So, I find this writeup to be extremely dishonest ... since it's blending the issue of Fr. Rostand's crimes and the allegations against Fr. Duverger (weak), with the breakup of the family.
I suspect that Sanborn is using it as additional ammunition for his lawsuit, just as women often make up allegations of abuse during divorce proceedings, etc.
So, let's put he well-covered (and poorly covered, by people like Niles, who literally made stuff up since she hates Traditional Catholicism -- and she certainly knew about Voris' recidivism into sodomy long before she finally resigned, probably only because she was a rat trying to jump ship just before it sank, and yet where was her investigation of Voris' sodomitical past and his "threat to children" etc.?) ...
but after this digression onto Niles, whom I absolutely cannot stand, who's insufferable in many ways, moreso than even Voris ...
let's try to disentangle the SSPX wrecking families, which appears to be more and more common these days, where the SSPX are playing "White Knight" and taking the side of disgruntled women and justifying many of their feminist attitudes. Of course, the women will claim that I am justifying "abuse" ... yet they can look at the threads where I denounced those advocating corporal punishment of wives, but the issues manifested itself most egregiously in a piece of trash put out there by Father Adam Purdy SSPX in an interview given to LifeSite News.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-catholic-priest-says-effeminate-men-are-the-root-problem-in-marriagesAbsolutely absurd. While Pudy denounces lack of leadership from men as the cause of most problems in marriages (I dispute that and my experience is that it's feminist attitudes from women ... that SSPX promote), so, according to Purdy, it's almost always the men who are at fault in not making sure that the "rules are followed", but then ironically in the second part of the article denounces men who think of wives "more as one to be told what to do rather than to mutually enhance each other". Not only do I want to stick the old finger down the back of my throat with the "mutually enhance" lingo, but this gives ammunition to the feminsts who refuse to be "told what to do", as he characterizes that as an "abuse of the idea of the authority of the husband".
So, now, according to Purdy, who's engaging in a nauseatingly effeminate and obsequious "White Knight"-ing to the wives declares that a husband who, at the end of the day, expects a woman to do what she's told is abusing the notion of authority.
Obviously, this type of attitude of JUST thinking of a wife as a servant and an order-taker, taken to an extreme, can lead to tyrannnical husbands, and there are some of those out there, but after demanding that husbands show leadership and make sure rules are followed, and blaming their failure to do so on most of the trouble in familities, he completely pulls the rug out of under them and UNDERMINES their leadership, by declaring it an abuse of authority to expect the wife to do as she's told, i.e. to be obedient to her husband at the end of the day. AT NO POINT does Purdy address the plague of women who think they cannot be told what to do. I know "Traditional" wife, attending SSPX chapels, who constantly deride their husbands for "countermanding" them ... if they don't agree with something they've ordered, and actuall if they don't obey what they have commanded themselves. In other words, not a few "Tradwives" expect obedience from their husbands rather than the other way around. That's a massive plague in a society that's permeated with misandry and the derision of "toxic masculinity", etc. ... and IMO it's THE chief cause of problems in families, hands down. Not only does Purdy not address it, but he throws gasoline onto the fire that's wrecking most families.
Only the most monstrous of men would not absolutely love, cherish, adore, and put on a pedestal, a wife who shows respect, deference, and obedience ... and who refuses to nag her husband or try to exact his compliance. That's only natural. Yes, there's an occasional brute that would abuse such a woman even, but they're in the very small minority. It's just male instinct to want to protect, to care for ... it's why men get up and give up their seats to ladies, in church, on buses, and why they hold doors for them, etc.
You know, there are so many paradoxes in the spiritual life, so that those who wish to be first will be last, or those who seek their lives will lose it. Here's another case. I am convinced that 99% of husbands, if they had wives who were humble, respectful, deferential, never exerted themselves, nagged, bug lovingly obeyed their husband, I am convinced that 99% percent of husbands would worship the grounds such a woman walked on and, in fact, her every request they would take as a command. In other words, they would COMMAND their husband's service by posturing themselves as THEIR servants. Ironic. Instead, they try to command by nagging, by disobeying ... and then get the exact opposite.
THEN ... Purdy also claims that many problems arise because women come home from work and don't understand how tough the wife has had it all day, and that she needs help with the household chores. In other words, after the husband comes home from work, possibly exhausted himself, he's also supposed to play Mr. Mom at home.
Now, these generalizations are not only not helpful, but they're incredibly pernicious and destructive. EACH CASE has to be evaluated independently, where in some cases, indeed, the husband is a tyrant, and perhaps doesn't help at home enough, but I've seen JUST AS MANY CASES where the husband works long days, sometimes multiple jobs, is ready to drop, and then gets a tongue-lashing from the resident feminist over how hard she's had it, doesn't get enough help around the house ... after she had sat around spending at least 6-8 hours watching TV and streaming videos.
So, in some cases, the husband/father is more at fault, but in other cases, it's mostly the wife/mother ... but Purdy takes a wrecking ball to families here by almost unilaterally blaming men, taking up the cause of the feminists, empowering and encouraging them to defy their husbands, and if there are problems in families, according to Purdy, it's nearly always the man who's at a fault.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF CRAP that SSPX are pushing what is wrecking families. Reminds of the obsequious Novus Ordites who are always bending over backwards to over-dignify women in some kind of defensive guilt for the fact that women can't hold authority in the Church. Same thing here, where Purdy is trying to hard to overly-idealize women, putting them up on some imaginary pedestal, that then men must bow before, thereby empowering the feminists who want to disobey and disrespect their husbands. "You can't just tell me what to do. Even SSPX priest says that it's an abuse of authority for you to do that. Father Pudy here says that you can't be lazy [after working 12 hours digging ditches] but have to take on the household chores while I relax after my hard day [of watching TV and streaming videos for 6 hours]."
I'm sure this kind of crap is behind the break of Sanborn's family by SSPX. BUT he knows that the courst would eat up Purdy's man-blaming, so he's trying to conflate that with Rostand's and Duverger's checkered pasts, since bring up crimes against children along with Catholicism could poison a jury against them.
Topic: Sanford SSPX scandal (Read 82259 times)