The Exoneration of Rev. Fr. Marshall Roberts

Rev. Fr. Marshall Roberts (former SSPX priest) has been exonerated many times over with documented proof against the many mal-intent allegations over his 21 seminary and priesthood years. Is it a wonder a priest has trials and attacks like our Lord?

When in doubt, go to the source.

Below are facts and Documents proving Fr. Marshall Roberts has been in good standing character with his superiors consistent with the Catholic priesthood and moral obligations within society.


Pre-Seminary years

Being a good student and affable to everyone, Fr. Roberts character and good name was constant throughout his pre-seminary life.


Seminary

As such, and after a normal pre-seminary formal ecclesiastical investigation, Marshall Roberts was given entrance (1988) into the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). When as a 4th year seminarian (3 years Winona, 1 year Econe), he then went (fall 1992) to the Institute of Christ the King, Italy. Noting in the transfer of Fr. Roberts file, he again received a formal ecclesiastical investigation by the new Seminary and was accepted.

During his first months at the new seminary Institute, Fr. Roberts questioned the Superior General over his policies and administration within the Order allowing the use of Congar or Rahner for Canon Law, major heresiarchs of the Council, he complained to the Rector immediately. Secondly, He then complained about the Institute offering a hybrid Novus Ordo - Trad Mass in France. Unknown to him at the same time, there were two other seminarians who had unnatural association and who had been asked to leave the seminary. Fr. Roberts soon after was alleged to have written a letter to another seminarian that seemed to show unnatural affection and which the Superior General said was inappropriate. He was asked to go home, in cassock, for a temporary period of time, after having convinced the Superior General that there was nothing of an impure nature in the letter. A seminarian deacon, Patrick Perez, who was a temporary vice-rector (when the rector stepped out though the Superior General was still present residing in the house), said he was the one who passed the message to Fr. Roberts, but this was prior to the meeting Fr. Roberts had with the Superior General concerning the letter. Contrary to author Randy Engel [1] who layered with her own inconsistencies and controversies labeling many others in her books with “crimes of association”. Recently when Fr. Pfeiffer questioned Patrick Perez over the contents of said letter, Patrick Perez said he read it and did not find explicit content but that it “seemed” to appear as so. Now only a few weeks later, Fr. Patrick Perez is describing things differently [2] to a different audience. To date, this letter has never been provided nor shown as evidence. Fr. Roberts has in the last month requested his complete file from the Institute, especially this alleged letter. They have not yet provided it.

Fr. Roberts left the Institute and went back to the SSPX (1993). He was received by Fr. Peter Scott, US District superior, and asked Fr. Roberts to spend one year with him in the Kansas City District house; which Fr. Roberts did. Fr. Peter Scott opened another formal investigation, to include his file from the Institute. The SSPX did not find anything inappropriate from their formal investigation and accepted Fr. Roberts to re-enter the seminary to finish his last years of studies (1994-1996).


Priesthood

Fr. Roberts was ordained as a SSPX priest in 1996 by Bishop Williamson and assigned by the District to one of their missions within the U.S.

In May 1997, the Society of St. John (SSJ) was founded and began to search for a diocese which would take them in, the result of which was their acceptance into the Diocese of Scranton. Fr. Roberts joined them soon before their relocation to the diocese in Oct. 1997 in view of the new mission of the SSJ and the perceived illicitness of the Consecrations of 1988. Fr. Roberts was NOT a co-founder of the SSJ. He was a priest member along with many other priests within that SSJ congregation. Upon his acceptance in the Scranton Diocese, Fr. Roberts received another formal investigation from its dicastery and too was accepted with good standing.

The headquarters of the SSJ was in the jurisdiction of the Dioceses of Scranton Pennsylvania, and housed in the same building as the Fraternity of St. Peters (FSSP). The SSJ was there for two years until they were able to purchase their own property with 1,000 acres in Pennsylvania (1999).

Their little congregation grew under Bishop James Timlin. Fr. Roberts then went 1-year to England for university studies (1999 – 2000). Fr. Roberts is able to travel freely in good standing within the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. It was during this time (2000) various events happened at once in the SSJ.

