Meg: You say that Francis Palmquist was known to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ by seminary hierarchy and seminarians alike. How do you know this to be true? Please be specific.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.