1000% she's part of the problem, if not THE problem.  

What do you make of the alleged "relationship" between Mrs. Sanborn and Fr.D?

No, something along the lines of what Father Purdy claims might SOMEtimes be the case, if there's one single most common problem in marriages, it's FEMINISM.

While deriding "effeminate" men, he attempts to castrate them in the very same article.  While denouncing them for not enforcing rules, he says that they shouldn't expect wives to do what they're told.  So ... how do you "enforce rules"?  You plead with your wife, and then if she happens to agree, then you get credit for enforcing rules.  But if she says, "Purdy said you can't tell me what to do.", then it's their fault?

Or, if, because the legal system has been stacked against men, and so have SSPX now, the husband just gives up and becomes passive ... since exerting himself would do nothing but result in an escalation that would give the woman fuel for charges of abuse in their impending divorce hearing.  I've known TradWives who incited their husbands to anger and, despite their being no physical abuse, would record them just so they could take it to divorce court.  Then about 3 weeks after the divorce they're shacked up with the REAL reason they made the charges of abuse against their husband, while he's forced to pay for the adulterer's presence in his own home via alimony and child support.  In the meantime, prior to the recent developments, the wife went to the Novus Ordo diocese to get the marriage annuled due to SSPX (and in some cases independent) priest not having the requisite jurisdiction.  Now of course the Novus Ordo presbyter will witness marriages, making that move harder, but the NO readily gives annulments anyway, just that it's slightly harder for them now.

I've seen this exact scenario play out from TradWives going on double-digit times now, with people I knew fairly well.  I've seen only one case where the husband filed for divorce against his wife's wishes.  In all the other cases, it was the wife filing, against the husband's wishes, and the husband fighting it the entire time.  TradWife claims abuse, in a couple cases claimed that the husband was trying to raise the children in a "cult" (characterizing Traditional Catholicism that way for additional ammunition).  In a couple of the TradWife was shacked up in short order after the divorce was finalized, and the courts added insult to injury by making the divorced husband pay for the entire adulterous arrangement.

THAT is what I'm seeing.  I do occasionally run into a guy who's very tyrannical towards his wife, but for every one of those I see, I run into dozens where the wife refuses to obey, and nags, derides, mouths off ... until she gets her way, and feels entitled to getting her way.  And what's sickening is that when the husband accuses them of being disobedient, they actually claim that they HAVE been obedient, doing everything the husband had ever asked of them.  I find myself utterly perplexed about what alternate universe they actually believe that to have been true in.  Invariably the TradWives claim abuse, brainwashing in a cult, will immediately get a restraining order on the husband for physical abuse ... simply for having administered regular (not excessive) spankings when they were called for, and that's just to set the stage for getting very favorable divorce settlement.  Before they intend to file, months before, they start making recordings of the husband getting angry with them for mouthing off, and they edit the recording to cut out the part where they instigated it.  Oh, and get this ... in one case, the TradWife who did this, claimed abuse, got restraining orders, won full custody of the children as a result, claiming that they kids were abused and in a cult, the divorced husband (a relative of mine) actually offered to keep paying her child support just so he could have custody of the kids.  In other words, she would get child support while he would actually financially support the kids, who would live with him ... i.e. where she would sponge up the child support for herself.  She was perfectly fine with that arrangement ... thereby sending her kids off to be subject to "abuse" (this guy should have filed child endangerment charges, since if you claim he was abusing them, why's she sending them over there? -- except that then the kids would have ended up with CPS).  I don't think this TradWife "mom" visited her children, at her divorced husband's place more than 2 or 3 times in about 10 years or so.  Instead she spent the husband's child support on her and her adulterous concubine, shacked up in a house that he had paid for and that she got.  But he was OK with making that sacrifice so that the children could be away from her pernicious influence.

So, this fantasy land of "effeminate men" causing most marriage problems from Fr. Purdy absolutely discredits him and the SSPX, and this attitude is likely behind what the SSPX did to Mr. Sanborn's family.

I know I've had this argument before, but this is a case where married men (married priest or even just a lay consultant) would be in a MUCH BETTER situation to do marriage counseling, etc. than these celibate priests, who in their minds perhaps liken all women to reflections of Our Lady, due to their inexperience with them, unaware of how many of them are very adept at manipulation, and so they fall victim to their wiles, where the SSPX priest undoubtedly went over to Mrs. Sanborn's house and was met with great sobbing, wailing, moaning, many tears, and gnashing of teeth ... as she describe the unspeakable abuse to which she and the children had been subject.  Then, after she sensed the priest(s) buying her version of events, she'll lighten up, acting happy and comforted, and even smiling at the priests, thanking them effusively for helping her in her dire predicament (also engaging that instinct of males to help women in distress and emotionally getting them attached to her), reinforcing their buy-in to her story.  Said women undoubtedly also practiced what even the courts have acknowledge and termed "parental alienation" by poisoning the kids against the father.  When the father is away at work, the mother can get to work programming the kids, explaining how the wicked and abusive husband and father is really the cause of all their troubles, and then convinces the children that the father abuses them.  In fact, I knew of one case where the mother smacked the kids around orders of magnitude more than the husband every spanked them ... where I personally witnessed her smacking them up with the slightest provocation, with the husband pleading for her to have a bit of restraint ... and then had the temerity not only to claim abuse of the children, but then had coached the children to make the same accusation.  Years later, the kids often feel guilty and then recant, explaining they had been told to say that by their mother, sometimes because the mother claimed that if they did not, they would end up in foster homes.  In one of the most egregious cases of "parental alienation", this actually happened to one of my brothers, whom some of you know well ... where during a visitation shortly after the divorce proceedings, my brother, who's about the most gentle individual you'd ever meet, had a restraining order filed on him and could only visit the children supervised at a police station ... and so one time my brother took some cookies for the kids.  Then, one of the kids, looked over to his mother before accepting the cookie, but was extremely nervous about accepting it.  She nodded her assent, and despite that he still appeared rather reluctant.  Now, my brother couldn't figure out what was going on.  Well, on a later visit, one of the kids spilled the beans and blurted it out that the TradWife mom (mover and shaker at an SSPX chapel after said divorce) had told them that my brother and his mom (my mom / her mother-in-law) had been poisoning their food trying to kill them.  True story.  I kid you not.  So these TradWives that Fr. Purdy puts up on a pedestal ... these preists are gullible, naive, get easily played by these master manipulators and, yes, LIARS.  Many of these women will shamelessly lie like it's going out of style, slandering and calumniating their husbands.  And the SSPX priests probably just lap it up, being manipulated by the poor woman in distress, expecting them to ride in like White Knights to save them ... and they oblige.  They should let experienced marriage counselors make assessments of situations before passing judgment.  They should also interview third parties, instead of attempting to resolve the he-said-she-said on their own, knowing that both sides are likely exaggerating culpability and one or the other side or both will lie.

I do hope that Mr. Sanborn wins the lawsuit and makes SSPX feel the pain, and force them to think twice about wrecking families.

Overall, I think that Mr. Sanborn is going to play up the checkered past of these priests in order to have a better chance of a verdict in his favor, since he knows it's his only chance.  I'm not sure that's perfectly honest either ... just that he migth feel he needs to do it in order to combat the dishonest techniques that would be used against him.  Once a woman alleges abuse ... proven or not proven ... 95% of the time it's game over for the husband/father.  It's like the old "Me Too" movement.  Then, to make it look good, before they file for divorce, they'll stage some incident and get a restraining order.  It's all part of the tactic to maximize their take in the divorce proceedings.

I know of two cases in the same SSPX chapel, where women divorced their husbands, completely unjustly ... and were given positions at SSPX chapels, teaching at the school, being a school secretary, and other responsibilities.  Both of the husbands compained to me, shaking their heads, that SSPX is the place to go for women who want to divorce their husbands.

To be fair, even though that may not have been the case here, if the first marriage were ipso facto invalid due to lack of canonical form, and if the situation could not be (or should not be) rectified by convalidation or sanatio in radice, the Catholic spouse would do well to get out of it. 

 A fortiori if the first marriage were invalid due to the other spouse having a previous valid marriage.

