Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Mr G on February 19, 2021, 02:27:06 PM
-
The Remnant Newspaper - SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5280-sspx-priest-backpedals-on-kaufmann-case)
Editor's Note: I have been asked by Father Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX, to publish the following retraction of comments he’d made here some months ago (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5212-bishop-fellay-s-former-assistant-reaches-out-to-abuse-victim) regarding the Erica Kauffman case.
As I indicate in my reply to Fr. Pfluger (see below), I fear his attempt at clarification may raise more questions than answers but, as he has asked me to proceed, I am obliged to honor his request.
I hope this unfortunate exchange—which could now be accurately described as an exercise in futility—will shed some light on my long-established editorial policy against getting involved in abuse cases at all, but especially not when I have little or no direct knowledge of the parties involved or the facts of the case.
I'm a newspaper publisher, not a private investigator. And as I see it, when such cases are tried in the press rather than a law court, they invariably wind up in a cul-de-sac of “he said/she said” which tends to do more harm than good. This case is no exception, though my initial hope in publishing Miss Kauffman's story was not necessarily to gain a conviction of anyone but rather a fair and open hearing of the facts of the case.
Regrettably, this is not going to happen, and so I can only leave it up to our readers to judge for themselves whether or not Father Pfluger's explantion of the facts of this case is satisfying.
The best advice I can offer our readers by way of avoiding this kind of hellish ordeal--regardless of where you go to Mass--is to make sure to take care of your own. Protect yourselves and your good priests by putting a healthy and wholesome degree of separation between them and your family. Priests are not our pals, nor was it ever intended that they should be.
Throughout our 25 years of married life, this is something my wife and I have lived by with respect to our many long and cherished friendships with priests. We homeschool our children for the same reason, by the way, and there is nothing on God’s green earth that could convince me to have it any other way. For those who understand what I’m getting at here, no further explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible.
What follows, then, is my aforementioned exchange with Father Pfluger. I have elected not to publish his final personal response to me, which is just his request that I proceed with the publication of his retraction despite my stated concerns (see below).
In charity, I can only presume that Father Pfluger is trying to do the right thing, even if those of us on the outside looking in are still left scratching our heads. Clearly, there are no winners here. MJM
_________
Von: Remnant Administrator <a****@remnantnewspaper.com (a****@remnantnewspaper.com)>
Datum: Dienstag, 2. Februar 2021 um 21:24
An: Niklaus FSSPX <n********@fsspx.email (n********@fsspx.email)>
Betreff: RE: Letter to Miss Erica Kauffman
Dear Father Pfluger:
Thank you for your letter. Are you quite certain that you wish me to make it public that, after impregnating a woman in his own flock, this priest was asked by Bishop Fellay to merely take a year off before returning to ministry?
Critics of the Society are going to have a field day with this. Think of what you're saying: Bishop Fellay slapped the wrist of priest who was sleeping with members of his flock, and then "sent him to Europe" where the priest was "restricted".
Restricted? In what sense? Did he have access to European women as well?
You do know, of course, that there are allegations that this priest did in fact have sɛҳuąƖ relations with other women besides Miss Kauffman. It seems to me that Bishop Fellay can now be accused of having allowed this terrible thing to happen to other women.
How is my printing of your letter NOT going to do even more damage to the Society?
I would beg you to rethink this course of action, and instead ask Bishop Fellay to personally address this issue in the public forum.
Thank you.
In Christo Rege,
Michael Matt
From: Niklaus Pfluger | FSSPX <n********@fsspx.email (n********@fsspx.email)>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:09 AM
To: a****@remnantnewspaper.com (a****@remnantnewspaper.com)
Subject: Letter to Miss Erica Kauffman
January 27th, 2021
Dear Mr. Michael Matt,
In a December 29th article, you chose to make public a private letter that I wrote to Miss Erica Kauffman, in which I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed. It was difficult for me not to recognize her as the victim of an odious abuse, and not to respond to her call for help.
In doing so, as you noted in your introduction, I corroborated her version of the story and questioned, with her, the management of this case by the SSPX.
However – and it is now a serious duty for me to point this out to you – I made a regrettable mistake at the time. And it is in the hope of repairing it that I am writing to you today, taking advantage on a personal basis of the invitation you have extended to the SSPX authorities.
As the file never passed through my hands, I happened to be unaware, when writing to Miss Kauffman, of a number of details that I have since learned and which today force me to admit in good conscience that I contributed to convey a distorted image of what really happened.
Indeed, having been able to consult the archives of the SSPX, I realized that Bishop Fellay, then Superior General, had indeed treated the case with all possible care.
At the end of his investigation, and after having heard all the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. A very sad and serious story, moreover, since such a thing is directly contrary to the sanctity of the priesthood.
I also learned that other people had noticed at the time the existence of a disordered friendship between the two persons.
This sinful affair credibly explains how several meetings could have taken place in the same place – in the apartment of Miss Kauffman, of which this priest had a copy of the key – under always similar circuмstances, over a period of several months.
Bishop Fellay had then taken severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest, who had to spend a year in penance in a monastery before being sent to Europe to exercise his ministry there, with restrictions during about ten years, which were applied and respected.
Whatever one's opinion may be in this story, it is impossible for me today not to recognize that Miss Kauffman is mistaken when she believes that Fr. Arzuaga was never restricted, or that the SSPX ignored her complaint. The opposite took place.
Contrary to what she states in her December 30th post, this priest has never been in charge of a school, nor has he ever been allowed to travel freely, out of the control of his superiors.
Nevertheless, I deeply deplore what happened, and I sympathize wholeheartedly with the distress in which Miss Kauffman finds herself today.
Renewing my compassion and assuring her of my prayers for all her intentions, I express my regret for having contributed to spread a false judgment on this sad story.
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger
P. Niklaus Pfluger | FSSPX
Noviciat Ste-Thérèse
-
...
-
I'm a newspaper publisher, not a private investigator. And as I see it, when such cases are tried in the press rather than a law court, they invariably wind up in a cul-de-sac of “he said/she said” which tends to do more harm than good. This case is no exception, though my initial hope in publishing Miss Kauffman's story was not necessarily to gain a conviction of anyone but rather a fair and open hearing of the facts of the case.
Newspapers/journalists are supposed to investigate and prove the facts are true BEFORE publishing. Mr Matt's actions here are nothing short of tabloid rumors. What a disgrace to the office of journalist.
-
My, what tangled webs we weave! Michael Matt anticipates that critics of the Society will now have a “field day.” Well, of course they will. But the opportunity is afforded to them only because of Fellay & Co.’s failure to properly adjudicate the case in the first place. They hide this priest from public view (as well as numbers of others,) and refuse to address Ms. Kaufman’s case adequately. Now the affair has come back to bite them.
Matt correctly observes that this priest, who was sleeping with “members,” (note the plural) of his flock, received only a “(slap) on the wrist” from his superiors.
Writes Matt to Fr. Phluger: “Are you quite certain that you wish me to make it public that, after impregnating a woman in his own flock, this priest was asked by Bishop Fellay to merely take a year off before returning to ministry?”
It’s exactly the question anyone should ask.
Matt wonders what Phluger’s use of the word “restricted” really means in light of the fact that Arzuaga.s inexcusable behavior doesn’t appear to have been curbed or restricted in much of any way. Arzuaga was sent off to Europe where, Matt reasonably assumes, Arzuaga might have access to European women, as well, Well, yeahhhh!
Apparently, the punctilious Fr. Phluger writes Matt on Jan. 27 in order to clear up some inaccuracies about the affair, as he had understood and expressed them earlier:
At the end of (Fellay’s) investigation, and after having heard all the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. ….I also learned that other people had noticed at the time the existence of a disordered friendship between the two persons.
So how does that get Fellay and Phluger off the hook by simply concluding that it was not rape as Phluger had thought earlier? The circuмstances are still deeply troubling. Fr. Phluger even admits that “other people” knew about this “disordered friendship.” It was common knowledge. He digs an even deeper hole for himself, I’m afraid.
As the Remnanr’s ‘comment moderator’ (Michael Matt?) asks on the Remnant website:
Bottom line: Why would a priest who took advantage of an unbalanced young woman in his congregation still be in active ministry in the SSPX?
I think the same question might have been asked about several other priests in the Society over the years. Why are they still in active ministry? Church Militant poses the same question. CM has a growing data base of Society priests who have sɛҳuąƖly misbehaved and are still in the Society. And, they testify, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I can understand why Matt would like to kick the matter upstairs.
He implores Fr. Phluger: I would beg you to rethink this course of action, and instead ask Bishop Fellay to personally address this issue in the public forum.
Thank you.
But does anyone , who knows even a smidgen about the way he operates, think that Bp. Fellay will address this or any other issue in a public forum? That’s not the man’s MO.
-
Indeed, having been able to consult the archives of the SSPX, I realized that Bishop Fellay, then Superior General, had indeed treated the case with all possible care.
At the end of his investigation, and after having heard all the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. A very sad and serious story, moreover, since such a thing is directly contrary to the sanctity of the priesthood.
I also learned that other people had noticed at the time the existence of a disordered friendship between the two persons.
This sinful affair credibly explains how several meetings could have taken place in the same place – in the apartment of Miss Kauffman, of which this priest had a copy of the key – under always similar circuмstances, over a period of several months.
Most of us called BS on Kauffman's story for the same reasons described here, the nonsensical insanity about Fr. having a key and regularly assaulting her against her will while she didn't take even the slightest measures to make it stop.
This actually underscores that, despite Voris' recent endorsement of the #metoo movement, where every single allegation is treated as truth, sometimes people make crap up and cause damage. Although Arzuaga appears to have sinned against his vow of chastity, a consensual affair and rape are two different matters, and the SSPX was wrongly smeared for "ignoring" rapes.
Was a year of penance a "slap on the wrist"? Not sure, since we don't know all the details. I probably would have suspended him from ministry for longer than that. But it's not as if nothing was done.
-
Hollingsworth, Father’s name is Fr. Niklaus Pfluger.
-
Hollingsworth, Father’s name is Fr. Niklaus Pfluger.
That's not a comment. It is, apparently, just a clumsy attempt at misdirection. I surmise that not many on CI really have much interest in understanding, much less internalizing, the truly grave sɛҳuąƖ scandals which have invaded the SSPX. You do not want to hear the bells tolling.
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.EnlIDfmUeIVT6KCGGLLs8wHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
"I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed."
Well, as long as "old baldy" had compassion and shame, it should make things better. :popcorn:
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.EnlIDfmUeIVT6KCGGLLs8wHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
"I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed."
Well, as long as "old baldy" had compassion and shame, it should make things better. :popcorn:
That’s OK. JP2 expressed shame and compassion on behalf of the entire Church.
-
Fr. Rizzo was brutally expelled from the SSPX just for reporting the inappropriate letters sent by a teacher to a pupil in Post Falls, Idaho.
There appears to be an incredible degree of tolerance for mortal sin of fornication and the breaking of priestly vows and the same degree of intolerance for speaking truth to power.
Is there much difference between the authoritarianism of traditional clergy and the cancel culture of the left ?
-
The priest who broke vows of chastity should be defrocked. Period.
And defrock these queer pedophiles too.
It seems ugly history is repeating itself.
Forgiveness doesn’t mean condoning and concealing sin and sinners.
-
The priest who broke vows of chastity should be defrocked. Period.
And defrock these queer pedophiles too.
It seems ugly history is repeating itself.
Forgiveness doesn’t mean condoning and concealing sin and sinners.
Generally speaking, I don't believe that a priest who had an isolated fall should be defrocked. Certainly he should no longer have pastoral duties, but he could be sent to a religious house. Now, a serial violator of chastity should be removed from the priesthood. It does sound as if Fr. Arzuaga falls into the latter category. Of course, this is just my opinion. I could see circuмstances where the pastoral services are required for the good of the faithful and so a priest cannot be defrocked without depriving the faithful of Sacraments, etc.
Of course, any non-consensual assaults, such as rape, or pedophilia, or even consensual ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity ... there's no question about that.
-
Bishop Fellay had then taken severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest, who had to spend a year in penance in a monastery before being sent to Europe to exercise his ministry there, with restrictions during about ten years, which were applied and respected.
To all those who are saying that there was only "one year" of discipline, did you read the above? He was suspended for 1 year, then for 10 years after that, he had restricted ministry. I don't view that as a slap on the wrist.
-
To all those who are saying that there was only "one year" of discipline, did you read the above? He was suspended for 1 year, then for 10 years after that, he had restricted ministry. I don't view that as a slap on the wrist.
You may be advised to quit while you're ahead. If Fr. Aruaga's relationship to Ms. Kaufmann, producing a child, was merely a tragic one off, then you make a point, perhaps. However, it appears that this priest's bad behavior was repeated over time. He is alleged to have been a serial predator. Apparently, his predations were carried out on other young women while, as it were, he was still a member of the Society. If that is true, then any idea of severe discipline on the part of +Fellay rings pretty hollow, in my opinion.
-
CM also reports that Father Arzuaga wrote a letter of support for James Simmerman, a wealthy businessman jailed for the sɛҳuąƖ molestation of teen girls at attending the SSPX Vermont Mass Center:
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/transcript-spotlight-sspx
Like Fr. Novak, SSPX priest Fr. Pablo Arzuaga also wrote a letter to the court vouching for Simmerman's character. Writing all the way from France, Arzuaga pleads with the court to show the sɛҳuąƖ predator mercy, calling his multiple crimes of repeated sɛҳuąƖ molestation a "mistake": "This is a man who has never done anything wrong before and possesses many good qualities. He made a terrible mistake."
A reference to this letter of support is in her newly available video testimony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zPLQGrHSiU&feature=emb_logo
And this is the news article relating to this conviction
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Businessman+sentenced+in+sex+case.-a0164781529
In the comments of the original OP Remnant article Miss Kaufmann of the Church Militant Article (EDK) states that Father Arzuaga and James Simmerman are friends and that Simmerman supports the priest financially.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5280-sspx-priest-backpedals-on-kaufmann-case
If Father Arzuaga is close friends with a convicted sex offender, it adds a lot of credence to her testimony.
-
I suspect that a good number of members on CI are still attached to sspx. So readers will hear little of the truth about that fallen organization on this site. Confiteor deo is a refreshing exception in her recent post. Normally we'll hear little here of substance on any topic related to sspx. The fact is that growing numbers of priests in the Society are revealed to have practiced a perverted lifestyle over at least 35 years. And their predations are routinely covered up by the leadership, to this very day. If sspx really wanted to do justice, their leaders would confess publicly to the sex crimes of its priests. They would return the deeds of all chapel properties throughout the world to their original and rightful owners. They would put their financial affairs in order, shut down all business and investment enterprises in which they are involved, and dissolve the apostolate altogether. But that will not happen.
-
They’d have to get written permission from “The Lodge” near Menzingen to do that.
-
I suspect that a good number of members on CI are still attached to sspx. So readers will hear little of the truth about that fallen organization on this site. Confiteor deo is a refreshing exception in her recent post. Normally we'll hear little here of substance on any topic related to sspx. The fact is that growing numbers of priests in the Society are revealed to have practiced a perverted lifestyle over at least 35 years. And their predations are routinely covered up by the leadership, to this very day. If sspx really wanted to do justice, their leaders would confess publicly to the sex crimes of its priests. They would return the deeds of all chapel properties throughout the world to their original and rightful owners. They would put their financial affairs in order, shut down all business and investment enterprises in which they are involved, and dissolve the apostolate altogether.
And leave millions of Faithful Catholics without the Mass and the Sacraments?
No it is not the ‘SSPX’ itself that is the problem. It is the few bad apples, possible infiltrators, and the foolish laity that put their friendships with fallen men above Christ and the Church that is the problem.
-
And leave millions of Faithful Catholics without the Mass and the Sacraments?
No it is not the ‘SSPX’ itself that is the problem. It is the few bad apples, possible infiltrators, and the foolish laity that put their friendships with fallen men above Christ and the Church that is the problem.
Sacraments aren't that important to some here. Better to stay home every Sunday, and ruminate over all of the bad priests in the world - especially those in the SSPX.
-
And leave millions of Faithful Catholics without the Mass and the Sacraments?
1) There are not "millions" of faithful sspx Catholics.
2) It's all about you then, Carissima, isn't it? Not about scores, maybe hundreds, of sspx youngsters who have been victimized by sspx priests. Not about sspx leaders who have covered up for these priests.
-
I suspect that a good number of members on CI are still attached to sspx. So readers will hear little of the truth about that fallen organization on this site. Confiteor deo is a refreshing exception in her recent post. Normally we'll hear little here of substance on any topic related to sspx. The fact is that growing numbers of priests in the Society are revealed to have practiced a perverted lifestyle over at least 35 years. And their predations are routinely covered up by the leadership, to this very day. If sspx really wanted to do justice, their leaders would confess publicly to the sex crimes of its priests. They would return the deeds of all chapel properties throughout the world to their original and rightful owners. They would put their financial affairs in order, shut down all business and investment enterprises in which they are involved, and dissolve the apostolate altogether. But that will not happen.
I am "guilty" of attending SSPX masses, but I have seen a lot of bad things. It seems to me that there is a serious psychological problem with most of the SSPX priests. I have not know that many, but judging from the ones I know (about 8 I would guess), I would say that the "SSPX mentality", or "corporate culture" is very problematic. They seem to see the faithful as a nuisance, and that they are really generous to provide you with the sacraments, as if it was not their duty.
I would say that this is a social problem. Their minds are so focused, so isolated in their own organization, that they cannot really understand how other people live their lives. They seem to have no empathy.
Abp. Lefebvre organized the SSPX like any other missionary congregation, as far as I understand, but it seems clears to me that this model doesn't work in the terrible crisis of the Church, because no religious congregation was ever this isolated in the Church's history.
They answer to no one. Even after the nefarious secret dealings with Rome, they still function quite independently. I believe that this created a kind of bubble that they live in. That's why nobody can ask questions. Whoever raises his voice is treated like a troublemaker. The priests fear trouble. They fear upsetting their superior, because they know that they can be expelled very fast if they disagree about something. They have seem it before. If you don't agree with the mandatory mentality, you are seem as an outsider, and you'll surely be out very quickly.
That is also why they feel entitled to protect bad and criminal priests. They answer to no one. The superior is always right. His is the voice of God.
-
]If sspx really wanted to do justice, their leaders would confess publicly to the sex crimes of its priests. They would return the deeds of all chapel properties throughout the world to their original and rightful owners. They would put their financial affairs in order, shut down all business and investment enterprises in which they are involved, and dissolve the apostolate altogether. But that will not happen.
I don't agree that they should "dissolve their apostolate" ... since too many people depend on them for the Mass and Sacraments. They need to keep going for the good of the faithful. Nevertheless, yes, their ridiculous business activities should cease regardless, as being unbecoming of a Catholic religious organization, and there should be strict reforms to create processes for the handling of abuse charges and other cases of rogue priests.
When priests regularly fall like that, I suspect that there's something wrong with SSPX spirituality and the seminary formation. Nor is this a neo-SSPX thing. Urrutigoity et al. thrived under Bishop Wililamson and were enabled by him, with His Excellency allowing Urrutigoity even while a seminarian to wield a significant amount of informal authority and influence at the seminary, despite the fact that he was to be watched like a hawk against forming particular friendships. And now Bishop Williamson is harboring that other accused predator.
-
1) There are not "millions" of faithful sspx Catholics.
2) It's all about you then, Carissima, isn't it? Not about scores, maybe hundreds, of sspx youngsters who have been victimized by sspx priests. Not about sspx leaders who have covered up for these priests.
Both of these can be addressed with serious reforms short of dissolving the SSPX entirely. You eject the ones found guilty of covering things up or even of gross negligence in not restricting these priests, create strict mandatory processes for the reporting of allegations, etc. I'm not saying this would ever happen, but we're speaking hypothetically, since they're not about to dissolve the SSPX either.
-
I am "guilty" of attending SSPX masses, but I have seen a lot of bad things. It seems to me that there is a serious psychological problem with most of the SSPX priests. I have not know that many, but judging from the ones I know (about 8 I would guess), I would say that the "SSPX mentality", or "corporate culture" is very problematic. They seem to see the faithful as a nuisance, and that they are really generous to provide you with the sacraments, as if it was not their duty.
I would say that this is a social problem. Their minds are so focused, so isolated in their own organization, that they cannot really understand how other people live their lives. They seem to have no empathy.
Abp. Lefebvre organized the SSPX like any other missionary congregation, as far as I understand, but it seems clears to me that this model doesn't work in the terrible crisis of the Church, because no religious congregation was ever this isolated in the Church's history.
They answer to no one. Even after the nefarious secret dealings with Rome, they still function quite independently. I believe that this created a kind of bubble that they live in. That's why nobody can ask questions. Whoever raises his voice is treated like a troublemaker. The priests fear trouble. They fear upsetting their superior, because they know that they can be expelled very fast if they disagree about something. They have seem it before. If you don't agree with the mandatory mentality, you are seem as an outsider, and you'll surely be out very quickly.
