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

And there are different kinds of crimes. Some crimes are 100% reality -- they happened -- but didn't threaten anyone else, or at least not in the present day. In other words, there is no danger to the public good. Just like many human diseases are not communicable -- they are not transmitted from person to person. You can't catch heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. from a sufferer.

For example, if it came to light -- and to an SSPX priest's attention -- that Mr. A was abused as a child by Mr. B 20 years ago, and Mr. B is no longer part of the parish -- what should the priest do? Harm the parish by needlessly making the situation public (no public good was at stake), or keep it quiet? I would keep it quiet if I were him. After all, things like sex abuse tend to get people upset, concerned, scared for their children, and several people/families might leave the parish -- which would harm the parish. The parish might lose some volunteers, income, etc. And for what? It's not like the priest needs to publicly apologize, "take firm action", or something similar; he wasn't involved or even aware of the situation 20 years ago. And how can he take firm, decisive action? The perpetrator is long gone.

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. In fact, I would say not parading dirty laundry around is the DEFAULT position. Making things public is the exception. But there are certainly cases where a good Catholic would NOT want to make a scandal 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 put it on a tray and parade it around, step on it, and/or 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).

Matthew, please read the following testimony from AVREF's Black Book of the SSPX and tell me who brings scandal, the poor lad who wrote this testimony or the abuser (SSPX priest at the time and stayed there 25+ years after first being reported as a pedophile in 1986)? Is it more scandalous to cover up such crime and protect the pedo for decades, or to publish it on this forum as I'm doing ?

Note: Google Translate has it that a French "louveteau" (Jr scout/pioneer in proper English) is a English "cub" (wolf, presumably)

A - Testimony about Father Peignot and questioning of management by senior Brotherhood (known victim of AVREF)

I met Father Philippe Peignot (SSPX) in August 1988 when he got a job in France at the Priory of Christ the King in Brussels. I was then 11 years old and I was in Cub sizainier St. Michel Group of the SSPX, in which my parents had always been very involved. There was at the time only one other priest at the priory, Father Philip Francis, Brussels Belgium prior and superior of the district.


From the outset, Father Peignot has supported the chaplaincy of St Michael group. It also gave catechism classes in a small group of children on Saturday morning. My parents had registered me because I was in school that year the parish school of my quarter - "modernist" necessarily - and they were afraid we do not instill me good values ??in religion. The previous four years was my mother who gave me lessons at home and I was happy to finally be a bit socialized and have friends. I was also a judo club in one or two nights a week and I liked it well. Cub Scout meetings were held two Sundays a month after the High Mass and lasted a good parte of the day: I liked me well overall. But Father Peignot ruined everything.


This is the catechism classes that his attempts at seduction began. The group was small and it happened several times that I find myself alone with him. He often invited me to his office after class, sometimes in an authoritarian way when I had heckled. He lent mass ornaments in my size and even her traveling Mass kit in a small suitcase with a chalice, a ciborium and paten. My parents are in are not worried and have only asked me not to do anything and be respectful when I played to say Mass. At that time he sometimes called me "my little priest," that I did not like. I quickly made him his ornaments and his traveling kit.


I also remember going into his office uniformed Cub, probably after a meeting. He made me sit on his lap. At first, he just let me play slide on his cassock: he spread his legs so that I slide by rubbing against her sex. I thought it was silly. It was very touch and gestures were many falsely spontaneous affection that displeased me much, like kisses on the edge of the lips, especially when I was on his lap.


Then he started to caress me sex, passing his hand in my pants by the belt or back along my leg when I wore shorts. I remember that I stiffened but I did not was opposed to direct resistance. He did this with a kind of affectionate natural wrong, as would a hug or a pat on the back to a friend. I can still hear him say, "ah, my little Simon! "(1) by doing that, and it gives me chills. One day, I guess my discomfort was particularly strong and it may have taken fright because he briefly apologized for touching my "clutch" as if he did it by accident.


I did not like Fr. Peignot, I found corny and hillbilly, I found her ridiculous falsetto. His kisses disgusted me. But escape was not easy because he was an authority figure to whom my parents were fully trust.


The first time I opposed frank resistance to his advances was in the sleeping area was separated from his office by a simple curtain. He had me come in there I do not know what pretext and dumped me on the bed and started kissing me. I remember being debated and identified but not myself fled the office.

The most serious event certainly took place in his car. It was not only an attempted rape, I actually feared for my life. Father Peignot served the chapel of the SSPX of Namur, who knew the important work at the time. He convinced my parents to take me there on some pretext and they had no difficulty: indeed, he enjoyed their trust and was happy to go to the good influence that would temper my character and me to accept discipline. So we were on the highway towards Namur and Father Peignot had just finished reading the breviary. He often read at the wheel, while yet he was blind. Suddenly he grabbed me by the neck and pushed my head toward his crotch. He raised his cassock and wanted to force me to do him a blowjob. He was furious and made pelvic movements. He was wearing only boxer shorts under his cassock, and I touched his erect penis debating me. He still tried to hold me when, having managed to free myself, I sneaked between the seats and took refuge in the back of the car. During this attempted rape, it controlled more clearly the car, which made several lurches. I was terrified and have threatened to jump from the moving car if he tried anything.

Back at home I reported to my parents in modest terms, that Father Peignot read at the wheel, the car had lurched, I found myself in contact with her sex and so I longer wanted to accompany him to Namur. They agreed but did not try to dig what had happened. Faced with this reality 20 years later, my father also accused me of not being clear enough: a traditionalist priest being in his mind above all suspicion, he said, have interpreted the time this contact as accidental during swerve the car.
 
We were then in 1989. I became turbulent in school, violent judo club (of which I was finally expelled), sometimes I steal alcohol and get drunk. And Fr. Peignot still had no difficulty in passing from my parents for the St. Bernard who was going to save me. One day I played with them I threatened to jump from the second floor balcony of the family home. My mother went it to him and he told me about a manipulator air I "was doing hurt my mom." At that time, I was looking at all costs to leave the cubs to escape Peignot. Since I knew my parents would never accept that I left the group I created a public incident with the new leader of the pack, to whom I threw a firecracker during a game. As I was sizainier c ' was particularly unacceptable and he returned.

Peignot but had not yet said its last word. The summer was approaching and he participated as a chaplain in a large inter-scout camp in Vendée. He came to convince my parents that I was the age to spend Cubs Scouts and he had to take me (single, Brussels Scouts do not participate in this camp then) learn discipline outdoors. I strongly protested but my parents did not give in.

I have bad memories of the camp, where I knew no one. I first became part of a patrol of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, whose head was cold and austere. One day, Father Peignot summoned me to his tent to lecture me. He again tried to control me and kiss me strength. I struggled and got out of the tent shouting "now it's over" or something like that. For whatever reason, then it made me join the patrol Croix, where the atmosphere was a little more relaxed.

A few days later, around 20 July, Peignot me again sɛҳuąƖly assaulted. It was during a night game. Clearly, he was watching me and following me in the dark.

Suddenly, he came from behind and lifted me off the ground. He took me in his arms, put his hand over her mouth and started to run. I do not know where he wanted to take me but I was very scared. As he knew how, he spent a hand along my thigh with my shorts and began to masturbate. I struggled and gave him a big elbow in the stomach. He dropped me and I share in common. Since then, he has not tried to touch me.


AVREF the notes on Peignot case management by the authorities of the SSPX

Simon wrote in 1991 to Father F. Schmidberger (superior general from 1982 to 1994) to denounce the Abbe Peignot. Fr. Schmidberger had already been warned by other victims in France from 1987-1988 and had not taken other sanctions that mutation to Belgium (without even alerting the new local superior). He lectured at most orally Fr. Peignot, given that there is no record of punishment or even admonition in Peignot folder under the superiorship Schmidberger. There is in fact that of epistolary exchanges after the termination of Simon, where Fr. Schmidberger accuses Fr. Peignot "know the reasons that [it] did well to leave France" of raping her "promise that there are more incidents" and undermine the Brotherhood's reputation. In 1991, Fr. Schmidberger finally let the Abbot Peignot continue the chaplaincy of the Scout group and camps, and simply recommends to local superior for vigilance. In 1993, it still leaves Fr. Peignot choose his new assignment in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, where he will be in charge of the chaplaincy of an important scout group until 2002.

Bishop Fellay, Superior General since 1994 and also a follower of mutations system can not find anything to complain about. Worse, in 2000 he broke a measure taken by the abbot Laurençon, then superior of the District of France, who was permanently banned in all Peignot apostolate with young people. In doing so, Bishop Fellay has gone from being careless than active accomplice, and that should earn him a charge before the ad hoc tribunal established since then by Pope Francis. It was only in 2002 that the abbot of Cacqueray, District Superior of France, and Bishop Fellay began to take significant steps against Father Peignot. At least in theory, since they have been implemented very poor manner and that Father Peignot continued to participate in the activities of the group Juventas Christ. For example, in 2005-2006 Peignot could take a year, when it seems that no one knew where he was! How many more victims during that year ...?

In 2009, tired of what looked very much like a sabotage of the authorities of the SSPX, Simon filed a complaint to the CDF but, as incredible as it sounds, the CDF mandated to try to Peignot ... Bishop Fellay! In other words, when one is an accomplice to an abuser for years, simply return the jacket to receive the mandate to judge. No comment. How to still believe in ecclesiastical justice after such a comedy?

The AVREF could view a copy of the complaint of the victim against Father Peignot.

Also from the "Livre Noir de la FSSPX", with some interesting remarks on "failure to report" in law. Fr Crane could also be in trouble, as there is a similar law in Idaho.

F - Abbot Christopher Roisnel, "rape and acts of barbarity"

School Director Notre-Dame-de-la-Sablonnière to Goussonville (Yvelines), Father Christophe Roisnel is accused of raping several times, in 2010 and 2011, three teachers of the institution and of their having submitted that the criminal code called "torture" and "barbaric acts". The facts alleged were estimated sufficiently serious for it to be remanded in custody pending trial. It must be said that he faces life.

Note that even before the intervention of the public prosecutor, "the Saint Pius X had already seized the record by the priest appear deviant in a canonical process" (Le Parisien, April 9, 2014). No more than any organization, we can not fault the SSPX deviations of its members if it takes the necessary measures to prevent or punish. But precisely what was the outcome of the canonical process? As those traditionalists Yvelines, Father Roisnel has "been away for two years in a convent" (Le Parisien, idem), namely among traditionalists Capuchins of Morgon in Beaujolais. One remains bewildered in front of the mercy of this "penalty": Convent of two years for someone who, in criminal law, risk life imprisonment ... Besides, in not warning the judiciary, senior (Fr. of Cacqueray, while higher in France, as well as Bishop Fellay) were obviously guilty of "failure to report crime," a crime punishable by three years imprisonment and 45,000 euros fine (434-1 C. pén.). We become aware that it was on the part of the SSPX an attempt to escape the abbot Roisnel criminal justice since if the victims had not filed a complaint, there would be no had to "deal Roisnel".

Moreover, these bys are common practice in the clergy, which removes the authors for a while only. On this point, the SSPX is therefore exactly the same as the dioceses and congregations, and then replaced often these deviant clerics in new places, without notifying the new local superior track record. It thus constitutes an "invitation" to recidivism. voluntary or simply inept blindness? The result is in any serious way, and even more when it comes to pedophile priests, as seen in other cases of this Black Book.

Matthew:

Catholics eat up edification, not scandal. Take prudent precautions for your children and family, and then spend plenty of time meditating on the lives of the saints -- not the scandals of bad men.

Whether Catholics "eat up edification" or not, Catholics on this forum have pretty much let the ICA/ICC scandal drop.  They're not 'eating up' this scandal any longer.

Before Fr. Wegner flew out to Post Falls, the subject was pretty much alive.  After assurances from the U.S. District Superior that the matter had been taken care of and resolved, almost all comments on the ICA scandal ceased to be posted on CI.  That was July 26.  It is now august 2, seven days later, and all discussion, plus any further revelations, have been quashed.

Apparently, parents of ICA students are taking cover.  Not a peep out of any one of them, at least not for public consumption.  This does not necessarily mean that they've gone back to "meditating on the lives of the saints," simply that they've apparently stopped meditating on the scandal.

Personally, I think this means a stunning victory for Fellay & Co.  That's exactly what the sspx heirarchy wanted to happen. They got what they wanted.

Matthew:

Quote

Catholics eat up edification, not scandal. Take prudent precautions for your children and family, and then spend plenty of time meditating on the lives of the saints -- not the scandals of bad men.

Whether Catholics "eat up edification" or not, Catholics on this forum have pretty much let the ICA/ICC scandal drop.  They're not 'eating up' this scandal any longer.

Before Fr. Wegner flew out to Post Falls, the subject was pretty much alive.  After assurances from the U.S. District Superior that the matter had been taken care of and resolved, almost all comments on the ICA scandal ceased to be posted on CI.  That was July 26.  It is now august 2, seven days later, and all discussion, plus any further revelations, have been quashed.

Apparently, parents of ICA students are taking cover.  Not a peep out of any one of them, at least not for public consumption.  This does not necessarily mean that they've gone back to "meditating on the lives of the saints," simply that they've apparently stopped meditating on the scandal.

Personally, I think this means a stunning victory for Fellay & Co.  That's exactly what the sspx heirarchy wanted to happen. They got what they wanted.

Read this.  It is so familiar.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-dug-up-dirt-on-priest-and-miami-archbishop-rebuked-them

JPM:

Perhaps.  But they certainly don't have the power to stymie the ongoing police investigation.  And what about the ten families who've already extricated themselves from the school? What influence could the hierarchy possibly exert over them?

Most of us on the outside, including me, know little or nothing about the ongoing police investigation.  If it is happening, I am gratified to hear it. The scandal needs to be turned over to the secular authorities, since the church (i.e. sspx), is not going to do much about it, apparently.  

Bp. Fellay will make certain that he always has at least one continent between him and this nasty ICA affair.  There's too much at stake for him now.  Impending regularization with Rome demands that he be above it all.

You mention "ten families."  I thought it was 20 families.  That was the initial report.  Has sspx damage control worked?

Apparently the SSPX is basically ruled by a clique of families in Bas-Valais, Switzerland, Fellay himself also belonging to it. He does not shy away from nepotism, seeing how other members of this clique also hold influential positions in the SSPX. In this context it should be mentioned that Frédéric Abbet, one of the SSPX priests destroying the lives of children, and also belonging to the Valaisan clique of families, somehow got one of the biggest lawyers of the country to defend him in court, unpayable for ordinary citizens, while the families of the victims were left to themselves. Did Fellay provide the money to pay that lawyer?

1)How come, until now, has this Valais "clique of  families" never been mentioned or discussed on CI? Or has it?

2) Can you supply names of these families, whose members "hold influential positions in the SSPX?

3)  Who is this lawyer, who "ordinary citizens" can no afford?

4) have no members of these aggrieved families of the victims ever stepped forward to  expose the situation?

5)  Is Max Krah, perhaps, in cahoots with these influential families?

6)  Do you imply that SSPX donations, and/or Rothchild  money provided the money for this priest's defense.

7)  Can members of these families be linked to the original GREG debacle?

7)  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?

 
I ask all this, fully aware that the average CI forum member probably has a short attention span, and will move on to other things in the course of mere hours; and that the information you herein provide will be soon forgotten.

I have simply derived what I posted from the "Livre Noir" linked to in this thread. The lawyer whom I mentioned is maître Kennes.