Author Topic: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case  (Read 5097 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Reputation: +14656/-3832
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2021, 12:25:50 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • You say that Francis Palmquist was known to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ by seminary hierarchy and seminarians alike. How do you know this to be true? Please be specific.

    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.

    Offline jvk

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 479
    • Reputation: +410/-13
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #61 on: March 13, 2021, 01:38:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for clarifying.  I always wondered about that...(re Bp Williamson, I mean)


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4135
    • Reputation: +2143/-2081
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #62 on: March 13, 2021, 05:54:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2575
    • Reputation: +2719/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #63 on: March 13, 2021, 09:22:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Quote
    Meg: You say that Francis Palmquist was known to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ by seminary hierarchy and seminarians alike. How do you know this to be true? Please be specific.

    According to CM’s reporting, Palmquist was known to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ from the start, or have strong leanings in that direction. Palmquist basically denies that. But by his own testimony, he went “to the top” of the seminary chain, seeking counsel about his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations. Priests in leadership at the seminary must have known, because Palmquist indicates that he went to them and unburdened himself about the matter If you watch his interview with Joseph Sciambra, it is evident that at least two SSPX priests must have known his state- Fr. Le Roux, the rector, and his unnamed spiritual director at the time.

     My Conversation with Former SSPX Priest, Francis Palmquist (I Am Judas Project) | Joseph Sciambra .
    If you start around minute 54:00 of that interview, you find Palmquist saying that he went “right to the top.” You find him mentioning people around him who were “annoyed” at him. “They knew about my double life,” he says. His elliptical phrases leave one scratching one’s head. Did only the leaders know about his “double life,” or were the rank and file seminarians also privy to it?

    At minute 1:00:50, he asserts that he wasn’t “acting upon” is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations. Perhaps not. But Michael Voris, in a written transcript of one Vortex edition, entitled ‘Eternal Rome’ says the following:

    Church Militant has spoken with a seminarian who went to school with Palmquist and was hit on by Palmquist once. Likewise, the seminarian knew of multiple complaints from others about Palmquist made to the rector, le Roux.”

    Either Voris is flat out lying, or Palmquist is shading the truth. Either Voris actually spoke with a seminarian, who testifies that Palmquist “hit” on him, or he did not. Either “multiple complaints” about Palmquist were brought to le Roux’sattention, or they were not. If you believe Francis Palmquist, then, of course, Voris is flat out lying. I happen to believe that Voris is telling the truth.

    But why would he fabricate a story about actually speaking with a seminarian? CM doesn’t intentionally fabricate stories about bishops and priests in the various dioceses around the country. On a daily basis, Voris reports about numbers of them covering up ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity and pedophilia abuses, or engaging in them themselves. To my knowledge, none of these diocesan priests or hierarchy has filed a defamation suit against him. They ought to, if they believe themselves to have been slandered. The Society ought to do the same thing. Their pockets are deep enough, I think.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7201
    • Reputation: +3944/-1235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #64 on: March 13, 2021, 09:58:09 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    According to CM’s reporting,

    And there you have lost all credibility...
    .
    How does CM know anything?  Did they have the sspx seminaries bugged, videotaped and wiretapped?  If not, then they know nothing.
    .
    You are committing the sin of calumny, (as is CM and M. Voris) because you have no proof of any wrongdoing.  You should stop immediately.


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4135
    • Reputation: +2143/-2081
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #65 on: March 14, 2021, 07:09:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • According to CM’s reporting, Palmquist was known to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ from the start, or have strong leanings in that direction. Palmquist basically denies that. But by his own testimony, he went “to the top” of the seminary chain, seeking counsel about his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations. Priests in leadership at the seminary must have known, because Palmquist indicates that he went to them and unburdened himself about the matter If you watch his interview with Joseph Sciambra, it is evident that at least two SSPX priests must have known his state- Fr. Le Roux, the rector, and his unnamed spiritual director at the time.

     My Conversation with Former SSPX Priest, Francis Palmquist (I Am Judas Project) | Joseph Sciambra .
    If you start around minute 54:00 of that interview, you find Palmquist saying that he went “right to the top.” You find him mentioning people around him who were “annoyed” at him. “They knew about my double life,” he says. His elliptical phrases leave one scratching one’s head. Did only the leaders know about his “double life,” or were the rank and file seminarians also privy to it?

    At minute 1:00:50, he asserts that he wasn’t “acting upon” is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations. Perhaps not. But Michael Voris, in a written transcript of one Vortex edition, entitled ‘Eternal Rome’ says the following:

    Church Militant has spoken with a seminarian who went to school with Palmquist and was hit on by Palmquist once. Likewise, the seminarian knew of multiple complaints from others about Palmquist made to the rector, le Roux.”

    Either Voris is flat out lying, or Palmquist is shading the truth. Either Voris actually spoke with a seminarian, who testifies that Palmquist “hit” on him, or he did not. Either “multiple complaints” about Palmquist were brought to le Roux’sattention, or they were not. If you believe Francis Palmquist, then, of course, Voris is flat out lying. I happen to believe that Voris is telling the truth.

    But why would he fabricate a story about actually speaking with a seminarian? CM doesn’t intentionally fabricate stories about bishops and priests in the various dioceses around the country. On a daily basis, Voris reports about numbers of them covering up ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity and pedophilia abuses, or engaging in them themselves. To my knowledge, none of these diocesan priests or hierarchy has filed a defamation suit against him. They ought to, if they believe themselves to have been slandered. The Society ought to do the same thing. Their pockets are deep enough, I think.

