We have been speaking about the "ALL POINTS BULLETIN" and to that point, has the SSPX made any comment on this issue we have spent so much time discussing?

We have been speaking about the "ALL POINTS BULLETIN" and to that point, has the SSPX made any comment on this issue we have spent so much time discussing?

Yes, and a disappointing comment it is: http://icc.id.sspx.org/en/faithful

To me, this is the most troubling statement: "To date, the Society of St. Pius X has not been advised of any report of criminal activity at the church or on the summer camps."

Why the qualifier "...at the church or on the summer camps."? The statement reeks of mental reservation.

According to news reports, "several" people state that they reported Sloniker to the priests, yet the priests continued to allow Sloniker access to children.  Whether or not Sloniker's crimes were "at the church or on the summer camps" or elsewhere, the priests had a duty to protect the children.

I would normally be suspicious of the news reports, but the tightly crafted statement reeking of mental reservation turns my suspicions back upon the priests for serious malfeasance.

Even the recognition that Sloniker tried to "circuмcise" (castrate?) himself at the seminary should have alerted the priests to keep Sloniker away from children.  I wonder about the "circuмcise" description.  It is far more common for pedophiles to attempt to castrate themselves thinking that eliminating their male hormones will eliminate their evil temptations, than to simply circuмcise themselves. Either way, why didn't the priests protect the children?

Has the SSPX learned nothing from the heinous Novus Ordo crimes and enablers?  Why are those priests still around children?

To the Faithful

Society of St. Pius X
Immaculate Conception Church and Academy

PO Box 206
Post Falls, ID 83877

Statement to the Faithful about Kevin G. Sloniker
Kevin G. Sloniker had been attending and serving Mass at Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls, ID, where he was a volunteer camp counselor in summer camps around a decade ago.

He has been charged in state court with very serious crimes concerning children and is now in police custody.

The Society has been cooperating fully with the police investigation of Mr. Sloniker for more than five weeks.

To date, the Society of St. Pius X has not been advised of any report of criminal activity at the church or on the summer camps. The investigation is ongoing.

The Society of St. Pius X, its priests, and its employees take the protection of minors most seriously. The summer camps are quite structured and supervised, and, since 2012, the Society of St. Pius X has required background checks for all camp counselors.

The Society of St. Pius X assures all victims of abuse and their families of its compassion and prayers.

Any further questions about this statement should be addressed to Fr. Scott Gardner, Legal Secretary: (816) 733-2522.

October 29, 2015

Again, why the qualifier "...at the church or on the summer camps."? The statement reeks of mental reservation.

If someone said to you, "I didn't steal anything yesterday," what would you think?

Much of his abuse was committed "on the road" with children. Apparently that is the abuse that was reported to the priests, so.... again... after the reports of abuse he did away from "the church and summer camp" and after reports of his self-cricuмcision, why was he allowed around children at the church and summer camp?

The reasonable interpretation consistent with BOTH the SSPX statement and the statements of "several" who reported the abuse is: "We ignored the reports because the reported abuse didn't happen at the church or summer camp. We also thought it was just fine to put parish children with a nut who attempted to circuмcise himself at the seminary."

Anyway here that's on the scene in Post Falls have an update on this?  There seems to be an information blackout on the internet regarding this.

Well, Alexandria, I can tell you this—the solicitations for children to attend the SSPX camps have been coming in... and tossed in the trash.

You know, there are enough things I can be sure about, and forcefully condemn the SSPX for.

But to be honest, I have no involvement in this case, and no idea who is "in the right". Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not *always* think the worst of everyone. That really gets old.

I don't believe there's some kind of "lavender mafia" within the SSPX, moving guilty priests around, turning a blind eye to pedophilia and abuse, and running a cover-up like in the Conciliar Church. It's not just because the SSPX hits closer to home, either. It's because I have more reason to believe there's a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity problem in the Conciliar Church. The seminaries are different; they accept different kinds of people, they have different philosophy, psychology, and even theology. The whole formation is radically different from an SSPX formation. The Novus Ordo is more touchy feely sentimental; any man who isn't repulsed by that liturgy probably has at least some gαy tendencies. (I'm only half joking there!) Plus there's the whole "Good Bye Good Men" book which shows evidence that as a matter of fact countless seminaries in the Conciliar Church are controlled by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.

So yes, there's a problem in the Conciliar Church, but it's not even likely (plus I've seen no evidence of it) that there is any such problem in the SSPX. Not even in the neo-SSPX.


If I were local, I would be extremely vocal about this so the SSPX authorities feel compelled to take action, calm our fears, be more careful, put more safety measures in place, etc.

But right now we have bigger -- and more certain -- fish to fry. In addition, there are things which more personally and directly affect us.