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.

+
Finally. We are on the same page. Who'd a thunk that would happen.

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?

+
She and her adoptive parents know who he is. He does not know who they are, and he has no legal or moral right to know. My daughter is a grown woman now and is free to make her own decisions.

EK:
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. 

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.
BTW, EK, I revealed my identity at least six years ago.  Matthew, for sure, knows who I am and where I live.  So do many of  the other old forum members who bother to jog their memories.
This thread is stored on the cloud and is probably accessible to anyone who cares to punch in the name of 'Fr. Pablo Arzuaga,' on his search engine. 

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.  

+
You are just an idiot. I never went to Voris. I never went to M. Matt (he came to me). I published on YouTube. 
.
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).

You are just an idiot. I never went to Voris. I never went to M. Matt (he came to me). I published on YouTube. 

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).

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 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. 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. 
.
I've been used and manipulated by many people regarding my story, including yourself. 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.
.
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.
 

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.

  Right, i've manipulated you.    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.

Good.  I'm hoping you'll leave this site.  Come back when you're ready to provide proof of something.  That's how courts, law and public opinion works.

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.