SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
#61
(04-27-2020, 03:32 PM)Daniel-AH Wrote: If you do not want the man near your daughters you are free to go to another church or explain the priest how the man could abuse someone during the very mass. If you think some law is being broken feel free to notify the police. Scandal is leading others to sin, but someone who repents and goes to mass doesn't do this. Mass is not some kind of society event, and it is not only receiving the host in a couple minutes.

If someone is accused what is done depends on the evidence that is given, and each case is a different thing. I do not comment on transferring someone to a school because I don't know how credible the accusations were or what he did in the school, or for how long.

If some priest did something that prevented some abuser from being caught then that priest should apologize. But at least I will not ever apologize for something I have played no part in. This is different form offering your suffering for someone of course.

I do not care about Voris either, this is just my reasoning

How would I know that my daughters should not be around this man if no one told me?

Sex offenders, especially those who prey on their own children, can be forgiven, but they cannot be rehabilitated!

Of course he isn't going to rape anyone in the pew.  Don't be naive.  They prey slowly by grooming with kind gestures and smiles...etc.

The priest was accused of sexual misconduct and the response was to send him to a school in France.  I don't care if he is guilty or not, this is the worst possible way of handling this case both for the children and for the credibility of the SSPX.

The very words, "A discreet amount" belittle the amount of pain and suffering the victims have endured!

There is no outpouring of sadness or grief for them, just an attempt to make it all seem as small and trivial as possible.

I grew up with this problem in my Charismatic community.  My best friend was being raped by her father and she told the elders (including my own Dad) and they did not turn him into the police but handled it "internally".

When my friend was 18 and her Dad started going after her little sister she went to the police but the guy skipped town.
Reply
#62
Nobody tells me either about the sins of everyone around me. Child offenders can be rehabilitated, just like robbers or murderers of which we do not say "well what if they murder someone someday?". The priest can perfectly keep watch on him or tell him to keep a distance with children. That's it. But again, each case would depend on the knowledge that the priest has of the person.

I don't comment on the school transfer because I don't know any of the circumstances. The police may have already taken a look at the claims and considered them non-credible Pell style, so that the case would already be closed and he could be transferred to avoid gossip.

These matters are relatively private, they are serious things and shouldn't be turned into some kind of spectacle when people act reasonably, which is mainly informing the police like any other case of abuse. Priests do not have to play police.
[-] The following 3 users Like Daniel-AH's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Tertius, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#63
 
Quote:Child offenders can be rehabilitated, just like robbers or murderers of which we do not say "well what if they murder someone someday?". The priest can perfectly keep watch on him or tell him to keep a distance with children. 


I'm sorry, but it is very clear that you have not studied the nature of sex offenders whatsoever!


NO!  They cannot be rehabilitated!

Especially someone who has raped their very own daughter and was convicted of it!

And NO!  The priest cannot keep watch on him unless he is handcuffed to him or tell him to keep a distance with children like the guy will be all okay with that!  No worries.

That's insane!
Reply
#64
They can with precaution and just common sense. End of the story. I'm tired of emotional appeals from all parties.

People should start thinking with the brain instead of with emotions.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Daniel-AH's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#65
(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: How would I know that my daughters should not be around this man if no one told me?

Well, firstly, he did not attack other girls, but his own. Yes, terrible, and a monster, but his crimes were when he had the power and opportunity. Having dealt as a teacher with these kinds of things (and been trained by experts as part of that teacher training in the basics of these matters), the idea that a crime like this in one environment automatically means it would happen in any is silly and part of the biggest problem in dealing properly with these matters.

Firstly, why would you ever let a older man ingratiate himself with your daughters in any way that could lead to this, whether or not he had a history? Why would a 50-year-old man who was not a woman's father have any access to her for private conversation or the like? Would not normal prudence and decorum protect most people from him offending again?

Secondly, what is the problem with being in the church with such a man? He is a sinner. So are we. He is a Catholic. So are we. If he has paid his debt to society through jail or other

Absolutely, we need to protect people from such predators, but the question is what accomplishes this and yet is just for both society, the victim and criminal. The death penalty would solve petty theft, too.

Would you have all criminals and sinners forbidden from the Sacraments? No more Sunday Masses, I guess. The Church does not do that, and never has. She expects repentance, and a real repentance, but when someone is repentant, once they agree to repair for the damage as much as possible, she forgives even the most strict penalties.

(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Sex offenders, especially those who prey on their own children, can be forgiven, but they cannot be rehabilitated!

Depends on what you mean.

If by rehabilitated one means that they can get to a place where, like an alcoholic, they can function normally so long as the things which will lead them to sin are not around them, then yes, every person can be rehabilitated from the worst sins, if they are willing to work with those who can help them, and abide by prudent restrictions.

If you mean to function as if the sin had never happened—that the alcoholic can go back to moderate drinking—that is impossible for every sinner.

Having sinned we are never the same, and acting like "its forgiven" and that's all there is to it is what will lead all of us back into sin, even if we just commit venial sins.

(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Of course he isn't going to rape anyone in the pew.  Don't be naive.  They prey slowly by grooming with kind gestures and smiles...etc.

Which, if you teach your girls not to warm up to, or accept favors or gifts or attention from men who are not their immediate relatives, then grooming is not an issue here.

When would, sitting in a pew, if people were actually paying attention to the Mass and acting like Catholics, grooming be an issue?

I know of a similar case elsewhere (not the father but a Brother-in-Law), where the priests did turn in the offender. He confessed to the police, sought help, did his jail time with the priests visiting to give him the Sacraments. After he was released, the court order demanded he stay away from the family, and girls that were harmed, and so the priests allowed him to come to Mass but only with another man who would be his chaperone, and he would leave right away and not stay for conversation or come to social events.

If a man is repentant, he would want to follow the restrictions and part of his long-term penance.

Perhaps that was done in the case you mention, but no one was told. It is easy to spin a lack of information into a lack of care. And simply, we don't know, and neither is it our duty or business to know.

(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: The priest was accused of sexual misconduct and the response was to send him to a school in France. I don't care if he is guilty or not, this is the worst possible way of handling this case both for the children and for the credibility of the SSPX.

Was that the response? and what is meant by a "school". Most "schools" in the SSPX are at priories, and most priories have schools. In short, it is pretty impossible for a priest to be sent where there isn't a school. Again, easy to spin this.

In many priories the school is not at the same location, and is a distance away, meaning, that a priest could be assigned to a priory with a school (say St Louis, since I know it), but the school is a 30 minute drive away and only some of the priests go there for a short period each day. If a priest were, during an investigation, placed at the priory, he would be easily able to be prevented from accessing a school.

A better question (which is never asked, and I wonder why ...) is was the priest given an active role in the school? Were the accusations credible?

Was this reassignment a temporary measure to separate him from those he was accused of sinful actions with?

If one stands back and looks at those who are always the loudest in these situations it always conflates all sexual indecency and assault together, and that is simple to simplistic a matter: A priest is accused of sexual innuendo in a conversation with a somewhat crazy 35-year-old woman, and so, be sure he's never allowed to be around 7-year-old boys. He's a pervert!

I'm not defending abuse, but we're terribly influenced by the hedonisic puritanism (really Jansenism) of the world. "Virtue signaling" is the modern term.

(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: There is no outpouring of sadness or grief for them, just an attempt to make it all seem as small and trivial as possible.

Such a statement shows your utter lack of objectivity!

Incredible.
Reply
#66
(04-27-2020, 03:25 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Perpetrators groom.

I remember back when I was little we were all told never to talk to strangers, or accept rides from them, or candy, etc.

The problem today is that for the last 30+ years we've started saying that we can act however we want and do whatever we want in public, and if someone is offended, or thinks evil, or is tempted, that's not our problem, it is theirs.

When a woman goes out dressed like a prostitute, drinks like a fish, dances seductively with men she does not know, and then ends up in bed with a man who she never would have wanted to sleep with otherwise, the world says it's his fault alone, and if you say "maybe she shouldn't have dressed like that, gotten drunk or come on to the man" you are "blaming the victim" and that's the worst crime. 

