Mary Jane:

And to clarify what I said about trips and play rehearsals, I should have been more precise. I meant to ask only whether any illicit actions had occurred by students involved in that teacher's projects, not that he was directly or personally involved.

I am not aware of any "trips" this teacher took with his cast.  However, we observed him many time rehearsing with  his students downstairs in the basement.  It was all done very much in the open.  

If "illicit actions" occurred in any of that "teacher's projects," they would have to have been carried out under his auspices, at least indirectly, while he was somewhere in the vicinity. or, somehow, nearby.  Is that not what you're saying or implying?  Are you not accusing him of creating a situation or contributing to an environment in which these acts might be more easily and conveniently performed?

I think you are trying to implicate this teacher in some way.  Am I wrong?

Incredulous:

3. The following year, Father Rostand confronted a Catholic in the coffee room at the Carson City Mission chapel and accused them of violating the law by having read the 238 sermons.  He even pulled out his smartphone to record the his conversation with the man.

4. In Indiana a few years ago, the same Father Rostand bullied an independent chapel, just south of Indianapolis, blustering that if the faithful didn't sign over the property to the xSPX, "... they open another chapel down the street and put them out of business."

This testimony tracks with my own experience. Rostand tried to bully me and make me look silly in a parish meeting at  ICC.  Needless to say, it didn't work.

BTW, since Mary Jane has been talking about possible litigation against some, would it be actionable to accuse a priest on a public forum of being a total jackass?
Because, I think Rostand is a total jackass and a disgrace to his calling.  

What about it, Mary Jane?  Could your lawyer relative, perhaps, find cause to bring legal action against me for saying such a thing online.

Meanwhile, Fr. Rostand, may I suggest that you find another line of work?

Incredulous:

The realization is sinking-in that Wegner did an out-of-court settlement and the parents are now silenced.

This might be the case,  But then, what was the exact nature of that "settlement" in your opinion, Incred?  I mean, what could the D.S. have said to them in order to shut them up?  What kind of an arrangement could he have made with them to ensure future silence?  What kind of threats might he have made in order to cow these parents into silence?  I don't get it.  

They should be screaming from the roof tops.  Instead, ICC parishioners are apparently back to their heads-down, robotic, Mass-attending past.  They have, it would seem, settled back into that comfortable, head-in-the-sand Catholicism of the 50s to which the bishop makes occasional reference.

To insure silence, I suspect it was just cash money and the signing of a contract.

Are you saying that sspx bought their silence with a healthy cash settlement?  I rather doubt it, but who knows.

mw:

First of all, they (sspx rascals) are not going to give one thin dime to parishioners unless a court of law FORCED them to.

Second, I think SSPX parishioners are exactly what someone said - cows! And fearful cows, to boot.

They are terrified of being kicked out of their parish. People are usually STUCK where they are - can't sell a house, can't get another job, etc.

They are not about to blow up their lives by blowing up their Church.

So, it was probably REALLY easy for Fr. Wegner to tell them they are not allowed to speak of what happened or they will be ejected from the parish.

MW, I think you are exactly right.  Having been among these people for a decade, I think your brief analysis is probably spot on.

A few thoughts on this whole mess.

1.  The parents of the bad boys were very upset.  They were hoping the SSPX would protect them, but they believed otherwise and we're in the process of redress in their grevences.
2. Fr. Wegner assured them of his support and in turn secured their silence.  So much for redressing.
3.  No one would dare sully the reputation of the parents, as the SSPX had their backs.  
4.  The net result everyone is happy,  and no one will speak evil of the parents, right? And if they did, the wrath of a 1000 burning suns will decent upon them and the SSPX will defend them.
5. Don't you just love a story with a happy ending?

Here's another one:  http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/oct/28/trucker-who-molested-boys-from-his-church-will-spe/

  This article says he will be eligible for parole review in 35 years, when he's 66.  

He says he thought he'd only get seven years.  

Quote from: Alexandria

Kevin Sloniker was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.

http://www.krem.com/news/local/kootenai-county/n-idaho-trucker-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-sɛҳuąƖly-abusing-underage-boys/343962073

Whew!, as Fr. Wegner would say, "... I'm glad that episode is over. Now the school boys are safe."

These "madman rapists" remind me of the Lee Harvey Oswald, "lone gunman" story.

Do you think the xSPX, will bring him the Sacraments ?  I sort of doubt... being that Fr. Wegner is concerned about bad PR, and all.

KS said in court he's a "bible man," or something along those lines.  Sounds more Protestant than anything else.  Maybe the evangelicals in prison snatched him up for their side.

By the way, I really do love your avatar.  I always get a laugh out of it.  Especially when I'm feeling the exact same way.   :smile: