent could be sucked in to a point until she realizes what's going on and that a line has been crossed, through a certain gradualism. At first the reaction is confusion. "Well, that's extremely personal and involves some graphic descriptions, but perhaps it's necessary in order to understand what's going on with my spiritual life." It starts with stuff that's probably borderline or ambiguous and then slides over a line before the victim is aware of what's happened.
But that's not the real story here. People are prone to sin and to falling into sin, even priests. I'm sure that the devil tempts priests more than average lay people due to the harm he could cause through their fall.
Let's not lose the real story, the coverup and the reassignment of Fr. Duverger where he had contact with parishioners and children despite having become aware of prior similar allegations. Fr. Wegner and Vogel both admit that Fr. D has a history, and Vogel admitted it would seem "bizarre" that he's been stationed somewhere he could have close contact with the faithful (and even children) at a school. Vogel should be fired, and Fr. Wegner sent to a monastery and removed from any position of authority in the SSPX.
For as credible as this Jassy SEEMS to be, one could perhaps wonder whether she could have fabricated or exaggerated or distorted some things. Taken alone, it should be with a grain of salt ... although it should be investigated. But when there are multiple similar accusations, the amount of smoke should be understood as indicating the presence of fire.
And Father Pagliarani should step down as Superior General.
He failed the test of leadership.
Surely a contrarian view, but the priest who showed wisdom and holiness was Father de La Tour.
-
Surely a contrarian view, but the priest who showed wisdom and holiness was Father de La Tour.
Nonsense.
How can you say that when Fr. De La Tour participated in the coverup, not only in Jacas's case, but in the second one as well?
-
And Father Pagliarani should step down as Superior General.
He failed the test of leadership.
I agree with your statement above.
-
Nonsense.
How can you say that when Fr. De La Tour participated in the coverup, not only in Jacas's case, but in the second one as well?
I will try to elaborate later on the methods employed by Voris in developing the girl’s story into porno-erotica.
She surely suffered spiritual scandal, but not much happened beyond that. She encountered a dirty old man, who was a priest in the most arrogant racial subset of the SSPX.
She wanted to make things right, and Voris’s fillipino news babe showed her the way.
I think Father de La Tour gave practical advice for her soul. Give it up, offer it up... it happened over 6 years ago.
Now, in the eyes of Voris’s master, Opus Judei, she’s a media martyr.
The whole world can ponder her sɛҳuąƖity and mental strife.
-
I think Father de La Tour gave practical advice for her soul. Give it up, offer it up... it happened over 6 years ago.
Now, in the eyes of Voris’s master, Opus Judei, she’s a media martyr.
Victim shaming is not a good look for you, that's vile.
She came across as articulate and calm, not a martyr. And she's apparently not the only one.
Fr. de la Tour better pray he doesn't end up on KBI's indictments list. Voris said in an interview last night that indictments are forthcoming.
-
Thinking men will still go to confession at the SSPX chapels because they are not irrational hysterics like the demon which possessed you momentarily write the above.
I wouldn't call anyone a "thinking man", who is sending his daughter to confession to a priest of a trad group which covers up abuse of the confessional. Right now they have admitted coverup by stating that they now pretend to move "Toward transparency".
Why don't you comment on abuse of the confessional and stay with your bikini clad girl chasing comparison?
-
There are 5 possible explanations (or a blend of them) for moving accused predators around ...
1) the movers are themselves predators and are protecting their own (the worst possible scenario)
2) the movers are more interested in PR than in protecting people from predators (also very bad)
3) poor communication and incompetence (sin by omission)
4) perceived "charity" toward the predator
5) you don't find the allegations credible (and this can be subtly influenced perhaps by #2 above).
CM and Voris strongly suggest at least #2, with a few hints of #1.
In the Sloniker case, the SSPX plead #3 and assert that they have made changes to fix this.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-issues-second-statement-on-abuse-coverup/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-issues-second-statement-on-abuse-coverup/)
In the Father Angele case, Father Angele categorically denies the charges (and it's his word against that of Kyle White).
In the Father Desautard case, they claim that they did notify the civil authorities, who decided not to press charges, and the main victim/accuser had no interest in pressing charges.
Even from a PR perspective, I find it hard to believe that the SSPX would not be aware that shuffling accused predators would result in a much greater PR blowback than if they were outed.
I'm sure that as more digging goes on, the CM/Voris hit piece will start coming apart bit by bit.
-
Victim shaming is not a good look for you, that's vile.
She came across as articulate and calm, not a martyr. And she's apparently not the only one.
Fr. de la Tour better pray he doesn't end up on KBI's indictments list. Voris said in an interview last night that indictments are forthcoming.
Not at all articulate, and her story was full of holes. When I have time, I'll take it apart. Really the most disturbing claim comes to her second-hand from a different accuser, whose credibility was evidently brought into question by her own family.
-
There are 5 possible explanations (or a blend of them) for moving accused predators around ...
I'm sure that as more digging goes on, the CM/Voris hit piece will start coming apart bit by bit.
All five explanations apply to different people at different levels of this story.
The CM story is not coming apart at all, and in fact, it is going to get much worse. They said there is more coming on Monday.
And if you read the second statement issued by the SSPX in the dark of night last night, you can plainly see they are running scared.
Ladislaus - it's strange that you freely criticize the SSPX when it comes to the deal with Rome, but then you defend them on covering up predator priests. What gives?
-
Not at all articulate, and her story was full of holes. When I have time, I'll take it apart. Really the most disturbing claim comes to her second-hand from a different accuser, whose credibility was evidently brought into question by her own family.
You might want to take the time to read the comment sections.
She has broad support and is basically being hailed as a hero.
-
Voris and Niles were interviewed last night on Tim Gordon show,
Says indictments are forthcoming by the KBI.
Voris also warns James Vogel he is to be thrown under the bus by the SSPX leadership when they close ranks and that he better start looking for a new job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXWsT1uRlHw&lc= (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXWsT1uRlHw&lc=)
-
From the allegations reported first hand by Jassy ...
It starts off in the Confessional. She starts talking about her past abuse, but Father Duverger cuts her off and tells her to seek him out for spiritual direction. It is common for priests to deflect things that are not direct matter for the confessional to a different forum (i.e. to spiritual direction). Priests don't have time to do counseling sessions involving a person's entire life story in the Confessional unless it involves sins that she committed.
Father Duverger asks a lot of detail, including graphic detail, about the abuse. We don't know his motivation. According to Jassy, he repeatedly stated that he "know how to help" her. Perhaps he fancied himself as being a talented psychologist who could help her through it. At WORST here, you have some inordinate, perhaps impure, curiosity about details that were not relevant to getting her the help she required. Yet he may also have had some reasonable explanation for why he felt it may have been relevant from the perspective of his proposed counseling or the psychological help he felt confident he could provide.
Where is the sɛҳuąƖ assault? Where is, even, the grooming? Jassy reports that sometimes a month or two passed between their "sessions", that one one occasion he hadn't even bothered to read the e-mails she had sent him for quite some time. One would think he'd be more persistent if he had targeted her for grooming. WHAT did Fr. Duverger do that could be construed as grooming or, much less, assualt? When Jassy discussed this with some priests, they referred to it as an "imprudence", and she claimed that it was code-word for sɛҳuąƖ assault. But what was this besides "imprudence"? Where was the actual assault, Jassy? Did he touch you at any time? Did he make comments suggestive of coming on to your or even grooming you for later contact? There was NOTHING in what she suggests to indicate this. The single most salacious detail wasn't about her own case, but was reported to her second-hand by the other accuser, whose own family called her credibility into question. So Jassy goes on a crusade. She asserts that Fr. Duverger would be a threat to children. And the SSPX priest rightly responds, based on what? Typically men who are into women (Jassy was 22 when this first started) tend not to be interested in children. Jassy repeatedly asserts that he was a threat to children based on absolutely NOTHING. She claims that abuse victims have it in common with children that they are vulnerable. That's all you have, Jassy, to smear Fr. Duverger as a threat to children?
Then toward the end of the interview, she claims that she would have been satisfied had the SSPX conducted an investigation and concluded that there was no threat from Father Duverger. Really? You're that convinced that you were victimized, groomed, assaulted, and whatnot ... and you would just accept that conclusion?
Jassy's allegations amount to nothing by themselves. It's possible also that, having been a victim prior, she had a tendency to construe things as threatening in that way when they were intended differently. I see no evidence of any wrongdoing by Fr. Duverger, except perhaps, worst case, an excessive, POSSIBLY impure, curiosity regarding the details of her past abuse.
-
You might want to take the time to read the comment sections.
She has broad support and is basically being hailed as a hero.
And the support is irrational, emotional, and idiotic. She gave absolutely ZERO evidence of assault, inappropriate touching, advances, or grooming of any kind. I'm sure she's not being malicious, because she could have spiced it up (i.e. made up some other details), but there was NOTHING in what she ACTUALLY SAID that could be construed as grounds for any criminal accusation against Fr. Duverger.
-
I wouldn't call anyone a "thinking man", who is sending his daughter to confession to a priest of a trad group which covers up abuse of the confessional. Right now they have admitted coverup by stating that they now pretend to move "Toward transparency".
Why don't you comment on abuse of the confessional and stay with your bikini clad girl chasing comparison?
Because first there is no abuse of the confessional. You are acting like an irrational hysteric, now even saying that you would not send your daughter to any SSPX priest for confession. I have a ton of daughters and I would have no problem sending them to confession with an SSPX priest. Like I said before, if my daughters ever got shady advice from anyone, they would come to me to talk about it. Everyone in my family and everyone in the world around me is constantly giving bad example and bad advice to my children, if it was not that my wife and I are on top of things, all of my children would have lost the faith by now and become like all of my relatives. If you do not want to go to confession with SSPX priests be my guest, it just makes the confession line shorter for the rest of us.
-
Sam is backing Voris, but the homo-boy has no Catholic credibility.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U9kavm9P8mA/WFthX9JoQUI/AAAAAAAAKrw/Q49-Y28RaWgb5Ap01RuaiZJNW1LMVOEEQCLcB/s1600/test.gif)
Doing a jig in his papal slippers
-
Perhaps Sam IS Voris ... or someone with ties to him or to CM?
-
Sam is backing Voris, but the homo-boy has no Catholic credibility.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U9kavm9P8mA/WFthX9JoQUI/AAAAAAAAKrw/Q49-Y28RaWgb5Ap01RuaiZJNW1LMVOEEQCLcB/s1600/test.gif)
Doing a jig in his papal slippers
Mocking me and mocking Voris for reporting on the abuse coverup is essentially mocking the victims of the predator priests. A lame "shoot-the-messenger" because you don't like the message kind of reaction.
Well done.
If you agree with the SSPX's handling of the abuse within their ranks, you haven't an ounce of credibility.
-
Perhaps Sam IS Voris ... or someone with ties to him or to CM?
And just like that...
Ladislaus and Incredulous went from being Resistance supporters back to being SSPX supporters!
-
My sister asked a couple of her friends, ladies in the Sanford, FL parish what they thought of Fr. Duverger and all this. Both mothers of kids. Both essentially said “If Fr. Vernoy trusts him to run the school, that’s good enough for me.” One of them who has family in St. Mary’s, volunteered that Jassy Jacas was, in her words, “a troublemaker.” So, without wanting to blame the victim, it’s just possible that there are ulterior motives or an axe to grind. Something we should bear in mind.
To add to the above, I have a best friend who goes to the Sanford Chapel, he told me:
That they were told that Fr. Duverger was sent to Florida to take it easy after his open heart surgery, that he was transferred to Florida for health reasons. While he was there, Fr. Vernoy assigned him to be the Principle of the "school" because he is an excellent organizer. I say "school" because it only has 30 students K-8. The school has been in place for like 8 years and has always been under 30 students. Up to the time that Fr. Duverger took charge, the school seemed to be treated as an unavoidable bother. Since he took over, the school and the children are the priority of the entire Sanford Priory. He is now almost finished building a public park class playset for the children, where before all they hadwas a used tetherball pole in a cemented tire. Prior to his arrival they had chickens cramped into a filthy Siberia class "coop", and the first thing he did upon his arrival was to build a mansion coop, ridiculously overbuilt. The man is a dynamo, and considering he is doing this while he is recovering from open heart surgery, makes it even more amazing.
Anyone that leaves the chapel in Sanford because of this Jassy Voris garbage, was just a fair weather "friend". Good riddance!
-
Mocking me and mocking Voris for reporting on the abuse coverup is essentially mocking the victims of the predator priests. A lame "shoot-the-messenger" because you don't like the message kind of reaction.
Well done.
If you agree with the SSPX's handling of the abuse within their ranks, you haven't an ounce of credibility.
Sam,
If you read through this topic, you'd see where I never supported the SSPX's management of their various sex scandals.
But Voris is a big time judaizer. He get's paid for his promotions of the h0Ɩ0h0αx, Opus Judei and the Noahide laws.
This pseudo-Catholic messenger is totally artificial.
Yet, you ignore what he represents and run to the front of the riot to lynch the SSPX ?
Can Mikey and the Church Militant give you the Sacraments?
-
Jassy is clearly overreacting. “Oh my gosh! Think of the children!” Classic argument of SJW types who are intimidated by something. What is Father supposed to do to humor her? Ship Fr. Duverger off to Africa? Oh wait, that’s just moving the problem. Ship him to a religious prison? Probably. And that’s exactly what Fr. Wegner and James Vogel were discussing in their emails. You want to apologize for any offense, make the girl happy, and you certainly don’t want her to raise a media storm (as is happening now) but when what she asks is basically impossible or, in your mind, unjust, what to do?
If Jassy said “he asked me to take off my clothes” or “he asked me to send him photos” or “he asked me to meet him in his apartment” it would be one thing. But as it is, there’s absolutely nothing here that’s clearly wrong, let alone criminal.
-
And just like that...
Ladislaus and Incredulous went from being Resistance supporters back to being SSPX supporters!
Consider the possibility that they are truth supporters. They attack the SSPX for things it actually does wrong, but do not just blindly attack it in a situation where accusations are coming from a non-credible source. They want to weigh the evidence in a just manner.
It is rather insulting to the Resistance to act as if it would attack the SSPX even when unwarranted.
-
Can Mikey and the Church Militant give you the Sacraments?
No, but the Resistance can.
Sadly, even the Resistance is exposed in the reporting for their own predator/coverup misdeeds.
The (only) thing the SSPX got right in their second statement is this:
The scourge of sɛҳuąƖ abuse must be driven from the Catholic Church, including the SSPX’s apostolate.
-
It is rather insulting to the Resistance to act as if it would attack the SSPX even when unwarranted.
So you feel the reporting on the SSPX is unwarranted? You feel it is unfair? You feel the SSPX has engaged in no coverup? No failure to report? No movement of priests to conceal?
Interesting.
-
So you feel the reporting on the SSPX is unwarranted? You feel it is unfair? You feel the SSPX has engaged in no coverup? No failure to report? No movement of priests to conceal?
Interesting.
I think that taking anything coming from Michael Voris at face value is unwarranted. Figuring out what is actually true in Church Militant's obvious hit piece will take some thought and research.
-
I think that taking anything coming from Michael Voris at face value is unwarranted. Figuring out what is actually true in Church Militant's obvious hit piece will take some thought and research.
THIS^^^. There's some accurate information in there, but it's buried in a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations clearly motivated by a disdain for Traditional Catholicism which they cannot help but scatter throughout the obvious hit-piece.
-
I think that taking anything coming from Michael Voris at face value is unwarranted. Figuring out what is actually true in Church Militant's obvious hit piece will take some thought and research.
Well, you go do that, I expect your full report later.
As Voris said in his interview last night, "Handcuffs and courtrooms have a tendency to wake people up. I hope you see the light!"
From 1:09:35:
https://youtu.be/MXWsT1uRlHw?t=4175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXWsT1uRlHw&lc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXWsT1uRlHw&lc)
-
I think that taking anything coming from Michael Voris at face value is unwarranted. Figuring out what is actually true in Church Militant's obvious hit piece will take some thought and research.
Everybody already knows Voris's bias. He plainly states the SSPX is in schism. His personal opinion on the canonical status of the SSPX does not change his reporting of the facts.
Even Michael Matt plainly states he doesn't support the SSPX because he views the 1988 consecrations as illicit.
Did that make you stop reading The Remnant?
-
And just like that...
Ladislaus and Incredulous went from being Resistance supporters back to being SSPX supporters!
I'm not really aligned with any group. I tend to lean sedeprivationist (with my own nuanced position), and my analysis of the Voris/CM piece are made in the interests of truth and justice. There have been ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infiltrators in just about every group, from Novus Ordo to R&R to SV; it's a scourge afflicting the entire planet. And the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (and other abusers) need to be flushed out. But some innocent priests have also gone down under the weight of false accusations (take Cardinal Pell, for instance). My first reaction was very negative against Fr. Duverger and Fr. Wegner, but after I had the time to analyze the actual allegations, it just all fell apart, and the nature of this hit-piece became evident. I still think that Father Wegner botched and mishandled the situation, and should certainly have conducted a formal investigation. And, even in the case of Fr. Duverger, if others come forward with more substantial evidence than what Jassy had to offer, I'm all ears.
-
THIS^^^. There's some accurate information in there, but it's buried in a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations clearly motivated by a disdain for Traditional Catholicism which they cannot help but scatter throughout the obvious hit-piece.
Well, that sounds a little like, "I don't believe Voris because he's a meanie!"
Get over it. He's the only one who took on this fight. Where were you in 2017?
-
Everybody already knows Voris's bias. He plainly states the SSPX is in schism. His personal opinion on the canonical status of the SSPX does not change his reporting of the facts.
Unfortunately, too much of his video wasn't facts, but, rather, layers of crap into which he sprinkled facts ... in service of his bias (a bias which you here admit).
And it's not at all unlikely that Voris too engaged in various activities that would have put him in handcuffs. This guy has little humility given his own sordid past. Bishop Sheen used to say on visits to prisons that "the only difference between you and me is that you got caught." It's quite possible that the only difference between Voris and those he's attacking is that they got caught and exposed. It's one thing to expose facts, which should certainly be done, but quite another to present them with such a haughty and cocky attitude. If I had committed adultery, for instance, and then later caught someone doing the same, I could rebuke him in charity, but it would be the height of hypocrisy to look down my nose at him and call him a scuм for what he did. I'd be in no position to do so, and Voris is in no position to cop his attitude either. Unfortunately, he did a great disservice to the objective of rooting out abusers by doing what he did.
-
Well, that sounds a little like, "I don't believe Voris because he's a meanie!"
Ridiculous. You're being utterly dishonest, just like Voris was. I don't believe MUCH of what Voris says because it consists of little more than unsubstantiated allegations and false insinuations. I believe some of what was in the piece, but much of it was crap. I evaluate each allegation on its own merits, or lack thereof. Voris did a great disservice by blending truth with crap.
And, you may have notiiced, I stated that I believe Jassy. I don't think she made up what she described. But it's obvious that she put layers of interpretation on top of what she experienced. Had she stated, "Fr. Duverger fondled me." ... well, then I would have been inclined to believe her. But what did she actually report? ... a big nothingburger.
-
This part of the second statement from the SSPX bothers me. It's just more confirmation that they have a modern corporate mind:
At this time the Society was advised by their then legal counsel that they did not have a duty to report the allegations regarding Mr. Sloniker.
They should at least have told their own priests to keep him away from children
-
Well, that sounds a little like, "I don't believe Voris because he's a meanie!"
Get over it. He's the only one who took on this fight. Where were you in 2017?
You would have a point, except... It remains to be seen if there is an actual fight. Or if it’s all just pot-stirring for the sake of pot-stirring.
