SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
#11
CM has had an axe to grind with SSPX for some time now. That doesn't, however, make the documented cases untrue or that this isn't a problem in the SSPX. 
[-] The following 3 users Like Adventus's post:
  • Augustinian, MagisterMusicae, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#12
The response of a layman on an SSPX Facebook group I belong to (emphasis mine):

Several members have posted a link to Church Militant’s latest attack upon the SSPX which I believe necessitates a response.

A disclaimer:  I am a layman and do not speak for the SSPX.  I am not nor have I ever been employed by the SSPX.  I am a volunteer administrator of this Facebook group. 

I am, however, familiar with several people mentioned in the article:  I know Fathers Wegner, Vernoy and Duverget.  I am personal friends with Kurt Chione and I am Facebook friends with Jassy Jacas.  I have entrusted three of my eleven sons to the priests of the SSPX and after 20 years of experience with the SSPX I have never had reason to be concerned about their conduct, whether individually or as a fraternity of priests.

That having been said, anyone can see in the Church Militant article there is not a single new first-hand account of abuse, nor is there a single new corroborated allegation of abuse.  There are no law enforcement sources claiming a criminal investigation is underway.

It is easy in April of 2020 to make allegations against Catholic priests, especially the few priests remaining in the United States who are providing sacraments to the laity.  However, we should be concerned with truth and justice and not mere allegations.

To the point:  Kurt Chione, who is a member of this group, cooperated with Church Militant and is quoted in the article.  I regret that he has done this because he should have known that his comments would be used in a dishonest and deceptive manner by Church Militant in their long-running war against the SSPX.


Although I do not doubt that Kurt has the best of intentions, he has not reported any first-hand accounts of abuse.


Additionally, Miss Jacas has alleged only unseemly conversation between an adult female (herself), and a priest of the SSPX.  I personally corresponded with Miss Jacas and asked her why she was making these accusations public rather than pursuing a criminal or civil case against the priest(s) in question.  She could not explain.


This is problematic for several reasons; if Miss Jacas were interested in justice, she would want criminal action taken to both punish the guilty and to protect other innocent people.  If she were currently engaged in a criminal investigation, she would not be talking publicly about it.


If a criminal investigation was not warranted by the facts, she would pursue civil litigation against the defendants to punish them for their actions.  By her own admission, she is not involved in civil litigation.  This suggests there is not sufficient evidence even to warrant a civil lawsuit.


Thus we are left with unsubstantiated allegations (at best gossip, and at worst, calumny), by several lay Catholics with no supporting evidence.


If it bears a striking resemblance to the Left’s campaign against Catholic Justice Kavanaugh, that’s with good reason; he, too, was smeared publicly without any corroborating evidence.  We Catholics must adhere to a higher standard of discourse, both privately and publicly.  In fact, the higher the dignity of the accused, the greater our obligation to charity and prudence.


I do not doubt that the SSPX, as the Church, has had problems with homosexual infiltrators.  I do not doubt that among the priests of the fraternity there are men who suffer temptations to impurity with adult women.  This, of course, is not the issue; what the SSPX has done over the last four decades is precisely what we Catholics should hope they would do when there is credible evidence of abuse or inappropriate conduct; they have removed the priest in question from active ministry.


I am open to any person in good faith who wants to discuss these matters with me privately.  If you have been wtiness to abuse or are a victim of abuse, contact the police.  If you are unsure of what to do, you may contact me and I will give my best advice.  If you think there is some coverup taking place, feel free to contact me. 

(Here he inserted his personal contact info) I will not permit this group to be used for gossip and calumny, which means the recent article by Church Militant does not qualify for inclusion in this group. 

Posts which violate this rule will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 7 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • , Fionnchu, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, MagisterMusicae, Quickbeam, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#13
I know quite a few of these people (both the priests, men and accusers), and quite a bit about the allegation from my long years with the SSPX in various chapels. As Jovan points out, there is nothing new about any of these accusations, some of which have been tried in a Canonical court which the Holy See organized and Bishop Fellay oversaw, before passing the cases to the CDF.

