Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: hollingsworth on November 22, 2022, 03:03:40 PM
-
I think the original thread on Fr. Arzuago, dating from 2020, has gone about as far as it can go. I'm introducing this fallen priest on this new thread. The perp has already been outed successfully. He has fathered one child in the US. Now we learn that he fathered another in Mexico, in addition to his many other crimes. The man was reinstated by the SSPX in 1991, and, apparently, is still with the congregation in 2022, being stationed in Argentina presently. SSPX leaders know exactly who he is and what he has done. Yet they still keep him onboard as a Society priest in good standing.
I would suggest that newcomer, Bernardo, start plowing back through 20 pages of the parent thread at https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-scandal-from-the-remnant/msg857313/#msg857313
before he align with Ladislas. Any honest forum member, who knows the history of Ladislaus, will tell you that the man is a nut.
-
You believe that Cathinfo is a court of law, which has the ability to convict someone of wrongdoing, even if we only have one side of the story?
-
You believe that Cathinfo is a court of law, which has the ability to convict someone of wrongdoing, even if we only have one side of the story?
You said that more concisely than I could have Meg.
-
You believe that Cathinfo is a court of law, which has the ability to convict someone of wrongdoing, even if we only have one side of the story?
Meg, stop the nonsense. You mean to imply that SSPX has another side of the story? If so, they haven't stated it, or published any story to the contrary in defense of Arzuaga. If anyone missed a refutation of the many charges against this perp, I'm sure you can dig them up and reprint them here.
-
Meg, stop the nonsense. You mean to imply that SSPX has another side of the story? If so, they haven't stated it, or published any story to the contrary in defense of Arzuaga. If anyone missed a refutation of the many charges against this perp, I'm sure you can dig them up and reprint them here.
It's nonsense to you, but not to me. Do you honestly believe that no one has a right to an opinion on this subject which differs from yours?
-
The Shrew's stock rebuttals:
a. No one has a right to an opinion differing from yours.
b. You bully everyone with an opinion different from yours
c. sede… blah, blah, blah… sede… blah, blah, blah… sede…
d. I know your true intentions.
-
Meg, stop the nonsense. You mean to imply that SSPX has another side of the story? If so, they haven't stated it, or published any story to the contrary in defense of Arzuaga. If anyone missed a refutation of the many charges against this perp, I'm sure you can dig them up and reprint them here.
Another thought....This issue started with the article about Fr. Matthew Stafki, and his sɛҳuąƖ abuse of his niece. The situation with Fr. Arzuaga is very different from that situation. Fr. Matthew Stafki committed a horrible crime. And how do we know that for sure? Because he admitted to it.
Fr. Arzuaga has not admitted to any crime. That doesn't mean he's not guilty of one, but we cannot really know, since he's not ever been charged with a crime (unlike Fr. Stafki).
Miss Kauffman says that he raped her, but would you say that it is always and everywhere been true that women never lie about this sort of thing? NEVER?
I have to wonder why Miss Kauffman has not taken Fr. Arzuaga to court in a civil hearing. Maybe she has done so, and has not been forthcoming about it. And perhaps she has already been paid damages out of court. We just don't know. We only have her word for anything.
You are always willing to accept as fact that the SSPX is absolutely guilty, no matter what. If a priest has been accused, it doesn't matter if it's credible or not----in your view he is guilty beyond a doubt. Always. Why is that?
-
SSPX has most certainly stated their side of the story. They believe that the situation was consensual.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5280-sspx-priest-backpedals-on-kaufmann-case
January 27th, 2021
Dear Mr. Michael Matt,
In a December 29th article, you chose to make public a private letter that I wrote to Miss Erica Kauffman, in which I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed. It was difficult for me not to recognize her as the victim of an odious abuse, and not to respond to her call for help.
In doing so, as you noted in your introduction, I corroborated her version of the story and questioned, with her, the management of this case by the SSPX.
However – and it is now a serious duty for me to point this out to you – I made a regrettable mistake at the time. And it is in the hope of repairing it that I am writing to you today, taking advantage on a personal basis of the invitation you have extended to the SSPX authorities.
As the file never passed through my hands, I happened to be unaware, when writing to Miss Kauffman, of a number of details that I have since learned and which today force me to admit in good conscience that I contributed to convey a distorted image of what really happened.
Indeed, having been able to consult the archives of the SSPX, I realized that Bishop Fellay, then Superior General, had indeed treated the case with all possible care.
At the end of his investigation, and after having heard all the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. A very sad and serious story, moreover, since such a thing is directly contrary to the sanctity of the priesthood.
I also learned that other people had noticed at the time the existence of a disordered friendship between the two persons.
This sinful affair credibly explains how several meetings could have taken place in the same place – in the apartment of Miss Kauffman, of which this priest had a copy of the key – under always similar circuмstances, over a period of several months.
Bishop Fellay had then taken severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest, who had to spend a year in penance in a monastery before being sent to Europe to exercise his ministry there, with restrictions during about ten years, which were applied and respected.
Whatever one's opinion may be in this story, it is impossible for me today not to recognize that Miss Kauffman is mistaken when she believes that Fr. Arzuaga was never restricted, or that the SSPX ignored her complaint. The opposite took place.
Contrary to what she states in her December 30th post, this priest has never been in charge of a school, nor has he ever been allowed to travel freely, out of the control of his superiors.
Nevertheless, I deeply deplore what happened, and I sympathize wholeheartedly with the distress in which Miss Kauffman finds herself today.
Renewing my compassion and assuring her of my prayers for all her intentions, I express my regret for having contributed to spread a false judgment on this sad story.
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger
P. Niklaus Pfluger | FSSPX
Noviciat Ste-Thérèse
Evidently they have witnesses who stated that they had noticed a "disordered friendship" between the two ... possibly some kind of flirtatious behavior, excessive affection, etc.
Between this and the bizarre situation with the key, the conclusion is hard to escape. If the file contained testimony from people who aver that some kind of overly-affectionate perhaps flirtatious relationship existed between the two even after the rapes are alleged to have taken place, together with the fact that this continued for months with the same copy of the key ... it's pretty much an open and shut case.
-
Bishop Sanborn explains what should be done if a priest is found guilty of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct. Considering the atrocities, Arzuago has committed( rape, fathering children, etc.), he would not last a day under these conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4WhYDlask
-
Meg, stop the nonsense. You mean to imply that SSPX has another side of the story? If so, they haven't stated it, or published any story to the contrary in defense of Arzuaga. If anyone missed a refutation of the many charges against this perp, I'm sure you can dig them up and reprint them here.
See the above post. They are not defending Fr. Arzuaga's grave violation of clerical celibacy, but simply indicating that they believe it was not rape.
-
Bishop Sanborn explains what should be done if a priest is found guilty of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct. Considering the atrocities, Arzuago has committed( rape, fathering children, etc.), he would not last a day under these conditions.
You persist in claiming that it was rape whereas the evidence indicates the contrary. Between the inexplicable "key" situation, SSPX interviewed witnesses who assert that the two had a suspicious disordered relationship ... i.e. that it was pretty obvious that the two had something going on.
Did you even listen to the first 4 minutes of the video you posted, where Bishop Sanborn takes a very rational and balanced view of such accusations, that they may or may not be true, or partly true, partly false, that there are sinners (people who go bad) in every walk of life, etc. He says that the accusations he saw seem credible ... but he does not know if they're true. Solid answer from the Bishop, the entire import of which you somehow missed.
-
You persist in claiming that it was rape whereas the evidence indicates the contrary. Between the inexplicable "key" situation, SSPX interviewed witnesses who assert that the two had a suspicious disordered relationship ... i.e. that it was pretty obvious that the two had something going on.
Did you even listen to the first 4 minutes of the video you posted, where Bishop Sanborn takes a very rational and balanced view of such accusations, that they may or may not be true, or partly true, partly false, that there are sinners (people who go bad) in every walk of life, etc. He says that the accusations he saw seem credible ... but he does not know if they're true. Solid answer from the Bishop, the entire import of which you somehow missed.
You need to keep listening; it starts at the 7:00-minute mark.
-
I started this new topic, hoping that attention would be focused strictly on Fr. Arzuaga. I remind Meg and others that it is not about the most recent case of an SSPX priest and his young niece. Nor is it about numerous other SSPX priests and their sɛҳuąƖ misconduct.
