https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spot-spotlight-julias-story

It's behind a paywall.

I haven’t watched the video yet, so I have no opinion. I did find the video. Warning it says it contains graphic material. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CpvrXv_37yM&feature=youtu.be

After this homo got caught telling so many lies about the ex-SSPX ex-priest in Guadalajara, it's a wonder anyone would believe something like this.

The allegation that the victim went to Bishop Williamson to complain is odd. How frequently would he have even been in Post Falls at that time?  Why would the victim go to a Bishop instead of the police?    I think the victim harms her own credibility by violating the settlement agreement.

Good point. He only rarely traveled for Confirmations circuits at that time. He wasn't stationed in Post Falls or any other SSPX chapel. He was the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN and Post Falls isn't exactly close by. How far away is Idaho from Minnesota?

Any time he was in Post Falls he would have flown in, probably spent the night, had Confirmations, attended whatever post-Confirmations party there was, and then he would have withdrawn to his room, etc. to prepare to leave for the next place. He wasn't exactly sitting around in an office for hours, available to take private audiences.

You know what I think? That once again Church Militant is lying, they love to attack the Traditional Movement in general and the SSPX in particular, and who better to attack than Bishop Williamson? They want to drag his name into it for some reason, even though he was hundreds of miles away training seminarians at the time.

I finally listened to this, and I find her allegations to be credible, given that the perp was later dismissed from the Dominicans for similar perversion in France.

As the victim herself states, things like this happen and will likely always happen.  But the most egregious part is that the perp was sent to teach at an SSPX school where she had access to other children.

Shameful for SSPX here.

Bishop Williamson's advice to her, if accurately related, was in fact terrible.

Were it not for the fact that the Dominicans later caught the perp with in unnatural activities with a novice in France, and expelled her for it, one might question whether the victim herself might have exaggerated the events due to mental illness on her own part.  Her mother was a schizophrenic, and schizophrenia does tend to run in families (there seems to be a genetic component).  But her later activities in France make her story extremely credible.  And if the perp was then, after her dismissal from the Dominicans, sent to teach at an SSPX school, then there's no excuse for that.

You know what I think? That once again Church Militant is lying, they love to attack the Traditional Movement in general and the SSPX in particular, and who better to attack than Bishop Williamson? They want to drag his name into it for some reason, even though he was hundreds of miles away training seminarians at the time.

This.

While I agree that Bishop Williamson was probably just passing through, he still should have investigated the matter. Putting the onus on the victim wasn’t the best advice imo. 

For the rest of you,  it’s mortal sin for you to put down the victim and try to defend unholy un natural sex acts.  This is why Rome is perverted and is in a state of apostasy.

No one is putting down any victim or defending these acts.  You're assuming the truth of the allegations first, and there's nothing wrong with questioning the credibility of any allegations.  It's not uncommon for such allegations to be fabricated, either due to an active imagination or out of malice toward the accused, so charity toward the accused requires a prudent consideration regarding the credibility of the allegations, and, to the contrary of what you claim, it may in fact be grave matter to publicize the allegations if in fact the accused is innocent.

One's repugnance for the alleged acts are not to be confused with the question of whether the accused is actually guilty of having perpetrated them.  Many people have been wrongly convicted by juries due to the emotional consideration of some heinous crime, when the jury is unable to separate their emotion from the question of whether the accused actually perpetrated the crime, and where they FEEL (the key term here) as acquittal of the accused would be tantamount to condoning the crime.

This kind of emotional response is often exploited by false accusers, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe their allegations is a "victim shamer" and is "condoning the [alleged] crimes".  That's utter nonsense.

With all that said, I find these allegations to be extremely credible because 1) the accused perp was later expelled from the Sisters for having performed similar activities with a novice in France (though that claim by CM should be verified) and 2) the SSPX paid her a sizable settlement (aka "hush money").  But, if some individuals were to question the veracity of these claims, they are not thereby guilty of "moral sin" for "put[ting] down the [alleged] victim" and "defend[ing] unholy un natural [sic] sex acts".

I do find it interesting, though, that the alleged perpetrator went on to get married and to have 6 children ... though I believe this type of transition is more common of females who act contrary to nature than males.  I knew guy who got married to a member of my extended family ... who turned out to be a sodomite.