That is also why they feel entitled to protect bad and criminal priests. They answer to no one. The superior is always right. His is the voice of God.
I too am guilty of attending SSPX Masses. Even given the problems with the SSPX, they are still better than the alternative.
You do raise some issues that merit some consideration. While their independence allows them to operate without Modernist control, there are also problems with independence, as you describe above. How it can be resolved?
-
I too am guilty of attending SSPX Masses. Even given the problems with the SSPX, they are still better than the alternative.
You do raise some issues that merit some consideration. While their independence allows them to operate without Modernist control, there are also problems with independence, as you describe above. How it can be resolved?
I don't think that we can have a definite in times of crisis as the one we live in, but I believe that Bishop Williamson's position when articulating the Resistance was very interesing, because he tackled this exact problem. He refused to articulate another SSPX like Bishop Faure did. I think that that he has learned that you cannot really make authority work in the crisis of the Church.
A "confederation" of semi-independent priests could work better than an old fashioned religious congregation like the SSPX in times of crisis, which is the idea of the Resistance, as I understand it, and it makes a lot of sense.
I find it much easier to trust in one good priest that I know well than in a religious congregation as a whole. It is a strange idea, but, these days, you have to know your priest. You cannot simply accept any priest that HQ sends to administer you the Sacraments. Unfortunately.
I believe that without a Catholic Pope, no authority will ever function well in the Church.
-
I don't think that we can have a definite in times of crisis as the one we live in, but I believe that Bishop Williamson's position when articulating the Resistance was very interesing, because he tackled this exact problem. He refused to articulate another SSPX like Bishop Faure did. I think that that he has learned that you cannot really make authority work in the crisis of the Church.
A "confederation" of semi-independent priests could work better than an old fashioned religious congregation like the SSPX in times of crisis, which is the idea of the Resistance, as I understand it, and it makes a lot of sense.
I find it much easier to trust in one good priest that I know well than in a religious congregation as a whole. It is a strange idea, but, these days, you have to know your priest. You cannot simply accept any priest that HQ sends to administer you the Sacraments. Unfortunately.
I believe that without a Catholic Pope, no authority will ever function well in the Church.
That makes sense - that you can't really make authority work in the Crisis in the Church, and Bp. Williamson gets this. There is the SAJM, but there needs to be a way to train priests in an organized manner, I suppose.
It is good to try to know your priest - I try to do so by their sermons. We are lucky to have a good priest at the local SSPX chapel. I hope he stays there for awhile.
Yes, authority doesn't work very well in the Crisis, due to the Pope not being a good example to follow. He's a terrible example. But at least he's an example of how not to behave. The Pope is not passing on the Deposit of Faith, which is his duty.
-
I would say that the "SSPX mentality", or "corporate culture" is very problematic. They seem to see the faithful as a nuisance, and that they are really generous to provide you with the sacraments, as if it was not their duty.
I would say that this is a social problem. Their minds are so focused, so isolated in their own organization, that they cannot really understand how other people live their lives. They seem to have no empathy.
Your impression of the “Post +W” priestly SSPX formation is correct.
There have been many topics posted on Cathinfo dealing with the dysfunctional behaviors of the new generation of SSPX priests.
These young men have been programmed into thinking it’s all about them. Their egos are stroked, while their intellects are put on ice. I can’t help but think they’re actually under some form of mind control.
This priestly culture is not Catholic.
Any priest who is too concerned about political correctness, as they are, has lost his salt.
-
Your impression of the “Post +W” priestly SSPX formation is correct.
There have been many topics posted on Cathinfo dealing with the dysfunctional behaviors of the new generation of SSPX priests.
These young men have been programmed into thinking it’s all about them. Their egos are stroked, while their intellects are put on ice. I can’t help but think they’re actually under some form of mind control.
This priestly culture is not Catholic.
Any priest who is too concerned about political correctness, as they are, has lost his salt.
It is interesting to add that I live in South America. Most of the priests I know studied in the Argentininan seminary. Only two come from Econe. It only makes the argument stronger. It is a general problem, not particular to a certain district or seminary.
-
I don't think that we can have a definite in times of crisis as the one we live in, but I believe that Bishop Williamson's position when articulating the Resistance was very interesing, because he tackled this exact problem. He refused to articulate another SSPX like Bishop Faure did. I think that that he has learned that you cannot really make authority work in the crisis of the Church.
A "confederation" of semi-independent priests could work better than an old fashioned religious congregation like the SSPX in times of crisis, which is the idea of the Resistance, as I understand it, and it makes a lot of sense.
I find it much easier to trust in one good priest that I know well than in a religious congregation as a whole. It is a strange idea, but, these days, you have to know your priest. You cannot simply accept any priest that HQ sends to administer you the Sacraments. Unfortunately.
I believe that without a Catholic Pope, no authority will ever function well in the Church.
Yes, I rather preferred the old model where you had a bunch of Independent priests around ... who had left the Conciliar Church and set up chapels. Most of them are gone now, but we still have Fr. Carley in Akron having daily Mass in his mid-80s.
-
Yes, I rather preferred the old model where you had a bunch of Independent priests around ... who had left the Conciliar Church and set up chapels. Most of them are gone now, but we still have Fr. Carley in Akron having daily Mass in his mid-80s.
Does Fr. Carley still have jurisdiction? Does he hold the sedevacantist position?
-
2) It's all about you then, Carissima, isn't it? Not about scores, maybe hundreds, of sspx youngsters who have been victimized by sspx priests. Not about sspx leaders who have covered up for these priests.
What makes it all about me? Because I attend Mass and receive valid Sacraments from priests of the SSPX? Am I supposed to boycott the priest God has sent me because there are corrupt priests in the same organization he is a part of? Am I culpable for the bad things that happened to victims of evil Shepards?
I have said it here before, I don’t leave my children alone with priests, and I have never had an inappropriate friendship with any priest, so therefore being a victim of one myself, or my children, would be much more unlikely. In many of the SSPX abuse cases presented, these were the fatal flaws and why there were victims of these predators in the first place.
If I left my child alone with a family member that victimized them, I would first blame myself. As their parent and guardian it is natural to do so. These people instead blame an ‘organization’, and more than likely, for the potential financial compensations available from litigation against them, or to join in the continued smear campaign against the Catholic Church and Her prelates.
-
Most of us called BS on Kauffman's story for the same reasons described here, the nonsensical insanity about Fr. having a key and regularly assaulting her against her will while she didn't take even the slightest measures to make it stop.
This actually underscores that, despite Voris' recent endorsement of the #metoo movement, where every single allegation is treated as truth, sometimes people make crap up and cause damage. Although Arzuaga appears to have sinned against his vow of chastity, a consensual affair and rape are two different matters, and the SSPX was wrongly smeared for "ignoring" rapes.
Was a year of penance a "slap on the wrist"? Not sure, since we don't know all the details. I probably would have suspended him from ministry for longer than that. But it's not as if nothing was done.
No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not. And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too. Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators. The year vacation doesn’t work. Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood. Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.