Furthermore, this new topic is not about Erica Kaufman either. Whatever she did or did not do is, hopefully, not under discussion here. Again, the thread should focus strictly on what Arzuaga did or didn't do.
Fr. Phluger's letter to Michael Matt clearly indicates that the matter came before Bp. Fellay. He recognized that Arzuaga did what he did, and took disciplinary measures against his priest, short of dismissing him outright from the Society. (Full dismissal from the priesthood would have been Bp. Sanborn's solution, from his own testimony.)
As to the sɛҳuąƖ crimes committed by Fr. Arzuaga, there doesn't seem to be 'another side of the story.' As a priest, he entered into sɛҳuąƖ relationships with at least two women consensual or otherwise, and produced at least two children in the course of those relationships. We presume he is still a member in good standing with the SSPX.
-
This priest fathered "at least two children"? Ok, sin has happened - always has and always will - but this shuffling around and covering up is disgusting. Just speaking freely here but with the Post Falls debacle and a million other deviations, I'm getting real tired of the SSPX. lol
Who gave to the order to become a thoroughly half-baked organization? To paraphrase the well-known Fatima prophecy, "the shoddiness begins at the top."
-
Fr. Arzuaga has not admitted to any crime. That doesn't mean he's not guilty of one, but we cannot really know, since he's not ever been charged with a crime (unlike Fr. Stafki).…
and
…They are not defending Fr. Arzuaga's grave violation of clerical celibacy, but simply indicating that they believe it was not rape.
Utter rubbish from both of you.
There are forms of sɛҳuąƖ abuse that should be—and are—punished: adult-minor, doctor-patient, therapist-patient, lawyer-client, and priest-parishioner.
There is an imbalance of power in such affairs that is a species of force.
It is inarguable that Erica had a child. Who here contends that Arzuaga did not father that child? So, at the minimum unless you want to argue for a new virgin birth or, as typical of both of you, presume that you can read the interior forum of Erica as some type of sacrilegious seductress, Arzuaga is guilty of such sɛҳuąƖ abuse. Worse, since Erica argues the added element of physical force, the matter is rape—R.A.P.E!
So, which is it? Virgin birth, interior forum, or Azuarga guilty?
-
SSPX has most certainly stated their side of the story. They believe that the situation was consensual.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5280-sspx-priest-backpedals-on-kaufmann-case
Evidently they have witnesses who stated that they had noticed a "disordered friendship" between the two ... possibly some kind of flirtatious behavior, excessive affection, etc.
Between this and the bizarre situation with the key, the conclusion is hard to escape. If the file contained testimony from people who aver that some kind of overly-affectionate perhaps flirtatious relationship existed between the two even after the rapes are alleged to have taken place, together with the fact that this continued for months with the same copy of the key ... it's pretty much an open and shut case.
I was never part of any investigation. That is against canon law. Why not attach the email he wrote to me also published on the Remnant. Easy to pick and choose what version works for you.
-
Furthermore, this new topic is not about Erica Kaufman either. Whatever she did or did not do is, hopefully, not under discussion here. Again, the thread should focus strictly on what Arzuaga did or didn't do.
Fr. Phluger's letter to Michael Matt clearly indicates that the matter came before Bp. Fellay. He recognized that Arzuaga did what he did, and took disciplinary measures against his priest, short of dismissing him outright from the Society.
But it will always be about me ... the seductress. The only defense against rape is to shame and discredit the victim.
Also, no disciplinary actions were taken against Arzuaga. I presented all the docuмentation of the cover-up in my videos.
-
Another thought....
Fr. Arzuaga has not admitted to any crime.
I have to wonder why Miss Kauffman has not taken Fr. Arzuaga to court in a civil hearing. Maybe she has done so, and has not been forthcoming about it. And perhaps she has already been paid damages out of court. We just don't know. We only have her word for anything.
Here is your difficulty: you are not thinking. Arzuaga did admit his love for me to his superiors and that he was having intercourse with me. I told Fellay and Pfluger in 1997 it was rape and I will maintain that to my last breath. This came up again because I chose to update the board on Arzuaga's secret move to Argentina. I have never sued Arzuaga or settled out of court with him or the SSPX, although Wegner did make the offer.
