Violation of the seal of confession

The Roman Catholic Faithful ^ | September 16, 2003 | Stephen G. Brady

[Dominick]

That's precisely
...
snip
...
is a slander.

Please refer to the TOS here, and please refer to my above post.

Your post is off topic. I have no desire to violate the goodwill of the mods. If you want to believe what you say, you are welcome to stay with the lotus-eaters of the SSPX.

Catholics in union with the Pope and the Holy See do not, as the Pope has already spoken on this issue, and the FR people here have addressed it, and once again, I refer you to those threads.

[ultima ratio]

In other words, you can't come up with anything. Not a single thing. You prove my point--that you don't know what you're talking about but are simply hurling slanders.

[Dominick]

I did in other threads. The FR TOS is clear, threads shall not spill into other threads. I refuse to participate in your exercise in baiting.

Let me say this clearly.

This has nothing to do with a Priest breaking the seal of confession, nor this case that a third party brought up. It has nothing to do with the accusation of homosexuality, nor with the Bishop of the Diocese not acting on either account.

[ultima ratio]

First of all, you don't answer my challenge because you can't. You've slandered the SSPX priests and called them heretics--yet you can't back up your trashy claim.

Secondly, this thread is a replay. I wrote the above post that annoyed you back in September--a time when there was a great deal of back-and-forth on many of the threads dealing with the issue of the SSPX, so it seemed apt at the time to make the comment. I wouldn't bring up the subject necessarily today--except to reject slanders like yours. Check the dates. You will see this is not a fresh thread at all but has been revived for some unknown reason.

[ultima ratio]

Correction: my post was written back in January, not September.