From the allegations reported first hand by Jassy ...
It starts off in the Confessional. She starts talking about her past abuse, but Father Duverger cuts her off and tells her to seek him out for spiritual direction. It is common for priests to deflect things that are not direct matter for the confessional to a different forum (i.e. to spiritual direction). Priests don't have time to do counseling sessions involving a person's entire life story in the Confessional unless it involves sins that she committed.
Father Duverger asks a lot of detail, including graphic detail, about the abuse. We don't know his motivation. According to Jassy, he repeatedly stated that he "know how to help" her. Perhaps he fancied himself as being a talented psychologist who could help her through it. At WORST here, you have some inordinate, perhaps impure, curiosity about details that were not relevant to getting her the help she required. Yet he may also have had some reasonable explanation for why he felt it may have been relevant from the perspective of his proposed counseling or the psychological help he felt confident he could provide.
Where is the sɛҳuąƖ assault? Where is, even, the grooming? Jassy reports that sometimes a month or two passed between their "sessions", that one one occasion he hadn't even bothered to read the e-mails she had sent him for quite some time. One would think he'd be more persistent if he had targeted her for grooming. WHAT did Fr. Duverger do that could be construed as grooming or, much less, assualt? When Jassy discussed this with some priests, they referred to it as an "imprudence", and she claimed that it was code-word for sɛҳuąƖ assault. But what was this besides "imprudence"? Where was the actual assault, Jassy? Did he touch you at any time? Did he make comments suggestive of coming on to your or even grooming you for later contact? There was NOTHING in what she suggests to indicate this. The single most salacious detail wasn't about her own case, but was reported to her second-hand by the other accuser, whose own family called her credibility into question. So Jassy goes on a crusade. She asserts that Fr. Duverger would be a threat to children. And the SSPX priest rightly responds, based on what? Typically men who are into women (Jassy was 22 when this first started) tend not to be interested in children. Jassy repeatedly asserts that he was a threat to children based on absolutely NOTHING. She claims that abuse victims have it in common with children that they are vulnerable. That's all you have, Jassy, to smear Fr. Duverger as a threat to children?
Then toward the end of the interview, she claims that she would have been satisfied had the SSPX conducted an investigation and concluded that there was no threat from Father Duverger. Really? You're that convinced that you were victimized, groomed, assaulted, and whatnot ... and you would just accept that conclusion?
Jassy's allegations amount to nothing by themselves. It's possible also that, having been a victim prior, she had a tendency to construe things as threatening in that way when they were intended differently. I see no evidence of any wrongdoing by Fr. Duverger, except perhaps, worst case, an excessive, POSSIBLY impure, curiosity regarding the details of her past abuse.
Topic: Michael Voris Publishes Article on SSPX Abuse (Read 34792 times)