Author Topic: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case  (Read 4855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hollingsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2531
  • Reputation: +2683/-390
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2021, 01:00:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  •  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.



    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6800
    • Reputation: +3770/-1114
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #46 on: March 08, 2021, 02:20:41 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    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.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +266/-278
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #47 on: March 08, 2021, 03:03:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.



    Offline Yeti

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1186
    • Reputation: +517/-155
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #48 on: March 08, 2021, 03:35:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24666
    • Reputation: +13822/-3678
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #49 on: March 08, 2021, 04:01:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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).


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 24666
    • Reputation: +13822/-3678
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #50 on: March 08, 2021, 04:30:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2531
    • Reputation: +2683/-390
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #51 on: March 08, 2021, 07:02:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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 documentation 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.”





     

    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +113/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #52 on: March 08, 2021, 08:16:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.   


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +266/-278
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #53 on: March 08, 2021, 11:09:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Motorede

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 270
    • Reputation: +152/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #54 on: March 08, 2021, 11:15:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 860
    • Reputation: +266/-278
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #55 on: March 08, 2021, 11:59:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Minnesota

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 420
    • Reputation: +197/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #56 on: March 09, 2021, 01:05:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Get off the internet and say your rosary!

    Pray for one another.

    Offline Tradman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 239
    • Reputation: +113/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #57 on: March 09, 2021, 10:08:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2531
    • Reputation: +2683/-390
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #58 on: March 13, 2021, 10:59:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3964
    • Reputation: +2056/-1917
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #59 on: March 13, 2021, 12:06:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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. 
    "There is no religion higher than my own opinion."

    ~ Traditional Catholics


     

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