    In the Joseph Sciambra interview, Palmquist said that the went to "the top" of the SSPX chain to get help. However, it appears to me that this occurred after he was ordained, not before. Can you provide proof that he went to the top of the SSPX before he was ordained? Because I'm not seeing that.

    And yes, he did say, in the Sciambra interview that other priests knew about his double life. Again, this seems to be after his ordination. Please correct me if you have proof otherwise.

    I should add that it seems that both Palmquist and Voris have an ax to grind regarding the SSPX. And neither is a saint, by a longshot. Palmquist has made his reasons known as to why he has a problem with the SSPX (the main being they don't accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity). But why does Voris have an ax to grind? 
    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2575
    • Reputation: +2719/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #66 on: March 14, 2021, 08:00:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Quote
    Quote
    According to CM’s reporting,
    And there you have lost all credibility...
     .
     How does CM know anything?  Did they have the sspx seminaries bugged, videotaped and wiretapped?  If not, then they know nothing.
     .
     You are committing the sin of calumny, (as is CM and M. Voris) because you have no proof of any wrongdoing.  You should stop immєdιαtely.
    I would happily drop the subject, But since PV responds in that accusatory tone, I choose to carry this on a bit further. If believing in the essential integrity of Michael Voris and CM’s reportage makes me a calumniator, well, so be it. If simply passing on the investigative reporting of Christine Niles makes me a defamer of someone’s character, I can live with that.

    No, PV, you should stop immediately, IMO. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig! If gaining back credibility from the likes of you means disavowing CM’s reporting, calling Voris a liar, and attempting to re-associate him with his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past, then I myself refuse to play ball.

    As I have said earlier, Francis Palmquist is a poor, sick individual, for whose soul we must all pray. He calls his Facebook page ‘I am Judas.’ He identifies with the betrayer of our Our Lord. Palmquist is not in some dark hidey hole somewhere, huddling in shame and despair. No, he posts mocking, defiant videos on Facebook. He is an in-your-face queer, who has lost the faith.  CM had nothing to do with this poor soul's outcome.

    At age 20, it appears, he started seminary training. He was under a rector’s supervision for at least four(?) years, probably five years. He had a spiritual director, as well. Palmquist mentions other (SSPX?) priests whom he trusted. If, at the end of that period, the SSPX hierarchy and others could not figure out that his guy had a real problem, then it would seem to reflect rather negatively on their own spiritual and moral discernment.

    If Palmquist’s sɛҳuąƖ proclivities had been pretty clearly revealed and confessed at the time of his ordination, that makes matters even worse. Then we have to entertain the possibility that SSPX authorities knowingly clothed this ordained ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ time bomb in a cassock, and sent him off to Mexico, where he could blow up in the midst of the Mexican SSPX faithful. That is apparently what happened.




    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7201
    • Reputation: +3944/-1235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #67 on: March 14, 2021, 08:45:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If believing in the essential integrity of Michael Voris and CM’s reportage makes me a calumniator, well, so be it.
    You obviously don't understand the difference between "reporting" and "investigating".  Reporting is simply repeating things, whether true or not.  Investigating is attempting to prove things as true.
    .
    It USED to be that reporting happened AFTER an investigation.  It USED to be that journalists/newspapers only reported FACTS.  That hasn't been the case for 50+ years.  I guess you didn't get the memo.  I guess you still believe the nightly news, haha?
    .
    Michael Matt admits that he's not interested in truth/investigation; he's only interested in rumors and repeating (potential) lies.  He said, in the opening post of this thread:  I'm a newspaper publisher, not a private investigator.
    .
    Conclusion:  Nothing that Michael Matt posts is trustworthy as fact, and he admits it.  His publication (like almost all modern journalism) is rumor and hearsay.  If you repeat/believe unverified stories, you are committing a sin.  

    Quote
    If simply passing on the investigative reporting of Christine Niles makes me a defamer of someone’s character, I can live with that.
    Who is Christine Niles?  Why should we trust her?  What facts does she possess?  Did she contact the police, or a lawyer?  If not, then her word is as good as mud.  You believing her as trustworthy is stupid and naive.
    .

    Quote
    At age 20, it appears, he started seminary training. He was under a rector’s supervision for at least four(?) years, probably five years. He had a spiritual director, as well. Palmquist mentions other (SSPX?) priests whom he trusted. If, at the end of that period, the SSPX hierarchy and others could not figure out that his guy had a real problem, then it would seem to reflect rather negatively on their own spiritual and moral discernment.

    My original argument with you is your illogical chastisement of the entire sspx organization, based on a handful of bad, rotten priests.  You have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  Get a hold of yourself and be rational.


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2575
    • Reputation: +2719/-436
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #68 on: March 14, 2021, 09:27:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    PV:Who is Christine Niles?  Why should we trust her?  What facts does she possess?  Did she contact the police, or a lawyer?  If not, then her word is as good as mud.  You believing her as trustworthy is stupid and naive.
    Wait a minute.  Before I respond, are you asking who Christine Niles is because you have never heard of her, and are unacquainted with her reporting?
    Or, is it that you know who she is, but that you see no reason to believe anything she reports is truth?
    There is no reason to continue this discussion until you respond to the questions above.  


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16