Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17

Author Topic: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers  (Read 7006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MiserereMei

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers
« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2020, 08:50:23 AM »
Quote from: Venantius0518 on May 20, 2020, 07:32:12 AM
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.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, my guess is that he probably thinks that it's better having them under his watch than letting them loose where they can cause more damage. Just a thought...
Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers
« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2020, 02:27:17 PM »
Williamson and Fellay fell down on this having buried through silence the problems that some priests/bishops created with their infiltration or laxity.  Get after it, guys, or take your licks.  The laity aren't going to tolerate silence, pedophilia or homos.  If you're not guilty, let us know with the info it takes.  Or come clean about the problem.   
Logged

Offline Venantius0518

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers
« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2020, 03:23:16 PM »
Quote from: MiserereMei on May 20, 2020, 08:50:23 AM
Giving the benefit of the doubt, my guess is that he probably thinks that it's better having them under his watch than letting them loose where they can cause more damage. Just a thought...
Fr. Abraham was sent to a monastery by the sspx, in accordance with canon law and Church teachings.  Fr. Abraham refused, instead agreeing to live with b. Williamson.  B. Williamson, contrary to canon law, allows Fr. Abraham access to the public.

B. Williamson chose to accept pervert seminarians and then ordain them against proof and canon law.  

If b. Williamson had never accepted them, they would not be pervert priests, at least not ordained by the sspx, so no watching would be required, and no children would have been harmed.

This is what gives me pause.
Logged

Offline Caraffa

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers
« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2020, 03:57:26 PM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on May 18, 2020, 10:15:31 PM
Can you elaborate on that, I for one, never heard about the Calderon's.

I'm surprised given that it is mention in almost every article about Fr. Urrutigioty and comes right from then Fr. Morello's letter. 

Quote
"De Galarreta did not expel him because of the problems this could cause, especially with the Calderon family." - Page 5 https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/WebSources/F-177-Bond.pdf
Logged

Offline Caraffa

Re: SSPX And Infiltration Of Sex Abusers
« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2020, 04:17:04 PM »
Quote from: Venantius0518 on May 19, 2020, 07:53:27 AM
It is a similar story with Fr. Marshall Roberts, aka Fr. Mary of the Pillar.  The proof against Roberts was even more convincing.

Fr. Roberts was independent and had been for a while. In fact, how many here are aware that Fr. Roberts was posting on ex-Trad forums such Angelqueen and Ignis Ardens for many years? If I recall correctly he was even confronted online by the moderators on AQ and they accepted his explanation and gave him the benefit of the doubt. He has fooled a lot of people because he was allowed to rehabilitate himself and built up something of what you might call, social proof.

Quote
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.

The SSPX would also be at fault for negligence as they never made Bishop Williamson aware of the situation. Anyway, Fr. Abraham was pulled from the Resistance circuit in Ireland once the information about him was known. Keep in mind, the state looked into his case and could not bring charges against him. That's a problem the summum ius types are going to run into, what if the civil authorities don't find anything or get it wrong? 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17
« previous next »