• The SSJ started to adopt the new liturgy of the 1965 missal resulting against Fr. Roberts knowledge and intent to be with the SSJ.
• Fr. Roberts left in the light of this and was allowed to help the FSSP and was there for 1 year (fall 2000 - 2001).
• The SSJ wanted to have a college within their SSJ order. They hired a person (2000) named Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond at 60k a year to help run the administration of the new college.
• The superior of SSJ, Fr. Urrutigoity, was spending excessive amounts of money on properties and furnishings Bishop Timlin called in question and asked for their financial records.
• Bishop Timlin said the SSJ cannot support the largeness and that they had one year to self-fund or he will pull the plug.
• Mr. Bond was asked by the SSJ to lead the fundraising efforts…only ending in a failure to provide.
• Mr. Bond thought to separate the college from the SSJ to help offset the cost and to effectively be the president of HIS new college. He was denied this by the SSJ.
• A disgruntled environment ensued and discovered Mr. Bond began a spree of false allegations (wildly available on the internet) against the SSJ (at first, not against any specific priests) and spoke to many of the parents of the school children, saying, he is “aware” there is inappropriate behavior and sodomy with some priests in the SSJ and wanted to “warn” them. Mr. Bond asked the parents to ask their children if they knew of anything, and to let HIM know, not the Bishop.
• Mr. Bond then asked Bishop Timlin for permission to separate the college…The bishop said no. Mr. Bond thereafter started a campaign against Bishop Timlin.
• The blow-up of 2001 culminated with the SSJ…all the while Fr. Roberts was present in the FSSP.
• Mr. Bond left the employment of the SSJ, still claiming to be the President of the College of St. Justin Martyr; with no students; no seminarians.
• Fr. Roberts wrote to Mr. Bond for proof and expressed how wrong and sinful it was to allege false accusations.
• Within days after, Mr. Bond started a campaign against Fr. Roberts [3].
• None of the students of the school knew of any such allegations, but one student, who was named by the others as the most flamboyant story teller of their school. Ironic, yet known by all in the school.
• A lawsuit started and filed by a Mr. James Bendell [4] against the SSJ, the Scranton Diocese, and the FSSP, who later, and reluctantly, ADMITTED in an email there is in fact NO judgement against Fr. Roberts.
• The suit drew in the SSJ, the Scranton Diocese, and the FSSP with high expenses. The SSJ had over $100K in legal fees on their side alone.
• Fr. Roberts was NOT named in the suit nor a defendant in the case. For which the allegers omit in their discourse, but say he was.
• The case was settled out of court (2004).
• To date, there is NO judgement or evidence against any of the mentioned priests in the SSJ from that civil court. I repeat, there are NO priests in the SSJ, or the FSSP convicted of sodomy or pedophilia in this civil case! One eccleastical case remains open not including Fr. Roberts. Yet, allegations persist; only in a world of unjust behavior.
• Additionally, when there is a civil arraignment against any Catholic Priest, the Ecclesiastical court would start their own investigative Court. This did not happen at all with Fr. Roberts as he was NOT part of any claim.
• Further, Fr. Roberts requested Bishop Timlin to open a formal investigation of his person to clear his name. Bishop Timlin said he knew it was not necessary from all the evidence he had in the case - Fr. Roberts was innocent; but the Bishop did so anyway upon Fr. Roberts request.
• The Ecclesiastical judgment pronounced Fr. Roberts to have NO association with any of the allegations and was innocent on all counts.
  
• Adding to Fr. Roberts innocence, Bishop Timlin wrote two letters of recommendations and exoneration for Fr. Roberts to pursue his apostolate with complete faculties from any Bishop who may need a traditional priest [5], [6].
• During this time, Bishop Timlin transferred Fr. Roberts to one of his schools (Bishop O’Hara High School) in the diocese, requiring a mandated government clearance for any child abuse (2002) and was cleared by the State Government to teach in schools [7].
• To date also, none of the allegers have ever provide real evidence or proof against Fr. Roberts but the same old
  regurgitated-hearsay-allegations. Seems easy to destroy another's reputation and get a million dollars out of it. Just saying.

