I might have been defending the SSPX too much in the OP (with my inline moderator comments). But I figure, better to be too careful than not careful enough.

I'll just say this: read carefully and critically. Don't fall for various psychological tricks that the Big Media is known to use.

... and one of the evils I was referring to was Pablo. And unfortunately I think that there's bad teachers and even bad people in SSPX seminaries because most priests are weak on doctrine.

(If Fr. Pfeiffer had a strong doctrinal formation, he would never have accepted Pablo near the seminary, just as if SSPX was strong on their doctrinal positions, we wouldn't have priests weak either on doctrine or faith or both)

Does anyone know? Is this an isolated incident, or does the SSPX have as much of a problem with this type of thing as the Norvos Ordo does?

This is isolated. Nowhere compared to Novus Ordo.

The problem with SSPX is not this one, this guy was not even associated with SSPX, the problem is the lack of good formation the seminarians get there. The problem is when you let the seminarians get weak on doctrine and Faith.

And this problem is no exclusive to SSPX ... just like Fr. Chazal says "The air we breath is apostasy"

If you have a community where people are not 100% secure on their feet, they are unsure about the doctrine they profess, how do you expect them to spot evil people? They can't!

 I am always blown away on how much freedom parents give their children and how much trust!

There is a person I know in one of the SSPX parishes who molested a kid in Idaho... no charges were ever pressed- he was just told to leave the state. Now he is in another state and I see parents not paying any attention to him  as he plays with and hangs around the children.

Have you warned the parents, children, priests, and authorities?

I might have been defending the SSPX too much in the OP (with my inline moderator comments). But I figure, better to be too careful than not careful enough.

I'll just say this: read carefully and critically. Don't fall for various psychological tricks that the Big Media is known to use.

Nah, while there may in fact be some blame on the part of the SSPX, in my mind, the most likely scenario is that STAS neglected to put out the APB on this guy and/or that the priests didn't see any urgent need to take concrete action based on some vague charges.  Now, if it's true that one of the victims told a priest that he was stripped naked and whipped by this guy, and nothing was done, then there would be a greater degree of culpability.

BUT STILL the spin on this entire article is deliberately meant to make it seem like the priests and the SSPX were actively covering up and even enabling the pedophilia ... whereas the true worst case scenario involves negligence while the best might even involve little or know knowledge of any concrete problem.  We need to sift junk like this based upon the agenda of someone who might be writing; there's clear juxtaposition of potentially unrelated situations and events that make it seems like they're more connected than they might actually be.

It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.

I don't think it's that simple.  If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny.  So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.  But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this.  Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.

Quote from: Matthew

It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.

I don't think it's that simple.  If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny.  So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.  But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this.  Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.

Well we had this discussion many times here on CI back in 2009.

How do you get "hard proof" of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Unless you break into the right house and plant a video camera, you're not likely to get any.

So in the meantime, everyone can be preyed upon, smaller evidence and suspicions be damned?

So basically you can't accuse someone of it directly, but you can say, "Be careful" and immediately afterward give pointers on how to spot ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? Isn't that kind of Pharisaical?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matthew

It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.

I don't think it's that simple.  If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny.  So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.  But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this.  Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.

Well we had this discussion many times here on CI back in 2009.

How do you get "hard proof" of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity?

Well, basically I don't have ANY proof in most cases, just a gut feeling, the so-called "gαydar" based on personal habits, mannerisms, etc.  There was a study done where a surprising number of people could pick out gαy men just from photos of their faces with a high degree of accuracy.