Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: TheRealMcCoy on October 27, 2015, 05:02:19 PM
-
Fr. Vassal has quite a scandal on his hands at Immaculate Conception Academy (ICA), the SSPX chapel in Post Falls, ID.
This is not the only scandal happening in Post Falls with the SSPX.
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/26/coeur-dalene-man-jailed-on-1-million-bond-suspecte/?print-friendly
Trucker held in rape of boys, abuse. Held on $1 million dollar bond
A long-haul truck driver from Coeur d’Alene who also served as a church youth camp counselor is suspected of raping and abusing underage boys in Spokane and Kootenai counties over the past decade.
Kevin G. Sloniker, 30, faces felony charges of rape and lewd conduct involving two underage boys and is a suspect in the sɛҳuąƖ abuse of at least eight other boys, according to court docuмents. He’s being held in the Kootenai County Jail on $1 million bond.
Sloniker met and befriended some of the boys in his role as a youth camp counselor at Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls, according to investigative reports filed with 1st District Court in Kootenai County.
Some of the alleged abuse occurred at Sloniker’s parents’ home in Latah, south of Spokane, and some happened when he took boys on the road with him around the Western U.S., according to court records. [Moderator note: this parents' home, as well as his truck, obviously was outside the knowledge/purview/scope/authority of the SSPX. Also note: these boys weren't necessarily SSPX parishioners, or even Catholic.]
He was arrested on a warrant Sept. 14 in Menomonie, Wisconsin, and extradited to Kootenai County, where he was booked into jail Oct. 9. Sloniker is charged with two counts of felony lewd conduct and one count of felony rape. Additional charges are possible, prosecutors in Kootenai and Spokane counties say.
Sloniker made his first court appearance Friday, when his bond was set by 1st District Magistrate Barry Watson. He does not yet have an attorney.
In an Oct. 9 interview with police, Sloniker admitted to fondling nine boys, having oral sex with a few of them and raping one over the past 10 years. He said he wanted help for an addiction to touching young boys.
Because Sloniker is accused of taking boys across state lines to abuse them, he also may face federal charges.
Sloniker allegedly raped and assaulted one Coeur d’Alene boy repeatedly over the past six years, starting when the victim was about 11 years old and living near Airway Heights, according to a criminal complaint. Sloniker was a family friend and later moved in with the boy’s mother, the victim told a police detective. He also said Sloniker pressured him to bring his two cousins to Sloniker’s apartment so he could molest them as well. [Moderator note: family friend? moved in with boy's mother? Sloniker's apartment? Doesn't sound like the SSPX had anything to do with this.]
Sloniker also is charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a 9-year-old boy from Newport, Washington. That boy told detectives Sloniker fondled him during an overnight stay at the suspect’s residence last April.
Witnesses told investigators Sloniker liked to spend time with kids much younger than him and would buy them lavish gifts. He was involved in youth camps at Immaculate Conception Church, which is part of the Society of Saint Pius X, a traditionalist group with no canonical standing in the Roman Catholic Church.
One boy said he attended the church’s Immaculate Conception Academy, and that Sloniker was involved with a group of boys who attended the K-12 school in Post Falls [Involved with a group of boys? What does that mean?]. Sloniker also taught boys how to be altar boys through the Guild of St. Stephen, an international organization of altar servers, investigators learned. [Well, helping out in the St. Stephen's guild is hardly a red flag in and of itself.]
Some parents told police they knew of or strongly suspected the abuse and advised others [I bet you assumed this "others" included SSPX authorities the first time you read it. Well, it doesn't say that!] to keep their kids away from Sloniker. In some cases Sloniker lived for a time with the families of his alleged victims.
One alleged victim told a detective that Sloniker took him on a long trip in his truck through seven Western states when the boy was between 10 and 15 years old. Sloniker sɛҳuąƖly assaulted him repeatedly during the journey, the boy stated.