After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.
-
No. You boycott the priest who is in state of mortal sin. You write letters and emails until the bad priest is removed.
Many good men left seminaries to have families because many seminaries and schools were loaded with sodomites. Sodomites are ruling the world.
History is repeating itself. Remaining and silent to mortal is why the Church is in crisis.
You shouldn’t receive sacraments, if you don’t stand up against the mortal sin within any religious order or dioceses or your own parish or diocese.
Who loves the masks? Sodomites. Who is getting a kickback for the jabs? Sodomites. Who worships themselves and mudder earth? Sodomites. Who closes Churches and schools? Sodomites.
Vatican is sodomite city. The Sspx was too quick to join the seat of the one of the anti christs who worships mudder earth.
We need more manly priests like late Father John Oconner who defended the faith in the 1980s.
-
If the SSPX truly wants their faithful’s spiritual & financial support, then Fr. Pagliarani should be pressured into presenting an annual, “State of the Society” report.
This would include open discussions on relations with Rome, financial resources and priestly assignments.
The SSPX has operated for decades like a black-ops corporation.
It is not the Church and it IS accountable to it’s remnant Catholic flock.
Too often, SSPX scandals, like zionist lawyers starting shell corporations or sɛҳuąƖ improprieties come out through rumors which have to be investigated by Resistance trads in order to bring sunshine onto the occurrences & accusations.
In most cases problems do exist and the SSPX’s initial response is to sweep it under the rug.
Disgression in most cases is reasonable.
But gone are the days when an SSPX superior can say, “Stay off the internet”. OR “I don’t have answer you, because my grace of state allows me to make an independent decision” (Fr. Griego).
We understand that the SSPX is founded from an “Old World” culture, but Catholics don’t have to accept their old world arrogance and abuse of power.
-
No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not. And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too. Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators. The year vacation doesn’t work. Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood. Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.
After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.
Agree 100%
There is no excuse these priests that offend so grievously are still in business anywhere in the world. Whether they offend on purpose, or by weakness.
And it is a grave failure on the part of the Superiors of the SSPX to not remove and defrock these wicked men.
Those Superiors are either worldly priests and bishops suffering from human respect for there confreres, or, they are infiltrators that work for Satan. Probably a mixture of both.
Other Catholic organizations are suffering under the same disorders as well.
-
No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not.
You're acting as if this is a punishment for the priest. Well, the priesthood isn't given to the individual for his own glory, but for the good of the faithful. It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual. As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.
-
Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators.
And you stop the calumny. This Kauffman woman was involved in a consensual situation.
-
No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not. And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too. Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators. The year vacation doesn’t work. Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood. Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.
After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.
What are you babbling about anyway? You're conflating about a half dozen things here. Arzuaga wasn't accused of sơdơmy. sơdơmy does in fact immєdιαtely disqualify from the priesthood. I mentioned that we don't know all the details, but this was not necessarily an act of predation, since Kauffman appears to have been a willing accomplice in the sin. I'm stating a principle that it's never been the practice of the Church to remove a priest for even an isolated sin against his vow of chastity.
Of course, you also use the word "remove" ambiguously. He can be "removed" from public ministry and then "removed" from the priesthood, i.e. defrocked. If the deeds are public, he should certainly be removed from public ministry due to scandal and sent away to a monastery, but should not necessarily and automatically be removed from the priesthood. Other considerations could factor in of course. If the danger of recidivism is high, or if there were aggravating circuмstances where the act would constitute rape or predatory behavior or some other details.
-
It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual. As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.
For the sake of the Church suffering under its current persecution at this time, shouldn't these offending priests at least be taken out of public service to the Faithful, retire and say Masses privately?
-
It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual. As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.
Part of what you say may be true about heterosɛҳuąƖ, consensual affairs adjudicated under Church law. I’m not a church historian or canon lawyer, so I can’t firmly refute your contention. But let’s be clear, we’re not talking about “a single grave sin against (the) vow of chastity.” In the cases of Frs. Arzuaga and Van Der Putten, we’re certainly not talking about that. They are accused of committing multiple grave sins against chastity. Hardly “isolated incident(s).” Hardly single, unrepeated events.
Since April 20, 2020, Church Militant has filed at least 30 special reports on sɛҳuąƖ perversion and pedophilia, committed by priests in the Society. Reported incidents go back to the eighties if I’m not mistaken. Again, if not mistaken, not one of those CM videos or written reports describe a one off. They all treat of multiple instances of priest perversion- some stretching over years.
These same CM articles and videos suggest that the hierarchy of the SSPX fails to act against offending priests. They fail in many instances even to discipline them, much less, remove them from the priesthood.
If CM has slandered and wrongly calumniated the Society’s good name, over and over again since April, then Superior General Pagliarani and Bp. Fellay have every right to sue and take CM to a court of law. But, to my knowledge, that has not happened. The SSPX is a pretty litigious bunch historically. They’ve not been shy in the past about going to court. Why not now?
-
Some of you may wonder where my topic on Fr. Ramon Angles went. Matthew informs us that Google stepped in and issued a warning about it, apparently. Googe said the topic was "dangerous and derogatory." Subsequently, for whatever motive, Matthew removed the topic from the CI mainstream, and placed it in sub-forum. Good luck to a lot of you in trying to find it.
I will add here a link to yet another another article on Church Militant. This article highlights SSPX's refusal to investigate the checkered history of Fr. Pierre Duverger, who is currently stationed in Sanford, FL.; and is an assistant to the prior of that chapel. He is, also, I believe, the principal of the boys' academy there.
SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-wont-investigate-accused-sɛҳuąƖ-predator)
-
Some of you may wonder where my topic on Fr. Ramon Angles went. Matthew informs us that Google stepped in and issued a warning about it, apparently. Googe said the topic was "dangerous and derogatory." Subsequently, for whatever motive, Matthew removed the topic from the CI mainstream, and placed it in sub-forum. Good luck to a lot of you in trying to find it.
I will add here a link to yet another another article on Church Militant. This article highlights SSPX's refusal to investigate the checkered history of Fr. Pierre Duverger, who is currently stationed in Sanford, FL.; and is an assistant to the prior of that chapel. He is, also, I believe, the principal of the boys' academy there.
SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com) (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-wont-investigate-accused-sɛҳuąƖ-predator)
Wow!
Father Angles has helpers in high places :popcorn:
-
Incred: Wow!
Hi Incred. I'm interested in your "Wow!" Does that mean Wow!, perhaps, because you had never heard of Fr. Duverger and his alleged predations, and are surprised to learn of them now? Or, perhaps, you were not aware this priest is still a priest in good standing with SPPX in Sanford, FL? Or, do you mean Wow! for some other reason?
-
Wow!
Father Angles has helpers in high places :popcorn:
Hey, I think it was your post that did it, Incred. :laugh1: Google's Judaien-filter spotted it immєdιαtely.
-
The fact is, both well known SSPX priests, Fr. Ramon Angles and Fr. Pierre Duverger, are still in active ministry with the Society. Angles is the top Canon law adviser to SSPX. Duverger is an assistant to the prior in Sanford, FL and the principal of the boy's academy there. Why is this?
