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?
Topic: Fr. Pablo Arzuago revisited (Read 3747 times)