Author Topic: Sodomy Scandal in Post Falls, ID - SSPX Immaculate Conception Academy (Read 201380 times)

CWA · « **Reply #250 on:** July 27, 2016, 04:11:14 PM »

Testimony from someone at the parents' meeting with Fr. Vassal:

Quote from: pendulum

It is very true. ... Unfortunately it is most probably worse than what is posted here. ... The affected children of sodomy, molestation, group masturbation are not receiving any help or counselling. These sins are spreading in the homes to the younger siblings. ...

I have spoken to high school parents. They did seek help, their children sought help. They were ill advised and the boys remained on campus. Its my understanding that not one boy ever was suspended for one day for this behavior. So far, it is established that this has spread to 8-9th grade boys this last school year. At least one family has had an older brother affect his younger brother.

...The horrible actions happened on campus over two school years at least. (There was group masturbation, sodomy, molestation). ... parents confirm that it is ongoing and that many boys are participants and victims. 8-15 boys. At this time there's no telling how many [more] boys. There are many large families involved.

More testimony from someone involved. I know the critics will say the person didn't sign their name, but obviously they have their reasons for not doing so. And as Matthew said, anonymous to the general population doesn't mean Matthew doesn't know the identity of the person.

Quote from: Matthew

From the mailbag:

Quote
I read [CathInfo], and thought I would update you on the post falls affair. Most everything written so far is fairly correct. I say fairly because many go off course with their bickering and jumping to conclusions.

Correspondence has been received by us parishioners from Fr Wegner informing us of Fr Vassals resignation, with a letter also from Fr Vassal himself confirming that he is leaving, effective today. We will be getting a new pastor, which is good! But I want to say that the school is in no way fixed. I only hope the parents can see that! It is depressing for those of us being honest about the situation, to see what is happening and what is not.

I appreciate very much your helping to spread our terrible news, as it needed to get out to inform people. There will always be people who won't believe it, and I am sorry for them. It is a terrible thing when abuse touches your family, and I hope they never need to experience that.

Please continue to pray for the people of post falls, and especially for our children.

BTW, to this confidential author and all concerned parties, be assured of my continued prayers for you all.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #251 on:** July 27, 2016, 05:11:35 PM »

Bravo, CWA in reassembling and highlighting the evidence and in exposing the skeptics' serial straw man arguments. The skeptics "defeated" arguments that NOBODY made, while ignoring the evidence in hand. If uninformed SSPXers stumble upon this thread, it is important that they see the pattern of evidence and not fall prey to the fallacious "logic" of the skeptics.

I am confident, CWA, that if you smell smoke, you will move to protect your children... and CWA and I do NOT have the same ISP and are not "several adults living together."

Mark 79 · « **Reply #252 on:** July 27, 2016, 05:47:19 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

CWA you can calm down and quit spam posting me. I am not minimizing anything. In fact it's because this situation IS so grave that I am trying to be more cautious. ...

Straw man arguments are dishonest, not cautious. The posting of evidence that you demanded is not spam; calling the evidence spam is dishonest.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #253 on:** July 27, 2016, 05:53:47 PM »

Quote from: Meg

...
I don't think its fair to accuse wallflower of having her account being taken over by someone else. Please get a grip. You are extremely angry, and the target for that anger seems to be wallflower.

A question is not an accusation; calling a question an accusation is dishonest... hysterics... just one more diversion from the evidence that you so sanctimoniously demanded (when you already had plenty of evidence available). Further, you have amply demonstrated here that you are utterly incompetent to opine about how things "seem."

hollingsworth · « **Reply #254 on:** July 27, 2016, 06:00:02 PM »

Mark:

Quote

Straw man arguments are dishonest, not cautious. The posting of evidence that you demanded is not spam; calling the evidence spam is dishonest.

Agreed. I hope that some don't start turning people, undeserving of sympathy, into sympathetic characters.