If you mean the chapel of the late Fr. Wickens, that is an indult and has been since he died. I believe that chapel had been willed to the SSPX but the indult parishioners turned it over to the diocese. Christ the King priests now serve it.

When it was first taken over, Fr Perricone was the first priest and he brought (then) Fr. Tetherow, his good friend. In fact, that is where  (then) Tetherow was arrested for downloading the child porn.

If you mean the chapel of the late Fr. Wickens, that is an indult and has been since he died. I believe that chapel had been willed to the SSPX but the indult parishioners turned it over to the diocese. Christ the King priests now serve it.

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora

If you mean the chapel of the late Fr. Wickens, that is an indult and has been since he died. I believe that chapel had been willed to the SSPX but the indult parishioners turned it over to the diocese. Christ the King priests now serve it.

Funny you should mention Institute of "Christ the King" priests --
Google "Fr. Timothy Svea" who was a priest in that organization.

I know someone that goes to St Anthony of Padua SSPX in NJ that's been telling the parishioners that he was being sɛҳuąƖly abused by another ex parishioner for 1 and a half years. The victim is a former altar boy there. He is being open with his experiences and is pursuing legal action. He says he was sɛҳuąƖly abused through manipulation, fear tactics, harassment, impure touching, and trying to be persuaded  by the perpetrator to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

   The victim was convinced to open up about these incidences after the second scandal that occurred in Post Falls ID. he is getting a lot of support from the parishioners and he is feeling a bit better.

  It seems like the pastor wants to keep it hush hush from what I hear through my sources there.

Yes, it sounds like a one-off incident (that is to say, ONE perpetrator and ONE victim),  as opposed to the Post Falls scandal, which sounds like more of a plague of corruption/sodomy spreading among the boys there.

And if the accused is no longer part of the parish, why make a big public deal out of it?

Advertising a scandal like this isn't good for a parish, you realize. Unless the common good requires it, there is no reason to air dirty laundry in public. I'd say this is a great example of a case where you DON'T need to make it public.

Scandals are eaten up by worldly people for some reason -- entire magazines make their living off the public's appetite for gossip and dirty laundry.

But Catholics look at scandals differently. For example, say you know about a priest who left the priesthood. It's a fact, publicly verifiable with evidence and everything.

Such a scandal is like a pile of dung. When you encounter a pile of dung, you can do two things: avoid it, or step in it. It's not pleasant, so why parade it around, step on it, and smear it all over yourself? What good is accomplished by doing this? Few people will be edified by it, and no one will be protected by smearing the dung all over the place. So just leave it be. There is no harm in avoiding said pile of dung.

When it comes to scandals, the ONLY considerations for a Catholic is:

A) Is it true
B) Is it important for people to know -- does the public good REQUIRE it (is it necessary)

The following are considerations for worldlings but NOT for Catholics:

C) Is it interesting or titillating
D) Does it make me feel better about myself
E) Does it tweak my curiosity
F) Does it get me out the "funk" that is my own boring, dissatisfying life?
G) Does it provide a psychologically "healthy" escape/distraction from the problems in my own life?


Think about those points. Think of the average person who actually reads gossip magazines, and ask yourself if A and B really apply. Of course they don't. It's usually lies, and it certainly doesn't help the public good to know the sordid details of this or that failed celebrity relationship.

People buy those gossip magazines for reasons C) through G).