Palmquist himself denies it he was a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. As for Urrutigoity, he was suspected, but the charges were dismissed due to Fr. Morello being a sedevacantist who took about half the seminarians down there with him; Bishop Williamson felt that the allegations were fabricated because Urrutigoity was an ardent opponent of sedevacantism (according to him anyway).
Terrible judgement in the case of Urrutigoity, but to claim that the SSPX ordained "known" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs is not exactly accurate. But holligsworth can't look at this issue objectively and has some ax to grind.
I agree that the SSPX hasn't knowingly ordained ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, as far as what can be ascertained from the info we have.
Hollingsworth seems to think that Voris is always accurate and honest in everything he says. But Voris has been shown even in the past to not be accurate and honest. Maybe Hollingsworth is ready to believe anything negative about the SSPX, and he assumes that anything negative about them is true.
Palmquist says in his video that he did mention in confession that he was struggling with same-sex attraction, in thought. But not in deed at that point. The priest who heard his confession should have maybe confronted him on the issue, and maybe he did, but it's not like the priest who heard the confession could tell other SSPX members about it. It is not accurate to say, as Voris did, that the SSPX knew that Palmquist was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. It's also not accurate to say that other seminarians in the SSPX knew about Palmquist's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. That's why I asked Hollingsworth how it is that he knows this to be true. Eveidently, since Voris says it's true then it MUST be true, in his view. Where's the proof?
The Urritigoity case is more serious of course. Bishop Williamson dropped the ball on that one, but it doesn't look like he knew about Urritigoity's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
Topic: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case (Read 14069 times)