Fr. Arzuaga sinned gravely against the chastity / celibacy required of priests, but it is yet to be established that he was a predator or rapist. I don't think anyone (except CM and those who want to buy it) believe the story that Erica continued to tolerate Fr. Arzuaga entering her quarters to rape her since he somehow had a copy of her key. Clearly the simplest solution would have been to change the locks ... even if Erica had not the courage to report the rapes to the authorities or to his superiors. I can't imagine laying there every night thinking, "Is Arzuaga going to show up tonight to rape me again?" While not every woman has the fortitude of a St. Maria Goretti, to give her life rather than engage in activities contrary to purity, this would be the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, where even the slightest bit of resistance was not given. Who wouldn't AT LEAST get the locks changed or just move somewhere else? Surely one could find someone that could take her in somewhere else. There are women's shelters out there. Or had she confided in some friend of hers in the area, I'm sure they would have put her up until a solution could be found. As far as I can tell, the most plausible explanation is that this entire sordid affair was entirely consensual. Obviously Fr. Arzuaga is still guilty of grave sin, and so would Erica have been, by the way, but he would not in that case qualify as a predator. One could argue that he should have been sent to a monastery due to the violation of priestly celibacy, and he probably should have been, but then perhaps someone bought his version of events, perhaps to the effect that Erica seduced him and that he fell into sin, and determined that he was needed by the faithful despite his sinfulness. Certainly priests have fallen into sins against celibacy / chastity in the past and have been rehabilitated to the point that they could serve the faithful.
Unfortunately, it's rather common for women to fall into sins of impurity with men, regret it later, and then impose this regret onto the original incidents, engaging in an emotional revisionism, declaring them to have been against her will even at the time, and to accuse the man of rape. Because I regret it now, surely I was unwilling then also. Therefore rape. Or sometimes it happens that the woman is reluctant (perhaps conflicted between wanting to engage in the sinful activity and being guilty about committing the sin, especially with a priest), but gives in, and this reluctance is retrospectively revised into an unwillingness at the time of the incident. Her regret NOW would be superimposed retroactively on the incident(s) and translated into, "I was unwilling" then, even to, "I said no," and yet he went ahead anyway.
Topic: SSPX Scandal from the Remnant. (Read 34018 times)