-
Even Fr. Phluger recognizes that Erica was a victim of gross sɛҳuąƖ abuse, and he is very apologetic about it. Yet Arzuaga is still a priest in good standing with the Society. From 1991 to the present, though subject to Fellay's restrictions and disciplinary measures, Arzuaga is still a priest in the Society. He does what all priests in the Society do, to this very day.
-
Here is your difficulty: you are not thinking. Arzuaga did admit his love for me to his superiors and that he was having intercourse with me. I told Fellay and Pfluger in 1997 it was rape and I will maintain that to my last breath. This came up again because I chose to update the board on Arzuaga's secret move to Argentina. I have never sued Arzuaga or settled out of court with him or the SSPX, although Wegner did make the offer.
No, my problem isn't that I'm not thinking. I'm just not thinking in the way that you insist on. However, I will say this: your above post is far more charitable than you have been in the past regarding anyone who doesn't go along with your version of the story. I appreciate that you are trying to be more charitable. I recall your comments at the Remnant with the original story. You treated those who wanted to have more info very badly.
Anyway.....you said that this came up again because you chose to update the board on Arzuaga's secret move to Argentina. But you knew about the move last Easter, correct?
It seems to me that you are only doing an update so that you can say "I told you so" regarding the Stafki situation. You said in your initial "update" post on the other thread two days ago:
"As you are all pondering the abominable Stafki abuse and the reporting timeline issued by Fullerton, I hope you keep in mind that they are all liars and that I did my best to help protect you and your loved ones."
-
I denounced Arzuaga in a face to face meeting with +Fellay and Fr. Pfluger in December of 1997. +Fellay PROMISED Arzuaga would be sent to a monastery for the rest of his life. That was satisfactory to me (much better than prison). That is why I never reported to the police. But, sadly, +Fellay lied and never disciplined Arzuaga, feeding me lies via letters I have shown to all. The statute of limitations expired, which is exactly what +Fellay wanted. I have been fighting with the SSPX behind closed doors until a fateful meeting with Wegner, then USDS, in 2019. This meeting compelled me, in good conscience, to go public and caution anyone who would listen of the deep corruption within the SSPX.
-
How anyone remains in the SSPX is beyond me. They're dirty!
-
How anyone remains in the SSPX is beyond me. They're dirty!
Is it your goal to get anyone and everyone to not attend SSPX for masses and sacraments? Maybe that's Miss Kauffman's goal as well.
Here's the thing - we already know that the SSPX has problems. No one here has claimed that the SSPX is as pure as the driven snow. Not at all.
Whatever corruption that exists in the SSPX - and we know that it exists - the conciliar church is even worse. I have not seen corruption at the chapel level where I occasionally attend. In fact, I would go as far as to say that corruption isn't the norm at the chapel level, and that's where most of us exist. What we can take away from this is that we must always be vigilant. That doesn't mean that we automatically assume that all clergy in the SSPX are evil and corrupt. That would be a foolish thing to believe.
It's good that Miss Kauffman has warned the faithful about Fr. Arzuago. She's done her duty. We are careful when it comes to priests of ANY group or order (not just the SSPX). Somehow I think that won't be enough. Bitterness rules her and it seems it will do so for the rest of her life, and perhaps Hollingsworth too. I hope that Miss Kauffman finds peace and is able to forgive. I'll offer prayers for her, her daughter, and Fr. Arzuago.
-
Where are you going to Mass?
I think most churches are filthy anymore.
-
Erica: But it will always be about me ... the seductress. The only defense against rape is to shame and discredit the victim.
Also, no disciplinary actions were taken against Arzuaga. I presented all the documentation of the cover-up in my videos.
Erica, I did not want this thread to be about you. That is the reason I started a new topic. I wanted it to be strictly about Arzuaga’s behavior. But, alas, certain forum members always bring it back to you and your alleged culpability. I am powerless to do anything about it. The only reason I continue posting is that people, who may google 'Arzuaga' in order to get information about the affair, may come across useful CI postings like, perhaps, this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I refer below to Phluger’s recently reposted letter to Michael Matt, Jan. 27, 2021. Excerpts of that letter are reprinted below. I have certain questions concerning them. Perhaps Erica or some others with actual knowledge can shed some additional light.
