Church Militant : a purveyor of detraction and slander?
#31
(07-29-2019, 11:11 PM)St.Eliza Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 06:09 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 05:55 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: But Jovan, How can you say that? You must not know the facts. The court case is easy to read, and here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH6RGZd...SstrE/view

What part of THERE IS NO COURT CASE don't you understand? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to realise that there has never been a trial of any sort, civil or canonical.


The blind defending of ANYTHING that SSPX does, even this, reminds me of the American Bishops refusing to police or acknowledge (unless absolutely forced) their predator cronies.

I'm sure your motive is good. It's loyalty. But it's misplaced. We need to loyally stand with the victims, and that includes SSPX parishioners whose children were exposed to a known predator.

Nobody is denying this point. The issue surrounding Church Militant in this instance is that they are once again using it as an excuse to slander the Society.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#32
(07-29-2019, 11:11 PM)St.Eliza Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 06:09 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 05:55 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: But Jovan, How can you say that? You must not know the facts. The court case is easy to read, and here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH6RGZd...SstrE/view

What part of THERE IS NO COURT CASE don't you understand? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm smart enough to realise that there has never been a trial of any sort, civil or canonical.

Yes, you and SeekerofChrist are right, I used the wrong term.

 Yes, McLucas paid good money (whose money?) to make sure dirt his crime did not go public by settling, which had the added bonus of silencing his victims. However However, there are Court Papers and that is what I was referring to. 

The blind defending of ANYTHING that SSPX does, even this, reminds me of the American Bishops refusing to police or acknowledge (unless absolutely forced) their predator cronies.

I'm sure your motive is good. It's loyalty. But it's misplaced. We need to loyally stand with the victims, and that includes SSPX parishioners whose children were exposed to a known predator.

No one has defended the SSPX as if everything they do is right. The only person who has defended someone blindly is you. You said essentially Voris and CM cannot be wrong. So you join in the slander now, too.

You accuse Fr McLucas of paying someone off to silence unproven crimes for which no public evidence exists. Plenty of accusations which have never been tried in any court. Fr McLucas must be a predator because Voris says it.

Shame on you.

Stand with the victims? Which SSPX parishoners have claimed victim status?
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#33
(07-29-2019, 11:40 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(07-29-2019, 11:11 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: I'm sure your motive is good. It's loyalty. But it's misplaced. We need to loyally stand with the victims, and that includes SSPX parishioners whose children were exposed to a known predator.

Nobody is denying this point. The issue surrounding Church Militant in this instance is that they are once again using it as an excuse to slander the Society.

I would deny that point.

There is zero proof that Fr McLucas did anything which could qualify as this.

Do I admit it is possible? Sure. Even good people can do horrible things. Every one of us is capable of the worst sins possible in the right circumstance.

Is there any evidence for it? No. So Fr McLucas deserves the presumption of innocence.

The only people who think an accusation which has never been adjudicated is enough to label a man a "predator" is CM and Eliza.

Were there any evidence, fine, but absent any evidence to label such a man a "predator" is at the least a grave sin of rash judgement and slander.

To quote Prümmer on rash judgement : "Rash judgement in its strict sense is a grave sin of injustice which admits of slight matter. This is so, since it violates the perfect right which each man has to the good esteem of men until the contrary is proven."

To judge a man as a "predator" when one has no evidence is accusing him publicly of a grave sin, without any reasonable foundation of such, violating his right to his good name when there is no proof of such.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#34
McLucas Allegations:
- He met her at 14 when her parents asked him to help her and had her fly out from the Archdiocese of NY to CALIFORNIA where there family home was. She was depressed, lonely, and struggling with anorexia. After the visit they paid him to talk to her for an hour a week, and he began immediately, and continued with hour long phone calls EVERY WEEK.

- By age 15, these phone calls had increased to EVERY OTHER DAY! Extreme!

- When the teen left for college in Florida, McLucas increased his calls to DAILY.

All it takes is plane tickets and phone records to prove all those allegations.

- After 2 years at Ava Maria, she returned home for the summer and he flew out to California to stay at her/her parents house. Now of age, he relentlessly solicited pressured her for sex, and she gave in at her parents house. Before left to return to NY, he persuaded her parents to fly her to NY for more "counseling sessions" that summer, assuring them there would be a chaperone at his house.  Instead, immediately upon her arrival, he drove her hotel in Poughkeepsie for sex every day.  Hotel records are easily produced, and likely also witnesses. 