Yes. I am. At least for her part of the imprudence in making the situation possible.

An ounce of prevention ...

Grooming happens, but as someone who has had training in detecting it especially in children, so it can be reported and dealt with, I can tell you that the vast majority if not all, would be prevented by dropping that liberal "I can do as I please, and who are you to say I'm wrong" attitude and instead going back to that simple advice to children.
  • Don't talk to strangers, even if they're nice to you ... especially if they're nice to you.
  • Dress and act properly in public.
  • Don't do anything your grandmother (maybe now it should be your great-great grandmother) would blush if she saw.
  • Don't spend time alone with anyone who is not your immediate family or a very close friend.
  • Don't ever spend time alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not your wife/husband.
Effectively, if we did the Mike Pence thing with dinner and women (or its equivalent), and took the basic advice we got 40 years ago, 90% of abuse would not be possible. It won't prevent all cases, but the vast majority.

The proof that we're not doing this is if you look at what the world expects now in teaching young children. It is not "don't talk to strangers" but "don't let strangers touch you anywhere you don't want to be touched, but if you do like it that's okay, because it's okay to do whatever you want." Again, as a teacher I know that's the standard advice given now, because it's in all of the guides and manuals you find. We're teaching 5-year-olds sex ed, and how to abuse, and then trying to teach them it's okay if it's consensual.

That's exactly what I mean by puritanical hedonism.

Of course as Catholics, we don't overtly act this way and think ourselves virtuous, but sadly the spirit behind that often affects our responses.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#67
(04-27-2020, 04:45 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: How would I know that my daughters should not be around this man if no one told me?

Well, firstly, he did not attack other girls, but his own. Yes, terrible, and a monster, but his crimes were when he had the power and opportunity. Having dealt as a teacher with these kinds of things (and been trained by experts as part of that teacher training in the basics of these matters), the idea that a crime like this in one environment automatically means it would happen in any is silly and part of the biggest problem in dealing properly with these matters.

Firstly, why would you ever let a older man ingratiate himself with your daughters in any way that could lead to this, whether or not he had a history? Why would a 50-year-old man who was not a woman's father have any access to her for private conversation or the like? Would not normal prudence and decorum protect most people from him offending again?

Quote:Let's see.  If I'm at Mass with my five kids they tend to go off and play sports afterwards, go to the social hall, go to the parking lot to get their gym shoes, go to the bathroom, go to a classroom and hangout with other kids...etc. etc. etc.
So yes, there are plenty of opportunities for some very nice, gentlemanly man to ingratiate himself by asking for help with some packages, or finding a puppy, or a million other ways.

My daughter was standing in line at a museum watching her 4 year old brother and a man came up behind him and felt my little boys genitals.  So yeah....it happens....all the time.  Don't be naieve.


Secondly, what is the problem with being in the church with such a man? He is a sinner. So are we. He is a Catholic. So are we. If he has paid his debt to society through jail or other

Quote:No problem with sinners.  Problem with protecting children.


Absolutely, we need to protect people from such predators, but the question is what accomplishes this and yet is just for both society, the victim and criminal. The death penalty would solve petty theft, too.

Quote:Never suggested any such thing.  Suggested a private reception of the sacraments.


Would you have all criminals and sinners forbidden from the Sacraments? No more Sunday Masses, I guess. The Church does not do that, and never has. She expects repentance, and a real repentance, but when someone is repentant, once they agree to repair for the damage as much as possible, she forgives even the most strict penalties.



Quote:Didn't say anything of the kind.

(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Sex offenders, especially those who prey on their own children, can be forgiven, but they cannot be rehabilitated!

Depends on what you mean.

If by rehabilitated one means that they can get to a place where, like an alcoholic, they can function normally so long as the things which will lead them to sin are not around them, then yes, every person can be rehabilitated form the worst sins.

If you mean to function as if the sin had never happened—that the alcoholic can go back to moderate drinking—that is impossible for every sinner.

Having sinned we are never the same, and acting like "its forgiven" and that's all there is to it is what will lead all of us back into sin, even if we just commit venial sins.