While Fr. Roberts was on a new assignment at that school, he was teaching a religion class and spoke of the unique salvation of the Catholic Church and that there is no salvation outside of Her. The lay faculty did not like that pre-Vatican II teaching and requested Fr. Roberts stop saying it. It ensued over another battle…Fr. Roberts and the bishop agreed to his transfer rather than have the whole school go down.

Bishop Timlin resigned July 2003. The new Bishop installed [8] was Bishop Joseph Martino.

Later, the child in question with the suit alleging sodomy against the SSJ, had graduated from High school matured and ASKED to enter the SSJ seminary. When denied for obvious reasons, the lad asked to work at the SSJ. That too was not accepted. The lad wrote a letter of praise for the SSJ priests. But wonder why the allegers do not mention this?

Fr. Roberts was assigned a new apostolate in York Pennsylvania (2004-2006). There he friended the SSPX again with the U.S District Superior, Fr. John Fullerton, who also made another formal ecclesiastical investigation to provide for his faithful in the missions. This too Fr. Roberts is held in good standing. While at the York mission, which is a friendly mission to the SSPX, Fr. Roberts promoted the SSPX Angelus magazine, its books and publications. The faithful did not like the publications and were resentful. Fr. Roberts asked Fr. Fullerton for help and passed the message the SSPX bishops will not help with confirmations if ever called if they could not promote their apostolate. The people immediately kicked Fr. Roberts out.

Fr. Fullerton requested Fr. Roberts to go to Jacksonville Florida with a SSPX letter of recommendation from him to read on the pulpit for the faithful giving full consent and support to provide the faith, Mass and sacraments for them.

Fr. Roberts served that Jacksonville mission for 11-years in good standing.

When in 2011-2012 the sspx gained momentum to reconcile with modern Rome, Fr. Roberts was not supporting this. He just went through the Ecclesia Dei process in the Diocese of Scranton; it did not work.

At this time the Catholic Resistance started to form and his faithful were going in that direction. Fr. Roberts has been in regular contact with all the Bishops and priests within the resistance. Fr. Roberts was present via phone at the first resistance meeting in Virginia (Aug. 2012) with six other priests and attended the resistance priests meeting/retreat held by Bishop Williamson at Kentucky (Dec. 2012) [9].

All four resistance bishops visited Fr. Roberts over the last couple years and Bps. Williamson, Faure, and Aquinas gave confirmations and conferences to his faithful. Fr. Zendejas had also visited Fr. Roberts accompanying the latter two bishops. All the resistance Bishops and priests supported Fr. Roberts. Fr. Chazal wrote in a 2014 letter in support for Fr. Roberts as well.

While still at the mission of Jacksonville Florida, Fr. Roberts was in regular contact with the other SSPX chapels and SSPX priory in Florida. So much so, the people and the sspx were forming a stronger relationship where the sspx was in process to acquire that chapel. The arrangements were being made and did not go through on a minor technicality on the lawyer’s part in the contract that delayed things further. Unfortunately during this time, too long arguments with the sspx priests wanting to go into Rome, Fr. Roberts became more visible he did not support them and this disagreement came to a head in later 2017. The lay board of that Jacksonville chapel went with the neo-sspx after the neo-sspx immediately promised regular Sunday masses and all sorts of goodies. The same tactic the neo-sspx did when Fr. Ringrose cut ties off with them. The sspx immediately moved in to set up shop in the same town of Fr. Ringrose. Coincidence?

With a two week notice, the lay board of Jacksonville with the neo-sspx administration literally threw Fr. Roberts out on the street with $17.00 in his pocket. Fr. Roberts said his farewell to a few friends and hugged some of them. Interesting a person in the distance used that “hug” as something they found “inappropriate” and made a new set of allegations giving off more false rumor storms…known to destroy priests. How malicious! Yet, there are many of the same faithful have praised Fr. Roberts with good character and no such intent both in Jacksonville and the many faithful in the diocese of Pennsylvania.

