SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
#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


Messages In This Thread
RE: SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups - by MagisterMusicae - 04-22-2020, 05:06 PM
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 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)