Author Topic: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant. (Read 34061 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #180 on:** July 09, 2021, 11:16:39 AM »

Quote

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.
The SSPX hierarchy could bring immediate closure to the issue by simply severing all ties with Arzuaga, 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.
But, of course, by acting as they did, or failing to act, they allowed him to continue on with his predations. 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #181 on:** July 09, 2021, 12:22:46 PM »

Quote

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.
.

Quote

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.
.

Quote

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.
.

Quote

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.
.

Quote

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.
.
p.s. They have no obligation to tell you, or anyone else, how they discipline their own group.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #182 on:** July 10, 2021, 11:54:46 AM »

I think Pax Vobis is blowing smoke. He knows very well that Arzuaga is guilty. And he knows, furthermore, that the Society hasn’t done a damn thing to rectify the matter, or bring Fr. Arzuaga to justice, much less dismiss this errant priest from their midst. I reprint below, from the Remnant, testimony from both Michael Matt and one time 1^st Assistant to Bp. Fellay. Fr. Phluger. The latter indicates pretty clearly that he believes Erica’s testimony is true. And Father, speaking for Bp. Fellay, shows that the then Superior General agrees.
Paz Vobis may be connected to the SSPX presently. One, certainly, has a right to this suspicion. In the following, pay particular attention to the texts highlighted in red.

Editor's Note: I (Michael Matt) am pleased to report some good news here at the end of a year (2020) marked by bad.

My decision some months ago to try to help a victim of clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse was not an easy one. I had neither personal experience with the victim nor firsthand knowledge of the facts in the case. And since The Remnant is not an investigative journal, I had to weigh the potential for a good outcome against the certainty of scandalizing the faithful by publicizing the alleged sins of a priest.
In posting Erica Kauffman's heartbreaking video, The Remnant had no desire to indict or discredit the Society of St. Pius X—an organization which for thirty years we have defended against the accusation of schism. And I am happy to report that at least one prominent SSPX priest obviously appreciated my motives for posting Miss Kauffman's story, which is evidently why he reached out to her.
In the course of the following reply to Miss Kauffman, Father Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX, provides corroboration of Miss Kauffman’s testimony, and thus also and inadvertently justifies my initial decision to post Miss Kauffman's video. If what she claims is true (and I have notarized docuмents indicating it is), then a great injustice has been perpetrated against her and a rogue priest is still on the loose.
The reality is that while most priests are good men there are not a few that have fallen, not just in the Novus Ordo but also inside the enclaves of Tradition. We have never denied this even if I have long been wary of making common cause with certain overzealous whistleblowers who often seem to delight in exposing the sins of traditional Catholic priests.
Nobody here at The Remnant expects perfection from the SSPX or any other priestly fraternity—traditional or otherwise. We are all human and as St. Thomas More put it, on occasion a “bitch gets over the wall.” The important thing is to own it when it happens and throw the dog back over the wall as quickly as possible.
To do as Father Pfluger has done in this case, and reach out to a victim—even when it would have been so much easier to remain silent and hope said victim goes away—only speaks to the integrity of this good priest, which is why I would add my voice to his in petitioning the current leadership of the Society of St. Pius X to reach out in similar fashion to Miss Kauffman, to investigate the whereabouts of her alleged abuser, and to either publicly clear his name (if there are extenuating circuмstances that somehow mitigate his guilt) or take the necessary disciplinary action against him.
To that end, I am happy to offer these columns to the SSPX administrators, should they choose to publicize the measures taken to see justice finally done so that all parties concerned can move on, so that future potential victims can be protected and so that further scandal can be happily avoided. MJM
The Letter from Fr. Pfluger to Miss Kauffman
Dear Miss Erika Kauffmann:
Thanks a lot for your call getting your phone-number.
Sorry, I wasn’t here in the last days, that’s the reason why I didn’t contact you earlier.
Yes, I read Michael Matt’s article in The Remnant, and then I asked him for your e-mail address.
Up until July 2018, I was Bishop Bernard Fellay’s First Assistant and Vicar General of the Society St. Pius X. Now, I’m living in Switzerland without any responsibility. But in 1997, I had to accompany Bishop Fellay for a very long trip in the US-District, almost four weeks. At that time, I was still rector in the SSPX-Seminary in Germany.
When watching your video, I remembered our visit at the Armada Priory in Michigan, in December 1997, that was Ember Friday, I guess December 19th. You say you met Bishop Fellay in January of 1998, but probably that was in December 1997.
Anyway, I didn’t understand English enough at that time, and the Bishop asked me to assist the second part of his meeting with a lady that now I guess was you. I do not remember the details, but at that time I had the impression Bishop Fellay was convinced of your painful report…
Now, in 2020, I wanted simply to express my profound compassion with you and also my shame. I’m blushed to listen now to your horrible story and “experience” with a priest. And I would beg pardon for such a pain the Society did.
Of course, I’m not anymore in the Society high-direction, and my words are nothing and not important. But I would say how profoundly sorry I am for all that priest of the Society did to you. Your testimony is a cry to the whole Church and the Society. We can’t turn back or re-write the history. But we suffer with you and I hope those responsible in the Society will take your cry for help seriously.
I’m a little bit surprised to hear that Fr. Wegner wasn’t helping you. I knew him as a serious Superior, taking care for all the victims. Unfortunately, he had to leave the US-District, and he is now in Austria. I hope you will find the new Superior to be willing to listen to you.
Like you said in the video, and like your e-mail address expresses – juxta crucem! – the one help and medicine for such pains we can and we will find in the most holy Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ.
May He bless you always, and may Our Lady protect you.
I wish you a grace-filled season of Advent and Peace and Joy in the Eternal Mercy.
Cordially
P. Niklaus Pfluger