No, something along the lines of what Father Purdy claims might SOMEtimes be the case, if there's one single most common problem in marriages, it's FEMINISM.

While deriding "effeminate" men, he attempts to castrate them in the very same article.  While denouncing them for not enforcing rules, he says that they shouldn't expect wives to do what they're told.  So ... how do you "enforce rules"?  You plead with your wife, and then if she happens to agree, then you get credit for enforcing rules.  But if she says, "Purdy said you can't tell me what to do.", then it's their fault?

Or, if, because the legal system has been stacked against men, and so have SSPX now, the husband just gives up and becomes passive ... since exerting himself would do nothing but result in an escalation that would give the woman fuel for charges of abuse in their impending divorce hearing.  I've known TradWives who incited their husbands to anger and, despite their being no physical abuse, would record them just so they could take it to divorce court.  Then about 3 weeks after the divorce they're shacked up with the REAL reason they made the charges of abuse against their husband, while he's forced to pay for the adulterer's presence in his own home via alimony and child support.  In the meantime, prior to the recent developments, the wife went to the Novus Ordo diocese to get the marriage annuled due to SSPX (and in some cases independent) priest not having the requisite jurisdiction.  Now of course the Novus Ordo presbyter will witness marriages, making that move harder, but the NO readily gives annulments anyway, just that it's slightly harder for them now.

I've seen this exact scenario play out from TradWives going on double-digit times now, with people I knew fairly well.  I've seen only one case where the husband filed for divorce against his wife's wishes.  In all the other cases, it was the wife filing, against the husband's wishes, and the husband fighting it the entire time.  TradWife claims abuse, in a couple cases claimed that the husband was trying to raise the children in a "cult" (characterizing Traditional Catholicism that way for additional ammunition).  In a couple of the TradWife was shacked up in short order after the divorce was finalized, and the courts added insult to injury by making the divorced husband pay for the entire adulterous arrangement.

THAT is what I'm seeing.  I do occasionally run into a guy who's very tyrannical towards his wife, but for every one of those I see, I run into dozens where the wife refuses to obey, and nags, derides, mouths off ... until she gets her way, and feels entitled to getting her way.  And what's sickening is that when the husband accuses them of being disobedient, they actually claim that they HAVE been obedient, doing everything the husband had ever asked of them.  I find myself utterly perplexed about what alternate universe they actually believe that to have been true in.  Invariably the TradWives claim abuse, brainwashing in a cult, will immediately get a restraining order on the husband for physical abuse ... simply for having administered regular (not excessive) spankings when they were called for, and that's just to set the stage for getting very favorable divorce settlement.  Before they intend to file, months before, they start making recordings of the husband getting angry with them for mouthing off, and they edit the recording to cut out the part where they instigated it.  Oh, and get this ... in one case, the TradWife who did this, claimed abuse, got restraining orders, won full custody of the children as a result, claiming that they kids were abused and in a cult, the divorced husband (a relative of mine) actually offered to keep paying her child support just so he could have custody of the kids.  In other words, she would get child support while he would actually financially support the kids, who would live with him ... i.e. where she would sponge up the child support for herself.  She was perfectly fine with that arrangement ... thereby sending her kids off to be subject to "abuse" (this guy should have filed child endangerment charges, since if you claim he was abusing them, why's she sending them over there? -- except that then the kids would have ended up with CPS).  I don't think this TradWife "mom" visited her children, at her divorced husband's place more than 2 or 3 times in about 10 years or so.  Instead she spent the husband's child support on her and her adulterous concubine, shacked up in a house that he had paid for and that she got.  But he was OK with making that sacrifice so that the children could be away from her pernicious influence.

So, this fantasy land of "effeminate men" causing most marriage problems from Fr. Purdy absolutely discredits him and the SSPX, and this attitude is likely behind what the SSPX did to Mr. Sanborn's family.

I know I've had this argument before, but this is a case where married men (married priest or even just a lay consultant) would be in a MUCH BETTER situation to do marriage counseling, etc. than these celibate priests, who in their minds perhaps liken all women to reflections of Our Lady, due to their inexperience with them, unaware of how many of them are very adept at manipulation, and so they fall victim to their wiles, where the SSPX priest undoubtedly went over to Mrs. Sanborn's house and was met with great sobbing, wailing, moaning, many tears, and gnashing of teeth ... as she describe the unspeakable abuse to which she and the children had been subject.  Then, after she sensed the priest(s) buying her version of events, she'll lighten up, acting happy and comforted, and even smiling at the priests, thanking them effusively for helping her in her dire predicament (also engaging that instinct of males to help women in distress and emotionally getting them attached to her), reinforcing their buy-in to her story.  Said women undoubtedly also practiced what even the courts have acknowledge and termed "parental alienation" by poisoning the kids against the father.  When the father is away at work, the mother can get to work programming the kids, explaining how the wicked and abusive husband and father is really the cause of all their troubles, and then convinces the children that the father abuses them.  In fact, I knew of one case where the mother smacked the kids around orders of magnitude more than the husband every spanked them ... where I personally witnessed her smacking them up with the slightest provocation, with the husband pleading for her to have a bit of restraint ... and then had the temerity not only to claim abuse of the children, but then had coached the children to make the same accusation.  Years later, the kids often feel guilty and then recant, explaining they had been told to say that by their mother, sometimes because the mother claimed that if they did not, they would end up in foster homes.  In one of the most egregious cases of "parental alienation", this actually happened to one of my brothers, whom some of you know well ... where during a visitation shortly after the divorce proceedings, my brother, who's about the most gentle individual you'd ever meet, had a restraining order filed on him and could only visit the children supervised at a police station ... and so one time my brother took some cookies for the kids.  Then, one of the kids, looked over to his mother before accepting the cookie, but was extremely nervous about accepting it.  She nodded her assent, and despite that he still appeared rather reluctant.  Now, my brother couldn't figure out what was going on.  Well, on a later visit, one of the kids spilled the beans and blurted it out that the TradWife mom (mover and shaker at an SSPX chapel after said divorce) had told them that my brother and his mom (my mom / her mother-in-law) had been poisoning their food trying to kill them.  True story.  I kid you not.  So these TradWives that Fr. Purdy puts up on a pedestal ... these preists are gullible, naive, get easily played by these master manipulators and, yes, LIARS.  Many of these women will shamelessly lie like it's going out of style, slandering and calumniating their husbands.  And the SSPX priests probably just lap it up, being manipulated by the poor woman in distress, expecting them to ride in like White Knights to save them ... and they oblige.  They should let experienced marriage counselors make assessments of situations before passing judgment.  They should also interview third parties, instead of attempting to resolve the he-said-she-said on their own, knowing that both sides are likely exaggerating culpability and one or the other side or both will lie.

I do hope that Mr. Sanborn wins the lawsuit and makes SSPX feel the pain, and force them to think twice about wrecking families.

Feminism is as bad as wokeism.  It’s truly a psychological problem which many, many women have.  And it’s only getting worse.

Not only are the women (that Ladislaus refers to, who divorced their husbands) evil and trying to fool God that they aren't evil, who do they think they're kidding?

Do none of them have any children? Don't you think the children will be affected by this horrible example?

Just for starters, it's difficult to look at your children with a straight face and say you love them, while hating/wronging their father, WHO IS HALF OF WHO THEY ARE.

When a mother rejects the father, or the father rejects the mother, you're rejecting HALF OF YOUR KIDS SUBSTANCE. Remember that. They are a lot like BOTH PARENTS. And don't think the kids don't know that, at least deep down. Regardless of how "amicable" the divorce/separation was. If you could stand them at all, you'd still be together. And you're not. So you are annoyed/disgusted/whatever by your ex-spouse -- which means those children who have many of the same looks, mannerisms, habits, personality, strengths/weaknesses, etc. are going to be equally annoying, disgusting, etc.

Again, kids understand this IMPLICITLY without being able to put it into words. But it's why divorce is forbidden by God. Because it ruins children's lives. It causes depression, under-achievement, daddy issues, and a countless train of other evils.

Excluding extreme cases, people who divorce don't care for their children. If they did, they would not divorce.

Divorce hits children the hardest, but the divorcees are also affected. How many practice continence for the rest of their lives? Chances are that they will go into adultery and die in this sad state.