SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
#21
(04-22-2020, 04:00 PM)Adventus Wrote: CM has had an axe to grind with SSPX for some time now. That doesn't, however, make the documented cases untrue or that this isn't a problem in the SSPX. 

I think the gentleman's comments sum up this very well:

Quote:That having been said, anyone can see in the Church Militant article there is not a single new first-hand account of abuse, nor is there a single new corroborated allegation of abuse.  There are no law enforcement sources claiming a criminal investigation is underway.

It is easy in April of 2020 to make allegations against Catholic priests, especially the few priests remaining in the United States who are providing sacraments to the laity.  However, we should be concerned with truth and justice and not mere allegations.


If there are real issues, they need to be fixed. Seems that the SSPX has been trying to do that. I wonder why this was not in the CM report, seeing as it has been on their homepage and in place now for a while.

Given that there's no new first-hand accounts of abuse, or any corroboration, nor any law enforcement sources, but just taking what could already be found on the internet and throwing it all together as if this were fresh journalism, with a very clear editorial spin is disgraceful.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • CopiosaApudEumRedemptio, Ioannes_L, jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#22
(04-22-2020, 08:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Given that there's no new first-hand accounts of abuse, or any corroboration, nor any law enforcement sources, but just taking what could already be found on the internet and throwing it all together as if this were fresh journalism, with a very clear editorial spin is disgraceful.

But that's what passes for 'journalism' at CM whenever the SSPX is the subject.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#23
Yeah Voris seems ever-so shifty. I do know wonder if EMJ's take on him was credible. I know I rejected it flatly when EMJ's piece on Voris came out, now I'm curious.
Reply
#24
(04-22-2020, 08:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 04:00 PM)Adventus Wrote: CM has had an axe to grind with SSPX for some time now. That doesn't, however, make the documented cases untrue or that this isn't a problem in the SSPX. 

I think the gentleman's comments sum up this very well:

Quote:That having been said, anyone can see in the Church Militant article there is not a single new first-hand account of abuse, nor is there a single new corroborated allegation of abuse.  There are no law enforcement sources claiming a criminal investigation is underway.

It is easy in April of 2020 to make allegations against Catholic priests, especially the few priests remaining in the United States who are providing sacraments to the laity.  However, we should be concerned with truth and justice and not mere allegations.


If there are real issues, they need to be fixed. Seems that the SSPX has been trying to do that. I wonder why this was not in the CM report, seeing as it has been on their homepage and in place now for a while.

Given that there's no new first-hand accounts of abuse, or any corroboration, nor any law enforcement sources, but just taking what could already be found on the internet and throwing it all together as if this were fresh journalism, with a very clear editorial spin is disgraceful.

I went to confession at an SSPX chapel for the first time last week. Given that all I know is NO, I wasn't sure if getting hit with a cane over the head for every sin or if the priest was going to exorcise demons out of me was a part of it (I didn't know what to expect); I had to ask someone nearby (six feet away) if I had to do the act of contrition in Latin, thankfully that isn't required because I would have been tempted to do it in Spanish since I could do that and save face and possibly not get hit with a cane one additional time. 

Anyways, what I was trying to get to is that confession was done outside. Well sorta outside, because you would walk into a door and immediately be met with a cloth wall and a kneeler for you to confess. We were lining up perpendicular to the open door so we couldn't see beyond the open door, but you could obviously see a person confessing if you happen to pass by or be just behind them. I could see such a situation being reported nefariously given what was just released by CM, especially if you happen to hold on to photos of people confessing outside in the open. 

Personally, I've never really been inclined to drop entities or people for having an axe to grind or because they gave false information. Better to call it out and have the correction spread. We don't live in a monarchy or system that can eradicate errors in any efficient way. Bad information can only be fought with good information in said system and that is harder to do if we all retract and become myopic together. 
Reply
#25
Obviously, I'm not CM and that is a different animal.......but.......I've gotten things wrong, I've given false information......not intentionally but my only point is that it was only through good information and charity that those corrections came to be. I realize that isn't the same thing as CM but if they are our brothers, we are inclined to respond accordingly......which usually begins with charity. Only because this is a new situation.
Reply
#26
https://sspx.org/en/publications/newslet...tant-57641
Here is the SSPX stance on the Article.
[-] The following 3 users Like Quickbeam's post:
  • , HailGilbert, Roger Buck
Reply
#27
(04-23-2020, 02:20 PM)Quickbeam Wrote: https://sspx.org/en/publications/newslet...tant-57641
Here is the SSPX stance on the Article.

Very reasonable and charitable response. 
[-] The following 1 user Likes Adventus's post:
  • HailGilbert
Reply
#28
(04-23-2020, 12:31 PM)Adventus Wrote: Bad information can only be fought with good information in said system and that is harder to do if we all retract and become myopic together.

Which is why in the Twitter storm that has followed (I hate Twitter by the way, but it can be useful to see more honest responses of people), CM, Voris and Niles have not come off well.

Last year when the McLucas article came out Matt Gaspers (editor of Catholic Family News)responded a few weeks later with a detailed analysis of the claims along with lots of legal documentation and sources showing the CM article highly inaccurate. CM never corrected it. When it's been regularly cited as an example of CM's bias and inaccuracy, CM and Niles first replied that they had responded (but the never gave a link to this even after being pressed), and then did respond ... by blocking Gaspers and various other people pointing this out from their Twitter feed.

Seems CM does not want to be honest, so again, whatever mistakes may have been made with the SSPX and its handling of cases needing to be fixed, they are spot on calling CM a "tabloid."

They have never corrected any of the obvious errors that have been pointed out. They've just blocked those complaining.

Whatever one may think about the SSPX, I don't see how anyone in good conscience could support CM after this show of terribly unCatholic behavior.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • , Fionnchu, HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#29
MM,

Assuming all you said is true, I don't see how either. The part that bothers me about this whole thing is that NO priests weren't afforded the same treatment by some of the very people that are coming to the rescue for the SSPX. I recall seeing callings of public hangings (who knows how literal they meant that) without even having all the information and names were most certainly used in those situations. 
Reply
#30
(04-23-2020, 03:22 PM)Adventus Wrote: MM,

Assuming all you said is true, I don't see how either. The part that bothers me about this whole thing is that NO priests weren't afforded the same treatment by some of the very people that are coming to the rescue for the SSPX. I recall seeing callings of public hangings (who knows how literal they meant that) without even having all the information and names were most certainly used in those situations. 

I do agree that trads have had a sorta "gotcha" mentality about the bad priests outside of their circles. That's also not a catholic attitude.

I don't think that's ever been my approach, and if I ever gave that impression, I would happily call myself terribly wrong and a sinner for such an attitude.

That said, there certainly are very different situation where the corruption of clergymen permitted evils, and here I can understand a degree of publicity to solve these, since there is no other process that would prevent the continued corruption and abuse, but publicity must be the absolute last solution, because it is then a question of double effect.

There is the good effect of stopping severe corruption and abuse which is destroying many lives, with the unintended bad effect of destroying a few reputation. If there is no other way and the good effect significantly outweighs the evil there could be a moral argument for publicizing evil details.

The problem today, however, is that we think we have a right to all of this information, as if as soon as the parish priest is accused, credible or not, we are owed all of the allegations and get to judge him ourselves, rather than that the police, religious superiors, or other authority are informed and conduct an investigation and trial to determine guilt or innocence.

That attitude is wrong whether it's NO folks or traddies.
[-] The following 6 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Adventus, Fionnchu, Ioannes_L, jovan66102, Quickbeam, SeekerofChrist
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)