NEWS: May 24, 2019
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
SSPX IN QUITO: FINAL BALANCE -
After publishing my articles that reported the role played by the SSPX in Quito (here, here,
here and here) I received three types of reaction: indignation, silence and a hysterical campaign of sordid attacks on the Internet.
Initial indignation
/bev232_OL.jpg)
My first article described how I found the Statue of Our Lady during my visit in February. Two priests
exploded against me, commanding me to publicly apologize for spreading the “grave calumny” that Arch. Travez had received money from the SSPX.
What proof did they give for affirming I had made a calumny? None, because they deemed the virtue of Arch. Travez to be above suspicion. Then, they repeated, also without proof, the trash bin of offenses they had heard about me, Dr. Plinio and the TFP in order to frighten away any possible support I could have.
Silence of priests & directors
After my second article showing that Travez was, at the least, covering for the pedophilia of Fr. Bustos – who had being flagrantly caught touching intimate parts of a 14-year-old girl and was subsequently almost lynched by the local population – and for the homosexuality rampant in the Franciscans, I was met with complete silence.
The young priests were ordered to shut up and the superiors did not respond. I wonder why the SSPX superiors would not state this simple phrase: “No, the SSPX did not give any money to Arch. Travez.” In juridical language there is a wise aphorism: Qui tacet consentire videtur – The one who remains silent appears to consent to the accusation.
Furious reactions on the internet
Then, I wrote two other articles: One exposing Agent Liboro and other proving that the document pretending to establish indisputably that the title of Good Success in English should be changed to Buen Suceso had such fundamental errors that they invalidate the document. And also that Fr. Adam Purdy, the most dynamic promoter of the name change was not capable of discerning which translation from Spanish to English is better because he does not know Spanish.
After that article, the silence of the priests and directors continued.
/bev232_bark.jpg)
What they did, however, was to release dogs to attack me, that annoying intruder who had dared enter their recently-purchased property, the Convent of Quito.
Indeed, several SSPX seminarians and a few anonymous women on the Internet increased their noisy barking: “Dr. Plinio was a tyrant, Atila was his vile slave, TFP was a cult, a sect that among many other things adored his mother and prayed a litany to her in which the name of Our Lady was ‘blasphemously’ replaced by hers, etc. etc.”
I smiled, because I recognized the exact same sordid offenses that had been spilled against those counter-revolutionaries 35 years ago, defamations that had been duly refuted publicly.
Some friends entered the forums where the women assailants were most vociferous and tried to reason with them, but my friends were not successful. The hateful female hysteria did not allow them to even consider any argument that might conflict with their total and unquestioning support for the SSPX, its priests and its directors.
Those same offenses had been spread by Agent Liboro among the nuns of the Convent of Immaculate Conception in Quito to poison them against Dr. Plinio and his followers.
I decided to put to rest this spurious SSPX “response” by posting online in English the books refuting those grubby attacks. The first one, Servitudo ex Caritate, which addresses the question of Holy Slavery, is already online. The second, which refutes a nebula of miscellaneous slanders, will be posted as soon as we at TIA finish putting it in a format compatible to the Internet.
I will end this series with two articles: the first and present article reports a portion of what I know about the action of the SSPX Agent inside that Convent; the second will explain why the followers of Prof. Plinio were present there.
Liboro’s & La Capitana’s pestilential action
Since around 2014 Jade Liboro has been living up to six months a year inside the Convent as an intern, as I stated in another article, installed with the approval of either Arch. Travez or the Apostolic Nuncio Otonello.
/bev232_travez.jpg)
Once inside, Liboro joined forces with a nun who has an important position, exerts a bad influence there and was always against both Prof. Plinio and his followers. I know perfectly who this nun is and could write a small book about her nefarious action, but here I will call her just la Capitana, the Captain.
The two instinctively or explicitly agreed to try to set the Convent against Prof. Plinio: La Capitana, by flattering the new Abbess as well as the old one; the Agent, by buying the sympathy of the young nuns with gifts of money “to help their families.”
While she spread these cash gifts, Liboro also circulated the same list of offenses habitually made by the SSPX: “Prof. Plinio is a monster, his followers are a cult, a sect that prevents young men from entering the seminary, etc.” In Quito, Liboro hypocritically added another: “They are against the Mass,” since these Catholics avoid attending the New Mass as much as possible.
Besides speaking against these counter-revolutionaries, the two cohorts had also the goal to change the juridical status of the Convent.