- There are additional court papers filed, seen in this link, that describe the sex that week in Poughkeepsie as a deviant, violent assault by McLucas, which requirid medical care at the time and for which she suffers permanent disability and continuing rehabilitation and medical care today

And since since this accusation was submitted to the court in order to establish a case, you can be sure the lawyers had evidence to back it up. Most likely from her doctors at the time and her doctors for continuing care today.

- After that summer she transferred to finish college in New Hampshire - and he came up to stay with her in a local hotel EVERY OTHER WEEKEND for the next TWO YEARS of college! Again, the lawyers could easily obtain hotel receipts, and find witnesses for two years of bi-weekly hotel stays. 

[It goes on]. 

This is so far from a "consenting adult sexual liaison" .
Reply
#35
(07-29-2019, 11:11 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Yes, McLucas paid good money (whose money?) to make sure dirt his crime did not go public by settling, which had the added bonus of silencing his victims.

As MM pointed out, settling out of court doesn't mean someone is guilty.  It is, by definition, not a judgment by the court, one way or the other.  That is actually really easy to understand.  The American legal system can be a real beast and if someone gets sucked into a case, it can easily rip that person to shreds, whether they're guilty or not. 

Quote:The blind defending of ANYTHING that SSPX does, even this, reminds me of the American Bishops refusing to police or acknowledge (unless absolutely forced) their predator cronies.

This is a strawman.  No one here has blindly defended everything the SSPX does.  In fact, this thread is solely about one thing the SSPX has done, which is work with Fr. McLucas.

Quote:I'm sure your motive is good. It's loyalty. But it's misplaced. We need to loyally stand with the victims, and that includes SSPX parishioners whose children were exposed to a known predator.

I am a sexual abuse survivor.  Don't lecture me about loyally standing with victims.  To blindly believe accusations against a person without a shred of evidence (other than, apparently, these "court papers" you keep referencing) is not standing with victims.  CM's piece did nothing to establish Fr. McLucas is a sexual predator or that the SSPX has sheltered him.

Quote:Those papers were preparation for a court case that did not go forward but was settled. You must be aware that the victim's lawyers would not have made those public accusations had they not had evidence to support the accusations.

You really have no idea how the legal system in the United States works.  You also don't seem to understand how lawyers operate.  This was a civil case.  The standard of evidence is actually lower than in a criminal court, which is less than encouraging when one wants to invest the kind of authority into these documents as you seem to want to.  Just because her lawyers took on her case doesn't mean they had a lot of evidence.  I don't think it'll change your mind, but I recommend you read this for some basic facts about legal standards of proof: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/...proof.html.  Your argument simply isn't convincing.  The filing of a civil lawsuit hardly means the case against Fr. McLucas was as slam dunk as you seem to believe.

Quote:And since since this accusation was submitted to the court in order to establish a case, you can be sure the lawyers had evidence to back it up. Most likely from her doctors at the time and her doctors for continuing care today.

No, you can't be sure.  You're clearly assuming here, based on a lack of information about the legal process.  You seem to think that because the court accepted the filing (it is rare to see a filing like this rejected), it means there was hard evidence.  That is pure assumption and can easily be wrong.

Quote:Because no evidence is provided that Church Militant is doing anything other than its mission, the mission we maligned and misused lay people want them to have - Expose sexual predators, and their covers, in the clergy.  SSPX has clergy, SSPX is catholic, SSPX are comprised of humans, so, they may have some mistakes to answer for. What is hard to understand about that?

And CM, as well as you, have provided no evidence that the accusations against Fr. McLucas are true or that the SSPX was his cover.  Repeatedly posting the woman's accusations against Fr. McLucas isn't evidence.  What is hard to understand about that?
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#36
[Seems to be extraneous]
Reply
#37
(07-30-2019, 12:42 AM)St.Eliza Wrote: 2. The case was settled out of court. If you read the filed court papers, it is pretty silly to assume McLucas got away from these credible, easily provable accusations without paying them off. (Of course no public record of their out-of-court settlement exists!)

The accusations might have been easily provable.  We don't actually know that.  You assert it, of course, but provide no evidence other than, well your assertion that her legal team just had to have evidence because, well, they filed a lawsuit.  Your argument has no merit.  And I did read the the court papers you keep linking to.  I am not silly to presume innocence due to a lack of evidence.  It doesn't matter that "of course no public record" exists.  That is actually part of the point.  You claim evidence exists without knowing that is really the case.  No amount of "her lawyers wouldn't have filed" will change that, or turn your unsubstantiated claims about evidence (alleged medical records, plane tickets, witnesses, etc.) into credible claims for your position here.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 1 user Likes SeekerofChrist's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply
#38
extraneous
Reply
#39
moer extraneous
Reply
#40
extraneous
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)