Quote:Pyschologists will tell you that once someone has crossed such an egregious line with sexual matters and children, they no longer have the boundaries a normal person has and is at risk for the rest of their life for recidivism.


(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Of course he isn't going to rape anyone in the pew.  Don't be naive.  They prey slowly by grooming with kind gestures and smiles...etc.

Which, if you teach your girls not to warm up to, or accept favors or gifts or attention from men who are not their immediate relatives, then grooming is not an issue here.

When would, sitting in a pew, if people were actually paying attention to the Mass and acting like Catholics, grooming be an issue?

Quote:I made damn sure my daughters knew how to protect themselves and studied marshall arts.  Not everyone is as fortunate to have such training however, especially if they are a single mom dealing with poverty and abuse themselves.  In any case, it's not the child's fault.....EVER!


I know of a similar case elsewhere (not the father but a Brother-in-Law), where the priests did turn in the offender. He confessed to the police, sought help, did his jail time with the priests visiting to give him the Sacraments. After he was released, the court order demanded he stay away from the family, and girls that were harmed, and so the priests allowed him to come to Mass but only with another man who would be his chaperone, and he would leave right away and not stay for conversation or come to social events.

If a man is repentant, he would want to follow the restrictions and part of his long-term penance.

Perhaps that was done in the case you mention, but no one was told. It is easy to spin a lack of information into a lack of care. And simply, we don't know, and neither is it our duty or business to know.

Quote:There are public registries for sex offenders for a reason.  


(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: The priest was accused of sexual misconduct and the response was to send him to a school in France. I don't care if he is guilty or not, this is the worst possible way of handling this case both for the children and for the credibility of the SSPX.

Was that the response, and what is meant by a "school". Most "schools" in the SSPX are at priories, and most priories have schools. In short, it is pretty impossible for a priest to be sent where there isn't a school. Again, easy to spin this.

In many priories the school is not at the same location, and is a distance away, meaning, that a priest could be assigned to a priory with a school (say St Louis, since I know it), but the school is a 30 minute drive away and only some of the priests go there for a short period each day. If a priest were, during an investigation, placed at the priory, he would be easily able to be prevented from accessing a school.

A better question (which is never asked, and I wonder why ...) is was the priest given an active role in the school? Were the accusations credible? 


Was this reassignment a temporary measure to separate him from those he was accused of sinful actions with?

If one stands back and looks at those who are always the loudest in these situations it always conflates all sexual indecency and assault together, and that is simple to simplistic a matter: A priest is accused of sexual innuendo in a conversation with a somewhat crazy 35-year-old woman, and so, be sure he's never allowed to be around 7-year-old boys. He's a pervert!


Quote:That's conjecture.  Have you even read any of the sex abuse cases?  It sounds like you don't believe them.




I'm not defending abuse, but we're terribly influenced by the hedonisic puritanism (really Jansenism) of the world. "Virtue signaling" is the modern term.

Quote:As I said before, whether he was guilty or not the prudent thing to do for the sake of the credibility of the SSPX and for the sake of the children is to place him somewhere without children.  I'm sure with their worldwide spread it's possible.


(04-27-2020, 03:43 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: There is no outpouring of sadness or grief for them, just an attempt to make it all seem as small and trivial as possible.

Such a statement shows your utter lack of objectivity!

Incredible.


Quote:Can you please tell me what a "discreet" amount of abuse is?   One?   10?  

There is no number which could possibly be a "discreet" amount.  

The tone of their defense is incredible!


Instead of trying to look at the facts and see if there are some issues with covering up abuse with objectivity for the sake of protecting children from danger, I'm seeing a great deal of 

---Well it's that Voris---he's the real problem
----Well the numbers are small---"discreet" amount
----Well I'm sure the vocal accusers were crazy and Jansenist
----Well we handled it internally
---Well he was sorry so we sent him to another school

These are all the same excuses that allowed the abuses to proliferate in the NO Church.


If we love the Traditional Mass and the priestly orders who defend it we should want the filth to come to light and be purged and make darn sure the superiors are handling things properly.