Changing the juridical status
At times in the past Arch. Travez has tried to expel the followers of Prof. Plinio from the Convent. Twice or three times he visited the Abbess personally; other times he sent his Auxiliary Bishop to try to oblige her to do so. The constant answer of the Superior was: “Your Excellency, we are not Diocesan nuns; therefore, we decide by ourselves what we should do in our Convent.”
/bev232_choir.jpg)
Indeed, although each religious order is obliged to obey the Archbishop in his external policies and, thus, not project a public imagine of discord, inside each religious order the Superior has the last word on what is or is not convenient to do.
So, since most of the nuns were favorable to the followers of Prof. Plinio, to forbid their action inside the Convent it was necessary to change the juridical status of the Convent so that the Archbishop would be in charge of its internal affairs.
For this purpose the task La Capitana was particularly important. She used the fact that Travez was a Franciscan as an argument with the Abbess that this was an opportunity for the Conceptionists to return to their old relationship with the Franciscans by giving Travez external and internal power. So, with the permission of the Abbess and on her behalf, La Capitana convened a general meeting of all the nuns to decide on the matter.
The meeting, duly manipulated by La Capitana and with the ground irrigated by the Agent’s gifts, voted that they should obey Travez in all matters.
The very next day, the Archbishop called the leader of those Catholics and expelled them from the Convent; he also forbade them to carry the Statue and lead the Procession of the Dawn through the streets. This took place in mid-January, right before the February 2 Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Success.
En masse apostasy
Cui bono? Who benefitted from this expulsion? Obviously, the SSPX, which imagined that its representatives would replace those Catholics in bringing the Statue down from the upper choir to the main altar. I showed how Our Lady did not allow this to happen.
/bev232_sisters.jpg)
Further, that climate of internal intrigue and worldliness created by the Agent and La Capitana, aggravated by the fact that Fr. Bustos was the Convent confessor, generated an internal crisis among the nuns. Last December, in that small community 11 professed nuns left the Convent and returned to the world, leaving behind an ambience of desolation.
As far as I could verify, this hemorrhage continues…
In passing
Allow me to make in passing a last consideration.
Who is supplying my accusers with ammunition? These defenders of the SSPX – seminarians, web accomplices and agents – as well as those young priests who first attacked me, had no way of knowing on their own about those accusations. Indeed, those allegations were made 35 years ago when most of the accusers had not even been born. Thus, I presume that this new generation of priests is receiving those defamations from their seminary teachers and passing them on to their grassroots.
Now, those teachers should know perfectly well that the accusations are not true, because the refutations TFP published in 1984-1985 were sent to the central houses of the SSPX. Consequently, the SSPX directors and priests have all the elements to know that they are spreading slanders against Prof. Plinio and the TFP.
My question: How can these men say Mass and receive Communion if they do not repent and make public penance for defaming good Catholics? What account to God will they give for this constant detraction when they die?
Continued
Initial indignation
Our Lady of Good Success in Quito, 2019
What proof did they give for affirming I had made a calumny? None, because they deemed the virtue of Arch. Travez to be above suspicion. Then, they repeated, also without proof, the trash bin of offenses they had heard about me, Dr. Plinio and the TFP in order to frighten away any possible support I could have.
Silence of priests & directors
After my second article showing that Travez was, at the least, covering for the pedophilia of Fr. Bustos – who had being flagrantly caught touching intimate parts of a 14-year-old girl and was subsequently almost lynched by the local population – and for the homosexuality rampant in the Franciscans, I was met with complete silence.
The young priests were ordered to shut up and the superiors did not respond. I wonder why the SSPX superiors would not state this simple phrase: “No, the SSPX did not give any money to Arch. Travez.” In juridical language there is a wise aphorism: Qui tacet consentire videtur – The one who remains silent appears to consent to the accusation.
Furious reactions on the internet
Then, I wrote two other articles: One exposing Agent Liboro and other proving that the document pretending to establish indisputably that the title of Good Success in English should be changed to Buen Suceso had such fundamental errors that they invalidate the document. And also that Fr. Adam Purdy, the most dynamic promoter of the name change was not capable of discerning which translation from Spanish to English is better because he does not know Spanish.
After that article, the silence of the priests and directors continued.
Cyber-hounds that bark on the command of the SSPX
Indeed, several SSPX seminarians and a few anonymous women on the Internet increased their noisy barking: “Dr. Plinio was a tyrant, Atila was his vile slave, TFP was a cult, a sect that among many other things adored his mother and prayed a litany to her in which the name of Our Lady was ‘blasphemously’ replaced by hers, etc. etc.”
I smiled, because I recognized the exact same sordid offenses that had been spilled against those counter-revolutionaries 35 years ago, defamations that had been duly refuted publicly.
Some friends entered the forums where the women assailants were most vociferous and tried to reason with them, but my friends were not successful. The hateful female hysteria did not allow them to even consider any argument that might conflict with their total and unquestioning support for the SSPX, its priests and its directors.
Those same offenses had been spread by Agent Liboro among the nuns of the Convent of Immaculate Conception in Quito to poison them against Dr. Plinio and his followers.
I decided to put to rest this spurious SSPX “response” by posting online in English the books refuting those grubby attacks. The first one, Servitudo ex Caritate, which addresses the question of Holy Slavery, is already online. The second, which refutes a nebula of miscellaneous slanders, will be posted as soon as we at TIA finish putting it in a format compatible to the Internet.
I will end this series with two articles: the first and present article reports a portion of what I know about the action of the SSPX Agent inside that Convent; the second will explain why the followers of Prof. Plinio were present there.
Liboro’s & La Capitana’s pestilential action
Since around 2014 Jade Liboro has been living up to six months a year inside the Convent as an intern, as I stated in another article, installed with the approval of either Arch. Travez or the Apostolic Nuncio Otonello.
The honest & chaste Arch. Travez at a farewell banquet
The two instinctively or explicitly agreed to try to set the Convent against Prof. Plinio: La Capitana, by flattering the new Abbess as well as the old one; the Agent, by buying the sympathy of the young nuns with gifts of money “to help their families.”
While she spread these cash gifts, Liboro also circulated the same list of offenses habitually made by the SSPX: “Prof. Plinio is a monster, his followers are a cult, a sect that prevents young men from entering the seminary, etc.” In Quito, Liboro hypocritically added another: “They are against the Mass,” since these Catholics avoid attending the New Mass as much as possible.
Besides speaking against these counter-revolutionaries, the two cohorts had also the goal to change the juridical status of the Convent.
Changing the juridical status
At times in the past Arch. Travez has tried to expel the followers of Prof. Plinio from the Convent. Twice or three times he visited the Abbess personally; other times he sent his Auxiliary Bishop to try to oblige her to do so. The constant answer of the Superior was: “Your Excellency, we are not Diocesan nuns; therefore, we decide by ourselves what we should do in our Convent.”
The Statue over the Abbess chair in the upper choir
So, since most of the nuns were favorable to the followers of Prof. Plinio, to forbid their action inside the Convent it was necessary to change the juridical status of the Convent so that the Archbishop would be in charge of its internal affairs.
For this purpose the task La Capitana was particularly important. She used the fact that Travez was a Franciscan as an argument with the Abbess that this was an opportunity for the Conceptionists to return to their old relationship with the Franciscans by giving Travez external and internal power. So, with the permission of the Abbess and on her behalf, La Capitana convened a general meeting of all the nuns to decide on the matter.
The meeting, duly manipulated by La Capitana and with the ground irrigated by the Agent’s gifts, voted that they should obey Travez in all matters.
The very next day, the Archbishop called the leader of those Catholics and expelled them from the Convent; he also forbade them to carry the Statue and lead the Procession of the Dawn through the streets. This took place in mid-January, right before the February 2 Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Success.
En masse apostasy
Cui bono? Who benefitted from this expulsion? Obviously, the SSPX, which imagined that its representatives would replace those Catholics in bringing the Statue down from the upper choir to the main altar. I showed how Our Lady did not allow this to happen.
The Convent, once blooming with vocations, now rapidly shrinks in a climate of intrigue & worldliness
As far as I could verify, this hemorrhage continues…
In passing
Allow me to make in passing a last consideration.
Who is supplying my accusers with ammunition? These defenders of the SSPX – seminarians, web accomplices and agents – as well as those young priests who first attacked me, had no way of knowing on their own about those accusations. Indeed, those allegations were made 35 years ago when most of the accusers had not even been born. Thus, I presume that this new generation of priests is receiving those defamations from their seminary teachers and passing them on to their grassroots.
Now, those teachers should know perfectly well that the accusations are not true, because the refutations TFP published in 1984-1985 were sent to the central houses of the SSPX. Consequently, the SSPX directors and priests have all the elements to know that they are spreading slanders against Prof. Plinio and the TFP.
My question: How can these men say Mass and receive Communion if they do not repent and make public penance for defaming good Catholics? What account to God will they give for this constant detraction when they die?
Continued
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |