Role of women as viewed by work-a-day SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aurelio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aurelio

Guest
🙂 Hi, everyone!

Hopefully this should be a nice comfortable, non-polemical topic, especially for those of us who are already heavily involved with SSPX activities, as well as those “us” whose families have been at one time or the other, and maybe still are.

Thanks!

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
Can you expand on what you mean by “role of women” and “work-a-day” SSPX?

Anything the SSPX teaches is Catholic teaching about the roles of both men and women.

It’s very interesting and very comforting to hear common sense about the genders after decades of feminist influence and chauvenism before that.
 
🙂 Hello, GerardP, et all!

O.K., Gerard, here’s the problem: “What the SSPX teaches” – can be exactly that.

What the work-a-day SSPX does in an everyday 24/7 “work-a-day” environment can be radically different, varying form priory to priory, Mission Station (or Mass Center) to Mass Center (or Mission Station).

The negative:

EXMPLES OF: YOU’RE A WOMAN WITH NO STATUS; THUS YOU’RE FAIR GAME!

(1) A young divorced mother’s “spiritual God sister” finances her teenage daughter’s tuition at a boarding school under sisters affiliated with the SSPX. Com evacation time the mother is shocked to discover that the “Mother Superior” has arranged for the teenager to spend her vacation with a young boy in his parents’ house while both parents are away. Enraged at what she believes is an outrage, the motehr summons up her own brothers, and the uncles pool their resources and bring the girl back post haste so she can be enrolled in a public high school.

(2) A Sixteen to seventeen year old girl of no status goes off on a SSPX staff member who she thinks is harrasing her. Her abject public apology is coerced from her using the continued attendance at the SSPX school by her younger siblings as hostage for her “good behavior.”

Among the legal issues involved is obviously one that is related to what is loosely known as “age of informed consent.” A fed-up palace guard member documents all this in 35 mm, then casually rips the offending letter off the public wall and sends it to the nearest municipal police sex crimes unit.

(3) A young, bright, 17-year old recent graduate of a SSPX boarding high school gets a post as a “teacher” far from her home. One day while still shaken up she reveals to her room mate that she was ordered by a SSPX priest to give a homeless man a ride (alone) to the nearest bus station, and she felt obliged to do so.

(4) Two other young girls from troubled homes answer a call for – you guessed it! – “teachers” by the SSPX grape vine – and wound up all but financially stranded as their pay (unlike Aurelio) is supposed ot cover both food and rent. It doesn’t. So, given a choice of starving or paying their rent, they elect to eat.

(5) Young mothers of girls enrolled in a SSPX school are upset because an all-night adoration planned for both sexes calls for the boys to be housed and guarded inside the priory grounds, while the girls are banished across the street and off the property in a big building with little or no security or even basic privacy.

A hot-tempered (male, of course!) member of the palace guard out does even our friend Aurelio 😃 by exploding in a fury of open contempt in the face of the SSPX priest in charge, banishes him from sight, and establishes an effective security perimiter with enough add-on personnel to guarantee both the physical comfort and safety of the girls, as well as respecting their privacy while they are attending this same function.

The positive:

EXAMPLES OF: THE SSPX SUPER-WOMAN!

(1) A former female prosecuting attorney turned fulltime SSPX Staff Member goes off in the face of a disgruntled palace guard member (male) who is trying to alert her to some very serious devoloping issues involving minors of both sexes, threatens him with her going to the local DA ''cause you’re harassing me! OK? I don’t want to hear it! Not now, not ever!"

(2) Another positive example? “Ummm
 oh yeah: at least one(1) SSPX affiliated group is (or was) headed up by a DRE.” 😃

Sorry! I’m afraid someone else will have to take the rest of this part, 'cause here’s the only two(2) examples I either know personally, or have even heard of. 😉

Anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say here, GerardP and all, is that this role of women in the mindset of the work-a-day SSPX can sure enough be just a tad complicated, what say?:rolleyes:

Thanks!

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
I still don’t get what you mean. Are you saying these situations you are describing are real events? If so, tell me the names and places.

Who were the priests in charge?

What were the locations?

When did this stuff take place?

Who are the nuns “affiliated” with the SSPX?

What is a “palace guard”?

Who was the priest who “ordered” the girl to take a homeless guy to the bus station alone?

What school were the two girls supposed to be teaching at?

Which priory had the all night adoration and sent the girls packing to an unsecure building?

What SSPX “affiliated” group are you talking about is headed by a DRE?

The only way to clean these things up is with some plain talking and not rumors.

With all of the young boys that have been raped and abused over the decades in the diocesan system, it’s been shown that the only thing that helps bring an end to it is exposure.

So, tell me the names, dates and places and I’ll give it a great deal of exposure.

We’ll take it right to the sources. Were these events in the U.S? Was Fr. Fullerton ever informed? I’ll call Fr. Scott if it occurred under his watch. Was it? What about bishop Fellay? I can check with bishop Williamson about the names of the priests you give since he taught a good portion of the priests from the American houses of formation.

Since nothing you described accurately reflects my experiences with the good, strong women of all ages who attend SSPX chapels I can only assume that you’ve encountered a motherload of aberrations.
 
🙂 Yo, GerardP and all!

Sorry to be off-line so long, but “our” plumbers had their work cut out for them yesterday.

I’m glad the landlords have to shell out for this and not me!

Gerard, your questions are indeed logical, but then, so, too, are the rules of this forum. 😃

But!

It just so happens that I’ve a copy of a FAX Cover sheet indicating much of this material in the last posting by Aurelio was classified by the sending agency on March 05, 2003as “transmission o.k. 03/05 15:29 pgs. sent 4 result o.k.”

Recipient? The most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, DD, STD.

Likewise: Bishop Wilton Gregory, in his case the receiving FAX line indentified itself as as “Diocese of Bellevue” – wherever that is!

Plus two(2) SSPX priests noted for both their prudence and – in my personal opinion only – a really admirable degree of piety.

The SSPX priests’ FAV cover sheet states flatly in block print in the Comments section:

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A [LOWER-RANKING PRIEST] LOOSES (SIC.) CONTROL OF HIS OWN CHARGES & THE [HIGHER-RANKING PRIEST] BEGINS A GENTLE SLIDE INTO APOSTASY

Now, the sex angle is more complicated.

For example, regarding possible male on male sexual issues, the plain clothes PD employee needed to know if indeed the younger male was over 18 or not, because:

“Since you don’t claim to have seen them having sex yourself, if (name) is under 18 it’s a crime o.k., but we need proof. If over 18, it would then be up to him to file his own complaint.”

I simply stated that female staff members had overheard adolescent girls chatting about what a shame it was that (name) had been suddenly committed to so-and-so Psychiatric Hospital.

His duffless mom and dad had been letting him stay overnnight presumably “to test his vocation.”

Problem!

“Something went down.” A number of us witnessed him going into nuclear meltdown in the school yard, but the priest he was entreating pretended to “not see him.”

On roughly that same day, but a little earlier, I’d overheard this same priest smoothly assuring “somebody” in flawlessly accented Spanish something to the effect that “I’m sorry, but once he is in the hands of the Government, you must underestand we can do no more for this poor fellow, etc.”

At the time I ismply tought that another one of ours had been grabbed by the Feds.

So, no, I’m not swearing the two incidents are directly related, but upon reflecting later, I came to suspect they were.

Hope this helps!

Aurelio 👍
 
🙂 Yo!

Touché, Bear 06, touché!

“We’re all lost.”

Why?

"Because, technically, at least, none of us really exists. We’re all – each and everyone of us – what is technically termed A computer-generated electronic entitity. Period

Hope this helps!😉

Aurelio:thumbsup:
 
Ive just read this whole thread twice


My only comment is



What?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top