CathInfo.com

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?