Author Topic: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers (Read 6901 times)

Venantius0518 · « **Reply #65 on:** May 19, 2020, 07:53:27 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on May 18, 2020, 04:55:46 PM

I have a related question to Urritigoity’s presence in the SSPX seminary.

Since he had a homo reputation before coming to the Society, why did +ABL say to “...watch him like a fox” ?

+ABL should have never allowed him in if he had the slightest doubts about Urritigoity.

Does anyone know why +ABL took the chance?

I joined cathinfo specifically for this post, although I peruse cathinfo from time to time.

Archbishop Lefebvre told b. Williamson to "watch him like a fox," because b. Williamson convinced Archbishop Lefebvre to allow Urrutigoity to stay despite advice from others.

It is a similar story with Fr. Marshall Roberts, aka Fr. Mary of the Pillar. The proof against Roberts was even more convincing.

Consider also Fr. Abraham.

Why does b. Williamson push perverts and predators into the priesthood and onto the laity against Church teaching? Is it simply bad judgement time and time again?

I have been a supporter of b. Williamson for a LONG time. But his poor judgement along these lines causes me pause.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #66 on:** May 19, 2020, 09:43:06 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on May 18, 2020, 10:56:57 PM

Yes, Tradhican, you didn't give the number of SSPX priests you met in any of your posts. You said that a handful or not more than ten of them are effeminate (in your personal judgment). But you didn't mention any reference number. Assuming you met 10 SSPX priests, virtually all priests you know are effeminate. Assuming you met 100 SSPX priests, only 10% of them are effeminate, following your personal judgment. So, how many SSPX priests did you meet personally?

It is 25 years of meeting the different traveling SSPX priests, figure just 10 new priests a year that I met and you have 250 priest. I was the one that would pickup the three bishops at the airport (never met Bp. Galaraga), and Superior Generals, and priests. I was not the normal parishioner that just goes to mass on Sundays and leaves after mass, not knowing anyone. I had dinner with them and talked to them like one would a friend. And I am not the type that idolizes people because they have a position or money, for I have had both too. When I talk to people I do not refrain from talking about any decent subject, for I am not afraid of anyone but God.

Now, you need to seriously apologize for your slanderous detraction where you said they were fαɢɢօts.

Quote

Last Tradhican wrote:
I did not say they were fαɢɢօt priests, read what I wrote again, it is very precise. I did not say any of them were sodomites, I just said they were effeminate. You criticized me for saying the French have effeminate mannerisms, but now you call an effeminate man a fαɢɢօt (a sodomite), by your response I gather that you think I said that all French men a sodomites? You realy should re-read my reply #32. Really read it, maybe you'll learn something new. Just because a man is effeminate in his mannerisms does not make him a sodomite.

Meg · « **Reply #67 on:** May 19, 2020, 09:46:40 AM »

Quote from: Venantius0518 on May 19, 2020, 07:53:27 AM

I joined cathinfo specifically for this post, although I peruse cathinfo from time to time.

Archbishop Lefebvre told b. Williamson to "watch him like a fox," because b. Williamson convinced Archbishop Lefebvre to allow Urrutigoity to stay despite advice from others.

It is a similar story with Fr. Marshall Roberts, aka Fr. Mary of the Pillar. The proof against Roberts was even more convincing.

Consider also Fr. Abraham.

Why does b. Williamson push perverts and predators into the priesthood and onto the laity against Church teaching? Is it simply bad judgement time and time again?

I have been a supporter of b. Williamson for a LONG time. But his poor judgement along these lines causes me pause.

I too wonder about this issue. I don't think that any explanation has been given by +W as to why he took in Fr. Abraham. Fr. Abraham had been banished to a monastery by the SSPX ,which was the right thing to do. but Fr. Abraham refused to go.

Incredulous · « **Reply #68 on:** May 19, 2020, 10:19:05 AM »

Quote from: Venantius0518 on May 19, 2020, 07:53:27 AM

I joined cathinfo specifically for this post, although I peruse cathinfo from time to time.

Archbishop Lefebvre told b. Williamson to "watch him like a fox," because b. Williamson convinced Archbishop Lefebvre to allow Urrutigoity to stay despite advice from others.

It is a similar story with Fr. Marshall Roberts, aka Fr. Mary of the Pillar. The proof against Roberts was even more convincing.

Consider also Fr. Abraham.

Why does b. Williamson push perverts and predators into the priesthood and onto the laity against Church teaching? Is it simply bad judgement time and time again?

I have been a supporter of b. Williamson for a LONG time. But his poor judgement along these lines causes me pause.

In the case of Urritigoity, his charming but aggressive ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda, the timing of his clerical positions and the scandal explosions he set-off has all the markings of an MKUltra agent.

Venantius0518 · « **Reply #69 on:** May 20, 2020, 07:32:12 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on May 19, 2020, 10:19:05 AM

In the case of Urritigoity, his charming but aggressive ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda, the timing of his clerical positions and the scandal explosions he set-off has all the markings of an MKUltra agent.

You may be correct, but it doesn't explain why b. Williamson has made and continues to make such poor choices regarding perverts in the priesthood, against Catholic teaching and against canon law.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers (Read 6901 times)

Venantius0518

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers

Last Tradhican

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers

Meg

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers

Incredulous

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers

Venantius0518

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers