Mark 79, since the moderator has made it impossible for me to Thumbs Down your comments, consider this post the equivalent.
As far as trying to post a quote from over 35 different pages, it's not worth my time.
Regarding the SSPX response regarding sloniker, it has been noted in public news print that when it was made known to the priests, he was no longer allowed to be associated with the camps.
Sounds like a good response, but then again, that was over 10 years ago.
And the restraint counseled refers to judgement/condemnation before facts are presented, unlike the allegations and assumptions presented herein.
BTW, feel free to dislike this post as I'm sure Mathew will as well. :-P :rahrah:
Really? Man mutiliates his genitals while in the seminary is a huge red flag that this man shouldn't be near children's camp. Everyone knew about this disturbed individual.
Anybody with law enforcement background would have immediately contacted local law enforcement and notified parents; not protect pervert.
Mob mentality? No...more like some of you have novus ordo mentality to worship these priests and the Society while lacking compassion for the victims and families. Nothing was consentual when these young boys were groomed and brainwashed with immoral writings.
These priests are guilty for enabling a pervert.
It is going to get worse sodomists are pushing for laws to lower the age of consent to have sex.
Evil perverts prey on decent innocent holy children.
And don't tell me that we are over reacting. We saw how the novus ordo protected pervert priests transferring to other parishes involved in youth groups where more children were raped and molested.