Maybe it's time for Bishop Williamson to weigh in with comments.
-
The SSPX is dirty. It is particularly dirty at the top. sɛҳuąƖ scandals are rampant in the Society, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Michael Voris and Chistine Niles valiantly record the abuses within that organization. But the wheels of justice grind slowly. Let us hope that in the end they grind exceedingly fine.
This topic is still at the top in “Resistance News” section. It approaches 2800 views, more than twice as many for the runner up. I was the last poster, March 5, three days ago. Most CI members, including the owner and moderator, Matthew, are apparently just hoping that the subject will go away. In fact, Matthew, a week ago, consigned another damning topic on SSPX to a sub-forum, where most members can not easily access it. I think, perhaps, under pressure from unknown sources, Matthew was forced to disappear the topic. I don’t know that for certain, but I suspect that is the case.
I post here another link to a video. It was conducted by Tim Gordon and his brother with CM’s Michael and Chistine on April 24, 2020.
They talk a great deal about such stellar predator priests as Fr. Urrotigoity, for whom the SSPX covered up. Several other SSPX priests come under fire as well.
Urrotigoity was accused of sɛҳuąƖ molestation of students by then rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Fr. Morello. Morello even wrote a letter to Abp. Lefebvre and compiled a dossier on Fr. U., warning the Society chief about his behavior, and not to let him be ordained in Winona.
Long story short. Urrotigoity was ordained in Winona, thanks to alleged intervention by Bp. Williamson and Bp de Galarreta. In the end, Fr. U. became a priest of the Society, and Fr. Morello was summarily fired.
TIA summarizes the events: “In July 1989, Fr. Morello, accompanied by an associate, travelled to Winona with a copy of the mentioned dossier to prevent the imminent ordination of Urrutigoity. He was confronted and stopped by Bishop Richard Williamson who accused him of lying. A few days later, on July 16, 1989, Morello was expelled from the Society. It is difficult not to say that he was punished for accusing Urrutigoity.”
I’m going to keep this topic alive as long as I can. Seemingly, most CI members think there are bigger fish to fry. They can’t be bothered with all this sex-related stuff in the SSPX. There are more important matters to discuss. I don’t happen to think that way.
R4R #47: SSPX Abuse Scandal UPDATE w/ Church Militant - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXWsT1uRlHw&t=25s)
-
The SSPX is dirty.
Come on, dude. That's such a sweeping generalization. Be a man, take hold of your emotions, and speak rationally...or don't speak at all.
-
They talk a great deal about such stellar predator priests as Fr. Urrotigoity, for whom the SSPX covered up.
...
TIA summarizes the events: “... It is difficult not to say that he was punished for accusing Urrutigoity.”
I'm not going to argue the SSPX handled this case well, but what happened is much more complex and nuanced than suggested by these sentences. Among other things, there is a the context for why Morello was not believed.
-
The SSPX is dirty. It is particularly dirty at the top. sɛҳuąƖ scandals are rampant in the Society, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
.
I'm a little curious what your interest in these matters is, hollingsworth. This seems like a personal issue with you. What's the reason for that?
-
Long story short. Urrotigoity was ordained in Winona, thanks to alleged intervention by Bp. Williamson and Bp de Galarreta. In the end, Fr. U. became a priest of the Society, and Fr. Morello was summarily fired.
TIA summarizes the events: “In July 1989, Fr. Morello, accompanied by an associate, travelled to Winona with a copy of the mentioned dossier to prevent the imminent ordination of Urrutigoity. He was confronted and stopped by Bishop Richard Williamson who accused him of lying. A few days later, on July 16, 1989, Morello was expelled from the Society. It is difficult not to say that he was punished for accusing Urrutigoity.”
While I disagree with your wholehearted endorsement of Voris (a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ himself) and Niles, who have an ax to grind against Traditional Catholicism in general, I must say that the Urrutigoity episode stinks to high heaven.
I started at STAS in the late Summer of 1989, so shortly after Fr. Morello's visit and expulsion. I and several others noticed that Urrutigoity practically ran the place. Not only that, but he maintained some very strong particular friendships with a few close seminarians and had an almost cult-like following among a small clique of them. He tried to recruit me into his inner circle, but I wasn't interested. I wasn't really interested in any particular friendships, being more of an introvert, so I stayed out of it. I was there for God. Maybe I'm even a touch anti-social, but in any case, I had no interest in their group.
Nevertheless, I never understood the appeal of Urrutigoity. He wasn't some kind of great theological genius. I actually considered him somewhat worldly and rather taken with the aesthetics of the Mass, including his promotion of these ankle-length lace surplices. I found them extremely effeminate and wanted nothing to do with them, comparing them in my mind to women's lingerie. I continued wearing the standard-issue solid one that went to my knees.
One time, when most of the priests were away on their mission circuit, Urrutigoity hatched a scheme to implement some liturgical innovations, including having women in the choir area and also introducing "troped" Kyries (which practice was rejected at the time of the Council of Trent). Well, Fr. Bourmaud, a seminary professor (whom I liked very much, a very kind and gentle soul ... we would get into it comparing France and the U.S.) returned earlier than expected from his mission circuit. I complained to him about these things, and he rightly intervened and shut Urrutigoity down.
Urrutigoity also seemed very much into wine. Jumping ahead, after his ordination, he was notorious for using an unusually large amount of wine for the Mass ... to the point that most priests would probably get rather intoxicated from drinking it. And outside of Mass he was known to imbibe generously as well.
There was one hike at the seminary where Urrutigoity showed a film to the seminarians on the bus to the location, the film being of an an opera. Thankfully, I rode up separately because I had some work that I needed to do before I could leave. Some seminarians reported to me that Urrutigoity had caused scandal because the movie he showed contained nudity. Those who complained he made fun of as Jansenists. Can you say "grooming"?
Had I known about the accusations against Urrutigoity, I would immediately have suspected this behavior, his particular friendships (against which, especially, Fr. Morello had warned), his overall effeminacy and worldliness, as linked to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. But this went unnoticed by Bishop Williamson, who had all the facts of the allegations? In fact, I marveled that at times Bishop Williamson sought Urrutigoity's advice about various matters. Again, I saw nothing all that special about the guy. I had much more respect for the likes of Fr. Goettler and Fr. Bourmaud.
So, while I was there, I was inducted into the so-called "St. Pius X" schola, or singing group. They had these "scholas" there so that the work of preparing for and singing the chant at the seminary could be rotated among the groups. St. Pius X schola was considered the top one for the best singers. Now, I have a tenor / baritone voice, but can reach higher pitches in a falsetto. So one Christmas, Urrutigoity wanted us to perform Handel's Messiah. Of course, there are soprano voices in that, so he had an arrangement which rewrote some of those for tenors singing in falsetto. Well, guess what, I and some others were asked to sing those parts. I complied out of a spirit of obedience, but I felt like a fag the entire time. In retrospect, I guess that Urrutigoity found it stimulating.
