SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: What on earth does this have to do with child predators???

Are you saying the children asked for it?

No but apparently you are trying to make it seem like I said that for emotion effect and self-justification.

I remember a Fr Wolfe sermonette back in the day where he decried this kind of emotionalism in our Faith, and here you have it ...

A comment that is encouraging basic parenting skills and common sense and how the modern world has manipulated us into thinking that we don't need to be prudent, and changing this into some defense of pederasty!

You're proving what I said.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Not according to Fr Rizzo and others.  They at least deserve to be heard.

Fr Rizzo's allegations have been on the Internet for more than 20 years. They are easily found on any anti-SSPX site.

There are several reasons no one took them seriously until now (all also public by his own admission) :

  1. Before leaving the SSPX he started spreading the news about what he claimed happened in St Marys and with Fr Anglés among the faithful, which got him transferred around and restricted because of the divisions he was causing
  2. He never took the matters to the Superior General when he allegedly got an unsatisfactory response from the District Superior, he just took matters into his own hands,
  3. He never reported any of this to any civil authorities,
  4. When he finally did leave the SSPX, the first thing he did was to go to St Marys and try to set up an alternative Mass venue to draw people away from the SSPX.
  5. In the intervening 35 year he has still, at least as far as we can tell, never gone to the civil authorities about anything he learned.
The allegations Fr Rizzo has made have been heard for a long time, and come to nothing, not because of inaction on the part of the SSPX, but his own.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: What would it take for some of you on this thread to say, "Hmm...if that happened that's not good.  Something should be done about it."

Read almost every post above and you will find even myself saying that if there are problems they need to be fixed, and it does seem like the SSPX is doing at least something, with the Plan to Protect program and cooperating with investigations (and even publishing police contacts to report abuse if people do have evidence).

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:'s all wrong....we know it's's all clumny and lies....we don't even need to look further because the SSPX is above all scrutiny

No one has said this. Histrionics and your own mind has, but no one here has claimed everything is calumny, but there's a large helping of calumny and detraction in Niles' piece.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Like I said, I don't care about Voris but I do care about children and if people in authority are covering up for sexual predators it needs to be exposed and taken care of whether it's in the Vatican, the NO, the FSSP, the SSPX or anywhere else.

Interesting then that Voris' has, by his own admission, sat on this story for the last 8 months, and that they continue to defend Fr Perrone who has been accused of indecencies (but of course cannot be guilty), and have not mentioned any of the FSSP problems or ICK issues which also do exist, and in the Fr McLucas article fail to mention that these problems he is accused of happened under the time when he was with the FSSP.

I wish this were about protecting children, but the vitriol of Niles and Voris suggests a vendetta and exploiting victims, not seeking to help them.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: From CM

Fr. Abbet case, meaning how they twist it, is this: An internal SSPX tribunal cleared him of guilt years before the secular court trial when other sex abuse allegations were brought by distraught parents who discovered their child had been abused by the priest. The SSPX leadership asked the parents to not go public with their allegations. That is the definition of a cover-up.

When he reoffended with other children — meaning sexually assaulted them, which they always do — the civil courts convicted him. Only then did the SSPX cooperate, when they were forced to. But he should have been turned over to civil authorities years earlier instead of their little internal proceedings, which freed him and turned him loose on even more children.

They say this, but have not provided any evidence. If "an internal SSPX tribunal" cleared him, that matter would be, canonically, sealed, so CM would not have access to it. If an accused is exonerated in a canonical investigation, justice demands that the records be sealed, because to not allow this would be to blacken his name or risk it.

So at best this is gossip and at worst wholecloth invention to fit a narrative. Note that CM never provides any quotes, or sources for this, just narrative. If you parse what they wrote it is easy to find out what is unsubstantiated and what is sourced, and most of the article falls away as narrative without sourcing.

Since CM's has been proven to lie in the past to fit a narrative, if you want to claim this, the find an independent source.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Our original e-mail inquiry was about the priest Fr. Duveger (a priest with numerous allegations), who had been transferred to a school.  The internal back and forth says "We can admit there are some restrictions on him, but most people will still think it bizarre he's at a school." Then the discussion advances to admit there are many ugly cases in France, and that Church Militant is going to discover the "veritable gold mine" of cases here in the United States.

CM has many verifiable facts wrong about the Duverger case, just as they did with the McLucas case (and have refused to correct provably false claims)

Firstly, Fr Duverger was accused by Jassy Jacas of indecent words to her when she was over 20 years old. He is accused by her of indecent talk in spiritual direction. No assault is alleged.

Secondly, Fr Duverger was never at a school before Florida. He was never assigned to St Marys, as CM suggests. He was assigned to the District House. CM reports that "after he left St Marys" but he was never in St Marys, at least never assigned there.

Thirdly, as the SSPX statement from Florida says the allegations Jacas were reported, with lots of text, none of that revealed any kind of crime or even a sin. It does seem like her complain was read, and it was not judged credible enough to begin some canonical process. We only now have publicly her accusation, but no details on what she actually submitted to the US District, except her claim. Since we can't judge those unknown documents she provided, it is pretty difficult to make a judgement that the US District was wrong in their approach here. Perhaps Jacas would agree to the US District releasing all of the documents she provided. So far we have only her accusation.

Fourthly, if you look at the e-mail quoted, the concern is appearances, because the fear is that CM will spin an accusation about an alleged adult into some issue about children. Fr Duverger was sent far away from Jacas, forbidden from hearing womens' confessions and giving spiritual direction, and given a role in a primary school. So no Perhaps this was imprudent, but the accusations were about impropriety with an adult woman, not with young children, and his access to private meetings with women was cut off. The prudence can be questioned, but seeing as there was never any allegations of problems with children, I don't see your complaint. Should a primary school teacher who has cheated on his wife with an adult women, be forever banned from teaching? I don't see the logic, but I see that you're conflating (as CM is doing) abuse cases of children with what is alleged of Fr Duverger (and has not been proven in any way) ... which is exactly what the e-mail chain visible in the CM report suggests would happen, and why the issue of a "gold mine". Jacas makes the allegation about improper words, CM tries to twist it into abuse of children and then say, "see he's at a school!"

Fifthly, if you look at the actual e-mail quoted (and not the CM spin on it) it says that Jacas' allegations will be an "absolute gold mine" for CM. It does not say that there are a "absolute gold mine" of cases. Vogel writes that since CM has already dug into the public cases in France, if they speak to Jacas her story will be an "absolute gold mine". In other words, CM will be able to milk her story to fit their narrative, given that they already did that with the "ugly cases in France" in the McLucas article, where they ... took an allegation about McLucas towards an adult and then spun it into an issue about ... abuse of children. The MO of CM seems to be to bring the allegations around to child abuse by the SSPX, even when that is not what their main source provides.

Why did Vogel think this about the Jacas case? I don't know, but I imagine being able to see those documents that she provided would perhaps be important to see. Perhaps she should ask that the SSPX release them, or do that herself. Maybe they are detailed and damning, perhaps they are just wild speculations and interpretations. We can't know, and so objectively looking at the e-mail, it could mean a lot of things, but certainly does not mean that there is a "gold mine" of cases which is what CM suggests.

Why would Jacas have a "gold mine" of cases? That makes no sense, even though it's what CM suggests, as if Jacas is some source to collect abuse reports.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I want accountablity for superiors who are derelict in protecting minors.

Fair enough, but the Jacas case is not about a minor.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:Lastly, it is not the responsibility of the faithful to police the superiors of a religious society of which they are not members. If you don't like what's happening, stop the donations and take your family elsewhere. Vote with your feet and pocketbook. That's the option and it can be quite effective.
No. That's not enough.  Allowing other children of unsuspecting parents to be harmed because of a derelict of duty by superiors and coverup is accomplice to sin.  If resolution cannot be made within the proper ranks, it's time to go public as some have.

So if a wife cannot get her husband to stop his pornography use, time to out him to everyone?

Again, Jacas' allegations are not about children, so I don't get your obsession with trying to suggest that publicizing that allegation is about "proytecting children". It is not.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:No one prefers the predator to the victim!

Feelings, outrage and anger do nothing in themselves, but even so no one has any lack of feeling for victims of abuse except perhaps the abuser, and even many of them after their crimes do have great sorrow for their crimes.

Feelings and outrage and anger are only useful if they cause us to do something practical to prevent and punish abuse. That certainly seems to be happening, but it's not enough for CM, or you apparently.

What would be enough? What is sufficient? Burn it all down?
Did I say that? No, of course not!

You de facto accuse anyone who takes even the slightest issue here with CM or opposes your opinion as not interested in "protecting children".

You label everyone in the thread and they say you didn't. Again, your histrionic emotional response blinds you to reality and any objectivity, and any ability to actually advocate for victims.

Everyone is labeled as not interested in "protecting children" except you, of course.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I have a close friend who I've know throughout his seminary years and early priesthood only to be falsely accused by a woman and is now living in a state of limbo...neither removed from the priesthood but unable to say Mass or exercise priestly faculties.  It's absolutely tragic and the whole thing was a set up because he was a whistle blower on the homo cabal in the diocese up to the Bishop's office.

I have a great deal of feeling, outrage and anger about this situation.

Does that mean I can't also have outrage and anger about predator priests being moved around as if shuffling them from place to place will stop them from harming children, as well as anger at those who refuse to look at the facts and consider there could be something wrong going on because it's their favorite priests and those leaders can do no wrong?

It's possible to feel both.

And yet, knowing that situation for that poor priest, you are ready on pure unsubstantiated allegations and your emotional indignation and inability to be even somewhat self-critical to crucify other priests.

If there are real problems there a channels for this, and it's not the media.

I know several SSPX priests who have been verbally attacked now as predators, spit at, and had hate mail sent. I know some who have been physically threatened with harm or death for being child molesters. None are mentioned in the CM report. They won't speak publicly about this because they want to offer it up, but they have spoken among friends.

Already Voris and Niles are partially to blame for those attacks. Should someone follow through with one of those threats, they will have this on their own hands.

I want victims to have justice and to prevent abuse. But the Catholic version of TMZ is not the way to do this.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MyLady

Messages In This Thread
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-22-2020, 04:00 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-23-2020, 12:31 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-23-2020, 12:38 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-23-2020, 02:28 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-23-2020, 03:22 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by JacksonE - 04-23-2020, 08:12 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-24-2020, 10:41 AM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by JacksonE - 04-24-2020, 01:20 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-24-2020, 03:13 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Maximian - 04-27-2020, 07:09 AM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-27-2020, 11:14 AM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Adventus - 04-24-2020, 05:25 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by piscis - 04-25-2020, 06:17 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by piscis - 04-25-2020, 06:31 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by MagisterMusicae - 04-27-2020, 11:33 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Fionnchu - 04-27-2020, 07:58 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Fionnchu - 04-28-2020, 04:50 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Fionnchu - 04-28-2020, 04:55 PM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by piscis - 04-29-2020, 12:24 AM
SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by RyanPatrick - 05-03-2020, 11:16 AM
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by Te Deum - 05-04-2020, 09:01 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)