And we should show an attitude of outrage at the abuse and have more concern for the feelings, wellbeing and safety of the children than for the predator.

Have we learned nothing?
Reply
#68
(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Instead of trying to look at the facts and see if there are some issues with covering up abuse with objectivity for the sake of protecting children from danger,...

Get over yourself.

What has become clear from this is that the SSPX is cooperating with Church and civil authorities in investigations. Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

Or are you saying that they have a duty to reveal all of the sins they find people have committed? or only certain kinds of sins?

Are you suggesting we should open up the confessionals and let people hear about anything against the 6th or 9th Commandment?

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ---Well it's that Voris---he's the real problem

Calumny and Detraction are sins, and Voris thrives on them.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well the numbers are small---"discreet" amount

No number is okay, but to suggest that every SSPX priest is a predator, which is exactly what the CM piece was designed to do with innuendo (for instance against Fr Novak that he "seduced" people into not saying something, and met "at night in secret" with people ...

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well I'm sure the vocal accusers were crazy and Jansenist

Who said that. If you think I did apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well we handled it internally

No one claimed this, especially the SSPX, who has said they have involved the police in criminal matters.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ---Well he was sorry so we sent him to another school

Where's the proof that someone who abused children was sent to another school in an active role?

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: If we love the Traditional Mass and the priestly orders who defend it we should want the filth to come to light and be purged and make darn sure the superiors are handling things properly.

Actually, no. That's not our job.

Firstly, revealing the hidden sins of others is a mortal sin. It's called detraction.

Secondly, claiming to reveal sins of others that are not true is a mortal sin. It's called Calumy.

So, publicly revealing accusations or hidden sins except to superiors or law enforcement is a mortal sin.

Are you saying you want people to commit mortal sin?

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.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: And we should show an attitude of outrage at the abuse and have more concern for the feelings, wellbeing and safety of the children than for the predator.

Pure emotionalism: Worship at the altar of feelings.

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?

Why do you seem to lack feeling, outrage and anger that among legitimate accusations and conviction that the lives, ministry and reputation of many priests who are completely innocent are also being destroyed?

Or is that just fair collateral damage?
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Ruth Catherine
Reply
#69
(04-27-2020, 05:21 PM)rose0325 Wrote: Maybe it's time for the SSPX to sue Church Militant.

Well he said it would be fine with him since it would bring full disclosure.
Reply
#70
Coming on late, but I listened to this last night and found Steve Skojec made thoughtful points, given his own background both in public relations and with being once "taken" with the apparent sanctity of Legionaries, to provide a balanced take. He's reporting, granted, on 23 April just after having found out about more of the CM-SSPX exchange, so in days since, see the second link for his nuance in response to the Voris video "You call that a response?" I favor OneP5's calmer, measured, and reasoned approach, whereas some trad soapboxes lately have been disappointing me by hosting an hour with blowhards shooting off opinions about all sorts of rumors, based on their soundbite slogans, irrationally. I wasted my time with certain "I'm just plain folk" that respectively Taylor Marshall and the Bros Gordon had on recently, on C-19....as if I'd been trapped in a cab with manic, egoistical, yammering men holding forth to a captive audience. This cheapens the sites' credibility. Both Dr M and the G's are well-educated and I was chagrined they let such "special guests" go off at such lengths, to no gain.

And on the latter issue, in the topic unrelated to this current thread, he interviews Stanford-educated Steven Mosher, a scholar on China since the 70s, for instance, to get an informed point-of-view as opposed to basement hot-air blowers.

OneP5 #64 podcast: Steven Mosher on Chinavirus/ Summorum Pontificarum in danger/ SSPX-CM charges

P.S. And OnePeterFive just has added this today from Steve S, which I recommend: "it is, in my view, imperative that investigative journalism of alleged sex abuse be a serious fact finding mission, not the pursuit of gratuitous satisfaction of a personal vendetta. To mix this kind of bias with reporting on a matter this significant undermines the credibility and the seriousness of the investigation itself."

Church mess SSPX article
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
[-] The following 2 users Like Fionnchu's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover, The Tax Collector
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)