So, about halfway through my second year, I started to become inclined toward sedevacantism. I spent many hours on walks with Bishop Williamson discussing my concerns. Unfortunately, his answers were mostly personal attacks against The Nine and some stuff about how these theologians I cited could simply not have foreseen the crisis. But, asked him, "But don't the principles still apply?" He didn't have an answer. I really loved it there and didn't want to leave. I was in fact looking for any reason that I could stay, but was given none. So I left. After I left, I corresponded a little with Archbishop Lefebvre (received a hand-written letter in response). I wrote him in Latin, not knowing French, and he responded in French ... which I deciphered with the aid of a dictionary. I also corresponded with Bishop Williamson, who referred me to write to ... you guessed it, Urrutigoity, evidently the resident theological expert there. I honestly didn't think he was all that bright. And, yet, even before he was ordained, he taught these informal evening classes ... acting as if he was a professor there.
So the year I left was the year that Urrutigoity was scheduled to be ordained to the priesthood. I went to his ordination and congratulated him there. He told me then that he would offer his first Mass for me. I was very moved by that. But then I found out later that he said the same thing to someone else as well.
Fr. Urrutigoity then, despite, IMO, not being all that bright, was appointed a professor at STAS. My brother Steve entered the seminary and spent 4 years there (he received all the Minor Orders). But then something happened. He went to Bishop Williamson to complain that Fr. Urrutigoity was a Modernist. Next thing you know, Steve was exiled from STAS and sent to St. Mary's to "think things over" regarding his vocation. Once at St. Mary's he became so discouraged that he simply left. Steve also had information that Fr. Urrutigoity was leaking details from spiritual direction he was giving seminarians to Bishop Williamson. Spiritual Direction, while not strictly under the Confessional seal, was still supposed to be kept confidential by an extension of the seal.
After all that, we now hear that Bishop Williamson is accused of harboring another accused ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator in London. What are we to make of that? It's one thing to get fooled once, but to get fooled again? (to quote the immortal George W. Bush).
-
I'm not going to argue the SSPX handled this case well, but what happened is much more complex and nuanced than suggested by these sentences. Among other things, there is a the context for why Morello was not believed.
Yes, perhaps. But there were several independent allegations. At very least, those accusers should have been questioned and an investigation conducted rather than summarily dismissing them. As I just described, the same thing happened to my brother. No problems at STAS, smooth sailing through 4 years, and within a couple weeks of his having accused Fr. Urrutigoity of Modernism to Bishop Williamson, he was sent away to St. Mary's ... from which exile very few ever returned.
And why is Bishop Williamson now harboring in London yet another accused ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator?
-
Stanley:
I'm not going to argue the SSPX handled this case well, but what happened is much more complex and nuanced than suggested by these sentences. Among other things, there is a the context for why Morello was not believed.
Rachell Levine, Bıdɛn’s new undersecretary of HHS, testified similary at (her?/his?) recent Senate confirmation hearing. This hideous looking transvestite in a dress affirmed to Sen. Rand Paul and at least one other senator that transgender issues are far more “complex and nuanced” than we realize. Exactly the language you use, Stanley, about Urrotigoity. I had to chuckle.
Yes, Urrotigoity’s history is a bit convoluted. He was a pretty slick operator. He was accused of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predations by the erstwhile SSPX rector of the seminary rector in La Reja, Fr. Andres Morella. But he managed to gain the support of then district superior of South America, Fr. De Galarreta. He even managed to convince then Winona Seminary rector, Fr. Richard Williamson that he was innocent of all such charges. Apparently, he was somehow able to persuade even Abp. Lefebvre that he should be allowed into Winona as a candidate for ordination, with a caveat. Lefebvre told Fr.Williamson to “watch him like a hawk.”
+Williamson, I believe, was deceived by U. When Fr. Morella travelled to Winona with extensive docuмentation of multiple abuse allegations against U, Williamson called the former a "liar." The archbishop must have agreed, at least for a time. After a rocky relationship with the Society, Fr. U was finally sent packing for unspecified “subversive” activities. Yet, not before U had already been ordained and assigned a teaching position at the seminary, where, I guess, he remained for several years.
As I read it, though, both de Galarreta and Williamson eventually changed their minds about Fr. U. But it was too little too late. They had really screwed up, and, I think, they knew it.
To his credit, when the Superior General, Bp Fellay learned that Fr. U and some seminary buddies were seeking entrance into the Diocese of Scranton, PA, (2001?) he warned Bp James Timlin of the potential problems posed by Fr. U. But that doesn’t let +Fellay off the hook. After all, he had to sign off on Fr. U earlier, at the time of his ordination. And, apparently, +Fellay tolerated him in the SSPX for years thereafter.
But the real issue with Fr. Morella, I think, which may help explain why these SSPX bishops, including ABL felt such antipathy towards Fr. Morella was the latter’s definite sedevacantist leanings. Gasp!
The Society might cut a little slack for a homo predator, but never for a sedevacantist. And that, I think, is the “context for why Morella was not believed.”
-
For the sake of the Church suffering under its current persecution at this time, shouldn't these offending priests at least be taken out of public service to the Faithful, retire and say Masses privately?
All the laity are asking for is that authorities punish the guilty in such a way that the people do not have to endure offenders again. Facilitators should share the same fate. St. Gerard was denied communion for years and although he wasn't guilty, at least we had Church authorities proving zero tolerance for scandal once existed. Seems to me that recycling after punishment is a bad idea.
-
The problem with these situations is that even someone with a poor reputation has a right to keep whatever is left of that reputation. To unnecessarily reveal negative things known only within a small group or community would still be detraction. Thus, people who might know things about some of these individuals are not exactly free to reveal what they know.
The Society might cut a little slack for a homo predator, but never for a sedevacantist. And that, I think, is the “context for why Morella was not believed.”
As you say, U "was a pretty slick operator". Just my own speculation, but I could see U arguing he was targeted in South America because he opposed sedevacantism, and the leadership believed that.
A naive and manipulated leadership strikes me as a bit more likely than that leadership intentionally covering for a known homo predator.
-
I don't believe this information adds anything valuable to the conversation here but it is interesting that Fr. Morello travelled to Winona with Fr. Pablo Arzuaga- the main actor in this thread.
-
All the laity are asking for is that authorities punish the guilty in such a way that the people do not have to endure offenders again. Facilitators should share the same fate. St. Gerard was denied communion for years and although he wasn't guilty, at least we had Church authorities proving zero tolerance for scandal once existed. Seems to me that recycling after punishment is a bad idea.
As I recall the story, a girl accused him of improprieties. He didn't say anything, so the superior (St. Alphonse himself, I think) felt forced to consider him guilty. I think he was denied communion for less than a year. His confessor knew the truth. Then the girl started dying (of tuberculosis?) and repented and publicly recanted. The superior asked St. Gerard why he didn't say anything, and he pointed to a part of the rule saying a Redemptorist could not defend himself. Supposedly, that rule was amended due to St. Gerard.
-
While I disagree with your wholehearted endorsement of Voris (a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ himself) and Niles, who have an ax to grind against Traditional Catholicism in general, I must say that the Urrutigoity episode stinks to high heaven.