So far, nobody anywhere has produced incontrovertible proof that, in 2019/2020 (or even earlier), SSPX leadership knew of priests who were committing crimes, and deliberately moved them around to avoid secular justice, or knowingly allowed them to continue.
Even in cases where it *seems* clear-cut, there are usually multiple sides to a story. I know folks in France who would swear on a gospel that Fr. Peignot is innocent of the accusations against him. I know folks in America who would say that virtually every word of Voris’ article as it pertains to Fr. Angles, is simply made-up, bald-faced lies by men of bad character.
It’s a serious thing to accuse a man of a grave sin, still moreso to suggest that he is committing one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, or deliberately corrupting youths. These are some of the worst actions a person can commit. And Voris doing the accusing, is so hypocritical that it almost beggars belief.
Nobody here is eager to give the SSPX a free pass, but so far, the whole thing reflects far more badly on CM, Voris, and his gang, than on the Society. While that could change if CM really does have more information about more priests, for now it looks a lot more like slander and detraction than it does a real exposè.
-
You would have a point, except... It remains to be seen if there is an actual fight. Or if it’s all just pot-stirring for the sake of pot-stirring.
So far, nobody anywhere has produced incontrovertible proof that, in 2019/2020 (or even earlier), SSPX leadership knew of priests who were committing crimes, and deliberately moved them around to avoid secular justice, or knowingly allowed them to continue.
I don't think the police or the KBI are in the habit of conducting investigations "for the sake of pot-stirring."
You can read the emails from the SSPX that show incontrovertible proof that SSPX leadership knew of priests committing crimes. The dates on the emails are 2019-2020.
-
You can read the emails from the SSPX that show incontrovertible proof that SSPX leadership knew of priests committing crimes. The dates on the emails are 2019-2020.
Yes, it is in fact possible that 10% of Voris' claims are rooted in fact. NOBODY here has said that none of it happens to be true. That does not make it so that the rest of it, the remaining 90%, isn't crap.
-
This part of the second statement from the SSPX bothers me. It's just more confirmation that they have a modern corporate mind:
At this time the Society was advised by their then legal counsel that they did not have a duty to report the allegations regarding Mr. Sloniker.
They should at least have told their own priests to keep him away from children
It definitely seems like there was a serious lack of communication. But... I doubt you or I would have been able to do much better, frankly. The SSPX operations in the USA are huge. 100+ chapels, schools, a big seminary, a college, retreat houses, priories, a publishing house... I’m probably omitting some. Every one of these facilities has a whole cadre of lay employees and associates, paid and unpaid, who help keep the whole thing going. And they’re usually desperate for help. Usually when somebody volunteers to help, people say “Sure!” “Oh, you’re a former seminarian, your family is from around x chapel? You seem normal? Great!” They probably didn’t ask themselves “What if he got kicked out of the seminary for being a mentally unstable nut job who tried to mutilate himself, with tendencies to sodomy and pederasty?” After all, the seminary rector is busy. And maybe now lives in another country. Is it really worth checking that reference? He does know how to serve a low mass and benediction really well....
I wonder if the SSPX now has a “blacklist.”
-
Voris opens the piece by recounting the tragic and heart-breaking story of Michael Gonzalez.
Yet, what on earth does this have to do with his central thesis that the SSPX is "sympathetic to perverts"? Answer: Nothing. There's no allegation, much less evidence, that anyone else in the SSPX knew anything about what Fr. Angles had done.
Voris uses this tragic story to emotionally manipulate the audience to be more receptive to what follows. He's using the same tried-and-true propaganda technique employed most famously by the Jews: "If you are against the Israeli butchering of Palestinians, that must mean you condone the h0Ɩ0cαųst." Here, if you don't believe everything Voris says thereafter, it must be because you condone what happened to Michael Gonzalez. You are a monster if you don't believe everything Voris claims. This shows a total lack of integrity right out of the gate.
Voris/Niles spend about 40 paragraphs on the Michael Gonzalez story.
Towards the end, however, they do raise the specter of cover-up, but the cover-up is also being done by Angles.
So they transition the tragic Gonzalez story into the mention of "cover-up". This is how they tie it semantically to the Gonzalez story. But it was none other than Angles who did the covering up. Still zero evidence of any systematic coverup by the SSPX for perverts or any "sympathy" for perverts.
Oh, and speaking of the Jews (from earlier), they then spend about 9 long paragraphs talking about how Angles liked the nαzιs. Whatever one might say about that, it has nothing to do with sɛҳuąƖ assault.
Over 50 paragraphs in, still just the one guy, a single bad apple. No complicity from anyone else in the SSPX.
I shall continue as I have time.
-
I don't think the police or the KBI are in the habit of conducting investigations "for the sake of pot-stirring."
You can read the emails from the SSPX that show incontrovertible proof that SSPX leadership knew of priests committing crimes. The dates on the emails are 2019-2020.
Neither CM not the SSPX have released the full text of those emails. Nor do I expect them to. Until they’re available in their entirety we really can’t say what the SSPX knows or doesn’t know. You can selectively quote a docuмent (as Voris & Co. clearly did) to make it seem to say whatever you want. Anyone who has graduated from high school probably has enough life experience to realize this, but it is nevertheless an effective tactic for making someone look bad, to the casual observer.
If they quoted the most incriminating portions, as they surely did to prove their point, it tends to largely exonerate the SSPX, because frankly there’s not much there. The SSPX leaders are, of course, strategizing how to respond to Jassy’s media disclosure and the loaded questions from CM, whose reputation is well-known. When you know somebody’s about to throw rotten eggs at you, whether deserved or undeserved, you start examining your poncho collection.
-
Yes, it is in fact possible that 10% of Voris' claims are rooted in fact. NOBODY here has said that none of it happens to be true. That does not make it so that the rest of it, the remaining 90%, isn't crap.
I think you have those two numbers reversed.
It's probably more like 90% fact, and 10% crap.
That is my worry.
-
I wonder if the SSPX now has a “blacklist.”
The SSPX does have a blacklist....
...of parishioners!
-
Voris opens the piece by recounting the tragic and heart-breaking story of Michael Gonzalez.
Yet, what on earth does this have to do with his central thesis that the SSPX is "sympathetic to perverts"? Answer: Nothing. There's no allegation, much less evidence, that anyone else in the SSPX knew anything about what Fr. Angles had done.
Did you miss the (long) part where Fr. Rizzo said he, and others, knew all about what Fr. Angles had done?
I don't think you watched the video very closely at all.
-
Well, that sounds a little like, "I don't believe Voris because he's a meanie!"
Get over it. He's the only one who took on this fight. Where were you in 2017?
No, no, correction:
"I don't believe Voris cause, he's an HIV, judaizing queer."
-
For the record: I do expect this whole thing to get uglier. There may be some good coming out of it (perhaps an unknown predator gets discovered through Jassy?) but there have undoubtedly been cases which we know nothing about, which have been concealed through prudence or charity. I know of at least one case myself that has never been mentioned in the media. (Concealment in itself is not necessarily wrong, from a Catholic point of view: If I live in California do I need to know about the sins of a priest in Maine, so long as it doesn’t affect me or my family?)
Who knows, when details of these start to emerge, if the actual truth will paint the SSPX in a good or bad light. But I can certainly say, if Voris is holding the flashlight, he will certainly make it look as negative as possible. And that is a great evil.
-
(Concealment in itself is not necessarily wrong, from a Catholic point of view: If I live in California do I need to know about the sins of a priest in Maine, so long as it doesn’t affect me or my family?)
You are mental.
-
Besides Michael Voris' ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past, he still employs one Simon Rafe, who in 2011 was discovered to have been writing bisɛҳuąƖ fantasy porn online. Rafe was apparently moved off camera after the scandal broke, and put in a more "behind the scenes" role at St Michael's Media/ Church Militant. As far as I know Rafe is working there today, doing more on-camera work.
Why wasn't he fired?
Michael Voris needs to keep his house very clean while throwing stones.
I also have a problem with Voris' Bieber-styled blonde highlighted toupe- not becoming to a Catholic man! (Remnants of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ narcissism- just sayin'.)
MV's credability can certainly be questioned.
-
Who knows, when details of these start to emerge, if the actual truth will paint the SSPX in a good or bad light. But I can certainly say, if Voris is holding the flashlight, he will certainly make it look as negative as possible. And that is a great evil.
I agree that's the problem. Voris will paint the SSPX in the worst light possible. He won't be fair and honest. Those who have a narcissistic tendency may feel that they are justified in stretching the truth, if they believe that they have a goal that is morally good. The end will justify whatever means are necessary. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered, which is why Voris shouldn't be a spokesman for the Catholic Faith (conciliar faith, rather).
Though the SSPX leadership should, but has not admitted that they have made mistakes regarding the homos amongst their priests and laity. A traditional fraternity of priests and bishops should know, more than anyone, that honesty and sincerity and willingness to clearly admit failures is part of traditional Catholicism. They need to be an example for others to follow. That hasn't happened yet, that I have seen. Supporting the victims is well and good, but it's not enough.
-
Besides Michael Voris' ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past, he still employs one Simon Rafe, who in 2011 was discovered to have been writing bisɛҳuąƖ fantasy porn online. Rafe was apparently moved off camera after the scandal broke, and put in a more "behind the scenes" role at St Michael's Media/ Church Militant. As far as I know Rafe is working there today, doing more on-camera work.
Why wasn't he fired?
Michael Voris needs to keep his house very clean while throwing stones.
I also have a problem with Voris' Bieber-styled blonde highlighted toupe- not becoming to a Catholic man! (Remnants of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ narcissism- just sayin'.)
MV's credability can certainly be questioned.
Oh, yeah, forgot about this. One might say that Voris is guilty of being "Sympathetic to Perverts" and of protecting one.
-
This part of the second statement from the SSPX bothers me. It's just more confirmation that they have a modern corporate mind:
Yes, and this has been the case since +Fellay started the negotiations with Rome. This has been clearly docuмented here on CI. In the hit-piece, Voris asks why the SSPX was so soft on the PA report on predators. We analyzed this at the time, and the explanation lies primarily in the fact that, at the time, they were pretty close to a deal and didn't want to upset the NO too much by beating on them. So here's another case where Voris implies motives but there are other possible explanations. No only were the SSPX soft on the PA report, but they have been equally soft on the various heresies and sacrileges coming out of Rome during the Francis regime.
-
Question: I completely agree that MV/CM is not the one who should be making these allegations, etc. In your opinions, who would be credible to do this?
-
I think you have those two numbers reversed.
It's probably more like 90% fact, and 10% crap.
That is my worry.
I've already gone through literally half the article and have found nothing of substance. I will, as I have time to go through it, call out the legitimate points. There are some, and I will in fact augment it with some details that Voris left out.
Really the first valid point is how Laudenschlager got ordained. At first, when his coming on to a fellow seminarian was reported, he was tossed immediately from the SSPX seminary. My first guess is that this was the work for Fr. Sanborn, who had zero tolerance for anything like that. So that is COUNTER to the point that the SSPX was covering it up.
But HOW then did Laudenschlager end up back in there and getting ordained? That is a troubling question, and one which Voris actually fails to investigate and get answers about. Yet even this serious question Voris buries in nonsense, asking why +Lefebvre had become so taken with him that he flew all the way to the U.S. to ordain him. Well, the answer is simple. +Lefebvre routinely toured the U.S. because he was at the time the only bishop. He did Confirmation circuits that ended up with him at the seminary to do the ordinations. Even if Laudenschlager had been the only ordinand to the priesthood, there were undoubtedly also some deacons and subdeacons being ordained. So +Lefebvre most certainly did not fly to the U.S. just to ordain Laudenschlager. Here is yet another unsubstantiated insinuation that +Lefebvre favored or protected perverts.
And this would not be the last time. Father Carlos Urrutigoity was sent to STAS after having been accused of the same thing Laudenschlager did. In this case, the priest from La Reja flew to the U.S. just to warn then-Father Williamson of the cloud surrounding Urrutigoity. At the time, Fr. Williamson dismissed the accusations as not being credible. Well, how bout now? +Lefebvre was warned about the situation and told them Urrutigoity had to be watched like a hawk and that should not be allowed any close relationships. When I was there, Urrutigoity, contrary to this advice, had a cult following of about 7-8 seminarians and actually tried to pull me into his cult. I really didn't care for him, so stayed away. I actually complained to the acting-rector when Urrutigoity tried some illicit liturgical experimentations, and he agreed with me and shut it down. I was a bit naive at the time (in my early 20s) so I didn't really suspect the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity, but in restrospect all the signs were there. Had I known about the prior accusations against Urrutigoity, I would have seen it even back then. So I'm perplexed why the seminary leadership who know about these things and were less naive than I was did not pick up on it.
In any case, after the fallout with the Nine, +Lefebvre sent Fr. Williamson to clean up, and he trusted him completely. So I imagine that Fr. Williamson persuaded +Lefebvre that the allegations were false. And Williamson dismissed the allegations because they came from a priest who leaned sedevacantist. Urrutigoity claimed that the allegation was made by the sedevacantist simply because had been staunchly anti-sedevacantist. So both +Lefebvre and Williamson made a serious mistake in allowing Urrutigoity to continue. And Urrutigoity had free reign there and his activities were not curtailed. This was a serious failing that Voris did not even go into. See how I'm trying to be objective? Voris COULD have written a good, serious article about this subject, but his own contempt for the SSPX got the better of him.
Then was the case of Father Marshall Roberts. He got kicked out of ICKSP seminary for having written what amounted to a love-letter to a fellow seminarian. This was widely known at the time, and he STILL got into STAS and was eventually ordained. He too claimed that his ouster was a conspiracy because he was "too conservative". I actually called him out for some significant Modernism back in the day, so that undermines his claim.
So far, however, through half the article, there's ONE serious accusation. How did Laudenschlager get ordained after having been kicked out of the seminary for propositioning another seminarian? Voris doesn's actually delve into this first serious allegation. He could have interviewed Bishop Sanborn or some of the Nine who were running the seminary back then to get some information on the subject. But he chose not to. Instead he uses it to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with a completely speculative unsubstantiated allegation.
-
But HOW then did Laudenschlager end up back in there and getting ordained? That is a troubling question
The same question could be asked regarding Fr. Urrutigoity, which brings Bp. Williamson into the equation.
-
Here's some more in Voris' later response:
With regard to the SSPX's so-called cooperation with Belgian authorities in the criminal trial of Fr. Abbet, the SSPX fails to mention that Bp. Fellay (as we exposed in our report) personally sent his private secretary, Fr. Raphael Granges (a lawyer), to accompany Abbet to the courthouse daily. Granges dressed in lay clothes in order to escape notice.
The SSPX also fails to mention that an SSPX tribunal cleared Abbet of guilt years earlier when other sex abuse allegations came to light — allegations brought by distraught parents when they discovered their child had been abused by the priest. The SSPX leadership assured the parents they would handle the matter, asking that they not go public with their allegations — only for the SSPX to set up a tribunal to formally clear Abbet of guilt. It would take a secular court to deliver the justice the SSPX canonical court refused to serve.
This case is a legitimate point of inquiry in and of itself. But then it's buried in nonsense. What does the fact that +Fellay sent a priest-lawyer to court with Fr. Abbet have to do with anything? And what of the detail that he dressed in lay clothes? He probably could not have been effective in court had he shown up in clerical garb.
OK, an SSPX tribunal cleared Abbet. But why? We don't know the details of the proceedings. There could have been any number of reasons he had been cleared that fall short of a conspiracy to cover it up. Voris seems to be part of the #metoo movement where every allegation is to be immediately considered factually true. What if, at the time this tribunal was conducted, the evidence was non-existent or weak?
-
The same question could be asked regarding Fr. Urrutigoity, which brings Bp. Williamson into the equation.
Agreed. These are serious questions that DO need to be addressed. But the legitimate points are actually buried. That's why I say Voris did a great disservice by burying it in nonsense. +Williamson's response has been that, in the heat of the sedevacanist vs. R&R battle that was raging at the time, he was persuaded by Urrutigoity that it had been a politically-motivated accusation.
+Lefebvre told Fr. Williamson that Urrutigoity needed to be watched "like a hawk". But when I was there with him, there was no such watching going on. Fr. Urrutigoity was a veritable cult leader with a group of 7-8 seminarians with whom he formed a tightly-knit circle. Both my brother Steve (the one on the cancer prayer thread) and I spoke about how we couldn't figure out what the fascination was with that guy. Well, now we know. Both Steve and I could go on for a long time. Steve's run-in with then-Fr. Urrutigoity was the reason he was let go from the seminary.
There's no doubt that the SSPX BADLY MISHANDLED this case. None whatsoever. Now, this was before the whole pederasty scandal blew up years later, and perhaps there was some naivete involved. We may never know.
Really, the best thing that the SSPX could do as a defense is to acknowledge and ask forgiveness for the incidents that they mishandled. "In the case of - , we acknowledge that the situation was badly mishandled, and we ask forgiveness from God for it." So admit the wrongdoing in some of those cases, and that will make your defense of the false allegations to be more credible.
-
I actually do believe that there has been an active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network within the SSPX. Those who are part of it will in fact cover up for each other. That is the very nature and purpose of their network.
But Voris is trying to leverage this into an attack on the entire Traditional Catholic movement.
These ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have infiltrated many organizations. Their existence within the SSPX does nothing to de-legitimize Traditional Catholicism any more than their existence within the Catholic Church in general de-legitimize what the Church stands for.
Voris is doing the same thing that all the enemies of the Church are doing. He's taking this and leveraging it into a broader attack. Many anti-Catholic Prots are whipped up in a fury about the priestly pedophile scandal and use it as ammunition for why the theological claims of the Catholic Church are false. Pay no attention to the fact that statistics indicate that the incidence of abuse among Prots and even Rabbis is JUST AS HIGH as among Catholic priests, but the media in focusing on attacking the Church. And, at the same time, the media attack the Church for being anti-gαy. So the Church MUST allow ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs into the priesthood, but then is held accountable when these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs start raping boys.
THIS is my problem with Voris. He's clearly using this as an attack on Traditional Catholicism IN PRINCIPLE. That is completely dishonest.
Now, if he wanted to use this as a way to help root out the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs from the SSPX, that would be a great service. But he's having the opposite effect.
In his interview with Gordon, I could almost detect a glee in Voris' voice and expression regarding the tragic case of Michael Gonzales. There was almost an undercurrent of, "yes, I got them with this. This is some ammunition to use against them." ... almost to the point that he comes across as happy that it happened. It's like he was rubbing his hands together as he spoke of it.
-
If I had the luxury of being a full-time "journalist", I would put together a fair and balanced article, getting both sides of the each issue before trying to pain any kind of picture. And I would do it with the intention not of attacking the SSPX per se or Traditional Catholicism in general, but with the intent of exposing and rooting out the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and other predators within the SSPX.
-
There was the case of Fr. Benedict VanderPutten. After getting wind of what happened there, the SSPX immediately removed him and reported him to the Vatican, and this was after local authorities had opted not to file charges against him due to lack of evidence.
So there are contrary cases also that Voris remained silent about.
-
And Vanderputten is still at large because the SECULAR authorities have not taken action.
As soon as SSPX got wind of the accusations against him, they summoned him to SSPX headquarters, whereupon he was sent to an island monastery, reported to the Vatican, and then expelled from the SSPX. Secular authorities in California did not go after him.
He tried to weasel his way into Scranton, claiming that he had seen the light about the SSPX schism, but the Vatican sent over the report from the SSPX regarding VanderPutten.
VanderPutten is somewhere in Oklahoma now and is reportedly raising some children, including girls, as a single parent. You can be darn sure that he's molesting the young girls. Where are the secular authorities here? You can be sure he's molesting the girls because when Scranton interviewed him, he justified the behavior and felt there was nothing wrong with it but that he was just trying to "build trust". He didn't deny what he did but somehow decided it was OK.
https://adamhorowitzlaw.com/tag/benedict-van-der-putten/ (https://adamhorowitzlaw.com/tag/benedict-van-der-putten/)
Maybe Voris could actually do something good by tracking the guy down and pressuring the authorities there to apprehend him and remove those girls from his custody. But that would not serve his purposes of attacking SSPX, because here the SSPX acted quite appropriately.
-
Agreed. These are serious questions that DO need to be addressed. But the legitimate points are actually buried. That's why I say Voris did a great disservice by burying it in nonsense. +Williamson's response has been that, in the heat of the sedevacanist vs. R&R battle that was raging at the time, he was persuaded by Urrutigoity that it had been a politically-motivated accusation.
+Lefebvre told Fr. Williamson that Urrutigoity needed to be watched "like a hawk". But when I was there with him, there was no such watching going on. Fr. Urrutigoity was a veritable cult leader with a group of 7-8 seminarians with whom he formed a tightly-knit circle. Both my brother Steve (the one on the cancer prayer thread) and I spoke about how we couldn't figure out what the fascination was with that guy. Well, now we know. Both Steve and I could go on for a long time. Steve's run-in with then-Fr. Urrutigoity was the reason he was let go from the seminary.
There's no doubt that the SSPX BADLY MISHANDLED this case. None whatsoever. Now, this was before the whole pederasty scandal blew up years later, and perhaps there was some naivete involved. We may never know.
Really, the best thing that the SSPX could do as a defense is to acknowledge and ask forgiveness for the incidents that they mishandled. "In the case of - , we acknowledge that the situation was badly mishandled, and we ask forgiveness from God for it." So admit the wrongdoing in some of those cases, and that will make your defense of the false allegations to be more credible.
TIA recently examined the SSPX’s Urrutigoity case and found systematic mismanagement.
But, when you put Urrutigoity’s clerical career into historical perspective with the struggle of Catholic tradition, he appears to have been an agent, possibly programmed (MKUltra style) to infiltrate and explode, according to plan.
His latter assignment to Paraguay by B16 and the simultaneous defrocking of their Trad Bishop there by Francis (using the excuse that Urrutigoity was a queer) was too coincidental.
-
You would think, with the doctrinal strictness of Catholicism, and today, the Traditional kind, there wouldn’t be a lot of attraction for homos. And maybe in 2020 many would rather just start wearing gαy attire and hanging out in their preferred nightlife venues. But historically that has not been the case.
Even in the 19th century, the Anglicans noticed that many of the priests who had a fondness for the “romanist” ways and high-church liturgy, fancy vestments and the like, also seemed to have a certain fondness for men. This was commented on in many letters of the time. And today, there are definitely groups of gαys on the Internet (and perhaps in person?) who have a fondness for monarchism, the traditional mass, etc. especially in France this is a noticeable phenomenon. Probably because there are far more monarchists in France than USA.
So it’s not surprising that some of these men have become Traditional priests, today.
-
Question: I completely agree that MV/CM is not the one who should be making these allegations, etc. In your opinions, who would be credible to do this?
I find the posts on this topic by Ladislaus to be credible. He has a lot of background knowledge about the SSPX and many of the people involved and does not seem to have any negative agenda. He is not a journalist, but these are the qualities that I would be looking for.
On another forum where we are discussing this, I have linked to some of his posts here in which he tries to sort out the truth from the innuendo. (I hope this is OK with you Ladislaus. I assumed that you would not mind and so did not ask.)
-
TIA recently examined the SSPX’s Urrutigoity case and found systematic mismanagement.
Yes, there was likely mismanagement. But like Voris, TIA has an ax to grind against the SSPX, and always has done, and so neither is a good source for an honest account of the situation.
-
Yes, there was likely mismanagement. But like Voris, TIA has an ax to grind against the SSPX, and always has done, and so neither is a good source for an honest account of the situation.
and Meg has an ax to grind against TIA.
-
I find the posts on this topic by Ladislaus to be credible. He has a lot of background knowledge about the SSPX and many of the people involved and does not seem to have any negative agenda. He is not a journalist, but these are the qualities that I would be looking for.
On another forum where we are discussing this, I have linked to some of his posts here in which he tries to sort out the truth from the innuendo. (I hope this is OK with you Ladislaus. I assumed that you would not mind and so did not ask.)
I'm fine with that, Jaynek.
-
You would think, with the doctrinal strictness of Catholicism, and today, the Traditional kind, there wouldn’t be a lot of attraction for homos.
They're primarily attracted to the superior aesthetics of the Traditional Mass. I also believe they consider it better cover for their activities, since by posing as doctrinally Traditional and conservative, they reduce the suspicion. After all, the Church has traditionally been very forceful and firm in its condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
-
I've long wondered about the psychology of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator who becomes a Traditional Catholic priest.
Some are perhaps fighting their inclinations and break down.
Others over time develop a very lax moral theology in which they think that certain activities are normal and not sinful. So, for instance, with Fr. Benedict VanderPutten. He admitted his activities but tried to justify them as just a way to create trust. He reportedly admitted to fondling the young ladies and exposing his genitals to them, did not deny the accusation, but then stated it was to create trust. Over time, I think that some of these guys actually convince themselves that this is OK.
Fr. Urrutigoity made similar comments, that getting boys to go skinny dipping and also to expose themselves to him was to instill humility and trust. I'm still not sure if they actually convinced themselves that this was the case or if it's was conscious nonsense.
-
All of you who are focused on Voris, as though he were the real problem, are missing a very real supernatural component to these events:
God is ALLOWING the SSPX to be SCOURGED. He has withdrawn His hand.
Our Lord is allowing their crimes, misdeeds, mismanagements, coverups, abuse, scandals, inactions, to be brought to LIGHT.
Michael Voris is just one of the tools with which Our Lord has chosen to make His will known. The same can be said of Jassy Jacas.
The hand-wringing displayed here over the "attacks" on the Church (as though it were a bad thing) shows you are fundamentally missing the point.
God is going to purify His Church, (the Novus Ordo, the SSPX, the FSSP, the Resistance, all of it) whether you like it or not!
He is NOT going to allow you, or anyone, to be complicit in continuing to cover up for evil deeds. You are not going to stop Him!
This is what the End of Days is all about. It is the unveiling of all evil. And we are close!
"For there is nothing secret, that shall not be made manifest, nor anything hidden that will not be made known."
-
I find the posts on this topic by Ladislaus to be credible. He has a lot of background knowledge about the SSPX and many of the people involved and does not seem to have any negative agenda. He is not a journalist, but these are the qualities that I would be looking for.
On another forum where we are discussing this, I have linked to some of his posts here in which he tries to sort out the truth from the innuendo. (I hope this is OK with you Ladislaus. I assumed that you would not mind and so did not ask.)
Although Lad seems impartial, I suspect that the very fact that he was in the SSPX and left (and not knowing what the reasons were) would not help his apparent credibility. In addition, there are probably any number of his posts here that would not help either.
I do think he is trying to be objective here, but in trying to find a suitable person to accuse the SSPX, I do not think he would fit the bill either. When I asked the question, I was wondering about someone outside of the SSPX, Resistance, Sede, Novus Ordo groups. I'm not sure who that would/could be!
-
All of you who are focused on Voris, as though he were the real problem, are missing a very real supernatural component to these events:
God is ALLOWING the SSPX to be SCOURGED. He has withdrawn His hand.
Our Lord is allowing their crimes, misdeeds, mismanagements, coverups, abuse, scandals, inactions, to be brought to LIGHT.
Michael Voris is just one of the tools with which Our Lord has chosen to make His will known. The same can be said of Jassy Jacas.
The hand-wringing displayed here over the "attacks" on the Church (as though it were a bad thing) shows you are fundamentally missing the point.
God is going to purify His Church, (the Novus Ordo, the SSPX, the FSSP, the Resistance, all of it) whether you like it or not!
He is NOT going to allow you, or anyone, to be complicit in continuing to cover up for evil deeds. You are not going to stop Him!
This is what the End of Days is all about. It is the unveiling of all evil. And we are close!
"For there is nothing secret, that shall not be made manifest, nor anything hidden that will not be made known."
While Voris is not THE problem, he is certainly A problem. I don't deny that God could be using Voris to flush some of this nonsense out into the open. Yet I feel the need to sort through this stuff and distinguish between the real substantial problems ... and separate that from his attacks against SSPX and Traditional Catholicism. I believe that his primary agenda is to leverage this as an attack against SSPX. Also, a lot of his facts are just plain wrong. So, for instance, he blamed Bishop Galaretta for protecting Urrutigoity, but Urrutigoity was in fact kicked out of the seminary in LaReja ... which is why he made his way to the U.S. He really needs to do a better job of getting the facts straight and of not obscuring the actual facts with a lot of unsubstantiated insinuation.
-
Although Lad seems impartial, I suspect that the very fact that he was in the SSPX and left (and not knowing what the reasons were) would not help his apparent credibility. In addition, there are probably any number of his posts here that would not help either.
I do think he is trying to be objective here, but in trying to find a suitable person to accuse the SSPX, I do not think he would fit the bill either. When I asked the question, I was wondering about someone outside of the SSPX, Resistance, Sede, Novus Ordo groups. I'm not sure who that would/could be!
Sure. I don't think I'm in a position to make any credible accusations. I can only contribute my own experiences, having known the entire SSJ group, Fr. Roberts, Fr. VanderPutten, etc. personally. Conducting a proper investigation requires more time and resources than are available to me.
Indeed, the SSPX would gain credibility if they opened themselves up to a credible, impartial investigator. But I doubt that they're going to do that.
As a clarification, I left the SSPX originally because I had found sedevacatism to be quite persuasive. I'm still against their overall R&R position and of their more recent overtures to Rome. So, where I do defend them, it's not because I am some slavish follower of the SSPX. I resigned from the Board of Trustees for the chapel of an independent priest because I did not feel that I could in conscience sign a docuмent handing over the property to the SSPX after the priest's death. But I did so very respectfully.
I was actually pretty close with Bishop Williamson, so discussing his handling or, rather, mis-handling of the Urrutigoity situation brings me no joy, but rather a great deal of heartache.
-
When I asked the question, I was wondering about someone outside of the SSPX, Resistance, Sede, Novus Ordo groups. I'm not sure who that would/could be!
Someone like Archbishop Vigano might fit the bill. I believe that he's shown himself to be a man of integrity.
-
Michael Voris is just one of the tools with which Our Lord has chosen to make His will known. The same can be said of Jassy Jacas.
The hand-wringing displayed here over the "attacks" on the Church (as though it were a bad thing) shows you are fundamentally missing the point.
God is going to purify His Church, (the Novus Ordo, the SSPX, the FSSP, the Resistance, all of it) whether you like it or not!
He is NOT going to allow you, or anyone, to be complicit in continuing to cover up for evil deeds. You are not going to stop Him!
This is what the End of Days is all about. It is the unveiling of all evil. And we are close!
"For there is nothing secret, that shall not be made manifest, nor anything hidden that will not be made known."
I understand that you believe that Our Lord is using Michael Voris as His chosen tool. But just because some of us do not find Voris to be credible doesn't mean that we are complicit in covering up for evil deeds, as you have accused above. Do you understand the difference?
We know full-well that the SSPX is far from perfect.
-
I understand that you believe that Our Lord is using Michael Voris as His chosen tool. But just because some of us do not find Voris to be credible doesn't mean that we are complicit in covering up for evil deeds, as you have accused above. Do you understand the difference?
We know full-well that the SSPX is far from perfect.
I agree. This is not some simple binary proposition, where someone has to either completely agree with Voris or completely agree with the SSPX. Truth, as St Augustine said, usually lies somewhere in the middle.
-
Let the law, and not hysteria,take its course. In the meantime boys and girls, wear your face masks AND chastity belts.
-
Yes, there was likely mismanagement. But like Voris, TIA has an ax to grind against the SSPX, and always has done, and so neither is a good source for an honest account of the situation.
Thank you for the underhand, slow speed, softball pitch Meg.
TIA has had it out for the SSPX mainly for their laxness in doctrinal issues. The theological, non Catholic origins of the docuмents of the Vatican II Council being TIA’s main area of expertise.
The SSPX bishops contend that they can accept their theological basis, to some extent.
Bp. Bernard Fellay is on record for saying he bought 95% of it.
This begs the question: Was the SSPX designed to be the “controlled opposition”?
If the SSPX was not controlled from it’s early years, we know it is now.
Voris is one crypto spokesman for the Opus Dei. He’s controlled opposition and Theologically he’s all over the map.
Last year, Voris was suddenly a Feeneyite!
His gαy history, allows him to be flexible to be whatever the neo-trad world wants him to be? :jester:
So, when Voris, with all his high-tech hardware and media funding runs a campaign against the SSPX, we know someone else is driving it.
It could be a simple case of Opus Judei protecting it’s Vatican turf.
-
I agree. This is not some simple binary proposition, where someone has to either completely agree with Voris or completely agree with the SSPX. Truth, as St Augustine said, usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Well said.
-
Mr. Voris has shown himself to be rather biased and hostile towards the SSPX during the last few years. Regardless of whether these allegations are true or not, and I pray they are not, I would highly caution against using Church Militant as a source for the investigation of the accusations simply because they are not impartial.
I pray for all those wrongly accused in the SSPX and for all who are truly victims.
-
SSPX just released their third statement:
https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/statement-future-transparency-and-official-communiques-57717 (https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/statement-future-transparency-and-official-communiques-57717)
A Statement on Future Transparency and Official Communiques
On April 23 and 24, 2020, the U.S. District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) reiterated its commitment to full transparency regarding sɛҳuąƖ abuse and impropriety committed by current and former Society clergy, religious, and employees. This statement is being made to clarify the content and timeline of future transparency statements.
Since Friday, the U.S. District has received a voluminous number of e-mails, phone calls, and social media posts regarding its commitment to transparency, including additional information regarding allegations of abuse. In order to ensure the highest degree of feasible accuracy, the U.S. District is working through the information it has in order to verify its reliability while also cooperating with the appropriate legal authorities to verify which cases the District can comment on at this time.
The SSPX recognizes that the faithful are eager for more information. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the U.S. District to establish a set timetable right now. Please be assured that the U.S. District is working as quickly as possible to compile all relevant information. In order to help it achieve this goal, if you or anyone you know has information regarding potential abuse perpetrated by a SSPX priest, religious, or employee, please do not hesitate to contact one or more of the civil or ecclesiastical outlets referenced in the Society’s April 24, 2020 statement, “Toward Transparency, Repentance, and Healing.”
Official Responses Only Come From the District
The U.S. District of the SSPX is aware that a statement related to allegations of sɛҳuąƖ impropriety was released by one of its priories. The U.S. District wishes to stress in no uncertain terms that the only official statements regarding sɛҳuąƖ abuse and impropriety emanate directly from the U.S. District on its official website (https://sspx.org/). Any statements originating from individual priests, chapels, or priories are not the official position of the SSPX and should be not be interpreted as such. Those uncertain if a statement is official or not should contact the U.S. District.
The SSPX appreciates your patience and encourages all the faithful to continue to pray for the victims of sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
-
I think some of you were asking for Church Militant to provide the emails from the SSPX.
Looks like Christine Niles has obliged you.
https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1254255216129687553/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1254255216129687553/photo/1)
-
Michael Voris did another "Vortex" on the story.
He addresses the SSPX's statement and challenges them to sue him, which he says they will not.
He says there is much more to come, and the SSPX's "statement dude" is going to be "very busy."
The SSPX has started a battle it seems they will lose.
Full transcript of video at link:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-you-call-that-a-response (https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-you-call-that-a-response)
-
Let's start with the basic understanding that no matter where you go, the Crisis will not go away completely. The SSPX certainly would have less of it than the NO, and the Resistance less than all of them, but there is still the matter of Fr. Abraham with Bishop Williamson. I haven't heard of any updates on that particular case, although I can say I never felt like it was handled properly. Do these scandals invalidate the TLM? Not by a mile, but it does affect our credibility in general and those bishops responsible in particular.
But coming from Christine Niles, that noble single mother convert who would do anything to bolster this fake Trad news operation, is rich. That her boss is Voris, who is one of the biggest fraud shills in Trad history (somewhere behind Malachi Martin), is a sick joke. Gary Voris, who did everything in his power to snuggle up to the SSPX-aligned trads until it became imperative that no one criticize the Pope, even though that is exactly what the society was forced to do once the consecrations took place in '88 (not so much now). He has never had his feet held to the fire when it comes to the blatant contradictory timeline he set up for himself. How after 20 years as a non-practicing pansɛҳuąƖ cohabitator he converted when his mother died, yet he began making the rounds as a Catholic speaker in Michigan months before that happened. How there is no supporting evidence he ever worked as a news anchor/journalist. How he still has "Retreats at Sea" for young men when by all accounts that is precisely the last thing he should be overseeing. Then you have his wonderful wardrobe: the pink shirts, the pink ties, the matching vests and hats, the unbuttoned shirts with no t-shirts, the tank tops, the shirts that are too small for him. Then it's the permanent blond mop toupee. Every ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ may not be a pedophile (only a matter of time and effort), but they are textbook narcissists. Narcissism has always been on full display with Voris from the very beginning.
He's still a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, he's still a liar, but unfortunately the SSPX has not proven beyond all doubt that their organization isn't prone to the same disastrous mistakes when it comes to the occasional priest with a major impurity problem. I won't ever forget what happened at Post Falls and how many times it could have been caught by those in charge. So the rest of us have to bear the burden the Society wouldn't and now we have to hear about it from our enemies. It's the curse that keeps on cursing, but a blessing still if we can get through it.
-
Read this link. (https://holytransparency.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/list-of-15-lies-and-cover-ups-comprising-the-michael-voris-deception/) It points out how much of Voris' story is manufactured hogwash.
-
Let's start with the basic understanding that no matter where you go, the Crisis will not go away completely. The SSPX certainly would have less of it than the NO, and the Resistance less than all of them, but there is still the matter of Fr. Abraham with Bishop Williamson. I haven't heard of any updates on that particular case, although I can say I never felt like it was handled properly. Do these scandals invalidate the TLM? Not by a mile, but it does affect our credibility in general and those bishops responsible in particular.
But coming from Christine Niles, that noble single mother convert who would do anything to bolster this fake Trad news operation, is rich. That her boss is Voris, who is one of the biggest fraud shills in Trad history (somewhere behind Malachi Martin), is a sick joke. Gary Voris, who did everything in his power to snuggle up to the SSPX-aligned trads until it became imperative that no one criticize the Pope, even though that is exactly what the society was forced to do once the consecrations took place in '88 (not so much now). He has never had his feet held to the fire when it comes to the blatant contradictory timeline he set up for himself. How after 20 years as a non-practicing pansɛҳuąƖ cohabitator he converted when his mother died, yet he began making the rounds as a Catholic speaker in Michigan months before that happened. How there is no supporting evidence he ever worked as a news anchor/journalist. How he still has "Retreats at Sea" for young men when by all accounts that is precisely the last thing he should be overseeing. Then you have his wonderful wardrobe: the pink shirts, the pink ties, the matching vests and hats, the unbuttoned shirts with no t-shirts, the tank tops, the shirts that are too small for him. Then it's the permanent blond mop toupee. Every ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ may not be a pedophile (only a matter of time and effort), but they are textbook narcissists. Narcissism has always been on full display with Voris from the very beginning.
He's still a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, he's still a liar, but unfortunately the SSPX has not proven beyond all doubt that their organization isn't prone to the same disastrous mistakes when it comes to the occasional priest with a major impurity problem. I won't ever forget what happened at Post Falls and how many times it could have been caught by those in charge. So the rest of us have to bear the burden the Society wouldn't and now we have to hear about it from our enemies. It's the curse that keeps on cursing, but a blessing still if we can get through it.
Croix,
I’m so glad your back posting!
You summarized the issue in one post.
Like Obama & Michael were a mockery of American leadership, it strikes me that Voris is a rabbinic mockery of the traditional Catholic movement.
The goys are so dumb, the rabbis can make a judaizing HIV ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ to have more media influence than the USCCB.
-
the rabbis can make a judaizing HIV ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ to have more media influence than the USCCB.
The USCCB are primarily judaizing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs!
-
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/
Who are the three priests? From this article it appears that one is or was in the society and two are in the resistance group with Bishop Williamson. I pray that none of this is true. Either way, a very sad day for the Chruch.
-
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/
Who are the three priests? From this article it appears that one is or was in the society and two are in the resistance group with Bishop Williamson. I pray that none of this is true. Either way, a very sad day for the Chruch.
Fr. Stephen Abraham is the one with Bp. Williamson, and Fr. Phillipe Peignot is the one with Bp. Faure in France.
-
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/
Who are the three priests? From this article it appears that one is or was in the society and two are in the resistance group with Bishop Williamson. I pray that none of this is true. Either way, a very sad day for the Chruch.
Do you realize that this is from 2017?
-
I think some of you were asking for Church Militant to provide the emails from the SSPX.
Looks like Christine Niles has obliged you.
https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1254255216129687553/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/ChristineNiles1/status/1254255216129687553/photo/1)
One cherry picked email does not a full disclosure make. Furthermore, this is an email to Jassy, which she presumably provided to Voris, Niles, & Co. It is not the accidental, supposedly-incriminating SSPX leadership damage control correspondence.
And Fr. de la Tour’s email, while taken at face value may seem to constitute some kind of condemnation of Fr. Duverger, really does no such thing. Anyone who has ever dealt with the public in a business context knows, the customer is always right. When you have an upset parishioner making serious allegations, it’s not the time or place to go into the justification or not for every individual case.
Maybe Fr. Duverger is known to have made multiple inappropriate advances to women. Maybe he made somebody upset and they’re determined to smear his reputation. There’s lots of maybes. But Fr. de la Tour would not phrase himself like that in an email if he were determined to be part of some great “coverup.”
I’ve been very disappointed with SSPX leadership in a lot of ways over the last decade, so when I first saw the Voris story I was prepared to think the worst. So far, however, I’ve been surprised. From what we’ve seen, it seems like the SSPX is trying to handle the situation with prudence and tact. You don’t want to upset the accuser (who may be truly a victim, may think she’s a victim and be tilting at windmills, or may have an agenda.) You want to take the allegations as seriously as they seem to warrant. And you want to stay on the right side of the law (which also means not slandering or defaming someone unjustly.) We can’t know the full story, but every detail the accusers (Jassy, Voris, Niles, & Co.) have trotted out so far, either doesn’t hold water, is a rehash of old news, or actually tends to exonerate the Society. All we can do is wait and see what happens next.
-
The USCCB are primarily judaizing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs!
So there you have it:
One HIV judaizing homo funded by Opus Dei can outshine the entire US bishoprics.
-
Read this link. (https://holytransparency.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/list-of-15-lies-and-cover-ups-comprising-the-michael-voris-deception/) It points out how much of Voris' story is manufactured hogwash.
Or you can listen to Voris tell his life story here in 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3tsOqAN3AM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3tsOqAN3AM)
-
Read this link. (https://holytransparency.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/list-of-15-lies-and-cover-ups-comprising-the-michael-voris-deception/) It points out how much of Voris' story is manufactured hogwash.
Come to think of it, thanks for posting that link. I had no idea Voris had spoken of "Not Born That Way" in 2016.
Very edifying! He's a smart man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-lx9Sz1kRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-lx9Sz1kRk)
-
Sam, according to the article, the SSPX found The two priests you mention guilty. Then these two priest who I guess were under some house arrest of some kind, left to join the resistance. Does the resistance know the back ground and are they still active priests. I realize this article is a few years old.
I knew nothing about any of this till two days ago. As I said, if even a tiny bit of this is true, what a sad day for the church.
-
Sam, according to the article, the SSPX found The two priests you mention guilty. Then these two priest who I guess were under some house arrest of some kind, left to join the resistance. Does the resistance know the back ground and are they still active priests. I realize this article is a few years old.
I knew nothing about any of this till two days ago. As I said, if even a tiny bit of this is true, what a sad day for the church.
Sam, in the other thread you said you were "Resistance" and that you don't give the SSPX the benefit of the doubt because they did nothing 3 years ago. I am guessing you are referring to this, yes?
If so, it sounds like the SSPX found these priests guilty....and then they left to go to the Resistance. What do you think of these priests being in the Resistance which you say you support? Were you as adamant about that?
-
I do think there’s also a difference between what we faithful in the pews would like or expect, and what is necessarily possible today.
People forget that this isn’t the Middle Ages, where religious vows may have had some force of law. In the secular world, being a priest or a religious is treated as essentially a job, choosing to work for a Nonprofit and possibly having some unusual pay or living arrangements. A priest can leave or quit at any time.
In other words, if a priest goes bad and decides to do something immoral, the superior is obviously going to have to handle the situation as best he can, balancing help for the victim, prevention of further evil, and if possible, help for the priest. If clerics are not being ruthlessly handed over to the secular arm (as it used to be referred to in the Middle Ages when a person was convicted in a church court and then given to the government for sentencing and punishment), it’s probably because the superiors recognize that the guilty priest will not have much shot at repentance and saving their soul in a modern jail. About all that can be reasonably expected is that if crimes were committed and the superior (employer) finds out, he report those crimes to the police. If a priest has done something that’s abhorrent (to a Catholic) but not illegal, most superiors would probably not choose to immediately defrock or expel, because then you lose control of the bad apple. Assuming you are even sure he did it. Better to transfer him somewhere else where hopefully he can’t continue his bad behavior. But that probably means not telling people about your suspicions, except on a need-to-know basis.
Every “bad priest” is going to be a different case. Is he a serial pederast who has for sure been sɛҳuąƖly abusing prepubescent boys? Is he an otherwise blameless and exemplary priest who has a couple of accusations or insinuations against him? “Investigation” may not be straightforward either. You don’t want to tell people the rumors unnecessarily, nor alert the man under suspicion and give him more cause to hide evidence. Was he caught having an affair with a woman? Or saying inappropriate things to an adult parishioner? All these things would probably require a different course of action. And you could sentence a priest to some kind of no-contact-with-faithful “rehab,” but there’s no guarantee he won’t just quit his order. We should not be surprised that these things are kept pretty secret. It’s not just to “protect the Church’s image.” I imagine there’s very few cases where a superior has absolute proof that a priest is guilty of crimes and can say “Ok, see, we are very transparent and hate sodomy, we caught this one abusing altar boys and now we are handing him over to the cops. Hopefully the state will execute the monster. May God have mercy on his soul.” As satisfying as that would be for everyone.
-
Come to think of it, thanks for posting that link. I had no idea Voris had spoken of "Not Born That Way" in 2016.
Very edifying! He's a smart man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-lx9Sz1kRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-lx9Sz1kRk)
Voris is good at telling people what they want to hear. He seems to be an expert on that.
-
Sam, according to the article, the SSPX found The two priests you mention guilty. Then these two priest who I guess were under some house arrest of some kind, left to join the resistance. Does the resistance know the back ground and are they still active priests. I realize this article is a few years old.
I knew nothing about any of this till two days ago. As I said, if even a tiny bit of this is true, what a sad day for the church.
As I recall, (may not have the dates precisely) but there was a man in the UK by the name of Greg Taylor who first sounded the alarm about the predator priest in the Resistance in the UK, maybe around 2015. Taylor wanted the priest removed from the Resistance Mass circuit where he had access to kids. I believe people tarred and feathered him and called him a liar, much like what is happening here to Voris, and me (by extension) for discussing it.
I believe that priest lived (and still lives) in Bp. Williamson's house and is his caretaker.
The priest was mentioned again in April of 2017 in the Swedish docuмentary film about the SSPX abuse coverup. His name is Fr. Stephen Abraham. He was filmed by the crew on the street as he walked into the house. He is mentioned in Michael Voris's initial 45 minute docuмentary from last Wednesday.
It isn't surprising you never heard the story until 2 days ago, because no Catholic news outlet would report the story in 2017, not even Church Militant, if I remember correctly.
The other Resistance priest profiled in the film was in France at Bp. Faure's chapel. In the film, Bp. Faure was filmed gave a poor excuse for the priest at a conference that caused controversy, because he mentioned wanting to save the priest's soul, and it looked like he didn't have concern for the victims. I have no idea if that priest (Fr. Phillipe Peignot) is still with the Resistance. Maybe a French Resistance parishioner will chime in.
That Swedish film is probably still on the internet somewhere.
Many of the other abuse cases that Voris docuмents are ones I had never heard of, i.e. the offender in Veneta, the St. Mary's ѕυιcιdє, the Palmieri father, etc. I was aware of the Sloniker case in Post Falls.
But, you're right - what a sad day for the Church. It will be better after the trash is taken out and the coverups are ended.
-
Voris is good at telling people what they want to hear. He seems to be an expert on that.
Like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones, Voris spotted a business opportunity, by filling a vacuum, to become a voice for all frustrated conservative-minded Catholics. So Voris rants and raves to allow his listeners to experience an emotional release of their frustration. This kind of thing can actually neutralize opposition to a point, as his listeners experience a kind of catharsis of their frustration by just listening to him, as they rise up out of their easy chairs pumping their fists in agreement, and then slouch back down satisfied and relieved.
-
If so, it sounds like the SSPX found these priests guilty....and then they left to go to the Resistance. What do you think of these priests being in the Resistance which you say you support? Were you as adamant about that?
As far as I know, those priests have not been removed from the Resistance. Maybe somebody here knows their current status.
-
As I recall, (may not have the dates precisely) but there was a man in the UK by the name of Greg Taylor who first sounded the alarm about the predator priest in the Resistance in the UK, maybe around 2015. Taylor wanted the priest removed from the Resistance Mass circuit where he had access to kids. I believe people tarred and feathered him and called him a liar, much like what is happening here to Voris, and me (by extension) for discussing it.
Again you present a false dilemma, a non-existent binary, of believing everything Voris says and dismissing everything as lies. No one here says that everything Voris said was without merit. We're simply sifting through all the crud he layered on top of it all in an attempt to distinguish between factual information that needs to be addressed and dishonest propaganda. We are also questioning his motives. Taylor was dealing with a single case, while Voris made a series of allegations, giving the impression that he was slinging excrement against a wall to see how much of it would stick.
-
Like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones, Voris spotted a business opportunity, by filling a vacuum, to become a voice for all frustrated conservative-minded Catholics. So Voris rants and raves to allow his listeners to experience an emotional release of their frustration. This kind of thing can actually neutralize opposition to a point, as his listeners experience a kind of catharsis of their frustration by just listening to him, as they rise up out of their easy chairs pumping their fists in agreement, and then slouch back down satisfied and relieved.
I was thinking along the same lines. People are so glad that Voris has done his expose on the SSPX (or whatever expose he's doing at the time), that they won't really follow through to see if anything will be done about the situation. As you say, it fills a vacuum, to become a voice for frustrated conservative-minded Catholics. And Voris will just move on to his next expose, and his fans will be happy that he's exposing the rot in the Church. But will this method actually solve problems and get rid of the rot?
Here on the forum, some of the cases that Voris has described have been thoroughly discussed in the past. There's more of an interest here in trying to get to the bottom of the situation, and there are quite a few different perspectives offered on a given issue, which helps. Voris just wants to do an expose, maybe in order to bring evil to the light of day, then move on. But that's not how the Church works. Real human beings are involved, and as such, situations tend to be complicated. That's why honesty and integrity, with a view to Justice, rather than selling airtime, is important. I don't see that Voris' expose on the SSPX has caused the SSPX to be honest and upfront about the issues. So maybe something is missing in Voris' tactics or handling or the situation.
-
Not sure whether this has been mentioned yet in any of the many threads on this topic currently circulating through this forum, but in its most recent communique, the U.S. District wrote:
"[T]he U.S. District is working through the information it has in order to verify its reliability while also cooperating with the appropriate legal authorities to verify which cases the District can comment on at this time."
Ongoing legal investigations are generally subject to gag-orders. For Voris (and a number of posters on here) to rail against the SSPX for a perceived lack of response is jumping the gun, in my opinion. Yes, the Society's responses may appear lacklustre but no poster on here has any of the facts: namely that the SSPX is likely not at legal liberty to defend themselves in the court of public opinion just now, or even to admit to the full extent of their wrongdoing, or to ask for forgiveness, etc.
In my opinion, CM's most recent response 'You Call That A Response?' was in poor taste. CM published the report, they should wait until any ongoing legal investigations are concluded and the Society can respond properly. Until then, they've essentially backed the Society in between a rock and a hard place and are hitting them while they're down. This is surely a sin against charity.
The SSPX has much to answer for, and they will, in time. Church Militant should drop the subject for now. Do we, an uninformed public audience (or at least armed with very limited, mostly one-sided information) want to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner?
-
I actually do believe that there has been an active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network within the SSPX. Those who are part of it will in fact cover up for each other. That is the very nature and purpose of their network.
What's your problem with Voris, then?
Is there anyone else doing something impactful to drain that swamp?
Should the crimes of that network go on until someone more worthy than the fαɢɢօt Voris comes along?
-
As I recall, (may not have the dates precisely) but there was a man in the UK by the name of Greg Taylor who first sounded the alarm about the predator priest in the Resistance in the UK, maybe around 2015. Taylor wanted the priest removed from the Resistance Mass circuit where he had access to kids. I believe people tarred and feathered him and called him a liar, much like what is happening here to Voris, and me (by extension) for discussing it.
I believe that priest lived (and still lives) in Bp. Williamson's house and is his caretaker.
The priest was mentioned again in April of 2017 in the Swedish docuмentary film about the SSPX abuse coverup. His name is Fr. Stephen Abraham. He was filmed by the crew on the street as he walked into the house. He is mentioned in Michael Voris's initial 45 minute docuмentary from last Wednesday.
It isn't surprising you never heard the story until 2 days ago, because no Catholic news outlet would report the story in 2017, not even Church Militant, if I remember correctly.
The other Resistance priest profiled in the film was in France at Bp. Faure's chapel. In the film, Bp. Faure was filmed gave a poor excuse for the priest at a conference that caused controversy, because he mentioned wanting to save the priest's soul, and it looked like he didn't have concern for the victims. I have no idea if that priest (Fr. Phillipe Peignot) is still with the Resistance. Maybe a French Resistance parishioner will chime in.
That Swedish film is probably still on the internet somewhere.
Many of the other abuse cases that Voris docuмents are ones I had never heard of, i.e. the offender in Veneta, the St. Mary's ѕυιcιdє, the Palmieri father, etc. I was aware of the Sloniker case in Post Falls.
But, you're right - what a sad day for the Church. It will be better after the trash is taken out and the coverups are ended.
I guess I just don't understand why you weren't as upset back then. Were you here under another name because I would think you would have been just as outraged then and I don't remember this sort of reaction.
There is something about you that's not adding up for me.
-
These ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have infiltrated many organizations. Their existence within the SSPX does nothing to de-legitimize Traditional Catholicism any more than their existence within the Catholic Church in general de-legitimize what the Church stands for.
"These ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" are one thing. Those who are covering things up while not necessarily being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs themselves are another.
But Voris is trying to leverage this into an attack on the entire Traditional Catholic movement.
These ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs have infiltrated many organizations. Their existence within the SSPX does nothing to de-legitimize Traditional Catholicism any more than their existence within the Catholic Church in general de-legitimize what the Church stands for.
This quote seems to sum up this whole thread. Fear, fear, fear, that that fαɢɢօt Voris could tear down "the entire Traditional Catholic movement". Fear, that the SSPX might go bankrupt and give up.
Who do you all believe in?
Start to fear God, fear God, and fear God. Stop fearing sensationalist fαɢɢօt media. The SSPX will go bankrupt if God wills it. Stop believing in the SSPX as a necessary means for salvation. Start willing truth and justice first, and second, and third. God saves all those he wants to save. And pray that if the SSPX hosts ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ( = pederast) networks like Ladislaus believes, that God hopefully destroys it.
-
"These ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" are one thing. Those who are covering things up while not necessarily being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs themselves are another.
Well, those who cover things up may themselves be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, part of a network.
-
This quote seems to sum up this whole thread. Fear, fear, fear, that that fαɢɢօt Voris could tear down "the entire Traditional Catholic movement". Fear, that the SSPX might go bankrupt and give up.
Who do you all believe in?
You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that Voris could tear down the entire movement; I simply said that he is using it to attack the Traditional movement in general, as a whole. We could cite the wisdom of Gamliel.
And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.
To the extent that the SSPX is doing the work of God, no human power can bring it down, much less a Michael Voris.
-
It’s one thing to compile solid evidence that a man has committed a crime. It’s quite another to accuse a broad group of men, and by strong implication, an entire priestly society, of being guilty, by act and by concealment, of awful crimes.
There may be a lot of people here who are disappointed at the SSPX leadership’s lack of courage in the face of modernist Rome’s attempts to soften their opposition, but few of us believe the whole society is a vile den of perverts and sodomites, which is exactly what CM’s piece insinuates.
-
You appear to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that Voris could tear down the entire movement; I simply said that he is using it to attack the Traditional movement in general, as a whole.
You said: "But Voris is trying to leverage this into an attack on the entire Traditional Catholic movement."
And this whole thread is about attacking Voris as if the SSPX looked better if Voris alone was more fαɢɢօt than possibly all cases in the SSPX summed up.
Your contribution is mainly: "I actually do believe that there has been an active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network within the SSPX. Those who are part of it will in fact cover up for each other. That is the very nature and purpose of their network."
-
A confessed fαɢɢօt with a wig and dressed up like a fαɢɢօt is less a problem than a network of fαɢɢօts controlling confessionals.
-
A fαɢɢօt with a wig and dressed up like a fαɢɢօt is less a problem than a network of fαɢɢօts controlling confessionals.
Voris’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past is always a concern. It’s very hard to trust a man who once betrayed his own nature.
But a more serious danger to the Traditional Catholic movement is a media man claiming to be Catholic, who endorses the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the тαℓмυdic Noehide laws and is funded by Opus Dei.
-
Voris’s ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past is always a concern. It’s very hard to trust a man who once betrayed his own nature.
But a more serious danger to the Traditional Catholic movement is a man claiming to be Catholic, who endorses the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the тαℓмυdic Noehide laws and is funded by Opus Dei.
Whom do you defend? The whole SSPX endorses these fables. Seminarians and priests have to listen to soap fables at lunch. There even was a docuмentary about it with impressive footage.
-
I guess I just don't understand why you weren't as upset back then.
A lot of people were upset back then. Why wouldn't they be? You think people are happy about the rot being covered up in the SSPX, destroying Abp. LeFebvre's legacy? You think the homo/pedo infiltration is only in the Novus Ordo? I recall people back then dismissing the Swedish film because of the source, (basically the same thing as what is happening to Voris), because Catholics didn't want to believe Swedish journalists since they are liberals or not Catholic. Matt Gaspers of CFN, said he had never even seen the 2017 film when Voris first started reporting on predators in the SSPX last summer. If Gaspers doesn't even watch a film about abuse in the largest Traditional Catholic priestly order, what kind of an editor is he?
-
Start to fear God, fear God, and fear God. Stop fearing sensationalist fαɢɢօt media. The SSPX will go bankrupt if God wills it. Stop believing in the SSPX as a necessary means for salvation. Start willing truth and justice first, and second, and third. God saves all those he wants to save. And pray that if the SSPX hosts ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ ( = pederast) networks like Ladislaus believes, that God hopefully destroys it.
YES!
And if God wills the SSPX to fall, just think of all the new "Resistance" priests that will be in the world looking for a place to land, freed from the present "gag order" due to their imminent deal with Rome.
-
And if God wills the SSPX to fall, just think of all the new "Resistance" priests that will be in the world looking for a place to land, freed from the present "gag order" due to their imminent deal with Rome.
And watch out for new Resistance fαɢɢօt priests.
-
Whom do you defend? The whole SSPX endorses these fables. Seminarians and priests have to listen to soap fables at lunch. There even was a docuмentary about it with impressive footage.
Tou say the SSPX is teaching the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the Noehide Laws and is friends with Opus Dei? :popcorn:
-
Tou say the SSPX is teaching the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the Noehide Laws and is friends with Opus Dei? :popcorn:
I was referring to those gassing and soap fables only. But since acordistas are in accord with the modernist Noahide masons including the Scribe Escriba, yes, that's what I say.
-
And watch out for new Resistance fαɢɢօt priests.
That too, but I'm hoping the criminal ones will get indicted and be gone.
-
(https://www.cor-mariae.com/attachments/1587956664550-png.3209/)
-
I was referring to those gassing and soap fables only. But since acordistas are in accord with the modernist Noahide masons including the Scribe Escriba, yes, that's what I say.
But that would mean you contradict yourself then Strut?
Because in a recent post, you asked, “What are the signs that the SSPX has gone masonic?”
I replied that the zionist operative Max Krah discovered in the upper echelons of Menzingen and the $100 million Jaidhoff donation were clear signs of it.
If you say the SSPX is teaching h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, Noehidism and endorsing Opus judei, then prove it.
We proved Voris was doing such.
In the case of the SSPX, there is still some validly ordained priests, we hope.
In the case if of Voris, it’s just an old show-boat homo reading an Opus Dei script in front of a camera.
-
But that would mean you contradict yourself then Strut?
Because in a recent post, you asked, “What are the signs that the SSPX has gone masonic?”
I didn't ask that. Must have been someone else.
-
Can anybody confirm whether Fr. Stephen Abraham and Fr. Phillipe Peignot are still active priests in the Bp Williamsons and Bp. Faure's resistance group? If they are, then why have the bishops not removed them . For that matter, why did they even let them enter after they were found guilty. Looks like cover ups all over the place. No group is pure for sure. Very sad. No wonder why God has pretty much taken the mass away from us world wide with this covid 19.
-
Can anybody confirm whether Fr. Stephen Abraham and Fr. Phillipe Peignot are still active priests in the Bp Williamsons and Bp. Faure's resistance group? If they are, then why have the bishops not removed them . For that matter, why did they even let them enter after they were found guilty. Looks like cover ups all over the place. No group is pure for sure. Very sad. No wonder why God has pretty much taken the mass away from us world wide with this covid 19.
Yes, Fr. Abraham lives in Broadstairs with Bp. Williamson. I don't know if he gives public Masses anymore or not. I'll have to ask.
Fr. Peignot is probably still in France at his chapel of Bp. Faure's because there were no consequences for either of these men in 2017, but you'd have to ask someone in France to be more precise and current.
-
I'm fine with that, Jaynek.
Thanks. I wanted to let you know that your posts are being appreciated on the other forum.
-
You said: "But Voris is trying to leverage this into an attack on the entire Traditional Catholic movement."
Correct. He's trying to attack the entire movement. That does not mean he can tear it down. Those are two different things. Just like people use the pederasty scandal to attack the Church as a whole, that does not mean they can cause the Church to defect.
-
He's trying to attack the entire movement.
The SSPX is not the "entire movement."
He's attacking the coverup in the SSPX. The SSPX is not all of Tradition.
It isn't going to destroy the entire SSPX, any more than the Boston Globe's breaking of the abuse story in 2002 destroyed the Church. It has taken YEARS for the investigations to take place. The PA Grand Jury report came out in 2018 - sixteen years after the story came out.
There are some parishes that were shut down in the Novus Ordo and some dioceses that were bankrupted by abuse payouts. That is just an inconvenience to those who attended them because they had to find a new parish to go to, but it's better than continuing to let kids get molested.
The same could happen for the SSPX. Maybe there will be a few less priests, because some go to jail. Maybe some satellite parishes end. Nobody knows where this will all go in the end.
-
The same could happen for the SSPX. Maybe there will be a few less priests, because some go to jail. Maybe some satellite parishes end. Nobody knows where this will all go in the end.
Where are you hoping that it will go?
-
The SSPX is not the "entire movement."
Did you bother to watch the video you're promoting? He made several derogatory comments about Traditional Catholics in general.
-
Did you bother to watch the video you're promoting? He made several derogatory comments about Traditional Catholics in general.
It is clear to me that a few of the members here (one in particular) have a serious ax to grind with the Society, to the extent that they have already accepted the veracity of every single one of the many allegations contained in CM's report, unquestioningly and without hesitation.
To the extent that we unquestioningly accept the entirety of CM's report without waiting patiently for the Society to respond (when they are legally able to do so), we embrace the rabid mentality of the #MeToo movement, thinking with emotion rather than reason.
To me, this isn't really even about CM's history of circulating false, anti-SSPX canards, or their relationship with Opus Dei. The fact is that charity and prudence DEMAND that we consider both sides of the story, which, again, we cannot at the present moment do because the Society has likely been gag-ordered by the courts. To accept wholesale every allegation Church Militant has made would demonstrate a serious lack of judgement in the same way that accepting, without reservation, the Society's explanations.
Sam Smith literally insinuated that you were soft on pederast priests simply because you wouldn't tar and feather the SSPX or accept without hesitation information that you read on the internet. To debate with someone so driven by emotion is pointless.
Does the Society have a lot of explaining to do? Oh yeah.
Are many parts of Church Militant's report concerning? You bet.
Has the Society's response thus far appeared unconvincing? You could argue so.
Should we, with reckless abandon, join with Voris in shredding the Society before they've had the chance to respond? Nope.
-
It is clear to me that a few of the members here (one in particular) have a serious ax to grind with the Society, to the extent that they have already accepted the veracity of every single one of the many allegations contained in CM's report, unquestioningly and without hesitation.
To the extent that we unquestioningly accept the entirety of CM's report without waiting patiently for the Society to respond (when they are legally able to do so), we embrace the rabid mentality of the #MeToo movement, thinking with emotion rather than reason.
To me, this isn't really even about CM's history of circulating false, anti-SSPX canards, or their relationship with Opus Dei. The fact is that charity and prudence DEMAND that we consider both sides of the story, which, again, we cannot at the present moment do because the Society has likely been gag-ordered by the courts. To accept wholesale every allegation Church Militant has made would demonstrate a serious lack of judgement in the same way that accepting, without reservation, the Society's explanations.
Sam Smith literally insinuated that you were soft on pederast priests simply because you wouldn't tar and feather the SSPX or accept without hesitation information that you read on the internet. To debate with someone so driven by emotion is pointless.
Does the Society have a lot of explaining to do? Oh yeah.
Are many parts of Church Militant's report concerning? You bet.
Has the Society's response thus far appeared unconvincing? You could argue so.
Should we, with reckless abandon, join with Voris in shredding the Society before they've had the chance to respond? Nope.
Well put.
-
One of the key figures in the story, Jassy Jacas was considered not credible by police, nor by the Society. Michael Voris is bankrolled by semi-trad elements who loath the SSPX, besides Caroll, probably Opus Dei. His subscribers numbers are plunging, so he's reliant on funders and the hope this gambit will gain new subs.
-
Correct. He's trying to attack the entire movement. That does not mean he can tear it down.
Correct. There is no proof that he can.
But if the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread did believe that he can't, they wouldn't get upset but rather laugh about fαɢɢօt Voris.
Why get upset if you think Voris has got nothing substantial?
-
Does the Society have a lot of explaining to do? Oh yeah.
Are many parts of Church Militant's report concerning? You bet.
Has the Society's response thus far appeared unconvincing? You could argue so.
Should we, with reckless abandon, join with Voris in shredding the Society before they've had the chance to respond? Nope.
Fr. Wegner, is that you??
I say this to demonstrate the treatment I've been given here simply for believing Voris's reporting. People literally asked if I am Michael Voris.
So...what was it that you were saying about emotion again?
This story is not new, it is actually a long-simmering one.
The fact that I believe Voris has exactly what evidence he says he does (after a 4 month investigation) has to do with the Society's previous handling of the its abuse scandals in 2015 and 2017, which happen to track precisely with the response Jassy Jacas got from the Society in January 2020.
The Society is not owed a "benefit of the doubt" by anyone when they have demonstrated a total inability to take responsibility FOR YEARS. For me, their "benefit of the doubt" card was used up long ago on their first sex abuse debacle.
They have now released not one, not two, not three, but FOUR poorly-conceived public statements that dig the hole deeper for themselves.
My opinion is formed solely by their actions/inactions and their words in response to the evidence revealed.
-
Correct. There is no proof that he can.
But if the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread did believe that he can't, they wouldn't get upset but rather laugh about fαɢɢօt Voris.
Why get upset if you think Voris has got nothing substantial?
Voris can still do a lot of damage ... for which he'll need to answer to God.
-
Why get upset if you think Voris has got nothing substantial?
Sermons of the Cure of Ars
Fourth Sunday of Advent – Penance
http://gardenofmary.com/fourth-sunday-of-advent-penance/
(. . .)
After we have made satisfaction to God, we must make satisfaction to our neighbor for the wrong which we have done him, in soul and body. I say for the wrong that we have done to his body, that is to say to his person, by speaking of him in an abusive and contemptuous way, or by insulting him by our malicious actions. If we have had the misfortune to offend him by our abusive talk, we must ask his pardon, and become reconciled with him. If you have assailed the honor of your neighbor, for instance, by speaking ill of him you are obliged to speak of his good qualities, as you have spoken about his bad ones. If you have calumniated him, you must seek out all those persons in whose presence you have spoken falsely about him, and tell them that all you said about your neighbor was not true; that you are very sorry about it, and that you beg them not to believe it. If you have wronged him in regard to his soul, that is far more difficult to make good; however, you must do what you possibly can, or you will not obtain forgiveness from God.
Eleventh Sunday After Pentecost – Detraction
http://gardenofmary.com/eleventh-sunday-after-pentecost-detractio/
When we impute something bad to our neighbor which he has not committed, a defect which he does not possess, we commit calumny; a most detestable act, which unfortunately, and in spite of its great wrong, is very common. This is not detraction, it is more sinful, but from detraction to calumny is only a small step. If we are honest, we must admit that we invariably add something to, or magnify the bad which we know of our neighbor. A slanderous story that has passed from tongue to tongue, no longer resembles that which was said at first, it has been so much engrossed and aggravated; from which fact we must conclude that a detractor is almost invariably also a calumniator, and a calumniator is a very wicked person.
(. . .)
To speak badly of persons consecrated to God, of the servants of the church, is a much greater sin on account of the lamentable results to religion and of the detriment to their position. The Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of the prophet says: “To abuse and revile His (the Holy Ghost's) servants is to touch the apple of His eye”; that means nothing can offend Him more. This sin consequently is a crime, the enormity of which surpasses all comprehension. Christ also said: “Whosoever despises you, despises me.”
-
It seems people are not actually discussing the issues, but have resorted to attacking persons, which on its face suggests they are afraid that the details won't favor their position.
-
It seems people are not actually discussing the issues, but have resorted to attacking persons, which on its face suggests they are afraid that the details won't favor their position.
At issue is a sex scandal media campaign launched by Church Militant.
The first question posed:
Do you believe the veracity of the campaigners, when they also promote:
1. The h0Ɩ0h0αx.
2. The Noehide laws.
3. The Opus Dei
-
It seems to me that if our SSPX & Resistance superiors/bishops were actually good shepherds they would have immediately given those perverts the choice of being defrocked or living out their vocations somewhere like Papa Stronsay. (Not leaving them to minister to the faithful like wolves in sheep's clothing, or keeping them as housekeepers who are allowed out amongst the flock.) All these years I defended them with "We don't have perverts like the NO". Silly me.
-
At issue is a sex scandal media campaign launched by Church Militant.
The first question posed:
Do you believe the veracity of the campaigners, when they also promote:
1. The h0Ɩ0h0αx.
2. The Noehide laws.
3. The Opus Dei
While it may be helpful to know where Church Militant stands on the issues listed, it don't answer the bigger questions: Does CM have the evidence to prove their claims against the SSPX? Is everyone on this thread certain there are zero abusers in the SSPX? Is it impossible that every single priest/bishop in the SSPX would ever cover up abuse, either through malice or really bad judgement that demands correction? We should ask the same questions of those launching personal attacks on CI that we ask CM because abuse happens kind of a lot these days. If it's true, heads should roll. And if there are victims, they need our support. Conversely, if CM is lying, all the snarky comments won't bother him a bit. If he can't prove his allegations, his head would need to roll.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/seeking-information/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/seeking-information/)
-
There was the case of Fr. Benedict VanderPutten. After getting wind of what happened there, the SSPX immediately removed him and reported him to the Vatican, and this was after local authorities had opted not to file charges against him due to lack of evidence.
So there are contrary cases also that Voris remained silent about.
You are dead wrong on this case. Sadly, the SSPX did coverup this one for a very long time to the detriment of children. You may find this out very soon.
-
It is clear to me that a few of the members here (one in particular) have a serious ax to grind with the Society, to the extent that they have already accepted the veracity of every single one of the many allegations contained in CM's report, unquestioningly and without hesitation.
To the extent that we unquestioningly accept the entirety of CM's report without waiting patiently for the Society to respond (when they are legally able to do so), we embrace the rabid mentality of the #MeToo movement, thinking with emotion rather than reason.
To me, this isn't really even about CM's history of circulating false, anti-SSPX canards, or their relationship with Opus Dei. The fact is that charity and prudence DEMAND that we consider both sides of the story, which, again, we cannot at the present moment do because the Society has likely been gag-ordered by the courts. To accept wholesale every allegation Church Militant has made would demonstrate a serious lack of judgement in the same way that accepting, without reservation, the Society's explanations.
Sam Smith literally insinuated that you were soft on pederast priests simply because you wouldn't tar and feather the SSPX or accept without hesitation information that you read on the internet. To debate with someone so driven by emotion is pointless.
Does the Society have a lot of explaining to do? Oh yeah.
Are many parts of Church Militant's report concerning? You bet.
Has the Society's response thus far appeared unconvincing? You could argue so.
Should we, with reckless abandon, join with Voris in shredding the Society before they've had the chance to respond? Nope.
You mean that the CM Report is DISCONCERTING.
-
You are dead wrong on this case. Sadly, the SSPX did coverup this one for a very long time to the detriment of children. You may find this out very soon.
Bring it on!
Fr. Vanderputen’s record became very public after Bp. Fellay appealed to B16 to defrock him.
The action served 2 purposes:
1. To remove Vanderputen from all
Catholic venues.
2. To demonstrate that the SSPX
needed newChurch authority to
govern one of it’s ex-members.
-
Has Taylor Marshall said anything on CM's report on SSPX child molestation, protecting abusers, and Fellay? Because I have looked, and haven't seen it.
I watched Marshall's two recent SPPX priest-guest videos he had, and I took note when he said he want to an SSPX Easter Mass with his family, and I was swayed to soften my reserve about SSPX. To begin to think that maybe SSPX was a viable refuge. Then this comes out from Church Militant. And SSPX uses the same entitled cover-up that the American bishops used, eventeh same words. They are no different. (Actually, really, worse). So, no refuge. A nicer Mass, but a hierarchy MORE dysfunctional and entitled (which I hadn't imagined was possible).
So what does Taylor Marshall have to say now? Nothing at all? I sure am disappointed in him if that is the case.
-
Who cares what Taylor Marshall says.
Do what the Church says.
Taylor Marshall himself needs to study.
-
Tradcast Express did a review of Taylor Marshall's "opus magnum" "Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within."
Tradcast shredded the book- it was almost embarrassing. TM's opinions were left alone, but Tradcast focused on just how poorly docuмented and footnoted the book was, especially for a PHD in Theology who should have known how to write from his dissertation. Tradcast picked up that he used Wikipedia for a lot of his sourcing (lol) instead of Vatican docuмents and biographies that could have provided solid evidence.
Remember, TM threw Dr King From Fisher More College under the bus for trying to be Traditional as possible, eschewing Vll and inviting Fr Gruner to speak at the college, so I think it's funny that he holds himself up to be such a Rad Trad.
He's a bit snakey to me.
-
It seems to me that if our SSPX & Resistance superiors/bishops were actually good shepherds they would have immediately given those perverts the choice of being defrocked or living out their vocations somewhere like Papa Stronsay. (Not leaving them to minister to the faithful like wolves in sheep's clothing, or keeping them as housekeepers who are allowed out amongst the flock.) All these years I defended them with "We don't have perverts like the NO". Silly me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLuIRaMsYg0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLuIRaMsYg0)
-
X
-
Tradcast Express did a review of Taylor Marshall's "opus magnum" "Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within."
Tradcast shredded the book- it was almost embarrassing. TM's opinions were left alone, but Tradcast focused on just how poorly docuмented and footnoted the book was, especially for a PHD in Theology who should have known how to write from his dissertation. Tradcast picked up that he used Wikipedia for a lot of his sourcing (lol) instead of Vatican docuмents and biographies that could have provided solid evidence.
Remember, TM threw Dr King From Fisher More College under the bus for trying to be Traditional as possible, eschewing Vll and inviting Fr Gruner to speak at the college, so I think it's funny that he holds himself up to be such a Rad Trad.
He's a bit snakey to me.
Tradcast, Fisher More, some King thing - I had to look it up, but nothing made it clear and quick, but I got: Tradcast is Sedevacantist (and I am not); King thing was 2010, so I don't know if TM's views on whatever happened have evolved; Fisher More is the college is TM's hometown (or nearby) that he was apparently involved with, then not, because of not being happy about something with King.
But I am not motivated to find out more, because of course it's expected that Tradcast would not like Infiltration because they think every single thing since Vatican II is not real, so, there is no church itself to infiltrate. Also no surprise that they could find ways to pick it apart. Remembering that Rose's Goodbye, Good Men was not good enough as an expose\t for many. One can always find points of a thing to argue, and argue endlessly, especially if they cross our preconceived ideas. Especially ideas we are very committed to.
So, if you are Sedevacantist, the only church existing to be infiltrated would be SSPX. Oh, and we see that happened. Only, it's same same MO used on the NO church.
I was Evangelical Christian before converting, and in that path one must use discernment, without the actual Church teachings to consult, but only the Bible, and whoever seems most expert and pious to interpret. I was interested always in becoming "more Christian", and cult-like groups often claimed to be that, and they looked more Christian. But looking closer, I saw patterns of things not right. So when I became Catholic and saw so much wrong in our NO Church, I looked a bit at SSPX, and saw some of those same marks - more Christian, convinced they were the only right ones, i.e. But also what concerned me was the unquestioning loyalty to a hierarchy that has no transparency. I know that is not a good thing, that it is a breeding ground for abuse of power, in all manners. Look what it invites and harbors. : ( I am sorry for all those who are suffering because of the truth of the CM revelations, and I am aghast at those in denial, claiming CM is just out to get SSPX. How silly. But sad.
-
I haven't posted on on CI for well over a year or longer. But I couldn't resists on this Voris issue. The following quote pretty well sums it up:
Does the Society have a lot of explaining to do? Oh yeah.
Are many parts of Church Militant's report concerning? You bet.
Has the Society's response thus far appeared unconvincing? You could argue so.
Should we, with reckless abandon, join with Voris in shredding the Society before they've had the chance to respond? Nope
.I don't join Voris "with reckless abandon. Whatever his motives, Voris and Christine Niles report the truth about the situation. Nothing they report has been effectively refuted on this site. It is all too true. The SSPX is DOA. Some of us saw this years ago. The good bishop should perhaps abandon warnings about the Society on the brink of returning to Rome. He might be advised to recognize the fact that SSPX has become Rome. It is not a Romeward trend. This trad outfit has already, for many years, been virtually a part of Rome.
-
I haven't posted on on CI for well over a year or longer. But I couldn't resists on this Voris issue. The following quote pretty well sums it up:
.I don't join Voris "with reckless abandon. Whatever his motives, Voris and Christine Niles report the truth about the situation. Nothing they report has been effectively refuted on this site. It is all too true. The SSPX is DOA. Some of us saw this years ago. The good bishop should perhaps abandon warnings about the Society on the brink of returning to Rome. He might be advised to recognize the fact that SSPX has become Rome. It is not a Romeward trend. This trad outfit has already, for many years, been virtually a part of Rome.
Regarding your assertion above that nothing from Voris or Niles has been effectively refuted, I'd say that Voris' charges against Fr. Novak have been refuted here. Maybe not as effectively as you'd like.
-
Voris' go to 'victim' is Jassy Jacas in whom law enforcement could place no credibility. This exposé seems to draw from, or draws from the same source as a Swedish docuмentary which made a great of unsupported calumnies against Resistance priests. I suspect after this pan cake flat stuff has been eaten, there will be a few meager bits served up.
Fr Jenkins SSPV remarks on the matter covers what he sees as an attitude among the SSPX and problems created by 'partial communion':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title)
-
Voris' go to 'victim' is Jassy Jacas in whom law enforcement could place no credibility. This exposé seems to draw from, or draws from the same source as a Swedish docuмentary which made a great of unsupported calumnies against Resistance priests. I suspect after this pan cake flat stuff has been eaten, there will be a few meager bits served up.
Fr Jenkins SSPV remarks on the matter covers what he sees as an attitude among the SSPX and problems created by 'partial communion':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title)
I can't believe I'm saying this about the SSPV, but Fr. Jenkins gives the best assessment of the SSPX/Voris issue that I've seen thus far. He brings up many thought-provoking ideas, and he's respectful of all parties, but truthful and realistic at the same time.
Good assessment, too, about the Coronavirus problem, in the 2nd half of the talk.
-
Fr Jenkins SSPV remarks on the matter covers what he sees as an attitude among the SSPX and problems created by 'partial communion':
Very incisive comments, as usual, from Fr. Jenkins. He speculates that, if there is in fact a greater tolerance for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the SSPX, it could derive from the general softening of the SSPX on Modernism in general, and therefore becoming more tolerant of sin and evil as a result. So the opposite of how Voris and Niles spun it.
-
I can't believe I'm saying this about the SSPV, but Fr. Jenkins gives the best assessment of the SSPX/Voris issue that I've seen thus far. He brings up many thought-provoking ideas, and he's respectful of all parties, but truthful and realistic at the same time.
Good assessment, too, about the Coronavirus problem, in the 2nd half of the talk.
Fr. Jenkins is a great priest with his head screwed on straight. He's also a terrific preacher and a brilliant man. IMO, if anyone with the SSPX should have been consecrated a bishop, it's Fr. Jenkins.
-
Tradcast, Fisher More, some King thing - I had to look it up, but nothing made it clear and quick, but I got: Tradcast is Sedevacantist (and I am not); King thing was 2010, so I don't know if TM's views on whatever happened have evolved; Fisher More is the college is TM's hometown (or nearby) that he was apparently involved with, then not, because of not being happy about something with King.
But I am not motivated to find out more, because of course it's expected that Tradcast would not like Infiltration because they think every single thing since Vatican II is not real, so, there is no church itself to infiltrate. Also no surprise that they could find ways to pick it apart. Remembering that Rose's Goodbye, Good Men was not good enough as an expose\t for many. One can always find points of a thing to argue, and argue endlessly, especially if they cross our preconceived ideas. Especially ideas we are very committed to.
So, if you are Sedevacantist, the only church existing to be infiltrated would be SSPX. Oh, and we see that happened. Only, it's same same MO used on the NO church.
I was Evangelical Christian before converting, and in that path one must use discernment, without the actual Church teachings to consult, but only the Bible, and whoever seems most expert and pious to interpret. I was interested always in becoming "more Christian", and cult-like groups often claimed to be that, and they looked more Christian. But looking closer, I saw patterns of things not right. So when I became Catholic and saw so much wrong in our NO Church, I looked a bit at SSPX, and saw some of those same marks - more Christian, convinced they were the only right ones, i.e. But also what concerned me was the unquestioning loyalty to a hierarchy that has no transparency. I know that is not a good thing, that it is a breeding ground for abuse of power, in all manners. Look what it invites and harbors. : ( I am sorry for all those who are suffering because of the truth of the CM revelations, and I am aghast at those in denial, claiming CM is just out to get SSPX. How silly. But sad.
Not commenting on the thread topic per say (SSPX), just Taylor Marshall. To me he is a phony subversive guy. Not to be taken seriously let alone trusted. Tradcast did not refer to sedvacantism in it's review, just that TM's book was poorly written without the due diligence research the topic called for. TM is an ace manipulator (remember his role in the destruction of Pachymama? He had to let us know it was an arranged event and his idea...along with his Coronavirus hero that tossed the idol. It all sounds contrived to me. I don't trust him, sorry.
PS, I an not a sede but actually listen and read many different positions in order to form my own. In fact you should listen to Fr Jenkin's very balanced assessment of the CM SSPX issue in the video above.
-
Voris' go to 'victim' is Jassy Jacas in whom law enforcement could place no credibility. This exposé seems to draw from, or draws from the same source as a Swedish docuмentary which made a great of unsupported calumnies against Resistance priests. I suspect after this pan cake flat stuff has been eaten, there will be a few meager bits served up.
Fr Jenkins SSPV remarks on the matter covers what he sees as an attitude among the SSPX and problems created by 'partial communion':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwTx5caaBI&feature=emb_title)
I wasn't so impressed with Fr. Jenkins interview for the following reasons:
1. Father failed to acknowledge what the accuser, Church Militant represents.
Voris, in his own show has endorsed the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the Noahide Laws, and Opus Dei.
Voris, working from an Opus Dei buidling, is a funded front for them.
But Father's assessment failed to make the connection of the political motivations behind CM's
rash suspicions and rash judgements.
2. It was a great opportunity for SSPX's sede rival to dig into all of the Society's problems.
But Father's linkage of the sex scandals to the SSPX's more recent, modernist sympathies was out of context.
Most of the SSPX scandals Voris dredged-up were way before the Roman dialogues. But it served Father's purpose as a whipping boy.
3. I had to laugh when Father turned the question of a disaffected SSPXer into a Pius V recruitment pitch :jester:
He forgot to tell the lady that she had to believe in multiple Baptisms (4 presumably), renounce the indult, FSSP and Thuc line ordinations.
4. Father's corona-hoax assessment, ignored the fact that Americans are finally realizing that our government is constantly lying and trying to kill us.
He needs to address the Gate's diabolical vaccine issue. As Catholics, we may not accept it.
Any wavering on this point reeks of cowardice and/or a hireling mentality.
-
You’re using articles from a man who hates ALL real Traditionalists to attack the Society. Pathetic
Direct your anger at the perverts and their enablers.
-
One down!
SSPX Pedophile Priest (Fr. Abbet) Arrested in Switzerland
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-pedophile-priest-arrested-in-switzerland
Local Swiss report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=On-nTpoCoQk&feature=emb_logo
-
Direct your anger at the perverts and their enablers.
That’s right because much of the laity condoned it by worshipping the priest instead of God.
-
How many cases of rape and molestations?
-
That’s right because much of the laity condoned it by worshipping the priest instead of God.
That's the same garbage Voris is spouting. There's no evidence that anyone condoned pederasty. If some people, in an excess of loyalty to a given priest or to the Society, wrongly found the charges not to be credible, that's a different issue altogether. There no truth to your assertion that "much" of the laity condones pederasty.
-
Direct your anger at the perverts and their enablers.
You too are posing a false dilemma, that if you do not believe everything that Voris spouts, then it must mean that you are a supporter of perverts. It's not an all or nothing proposition either. There appears to be merit in SOME of the allegations made by Voris, while others are pure trash.
-
IMO, if anyone with the SSPX should have been consecrated a bishop, it's Fr. Jenkins.
Agreed.
Maybe he still will get consecrated. But, it will be even better now because he is NOT with the SSPX any longer.
-
Agreed.
Maybe he still will get consecrated. But, it will be even better now because he is NOT with the SSPX any longer.
Right. I noticed the typo after it was too late to edit he thread and decided not to bother because people know what I meant. Just mechanical habit, 99% of the time when I type SSP it's followed by X.
-
Fr. Jenkins is a great priest with his head screwed on straight. He's also a terrific preacher and a brilliant man. IMO, if anyone with the SSPX should have been consecrated a bishop, it's Fr. Jenkins.
I really like Fr Jenkins. That would be great. I just wish he'd change his tune on the Thuc consecrations.
-
You’re using articles from a man who hates ALL real Traditionalists to attack the Society. Pathetic
A broken clock is right twice a day. Voris might be in the new order, but his isn't the first expose. There were Swedish journalists whom also busted the SSPX for harboring sɛҳuąƖ predators. These are the rotten fruits of recognizing the new order religion to be the Catholic Church, and of holding heretical doctrine on the papacy as the Society of St Pius X does.
https://youtu.be/gMhXFi4meFU
-
I'm not one to defend the Society in terms of scandals, but I'm sure if Voris looked closely, he would find a few in the FSSP or ICKSP. I only wish my memory served me right so I could start rattling them off the top of my head.
There was a man from Argentina let into the SSPX Winona seminary by Richard Williamson. Richard Williamson also had him ordained. His name was Father Carlos Urrutigoity. Not only did this man abuse young children, but he was also a sodomite who wrote love letters to other seminarians. He was later kicked out by the rector of the Argentina SSPX seminary. He now is part of the Society of Saint John which is a new order latin mass society.
-
I really like Fr Jenkins. That would be great. I just wish he'd change his tune on the Thuc consecrations.
What's so wrong about his position on the Thuc consecrations? We don't know proof positive of what actually occurred. That's not to say his consecrations were valid or invalid. We just don't know. Which is the same reason why we need to avoid the new order. That is Fr Jenkins' view on the Thuc consecrations. They are also most CERTAINLY illicit even if we were to say they are valid. Abp Thuc was an excommunicate for consecrating Palmarians, and FIVE Old Catholic schismatics.
-
What's so wrong about his position on the Thuc consecrations? We don't know proof positive of what actually occurred. That's not to say his consecrations were valid or invalid. We just don't know. Which is the same reason why we need to avoid the new order. That is Fr Jenkins' view on the Thuc consecrations. They are also most CERTAINLY illicit even if we were to say they are valid. Abp Thuc was an excommunicate for consecrating Palmarians, and FIVE Old Catholic schismatics.
No, like them, you're fanning the flames of negative doubt. Similarly, we don't "know proof positive of what actually occurred" with regard to the Mendez ordinations and consecration either.
-
No, like them, you're fanning the flames of negative doubt. Similarly, we don't "know proof positive of what actually occurred" with regard to the Mendez ordinations and consecration either.
Yeah we do. There were priests present at Msgr Kelly's consecration. The only people present at Thuc's "consecrations" were two laymen, Drs Hiller and Heller. These same laymen even testified under oath what happened during the consecrations, and both of them didn't even know the proper form of consecrating a bishop [when asked by then Frs Sanborn, Kelly and Jenkins]. There is also the point from Fr Barbara that Abp Thuc was co-celebrating the new order "mass" in Toulon during the time of his consecrations, and very well could have used oils that he obtained from the new order church in Toulon [which could pose a problem with the validity]. Furthermore, you are clearly dodging a bullet at the fact that Abp Thuc was a complete schismatic. His lineage is no option for any Catholic to approach. Period. Yes, Bishop Alfredo Mendez was a liberal: he did advocate for lay deacons, he did contribute to sex scandals in the new order, and he did support other horrendous things. Archbishop Thuc clearly did far worse things though to the point of schism.
-
No, like them, you're fanning the flames of negative doubt. Similarly, we don't "know proof positive of what actually occurred" with regard to the Mendez ordinations and consecration either.
(http://www.prayforthepope.net/FlowChart.jpg)
Is this the lineage you want to defend? Msgr Thuc consecrated FIVE Old "Catholics" and five Palmarians.
-
(https://www.cor-mariae.com/Thuc%20lineage.jpg)
This is the one I have.
-
(https://www.cor-mariae.com/Thuc%20lineage.jpg)
This is the one I have.
Regardless of the chart I think it's clear anyone who uses Abp Thuc's lineage is taking the easy way out. I still dont understand why Fr Cekada completely flip flopped on his staunch opposition to the Thuc lineage. Let's just say he didn't do everything that's docuмented, and he 100% did remain a Catholic bishop [validly and licitly consecrated bishops]. Then the Sede priests of the RCI would still have to hold Fr des Luariers' consecration to be illicit. Why? Well, according to the testimony of Hiller and Heller, Abp Thuc placed the name of John Paul in the canon. So, by Fr Cekada's and Fr Dolan's own standard, the consecrations of the Thuc bishops were performed during a sacrilegious and illicit ceremony. In fact, they are so emphatic on this point that they will even REFUSE communion to people who attend SSPX masses. Talk about hypocrisy? They viciously attack the CSPV for doing the same thing to people who attend Thuc lineage masses.
-
Then the Sede priests of the RCI would still have to hold Fr des Luariers' consecration to be illicit. Why? Well, according to the testimony of Hiller and Heller, Abp Thuc placed the name of John Paul in the canon.
Every consecration of a Sede has been illicit, since they all lacked the legal requirement of a papal mandate. Not to mention that most were performed by a bishop of a false church, such as the Old Catholic church, or one who was already excommunicated. What is amazing to me is that you sedevacantist heretics actually think your Catholic.
-
Every consecration of a Sede has been illicit, since they all lacked the legal requirement of a papal mandate. Not to mention that most were performed by a bishop of a false church, such as the Old Catholic church, or one who was already excommunicated. What is amazing to me is that you sedevacantist heretics actually think your Catholic.
So?, the SSPX bishops were also consecrated without a mandate. And it is absolutely false (a lie) that most were consecrated by a schismatic Church such as the Old Catholic. Most sedevacantist bishops derive from either Archbishop Thuc or Bishop Mendez, who were both Catholics. What's more, Archbishop Thuc actually did hold a papal mandate from Pius XII that had not been revoked to consecrate whenever he saw fit.
Even if you disagree with the sedevacantists, at best it would make them materially schismatic (if they're wrong about papal legitimacy) and not heretics. But in reality at worst they are simply misapplying St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching regarding popes who are manifest heretics.
-
Every consecration of a Sede has been illicit, since they all lacked the legal requirement of a papal mandate. Not to mention that most were performed by a bishop of a false church, such as the Old Catholic church, or one who was already excommunicated. What is amazing to me is that you sedevacantist heretics actually think your Catholic.
According to canon law the principle of Epikeya justifies the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate [i.e. in cases of extreme necessity]. There are Sedevacantist organizations which derive their lineage from the Old "Catholics", but as Ladislaus said, not all Sede institutions have received their lineage from those schismatics. What is "amazing to me" is that you actually consider a man like "Pope Francis" to be the pope. A man whom: openly teaches that adulterers can receive holy communion, says that Protestants and the Eastern Schismatics don't need conversion, says that non-Catholics can lawfully receive holy communion, says that Jews are the "chosen people of God", says that atheists can get to heaven, believes one can be saved simply by "following their conscience", believes that Protestants are in the Church of Christ, says that Muslims worship the same God, prays and worships with non-Catholics [that includes neo-pagans], says that there is "no Catholic God", awards pro-choice politicians with medals, gives the right to investiture to a secular Communist dictator, etc.
What amazes me is how a modernist liberal heretic like yourself can recognize a man like "Paul VI", an antichrist who promulgated the heretical and blasphemous teachings of Vatican II, to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. What amazes me is how you can recognize an apostate like "John Paul II" to be saint. That's what is "amazing to me".
Arnaldo, if you truly love Jesus [and I am not saying you don't as I don't know your heart], then you would look at these facts and reject Bergoglio as a man of Satan.
-
So?, the SSPX bishops were also consecrated without a mandate. And it is absolutely false (a lie) that most were consecrated by a schismatic Church such as the Old Catholic. Most sedevacantist bishops derive from either Archbishop Thuc or Bishop Mendez, who were both Catholics. What's more, Archbishop Thuc actually did hold a papal mandate from Pius XII that had not been revoked to consecrate whenever he saw fit.
Even if you disagree with the sedevacantists, at best it would make them materially schismatic (if they're wrong about papal legitimacy) and not heretics. But in reality at worst they are simply misapplying St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching regarding popes who are manifest heretics.
I respectfully object to your accusation. We do not misapply any teachings from Saint Robert. Would you care to show me which one Sedevacantists are misapplying?
-
So?, the SSPX bishops were also consecrated without a mandate.
And they too were illicit.
And it is absolutely false (a lie) that most were consecrated by a schismatic Church such as the Old Catholic. Most sedevacantist bishops derive from either Archbishop Thuc or Bishop Mendez, who were both Catholics.
I said most were performed by an Old Catholic bishop or excommunicated bishop.
What's more, Archbishop Thuc actually did hold a papal mandate from Pius XII that had not been revoked to consecrate whenever he saw fit.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Notification*
His Excellency Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, in the month of January 1976 ordained several priests and bishops in the village of Palmar de Troya in Spain, in a way which was completely illicit. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 September of the same year, issued a decree (cf. AAS LXVIII, 1976, p. 623), mentioning the canonical penalties incurred both by himself and by the others who were thus illicitly ordained by him.
Later the same Prelate requested and obtained absolution from the excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See which he had incurred.
It has now come to the knowledge of this Sacred Congregation that His Excellency Mons. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, since the year 1981, has again ordained other priests contrary to the terms of canon 955. Moreover, what is still more serious, in the same year, disregarding canon 953, without pontifical mandate and canonical provision, he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey.
Moreover, His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc wished to prove the legitimacy of his actions especially by the public declaration made by him in Munich on 25 February 1982 in which he asserted that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome was vacant" and therefore he as a bishop "was doing everything so that the Catholic Church of Rome would continue for the eternal salvation of souls".
After duly pondering the seriousness of these crimes and erroneous assertions, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, by special mandate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, deems it necessary to renew the prescripts of its decree of 17 September 1976, which in this case is applied fully, namely.
1) Bishops who ordained other bishops, as well as the bishops ordained, besides the sanctions mentioned in canons 2370 and 2373, 1 and 3, of the Code of Canon Law, incurred also, ipso facto, excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See as stated in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 9 April 1951 (AAS XLIII, 1951, p. 217 f.) The penalty contained in canon 2370 applies also to assisting priests, should any have been present.
2) In accordance with canon 2374 priests illicitly ordained in this way are ipso facto suspended from the order received, and they are also irregular should they exercise the order (canon 985, 7).
3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in forceuntil repentance.
Moreover, this Sacred Congregation deems it its duly earnestly to warn the faithful not to take part in or support in any way liturgical activities or initiatives and works of another kind which are promoted by those mentioned above (1).
Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 12 March 1983.
Even if you disagree with the sedevacantists, at best it would make them materially schismatic (if they're wrong about papal legitimacy) and not heretics. But in reality at worst they are simply misapplying St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching regarding popes who are manifest heretics.
The aren't just wrong about papal legitimacy, they are wrong in claiming that the entire Church defected. They are formal schismatics and every sedevacantist have have corresponded with has also been a heretic.
-
And they too were illicit.
I said most were performed by an Old Catholic bishop or excommunicated bishop.
What's more, Archbishop Thuc actually did hold a papal mandate from Pius XII that had not been revoked to consecrate whenever he saw fit.
The aren't just wrong about papal legitimacy, they are wrong in claiming that the entire Church defected. They are formal schismatics and every sedevacantist have have corresponded with has also been a heretic.
So you believe in the teachings of Vatican II? You believe the new sacraments are valid and licit? How are Sedevacantists heretics? Also, the church has not defected. If Francis and the other conciliar popes were valid popes then the Church would have defected. In fact in our Lord's promise to Saint Peter the Church Fathers identified the "gates of hell" with the mouths of heretics. So again, you must conclude that these heretics in Rome whom have promulgated heresies to the church were not heretics. Why do you care anyway? According to your antipopes Protestants and the Orthodox are in the Body of Christ. So by your logic I'm not a heretic and I can be saved in the current state that I hold.
-
So you believe in the teachings of Vatican II?
What teachings are you referring to?
You believe the new sacraments are valid and licit?
Yes, licit and valid. Sede sacraments, on the other hand, are all illicit, and confession and matrimony are invalid. The Church doesn't supply jurisdiction to heretical and schismatic sects.
How are Sedevacantists heretics? Also, the church has not defected.
Then where is it?
If Francis and the other conciliar popes were valid popes then the Church would have defected. In fact in our Lord's promise to Saint Peter the Church Fathers identified the "gates of hell" with the mouths of heretics.
"Gates of hell" - Sedevacantists.
So again, you must conclude that these heretics in Rome whom have promulgated heresies to the church were not heretics.
They haven't promulgated any heresies to the Church. Do you know what heresy is?
Why do you care anyway? According to your antipopes Protestants and the Orthodox are in the Body of Christ. So by your logic I'm not a heretic and I can be saved in the current state that I hold.
I don't know what quotes you are referring to from the recent Popes, but public material heretics can be united to the body of the Church in voto. Public formal heretics such as yourself, on the other hand, are not united to the body of the Church in re aut in voto. Hence, there is no possibility of you saving your soul, unless you return to the Church. By the way, which one of the heretical sedevacantist sects do you belong to?
-
I have a guilty pleasure. I really like it when anti-sedes come here to troll the sedes and declare them outside the Church. Saying things like "sedes are the scuм of the earth". I do think the ratio of sedes to non-sedes is off here on Cathinfo with too many sedes. Perhaps with the banning of SSPXers, but the leaving be of sedes, while there are so few resistance supporters, the balance of the forum has suffered and it is now a sede enclave, plus Sean Johnson. But even Sean Johnson is posting livestreams of sede services, like the pre-55 Holy Week from SGG. How is that for false ecuмenism?
This post is half serious, as I am not anti-sede. I just think they are understandably wrong about things. I am an SSPX supporter, who still loves Bishop Williamson, but is also too friendly with the reform of the reform types.
-
According to canon law the principle of Epikeya justifies the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate [i.e. in cases of extreme necessity].
You spelled it wrong, and the only time Epikeia could possibly justify consecrating a bishop in an emergency, without a mandate, is if there was tacit consent of the Pope. Even that is questionable. But let's see if you can back up your gratuitous assertion with an approved canonical commentary.
There are Sedevacantist organizations which derive their lineage from the Old "Catholics", but as Ladislaus said, not all Sede institutions have received their lineage from those schismatics.
Not just schismatics, but heretics. You don't see a problem with sedevacantists receiving episcopal consecration by public heretics? That's communicatio a divinis. Do you know what the 1917 Code has to say about anyone who would dare to receive episcopal consecration from a public heretic? I thought sedevacantists said we have to obey whatever is taught or promulgated by a true Pope? Well, a true Pope promulgated the 1917 Code, yet every sedevacantist priest and bishops ignores it and violates it on a daily basis. Every time he says mass, gives an invalid absolution, baptizes someone, witnesses an invalid marriage, preaches, sets up a "mass center", or performs any other clerical act (except for hearing confession in danger o death), he violates the law promulgated by someone he believes to have been a true Pope. And every time he complains about the R&R position, he makes his judgment that much worse: "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you." (Mt. 7:2).
What is "amazing to me" is that you actually consider a man like "Pope Francis" to be the pope. A man whom: openly teaches that adulterers can receive holy communion...
Not to defend AL, but if you read it carefully, what it says is a person in an "irregular" situation can receive communion if they are in a state of grace. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem, as so many other things in the past 60 years, is that it gives the impression of saying what it does not actually say, and opens the door for a one in a million exception to be abused, perverted, and treated as a rule.
says that Protestants and the Eastern Schismatics don't need conversion...
Actual quote please.
says that non-Catholics can lawfully receive holy communion...
Quote please.
says that Jews are the "chosen people of God"
Jews are the chosen people according to the flesh.
says that atheists can get to heaven, believes one can be saved simply by "following their conscience".
I just read the quote I think you are referring to, and unless there's something else, that is not exactly what he said. Look, I'm not trying to defend the indefensible here, and my head is not in the sand, but I do know that whatever Francis does or says is spun and portrayed in the worst possible light. And there is a reason for this. During the prior pontificates, the devil preventing the Novus Ordo's from seeing the problems with the Popes so they could gradually be led into a liberal and ecuмenical mentality that would weaken their faith. This laid the groundwork for the next phase of attack, which began five years ago. In this phase, every papal scandal is presented to the Novus Ordos in all its ugliness, and spun in the worst light, in the hope of causing them to entirely abandon the faith or at least leave the Church. This can very easily make a bad situation appear far worse. That's why I'm asking for the actual quotes.
believes that Protestants are in the Church of Christ, says that Muslims worship the same God, prays and worships with non-Catholics...
"Prays and worships with non-Catholics" pales in comparison with receiving episcopal consecration from a non-Catholic, public heretic. And Pope St. Gregory VII said Catholics and Muslims "believe in and worship one God", though in different ways," and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of the world" (Epistola Xxi. Ad Anzir Regem Mauritaniae. (Anno 1076.) Is that heresy? If so, how do you explain that he's canonized?
What amazes me is how a modernist liberal heretic like yourself can recognize a man like "Paul VI", an antichrist who promulgated the heretical and blasphemous teachings of Vatican II, to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. What amazes me is how you can recognize an apostate like "John Paul II" to be saint. That's what is "amazing to me".
First, I am not a heretic, a liberal, or a Modernists. I'm a Catholic who knows the faith, and takes it very seriously. Second, there are no heresies in Vatican II. And the closer I look at the conciliar "errors", the more I am beginning to think there aren't any. The problem is not heresy, and may not even be errors, but ambiguity. If you disagree, post a heresy of Vatican II and then quote the defined dogma that directly contradicts it.
Third, JP II was not an apostate. A Liberal, yes; apostate no. Saint? If he is in heaven he's a saint, and considering that he died with the sacraments, wearing the scapular, and receiving the prayers of millions of Catholics throughout the world, its quite likely that he not only saved his soul, but is in heaven. And the only thing infallibility guarantees (supposing infallibility extends to canonizations which is not certain) is that the person is in heaven. So he could be a saint, and if canonizations are infallible, he is a saint.
Arnaldo, if you truly love Jesus [and I am not saying you don't as I don't know your heart], then you would look at these facts and reject Bergoglio as a man of Satan.
That's not what Jesus would want. It's not the job of the laity to judge the Pope or bishops, and those who do almost always end by leaving the Church. "Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: 'Touch not my anointed one!' (Psalm CV. 15)." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi).
Christ didn't reject Caiaphas when he conspired to put Him to death, or when he sentenced Him to death. Has Francis done anything worse than Caiaphas? Aaron led the children of Israel in the worship of the Golden calf, yet he remained the High Priest of the Old Testament priesthood (the Aaronic Priesthood) in spite of it. On the other hand the schismatics, Dathan and Core and their followers, who rose up against Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16), were swallowed alive into hell. Look it up and read the footnotes in a Catholic bible.
No, the right thing to do is not to reject Bergoglio as a man of Satan, but to realize that Christ gave the Church the Pope she richly deserves, and then "do unto other as I would have done unto me," and prayer for Bergoglio. That's the right thing to do according to Scripture and tradition.
-
You spelled it wrong, and the only time Epikeia could possibly justify consecrating a bishop in an emergency, without a mandate, is if there was tacit consent of the Pope. Even that is questionable. But let's see if you can back up your gratuitous assertion with an approved canonical commentary.
Not just schismatics, but heretics. You don't see a problem with sedevacantists receiving episcopal consecration by public heretics? That's communicatio a divinis. Do you know what the 1917 Code has to say about anyone who would dare to receive episcopal consecration from a public heretic? I thought sedevacantists said we have to obey whatever is taught or promulgated by a true Pope? Well, a true Pope promulgated the 1917 Code, yet every sedevacantist priest and bishops ignores it and violates it on a daily basis. Every time he says mass, gives an invalid absolution, baptizes someone, witnesses an invalid marriage, preaches, sets up a "mass center", or performs any other clerical act (except for hearing confession in danger o death), he violates the law promulgated by someone he believes to have been a true Pope. And every time he complains about the R&R position, he makes his judgment that much worse: "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you." (Mt. 7:2).
Not to defend AL, but if you read it carefully, what it says is a person in an "irregular" situation can receive communion if they are in a state of grace. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem, as so many other things in the past 60 years, is that it gives the impression of saying what it does not actually say, and opens the door for a one in a million exception to be abused, perverted, and treated as a rule.
Actual quote please.
Quote please.
Jews are the chosen people according to the flesh.
I just read the quote I think you are referring to, and unless there's something else, that is not exactly what he said. Look, I'm not trying to defend the indefensible here, and my head is not in the sand, but I do know that whatever Francis does or says is spun and portrayed in the worst possible light. And there is a reason for this. During the prior pontificates, the devil preventing the Novus Ordo's from seeing the problems with the Popes so they could gradually be led into a liberal and ecuмenical mentality that would weaken their faith. This laid the groundwork for the next phase of attack, which began five years ago. In this phase, every papal scandal is presented to the Novus Ordos in all its ugliness, and spun in the worst light, in the hope of causing them to entirely abandon the faith or at least leave the Church. This can very easily make a bad situation appear far worse. That's why I'm asking for the actual quotes.
"Prays and worships with non-Catholics" pales in comparison with receiving episcopal consecration from a non-Catholic, public heretic. And Pope St. Gregory VII said Catholics and Muslims "believe in and worship one God", though in different ways," and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of the world" (Epistola Xxi. Ad Anzir Regem Mauritaniae. (Anno 1076.) Is that heresy? If so, how do you explain that he's canonized?
First, I am not a heretic, a liberal, or a Modernists. I'm a Catholic who knows the faith, and takes it very seriously. Second, there are no heresies in Vatican II. And the closer I look at the conciliar "errors", the more I am beginning to think there aren't any. The problem is not heresy, and may not even be errors, but ambiguity. If you disagree, post a heresy of Vatican II and then quote the defined dogma that directly contradicts it.
Third, JP II was not an apostate. A Liberal, yes; apostate no. Saint? If he is in heaven he's a saint, and considering that he died with the sacraments, wearing the scapular, and receiving the prayers of millions of Catholics throughout the world, its quite likely that he not only saved his soul, but is in heaven. And the only thing infallibility guarantees (supposing infallibility extends to canonizations which is not certain) is that the person is in heaven. So he could be a saint, and if canonizations are infallible, he is a saint.
That's not what Jesus would want. It's not the job of the laity to judge the Pope or bishops, and those who do almost always end by leaving the Church. "Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: 'Touch not my anointed one!' (Psalm CV. 15)." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi).
Christ didn't reject Caiaphas when he conspired to put Him to death, or when he sentenced Him to death. Has Francis done anything worse than Caiaphas? Aaron led the children of Israel in the worship of the Golden calf, yet he remained the High Priest of the Old Testament priesthood (the Aaronic Priesthood) in spite of it. On the other hand the schismatics, Dathan and Core and their followers, who rose up against Moses and Aaron (Numbers 16), were swallowed alive into hell. Look it up and read the footnotes in a Catholic bible.
No, the right thing to do is not to reject Bergoglio as a man of Satan, but to realize that Christ gave the Church the Pope she richly deserves, and then "do unto other as I would have done unto me," and prayer for Bergoglio. That's the right thing to do according to Scripture and tradition.
Arnaldo,
I assume that you are the same person as AndyS, who was banned recently. I could be wrong.
How can a person in an irregular situation be in a state of grace? For instance, if someone has remarried after being divorced, is it possible for that person the live a celibate life? Because that's what would be required to live in a state of grace. Or....if a person is shacking up with someone, how can they possibly be in a state of grace? There's no way that a person won't re-offend with the same sin after going to confession. There can be no firm purpose of amendment. It has to be presumed that a person living in an irregular situation is not going to be living a chaste life. Surely you see the problem with irregular situations. Unless, perhaps, you are in an irregular situation yourself.
There certainly are heresies in Vll. I can understand how a conservative Catholic (I presume) such as yourself would think there are no heresies. The problem goes well beyond ambiguity.
JP was a heretic (Modernism is a heresy). It's possible that he repented of all of his heretical views before he died, but there's no evidence of that.
We most certainly do have the right to judge popes and bishops. There are many places in Sacred Scripture which warn about wolves in sheep's clothing and false prophets and teachers. I do agree, though, that sedevacantism is a problem. But unless a sede pushes his or her views on others as being the only truly Catholic stance (dogmatic), then SVism is not the end of the world. Problem is, many of them are pushy about it.
I agree that praying for Francis is the right thing to do - for his conversion the Catholic Faith. And....pray also that Russia be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with all of the bishops in the world upon Francis' conversion.
-
Arnaldo,
I assume that you are the same person as AndyS, who was banned recently. I could be wrong.
I'm not AndyS, and I've never been banned from cathinfo.
How can a person in an irregular situation be in a state of grace? For instance, if someone has remarried after being divorced, is it possible for that person the live a celibate life?
Of course it's possible. Cardinal Burke gave a talk several years ago and mentioning knowing couples that lived this way. One of the spouses had been previously married. They later converted (or reverted) to the faith and, rather than splitting up, they stayed together for the sake of their children and lived together as brother and sister. Do you think they should be deprived of the Sacraments if they are in the state of grace and living, what could be called, a heroic life of virtue, for the sake of their kids? If so, explain why.
It has to be presumed that a person living in an irregular situation is not going to be living a chaste life.
It has to be presumed? In every case? Says who? What if their priest-confessor is aware of the situation and has every reason to believe they are living a chaste life? Should he presume their lying? Cardinal Burke didn't presume it in the cases he mentioned. Why do you believe you are the competent judge to determine what should or should not be presumed in every situation?
There certainly are heresies in Vll. I can understand how a conservative Catholic (I presume) such as yourself would think there are no heresies. The problem goes well beyond ambiguity.
If you are so sure about that, then you should have no problem pointing them out. Quote the heresy of Vatican II, and then quote the defined dogma that it directly contradicts. And be sure to elaborate on why you believe the proposition from Vatican II is heresy, rather than an error stigmatized with a lesser theological censure.
JP was a heretic (Modernism is a heresy). It's possible that he repented of all of his heretical views before he died, but there's no evidence of that.
Back up your accusation. Define a heretic, and prove that John Paul II met the definition. Keep in mind that a heretical proposition is one that is directly contrary to what must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. If you are accusing JP II of being a heretic because he was a modernist, define the heresy of Modernism (good luck), prove that your definition is directly contrary to a proposition that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, and then prove that John Paul II meet your definition. And if you can't prove your case, you better retract you accusation pronto: "He that fails to prove his accusation, must himself suffer the punishment which his accusation inferred." (Pope Hadrian I, St. Thomas, ST. II-II, q. 68, a.4, sed contra).
We most certainly do have the right to judge popes and bishops.
You are not in the least bit competent to judge heresy. That will become quite evident if you attempt to proven your accusation against JP II using the criterion I gave above.
There are many places in Sacred Scripture which warn about wolves in sheep's clothing and false prophets and teachers.
You are permitted to judge if someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing, using the criterion Christ gave, but that is different than judging the specific crime of heresy.
-
If you are so sure about that, then you should have no problem pointing them out. Quote the heresy of Vatican II, and then quote the defined dogma that it directly contradicts. And be sure to elaborate on why you believe the proposition from Vatican II is heresy, rather than an error stigmatized with a lesser theological censure.
https://youtu.be/jvRs8hQ3chE
From a separate thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/debunk-this-pro-vatican-ii-argument-for-me/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/debunk-this-pro-vatican-ii-argument-for-me/)):
Extract from Vatican II vs Church Dogma I
Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregarious Hesse
Next one among the most scandalous docuмents of Vatican II is The Declaration on Religious Liberty. The title itself is to be condemned.
Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae Dec 7, 1965. It starts with blasphemy. No. 1: 'Contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person'. St. Pius X said: 'The only dignity in a human person is in his being a Christian.’ Leo XIII said: 'Enough talk of the dignity of man, let's talk about the dignity of God'. Consequently the Council says in No. 2: 'The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right'. Can you believe this? Let's see what the Catholic Church says about that.
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemns this concept when he says in No. 15: 'From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows the false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man. A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over the world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantages to the Church. And what more certain death for souls, says St Augustine, than the liberty of error.
The very proposal of religious liberty - something that was found among proud souls in the 19th century - was condemned by Pope Pius IX. The docuмent is called Syllabus of Principal Errors of Our Time which are censured and constitutional allocutions, encyclicals and other apostolic letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. It is a collection of statements from the writings of Pius IX issued by the Holy Office in the name of the Pope, sanctioned by him and it gives a list of 80 statements. All the 80 statements are solemnly condemned in this docuмent. And anybody who agrees with any one of these statements automatically ceases to be a Catholic. So understand what I am quoting now is NOT the doctrine of the Church. It is condemned.
No. 15: 'Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’ Condemned sentence.
No. 16: 'Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.’ Condemned sentence, quoted by Vatican II as doctrine in the aforementioned docuмent and this docuмent.
No. 17: 'Good hope at least is to be entertained of eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.’ Condemned statement.
No. 18: 'Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.’ Condemned statement in the collection of Pius IX. Not literally quoted by Vatican II, but indirectly.
The Syllabus makes sure that the docuмent on Religious Freedom written up by the Council Fathers is unCatholic, contradictory to the Teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that. Nobody of the so called 1/2 way, 50 %, 45 1/2% traditionalists who say Fr Hesse should not break with the Church by saying that Vatican II is heretical, anybody who says that is really in contradiction to the present Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith who said the Decree on Religious Liberty is certainly an anti-Syllabus. And the Syllabus is the list of condemned sentences which I just quoted to you. So Cardinal Ratzinger says the same thing that I do. Why he does not draw the consequences is not for me to judge.
But the Decree on Religious Liberty is definitely to be condemned and it is as a matter of fact the point in which Archbishop Lefebvre said no, I will not sign anything anymore now. Some of the first docuмents - nonetheless they contained all the errors - Archbishop Lefebvre signed and he said because at the time we were not able to imagine that a Pope would sign docuмents that are wrong. So we submitted. Understandable error.
And I can tell you I am a witness to this error because I committed it myself many years ago. I said it's impossible that a Pope signs things that are against the faith. I have learned my lesson and so have you.
'It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of Divine Law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.’ The Church never said that anybody may be converted by force but at the same time the Church said if you do not conform your conscience to our Teaching, you will - excuse me if I say it in the Irish way - go to Hell!
And now Vatican II requests the States to turn this into a law. In No. 4: 'Therefore provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honour the Supreme Godhead' - whatever that is - 'with public worship, help their members to practise their religion and strengthen them with religious instructions and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.’ So please contribute to the next donation to build a mosque in Los Angeles.
The Pope sent a delegate to the official opening of the Islamic mosque in Rome. Friends of mine in Rome who belong to a group that is called very right wing but they are very Catholic, catapulted slices of salami into the mosque. God bless them! [laughter] Actually...they are good people. See, we shoot them with slices of salami. The Koran says in Sura 47 that they are to kill us.
Well, The Vatican II is certainly a perverted Council because it is actually here requesting from the civil authorities to give complete freedom to all the heretical, schismatical and pagan religions and this is something that has been again condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
I quote No. 20: 'The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government'. This is now in the Balamand Statement I quoted before with the Orthodox Churches.
No. 21: 'The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.’ Vatican II doubts it all the time. They do not say exactly the same which was condemned here but they always say something which comes out the same because if the civil authorities that always throughout the tradition of the Church had to submit to the Pope – remember Gregory XVII excommunicated the German Emperor for not submitting to the Pope, and Henry VIII was excommunicated rightly so because he split with Rome – now Vatican II says this is alright and as a matter of fact, the Pope, together with that abomination of a so called Bishop, calling himself the Archbishop of Canterbury, being a layman of course, because their Orders are definitely invalid, as Leo XIII declared dogmatically in his Apostolicae Curae, the Pope together with a layman in Canterbury blessed the people. If I had been stupid enough to be there, I would have walked out.
No. 22 of the condemned sentences [of the Syllabus]: 'The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to these things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.’ This is a necessary requisite in order to be able to have dialogue and in order to say that the other religions can save you too.
I have told you what the other Popes have said about a hierarchy of Truth. And at the end of the list of condemned sentences you will see what Pius IX said about new theories on the powers of the State and the relation between Church and State.
In No. 77 condemned sentence [of the Syllabus]: 'In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.’ This sentence has been condemned. Now the docuмent on Religious Liberty asks the civil authorities to turn religious liberty into a civil right. What was the result? The Constitution of Colombia in South America said that the official state religion of Colombia is the Catholic religion, the Catholic faith. Pope Paul VI had them remove that. The Vatican exercised pressure on the Colombian government for more than 3 months until they gave in and cancelled that paragraph of their Constitution.
Archbishop Lefebvre who was well versed with the different Constitutions of the different parts of Switzerland, different provinces of the Confoederatio Helvetica, which is Switzerland - the Helvetica Confederation - said that in one of the French speaking parts of Switzerland, to be precise - the Rhone Valley - the Canton Vaud their local Constitution held the Catholic religion as the state religion. The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland forced them to remove that paragraph.
This is the interpretation of the docuмent on Religious Liberty. So let no man say that I viciously interpret it in the way they don't. They interpret it even stronger than I would have ever.
Another condemned sentence is 78 of the Syllabus: 'Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.’ Now this is a direct quotation from Vatican II that has been directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Okay!
No. 79: 'Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, overtly or publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.’ Mind you, this statement is saying it is false to say that the pest of Indifferentism is provoked by civil law allowing all religions. Vatican II demands from civil law to allow all religions and foster them and help them.
No. 80: 'The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ This has been condemned. 'The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ The Roman Pontiff, believe me, has not only come to terms with them, he superated their own desires in his own secularism and in his own indifferentism and in his own treason to the Catholic Faith. He is a traitor. To make sure he understands it, in Polish, the word is 'zdrajca'.
Religious Liberty Vatican II says: 'Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.’ It's time to put the Jehovah's Witnesses on welfare, isn't it? Also included in the right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching.’ 'The special value of their teaching'! Yes. How about the Islamic viewpoint on women? I am surprised that Hillary hasn't come out strong against Islam.
Also included in the Right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching for the organization of society and the inspiration of all human activity.
This is not coming from Andrew Lave [sp unknown] if you know whom I mean. This is not coming from the White House. This is Vatican II.
These groups have the right to decide in accordance with their own religions, own religious beliefs, the form of religious upbringing which is to be given to their children. This is why now when a Catholic marries a Protestant there is no further demand of having the children baptized Catholic. It doesn't matter anyway.
The civil authority therefore must undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in an effective manner by just legislation and other appropriate means. It must help to create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life so that the citizens would be really in a position to exercise their religious rights and fulfill their religious duties and so that the society itself may enjoy the benefits of justice and peace which are the results of man's faithfulness to God and His Holy Will.’
Who are the only ones who fulfill the Holy Will of God? The Catholics. Nobody else. Vatican II says they all do.
I think this is sufficient as far as the docuмent on Religious Liberty is concerned. Last quotation: 'The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities and the whole civil order.’ This is right of course. The Church claims freedom for herself in human society before every public authority. The Church also claims freedom for herself as a society of men with the right to live in civil society in accordance with the dependent of the Christian faith. So now here we have for the first time a proper understanding of Religious Liberty. Why is it that the Catholic Church has never publicly condemned the First Amendment to the American Constitution? Because the Ropes have always known that if a country is not Catholic anyway, we might as well use their ideas about religious liberty. This does not make it Teaching. Vatican II turned it into
Teaching.
The First Amendment to the American Constitution adopted in 1791 is not Teaching. It's a workable arrangement. Nothing more. The American Constitution is not a docuмent that teaches the people. It is not a religious docuмent that says this is what you have to believe, but this is how we are going to organize our society. And in our society with the religions coming over from Europe - just think of the Mayflower that never sank - unfortunately - with all these religions coming over, the State had little choice. It might have strived for a more Catholic Constitution, but anyway it is not a Teaching docuмent. The scandal here is that Vatican II now turned something that we had to tolerate for 200 years into Teaching.
At the same time the Christian faithful in common with the rest of men have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience. A harmony exists therefore between the freedom of the Church and that religious freedom which must be recognized as the right of all men in all communities and must be sanctioned by constitutional law.’ It is sanctioned by constitutional law in this country.
But where, where in this docuмent is the mentioning of Christ the King? Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas pronounced as the solemn truth to be held forever that Christ is the King of all societies and that only in the Kingship of Christ we are fully dignified human beings, as Pius X said: 'The dignity of the human being lies in his being a Christian'. This docuмent, even when it talks about the freedom of the Catholic Church itself does not mention Christ the King. And this goes to show you in which spirit these things were written.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I have dealt with Religious Liberty. Sad as it is, this is not yet the worse to come in Vatican II. In many ways, the worst of all docuмents, even though it is not explicitly as heretical as the other ones that I quoted are, is the Pastoral Constitution. So it's not even dogmatic, but it's still the worst, you will see. [....]
See attached: Full transcript Vatican II vs Church Dogma I
Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregorius Hesse
-
https://youtu.be/jvRs8hQ3chE
From a separate thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/debunk-this-pro-vatican-ii-argument-for-me/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/debunk-this-pro-vatican-ii-argument-for-me/)):
Extract from Vatican II vs Church Dogma I
Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregarious Hesse
Next one among the most scandalous docuмents of Vatican II is The Declaration on Religious Liberty. The title itself is to be condemned.
Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae Dec 7, 1965. It starts with blasphemy. No. 1: 'Contemporary man is becoming increasingly conscious of the dignity of the human person'. St. Pius X said: 'The only dignity in a human person is in his being a Christian.’ Leo XIII said: 'Enough talk of the dignity of man, let's talk about the dignity of God'. Consequently the Council says in No. 2: 'The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right'. Can you believe this? Let's see what the Catholic Church says about that.
In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemns this concept when he says in No. 15: 'From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows the false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man. A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over the world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantages to the Church. And what more certain death for souls, says St Augustine, than the liberty of error.
The very proposal of religious liberty - something that was found among proud souls in the 19th century - was condemned by Pope Pius IX. The docuмent is called Syllabus of Principal Errors of Our Time which are censured and constitutional allocutions, encyclicals and other apostolic letters of Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. It is a collection of statements from the writings of Pius IX issued by the Holy Office in the name of the Pope, sanctioned by him and it gives a list of 80 statements. All the 80 statements are solemnly condemned in this docuмent. And anybody who agrees with any one of these statements automatically ceases to be a Catholic. So understand what I am quoting now is NOT the doctrine of the Church. It is condemned.
No. 15: 'Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.’ Condemned sentence.
No. 16: 'Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.’ Condemned sentence, quoted by Vatican II as doctrine in the aforementioned docuмent and this docuмent.
No. 17: 'Good hope at least is to be entertained of eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.’ Condemned statement.
No. 18: 'Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.’ Condemned statement in the collection of Pius IX. Not literally quoted by Vatican II, but indirectly.
The Syllabus makes sure that the docuмent on Religious Freedom written up by the Council Fathers is unCatholic, contradictory to the Teaching of the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that. Nobody of the so called 1/2 way, 50 %, 45 1/2% traditionalists who say Fr Hesse should not break with the Church by saying that Vatican II is heretical, anybody who says that is really in contradiction to the present Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith who said the Decree on Religious Liberty is certainly an anti-Syllabus. And the Syllabus is the list of condemned sentences which I just quoted to you. So Cardinal Ratzinger says the same thing that I do. Why he does not draw the consequences is not for me to judge.
But the Decree on Religious Liberty is definitely to be condemned and it is as a matter of fact the point in which Archbishop Lefebvre said no, I will not sign anything anymore now. Some of the first docuмents - nonetheless they contained all the errors - Archbishop Lefebvre signed and he said because at the time we were not able to imagine that a Pope would sign docuмents that are wrong. So we submitted. Understandable error.
And I can tell you I am a witness to this error because I committed it myself many years ago. I said it's impossible that a Pope signs things that are against the faith. I have learned my lesson and so have you.
'It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of Divine Law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.’ The Church never said that anybody may be converted by force but at the same time the Church said if you do not conform your conscience to our Teaching, you will - excuse me if I say it in the Irish way - go to Hell!
And now Vatican II requests the States to turn this into a law. In No. 4: 'Therefore provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups have a right to immunity so that they may organize themselves according to their own principles. They must be allowed to honour the Supreme Godhead' - whatever that is - 'with public worship, help their members to practise their religion and strengthen them with religious instructions and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles.’ So please contribute to the next donation to build a mosque in Los Angeles.
The Pope sent a delegate to the official opening of the Islamic mosque in Rome. Friends of mine in Rome who belong to a group that is called very right wing but they are very Catholic, catapulted slices of salami into the mosque. God bless them! [laughter] Actually...they are good people. See, we shoot them with slices of salami. The Koran says in Sura 47 that they are to kill us.
Well, The Vatican II is certainly a perverted Council because it is actually here requesting from the civil authorities to give complete freedom to all the heretical, schismatical and pagan religions and this is something that has been again condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
I quote No. 20: 'The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government'. This is now in the Balamand Statement I quoted before with the Orthodox Churches.
No. 21: 'The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.’ Vatican II doubts it all the time. They do not say exactly the same which was condemned here but they always say something which comes out the same because if the civil authorities that always throughout the tradition of the Church had to submit to the Pope – remember Gregory XVII excommunicated the German Emperor for not submitting to the Pope, and Henry VIII was excommunicated rightly so because he split with Rome – now Vatican II says this is alright and as a matter of fact, the Pope, together with that abomination of a so called Bishop, calling himself the Archbishop of Canterbury, being a layman of course, because their Orders are definitely invalid, as Leo XIII declared dogmatically in his Apostolicae Curae, the Pope together with a layman in Canterbury blessed the people. If I had been stupid enough to be there, I would have walked out.
No. 22 of the condemned sentences [of the Syllabus]: 'The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to these things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.’ This is a necessary requisite in order to be able to have dialogue and in order to say that the other religions can save you too.
I have told you what the other Popes have said about a hierarchy of Truth. And at the end of the list of condemned sentences you will see what Pius IX said about new theories on the powers of the State and the relation between Church and State.
In No. 77 condemned sentence [of the Syllabus]: 'In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.’ This sentence has been condemned. Now the docuмent on Religious Liberty asks the civil authorities to turn religious liberty into a civil right. What was the result? The Constitution of Colombia in South America said that the official state religion of Colombia is the Catholic religion, the Catholic faith. Pope Paul VI had them remove that. The Vatican exercised pressure on the Colombian government for more than 3 months until they gave in and cancelled that paragraph of their Constitution.
Archbishop Lefebvre who was well versed with the different Constitutions of the different parts of Switzerland, different provinces of the Confoederatio Helvetica, which is Switzerland - the Helvetica Confederation - said that in one of the French speaking parts of Switzerland, to be precise - the Rhone Valley - the Canton Vaud their local Constitution held the Catholic religion as the state religion. The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland forced them to remove that paragraph.
This is the interpretation of the docuмent on Religious Liberty. So let no man say that I viciously interpret it in the way they don't. They interpret it even stronger than I would have ever.
Another condemned sentence is 78 of the Syllabus: 'Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.’ Now this is a direct quotation from Vatican II that has been directly condemned by Pope Pius IX. Okay!
No. 79: 'Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, overtly or publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.’ Mind you, this statement is saying it is false to say that the pest of Indifferentism is provoked by civil law allowing all religions. Vatican II demands from civil law to allow all religions and foster them and help them.
No. 80: 'The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ This has been condemned. 'The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.’ The Roman Pontiff, believe me, has not only come to terms with them, he superated their own desires in his own secularism and in his own indifferentism and in his own treason to the Catholic Faith. He is a traitor. To make sure he understands it, in Polish, the word is 'zdrajca'.
Religious Liberty Vatican II says: 'Religious communities have the further right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word.’ It's time to put the Jehovah's Witnesses on welfare, isn't it? Also included in the right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching.’ 'The special value of their teaching'! Yes. How about the Islamic viewpoint on women? I am surprised that Hillary hasn't come out strong against Islam.
Also included in the Right of Religious Freedom is the right of religious groups not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching for the organization of society and the inspiration of all human activity.
This is not coming from Andrew Lave [sp unknown] if you know whom I mean. This is not coming from the White House. This is Vatican II.
These groups have the right to decide in accordance with their own religions, own religious beliefs, the form of religious upbringing which is to be given to their children. This is why now when a Catholic marries a Protestant there is no further demand of having the children baptized Catholic. It doesn't matter anyway.
The civil authority therefore must undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in an effective manner by just legislation and other appropriate means. It must help to create conditions favourable to the fostering of religious life so that the citizens would be really in a position to exercise their religious rights and fulfill their religious duties and so that the society itself may enjoy the benefits of justice and peace which are the results of man's faithfulness to God and His Holy Will.’
Who are the only ones who fulfill the Holy Will of God? The Catholics. Nobody else. Vatican II says they all do.
I think this is sufficient as far as the docuмent on Religious Liberty is concerned. Last quotation: 'The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities and the whole civil order.’ This is right of course. The Church claims freedom for herself in human society before every public authority. The Church also claims freedom for herself as a society of men with the right to live in civil society in accordance with the dependent of the Christian faith. So now here we have for the first time a proper understanding of Religious Liberty. Why is it that the Catholic Church has never publicly condemned the First Amendment to the American Constitution? Because the Ropes have always known that if a country is not Catholic anyway, we might as well use their ideas about religious liberty. This does not make it Teaching. Vatican II turned it into
Teaching.
The First Amendment to the American Constitution adopted in 1791 is not Teaching. It's a workable arrangement. Nothing more. The American Constitution is not a docuмent that teaches the people. It is not a religious docuмent that says this is what you have to believe, but this is how we are going to organize our society. And in our society with the religions coming over from Europe - just think of the Mayflower that never sank - unfortunately - with all these religions coming over, the State had little choice. It might have strived for a more Catholic Constitution, but anyway it is not a Teaching docuмent. The scandal here is that Vatican II now turned something that we had to tolerate for 200 years into Teaching.
At the same time the Christian faithful in common with the rest of men have the civil right of freedom from interference in leading their lives according to their conscience. A harmony exists therefore between the freedom of the Church and that religious freedom which must be recognized as the right of all men in all communities and must be sanctioned by constitutional law.’ It is sanctioned by constitutional law in this country.
But where, where in this docuмent is the mentioning of Christ the King? Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas pronounced as the solemn truth to be held forever that Christ is the King of all societies and that only in the Kingship of Christ we are fully dignified human beings, as Pius X said: 'The dignity of the human being lies in his being a Christian'. This docuмent, even when it talks about the freedom of the Catholic Church itself does not mention Christ the King. And this goes to show you in which spirit these things were written.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I have dealt with Religious Liberty. Sad as it is, this is not yet the worse to come in Vatican II. In many ways, the worst of all docuмents, even though it is not explicitly as heretical as the other ones that I quoted are, is the Pastoral Constitution. So it's not even dogmatic, but it's still the worst, you will see. [....]
See attached: Full transcript Vatican II vs Church Dogma I
Transcription of a talk by Fr Gregorius Hesse
If one admits that there are heresies in Vatican II, they are just making life difficult for themselves. Imagine, you can't go to the church on the corner, you'll have to drive a 2 hour round trip to a traditionalist chapel full of "grumps" . You'll lose all your friends. You'll have to move or homeschool your children. Your daughters will have to stop dressing in short shorts, tight jeans and bikinis. Your sons will have to stop "dating" and your daughters "clubing". You'll have to get off your natural family planning calendar and have more children. You'll have to leave your wife because she has an easy $100 Novus Ordo annulment...…
Just stick your head in the sand and life will be MUCH easier. Just keep repeating to yourself there are no heresies in Vatican II, there are no heresies in Vatican II, there are no heresies in Vatican II...….
-
LT: Just keep repeating to yourself there are no heresies in VaticaJust stick your head in the sand ann II, there are no heresies in Vatican II, there are no heresies in Vatican II...….
This is unbelievable. This comment, and others much like it on CI, just reinforces for me the reason I no longer post on this discussion site.
Here we have a topic, supposedly devoted to publications by Michael Voris and Church Militant about sɛҳuąƖ misconduct on the part of priests in the sspx. 22 pages later, 7 days ago, in what may have been meant to be a final statement on the topic, we are snapped back dutifully to the heresies in Vatican II. Forum members had lost interest in Voris pages earlier. And, so typical of CI’s anally retentive crowd, they brought us back to the really important issues, like the errors of V2 and sedevacantism.
It just blows my mind!
-
And, so typical of CI’s anally retentive crowd, they brought us back to the really important issues, like the errors of V2 and sedevacantism.
Yes, there are about two or three hot-button subjects here on CI that at their mere mention immediately turn into a ranging 50-page debate. There should be some mechanism for deleting posts that are off-topic.
-
Bishop Williamson has said unequivocally that he knew nothing about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ sex scandals in the sspx prior to 2013, when he was ejected from the Society. He is the only prelate from the Society whom I, at one time openly admired and trusted. Is my admiration misplaced?
-
Bishop Williamson has said unequivocally that he knew nothing about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ sex scandals in the sspx prior to 2013, when he was ejected from the Society.
Citation please?
-
Tell you what, SJ. You ask him yourself. I'm sure you have his email address. That should be enough of a citation.
-
Tell you what, SJ. You ask him yourself. I'm sure you have his email address. That should be enough of a citation.
Pretty much what I thought you would say.
You’re a bullshitter and pot-stirrer.