Could being taken advantage of, or coerced be called rape?

In our feminist utopian days, where the matriarchy rules all, when "me too" is all the rage - yes.  Anything can be called rape, as long as you feel like you're a victim.  Words no longer have meaning; all that matters are feelings.

hollingsworth,

That has to be the biggest load of utter garbage I've ever seen posted here.  Matthew should consider banning you.

Apart from your nauseating attempt to play "White Knight," you lie regarding your suggestion that people don't believe Erica because they are attached to the SSPX.  By FAR, the vast majority of those on this forum are either Resistance (whose leaders were expelled from and treated shamefully by the SSPX) or sedevacantists who have long been at enmity with the SSPX.  There are very few neo-SSPX advocates; you could count the active pro-SSPX and pro-Fellay people here on one hand (with a couple fingers to spare).

Nobody's in "denial".  When there's reasonable evidence for cover-up, the members on this forum are  the FIRST to go after the SSPX.  In fact, one would think they'd be looking for any excuse to attack them, given that they're mostly Resistance and sedevacantist.  Instead, despite their animus against the SSPX, they try to be objective.  There appear to be a couple of clear cases of coverup out there, the most conspicuous being the disturbing case of Fr. Abbet.  We are all calling for the resignation/expulsion and prosecution of +Fellay regarding that case.

Unlike yourself, hollingsworth, who have decided that you're going to believe every accusation out there due to your contempt for the SSPX, the rest of us try to sort them out case by case.

In this particular case, there's no convincing evidence to support Erica's allegation.  There's the bizarre case of "the lock," and the SSPX says they interviewed people who said that Arzuaga and Kauffman were suspiciously friendly toward one another (i.e. probably showing signs of affection and flirtation) ... which militates against there being ongoing rape.  So given these points of evidence against her allegation, and having seen NO evidence in favor, we are left to conclude that the allegations are likely false.  Combine that with Erica's attitude here on the forum, and many of us now believe her less.

She comes on here trying to "shame" everyone who doesn't believe her by accusing them of "shaming" HER.  Nobody's shamed her.  Not believing her allegation is not "shaming".  Beside that, the whole "shaming" accusation is a deliberate tactic used by false accusers because it begs the question regarding the veracity of their allegations.  How dare you shame a woman for being a victim!  That presumes she was a victim.

As of right now, many of us have come to the conclusion there Erica is not being truthful.  We don't know whether it's conscious or whether it's unconscious ... the end result of years and years of reflection on these past events, to the point that perhaps she's come to believe the allegations herself.  I'm sure that most would be wiling to reconsider, were she to produce some evidence that is mysteriously being kept under wraps ... probably because of an impending civil suit (I can see no other reason), and that might explain the motivation behind these false allegations.

hollingsworth, your "White Knight" play here is borderline nauseating.  I think you've been effeminized by reading too much Valtorta.  That and you are so poisoned by your contempt for the SSPX that you are incapable of thinking rationally (also a very feminine trait) ... to the point that you ... ridiculously ... try to characterize the forum members here as partisans of the SSPX, and at one time even asserted that I might be a SSPX agent.  You've lost your mind, hollingsworth.

That has to be the biggest load of utter garbage I've ever seen posted here.  Matthew should consider banning you.

Well, Matthew, my man, are you going to take up Ladislaus' request?  Are you going to ban me? The ball is in your court.  
Meanwhile, I maintain that SSPX is as guilty as New Church.  The Society leadership protects pedophiles and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests in their midst, much the same as the Novus Ordo hierarchy does in theirs.  The filthy underbelly of SSPX has been exposed.  So go ahead, Matthew.  Follow the advice of your 'hero members' and ban me.  I dare you.  Because as long as you let me post, (which most of the time is pretty infrequently), I'm going speak out in exactly the same manner about the SSPX.

If I were directing a jury I would say this was a case of a young woman living in a fantasy who was taken advantage of by a predatory priest.

But that is not rape, nor is it illegal. Or rape happens in college dormitories and every night club in the world when women take drugs drink too much and sleep with a lothario who flatters her and takes her home where semi intoxicated she has sex.

The SSPX should discipline the priest, I would kick him out, who needs such a priest?  But under the law of the land he has done nothing that 100,000 lounge lizards don't do every night. 

TT: 

The SSPX should discipline the priest, I would kick him out, who needs such a priest? 

Yes, they should kick him out.  But they haven't.  Why is that, TT?  The SSPX is corrupt.

+

TT: 

If I were directing a jury I would say this was a case of a young woman living in a fantasy who was taken advantage of by a predatory priest.

OK, so be it.  So when are you and other CI members going to call out SSPX for allowing this "predatory priest" to take advantage of her, if that was the case?  When are you going to acknowledge that SSPX leaders behaved exactly as the Novus Ordo does?  When are you going to admit that SSPX hierarchy treated Arzuaga with kid gloves and allowed him to continue in "ministry" under their auspices as a priest in good standing?