I started at STAS in the late Summer of 1989, so shortly after Fr. Morello's visit and expulsion. I and several others noticed that Urrutigoity practically ran the place. Not only that, but he maintained some very strong particular friendships with a few close seminarians and had an almost cult-like following among a small clique of them. He tried to recruit me into his inner circle, but I wasn't interested. I wasn't really interested in any particular friendships, being more of an introvert, so I stayed out of it. I was there for God. Maybe I'm even a touch anti-social, but in any case, I had no interest in their group.
Nevertheless, I never understood the appeal of Urrutigoity. He wasn't some kind of great theological genius. I actually considered him somewhat worldly and rather taken with the aesthetics of the Mass, including his promotion of these ankle-length lace surplices. I found them extremely effeminate and wanted nothing to do with them, comparing them in my mind to women's lingerie. I continued wearing the standard-issue solid one that went to my knees.
One time, when most of the priests were away on their mission circuit, Urrutigoity hatched a scheme to implement some liturgical innovations, including having women in the choir area and also introducing "troped" Kyries (which practice was rejected at the time of the Council of Trent). Well, Fr. Bourmaud, a seminary professor (whom I liked very much, a very kind and gentle soul ... we would get into it comparing France and the U.S.) returned earlier than expected from his mission circuit. I complained to him about these things, and he rightly intervened and shut Urrutigoity down.
Urrutigoity also seemed very much into wine. Jumping ahead, after his ordination, he was notorious for using an unusually large amount of wine for the Mass ... to the point that most priests would probably get rather intoxicated from drinking it. And outside of Mass he was known to imbibe generously as well.
There was one hike at the seminary where Urrutigoity showed a film to the seminarians on the bus to the location, the film being of an an opera. Thankfully, I rode up separately because I had some work that I needed to do before I could leave. Some seminarians reported to me that Urrutigoity had caused scandal because the movie he showed contained nudity. Those who complained he made fun of as Jansenists. Can you say "grooming"?
Had I known about the accusations against Urrutigoity, I would immєdιαtely have suspected this behavior, his particular friendships (against which, especially, Fr. Morello had warned), his overall effeminacy and worldliness, as linked to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. But this went unnoticed by Bishop Williamson, who had all the facts of the allegations? In fact, I marveled that at times Bishop Williamson sought Urrutigoity's advice about various matters. Again, I saw nothing all that special about the guy. I had much more respect for the likes of Fr. Goettler and Fr. Bourmaud.
So, while I was there, I was inducted into the so-called "St. Pius X" schola, or singing group. They had these "scholas" there so that the work of preparing for and singing the chant at the seminary could be rotated among the groups. St. Pius X schola was considered the top one for the best singers. Now, I have a tenor / baritone voice, but can reach higher pitches in a falsetto. So one Christmas, Urrutigoity wanted us to perform Handel's Messiah. Of course, there are soprano voices in that, so he had an arrangement which rewrote some of those for tenors singing in falsetto. Well, guess what, I and some others were asked to sing those parts. I complied out of a spirit of obedience, but I felt like a fag the entire time. In retrospect, I guess that Urrutigoity found it stimulating.
So, about halfway through my second year, I started to become inclined toward sedevacantism. I spent many hours on walks with Bishop Williamson discussing my concerns. Unfortunately, his answers were mostly personal attacks against The Nine and some stuff about how these theologians I cited could simply not have foreseen the crisis. But, asked him, "But don't the principles still apply?" He didn't have an answer. I really loved it there and didn't want to leave. I was in fact looking for any reason that I could stay, but was given none. So I left. After I left, I corresponded a little with Archbishop Lefebvre (received a hand-written letter in response). I wrote him in Latin, not knowing French, and he responded in French ... which I deciphered with the aid of a dictionary. I also corresponded with Bishop Williamson, who referred me to write to ... you guessed it, Urrutigoity, evidently the resident theological expert there. I honestly didn't think he was all that bright. And, yet, even before he was ordained, he taught these informal evening classes ... acting as if he was a professor there.
So the year I left was the year that Urrutigoity was scheduled to be ordained to the priesthood. I went to his ordination and congratulated him there. He told me then that he would offer his first Mass for me. I was very moved by that. But then I found out later that he said the same thing to someone else as well.
Fr. Urrutigoity then, despite, IMO, not being all that bright, was appointed a professor at STAS. My brother Steve entered the seminary and spent 4 years there (he received all the Minor Orders). But then something happened. He went to Bishop Williamson to complain that Fr. Urrutigoity was a Modernist. Next thing you know, Steve was exiled from STAS and sent to St. Mary's to "think things over" regarding his vocation. Once at St. Mary's he became so discouraged that he simply left. Steve also had information that Fr. Urrutigoity was leaking details from spiritual direction he was giving seminarians to Bishop Williamson. Spiritual Direction, while not strictly under the Confessional seal, was still supposed to be kept confidential by an extension of the seal.
After all that, we now hear that Bishop Williamson is accused of harboring another accused ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator in London. What are we to make of that? It's one thing to get fooled once, but to get fooled again? (to quote the immortal George W. Bush).
"Father Urrutigoity" — two words that should've never happened. The fact that he even got anywhere farther than a month in is a colossal misstep on the part of the Society of St. Pius X.
-
As I recall the story, a girl accused him of improprieties. He didn't say anything, so the superior (St. Alphonse himself, I think) felt forced to consider him guilty. I think he was denied communion for less than a year. His confessor knew the truth. Then the girl started dying (of tuberculosis?) and repented and publicly recanted. The superior asked St. Gerard why he didn't say anything, and he pointed to a part of the rule saying a Redemptorist could not defend himself. Supposedly, that rule was amended due to St. Gerard.
So much to learn from the saints. Thanks.
-
In spite of the fact that Urrotigoity and Francis Palmquist were known to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, or inclined in that direction, by seminary hierarchy and seminarians alike, they were both appointed to be professors at STAS. Can anyone explain this, except, maybe, that Voris had a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past himself, which disqualified him? Because of his own history, the thinking seems to go, he apparently had no right to make these facts known publicly. Better, perhaps, that SSPX-friendly figures, like Michael Matt, or Chris Ferrara, or deceased John Vennari, or John Henry Weston, should have revealed the truth earlier. But none of them did.
-
In spite of the fact that Urrotigoity and Francis Palmquist were known to be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, or inclined in that direction, by seminary hierarchy and seminarians alike, they were both appointed to be professors at STAS. Can anyone explain this, except, maybe, that Voris had a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ past himself, which disqualified him? Because of his own history, the thinking seems to go, he apparently had no right to make these facts known publicly. Better, perhaps, that SSPX-friendly figures, like Michael Matt, or Chris Ferrara, or deceased John Vennari, or John Henry Weston, should have revealed the truth earlier. But none of them did.
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks for clarifying. I always wondered about that...(re Bp Williamson, I mean)
-
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.
-
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 (https://josephsciambra.com/my-conversation-with-former-sspx-priest-francis-palmquist-i-am-judas-project/) .
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://josephsciambra.com/my-conversation-with-former-sspx-priest-francis-palmquist-i-am-judas-project/) .
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
.
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.
-
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.