Roberts later found a happier home with the Society of St. John, where [priests] Carlos Urrutigoity and Dominic O’Connor gave Roberts the freedom to pursue a ‘particular friendship’ with a boy who had caught his eye. The object of Roberts’ affections this time was a student at St. Gregory’s Academy who, upon graduation in 1999, joined the SSJ. Roberts and this boy occupied the same room on the SSJ’s property in Shohola. When Roberts later visited the SSJ in France, Roberts was given special permission to spend time alone with this boy in his room after compline.

...Also, the SSPX has been quick to attack the CMRI for the 'doubtfulness' of the Thuc Line as a reason for not attending...

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Adolphus

Not a word about this?

I have personally attended retreat there and found it most beneficial.  

Are you like starting up a bandwagon-thingy to protest their heresies as you perceive them?

Or are you equanimous regarding doctrine and prattled on politics?

Alternatively, are you not averse to attending various similar gigs at CMRI, where they can drop their pearls of doubt all around you making you want to hide in the closet but in the same breath assure you that the Anglicans, Lutherans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and pagans have an equal shot at salvation because of invincible whatever it is?

This is not personal. It is not about you nor about me.  

It would be stupid for me to ignore my own, personal experience and to pretend that what I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears and lived through from day to day was somehow not real.  It would just be stupid.

Quote

It is about souls in danger:

“Little by little one gives up the fight and ends by accepting the situation. Everything in Campos still looks traditional, no doubt, so that the people see nothing different. The shrewder ones among them, however, note the tendency of the priests to speak more often and respectfully about news from Rome, omitting their past warnings and ignoring the present day deviations. To become accustomed to this situation and to cease to correct it is a great danger.”

Perhaps you could bother to cite your source?  Too much trouble?

Quote

Do [Had] those priests in the retreat you attended have openly denounce [denounced] Bp. Fellay's betrayal?  Have they spoken out clearly against the modernist rome, against BXVI and Francis?  Or maybe they prefer not to get in trouble and [by so neglecting to speak out, have] thus to become in accomplices?

 
Pardon me for the corrections but I have to let you know to what I am responding so as to eliminate obfuscation.  I prefer clarity, don't you?  

I will admit that on the way to my first retreat, I was most interested in finding out what the real skinny was on the Society and what was 'UP' with this new aggiornamento aggenda of the Menzingen-denizens.  But I was to be disappointed.  Throughout the retreat, not a word was spoken about those things.  

In case you are unaware of how that could be, the fact is, these are Ignatian retreats, and the retreatants spend the duration NOT SPEAKING to each other.  This heavy pall of silence encompasses the whole thing from beginning to end.  In retrospect it is the perfect vehicle for the ulterior suppression of any exchange of information among the retreatants who come from many hundreds of miles around in all directions but one - the Pacific Ocean! (Actually, I don't know for sure if anyone did not come from ACROSS the Ocean for these retreats, such as Hawaii, or Korea or the Philippines, for example.)

The fact is, there is such a mountain of material to cover in the retreat itself, that it leaves no time for current events -- the discussion of which would be a severe distraction, and no doubt would have the effect of stalling the progress of the retreat itself when some number of the retreatants would perhaps want to go into the current events in more detail instead of into the material and experience of the retreat.  

These retreats are very personal interactions between the souls of the retreatants and with God, on a very personal level.  It is not about what +Fellay is up to or how the Society is dealing with making progress toward 'normalization' with modernist Rome.  So for you to say "This is not personal" reveals your ignorance of what Ignatian retreats are for and how they are conducted.  

Have you ever attended an Ignatian retreat, Adolphus?  By your posts it would seem you have not.

Your primary beef with OLHC and Monsignor Perez is the fact that these Ignatian retreats are announced in the bulletin for all to see, but you really don't know what these Ignatian retreats are, at all, do you?  You don't know what they are, but you're somehow all tied up in knots over the obvious fact that their schedule is printed in the bulletin.  

Do you normally go around complaining about things you do not comprehend?
Or is this instance somehow an exception to the norm?

Adolphus, maybe you're content with being vague and contorted on yourself, but you're telling me that I'm "wrong" and then you go and contradict yourself.

Did you pay attention when I said that the material of the retreat is so intense that any distraction would prevent the retreat from being able to cover all the points in the curriculum?

There is too much subject matter to cover to take any time on current events or even vaguely related world news currently in progress.

And I did not ask whether the attendees had spoken out about Bp. Fellay's betrayal or against BXVI or Francis.  I asked whether the priests had.  The priests do speak during the retreat and address their speeches and reflections to the attendees, as far as I remember.

Also, I did not mean to ask whether the priests had denounced their superior during the retreat.

Now you say you've been to several Ignatian retreats, but you haven't bothered to say under whose direction they were.  Are you hoping everyone will presume they were SSPX Ignatian retreats?

Or, are you most comfortable with the subjectivism card, "This is not about you or me?"