Fr. Roberts was generously taken in as a guest by a friend family for a short time until contacts were made with Fr. Roberts and OLMC. Fr. Roberts visited OLMC with another formal investigation that found good standing, and became a welcomed priest to help the apostolate. Until the fake resistance didn’t like it…refusing all Eccelastical investigations exonerating Fr. Roberts, and started the 17 year old smear campaign all over again; without facts; without inquiry; without good judgment; without an ounce of good will or charity for one’s neighbor. Never mind going to the source; frenzy and conflation is the religion of the day. Again, we wonder why? Motive?

Why now does Fr. Chazal and some of his supporters not approve? Could it be Fr. Roberts is helping the missions of OLMC providing the Statues and uncompromised Mission of Archbishop Lefebvre they have openly abandoned to follow the recent novelties and errors of Bishop Williamson [10]?

This is not an academic question. This is a matter of Justice to a priest, and any other individual for that matter, to be given the honor of the Church with Her due process. Either Catholics act in the manner of God towards their neighbor or take on the manner of the father of lies our Lord had warned.

It is clear there has been years of abundant proof and exoneration in support of Fr. Roberts. If one is only honest to see it.

There has surfaced, unfortunately, another public alleger in recent days. His name is Mr. John Pfeiffer (no relations to Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer), another lawyer who set off on his own storm renewing these false accusations. Reluctantly at the same time, he ADMITS in a recent email there is NO real evidence nor judgement against Fr. Roberts [11]. But the paltry continues.

Indeed this is a sad ordeal. When real sodomy is within the Church, and those that are not, there are many profiteers in lurk wanting to gain is some way over the misfortune of others. God knows the hearts of men; thankfully.


Conclusion

We have done our due diligence in good faith to provide real evidence and Documentation consistent with the good character and integrity of Fr. Marshall Roberts throughout his 21 seminary and priesthood years serving the Church in this crisis within the circumstance he believes were right and for the glory to God.

Enclosed also is the OLMC Rector Letter Dec. 2017 for a greater bio of Fr. Roberts postulate and Documentation with enhanced details providing for many of the above points. thecatacombs.org/thread/147/introduction-documentation-fr-marshall-roberts

To Fr. Roberts credit and exoneration many times over, there have been 7 separate formal Ecclesiastical investigations throughout from the many transfers he had, and one civil he was NOT named as a defendant. Always the same thing, each of the allegers stating the SAME regurgitated stuff they find over the internet WITHOUT providing an ounce of real evidence or proofs to support their false claims. Each and every time Fr. Roberts is held innocent and the allegers held as false prophets both within the Ecclesiastical court and civil case.

Does this mean there have been some of the allegers seeking a gain for their own profit? God knows, but there are certain financial and prestige motives present with many of them which cannot be discounted as coincidence either.

This testament shows there is still justice in a world that seeks less each passing day. “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15)


Instaurare omnia in Christo – To restore all things in Christ!




___________________________________________________________________________



[1]
Randy Engel

Has been known to be plagued with inconsistencies and controversies labeling many in her books with a false “crime of association”, placing more than an error of judgment on her part, but gives a question to her motive. Other than the obvious sensual and commercial reading, her book sales have topped with a great profit based on setting her own false allegations unchecked to the source and so contrary to the basic facts.

Here is her untamed version truly exploiting Traditional priests:http://newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john

Here are a few of her other inconsistencies and incongruent exploitations:

culturewars.com/2017/Engel.htm

www.donaldwuerl.com/2016/12/new-randy-engel-article.html

Here is a correspondence with her asking for her to provide proof and/or to correct the wrong she continues to perpetuate. She did not reply.

www.dropbox.com/s/p8vi6ts8meduwlv/Randy%20Engel%20Correspondence.pdf?dl=0


[2]
Fr. Patrick Perez

Contained within one of Mr. John Pfeiffer’s emails is a narration he drew, contrary from the facts, saying:

I talked to the then-vice rector of the seminary, Patrick Perez, who expelled him. Perez told me that this was all true based on his personal knowledge. I told him that I understand the following statement to be true, (which I then read to him from my computer screen, word-for-word):

“Marshall Roberts attended the seminary of the Institute of Christ the King while you were vice rector and that you were given love letters he wrote propositioning a younger seminarian and you expelled him immediately.”

Perez specifically said that this statement was “exactly true” (those are his words).

Perspective is everything.


[3]
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond

Began his attack against Fr. Roberts.
web.archive.org/web/20101204125112/http://www.saintjustinmartyr.org:80/news/MarshallRoberts%5B1%5D.html

Picking up the sensational news further without verifying its authenticity, another individual Matt C. Abbott, featured the same slander feeding the gravy train of calamity without proof. But that is how today’s worldly journalism works.

web.archive.org/web/20101203061701/http://www.renewamerica.com:80/columns/abbott/060703


[4]
Mr. James Bendell

Mr. Bendell is the lawyer who made the claim against the SSJ, Diocese of Scranton, and the FSSP. In a recent correspondence, he admitted, reluctantly, there is in fact NO judgement and NO real evidence against Fr. Roberts.

www.dropbox.com/s/qvo6ycn3edi3tzk/Correspondence%20with%20James%20Bendell.pdf?dl=0


[5]
Letter of Recommendation from Bishop Timlin, June 2003, to all the Bishops in the USA, again, provided AFTER the many formal ecclesiastical investigations were complete.

www.dropbox.com/s/ggzdb3dtg7yepi4/Fr%20Roberts%20bishop%20TImlin%20Letter%20to%20%20Bishops.pdf?dl=0


[6]
Another Letter of from Bishop Timilin holding Fr. Roberts in good standing and exoneration, and, calling out the egregious acts of Dr. Bond’s falsifications as grave.

www.dropbox.com/s/s6j1qgyi9sv5okb/Bishop%20TImlin%20Letter%20July%202003.pdf?dl=0


[7]

State of Pennsylvania Government Clearance for Fr. Marshall Roberts issued AFTER the false allegations started.

www.dropbox.com/s/z24dvgfv8r5s1f4/Fr%20Roberts%20Child%20Clearance%20PA%281%29.pdf?dl=0


[8]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Scranton


[9]
Resistance Priest's meeting and retreat Dec. 2012. Fr. Roberts is the first priest on the left.
www.dropbox.com/s/v9eqjoxb9hacadw/resistance%20priests%20meeting%20-%202012%20pic.pdf?dl=0


[10]
Bishop Williamson

cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/quotes-of-bp-williamson-supporting-the-new-religion-and-conciliarism.4457/


[11]
Mr. John Pfeiffer

John Pfeiffer, who carries the perceived credibility as an attorney, began a new public campaign against Fr. Roberts spreading the same 17 year old allegations, despite being exonerated many times, as a new froth to be listened to; regardless of being informed otherwise.

Within Mr. John Pfeiffer’s spree of recent emails, he opened a second and new false attack against Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer with his perceived “impurities” against Fr. Pfeiffer. Like a mental professional diagnosing at a distance attempting to gin up this type of hysteria. It is a sad thing in modern life when people disagree with another who perceives evidence and reason behind them, a lot of people will say, well if you disagree with me, that makes you insane. No, that actually makes the person who says such rather unstable.

Here is one of many correspondences with John Pfeiffer who not only refused to provide his proof and answer basic questions to support his claims, he admits there is no judgment or real evidence against Fr. Roberts as with Fr. Pfeiffer.

www.dropbox.com/s/4afd9ofkto5nc9p/Correspondence%20with%20John%20Pfeiffer.pdf?dl=0


[12]

Below is an extra correspondence with Fr. John Berg adding to the due process.

Fr. John Berg

As a Superior General of the FSSP, he too was sent a correspondence to provide any proof or judgement against Fr. Roberts. To date, he has not responded.

www.dropbox.com/s/7qske7uhy4quhk7/Fr.%20John%20Berg%20Correspondence.pdf?dl=0







Below is a PDF format

Exoneration of Fr. Roberts.pdf (153.91 KB)