Dr. Lamont sounds more like a Neo-SSPX supporter rather than a Real SSPX supporter or even a Traditional Catholic when he writes this:

"Williamson, from this point on, was the most influential founding figure for the Society in the United States. His anti-Semitism and nαzι sympathies are well known but do not exhaust his repellent characteristics. Even the most brainwashed SSPX adherents have been known to observe that his behavior on occasion is bizarre, aberrant and unhinged.

One former novice in an SSPX contemplative convent told me that when Williamson came to give a spiritual conference to the nuns, his talk dealt exclusively with conspiracy theories about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The former SSPX seminarian Arturo Vasquez has observed: "I entered the scene of the SSPX in the late 1990s when the powerful triumvirate of Fr. Peter Scott, Fr. Ramon Angles and Bp. Williamson ruled the United States district, turning it almost into a far right-wing cult."


Father Angles is an example of the combination of nαzι views and pederasty mentioned above, venerating Hitler and sodomizing a 14-year-old boy, Michael Gonzalez, who subsequently committed ѕυιcιdє and referred to Angles' crime in his ѕυιcιdє note. The combination of Williamson, Scott and Angles was a recipe for unparalleled disaster, producing SSPX communities in the United States that pullulated with every kind of physical and sɛҳuąƖ abuse."

Dr. Lamont sounds more like a Neo-SSPX supporter rather than a Real SSPX supporter or even a Traditional Catholic when he writes this:

"Williamson, from this point on, was the most influential founding figure for the Society in the United States. His anti-Semitism and nαzι sympathies are well known but do not exhaust his repellent characteristics. Even the most brainwashed SSPX adherents have been known to observe that his behavior on occasion is bizarre, aberrant and unhinged.

One former novice in an SSPX contemplative convent told me that when Williamson came to give a spiritual conference to the nuns, his talk dealt exclusively with conspiracy theories about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The former SSPX seminarian Arturo Vasquez has observed: "I entered the scene of the SSPX in the late 1990s when the powerful triumvirate of Fr. Peter Scott, Fr. Ramon Angles and Bp. Williamson ruled the United States district, turning it almost into a far right-wing cult."


Father Angles is an example of the combination of nαzι views and pederasty mentioned above, venerating Hitler and sodomizing a 14-year-old boy, Michael Gonzalez, who subsequently committed ѕυιcιdє and referred to Angles' crime in his ѕυιcιdє note. The combination of Williamson, Scott and Angles was a recipe for unparalleled disaster, producing SSPX communities in the United States that pullulated with every kind of physical and sɛҳuąƖ abuse."

Someone came onto one of these threads recently and claimed to have confirmed with the KBI that there was no ѕυιcιdє note.

No way to know if that person was telling the truth except to call the KBI yourself.

Prior to that, another person claimed Gonzalez got mixed up in the gangs, and was murdered.

It would seem therefore that CM is drawing very grave conclusions before even having established the facts.

If CM wants to be perceived as serious journalists, they should obtain and post docuмentation establishing:

1) County coroner or KBI determined cause of death was ѕυιcιdє, not murder;

2) Something from the KBI showing there was, or was not, a ѕυιcιdє note.

It is interesting to me that nobody on either side (SSPX supporters or CM) shows any real interest in obtaining definitive answers to those unresolved issues.

The whole article is a good example of history according to the progressive timeline that is so common amongst the post-modern left and academia. It's telling of events is synchronic and emotional. The SSPX does this as well when it tries to attack the Resistance. 

Scatterbrain:

And it must also be admitted that Bp. Williamson's methods got results on a material scale. He built up a community that raised money, produced vocations, built and filled seminaries. It must regrettably be acknowledged that this was possible because, in one respect, his methods were suited to the American environment.Americans have many good qualities, and I hope it will not cause offense to say that, like all other nationalities, they have some weak points as well. One of these is a certain vulnerability to the appeal of religious cults.

& 

Their drive for power and love of humiliating their underlings meant that in a religious community set up on preconciliar lines that enforced blind and unquestioning obedience, they could ensure discipline and make things run well in the eyes of their superiors. Their methods and personalities meant they could not produce significant achievements or foster growth in the communities they were in charge of.

The country, after all, was founded by Puritans who were cultists, and their influence can be felt to this day — in political correctness, for example, which is a cult of a secular kind. Williamson (an Englishman) knew this, and worked on this weak point to develop cult-like groups in the SSPX in America..."

Now the social retardation of Dr. Lamont starts coming out. The cult like elements of the Neo-SSPX are directed against Bishop Williamson, the SSPX Resistance, and sometimes Sedes. The extremely high neuroticism of Jєωs is the origin of political correctness, not neo-puritans. 

With regard to end, it is beyond ridiculous to suggest that Rome doesn't want the SSPX because of some pedo problems on the latter's part. The Conciliar Church can't wait for pederasty and pedophilia to be normalized, so it can wipe it's hands clean and the laxity, if you can even call it that, gets hailed as "ahead of it's time" and "progressive."

If CM wants to be perceived as serious journalists, they should obtain and post docuмentation establishing:

Yes, this is my chief problem with them.  They draw all kinds of conclusion and make insinuations without any evidence to back it up.

This article in the OP is full of unsubstantiated premises.

SSPX AND INFILTRATION OF SEX ABUSERS

Infiltration? 5 or 6 sodomites from over 600+ SSPX priests is an infiltration? Well, maybe to an innocent small town SSPXer that thought all SSPX priest walked on water. For me, it is no surprise that there are/were 6 sodomite priests in the SSPX.  In the Novus Ordo, in some diocese the number of effeminate priest is as high as 50%, now that's infiltration, that's a plague and a takeover.

Not just 5 or 6 Sodomite priests. There's more than that worldwide & throughout its history.

The KBI, Kansas Bureau of Investigation has included the SSPX along with the 4 dioceses of Kansas in their current sex abuse investigation. According to this article, they are looking into 8 SSPX priests with incidents in Kansas:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article242572821.html

There's no evidence whatsoever for any of his wild speculations in which he assaults Traditional Catholicism as a whole and the SSPX in particular.

There's no evidence that the explanation is any more deep and profound that Bishop Fellay and one or two other superiors were so protective of the "reputation" of the SSPX that they either covered up the tracks of one or two of these priests or else caused them to be dismissive of the allegations.  Perhaps there was a certain cognitive dissonance at work, where they were themselves so reluctant to believe that those who appeared outwardly to be devout and dedicated Traditional priests could be guilty of such things.  In fact, amidst the scant evidence actually offered by CM, some written communication and recorded conversations, this does in fact appear to be the case, with +Fellay making comments about how the victims were damaging the Society, and one or two other priests dismissing the allegations as lacking in credibility.  And that of course is bad enough, and I am not minimizing the gravity of having done this.

Could it be worse than that?  Sadly, yes.  But there is absolutely zero evidence that it is, and the rest of Dr. Lamont's speculations are entirely without merit.  He is taking on the aspect of an armchair pop psychologist.  But if that were all there was too it, I wouldn't spend any time with it.

There are some allegations and insinuations here that border on slander and calumny.  In fact, if he does not provide evidence for what he asserts, he has in fact committed grave calumny.