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.

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."

To be honest with you, I don't believe it was rape either, but, as you said, we have no proof either way. 

We will never really know what happened. Only two persons know what really happened. We can only take their word for it.

I would satified to think the better of both. I fancy that the priest was tempted and took advantage of his position to satisfy his psychological and physical urges. As for Ms. Kauffman, she was taken advantage of, but also liked that attention that she was getting. She was not raped according to the criminal description of the act, but she describes it that way because she sees the behaviour of the priest as equivalent to rape. She decided to expose the situation because she realized that the SSPX leadership is irresponsible and will allow this priest to function as any other priest, unrestricted.

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. In particular, when she regrets it. She basically convinces herself that it WASN'T HER IDEA at all, because she couldn't be that stupid. Well, if it wasn't her idea, then I guess it was all HIS idea? But that would mean it wasn't consensual (agreed to by BOTH parties)? Waitaminnit... non-consensual sex means she was *gasp* RAPED! Oh no!

...that phenomenon IS a "thing" these days. It happens all the time now. Remember, this is the age of fourth-wave Feminism, female supremacy, and Me Too. Women can do no wrong.

Not saying that applies to anyone in particular -- just saying it IS a thing, just FYI.

And when you factor in the inherently flawed nature of HUMAN MEMORY male or female, it's easy to distort an event or situation, considering that each time you replay the situation, it changes a bit. Did you know that each and every time you "access" a memory it is somewhat modified in your brain? That's what biologists and psychologists say. Again, human memories are extremely flawed.

Your memory is not like a video recording stored on a hard drive. THAT is reliable, giving you the same thing every time you play it, and the same on Day 1 as on Day 10,000. But I've listened to songs after 30 years and was surprised how different they were from how I remembered them.

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.

Also, who is/was Dr. Salamanca and her relationship to Arzuaga? Might Miss Kaffmann know?

That is why I never reported to the police.

Rape should always be reported to the police. It is a serious crime, after all. Not just a matter of discipline by the leadership of a fraternity of priests, or a superior.

ALL of the blame is being laid at the door of the leadership of the SSPX. That isn't fair. Evidently, miss Kauffman wasn't aware that rape is a criminal offense.