Phluger writes: ...I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed. It was difficult for me not to recognize her as the victim of an odious abuse, and not to respond to her call for help.
me: How can Phluger contend that Eric was the victim of “odius abuse,” when his superior seems to conclude that the whole thing was "consensual" between two adultsl? What is Phluger ashamed about?
Phluger writes: I corroborated her version of the story and questioned, with her, the management of this case by the SSPX.
me: By ‘corroboration’ of Erica’s version, does that mean he accepts her story of rape? Does he agree that the case was mismanaged or not handled properly by SSPX?
Phluger writes: I made a regrettable mistake at the time.
me: What exactly, in clear English, was that “regrettable mistake?”
Pfluger writes: As the file never passed through my hands, I happened to be unaware, when writing to Miss Kauffman, of a number of details that I have since learned and which today force me to admit in good conscience that I contributed to convey a distorted image of what really happened.
me: What exactly is that “distorted image” to which Pfluger now admits contributing?
Phluger writes: Bishop Fellay had then taken severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest, who had to spend a year in penance in a monastery before being sent to Europe to exercise his ministry there, with restrictions during about ten years, which were applied and respected.
me: I see no “severe disciplinary measures taken.” Maybe some enlightened soul can help me to understand just how drastic they really were. Erica will testify that Arzuaga was never really disciplined, much less kicked out of the SSPX.
Phluger writes: Contrary to what she (Erica) states in her December 30th post, this priest (Arzuaga) has never been in charge of a school, nor has he ever been allowed to travel freely, out of the control of his superiors.
me: Is that true? I suspect that it isn’t
Phluger writes: (+Fellay) came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. A very sad and serious story, moreover, since such a thing is directly contrary to the sanctity of the priesthood.
me: So why then does Arzuaga still exercise a priestly ministry in the SSPX? Why do they tolerate unsanctifed priests? Is it because the ranks of the SSPX swell with these perps?
-
The Shrew's stock rebuttals:
a. No one has a right to an opinion differing from yours.
b. You bully everyone with an opinion different from yours
c. sede… blah, blah, blah… sede… blah, blah, blah… sede…
d. I know your true intentions.
Tame that shrew!
-
me: So why then does Arzuaga still exercise a priestly ministry in the SSPX? Why do they tolerate unsanctifed priests? Is it because the ranks of the SSPX swell with these perps?
Perhaps it's because they use the same rationale when sending around priests who refuse conditional ordination, or it's what prompts them to get involved with GREC, or cover up a homo scandal in Post Falls, or... yada, yada, yada. Maybe it's just bunkum from the top down. While there are good priests and pious faithful trying to hold on to what's left of the Catholic religion, the organization has created and left some massive wreckage in its wake. I don't want to appear too harsh but until they change their tune, away from the new altars and barren churches, and a seminary that looks like a maximum-security state penitentiary, maybe any good things are just lipstick on a pig?
-
Tame that shrew!
Yep. Shake-a-spear. Eye of newt. Rule of thumb. :laugh1:
-
me: So why then does Arzuaga still exercise a priestly ministry in the SSPX? Why do they tolerate unsanctifed priests? Is it because the ranks of the SSPX swell with these perps?
I don't know. Given that I don't believe he was a rapist, I would take him at my local chapel if it meant being able to assist at daily Mass and receive the Sacraments regularly. We're all sinners. AND ... priests often forget this ... the priesthood was not given to them for their honor and glory, or because they deserved it. It was given for the sake of the faithful and to serve the faithful. I'm sure that Fr. Arzuaga learned some humility. He was at St. Peregrine for a few years, and he could give sermons about Our Blessed Mother that often literally moved me to tears. He fell into sin, yet there but for the grace of God go we as well. So maybe that's why? That the needs of the faithful in this crisis could be best served by returning him into service. He evidently did spend a year at a monastery. Again, if this was not rape, and I do not believe it was, I would gladly take him at my local chapel.
-
There were a number of valid popes who had children while they were pope. Who knows how many cardinals and bishops as well.
The priest in question should be able to resume his duties after sufficient atonement.
