I'm simply pointing out that NO Catholic institution, be it the USCCB or the SSPX, is immune to imprudent decisions, if not outright malfeasance, in its corporate pride.
I saw someone say here recently that traditional Catholicism only exists within the Levefevre movement. What collossal arrogance.
Traditional Catholicism does NOT "subsist" in the Lefevre movement.
Yes, Lefevre's acts of disobedience, ironically, helped preserve the Tridentine Liturgy.
But Luther's disobedience precipiated the Counter Reformation.
And neither will ever be a canonized Catholic saint, for the same reason: disobedience.
That isn't the point. Of course no one is immune. But we're talking about one particular case here. And in this particular case, there is a clear and dramatic contrast. The accused priest was kicked out of 2 SSPX seminaries. And most importantly, there was no cover up. The SSPX was forthright about having kicked him out and took the trouble to warn Bishop Timlin against him. If only Cardinal Law had taken similar actions. But this same priest who was kicked out of the SSPX seminary was taken in by the Diocese of Scranton.
So while no one is immune, we need to look at the facts of this particular situation. And the facts tell a clear story, despite your attempt to create a false impression through selective highlighting. Anyone who reads that timeline that you posted gets a clear message about who can be trusted to do the right thing and who can not.
And while you try to make a big deal about the fact that he was kicked out of 2 different SSPX seminaries, you seem to overlook what happened in Scranton. Have you seen any of the emails from Prof. Bond? He makes it very very clear just what he thinks about the administration of the Diocese of Scranton. I can't even repeat what he has to say.
To attack the SSPX who did the right thing, while ignoring the culpability of those who did the wrong thing is a clear case of "taking the speck out of your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own."