Replies

I believe that website is run by one who has a personal grudge against the accused. There is a defense, Bishop Timlin seems to be acting with prudence and a desire for justice.

I agree. Dr. Julian Bond had a legitimate grievance, and no doubt he was distraught at the destruction of all his plans, however, his criticisms of Bishop Timlin and others have become hysterical to the point of being self-defeating.

I believe that website is run by one who has a personal grudge against the accused. There is a defense, Bishop Timlin seems to be acting with prudence and a desire for justice.

I agree. In claiming that the main priest was twice kicked out of the SSPX for problems of a sexual nature involving boys and young men, there is one question that to my knowledge a number of SSPX supporters keep avoiding. (The others keep trying to blame it on some sort of sedevacantist split that took place in South America.) Namely, if the priest was guilty of homosexual relations with a young boy in South America, and this caused him to be kicked out of the SSPX the first time, when the SSPX subsequently restored him (and why did they restore him if the allegations were true?), why did the SSPX post him to their North American seminary? I mean, isn't the seminary the last place you would want to send a priest who reportedly engages in homosexual activity with young men, especially when you're placing that priest in a position of authority? It is no wonder that Bishop Timlin reportedly had a hard time believing the SSPX when Fellay reportedly approached him, especially when you take some of Williamson's (Williamson being the rector of the North American seminary) other views into consideration.