-
I don't know. Given that I don't believe he was a rapist, I would take him at my local chapel if it meant being able to assist at daily Mass and receive the Sacraments regularly. We're all sinners. AND ... priests often forget this ... the priesthood was not given to them for their honor and glory, or because they deserved it. It was given for the sake of the faithful and to serve the faithful. I'm sure that Fr. Arzuaga learned some humility. He was at St. Peregrine for a few years, and he could give sermons about Our Blessed Mother that often literally moved me to tears. He fell into sin, yet there but for the grace of God go we as well. So maybe that's why? That the needs of the faithful in this crisis could be best served by returning him into service. He evidently did spend a year at a monastery. Again, if this was not rape, and I do not believe it was, I would gladly take him at my local chapel.
If I was to hold some honesty, I would take Fr. Arzuaga at my local chapel, too- but only on the condition that he did not commit a crime of any kind and that he was sincerely repented. Imagine if he publicly declared to all the faithful that he did sin grievously and he asked all of us to forgive him? If he were to ever do this, Father, you then have my forgiveness. Now let’s move on towards the path that leads to Heaven! The loss of the damned priest Abbot Verdi-Garandieu is something I still cannot live with.
I remember when Ms. Kauffman came out with her side of the story, I took great care in praying for Fr. Arzuaga every day. Once the devil gets hold of the priests, he gets a hold of the faithful. It’s kind of like when the Freesmasons knew that they had to first get rid of women before they could destroy society.
-
Ladislaus:
Given that I don't believe he was a rapist, I would take him at my local chapel if it meant being able to assist at daily Mass and receive the Sacraments regularly
Lad is not hard to please. He sets the bar pretty low. As long as the priest is not a rapist, he can deal with it. And, I imagine, even if that priest's hierarchical handlers cover up his deeds, obfuscate and lie a bit on his behalf, and move him about here and there overseas to help cover his tracks, Lad can work with that too.
Ladislaus, you help me understand why the SSPX has survived as long as it has. Should the rank and file membership off SSPX chapels exhibit the same kind of tolerance and long suffering you display, the Society will stay in business for a long time to come.:'(
-
Ladislaus:
Lad is not hard to please. He sets the bar pretty low. As long as the priest is not a rapist, he can deal with it. And, I imagine, even if that priest's hierarchical handlers cover up his deeds, obfuscate and lie a bit on his behalf, and move him about here and there overseas to help cover his tracks, Lad can work with that too.
Ladislaus, you help me understand why the SSPX has survived as long as it has. Should the rank and file membership off SSPX chapels exhibit the same kind of tolerance and long suffering you display, the Society will stay in business for a long time to come.:'(
So succinct, so true, so sad.
I wonder if it's the same low standard for his family's teachers, doctors, lawyers, therapists. Or is it just priests who have the low bar? As long as there's no blood, ¡no problema! It's a corollary of the mental/moral disconnect of "children who are martial arts students may not roll around ground fighting with each other, but totally cool for those children to do the same rolling around with the adult instructor."
:facepalm:
-
He was at St. Peregrine for a few years, and he could give sermons about Our Blessed Mother that often literally moved me to tears.
Please read what I am about to write with sincerity; nothing between the lines. Okay?
I now fully understand why you don't believe me and I do not hold it against you. Arzuaga is very popular and disarming. He gives good counsel and is patient and kind. That is why my guard was completely down. I trusted him so completely. He knew everything about me, which made me totally vulnerable when his Mr. Hyde appeared. It is like getting hit with a stun-gun. You're paralyzed and simply cannot believe what is happening to you. Other people from St. Peregrine's have written to me about what they witnessed and experienced there. I am honestly glad you never experienced it. Most people don't see it. They entrust their children to him.
That said, I have still put myself out there with nothing to gain and everything to lose. God bless you.
-
Christo rege:
Imagine if he (Arzuaga) publicly declared to all the faithful that he did sin grievously and he asked all of us to forgive him? If he were to ever do this, Father, you then have my forgiveness
.This is a pipe dream. Arzuaga has never, to anybody's knowledge "declared" anything "to all the faithful." He has never confessed that he sinned "grievously." Apparently however, CR can live with the fantasy that he might some day. Meanwhile, CR, dream on.:facepalm: