I'd like to say a few words about the CM/SSPX thing. CM has done good work over the years, I have defended them many times, and consider many there my friends, I think some tough truth might be warranted. Their past and present behavior undercuts much of the good work they do.

I have no affiliation whatsoever with the SSPX, but I think it is safe to say CM has a well known and unfortunate history of fevered myopia on the topic of the SSPX. But other behaviors have served to damage their credibility too.

Their past substitution of their prudential judgement as dogmatic decree subject to immediate excommunication from the website, a history of sometimes never-acknowledged shoddy reporting, shooting critics first, has all served to undermine credibility on the topic of the SSPX.

I have no doubt that the same abuse/coverup infection exists to some degree in the SSPX as it does in the wider Church and all such infection should be exposed to Lysol and UV light. If CM is doing that, good.

But because CM has behaved the way they have, many otherwise supportive of CM don't find their reporting trustworthy enough to take at face value. There might be very uncomfortable truths in there, but who can know for sure?

Credibility does not rest entirely on the veracity of the individual story, but also in everyday behavior & ability to deal with legitimate critics and critiques. CM does not do this well much of the time and they have hurt their own ability to be heard. I say this as a friend.