I can say that there were/are problems. As SHL says, scandals are inevitable in any group. We are sinners and will inevitably give into sin at some point in some way. There have been abuse cases.

I can also say however, that much like the Pell case, many of these accusation are almost certainly impossible. Back in the 1990s when I was in university near St Mary's I regularly went there and was one of Fr Anglès' "boys". He was very supportive and helpful, and not once did I ever detect anything remotely like this. I can also say that the man who is at best 5'6" if not shorter was terribly unhealthy and easily 350 lbs at the time if not larger. He needed to sit down for his sermons, and took ages to walk around campus. Physically, what he is accused of by CM (sodomy of a young man) is highly unlikely, even if it is theoretically possible.

I can also say that much of this is simply impossible and CM executing a vendetta, which they must know is mudracking or are so blinded by their donations/hatred that they cannot see this. For those that they will unjustly harm by this effort, I would not want to have to answer for that.

One of the biggest indications of this was back in the last mudslinging fest, where just after their chaplain was credibly accused of indecencies and it came to light that he was helping abusive priests to find treatment and the falsely-accused to help clear their name and deal with their situation, they defended him, while attacking the SSPX. Again, that does not eliminate the possibility of a real problem with some in the SSPX, but I think it does show that CM is not ethical or fair, and does not have a good will behind this.

There are also factual inaccuracies which are easy to show in their report. Fr Pierre Duverger, for instance is said to have been in St Marys when what he is accused of happened. He was never assigned to St Marys, but was, for a time, at the District House (which has no school or chapel attached to it) which is a 90 minute drive away. That would be a very basic fact that could be verified, and yet such a simple fact is incorrect. Fr Duverger could have easily gone to St Marys and probably did visit for some extended periods, so the accusation is possible. What he is accused of is not necessarily false, but clearly many of the basic facts CM prints are incorrect and verifiably so.

Another clear manipulative statement is about the priest-penitent privilege. That is a civil legal standard. It does not merely protect confessional knowledge, but any knowledge that the pastor obtains from the faithful in private conversations. It is like the doctor-patient privilege or husband-wife privilege. It means that those in the relationship cannot be forced to give evidence. There is also the moral-pastoral-canonical Seal of the Confessional. That's a canonical matter, not a civil matter. Such confidentiality, but not under the same seal also extends to private conversations and counselling by means of a Professional duty. In general spiritual direction or advice is also never to be divulged and would be sinful. The only exception to that is if immediate harm would come to the person or a third party without revealing. Thus "I was abused" may not rise to a level where the priest can do anything. "I am being abused" always will.

There is always the question in prudence when someone says, "My dad abused me 10 years ago." First to help the abused person, but also to ensure that more abuse is impossible. If there is no serious risk of further harm, though, more harm than good could come by opening this situation. As a teacher I've dealt with many such situations with the Child Welfare folks and historic abuse (and often the advice from the State professionals is not to open the old wounds, so long as there's no chance for further abuse).

So I find it always unfair to bring up that someone told a priest and he did nothing. Firstly the priest cannot defend himself without sin, and secondly, it was a prudential decision that could have been wrong or correct, and we can never have the facts to judge this adequately. I would say this with the SSPX as much as anyone else.

It is also why I am fully in favor of "name supression" like they do in some countries when trials are ongoing and investigations happening. That way authorities can actually investigate without the trial by press. The guilty are tried and then their names revealed. The innocents' names are never published, meaning they can return to normalcy afterward.

Also, I would be hesitant to consider simply trying to deal with such situations as "coverups". Clearly every organization which has some potential scandal will internally discuss what to do and how to present it. If one of your family were accused of the neighbor of something wrong, is the immediate response to shout the accusation to the world and the whole family and then turn over the person for execution?

"How do we hide the truth from everyone" is a coverup. Shameful and it should be punished. "How do we present the situation to the authorities and the faithful in order to protect them from scandal, protect the priest/accused from the damage of a false accusation, investigate the matter, and then proceed through the proper canonical and legal channels?" is not a coverup.

I'd also note, much to the bane of several of my priest-friends in the SSPX (because of the mountain of paperwork and complications it causes), that the SSPX has put in place an independent-certified program to deal with these matters, which is the standard for most organizations. That seems a very important part of the story: Look at this filth, but note that they did implement an internationally-recognized program to help deal with and prevent such problems.
[-] The following 9 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • , Augustinian, Fionnchu, Ioannes_L, JacksonE, Joe T, Quickbeam, Roger Buck, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#14
(04-22-2020, 05:06 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: One of the biggest indications of this was back in the last mudslinging fest, where just after their chaplain was credibly accused of indecencies and it came to light that he was helping abusive priests to find treatment and the falsely-accused to help clear their name and deal with their situation, they defended him, while attacking the SSPX. 

And that was exactly when I quit trusting CM and sharing their material.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 6 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • , CopiosaApudEumRedemptio, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, MagisterMusicae, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#15
ChurchMilitant, oh how far they have fallen.
[-] The following 4 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • , CopiosaApudEumRedemptio, jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#16
I'm sure this attack was prompted by the kerfluffle of the last week or so over Taylor Marshall expressing his appreciation for the SSPX. CM can't stand the Society being justly praised.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • , Fionnchu
Reply
#17
(04-22-2020, 07:38 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I'm sure this attack was prompted by the kerfluffle of the last week or so over Taylor Marshall expressing his appreciation for the SSPX. CM can't stand the Society being justly praised.

So is it safe to say that Taylor Marshall will no longer be invited on CM then?
Reply
#18
Well, like I said in the OP, I hated posting this but I knew the info was going to be going around anyway and wanted to give it an opportunity to be clarified by those here who might have more info.

There are no sacred cows, and things need to be sorted out as best we can.
Reply
#19
(04-22-2020, 07:38 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I'm sure this attack was prompted by the kerfluffle of the last week or so over Taylor Marshall expressing his appreciation for the SSPX. CM can't stand the Society being justly praised.

Voris said as much in that Twitter storm.

They've been planning this now, according to him for 8 months, which, if you recall was when they ran the McLucas stuff. It's the usually timing for Voris. About every 6-12 months between hit pieces.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#20
(04-22-2020, 08:01 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Well, like I said in the OP, I hated posting this but I knew the info was going to be going around anyway and wanted to give it an opportunity to be clarified by those here who might have more info.

There are no sacred cows, and things need to be sorted out as best we can.

Amen.

I think this shows us that the whole "Freedom of the Press" and "Free Speech" can easily be abused when people do not have Virtue or they think they have Virtue, but it is not balanced.

For a short time I lived in New Zealand earlier in my life. For all of it's problems, one thing I initially thought was stupid was "name suppression" where the press was legally prohibited from naming a person charged with a crime or under investigation for a crime. The case could be reported, the victim could speak out (without identifying the accused directly or indirectly), but the identity of the person who was accused was protected. It all seemed backwards and "hush hush".

I came to appreciate it, however, since that allows police and investigators and courts to study the actual allegations. Thus people feel more free to make accusations without risking backlash or names being sullied, the police can investigate without risking the good name of an accused, and the accused has much more of a likelihood of an unbiased jury. The press cannot sully the person until they are declared guilty and the name suppression lapses.

I fully understand that there are priests, and may be even SSPX priests who are predators and have done evil things. I understand that, perhaps the dioceses and religious societies cannot be trusted to fairly investigate and treat the cases, but when then not a means for true investigation without detraction or calumny?

If a man's secret crimes are publicized it is detraction. If a man's false but alleged secret crimes are publicized it is calumny. Catholic morality can countenance neither, no matter the good that may come from this. No evil may be done that good come from it.

There must be a healthy balance between a wall of silence and the National Enquirer. That would not only help real justice be had, but also help victims to report things without fearing that they will get dragged through the mud on the way.

Imagine if that happened in the Pell case? The victim makes the claim, without the press knowing about who, the investigation happens, the trials happen, no trial by press, and when the court eventually finds Pell innocent, he goes back to as much normalcy as possible, rather than forever being stained. All people know is that the verdict was innocent and they don't even find out who.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Adventus, Fionnchu, SeekerofChrist
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)