I find it interesting that whenever someone brings up the fact that there has still been no substantiation of the original rumor, it is immediately dismissed as being due to a cover-up. That is certainly a possibility, but it is also possible that the initial rumor was mistaken. Why is everyone so eager to assume the worst?

And I find it interesting that whenever someone posts the concerns, some newbie attempts a diversion.

Keep your eye on the ball:

• Sloniker, warnings from a victim and parents ignored
• group homo-sex in the school and church, lied to parents
• Populous, another serial pedophile in the same parish
• accomplices/enablers/liars who "take the protection of minors most seriously"

The diversions?

"Rumors," Nitpicking," "little axes," "always hate the SSPX," "trial lawyer," "neighbors," the victim's warning and the parents' warnings weren't about incidents "at the church or on the summer camps" but elsewhere—What trick of the rabbis won't the accomplices use?

The ICC/ICA scandals will never be effectively addressed, until people in the know  step forward publicly with their letters and personal testimonies, with clear statements for the record, and with other irrefutable docuмentation.  That has not happened to any appreciable degree.   The people closest to the situation, you can be almost sure, are being warned by priests, intimidated by the sspx hierarchy, and told to keep quiet in no uncertain terms.      

I can tell you that the summer camp for my chapel was cancelled this year.  The main reason was that an "official SSPX sanctioned event" now needs background checks for all camp counselors and assistants that will be in contact with the children.  I have an email from the prior.  

This sounds like a step in the right direction.  I'm sure someone can squeeze some negativity out of this requirement, but nonetheless, background checks on those that work with children is a good thing. Not that it catches everyone, but it will at least stop those with a criminal background looking for naive people with easy to access children.  

Quote from: Alexandria

and who did ... nothing.

How do you know they did nothing? Just because the investigation is not completely open to the public?

Did you not read the account of the Kevin Sloniker victims and their families?

Quote from: wallflower

I am much more comfortable accepting Fr Vassal's accusation of himself than taking a story with an unknown origin, 12 legs all with more legs of their own and no distinctions as Gospel truth.

To which accusation do refer?

That he mishandled the problem in the boys' school and didn't make it a priority. That's what I took from his letter.

What exactly that problem was is still very unclear and will likely remain that way.

Matthew I understand your confidentiality. I know the difference and understand that you know more about posters and emailers than we do. You are still taking hearsay on a very grave matter. You aren't in Post Falls. Your boys haven't been through anything. You have to trust your source. Which is fine, if you know them well enough to do so. That's your choice.

Likewise it is my choice to realize I am yet another step removed from the source, even more than you. I've been around trad circles long enough to know that we are experts at Chinese telephone and it doesn't hurt to be cautious. The priests aren't the only ones who can be seriously lacking, some parishioners are truly nuts. So your posts might be from the mailbag, I do not know who is on the other end of that and I have no way of verifying. I am sorry, it's simply the truth.

Aside from your source, many posters jumping to serious conclusions in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about, whether they like to admit it or not. Unless all active CI members are from Post Falls and happen to be parents with boys in the school now. You start a thread about a group of boys engaging in sodomy and now 30 pages later we have someone saying good thing her boys aren't in SSPX schools since there's no guarantee her boys wouldn't be raped. ??? Did I miss where now the boys were raping others in school?

Anyone who has practiced a little reservation of judgment now and then knows that you can accept something might be true, that it is probably true to some degree, but refrain from jumping to wild conclusions until you have something more than a 6th degree story. It's just a bit of patience, not denial.

But to some, because I am not ready to lynch Fr Vassal or the entire SSPX, I must be the enemy as well. It's a bit ridiculous.

CI may be vindicated that there is a problem and that Fr Vassal mishandled it. The details are still unknown. Guaranteed many of the theories offered here are wrong.

And since it still involves boys behavior among themselves, I still believe there ought to be an element of confidentiality, contrary to what I would believe were it a problem of adults abusing children. So I am personally ok with Fr. Vassal confirming there was a problem, confirming he didn't make it the priority it ought to have been and leaving it at that. I don't need the details beyond how adults in the situation, priest and parents alike could have done better to prevent the problem.

But then again, maybe I am the only one here who knows these problems can happen anywhere. It's very discouraging and scary to have a scandal like this come to light. It sounds like this one might be particularly bad. But it doesn't shock me to the core as if it's never happened before or as if I was not already cautious. Girls' schools, boys' schools, it can happen. You have to watch your children, it doesn't matter where they are.

Snowball,

We don't need to get into gory details.

To answer your question, "What kind of sex?"

ANY KIND OF SEX. It doesn't matter.

When the subject is MY BOY and the object is OTHER BOYS I don't want to hear about ANY KIND OF SEX, no matter which body parts are involved, consensual or not, kinky or boring, etc.

Among the sodomites themselves, maybe they have some kind of "first base", "second base", "third base" distinction regarding the different kinds of sɛҳuąƖ activity possible between two men. They probably rank them as being more or less intimate expressions or more/less pleasurable.

But for a parent, those distinctions don't make a bit of difference. sɛҳuąƖ contact is sɛҳuąƖ contact!

Anything less than COMPLETE ABSTINENCE a.k.a. PERFECT CHASTITY among a group of boys is a huge red flag and cause for alarm.

Men focus on the object -- the truth. Objectivity and reason. What is the matter of discussion?

Women focus on the person -- what is he like? Is he a jerk? Is he mean, or is he being mean about this? Has he crossed the line? How is he going about his crusade, does he have bitter zeal? Is he a sinner or a saint? Has he done something bad in the past, which might tempt me to oppose him now, even if he's objectively right?

I think that's the difference between myself and Wallflower on this one.

Yes, some members are letting bitter zeal get the better of them, but humanly speaking that's understandable.

It's part of what happens when you have a thread of this nature on a highly public forum. You're going to get a few axe-grinders from way back. You're going to get some bitter zeal. But all in all, the word will get out and much good will be done.

I'm sure many evils occurred during the Crusades. Many of those who got involved crossed the line and committed rapes, robberies, murders and other heinous sins. But the Pope was right to call the Crusades to win back the Holy Land and fight the Muslims on their home ground.

If anything, the Crusades were an example of where the evils OUTWEIGHED the goods that resulted. I think this thread is much more skewed towards good than the Crusades were.

If we were living in the time of the Crusades right now, I would *definitely* see Wallflower philosophizing and complaining about how many Catholics crossed the line during the Crusades...