“Do you think PA District Attorney Josh Shapiro is a friend of the Catholic Church? Remnant Underground's Michael J. Matt not only steps outside the box but also smashes it to bits as he analyses what's really going on with the clerical sex abuse crisis.”[color][size][font]
I am not suggesting she’s lying or that her investigation is even dredging up false accusations. But I am saying that lots of people have all sorts of axes to grind against the Catholic Church. How easy it will be to kick off another #Metoo movement where all priests are concerned, by listing all accusations as credible. (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4266-credible-accusations-illinois-ag-indicts-catholic-church)[color][size][font]
We cannot let that happen. (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4266-credible-accusations-illinois-ag-indicts-catholic-church)We have all known priests who were falsely accused, and just as the laws of both God and Man forbid a rush to acquit, so too they take a dim view of a rush to convict. (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4266-credible-accusations-illinois-ag-indicts-catholic-church)
Madigan is not our friend. More to the point, she is no friend of the Catholic Church, having on numerus occasions used the weight of her office to promote an agenda that is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4266-credible-accusations-illinois-ag-indicts-catholic-church)
I asked her for corroborating evidence, i.e., a birth certificate for her child (now adopted)Do I understand this correctly, she gave up her child to others for adoption?
The Remnant claims to be a catholic organization, yet their public advertisement of this scandal is wholly anti-catholic and immoral, from a charity and justice standpoint.
After viewing her video, I was moved to contact Miss Kauffman. In speaking over the telephone, I discovered in her a person who has manifestly no animus against the SSPX. In fact, she does not wish for her story to be taken up by any organization which does.
I asked her for corroborating evidence, i.e., a birth certificate for her child (now adopted) or some other notarized docuмent that establishes paternity. This Miss Kauffman made available to me, along with other corroborating docuмents.
Given my now-firsthand knowledge of the details and direct experience with the victim, this particular case is one on which I feel morally obliged to comment, especially since all private attempts to resolve it seem to have been in vain.
If the SSPX priest in question is still in ministry, despite having fathered a child with one of his parishioners through rape, this is a scandal all traditional Catholics--inside the SSPX and out--want resolved. Could there be extenuating circuмstances that mitigate the charges? Of course, and pray there are.
A month ago, I privately discussed this case with a representative of the SSPX and found him to be fully cooperative with my inquiry. And now in charity for a sister in Christ who has evidently suffered much, I will allow Miss Kauffman to bring her case to the attention of our readers for the purpose of achieving justice for her as well as preventing further scandal.
Given my now-firsthand knowledge of the details and direct experience with the victim, this particular case is one on which I feel morally obliged to comment, especially since all private attempts to resolve it seem to have been in vain.No. If private attempts fail, the lady should go to the authorities. This "private investigator" has no right or authority to publicly air this allegation. The proper channel of justice is the court system.
If the SSPX priest in question is still in ministry, despite having fathered a child with one of his parishioners through rape, this is a scandal all traditional Catholics--inside the SSPX and out--want resolved. Could there be extenuating circuмstances that mitigate the charges? Of course, and pray there are.The matter has to be proved first. This journalist is acting like they are the responsible for justice. They aren't.
A month ago, I privately discussed this case with a representative of the SSPX and found him to be fully cooperative with my inquiry. And now in charity for a sister in Christ who has evidently suffered much, I will allow Miss Kauffman to bring her case to the attention of our readers for the purpose of achieving justice for her as well as preventing further scandal.
No. If private attempts fail, the lady should go to the authorities. This "private investigator" has no right or authority to publicly air this allegation. The proper channel of justice is the court system.In this case, I believe the statute of limitations have expired, so she cannot go to the police. As for getting a lawyer, she claims not to have the funds necessary.
.
The matter has to be proved first. This journalist is acting like they are the responsible for justice. They aren't.
.
This is a misguided attempt at "public justice" by bringing it to the "attention of our readers". This is mob rule, plain and simple. It shows a short-sighted view of justice, and a (even if good-willed) subversion of the rule of law. This whole approach to a potential criminal act is emotional and out of control.
...video ... as it is tedious.
(I do not have the time or patience to listen to this 1hour video, it was putting me to sleep just watching 10 seconds..
I think that the SSPX will be plagues with these problems until the faithful and good priests admit their are evils going on, that cover-ups are still being committed, and then demand that the bad priests be punished to the level that would seem appropriate or each particular case (monastery confinement, public apology, jail time, and/or laicized) and then withhold donations (faithful), job walk off (teachers and lay staff) and disobey any order that continue the cover-up and deceptions (priests and religious).You're assuming the priest is guilty. That's not charitable.
In this case, I believe the statute of limitations have expired, so she cannot go to the police. As for getting a lawyer, she claims not to have the funds necessary.Oh, what a coincidence. How do we know she didn't wait on purpose, so that the police couldn't charge her with falsifying a claim, and now she wants "justice" from the web. Just like "me too". Why did she wait so long?
.Great idea I just tested it and can understand her at 2X. Will try to watch it all tonight.
Just a tip, in general: I find that one can play youtube videos at 1.5x the speed, or in the case of this one, I think 2x the speed, if one is interested to listen but doesn't have huge volumes of time. (Who does?) Especially when the speaker is speaking extremely slowly.
Great idea I just tested it and can understand her at 2X. Will try to watch it all tonight.Single child of a single/widowed mother?
P.S.- One thing I've never understood is how these girls/women do not have anyone to go to. If my sister had trouble with any man she works with, she would send for me and I would take care of it before it went to the point of rape.
Single child of a single/widowed mother?Even if my sister had a girl friend or business associate that was in such danger she would call me and I'd take care of it. These situations have more to them than is said. Likely the girl was a total loner with no friends whatsoever.
Even if my sister had a girl friend or business associate that was in such danger she would call me and I'd take care of it. These situations have more to them than is said. Likely the girl was a total loner with no friends whatsoever.
I didn't watch the video in which Miss Kauffman gives her testimony, so there are a few things that aren't clear. There seem to be a few glaring omissions in Michael Matt's analysis, so I have a few questions. Michael Matt goes on and on about this and that in his article, but he doesn't address some basic questions:All those questions are answered in the video. She told Fr. Stanich (Prior of the parish), Fr. Scott (Dist. Sup. at that time), and eventually Bishop Fellay (S.G.). She also told a confessor, which she does not name, but is a witness with her meeting with Fr. Scott, and is familiar with the case.
Did Miss Kauffman tell anyone in the SSPX about her situation and accusations back when it happened, or since, until now? I don't see any mention of this by Michael Matt.
When did the SSPX first learn of Miss Kauffman's accusations? Has there been any investigation by the SSPX of said priest? Have they even heard of Miss Kauffman's accusations? I would hope so, but that isn't made clear.
What sort of justice is Miss Kauffman hoping to achieve, exactly? The article says that......"I will allow Miss Kauffman to bring her case to the attention of our readers for the purpose of achieving justice for her as well as preventing further scandal."
I'm not on any one side in this - I just think that since Michael Matt is posting this situation in a public manner, he should provide more basic info, which doesn't require watching a video.
All those questions are answered in the video. She told Fr. Stanich (Prior of the parish), Fr. Scott (Dist. Sup. at that time), and eventually Bishop Fellay (S.G.). She also told a confessor, which she does not name, but is a witness with her meeting with Fr. Scott, and is familiar with the case.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]In her video testimony, Miss Erica Kauffman alleges she was raped by a SSPX priest and bore his child. [size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][...][/font][/size].
I asked her for corroborating evidence, i.e., a birth certificate for her child (now adopted) or some other notarized docuмent that establishes paternity. This Miss Kauffman made available to me, along with other corroborating docuмents. [/font][/size]
P.S.- One thing I've never understood is how these girls/women do not have anyone to go to. If my sister had trouble with any man she works with, she would send for me and I would take care of it before it went to the point of rape.
The woman's narrative doesn't pass the smell test..
A woman who knew that a rapist had the key to her apartment, would immediately get her landlord to change the lock, and/or purchase a simple internal lock.
She didn't.
Better yet, why didn't she call the police and say she was raped and that he has a key to her apartment?
.It looks like questions about her lock on her door is really hitting a nerve with this woman. She responded to a comment on YouTube about that by saying:
I must admit, I always have a problem with these types of stories for this reason. Even the first time, it seems like so often the person didn't fight as hard as they could. I would run away, or kick, punch, scratch, scream, and do whatever I could to ward off a rape. He'd have to beat me black & blue. And I especially never understand the repeated cases. If someone did this to me once, I would do as the posts above suggest: seek help from friends, ask landlord to change locks, or if my landlord was too cheap to do it, I'd change the locks myself. If I didn't have the money for the locks, I'd find someone to loan me the money. I'd place a piece of heavy furniture in front of the door if I had to. I'd have some pepper spray handy, and if he tried again, spray him & call the police. ANYTHING to prevent it happening again. Maybe the woman in this story did some of this, but it doesn't sound like it from some of the comments here, and in other alleged cases of priest-abuse, it seems like the victim is always available for further abuse. I don't understand it.
Fr. Arzuaga was not a big/strong man and he was by her account heavily intoxicated. Had she physically resisted, I don’t see how she couldn’t have thwarted any attempted rape on his part. And the fact that this happened over and over again without her having done much of anything to prevent it ... I agree that it doesn’t pass a smell test. It’s also interesting that she won’t name this confessor who could theoretically back up parts of her story. So she would just lay there every night wondering if Fr. Arzuaga would show up to rape her? “I’m glad he didn’t show up tonight to rape me.” Wouldn’t you just move or do SOMEthing? Then she plays the “shaming” card ... asserting that anyone who doesn’t accept everything she says to be true is shaming her. That’s garbage.
Last Tradhican had asked: To anyone that watches it clear through, it would be great if they would post here the details of what she said. Thanks and God Bless.)
.If it were me, and the story were true, I would want other young girls to be aware this happened to protect themselves. Young girls tend to believe that their priests can do no wrong and their guard goes down around them when, in other circuмstances, they would be wary of a man.
What does she want from the sspx/priest, if the baby is already adopted? She can't get child support, so what does she want? She says she doesn't hate the sspx, so obviously she wants revenge on the priest in question. Revenge that she waited 25 years for, which means she's protected from the law. This totally sounds fishy.
If it were me, and the story were true, I would want other young girls to be aware this happened to protect themselves. Young girls tend to believe that their priests can do no wrong and their guard goes down around them when, in other circuмstances, they would be wary of a man..
So to answer the why: perhaps to possibly help for this to not happen to another girl. Someone else's daughter and sister. Some other family that would go through hell.
Fr. Arzuaga was not a big/strong man and he was by her account heavily intoxicated. Had she physically resisted, I don’t see how she couldn’t have thwarted any attempted rape on his part. And the fact that this happened over and over again without her having done much of anything to prevent it ... I agree that it doesn’t pass a smell test. It’s also interesting that she won’t name this confessor who could theoretically back up parts of her story. So she would just lay there every night wondering if Fr. Arzuaga would show up to rape her? “I’m glad he didn’t show up tonight to rape me.” Wouldn’t you just move or do SOMEthing? Then she plays the “shaming” card ... asserting that anyone who doesn’t accept everything she says to be true is shaming her. That’s garbage.I hate to sound cliche, but as a man you would already have a very different reaction than a young woman. Men are fighters. Their reason overrides their emotions when it comes to crises. Women tend to have emotions that override their reason in a crisis. Very complimentary in God's plan.
It sounds like she has more than a couple of confessors.
I hate to sound cliche, but as a man you would already have a very different reaction than a young woman. Men are fighters. Their reason overrides their emotions when it comes to crises. Women tend to have emotions that override their reason in a crisis. Very complimentary in God's plan.
A young girl, living on her own, working for the school, scared stiff is not going to think rationally, especially if she is suffering some kind of PTSD. You say what she should have done not only as a man, but as someone totally disassociated from the trauma. Why do any abused women stay with their abusers?
In this case it was her parish, her support system, her salary... everything at stake. It is impossible to judge someone's actions here.
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve the story... but I will remember to tell my daughters to keep their guard up.
The accusations are probably true,
? why? Because women always tell the truth?
A young girl, living on her own, working for the school, scared stiff is not going to think rationally, especially if she is suffering some kind of PTSD. You say what she should have done not only as a man, but as someone totally disassociated from the trauma. Why do any abused women stay with their abusers?I didn't see this before and it can explain what happened. The key is "A young girl, living on her own", with everyone around her against her "her parish, her support system".
In this case it was her parish, her support system, her salary... everything at stake. It is impossible to judge someone's actions here.
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve the story... but I will remember to tell my daughters to keep their guard up.
But the woman seems sincere.
A young girl, living on her own, working for the school,
This is why I say the daughters should stay at home till they marry.
I didn't see this before and it can explain what happened. The key is "A young girl, living on her own", with everyone around her against her "her parish, her support system".
In my culture daughters lived at home till they married. If they worked, they still lived at home and worked with a relative or a trusted Catholic friend of the family that would watch over her like the parents. This is why I say the daughters should stay at home till they marry. In my eyes, Americans trad parents are like snakes, they lay their eggs and then let them fend for themselves. This is an American thing, it is not Catholic, and they have spread all over the world. American Trads have their children and send them off to be taught by others, and then boarding school in another state at 12 years of age. They are worse than the secularists who keep their children home from K-12, then send them off to college at 18 and up.
I can believe now that this could have happened had the girl had no one to turn to; no parents to turn to, or parents, parish, and support system that worship priests as gods, rather than as men.
? why? Because women always tell the truth?Like men who lie, women who lie tend to do so in order to make themselves look better, stronger, smarter.
She evidently has the birth certificate, so if the SSPX wanted to protect others, they would have looked into this, found the 23 year old and ask if he or she would submit to DNA testing.
Bottom line. They chose to bury their heads in the sand, rather than to attempt to protect others from a possible predator.
A birth certificate only proves she had a child. It doesn't prove the priest was involved.
.
If I created a website, and said I have evidence that you abandoned a child long ago, would you take a DNA test next week? Why or why not?
I seem to recall from the video that she said she got the priest to sign some paper about the adoption.
Ok, so assuming that's true, here are the facts:I was just saying that to show you that DNA is not an issue.
.
20+ years ago, a woman and priest had a child. Child given up for adoption. Woman and priest signed a docuмent for adoption.
.
20 years later, woman complains that the priest's organization ignored her. She wants the "truth" to be known. Ok, but what else does she want? Destruction of the priest? Child support is not involved, because the child is adopted, so what is the "end game"? ...The only answer is revenge.
But beware - if you don't first listen to the whole video and read all the combox comments first, she may just tell you to do so, and not give you any answer.
Ok, so assuming that's true, here are the facts:Not revenge, but a duty to prevent this coverup to continue to damage other women. Rape is one thing. The coverup is worse in the sense that it allows predators to continue, knowing they will be protected.
.
20+ years ago, a woman and priest had a child. Child given up for adoption. Woman and priest signed a docuмent for adoption.
.
20 years later, woman complains that the priest's organization ignored her. She wants the "truth" to be known. Ok, but what else does she want? Destruction of the priest? Child support is not involved, because the child is adopted, so what is the "end game"? ...The only answer is revenge.
Not revenge, but a duty to prevent this coverup to continue to damage other women.She’s 25 yrs late...
DNA is pivotal. If the 23-year-old can be located, he or she may very well agree to testing. The SSPX may, due to public pressure, require the priest (they are now protecting) to be tested. The test results will reveal if he impregnated the woman. Or not. It goes without saying that. . .I haven't read the article and I haven't watched the video. Only read this thread.
DNA is pivotal. If the 23-year-old can be located, he or she may very well agree to testing. The SSPX may, due to public pressure, require the priest (they are now protecting) to be tested. The test results will reveal if he impregnated the woman. Or not. It goes without saying that.
I was just saying that to show you that DNA is not an issue.
You appear to have question. You can go to Youtube and ask them in the combox. She answer. But beware - if you don't first listen to the whole video and read all the combox comments first, she may just tell you to do so, and not give you any answer.
Kauffman.
Where I am from that is a Jєωιѕн name.
.Kauffman is a German name. αѕнкenαzι Jews from Germany took the name also. So she could be of German descent.
Good catch! I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already.
.
Is this person still a traditional Catholic? What type of chapel does she attend now -- SSPX, independent, Novus Ordo, anywhere?
Not revenge, but a duty to prevent this coverup to continue to damage other women. Rape is one thing. The coverup is worse in the sense that it allows predators to continue, knowing they will be protected.
The heart of the problem here is that she has nothing to lose by making a false accusation.
1. Waiting to report rape the statistical likelihood in a person who has been sɛҳuąƖly assaulted.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=58549.msg722907#msg722907)
QuoteQuoteNot revenge, but a duty to prevent this coverup to continue to damage other women.
She’s 25 yrs late...
KauffmanOnly a moron would extrapolate anything of significance from a person's surname.
Where I am from that is a Jєωιѕн name.
The priest is innocent until proven guilty. This is both legal and charitable. No one should trust any woman's claim of rape, until and unless she has spoken with police first. If she's not willing to have the police check out her story, if she's not willing to be scrutinized, if she's not willing to tell the truth under threat of lying to the cops (which is illegal), then she shouldn't and can't be trusted. Put up or shut up.Where did you obtain the idea that she has not reported this to the authorities -- police or sheriffs?
He might be innocent entirely. No DNA test.An innocent person would have no problem with a DNA test.
To me it is of little importance whether this happened as she says or otherwise, what I see in this is that the average man or parent who reads this, does not see anything wrong with sending their daughters away to live by themselves and does not see that the same thing that happened to this girl whether she did it willingly or not, will happen or is happening right now to their daughters or sisters. Whether their daughters are away at college or working in another state, they will be pursued by strangers. What did parents expect? Personally, I think that parents, and specially the fathers, that send their daughters away to live by themselves are sleeping on the job, idiots, shirking their duty, do not care till it is too late, selfish, useless...... (take your pick)Agreed. In the video, she says she had no family. I take this to mean either she had no family, or she had a pathological family. She was left abandoned and unprotected, which coincidentally happens to be the type of situation favored by predators.
An innocent person would have no problem with a DNA test.
The problem is not the alleged perp, the problem is the SSPX coverup by refusing to investigate her allegation.
She claims in the YouTube comments that she could not afford to change her locks. That is simply not believable. This is America, in 1993, not Somalia.Exactly.
A new barrel and key for any lock is 20 or 30 dollars maximum and usually comes with 3 keys. Changing it simply needs a screwdriver. She could ask any old timer parishioner male who had a blue collar job and he would swap out the barrel. It takes 5 minutes and is very simple. She could keep the old barrel to satisfy the landlord. No landlord is going to object to a lock being changed for the safety of a female tenant.
You can easily save 20 dollars that on groceries in a month, or by turning you AC or heating down for 2 weeks. Or just ask a friend. Who here would not simply gift 30 dollars to a woman who felt she needed to change her locks. Heck, I would even pick up the screwdriver as well as pay for the lock. I would not care about 30 dollars even if she did not pay it back, it is such a trivial sum.
A security chain in 1993 cost 10 dollars. Anyone can attach that to a door. It is beginner level DIY. Screwdriver and 8 screws.
Exactly.
You let a priest repeatedly "rape" you every 1-1.5 months for a long time because it was too difficult to change your lock? :facepalm:
Where did you obtain the idea that she has not reported this to the authorities -- police or sheriffs?
An innocent person would have no problem with a DNA test.
I mean, could you imagine? You'd lay there every single night wondering if he would show up that night to rape you?If her childhood was like that, this is exactly the behavior that commonly occurs in ACTUAL cases of incest victims later being easy targets for predators..
Only a moron would extrapolate anything of significance from a person's surname.Then you are a moron. I merely made an observation.
The heart of the problem here is that she has nothing to lose by making a false accusation.And, as Bill Cosby has found out, women can find false accusations to be very profitable.
The problem is that the SSPX appears to be stonewalling now, which tends to give credence to her charge that they stonewalled then.
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused)Well, in my on going investigations I stumbled upon this thread. Wow. Just. Wow. Here I am: have at it but I won't respond to topics covered in the videos; I won't respond to anonymous posters (you can email me if you like); and I will only respond to the same question once, so pay attention to what other's have asked and what I have said.
I didn't see a thread on this. A woman accuses an SSPX priest of ɾαριɳg her in the 90's. She says she bore the priest's child. And accuses the SSPX of covering it up back then and still now. This is the Remnant, not homo Voris.
Why did you create a YT channel? What's the purpose?Don't worry, it isn't monetized. I had it for years to post various things and then I decided to go public regarding my story and now everything is all in one place. Simple concept.
Well, in my on going investigations I stumbled upon this thread. Wow. Just. Wow. Here I am: have at it but I won't respond to topics covered in the videos; I won't respond to αnσnymσus posters (you can email me if you like); and I will only respond to the same question once, so pay attention to what other's have asked and what I have said.
Here is my YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpxX5o-7DxqS3xmYPRcb3nQ
Have you talked to the police? Doesn't posting your story on YT compromise you, legally?I believe that was covered in the video.
Have you talked to the police? Doesn't posting your story on YT compromise you, legally?Okay, Mr. Pax Vobis who did not understand that I don't know who you are and those questions are addressed in the videos, go watch the videos.
How did you find out about this forum?Google.
Google.
I don't know who you are and those questions are addressed in the videos
Don't worry, it isn't monetized. I had it for years to post various things and then I decided to go public regarding my story and now everything is all in one place. Simple concept.
Thank you. Why did you join this forum?To answer some confusion that I will be happy to do after the video is watched and members simply commented on the video or emailed me directly.
To answer some confusion that I will be happy to do after the video is watched and members simply commented on the video or emailed me directly.
Are you the "genuine" Erica Kauffman? There are lots of imposter accounts out there. That's why Donald Tɾυmρ had to adopt realDonalTɾυmρ on Twitter, because someone else snatched up the regular name.I am she, but you are anonymous. I heard that bazaar theory, also but the further videos prove with docuмentation that it is a lie. I should have been included in any and all investigations to see the evidence, according to Canon Law. I was not included.
If so, the last I heard was that the SSPX concluded that your relationship with Fr. Arzuaga was consensual.
If so, the last I heard was that the SSPX concluded that your relationship with Fr. Arzuaga was consensual.
But your rule is that the video must be watched, and that you won't address anything that has already been covered in your video. With the strict restrictions you've imposed, you can't really clear up any confusion that we might have.To clarify any confusion after having watched the videos. I'm not going to waste my time on people who won't make an investment of their own time.
So I can't see that the reason you've given for joining this forum makes sense.
It would be helpful if Miss Kauffman could address the above statement.I did in the response above, but I will repeat: I heard that bazaar theory, also but the further videos prove with docuмentation that it is a lie. I should have been included in any and all investigations to see the evidence, according to Canon Law. I was not included.
After all, we've only heard one side of the story (Miss Kauffman's side). The leadership of the SSPX has heard both sides, presumably.
To clarify any confusion after having watched the videos. I'm not going to waste my time on people who won't make an investment of their own time.
I have gone public for ONE REASON: to warn people of a predator and a criminal cover-up by the SSPX.
But you won't address anything that's already been addressed in the video. So I will repeat: you won't really be able to clear up any confusion with your restrictive rules of engagement.I never said that. I am willing to clarify what I can. I have uploaded two short videos to explain much more. And if my agony is too much for you, get over yourself.
I never said that. I am willing to clarify what I can. I have uploaded two short videos to explain much more. And if my agony is too much for you, get over yourself.
You see, we've only heard one side of the story. You appear to want everyone to assume that Fr. Arzuaga is absolutely guilty. But it would not be fair to assume this, given that only one side is presented. This isn't a court of law. It's just a forum.Then why are you folks even discussing it? And why are you so willing to trash me, mock me, etc? I've been trying to get this into court since Wegner was DS. He offered me a settlement. I refused because of the strings attached. Meg, I don't have a clue who you are, yet I am here and on YouTube totally transparent.
Then why are you folks even discussing it? And why are you so willing to trash me, mock me, etc? I've been trying to get this into court since Wegner was DS. He offered me a settlement. I refused because of the strings attached. Meg, I don't have a clue who you are, yet I am here and on YouTube totally transparent.
Good heavens. :facepalm: You want to force everyone to watch your videos. No thanks. That's why your here.Yeah ... with that gun I'm pointing at you. ::)
Yeah ... with that gun I'm pointing at you. ::)
I thought you said in your original video that you can't afford to go to court.There are ways to get it done with no cost to me, but it is a fluid situation and THAT I won't reveal. At the time of the video, it was true that I would have had to come up with many thousands of dollars. Besides, the SSPX won't bring Arzuaga here to face me in court.
There are ways to get it done with no cost to me, but it is a fluid situation and THAT I won't reveal. At the time of the video, it was true that I would have had to come up with many thousands of dollars. Besides, the SSPX won't bring Arzuaga here to face me in court.
But you said in in your recent post that you've been trying to get this into court since Wegner was DS. That conflicts with your statement in your video that you can't afford to go to court.Wow. You really can't follow a time-line. I spoke clearly and slowly (which so many criticize) just to make the time-line clear. :fryingpan:
I am she.You still have to prove it.
You still have to prove it.How?
How?You could e.g. change your youtube Channel-Info saying 'I am she'.
So that this thing not go on & on needlessly, let's recap a couple of things:This is a classic example of the defense mechanism of vicitim blaming"
You said that the priest was drunk at some gathering & wanted a ride home but no one would drive him so you did - alone - !! (this after he had supposedly abused you). So why didn't you or someone think to call a cab? I would NEVER have driven him home - I would have let him stumble, walk or take a cab. What you did makes no sense.
Then you said you didn't have money to change the lock on your apartment!!! How much does a lock cost?!! I would have begged or borrowed the money, as any normal person would. You had money to move to another state though. To compound the nonsense of this whole nonsense, you put the key under the mat!!!!! What's the first place that anyone would look for the key to the door?
Bottom line --- I don't believe you & this thread needs to be closed. Don't allow this to be her bully pulpit.
Don't allow this to be her bully pulpit.
Bonaventure - You should have looked up 'bully pulpit' in the dictionary before you posted.
What would be the best case scenario?
And she was adroitly shown the door.
How Trad.
Ok, so assuming that's true, here are the facts:If it is true then the priest should no longer be a priest.
.
20+ years ago, a woman and priest had a child. Child given up for adoption. Woman and priest signed a docuмent for adoption.
To me it is of little importance whether this happened as she says or otherwise, what I see in this is that the average man or parent who reads this, does not see anything wrong with sending their daughters away to live by themselves and does not see that the same thing that happened to this girl whether she did it willingly or not, will happen or is happening right now to their daughters or sisters. Whether their daughters are away at college or working in another state, they will be pursued by strangers. What did parents expect? Personally, I think that parents, and specially the fathers, that send their daughters away to live by themselves are sleeping on the job, idiots, shirking their duty, do not care till it is too late, selfish, useless...... (take your pick)Excellent post. Parents need to protect their children.
Not to beat a dead horse, Bonaventure, but why did you leave out the last phrase? Which is, in my Webster's -- also: such an opportunity. Cathinfo was that opportunity.Agreed 100%.
I repeat - this thread should be closed.
The Catholic Church is in crisis because of fornication and sơdơmy.
This is a classic example of the defense mechanism of vicitim blaming"That's exactly what's going on in this thread, IMO. The priest perpetrator seems to escape necessary scrutiny. Erica Kauffman is really not the issue here. An apparently manipulative, predatory, one time sspx priest is. (Or is he still a priest with the Society?) The real issue is the priest himself, his behavior, and the sspx hierarchy, which, it appears, has thus far covered it all up, or, at the very least, refuses to give it the attention the case deserves.
“victim blaming is all about placing unreasonable expectations on people (statistically mostly women) to act in a certain way to keep themselves safe, while expectations are rarely placed on the perpetrator (statistically mostly men) to put the feelings of others above their own.”
That's exactly what's going on in this thread, IMO. The priest perpetrator seems to escape necessary scrutiny. Erica Kauffman is really not the issue here. An apparently manipulative, predatory, one time sspx priest is. (Or is he still a priest with the Society?) The real issue is the priest himself, his behavior, and the sspx hierarchy, which, it appears, has thus far covered it all up, or, at the very least, refuses to give it the attention the case deserves.
Nobody’s defending Arzuaga’s sacrilegious fornication. What’s at issue is whether he committed a sin (consensual fornication against his vows with a grown woman) or a crime (rape). You’re setting up a false dilemma and deliberately mischaracterizing the debate out of your animosity against the SSPX. I don’t like the SSPX, but I’m not going to lose objectivity over it. There’s no evidence that this was not consensual. This happens all the time in the secular world, where a woman shows no outward sign of resisting a man’s advances and then later alleges rape.
As for the SSPX, they did take some action against Arzuaga and didn’t cover up anything. You could argue that the action they took wasn’t severe enough, and I would concur, but that’s not the same as a coverup ... which is the chief concern here.
I find no credible evidence of rape or if coverup, but only of consensual sacrilegious fornication and too light a punishment.
EK: Firstly, I did not come forward with what happened to me in order to get some kind of 'street justice'. My case is in the Hands of a Divine Tribunal and I am very okay with that. I wanted SSPX faithful to know that there is a predator and hirelings within who won't protect you and your children, so DO IT FOR YOURSELVES. Learn from my mistakes.
Secondly, I or any other victim who comes forward, stand NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to lose by doing so, as evidenced by this existing 7-8 page thread, which I had no idea existed until a few weeks ago. After you all became aware of my video testimony from the Remnant did even one of you reach out to me privately with your concerns/objections before venting your spleens and shredding me to pieces HERE? Doubtfully, because in such a case the victim is presumed guilty while the accused is presumed innocent.
Secondly, I or any other victim who comes forward, stand NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to lose by doing so, as evidenced by this existing 7-8 page thread, which I had no idea existed until a few weeks ago. After you all became aware of my video testimony from the Remnant did even one of you reach out to me privately with your concerns/objections before venting your spleens and shredding me to pieces HERE? Doubtfully, because in such a case the victim is presumed guilty while the accused is presumed innocent.
Erika, I don't wish to be associated with people "who are shredding you to pieces." In fact, I may be the one on CI earlier who brought your tragic case to light. My wife and I stand with you against these sspx priest predators. (There are far more than one) Furthermore, we support you in all the actions you have attempted against the "hirelings" who run the whole show. It's a coverup from day one. That's the modus operandi of the sspx hierarchy in most, if not all, such cases. We are convinced that the SSPX is a Catholic cult, or was turned into one after the passage of years.
BTW, anyone, what is the latest news on Fr. Arzuaga? Where is he? Is he still a priest with the Society?
We are convinced that the SSPX is a Catholic cult, or was turned into one after the passage of years..
QuoteH: We are convinced that the SSPX is a Catholic cult, or was turned into one after the passage of years..
Yeti: This explains a lot about what you have been saying in this thread and similar threads for the past several months. Could you explain what you mean by this?
I use it in a less positive way with reference to the SSPX. I think the SSPX is a ‘cult’ in the sense of assuming to itself a specially ordained role in the Church, a role that it does not deserve now, nor, probably, did it ever.The sspx started small and grew. But they were, and are, a part of a larger grass-roots movement called "Tradition".
The Society has no special or God-given, God-appointed authority or mandate to re-establish the Old Mass, and to train new priests in the exercise of the traditional Catholic Sacraments.+ABL did have a God-given, God-appointed reason to do what he did (i.e. Quo Primum). All of Tradition has such a mandate, and also are COMMANDED, because Quo Primum is the law of the Church, which does not allow, under grave sin, any alterations to the Latin Rite.
Many of its followers still believe that the Society is really the Church’s only authentic gatekeeper, a Divinely ordained apostolate to which the faithful must repair, if they are to preserve their own Catholic identity. The SSPX operates, truth be told, as if it were the true Church in exile, assuming that responsibility until the Holy See in Rome is fully restored. We don’t believe that.The sspx is part of the church in exile, with the whole of Tradition, being the larger part.
What is more, the terrible sex scandals plaguing the Society is proof positive to us that the SSPX and its priests and hierarchy are not what they think they are. The Society has been outed, painful as that outing has proven to be.
I presume the SSPX leadership may wish to tell their side of the story. Perhaps they already have done so, I don’t know. Either way, I offer these columns to them, should they wish to publicly respond to Miss Kauffman's now-public complaint posted on YouTube.I think this is a quote from Michael Matt. Matthew reposted it in November of 2020.
[font=.SF UI Text][font=.SFUIText]NAME WITHHELD.[/font][/font][/color]
Since when is a 9mm an "assault weapon"? Your post is filled with trigger words and liberal-media propaganda-speech. Hard to take seriously.Because the law says so. The police say so. You = 🤮
His name is Pablo Juan Arzuaga, a priest in good standing with the Society of St. Pius X aka SSPX, FSSPX.
Listen, PV, you moron, and you other morons. Erika mentions here a priest "in good standing with" the Society. This is not past tense, PV. This is present tense. Unless Erika is wrong, or worse, lying, Arzuaga is still with sspx and operating under their auspices. Does that concern you, sirrah, or should we first determine if a 9mm pistol is really an assault weapon?https://laportelatine.org/lieux/prieure-saint-jean-mantes-la-jolie
Erika, just for for your possible amusement, watch the response to my comment. They'll drown me in 'thumbs down' and I will chuckle delightedly as I always have.
Am I being misunderstood here? I will state this again: She might just be telling the truth here. Yes- I said it. What if you were ACTUALLY abused by a priest, but not a single person believed you, because they “valued that priest?” Yes- I said that, too. That’s possibly why they will not believe her story because they “love Fr. A.” She wouldn’t say there were deaths done by Arzuaga’s hand, if there were not death records as evidence of the Bishop and priest. CMRI was it? The death records could be looked at.
You never know but he might be watching all activity on this forum. By the way, Arzuaga, how’s the vegetable garden coming? Send me some squash, won’t you.
I will never say exactly that “she IS telling the truth in its entirety.” I would only say “If” she is, because that is all we could say at this point. IF. Of course, some things are quite unclear and they might remain that way.
All we know is this woman has lost face for good. It’s like a laughingstock for her. The Society has remained silent these several months even with this video out in the open.
Yes, of course she might be telling the truth. But that's just the problem. We can't know for sure, and we shouldn't be compelled to make a decision on the matter. We don't know the entire story, and we likely never will..
And so why is so much time being spent on this subject?.
Why is miss Kauffman making the decision to have so much resentment, not only against Fr. Arzuaga, but against anyone who doesn't believe her? Resentment seems to be her main motivation. She'll have to get past that at some point in her life..
You seem to believe that we are obligated to believe her, as if all women who tell a similar story cannot ever be wrong, and that we must always believe them, no matter what..
.
Seek transparency from your beloved SSPX..
Beats the heck out of me. This thread was started six months ago-ish and I found it when it was already seven pages long..
I bear no resentment. I do despise αnσnymσus keyboard vomit. This discussion is majority rash judgement and vile assumptions of my character that NONE of you would ever say to my face. You folks are back-biting and that is majorly sinful..
Absolutely NO ONE is obliged to believe me. I came forward to caution people. If you or your child(ren) are harmed ... it's now on YOU. I have done what God obliges me to do.
There is a good video that you should watch. It's made by an actor who tells his life story. It's interesting because he is a recovering alcoholic. He was sɛҳuąƖly abused not only as a child actor in Hollywood, but also by his biological father. After he contacted a Roman Catholic exorcist priest (Fr. Chad Ripperger) a few years ago, he converted to Catholicism. He realized (I believe with the help of Fr. Ripperger) that what was behind his excess drinking was resentment. Resentment can do bad things to a person, if they hold onto it..
The video:
Bug Hall Breaks Silence: On His αrrєѕт, Hollywood Child Abuse, and the Roman Catholic Church - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVA6H_pU6Qg)
And there are several, legitimate reasons why some people will not give their real identity..
Law enforcement has never apprehended or Fr. Arzuaga or brought him in for questioning.Maybe the above is true because the authorities, both civil and religious, don’t believe a crime occurred? Maybe the accuser is wrong. Maybe the priest is innocent? Why should I believe Ms K when the police didn’t?
> SSPX, to date, has issued no public statement on the case.
BTW, Pax Vobis, I apologize for my harsh description of you and certain others on this forum. My anger got the best of me. Sorry. I'll try to do better next time.Hollingsworth, no problem. I understand your passion at trying to get at the truth. But neither you nor I have the means or ability to discover it, so in absence of proof, I am forced by catholic charity to distrust the accuser because the only evidence is her word.
I am forced by catholic charity to distrust the accuser because the only evidence is her word.
Fair enough. But here you mean that you are distrusting her accusations of rape. Is that not so?Of course. Isn't that why she's making these videos and posting here? Her story is rape. It's not been proven.
You are not at this point disputing Kauffman's contention that Fr. Azuaga impregnated her, are you?The word is, there was a paternity test done. If true, then this is proof. Sounds like the sspx does not dispute this either.
Her story is rape. It's not been proven..
The word is, there was a paternity test done..
Let's recap:.
> Erica Kauffman taught at an sspx school.
> She bore a child while working at that school, or around that time in any case.
> That child was fathered by an sspx priest, Fr. Pablo Arzuaga.
> Arzuaga is still a priest in good standing with the Society.
> SSPX leadership has done little or nothing to effectively address the grievances of Ms. Kauffman.
> To date, Fr. Arzuaga is still running about freely doing whatever he does.
> Fr. Arzuaga has never been questioned or disciplined by sspx hierarchy. They have taken no action against him.
> Law enforcement has never apprehended or Fr. Arzuaga or brought him in for questioning.
> SSPX, to date, has issued no public statement on the case.
Erica, do not misunderstand people. You might cry happy tears if you actually knew who I was. Yes- you would..
We are not all bad here.
If the assault can be proven why didn’t the cops take up the case? Why didn’t you go to a lawyer?.
.
If the statue of limitations are reached, then how in the world are you going to get justice? Even if you have proof?
.
None of this makes sense.
Even if the assault charge is real, You’re assuming that Fr A has done this multiple times, or that he would. Youre assuming he’s a perverted psycho. You’re assuming the sspx isn’t watching him. ...In other words, you’re assuming the worse. And for this, you have 0 proof. This is where your actions have crossed the line into extreme uncharity..
What is it that you want to happen? He can’t go to jail, because the authorities can’t prosecute. So what is it that you want your proof to accomplish?.
This was not a child, she was a grown woman who had gone to college & was a teacher! It's unfair to drag the parents into this & somehow blame them - however so slightly. At what point can the parents let go? Until she's married? What if she never marries?That posting is old, sorry, but I missed the question. In my culture, and I believe it was always this way in all the homes of real Catholics throughout the world, the parents were responsible for the care of the daughters till they turned her over to a proper husband. If she remained single all her life, the parents would provide for her till they died. Let me add, that the daughters could not go out on "dates" without a chaperoning. The chaperones were the parents or trusted relatives and friends that were considered by the parents to be equals. This is the way my daughters are taken care of and I have many or them.
Yes, but that is really only part of her story. The rest of the story weaves in leaders of the SSPX, who did virtually nothing to help her. Those leaders include Bernard Fellay, Fr. Wegner, Fr. Phluger and others. They heard her story, but did not act effectively to punish or discipline the offender, Fr. Arzuaga. They gave him a slap on the wrist and let him go. According to Erica, he is to this day a "priest in good standing" with the Society. Yes, rape is part of the narrative, but certainly not the whole thing. SSPX leadership acted then, and continues to act, totally irresponsibly and have gone into a complete cover up posture.Good holy priests are removed while bad priests are protected. There should have been zero deal with anti Catholic Rome.
That posting is old, sorry, but I missed the question. In my culture, and I believe it was always this way in all the homes of real Catholics throughout the world, the parents were responsible for the care of the daughters till they turned her over to a proper husband. If she remained single all her life, the parents would provide for her till they died. Let me add, that the daughters could not go out on "dates" without a chaperoning. The chaperones were the parents or trusted relatives and friends that were considered by the parents to be equals. This is the way my daughters are taken care of and I have many or them.Yes. That is Catholic to care for daughters. It used to be like that in USA but after Vatican II, it changed. Parents and grand parents became selfish. They couldn’t wait to kick their daughters out of the house.
God Bless
You keep saying that justice is in God's hands, but then you keep talking about your story. That’s a contradiction. You are causing scandal by your actions. 2 wrongs (rape and scandal) don’t make a right. You need to forgive and let God handle the rest. Or, you’ll never have peace.PAX VOBIS, you need to shut up! You cause scandal with your posts defending a priest who abused his position of power and impregnated a young woman. The blame is on him because he is a priest. You are disgusting and causing scandal for defending a “priest” who fathered a child. What is wrong with you??? You need to go to confession for defending mortal sin!
PAX VOBIS, you need to shut up! You cause scandal with your posts defending a priest who abused his position of power and impregnated a young woman. The blame is on him because he is a priest. You are disgusting and causing scandal for defending a “priest” who fathered a child. What is wrong with you??? You need to go to confession for defending mortal sin!
PAX VOBIS, you need to shut up! You cause scandal with your posts defending a priest who abused his position of power and impregnated a young woman. The blame is on him because he is a priest. You are disgusting and causing scandal for defending a “priest” who fathered a child. What is wrong with you??? You need to go to confession for defending mortal sin!
You cause scandal with your posts defending a priest who abused his position of power and impregnated a young woman.
PV: You cause scandal by assuming that the priest is wholly to blame, and the woman is innocent. You are biased and uncharitable towards the priest, who has just as much a right to be believed and protected, as does the woman.
Same old, same old: The priest has a right to be believed, that, meaning I presume, he has a right to protest that the relationship was consensual and not rape.What about innocent until proven guilty? Where is the proof it was rape? You are bending over backwards to believe a woman over a priest, based on her word. Totally wrong.
The SSPX hierarchy could bring immediate closure to the issue by simply severing all ties with Arzuaga,Again, is the priest not innocent until proven guilty? According to you, no. This is totally uncatholic thinking. Even canon law says guilt must be proven.
and admitting publicly that they were remiss in their duties, that they did not deal decisively and emphatically with this priest, and that they should have cut him loose years ago.A consensual relationship between a priest and a layman is not grounds for "cutting him loose". You are not the Church; you don't make the rules. For the 3rd time, your error lies in the fact that you would burn this priest at the stake based on no proof except someone's word. Ridiculous.
But, of course, by acting as they did, or failing to act, they allowed him to continue on with his predations.You assume guilt without proof. You assume he was a predator and she's innocent.
Of course, should the SSPX leaders confront the Arzuaga matter honestly, they would be forced to confront at least 15 other sspx priests, whom they treated similarly, covering up and refusing to take action against them until it was too late.It seems that no matter what the sspx does, you would criticize them. For you, priests have no rights, and are always guilty, so it seems to me that the sspx is acting prudently, since they recognize that their group does not get a fair shake in the matter of public opinion. They are in a lose-lose situation; they might as well keep everyone in the dark.
What about innocent until proven guilty? Where is the proof it was rape? You are bending over backwards to believe a woman over a priest, based on her word. Totally wrong.
.
Again, is the priest not innocent until proven guilty? According to you, no. This is totally uncatholic thinking. Even canon law says guilt must be proven.
.
A consensual relationship between a priest and a layman is not grounds for "cutting him loose". You are not the Church; you don't make the rules. For the 3rd time, your error lies in the fact that you would burn this priest at the stake based on no proof except someone's word. Ridiculous.
.
You assume guilt without proof. You assume he was a predator and she's innocent.
.
It seems that no matter what the sspx does, you would criticize them. For you, priests have no rights, and are always guilty, so it seems to me that the sspx is acting prudently, since they recognize that their group does not get a fair shake in the matter of public opinion. They are in a lose-lose situation; they might as well keep everyone in the dark.
.
p.s. They have no obligation to tell you, or anyone else, how they discipline their own group.
I'm fairly certain that Hollingsworth isn't really paying attention to any of the points that you cite above. As you say, he would criticize the SSPX no matter what. And yes, he would believe that SSPX priests are always guilty and have no rights. When someone believes, as Hollingsworth does, that the SSPX is and always has been a cult, then they cannot give the benefit of the doubt to any SSPX clergy.
As for the subject at hand, Fr. Arzuaga: Yes, I feel that he has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
January 27th, 2021Bp. Fellay fully recognized that the relationship existed, but characterized it as merely a "reciprocal sentimental relationship." But, says Phluger, +Fellay took "severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest." Those measures consisted of what amounted to a year's sabbatical in a monastery. Thereafter, he was to be sent to Europe to "exercise his ministry there." In other words, Arzuaga would still be a "priest in good standing" with the Society after his "severe" punishment was over. Now, it appears, Arzuaga has virtually disappeared from the map, either in Europe or the US.
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
(bold type added)
I post this, not to set Ladislaus straight, who, I am convinced is an sspx operative of some kind.
Apparently, according to Ladislaus, the Society does not take "consensual" relationships very seriously. An sspx priest who breaks his vows and impregnates a woman is not a law enforcement issue. So it can be virtually ignored or papered over. That's the message I get from Ladislaus.
You need some refresher courses in reading comprehension. All I wrote was that there's no evidence of RAPE, which is as far as law enforcement goes. I have no comment about whether the SSPX's "punishment" of Fr. Arzuaga was sufficient. I don't know the details of what went on, and Kauffman has proven that she is not a reliable source of information about what did or did not happen. She alleges rape, but not only was there the curious case of the "key" but Bishop Fellay evidently got witnesses who stated that there was an overly-friendly relationship between the two (i.e. they were probably flirting with each other all the time). Given that Kauffman appears to be discredited, could this have been a case of a woman seducing the priest and then his falling once (rather than the repeated times alleged by Kauffman)? Then, as often happens, when afterwards she was spurned and left with a "love child," the man disappears ... and the woman grows resentful of being the one holding the bag of consequences. We'll probably never know the truth. Once you're caught in one lie, who knows what's true and what isn't anymore. Perhaps Father Arzuaga (along with other witnesses) gave a completely different picture of events. Consequently, I can't comment about whether the punishment meted out by the SSPX was severe enough. You can't totally defrock a priest or even send him to a monastery for life based on the word of a single unreliable accuser.Well said.
Nevertheless, typically when "coverups" are spoken of, you are talking about CRIMES that are covered up from the civil enforcement and legal authorities.
Perhaps the SSPX's punishment was appropriate, perhaps not. I don't know. And, guess what, holligsworth, neither do you.
As for me being an SSPX operative, that's laughable. You need only look at my posting history where I have been regularly excoriating the neo-SSPX for sliding into Modernism. Even the classic SSPX (currently represented by the Resistance) I have theological issues with. So I am no slavish apologist for the SSPX.
You on the other hand clearly have an agenda, where there's no accusation against the SSPX that you won't believe, and even amplify, due to some vendetta you have against the SSPX. I, on the other hand, while there's no love lost between me and the neo-SSPX, I try to remain objective. Priests who are accused of such things DO have some rights, since there are in fact many false accusations out there, and to say that does not mean that one condones actual, real, proven crimes and sins. That's only a step removed from the Jєωιѕн tactic, where if you disagree with the fact that they're gunning down Palestinian children in the streets, this means that you're "FOR" the h0Ɩ0cαųst. Simply because I doubt whether a man is guilty, this does not make it so that I "condone" rape. Nor is it victim "shaming" to question the credibility of a given accuser.
You can't totally defrock a priest or even send him to a monastery for life based on the word of a single unreliable accuser.
You need some refresher courses in reading comprehension. All I wrote was that there's no evidence of RAPE, which is as far as law enforcement goes. I have no comment about whether the SSPX's "punishment" of Fr. Arzuaga was sufficient. I don't know the details of what went on, and Kauffman has proven that she is not a reliable source of information about what did or did not happen. She alleges rape, but not only was there the curious case of the "key" but Bishop Fellay evidently got witnesses who stated that there was an overly-friendly relationship between the two (i.e. they were probably flirting with each other all the time). Given that Kauffman appears to be discredited, could this have been a case of a woman seducing the priest and then his falling once (rather than the repeated times alleged by Kauffman)? Then, as often happens, when afterwards she was spurned and left with a "love child," the man disappears ... and the woman grows resentful of being the one holding the bag of consequences. We'll probably never know the truth. Once you're caught in one lie, who knows what's true and what isn't anymore. Perhaps Father Arzuaga (along with other witnesses) gave a completely different picture of events. Consequently, I can't comment about whether the punishment meted out by the SSPX was severe enough. You can't totally defrock a priest or even send him to a monastery for life based on the word of a single unreliable accuser.
Nevertheless, typically when "coverups" are spoken of, you are talking about CRIMES that are covered up from the civil enforcement and legal authorities.
Perhaps the SSPX's punishment was appropriate, perhaps not. I don't know. And, guess what, holligsworth, neither do you.
As for me being an SSPX operative, that's laughable. You need only look at my posting history where I have been regularly excoriating the neo-SSPX for sliding into Modernism. Even the classic SSPX (currently represented by the Resistance) I have theological issues with. So I am no slavish apologist for the SSPX.
You on the other hand clearly have an agenda, where there's no accusation against the SSPX that you won't believe, and even amplify, due to some vendetta you have against the SSPX. I, on the other hand, while there's no love lost between me and the neo-SSPX, I try to remain objective. Priests who are accused of such things DO have some rights, since there are in fact many false accusations out there, and to say that does not mean that one condones actual, real, proven crimes and sins. That's only a step removed from the Jєωιѕн tactic, where if you disagree with the fact that they're gunning down Palestinian children in the streets, this means that you're "FOR" the h0Ɩ0cαųst. Simply because I doubt whether a man is guilty, this does not make it so that I "condone" rape. Nor is it victim "shaming" to question the credibility of a given accuser.
+Erica, I haven't written on this thread before because I have nothing to contibute, except to ask, how can you come up with this figure of 80% of women who don't report rape? How do you count them if they keep it secret?
Did you know that EIGHTY percent of women do not report rape to the police? Do you know why? Do you CARE why?
I'll tell you why: because of people like YOU. Victim blaming, shaming, harassing, embarrassing ... the shame is on YOU. God sees you no matter how or where you hide. HE SEES YOU.
+
Did you know that EIGHTY percent of women do not report rape to the police? Do you know why? Do you CARE why?
I'll tell you why: because of people like YOU. Victim blaming, shaming, harassing, embarrassing ... the shame is on YOU. God sees you no matter how or where you hide. HE SEES YOU.
Ironically, it is YOU who are doing the "shaming" in declaring that I should be ashamed and embarrassed simply because I don't believe you ... and I have no reason to believe you. You falsely accuse me of "harassing" you.Stunning misdirection! But you do believe, don't you, Lad, that Erica was impregnated by a priest of the SSPX? You do believe, don't you, that the SSPX hierarchy took steps to discipline Arzuaga? I mean, there's no doubt in your mind, is there, that Father got the woman pregnant, and that he suffered a very mild penalty at the hand of Bp. Fellay? I just want to be clear.
+
You folks are truly just trying to get me to sit down and shut up so that this will go away for the SSPX and the "Resistance" priests who are also implicated in other scandals and being investigated. You will rue the day ...
You will rue the day ...
Enabling pederasts and other perverts?(https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused)
Ordinarily we would not put much credence in the investigations and judgments of the Noahide Pimp, h0Ɩ0h0αxer, and former ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Michael Voris (http://judaism.is/dishonorable-mentions.html#voris) and his “Church Militant,” however we believe we have here instances of “a stopped watch is right twice a day.”
Spotlight—SSPX: ‘Sympathetic to Perverts’by Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D., ChurchMilitant.com, April 22, 2020https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/spotlight-sympathetic-to-perverts)The SSPX response? Quibbling about US-Austrian extradition treaties, describing first-person testimony of victims as “hearsay,” and vague protestations of innocence: https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641 (https://sspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/us-district-responds-church-militant-57641)
See also: SSPX Defends sɛҳuąƖ Predator
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-defends-sɛҳuąƖ-predator-in-its-ranks (https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-defends-sɛҳuąƖ-predator-in-its-ranks)
and
Looking for Answers: SSPX Priest Accused
by Michael J. Matt, Editor, The Remnant Newspaper, November 16, 2020
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused)
+
You folks are truly just trying to get me to sit down and shut up so that this will go away for the SSPX and the "Resistance" priests who are also implicated in other scandals and being investigated. You will rue the day ...
but I think we can take to the bank the fact that she had a child, and that that child's father was Fr. Pablo Arzuaga. The SSPX hierarchy believes that to be true. No doubt about that!How do you know that?
How do you know that?How does Bp. Fellay know that? How does Fr. Phluger know that? How does Michael Matt know that?
Do you believe that every single man accused of predatory behavior and crimes should be considered guilty simply on the world of a single accuser? Answer the question.+
How does Bp. Fellay know that? How does Fr. Phluger know that? How does Michael Matt know that?+
Why would the judge share docuмents with Mr. Matt?QuoteHow does Bp. Fellay know that? How does Fr. Phluger know that? How does Michael Matt know that?+
They have all seen the legal docuмents notarized and given to a judge where he admits to being the father.
+
I did not and will not read your earlier post so I missed this fundamental question.
I do not believe that an accusation is proof of guilt. But if you think for a NY minute that I am so stupid that I will post all my legal, docuмented proof here or anywhere on the internet for a bunch of cowards who hide behind phony names, you are a fool.
Did you people watch her long tedious video? If not, sit thru it till the bitter end & then you wouldn't be posting endlessly. Also, you don't know all the ins & outs of this sad saga.+
I don't remember if it said that a DNA test was taken, but Father admitted that the child was his & the child was adopted. Some of you are saying that he should pay - I guess that means child support!! When a child is given up for adoption the adoptive parents take complete care & control of the child. Whoever heard of paying child support to adoptive parents? That's not how the real world works. Those parents & child should be completely out of the picture & allowed to live their lives in peace & quiet & not be reminded of how the child came to be by a monthly check.
Your attempt to "shame" those of us who don't believe you, callings us cowards, fools, implying that we condone rape, etc. ... that leads me to believe you EVEN less. If you had come on here and not done that, I would have considered you much more credible.+
BTW, many of us have been open about our true identities, despite using screen names.
Since the statute of limitations has long passed, what is the purpose of your having compiled these legal docuмents? If your intention is truly to "warn the public," then there would be no need. Are you planning a civil suit against the SSPX? That might explain your "motivation" for coming forward. One of the arguments on your behalf has been, "what does she have to gain from this?"
I have no comment towards this scandal. We might as well leave it to God. That way we all can have peace. But here we are in 2021 and now it is only right that Fr. Arzuaga and his daughter officially meet. She has a right to know who her father is, does she not?+
Oh, and lets not forget that I did not start this "discussion".You put your story out in public, so we are talking about it. You went to Voris and spread your story all over the world, and now you're going to each and every website, trying to stop "fake news"? What did you think was going to happen? You didn't think people were going to comment on a scandalous story? You thought people were going to contact you to get the truth? Who has time for that? Why would we believe you over the sspx, who has an above-average track record (not perfect) of trust for 40 years?
EK:The bold, highlighted portion gets at the real crux of the matter: The SSPX leadership is not in the business of protecting the faithful. IMO, they are, and have always been, in the business of protecting their own asses.
They are docuмents I am legally entitled to have so that I can cover myself and my child. Some are old; some are recent because the SSPX has no intention of protecting the faithful, me, my daughter and her adoptive parents. So, I will. Trust that.
.
No civil action is in progress. Extraditing Arzuaga is a challenge. Why won't the SSPX produce him to face his accuser? I'm not the one who is avoiding facing the music.
You put your story out in public, so we are talking about it. You went to Voris and spread your story all over the world, and now you're going to each and every website, trying to stop "fake news"? What did you think was going to happen? You didn't think people were going to comment on a scandalous story? You thought people were going to contact you to get the truth? Who has time for that? Why would we believe you over the sspx, who has an above-average track record (not perfect) of trust for 40 years?+
.
Seems to me that you're mad that you can't stop the gossip after Voris used you to attack the sspx. Seems to me that you didn't think things through before you went public.
.
I heard a bunch of people meet weekly in Alaska to discuss your case. You might want to fly there and correct them. :laugh1:
Hollingsworth, how are you related to EK? If not, have you ever met her?+
You are just an idiot. I never went to Voris. I never went to M. Matt (he came to me). I published on YouTube. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/sleep.gif)You miss the point. You "went public". People start discussing. Now you're mad that people are talking and you're trying to "control the narrative", which is impossible once you go public. You didn't think this through.
And Arzuaga is friends with those folks in Alaska. In fact, he wrote a letter to the judge asking for clemency on behalf of Simmerman. You know him ... the dirty pedophile who pled GUILTY to 12 counts of child molestation (but only did 2 years in prison).
We have no relation and do not know each other.
You miss the point. You "went public". People start discussing. Now you're mad that people are talking and you're trying to "control the narrative", which is impossible once you go public. You didn't think this through.+
.
I made up the whole Alaska thing. It was a joke. My point was, you put your story out there and lots of people are now talking (from Alaska, to Alabama, to Maine). You come to cathinfo and you're mad because we don't believe/know your side of the story. Are you going to travel around the country correcting people? This is spun way out of your control. Mr Matt used you and I'm sorry for that.
You, Mr. Pax either have a really poor memory or you are not reading carefully (go find my first post). You hold a double standard. I have to be accurate and transparent, but you don't.You chose to go public, not me. You say you have evidence, but haven't provided it, not me. You're on this site, saying you're EK, (which you haven't proven), not me. There's only 1 standard that matters - the prosecution/accuser (you) must prove their case. I'm just a person sitting in the back of the "courtroom" commenting on the lack of evidence (which you admit you haven't disclosed). There's really nothing more to discuss.
Yes, I went public all by myself because I am a big girl. I'm not angry at all. At worst, I'm irritated by the lack of common sense and decorum of people here who consider themselves to be virtuous Catholics.Virtue means "standing in the middle" between extremes or making bad decisions. EK accuses Fr A. EK admits she has not produced evidence. The virtuous/middle ground says that I can't choose EK over Fr A until I see evidence.
I've been used and manipulated by many people regarding my story, including yourself.:laugh2: Right, i've manipulated you. :laugh1: What does this even mean? I don't even know you. For all I know, you're some dude living in his parent's basement who created an account on this site with the EK name.
I'm here to clarify; as is prudent and to be patient with my fellow Catholics who are struggling with my story. I've taken a lot harder punches than what you throw. You really do need to get over the fact that I don't care if you believe me. Many do and by coming forward I have given hope to those who won't because of cyber bullies like you.We struggle with your story because, as you have admitted, you have not provided proof. Also, we don't even know if you're the real EK.
Do not assume that you have successfully intimidated me if I don't respond. You are just not worth any more of my time. That holds for anyone else of "Mr. Pax's" ilk.
EK: I've taken a lot harder punches than what you throw. You really do need to get over the fact that I don't care if you believe me. Many do and by coming forward I have given hope to those who won't because of cyber bullies like you.
I believe you, EK, though I've struggled with the "rape" allegation for awhile.You believe her based on what?
However, even with that, I'm beginning to come around to your side of the story more and more.Why? Based on emotion alone?
You are a courageous individual, forthright and undaunted. May you continue to be.Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.
CI, in my opinion, proves often to be a discussion site not to be taken very seriously. I mean, just look at those individuals who enjoy "hero member" status here. It's laughable.Your belief of a story, based on no evidence, from a person you don't even know...that's laughable.
I'm at the point where I don't believe anything that Miss Kauffman says. I think that she's faking the whole thing.
Meg:As a "Hero Member" I know the status has nothing to do with the quality of my posts, but only to have an interest in the forum over a long period of time, while not making Matthew angry enough to ban me.
Well, Erica, I tried to warn you earlier. Meg is only a CI 'Sr. Member.' But with input like this, she should achieve 'Hero Member' status in a very short time. Just kidding! Well no, not really
PV: Hollingsworth, you complain about +Williamson. You complain about the sspx. You complain about everything. Why do you even come to this site?I post on CI only a fraction of what I used to. Actually this particular topic interested me because EK herself came onboard, and I'm very interested in her case, and am one of only a few CI members who basically support the woman. So I've been drawn to her presence her.
Meg:
Well, Erica, I tried to warn you earlier. Meg is only a CI 'Sr. Member.' But with input like this, she should achieve 'Hero Member' status in a very short time. Just kidding! Well no, not really
Some traditional Catholics, such as yourself, seem to believe that they are exempt from the 8th commandment. And I'm pretty sure that Miss Kauffman doesn't even know what that is, or has never heard of it.I can't keep the 10 Commandments in order in my mind, except for the the 1st and the 2nd. I thought the 8th Commandment was: Thou shalt not steal. Maybe not. If so, then it would lead to the question: Who stole what from whom?
I'm at the point where I don't believe anything that Miss Kauffman says. I think that she's faking the whole thing.
Meg:
Well, Erica, I tried to warn you earlier. Meg is only a CI 'Sr. Member.' But with input like this, she should achieve 'Hero Member' status in a very short time. Just kidding! Well no, not really
Some traditional Catholics, such as yourself (i.e.hollingsworth), seem to believe that they are exempt from the 8th commandment. And I'm pretty sure that Miss Kauffman doesn't even know what that is, or has never heard of it.Where's Meg? She blurts out most anything on her mind most of the time. But she seems to have gone off for a while. Meg reveals that I am "exempt" from observing the 8th Commandment, and that Erica doesn't even know what it is. Really!? Please explain, Meg. This topic is heading towards 10,000 views. It's good for Matthew's business. It's another CI winner.
Meg:
Quote
+
Actually, of all the commenters, Meg's make me belly laugh. :laugh1:
You haven't managed to fool everyone.
Saints preserve us!
Ah, yes, those who won't believe an accusation made by someone they don't know without any evidence having been provided are "wicked".+
As I said, the more you post, the less credible I find your story.
For once in a very long time, I agree with Meg.
« on: June 15, 2021, 09:25:19 AM »
Quote from: Matto on November 18, 2020, 12:38:22 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sspx-scandal-from-the-remnant/msg722418/#msg722418)
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused (https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/5152-looking-for-answers-sspx-priest-accused)
I didn't see a thread on this. A woman accuses an SSPX priest of ɾαριɳg her in the 90's. She says she bore the priest's child. And accuses the SSPX of covering it up back then and still now. This is the Remnant, not homo Voris.
E.K.: Well, in my on going investigations I stumbled upon this thread. Wow. Just. Wow. Here I am: have at it but I won't respond to topics covered in the videos; I won't respond to αnσnymσus posters (you can email me if you like); and I will only respond to the same question once, so pay attention to what other's (sic) have asked and what I have said.
Here is my YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpxX5o-7DxqS3xmYPRcb3nQ
« on: June 28, 2021, 03:58:57 AM »
+
This will be my final words on this thread and probably the board, which I stumbled on after Googling my name.
… …
There you have it. Take it or leave it. Call me 'Jezabel' and send in the rabid dogs.
Then 14 posts later you say:
+
So you admit to deriding and mocking me because that is what the "wickedness" refers to. Finally.
.
You are not fighting in the open as you hide behind anonymity. You really need to read carefully, take a deep breath, read again and above all think about being the reflection of Christ before you post.
...........“I asked her for corroborating evidence, i.e., a birth certificate for her child (now adopted) or some other notarized docuмent that establishes paternity. This Miss Kauffman made available to me, along with other corroborating docuмents.”.....
This priest should have been removed from ministry about 20 years ago.
VCR: I believe Erica. This “priest” abused his position and power. He should have been removed immediately. He preyed on her. You people don’t get that. They search for their victims. Perverts are master manipulators.
I know. I understand. I was an innocent pure teenager who was planning to enter religious life when I was brutally raped by a novus Ordo priest.Wow- how horrible. What graces you have been given to remain in the Faith despite the trauma. God bless your husband as well.
Wow- how horrible. What graces you have been given to remain in the Faith despite the trauma. God bless your husband as well.Thank you. We struggle.
I know. I understand. I was an innocent pure teenager who was planning to enter religious life when I was brutally raped by a novus Ordo priest.I’m so sorry Viva. God’s Grace be with you and continue to heal you, and may God have mercy on that wretched soul.
I know. I understand. I was an innocent pure teenager who was planning to enter religious life when I was brutally raped by a novus Ordo priest.I believe you, Viva. How you must have suffered. Thank God you are still with us in the one true Catholic Faith. :pray:
The most bizarre aspect to this sordid tale is how Erica could not even fix a broken lock on her door. I think she used the excuse that she could not afford it. What does a dead bolt cost? 10 dollars. A screwdriver? 4 dollars.I didn't watch the tape but I read here that she said she was repeatedly raped and eventually was impregnated. How is it possible to be raped more than once? This puzzles me.
Who cannot afford 14 dollars to keep themselves safe?
If someone was harassing me I would find a way to lock the door. There are many simple ways to do it.
I didn't watch the tape but I read here that she said she was repeatedly raped and eventually was impregnated. How is it possible to be raped more than once? This puzzles me.Could being taken advantage of, or coerced be called rape? Maybe the definition has been changed for prosecuting for legal purposes?
Could being taken advantage of, or coerced be called rape?
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.
hollingsworth, your "White Knight" play here is borderline nauseating. ...That and you are so poisoned by your contempt for the SSPX that you are incapable of thinking rationally (also a very feminine trait)Double-yep.
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.
I didn't watch the tape but I read here that she said she was repeatedly raped and eventually was impregnated. How is it possible to be raped more than once? This puzzles me.It does not puzzle me. Occam's razor suggests strongly to me that she found the priests advances flattering. Young women can be completely lacking in prudential judgement. That is why she left the bedroom door unlocked. Anyone who rejected the advances of an aggressive male would scratch his face deeply and get the hell out of the school. There are WOMEN'S shelters all over the United States. There are parishioners who would put her up in their homes.
The SSPX should discipline the priest, I would kick him out, who needs such a priest?
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.
TT:
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?
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?
Hollingsworth is the kind of effeminate sap who thinks George Floyd was murdered and his family deserve 23 million dollars and Derek Chauvin was the most evil cop in America.
Let's say the SSPX confronted Arzuaga and he responded, "This woman seduced me and I sinned against my vows of chastity, but it wasn't rape, and it only happened one time ... not many times." What are you supposed to do at that point? It's his word against hers. Whatever punishment he received, lacking any real evidence to the contrary, was probably going to be proportionate to whatever he actually admitted to ... since we're left with a "he said"-"she said" scenario.This is the real problem for Erica, there is no proof for rape, and there never will be, because the only way to prove something like that would be a trip to the emergency room within a few hours of the incident. And even then it isn’t always an open and shut case.
My, my, there is a coterie of real dummies on CINo one here wants an angry and violent rapist to go free so that he can victimize others. No one here wants to defend an organization (even the SSPX) if they harbor criminals. But it is truly unjust to try a man in the court of public opinion, with an accusation as serious as ‘rape’, and then expect everyone to convict him in their minds just so this woman can feel a false sense of justice and vindication.
There are non-violent forms of sɛҳuąƖ abuse that should be punished: doctor-patient, lawyer-client, and—you guessed it—priest=parishioner.Absolutely. And they should be reported ASAP and dealt with immediately, not years later.
But it is truly unjust to try a man in the court of public opinion, with an accusation as serious as ‘rape’, and then expect everyone to convict him in their minds just so this woman can feel a false sense of justice and vindication.
Why are you on here acting like this site will fix the problems you see?
+I am so sorry what happened to you.
This will be my final words on this thread and probably the board, which I stumbled on after Googling my name. For those of you who have responded charitably and objectively (pro or con), I thank you for being good examples of Catholics for everyone.
Firstly, I did not come forward with what happened to me in order to get some kind of 'street justice'. My case is in the Hands of a Divine Tribunal and I am very okay with that. I wanted SSPX faithful to know that there is a predator and hirelings within who won't protect you and your children, so DO IT FOR YOURSELVES. Learn from my mistakes.
Secondly, I or any other victim who comes forward, stand NOTHING to gain and EVERYTHING to lose by doing so, as evidenced by this existing 7-8 page thread, which I had no idea existed until a few weeks ago. After you all became aware of my video testimony from the Remnant did even one of you reach out to me privately with your concerns/objections before venting your spleens and shredding me to pieces HERE? Doubtfully, because in such a case the victim is presumed guilty while the accused is presumed innocent.
Thirdly, in the videos, which so many refuse to watch but feel expertly capable of commenting on, you will find a detailed time-line, docuмents and logical arguments to support my claims. No one is obligated to watch any or all videos, but if you don't you lose the prerogative to comment on the topic.
Lastly, and most importantly, I turned to the SSPX authorities first. I went directly to Fellay as confirmed by his First Assistant, Pfluger. The prior and assistant priest (Stanich and Hewko, respectively) had knowledge of what Arzuaga was doing to me and failed to help. If it was a mutual, consensual relationship, then Stanich was obligated to fire me immediately because of the morality clause in my teaching contract. He did not. Ask him why he failed so miserably to do his job. I further pursued keeping Fellay in the loop via written correspondence to which he replied even years after the fact in my favor. I spoke to and met with various District Superiors over the course of TWENTY-THREE years before going public to avoid causing the actions of one bad priest to tarnish the good work of the SSPX.
There you have it. Take it or leave it. Call me 'Jezabel' and send in the rabid dogs.
This is the real problem for Erica, there is no proof for rape, and there never will be, because the only way to prove something like that would be a trip to the emergency room within a few hours of the incident. And even then it isn’t always an open and shut case.You have no idea what you are talking about.
It also didn’t help that she stayed and let him continue to ‘abuse’ her. Who doesn’t call someone for help when they’ve been attacked? The trauma from the first time would have been enough to send anyone packing their bags and headed home to try and protect what’s left of their sanity, not stay and leave themselves open for several additional attacks. And then after the second attack, STILL not escape the ongoing terror??? It just doesn’t make sense.
Isn't strange how Arzuaga remained on the French website until 5 mos. ago and does not appear on the Argentinian website?
As you are all pondering the abominable Stafki abuse and the reporting timeline issued by Fullerton, I hope you keep in mind they are all liars and that I did my best to help you protect your loved-ones.
As you are all pondering the abominable Stafki abuse and the reporting timeline issued by Fullerton, I hope you keep in mind they are all liars and that I did my best to help you protect your loved-ones.
Here is some news that I could not say sooner because I did not have it visually, factually confirmed: Arzuaga was moved from the French District to Argentina over TWO YEARS ago. That is about the time the Remnant ran my story so Michael Matt could defend himself against the spurious charge that I "called him out".
Isn't strange how Arzuaga remained on the French website until 5 mos. ago and does not appear on the Argentinian website?
Easter, 2022 I got a call from Pfluger out of the blue. I immediately confronted him with this discrepancy and at first he claimed not to have that information as he is just a lowly, unimportant priest. Then after a few minutes he says, "Oh, here I have the roster. No, Arzuaga is not listed." "But he has been seen by the faithful saying Mass and working in parishes in Argentina. You were supposed to tell me when he moved," I insisted. Then, he proceeded to grill me, asking if I was working with Church Militant. I just laughed.
As you are all pondering the abominable Stafki abuse and the reporting timeline issued by Fullerton, I hope you keep in mind they are all liars and that I did my best to help you protect your loved-ones.
jr1991: Erica, thank you for sharing your story and exposing this predator priest and the subsequent cover-up by the SSPX.
ME: Yes, Erica, thank you. I haven't followed this now 20 page thread, which began way back in 2020. And I'm not about to. But I thought Fr. Arzuaga was completely out of the picture. You mean that Arzuaga was still in the SSPX French district until he was moved to Argentina two years ago? You mean that this "priest" has remained in the SSPX all that time. I'm reading this all wrong, aren't I. Someone please tell me that I've got this all wrong.Apologies. The part in bold above is incorrect. Of course I followed the original topic and made several contributions to it. Erica shares a new gem of information, and brings the whole Arzuaga affair back to mind. I thought Arzuaga had disappeared into thin air, and that he had even fallen off the SSPX radar. Apparently not so.
As you are all pondering the abominable Stafki abuse and the reporting timeline issued by Fullerton, I hope you keep in mind they are all liars and that I did my best to help you protect your loved-ones.
Absolutely. And they should be reported ASAP and dealt with immediately, not years later.
No, you did not do anything to help protect anyone. You railed against all here who didn't agree with your bullying tactics.
hollingsworth,
That has to be the biggest load of utter garbage I've ever seen posted here. Matthew should consider banning you.…
Ah, is that so? Church Militant says otherwise --
https://www.churchmilitant.com/a-response-to-erica-kauffman
So Kauffman told her story to CM, but then before the story could air, she got cold feet and asked them not to publish it. That sounds to me like someone who made the whole thing up and then got scared that it would be exposed as a lie. Maybe even she realized how preposterous it was to have claimed that she wouldn't even changed the locks to prevent Arzuaga from repeatedly raping her. In fact, it's right there in the text exchange with CM that she's concerned that everyone would call her a liar.
Apologies. The part in bold above is incorrect. Of course I followed the original topic and made several contributions to it. Erica shares a new gem of information, and brings the whole Arzuaga affair back to mind. I thought Arzuaga had disappeared into thin air, and that he had even fallen off the SSPX radar. Apparently not so.
…So Kauffman told her story to CM, but then before the story could air, she got cold feet and asked them not to publish it. That sounds to me like someone who made the whole thing up and then got scared that it would be exposed as a lie.…
Mr. Ladislaus, you are a pitiful man. Yes, Ms. Niles has a bone to pick with me; a grudge she can't let go. We had a production dispute after the interview. We had a pre-interview agreement which Niles changed verbally after the interview. You conclude that makes me a liar; but then I created a lengthy video (with follow-up videos) and posted them on You-Tube. In these videos I explain the key, the locks, the police ... all of it. If you had watched them you might not be so blind. But here you are with more victim blaming and keyboard vomit. I suppose you are going to blame the Stafki family somehow for the priest abusing his own niece for three years. I guess in your mind she should have told her father the first time. You make me sick. I don't know how you are so popular around here. It says a lot about this board.
Arzuaga has remained a priest in good standing with the SSPX since his ordination in 1988 in La Reja; except for the three years he spent in Mexico working for CMRI. After fathering a child there and having caused the death of Bishop Carmona and another priest as the insane driver of the vehicle they were in, Arzuaga was given the boot from CMRI and came crawling back to SSPX in 1991 who welcomed him with open arms. Peter Scott sent Arzuaga to St. Louis where he did too many wicked things to mention. We teachers begged Peter Scott for help but we did not receive any.
I hope that clears things up for you.
May God flood you with healing graces. May God bless you for the courage to accept the wounds that accomplices after the fact heap upon you as you try to awaken and protect others from the horrors inflicted on you and your child.
May God judge them as He said—with their own measure.
Many grateful thanks. My daughter was adopted in an illegal way. My pregnancy and delivery were unusually difficult and I was ill. To my great sorrow she has chosen a lesbian lifestyle. In your charity, please pray for her.Yes, immediately.… and perpetually.
Many grateful thanks. My daughter was adopted in an illegal way. My pregnancy and delivery were unusually difficult and I was ill. To my great sorrow she has chosen a lesbian lifestyle. In your charity, please pray for her.
May God flood you with healing graces. May God bless you for the courage to accept the wounds that accomplices after the fact heap upon you as you try to awaken and protect others from the horrors inflicted on you and your child.
May God judge them as He said—with their own measure.
So it's wrong to disbelieve Erica's allegations but it's OK for Erica to have disbelieved the allegations gainst Father Angles?
I didn't disbelieve. I said (to a third party) I didn't know anything. That is Ms. Niles attacking me because of the production dispute. She has snipped pieces of messages and posed them out of context in order to draw me into a social media food fight. I'm also not afraid of the disbelief. I know people won't believe. Whatever happens to their loved ones is on them, now. I have done what I believe God has asked of me. Your words are like those of a confused mad man.
Very sorry to hear that, I will pray for her conversion.
I’m certainly not accusing you of anything, but to help clarify things, can you give a brief explanation why you didn’t change the locks?
You're the one…
Mr. Ladislaus, you are a pitiful man.
Mr. Hollingsworth: Arzuaga has remained a priest in good standing with the SSPX since his ordination in 1988 in La Reja; except for the three years he spent in Mexico working for CMRI. After fathering a child there and having caused the death of Bishop Carmona and another priest as the insane driver of the vehicle they weare in, Arzuaga was given the boot from CMRI and came crawling back to SSPX in 1991 who welcomed him with open arms. Peter Scott sent Arzuaga to St. Louis where he did too many wicked things to mention. We teachers begged Peter Scott for help but we did not receive any.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Thank you for the prayers.
I have explained the key, the locks and the police so many times on this forum, it makes me sick. This is definitely the last time.
My landlord, an old German man who barely spoke English, would not do it for me (because he had just done it when I moved in) and I could not afford a locksmith. Since my landlord would not give me permission anyway, he could have evicted me. But the question no one wants to face is this:
IF Arzuaga is such a holy priest, trying to save his soul and fell victim to my seductions even after I had stopped teaching and we had no contact, WHY DID HE COME TO MY APARTMENT WITH A KEY HE STOLE FROM UNDER MY DOORMAT? Why didn't he just stay away from me? Why didn't he transfer out of St. Louis? Are my powers THAT strong?
He was stalking me, threatening me, psychologically and physically tormenting me. I have never been able to consider marriage because the mere idea of a man touching me is sickening. I still have night terrors and anxiety. Believe it or don't believe it. I don't care. I have done more than enough.
Apologies. The part in bold above is incorrect. Of course I followed the original topic and made several contributions to it. Erica shares a new gem of information, and brings the whole Arzuaga affair back to mind. I thought Arzuaga had disappeared into thin air, and that he had even fallen off the SSPX radar. Apparently not so.
Your words are like those of a confused mad man.
IF Arzuaga is such a holy priest, ...
WHY DID HE COME TO MY APARTMENT WITH A KEY HE STOLE FROM UNDER MY DOORMAT? Why didn't he just stay away from me? Why didn't he transfer out of St. Louis? Are my powers THAT strong?
After reading your explanation you obviously considered changing the locks at the time of your troubles, fair enough. So now I ask: why didn’t you use the back of a chair, a wedge, a bar, a 2x4, or something improvised to jam the door? There are easy and inexpensive ways to stop an intruder.
I certainly don’t consider him to be a “holy” priest, but by the same token, it can be asked: why didn’t you leave the area?
You are most welcome for the prayers.
It's astonishing to me …
This assertion that anyone who doesn't instantly believe every word of any accusation somehow condones rape or pederasty or whatever the case may be is akin to the Jєωιѕн ploy that anyone who doesn't believe that 6 million Jєωs were intentionally exterminated by the nαzιs must be sympathetic to the h0Ɩ0cαųst and would have done it themselves if they could have
Bernardo: I just read this thread for the first time and this woman's accusations against the priest are simply not believable to me. I'm with Ladislaus on this one.
Do you believe there are men and women who don't know how to check their tire pressure? …that there are men who are forcibly sodomized but do not call the police? … women who are raped but do not call the police? …parents whose children are raped but do not call the police?Yes, I also know there are people who think they were raped by aliens, have hybrid offspring with aliens, and communicate with aliens on a regular basis. Likewise there are people who firmly believe they interact with jesters from another dimension when they smoke DMT.
After reading your explanation you obviously considered changing the locks at the time of your troubles, fair enough. So now I ask: why didn’t you use the back of a chair, a wedge, a bar, a 2x4, or something improvised to jam the door? There are easy and inexpensive ways to stop an intruder.
WHY DID YOU NOT SIMPLY CHANGE THE LOCKS ON YOR DOOR OR MOVE OUT? Are your powers THAT weak?
And so when I leave my apartment for work or any reason, Arzuaga can enter the apartment with the stolen key and be waiting when I get home. What is the purpose of the chair, wedge, etc.?
Ahh ... all you can do is blame the victim. You must be a defense attorney in real life.
Wheter Miss Kauffman is lying or not, I think that it is disgraceful that she has been so mistreated by fellow Catholics.
We don't all have to believe her, or agree with her, but I think that she should be treated with more respect.
About the case, I believe that it is possible that she had a colorful relationship with the priest, but she had no intention to take things so far. We all know how people in general like the attention of the opposite sex. Maybe she was young and inexperienced, and liked the attention that the priest gave her. She might have even trusted him to go to her place just to talk, not imagining that he would take things so far. Once he had her trust, he could manipulate her and take advantage of her.
...
The SSPX acknowledges that this priest had an extremely improper relationship with a parishioner and SSPX school teacher, and yet, the leadership allows him to function as a regular priest. That is puzzling enough. Rape or not.
That's a nice fanciful narrative, for which you have no more evidence than anyone else's version of the story. And that's precisely the problem here. It's he said vs. she said ... with nothing else to go on.To be honest with you, I don't believe it was rape either, but, as you said, we have no proof either way.
And, yes, it absolutely matters whether or not this was rape.
And your characterization of Kauffman as this naive young girl who had no idea what she was doing but was manipulated is also not based in any fact and also would defame Fr. Arzuaga more than would be just. It is not permitted or correct to say, "Well, it was bad enough that he violated priestly celibacy, so there's no harm in piling on the additional allegations."
I haven't read the ENTIRE thread, but I just want to interject --
Women looking back on a consensual relationship (or even a one-night-stand) with often turn a consensual relationship into "rape" long after the fact.
It makes you wonder what a priest has to do to be expelled from the SSPX. Apparently, the any crimes that are unforgivable are Sedevacantism and "disobedience" to your superiors. Once made a priest, you can getaway with anything else.Fr. Arzuaga remained a sedevacantist after his return to the SSPX, following the death of Bishop Carmona in Mexico. Is he still sede? I am not accusatory in this question as I am sedeprivationist and a big, bad Feeneyite. I am simply curious.
Klas: Hard to know what to make of her and her testimony, although I certainly don't believe it could, let alone should, be dismissed out of hand.
That is why I never reported to the police.