Meg · « **Reply #183 on:** July 10, 2021, 04:23:15 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 09, 2021, 12:22:46 PM

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.

Meanwhile, I think that Miss Kauffman is enjoying watching the arguments here, sadly.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #184 on:** July 14, 2021, 12:09:51 AM »

Meg:

Quote

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.

I was hoping that at least one of you might offer some mitigating remarks. But, alas, none have.
Meg, you have recklessly characterized my sentiments. The SSPX priests reported on by Church Militant may not all be guilty. Some certainly are, and the law has taken action against them. Others may not be; but those accused priests have done little to push back on allegations made against them. The SSPX hierarchy has not come to any vigorous defense of any of these accused priests, nor, to my knowledge has a single lawsuit been filed for slander against Church Militant, (though I hear of one that may be forthcoming.) Little has been said publicly about it.
As for the subject at hand, Fr. Arzuaga: Yes, I feel that he has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. In this feeling, I am joined, I think, by Fathers Wegner and Phluger, and pretty certainly by Bp. Fellay, if one take Fr. Phluger's testimony seriously. Michael Matt clearly believes Erica's story.
As for believing that the SSPX "has always been a cult," that's not true. I was not persuaded that the SSPX was a cult until well after we had left the organization.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #185 on:** July 14, 2021, 07:32:45 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 14, 2021, 12:09:51 AM

As for the subject at hand, Fr. Arzuaga: Yes, I feel that he has been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Guilty of what? Fornication in violation of his vows (grave sin) or rape (grave sin and a crime). If the former, then there's no law enforcement action to be taken. There's no evidence of the latter apart from the statement of the alleged victim ... many years after the fact.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #186 on:** July 14, 2021, 11:49:06 AM »

Quote

January 27th, 2021
Dear Mr. Michael Matt,
In a December 29th article, you chose to make public a private letter that I wrote to Miss Erica Kauffman, in which I expressed my deep compassion for her, as well as my shame for the past facts that she had revealed. It was difficult for me not to recognize her as the victim of an odious abuse, and not to respond to her call for help.
In doing so, as you noted in your introduction, I corroborated her version of the story and questioned, with her, the management of this case by the SSPX.
However – and it is now a serious duty for me to point this out to you – I made a regrettable mistake at the time. And it is in the hope of repairing it that I am writing to you today, taking advantage on a personal basis of the invitation you have extended to the SSPX authorities.
As the file never passed through my hands, I happened to be unaware, when writing to Miss Kauffman, of a number of details that I have since learned and which today force me to admit in good conscience that I contributed to convey a distorted image of what really happened.
Indeed, having been able to consult the archives of the SSPX, I realized that Bishop Fellay, then Superior General, had indeed treated the case with all possible care.
At the end of his investigation, and after having heard all the parties, he came to the conclusion that it was not a case of rape, but of a reciprocal sentimental relationship. A very sad and serious story, moreover, since such a thing is directly contrary to the sanctity of the priesthood.
I also learned that other people had noticed at the time the existence of a disordered friendship between the two persons.
This sinful affair credibly explains how several meetings could have taken place in the same place – in the apartment of Miss Kauffman, of which this priest had a copy of the key – under always similar circuмstances, over a period of several months.
Bishop Fellay had then taken severe disciplinary measures to supervise the priest, who had to spend a year in penance in a monastery before being sent to Europe to exercise his ministry there, with restrictions during about ten years, which were applied and respected.
Whatever one's opinion may be in this story, it is impossible for me today not to recognize that Miss Kauffman is mistaken when she believes that Fr. Arzuaga was never restricted, or that the SSPX ignored her complaint. The opposite took place.
Contrary to what she states in her December 30th post, this priest has never been in charge of a school, nor has he ever been allowed to travel freely, out of the control of his superiors.
Nevertheless, I deeply deplore what happened, and I sympathize wholeheartedly with the distress in which Miss Kauffman finds herself today.
Renewing my compassion and assuring her of my prayers for all her intentions, I express my regret for having contributed to spread a false judgment on this sad story.
Fr. Niklaus Pfluger
P. Niklaus Pfluger | FSSPX
Noviciat Ste-Thérèse
(bold type added)

Bp. 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.
I post this, not to set Ladislaus straight, who, I am convinced is an sspx operative of some kind. But I do so, simply to keep Fr. Arzuaga's case out there for the benefit of those on the internet, who might wish to have as much information about the priest as possible. I do so, also, to highlight what I think was the weak, deplorable response of Bp Fellay and the SSPX to Erica Kauffman's original grievance.
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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #187 on:** July 14, 2021, 12:01:34 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 14, 2021, 11:49:06 AM

I post this, not to set Ladislaus straight, who, I am convinced is an sspx operative of some kind.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #188 on:** July 14, 2021, 12:18:15 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 14, 2021, 11:49:06 AM

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.

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.

Matthew · « **Reply #189 on:** July 14, 2021, 12:22:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2021, 12:18:15 PM

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.

Well said.
Posts like this (and the men that post them) are a credit to the forum.
Thank you, Lad.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #190 on:** July 14, 2021, 01:23:06 PM »

Lad:

Quote

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.

Thanks, Lad, for keeping this issue alive. Erica may be an "unreliable accuser," 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!
As for defrocking the priest. No, that did not happen, to the shame of the SSPX. What is more, Arzuaga did not spend much time in a monastery. That's for sure. And what seems equally evident, Arzuaga was reinstated as a priest "in good standing" with the Society. They sent him out to "minister" again. Now, apparently, no one knows where he is. If the Society knows, they're certainly not revealing his whereabouts presently. They've fallen all over themselves to cover up the matter.

Erica Kauffman · « **Reply #191 on:** July 14, 2021, 04:43:50 PM »

+

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.

Meg · « **Reply #192 on:** July 14, 2021, 05:00:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 14, 2021, 12:18:15 PM

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.

Well said.

Nadir · « **Reply #193 on:** July 14, 2021, 05:04:04 PM »

Quote from: Erica Kauffman on July 14, 2021, 04:43:50 PM

+

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.

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?

Your assumption here is that we don't know and we don't care that women are raped and that women don't report rape. You don't know the reason why they don't report; you only know your reason, if indeed you were raped.

This I know. Some don't report from shame of having put themselves in compromising situations where they are at risk.

You say you came only here to warn. Well, I believe you have achieved what you came here to do. Maybe you should let the matter rest and find your peace in the best way you can. I will pray that you do.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #194 on:** July 14, 2021, 05:18:13 PM »

Quote from: Erica Kauffman on July 14, 2021, 04:43:50 PM

+

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.

Yep, here it comes, the accusation of "victim shaming, blaming, harrassing". Absurd. That's begging the question that you were an actual victim and not a willing accomplice. I can see you being irate if in fact what you alleged did happen as you claim. Nevertheless, a third party has no way of discerning the truth. According to US legal principles, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. With your #metoo movement principles, every single time a woman alleges rape, the victim must be immediately arrested and punished and jailed. Doing anything else would be "victim shaming". There are many, many cases where the accusers later admitted that they made up the accusations, long after the accused had rotted in jail for years. Nobody else has any way of knowing in your case whether the allegations are true. You can huff and puff all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no proof, and as far as anyone else is concerned, you may just be making it all up, or else your memories have altered as the years passed. I know a number of people who told tall tales and then eventually ended up believing they were true after their memories of the actual events faded and they conflated their imagination with memories.

If in fact there were credible witnesses who can attest to the fact that you were excessively "friendly" with Fr. Arzuaga as this was allegedly going on, i.e. you were seen flirting with him, etc. ... that would in fact be the best evidence we have. No rape victim would behave that way around her rapist.

If some crime had been committed against me, and then I made the allegations 20 years later, without a shred of proof, I wouldn't be upset if people didn't believe me. I'd throw it out there in the interests of having people watch out against the perp, and I would respond with, "I get it if people don't believe me, since I don't have any proof. But I say these things so that others can at least have caution about their interactions." I might be a bit hurt if someone close to me, who know me, didn't believe me, because I would hope that someone who knew my character would realize that I wouldn't lie about something like that. But why would I be offended if someone who didn't know me from Adam disbelieved my allegation?

Can't you at least realize why people might not believe you? You have no evidence. Your story sounds rather suspicious. And we do NOT KNOW YOU. Why are you so shocked that we might react this way?

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. That makes me believe even more that you made all this up. I am not the least bit ashamed of doubting you. People like you use that attack as a weapon, basically suggesting that we are condoning rape simply because we don't believe a particular accusation of rape. It's childish. Grow up.

Author Topic: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant. (Read 34061 times)

hollingsworth

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Pax Vobis

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

hollingsworth

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Meg

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

hollingsworth

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

hollingsworth

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Matthew

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

hollingsworth

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Erica Kauffman

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Meg

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Nadir

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.

Ladislaus

Re: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant.