Author Topic: Sodomy Scandal in Post Falls, ID - SSPX Immaculate Conception Academy (Read 198566 times)

brianhope · « **Reply #180 on:** July 18, 2016, 12:58:25 PM »

Quote from: Zeitun

Quote from: Alexandria
Right before I read your post, I seemed to remember it had something to do with the Dominicans. Quite a demanding group of women.

There are two FORMER Dominican nuns known locally as "The Money Sisters" because of their vast real estate empire. They own roughly 20 properties in the area, renting primarily to SSPX lay people from what I've heard. They employed Ed Populus to do maintenance on their units so there's another weird association. It's a very insular community.

Those two were Dominicans from way back. They left when their community went N.O. One of them died last winter.
Nothing weird about hiring Ed P. I don't think anyone could have guessed what the news just announced about him.

Amakusa · « **Reply #181 on:** July 18, 2016, 02:17:04 PM »

Even in the decadent public schools of my French country, I have never heard that eight boys commited the crime of sodomy. I have heard very ugly things, but not that...

Unbelievable...

hollingsworth · « **Reply #182 on:** July 18, 2016, 04:08:45 PM »

Amakusa:

Quote

Even in the decadent public schools of my French country, I have never heard that eight boys commited the crime of sodomy. I have heard very ugly things, but not that...
Unbelievable....

ICA is not a public school in France. ICA is not a public school in the U.S. ICA is not even a religious school run by a Novus Ordo diocese in any part of the world.
No! I'll tell you what ICA is. It is a traditional Catholic school run by the SSPX, whose exalted leader reminds us that his organization acts to "remedy the universal disorder." Not your garden variety apostolate, you understand, but one which, apparently, can ensure the "salvation of all who cooperate in it."
No, by golly! This is a society "determined to keep doctrinal, theological and social rectitude."

So I would repeat, yes..Unbelievable in spades! Why, the sspx can not even ensure the social rectitude of children in one of its schools, whose parents have committed them to her charge. This Society can not even manage to keep these children safe from lurking sɛҳuąƖ predators and perverts.

Wow! What an outfit!! Unbelievable? I'll say.

Amakusa · « **Reply #183 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:56:37 AM »

Well, there have been sɛҳuąƖ scandals in the SSPX too in my country. Recently an association specifically dedicated to denouncing sɛҳuąƖ abuses among the religious communities has published a report mentioning sɛҳuąƖs abuses by some SSPX priests.

In those cases, the SSPX had not a better behaviour than in your country. Actually, she does the same thing as the Novus Ordites: the sɛҳuąƖ abusers are transfered, but not charged with their crimes...

The SSPX wants to convey the image that we are the bests, that everybody is perfect among us, and thus, there are no pedophiles among the priests or the brethren!

However, I had never heard before that eight boys had willingly commited sodomy in a school... They might have been corrupted by a pervert, and then they inflicted the same abuses on other boys. Such thing happens among the sodomites: some of them have been corrupted in their youth.

Once again, the SSPX is to blame not for the crimes themselves, but for her carelessness when faced with the evil.

Geremia · « **Reply #184 on:** July 19, 2016, 11:57:32 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79

It is illegal for health and school personnel to fail to notify law enforcement (such as it is) of sɛҳuąƖ abuse.

So there was violation of civil law(s)? If the laws are just, that is a mortal sin, isn't it?

Geremia · « **Reply #185 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:19:23 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

You must have missed the sermon last week:

Quote from: Mark 79
To rub salt in our wounds, Fr. Crane's sermon in Phoenix today was about how parents should be putting their children in Society schools. What gall! Fr. Crane is among the ones who "allegedly" turned a deaf ear when students and parents warned him about the "camp counselor" pederast Sloniker.

Yes, I heard the sermon. When is preaching Catholic truths ever "gall"? When have you heard a priest from the pulpit quoting Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri or the 1917 Canon 1374 regarding Christian education? What was Fr. Crane supposed to do? Give up preaching Catholic truths because of his or others' sins?

Quote from: mw2016

Did you miss Mass last Sunday??

Fr. Crane basically gave a thinly-veiled threat to those who do not have their kids in the school by reminding them that Canon Law says Catholic children are NOT to be enrolled in mixed-faith or secualr schools.

