Thanks, DeProfundis. I can see now that we need a knowledge of the French language, which I certainly don't have. It will be difficult to pursue this topic on an English speaking forum.
hollingsworth said:
4) have no members of these aggrieved families of the victims ever stepped forward to expose the situation?
Yes, in court, and the priest was defended by an Uyttendaele lawyer who got him acquitted in first instance. One of the families was disgusted and gave up. Others, including the Prosecuter's Office filed for appeal (which is under way). There was also an article in Der Spiegel a few months ago, with an interview of the mother of two boys molested by this Swiss priest.
OK, so at least some families have tried. Bernie took sspx funds. i.e. other people's money, and got the best lawyer that money can buy. I get it.
hollingsworth said:
5) Is Max Krah, perhaps, in cahoots with these influential families?
Well, wasn't he on the board of the Jaidhof Foundation until recently? You know, the legal thingie that they created to siphon the von Gutmann millions to Switzerland.
Thanks again. It was a stupid question. So, in short. you're saying "Duhhhhh!" I deserve it.
hollingsworth said:
6) Do you imply that SSPX donations, and/or Rothchild money provided the money for this priest's defense.
That's how the SSPX spends the money donated by the faithful, yes.
Another stupid questlon on my part. I apologize.

hollingsworth said:
8) Can we reasonably assume that +Fellay is a servile, nepotistic rat, as Bp Williamson has already suggestred in oh so many ways in the past?
Yes
I like this rejoinder the best. A simple, no frills "yes," as in, 'Well, of course!"
Thanks again, DeProfundis. You have made my day.
So, we're beginning to get the picture. The sspx may have pervert priests scattered all over the place. The ICC/ICAscandal, though no pervert priests are involved, can simply be added to the list of sspx institutions riddled with dysfunction. Time for a cocktail.