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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.