I can see how some here interpret his sermon as a marketing ploy to up enrollment in SSPX schools, esp. since he didn't mention homeschooling (that I remember). Although he should've mentioned or quoted Divini §73 on "family education" (home education / homeschooling), he didn't exclude home education.

Quote from: mw2016

He even went one step further and reminded everyone that priests used to withhold the Sacraments from parents who did not enroll their kids in the school.

Probably because such parents are public sinners

If it is public information that their children attend secular or non-Catholic schools, then the parents are public sinners, giving scandal to others, too. Since the matter (education of children) is very grave, they sin mortally. They are "manifestly infamous" and "are to be barred from the Eucharist" (1917 Canon 855 / 1983 Canon 915).

hollingsworth · « **Reply #186 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:31:42 PM »

Quote

It is illegal for health and school personnel to fail to notify law enforcement (such as it is) of sɛҳuąƖ abuse.

This is true. This law of notification applies within the secular public school system. Is it not applicable, perhaps even more so, as it touches private schools? I would not be surprised to learn later that Fr. Vassal and other sspx priests, as well as even certain ICA school personnel knew about this sɛҳuąƖ activity among ICA students, but failed to report it to the proper authorities earlier

I'm afraid that what's happening is a massive cover-up by the sspx, and it will probably be successful. All of these events will be lost in the mists of obfuscation and the passage of time. I have called for letters and other docuмents related to the scandal to be published universally online. Those letters and docuмents are thus far not forthcoming.

It looks to me that ICC will go back to business as usual. The present scandal will subside, as have others. A new "pastor" will come in. He'll apply some bandaids and prescribe a few nostrums. The sheeple will settle back in to their daily Mass centered routine, and the temporarily roiled surface of ICC's fetid waters will re-assume a smooth glassy appearance.

BTW, we have just learned that Fr. Vassal's letter of resignation was not apparently distributed to the faithful. How, then, can we expect that a copy of it might be reprinted on Cathinfo?

Geremia · « **Reply #187 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:49:36 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

This law of notification applies within the secular public school system. Is it not applicable, perhaps even more so, as it touches private schools? I would not be surprised to learn later that Fr. Vassal and other sspx priests, as well as even certain ICA school personnel knew about this sɛҳuąƖ activity among ICA students, but failed to report it to the proper authorities earlier

Here's Idaho's mandatory reporting laws (p. 20 of this):

Quote

Idaho

Professionals Required to Report
Idaho Code § 16-1605
The following persons are required to report:
• Physicians, residents on hospital staffs, interns, nurses, or coroners
• Teachers or daycare personnel
• Social workers or law enforcement personnel
• Other persons

Reporting by Other Persons
Idaho Code § 16-1605
Any person who has reason to believe that a child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected is required to report.

Institutional Responsibility to Report
Idaho Code § 16-1605
When the attendance of a physician, resident, intern, nurse, daycare worker, or social worker is pursuant to the performance of services as a member of the staff of a hospital or similar institution, he or she shall notify the person in charge of the institution, or his or her designated delegate, who shall make the necessary reports.

Standards for Making a Report
Idaho Code § 16-1605
A report is required when:
• A person has reason to believe that a child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected.
• A person observes a child being subjected to conditions or circuмstances that would reasonably result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

Privileged Communications
Idaho Code §§ 16-1605; 16-1606
Any privilege between a husband and wife and any professional and client, except for the clergy-penitent or attorney-client privilege, shall not be grounds for failure to report.
Any privilege between husband and wife, or between any professional person—except the lawyer-client privilege and including, but not limited to, physicians, counselors, hospitals, clinics, daycare centers, and schools—and their clients shall not be grounds for excluding evidence at any proceeding regarding the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of the child or the cause thereof.

Inclusion of Reporter’s Name in Report
The reporter is not specifically required by statute to provide his or her name in the report.

Disclosure of Reporter Identity
This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Other states' laws, e.g. Connecticut's, require mandatory reporting even if there is simply a suspicion "based on factors, including, but not limited to…statements by a child, victim". Idaho's requires simply a "reason to believe."

Geremia · « **Reply #188 on:** July 19, 2016, 12:59:01 PM »

Here's the full Idaho §16-1605 statute.

wallflower · « **Reply #189 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:41:11 PM »

Yes, I was going to say, the list of priests who haven't been driven out or torn to shreds among power struggles in Post Falls would be shorter.

wallflower · « **Reply #190 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:03:09 PM »

Mandatory reporting and what is considered abuse depends on the ages of the boys. If they are the same ages or roughly so, it is not considered abuse and does not fall under mandatory reporting. Those laws refer mostly to older vs younger, not same age. In some places age 14-20 is considered close enough not to warrant mandatory reporting.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a serious problem if this rumor is true. It just means that the ages of the boys is not black and white as some would make it out to be and warrants a lot more confidentiality.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #191 on:** July 19, 2016, 05:49:16 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Mandatory reporting and what is considered abuse depends on the ages of the boys. If they are the same ages or roughly so, it is not considered abuse and does not fall under mandatory reporting. Those laws refer mostly to older vs younger, not same age. In some places age 14-20 is considered close enough not to warrant mandatory reporting.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a serious problem if this rumor is true. It just means that the ages of the boys is not black and white as some would make it out to be and warrants a lot more confidentiality.

The penalties for committing crimes against children may vary depending on the age of the perpetrator(s) and victim(s), but the mandatory reporting requirement does not exempt reporting of sɛҳuąƖ abuse of any minor.

While Fr. Crane decided to ignore the child's report of being whipped naked by Sloniker, it is unlikely that any jury would excuse Fr. Crane for his failure to report... IF Fr. Crane can be charged and brought in front of a jury.

Since the SSPX is loathe to tell the whole truth of their own volition, the truth must be wrung from them by strong measures. Unless the accomplices are brought to justice now, the SSPX will never prioritize the safety of our children.

wallflower · « **Reply #192 on:** July 19, 2016, 06:03:05 PM »

Mark, the posts above mine are discussing mandatory reporting and Fr. Vassal and the alleged sɛҳuąƖ activity among the boys at the school.

Obviously Sloniker is older, that action was certainly abuse, and my post does not apply to him or any adult who knew what he was doing.

Pilar · « **Reply #193 on:** July 22, 2016, 10:39:49 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: hollingsworth
Mark:
Quote
This is one of a very short list of things that will cure the SSPX.

At this point, I fear, nothing will cure the SSPX. Our Lady was reported to have told +Fellay, that unless he made the 2nd Rosary Crusade in 2008 for the Consecration of Russia, The SSPX was over. It was toast. He failed to obey Our Lady in 2006, though the Consecration had been Her desired intention then. The Holy Mother, apparently then, overlooked that failure, but warned him straitly concerning Her single intention for the 2nd Crusade. As we know, +F ignored Her request, and made the lifting of the so-called excommunications the theme for that RC. The rest is history. The sspx is toast. Folks had better leave the fallen apostolate while they still can.

I agree with you. The SSPX is toast.

Gamaliel was right: Acts 5:38-39

You seem to have a problem with the SSPX, not the neo-SSPX.

So I vehemently disagree with you.

The SSPX was the work of God. It was good and holy. But like the Catholic Church itself, it was made up of men and so it has many bad elements in it.

If God could allow the Catholic Church itself to become what it is today -- we're talking about the Bride of Christ which has the solemn promise of Christ that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". How much easier would it be for a good organization like the SSPX to corrupt and fall?

That is what happened. It wasn't rotten from the outset. +ABL was a saint. His work (the SSPX) was the most Catholic group around. It was a beautiful, good organization blessed by God and bore many, many good fruits.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #194 on:** July 22, 2016, 12:18:43 PM »

Matthew:

Quote

That is what happened. It wasn't rotten from the outset. +ABL was a saint. His work (the SSPX) was the most Catholic group around. It was a beautiful, good organization blessed by God and bore many, many good fruits.

I hope that Matthew is not suggesting that I, Alexandria, and a few others are suggesting that the SSPX under ABL was not a good thing. It bore, as Matthew says, many good fruits.
But the SSPX that we've been vocal about is +Fellay's organization, not ABL',s. I think that it has been slowly,(maybe rapidly) rotting from the head down. My wife and I came aboard in @ 2001,02. Believe me, it was all downhill for us. The public vilification of Bp. Williamson and his final expulsion, the zionist, Krah, Rothchild connections, the vigorous overtures to Rome, still ongoing, the GREC ties, the 2012 General Chapter, the unceremonious ejection of numbersof good and worthy priests from the Society- you name it. All that worked together to force us out. We never knew an SSPX of which Matthew waxes so nostalgic.