(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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.