Another boy said he spent one summer at the Latah farm when he was about 12. Sloniker’s attention escalated to nightly sɛҳuąƖ abuse, and Sloniker also hit him with a whip, he told police.
Several of those interviewed said they reported their concerns to the priests at Immaculate Conception Church. [Note: It doesn't say that the SSPX ignored it or did nothing! That's what I assumed -- and was meant to assume -- the first time I read this.] The boy who said he was whipped by Sloniker said he shared that with Father Patrick Crane. He also told the priest that Sloniker made him strip naked.
Crane, who now is with another Society of Saint Pius X church – Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix – was interviewed by a detective Sept. 22. He said Sloniker worked with the church camp from 2003 to 2006 and that he did not have any issues with him.
When the detective shared that one of the alleged victims said he had told Crane about Sloniker whipping him, “Crane said he remembers part of it, but it was mostly because (the boy) did not want to attend the camp.”
Crane added that he remembers not asking Sloniker back after that, and also told the detective that if something had been brought forward, he would have said something “because this was during the time the church was being looked into for other abuse allegations across America,” the detective wrote.
Others said they warned Father James Haynos and Father Paul Vassal at the church about Sloniker.
Neither Vassal, the headmaster at the church, nor Crane returned calls for comment Monday.
The detective learned that Sloniker had attended St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, also part of the Society of St. Pius X, in Winona, Minnesota. Vassal said in an Oct. 2 interview with police that the seminary in 2005 deemed Sloniker to be mentally unstable after he tried to circuмcise himself. He was removed from the seminary program. [Good on them! They expelled a nutcase from their seminary! But why bring up S.T.A.S. anyhow? They have nothing to do with this.]
There were no known incidents of sɛҳuąƖ abuse by Sloniker back then, Vassal told police.
Haynos, who now lives in Kansas, told Coeur d’Alene police Detective Nicholas Lowry he was unaware of the sex abuse allegations against Sloniker. “Haynos also told me due to Sloniker’s unstable mindset he would never be put in a position in which he would be in charge of kids,” the detective wrote.
-
1. Grace builds on nature
2. Attending a centuries-old Mass once a week in a dead language (Latin) does NOT cover up all psychological, emotional, and mental issues that a person might have. Or any other baggage for that matter.
3. You still have to be prudent and careful, even with fellow Trads.
4. Trads commit sin too. Not just silly, common, non-embarrassing sins, either.
5. Yes, that includes the big ones -- adultery, fornication, etc.
-
4. Trads commit sin too. Not just silly, common, non-embarrassing sins, either.
5. Yes, that includes the big ones -- adultery, fornication, etc.
I am shocked by this revelation.
Seriously, though, often it's the other way around. In my experience, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are often attracted to the aesthetics of the Traditional Liturgy. Queer Eye knows good style and taste when he sees it. Unfortunately Traditional Catholics need to be vigilant also.
-
I am always blown away on how much freedom parents give their children and how much trust!
There is a person I know in one of the SSPX parishes who molested a kid in Idaho... no charges were ever pressed- he was just told to leave the state. Now he is in another state and I see parents not paying any attention to him as he plays with and hangs around the children.
-
4. Trads commit sin too. Not just silly, common, non-embarrassing sins, either.
5. Yes, that includes the big ones -- adultery, fornication, etc.
I am shocked by this revelation.
Seriously, though, often it's the other way around. In my experience, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are often attracted to the aesthetics of the Traditional Liturgy. Queer Eye knows good style and taste when he sees it.
Same reason why the more smells-and-bells you get in the Anglican Church, the more ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy there are. At the ones that have an ad-orientem facing liturgy with incense and professional choirs, nearly ALL of the clergy are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. It's EVERYWHERE.
-
This story literally brings tears to my eyes. Poor boys who lose their innocence to this unpure, satanic filth.
-
Yes and it's highly unlikely they will every be able to have a normal relationship with a wife because of this abuse.
-
I'm just not sure how much the SSPX priests actually knew. Were they "warned" of concrete actions or just told to "watch out for this guy"? I know one of the priests mentioned and there's no way he would tolerate anyone around boys when there was concrete positive suspicion.
Also, it's not clear to me that any of his activities took place under the auspices of SSPX involvement. When he took a kid in his truck through several states, I highly doubt that this was an SSPX-sanctioned activity or if the kid was a Traditional Catholic at all. So this article conflates a lot of stuff to paint a picture of pedophile coverup and pedophile shuffling, but I'm not sure that I see it there concretely.
In my past experience (I knew all the Urrugigoity crew, another seminarian who was obviously in my mind gαy and who later shacked up with some guy openly, etc.), here are some warning signs:
1) If a priest/seminarian/brother/cleric is excessively meticulous about his appearance (constantly ironing things, attached inordinately to expensive cassocks, really into lace and frilly surplices, seems very materialistic in other ways).
2) If a priest/seminarian/brother/cleric takes lots of interest in boys (very often being over-the-top concerned about their "formation" -- out of proportion with how he cares about other souls, especially those of girls -- wanting to personally foster them in their vocation). In this case, this guy was always getting in to boy-related activities ... altar boy training, youth counselor, etc. It's one thing to volunteer for any of these activities, but to sign up for a dozen different things all of which involve boys -- well, danger, Will Robinson. And buying boys gifts and lavishing attention on them, well, duh, that should have been a dead giveaway. It's how all the pedophiles groom the kids (cf. the Jerry Sandusky debaucle).
-
I'm just not sure how much the SSPX priests actually knew. Were they "warned" of concrete actions or just told to "watch out for this guy"? I know one of the priests mentioned and there's no way he would tolerate anyone around boys when there was concrete positive suspicion.
Also, it's not clear to me that any of his activities took place under the auspices of SSPX involvement. When he took a kid in his truck through several states, I highly doubt that this was an SSPX-sanctioned activity or if the kid was a Traditional Catholic at all. So this article conflates a lot of stuff to paint a picture of pedophile coverup and pedophile shuffling, but I'm not sure that I see it there concretely.
This is a very important contribution, Ladislaus.
They randomly mention things, trying to paint a vague picture in our minds like some sinister character was above it all pulling puppet strings, moving a pedophile around like happened so many times in the Novus Ordo.
The SSPX doesn't have any freight trucks going over state lines, or truck drivers on their payroll. This trucker guy obviously did this on his own time. The SSPX priests aren't God or even an earthly king, let alone a tyrant who has 24/7 surveillance on each of their "subjects". After all, the SSPX priest doesn't live on a compound with all of their parishioners, and supervising the private lives of each of those parishioners. If that were true, you could certainly scream "cult"!
The SSPX doesn't have that kind of intel. Maybe they wish they did, but as a matter of fact they don't.
-
This story literally brings tears to my eyes. Poor boys who lose their innocence to this unpure, satanic filth.
I'm crying too. These monsters are going after innocent children. They should have discussed at the synod how perverts are destroying families.
-
I pointed out some things in the story now.
It really does look like a hit piece on the SSPX. And no, not the neo-SSPX that we all oppose for changing their orientation towards Modernist Rome, Vatican II, etc. -- the SSPX that many of us supported for years.
If the SSPX were being attacked for modernism, compromising, etc. I'd join in. But that's not what they're being attacked for here.
This is a subtle hit piece, calculated to give you an erroneous impression about the SSPX and the priests mentioned in particular.
Maybe they got on someone's "crap list" for not going along with the program, and now their reputations are being sullied using a common tactic of the Freemasons? Nothing would surprise me.
I'm only guessing about that, but what I *do* know for sure is that we have to be careful what we give credence to, and we have to always USE OUR BRAINS. The truth never hurt anyone.
-
I think you're being a little too nice -- not sarcasm, I do mean just a little.
If STAS gets rid of someone for the reason mentioned, they should probably alert the priests of the district as the chance of him attending an SSPX Mass would be fairly high.
Also, if the priests were given any bit of information that suggested illegal behavior, they should have passed that on to the authorities. Even if you can manage to keep the possible offender away from the children of your congregation, he's going to look elsewhere. If you have enough suspicion to tell him he can't assist with the camp, you probably have enough that you should be filing a report.
-
The detective learned that Sloniker had attended St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, also part of the Society of St. Pius X, in Winona, Minnesota. Vassal said in an Oct. 2 interview with police that the seminary in 2005 deemed Sloniker to be mentally unstable after he tried to circuмcise himself. He was removed from the seminary program.
How it is that a man is expelled from the SSPX Seminary over mental instability and then he becomes a SSPX Youth Camp Counselor? Don't they run background checks of some sort to try to prevent this?
-
How it is that a man is expelled from the SSPX Seminary over mental instability and then he becomes a SSPX Youth Camp Counselor? Don't they run background checks of some sort to try to prevent this?
It's almost as crazy as putting an apostate in charge of a seminary.
-
The detective learned that Sloniker had attended St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, also part of the Society of St. Pius X, in Winona, Minnesota. Vassal said in an Oct. 2 interview with police that the seminary in 2005 deemed Sloniker to be mentally unstable after he tried to circuмcise himself. He was removed from the seminary program.
How it is that a man is expelled from the SSPX Seminary over mental instability and then he becomes a SSPX Youth Camp Counselor? Don't they run background checks of some sort to try to prevent this?
I don't think that kind of thing would show up on a person's record. Background checks generally look for criminal records, and I doubt this guy was arrested for attempting self-mutilation. If he didn't have any arrests due to mental illness episodes, then his background check would come up clean. If someone is just seeing a psychiatrist or taking medication, that wouldn't show up.
However, word of mouth spreads pretty quickly in traddy circles. No doubt there were whispers, which may have been dismissed by those in charge as idle gossip.
-
I might have been defending the SSPX too much in the OP (with my inline moderator comments). But I figure, better to be too careful than not careful enough.
I'll just say this: read carefully and critically. Don't fall for various psychological tricks that the Big Media is known to use.
-
Look what I've said before this news
Nothing is more important than a seminary free from every evil, every little piece of darkness must be expelled. Because there were bad people talking care of the serminaries that Roncallis and Montinis started to destroy the Church
My comment above was posted on the "Open Letter From Fr. Voigt to Boston"
Some people misinterpreted what I've said. I really like Fr. Voigt, I really enjoy his sermons, what I said was: Even if my personal opinions on him (Fr. Voigt) would be different, I'd be supporting Fr. Voigt because something is more important than my personal opinion: SEMINARIAN'S FORMATION
Just to be clear: Even IF I didn't like Fr. Voigt (and in reality I like him very much) I wouldn't put my personal opinions on the issue because the formation of seminarians is more important
-
... and one of the evils I was referring to was Pablo. And unfortunately I think that there's bad teachers and even bad people in SSPX seminaries because most priests are weak on doctrine.
(If Fr. Pfeiffer had a strong doctrinal formation, he would never have accepted Pablo near the seminary, just as if SSPX was strong on their doctrinal positions, we wouldn't have priests weak either on doctrine or faith or both)
-
Does anyone know? Is this an isolated incident, or does the SSPX have as much of a problem with this type of thing as the Norvos Ordo does?
-
Does anyone know? Is this an isolated incident, or does the SSPX have as much of a problem with this type of thing as the Norvos Ordo does?
This is isolated. Nowhere compared to Novus Ordo.
The problem with SSPX is not this one, this guy was not even associated with SSPX, the problem is the lack of good formation the seminarians get there. The problem is when you let the seminarians get weak on doctrine and Faith.
And this problem is no exclusive to SSPX ... just like Fr. Chazal says "The air we breath is apostasy"
If you have a community where people are not 100% secure on their feet, they are unsure about the doctrine they profess, how do you expect them to spot evil people? They can't!
-
When he took a kid in his truck through several states, I highly doubt that this was an SSPX-sanctioned activity or if the kid was a Traditional Catholic at all.
The transportation of a minor across a state line for sɛҳuąƖ intentions is a felony.
Each time a state line is crossed, it's another felony offense.
.
-
I am always blown away on how much freedom parents give their children and how much trust!
There is a person I know in one of the SSPX parishes who molested a kid in Idaho... no charges were ever pressed- he was just told to leave the state. Now he is in another state and I see parents not paying any attention to him as he plays with and hangs around the children.
Have you warned the parents, children, priests, and authorities?
-
It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.
Yes, we must all fight sins of the tongue -- but one of those sins is SILENCE when we are supposed to speak.
We also must fight human respect, and do the right thing, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
In my experience (on CI especially) a lot of people don't understand that you can spread knowledge of TRUE faults about others, when the common good requires it. Telling people that Joe Smith molested boys in another state is NOT detraction or gossip. It is a laudable act of charity for the souls around you, done out of motivation for the common good.
-
I might have been defending the SSPX too much in the OP (with my inline moderator comments). But I figure, better to be too careful than not careful enough.
I'll just say this: read carefully and critically. Don't fall for various psychological tricks that the Big Media is known to use.
Nah, while there may in fact be some blame on the part of the SSPX, in my mind, the most likely scenario is that STAS neglected to put out the APB on this guy and/or that the priests didn't see any urgent need to take concrete action based on some vague charges. Now, if it's true that one of the victims told a priest that he was stripped naked and whipped by this guy, and nothing was done, then there would be a greater degree of culpability.
BUT STILL the spin on this entire article is deliberately meant to make it seem like the priests and the SSPX were actively covering up and even enabling the pedophilia ... whereas the true worst case scenario involves negligence while the best might even involve little or know knowledge of any concrete problem. We need to sift junk like this based upon the agenda of someone who might be writing; there's clear juxtaposition of potentially unrelated situations and events that make it seems like they're more connected than they might actually be.
-
When he took a kid in his truck through several states, I highly doubt that this was an SSPX-sanctioned activity or if the kid was a Traditional Catholic at all.
The transportation of a minor across a state line for sɛҳuąƖ intentions is a felony.
Each time a state line is crossed, it's another felony offense.
.
And what does this have to do with anything? My point was simply that this was unlikely to have been an activity sanctioned by the SSPX or even done under the auspices of some SSPX activity.
-
It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.
I don't think it's that simple. If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny. So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this. Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.
-
We need to sift junk like this based upon the agenda of someone who might be writing; there's clear juxtaposition of potentially unrelated situations and events that make it seems like they're more connected than they might actually be.
THIS.
For example, I don't think most people realize how disconnected and independent the various SSPX chapels and locations are from each other. Each is busy and living its own life. There isn't a central hive mind, connected to all buildings at once, which is aware of everything that happens anywhere.
There isn't an internal "SSPX message board" where priests and prominent laymen can post about goings-on at the seminaries, churches, etc. without the public eyes getting involved.
In other words, there's no "dispatch officer" to give that proverbial APB (All Points Bulletin) to.
-
It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.
I don't think it's that simple. If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny. So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this. Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.
Well we had this discussion many times here on CI back in 2009.
How do you get "hard proof" of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Unless you break into the right house and plant a video camera, you're not likely to get any.
So in the meantime, everyone can be preyed upon, smaller evidence and suspicions be damned?
So basically you can't accuse someone of it directly, but you can say, "Be careful" and immediately afterward give pointers on how to spot ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior? Isn't that kind of Pharisaical?
-
Exactly. And please....saying someone is "weird" is not code for "sodomite". Weird is more like socially awkward.
One thing that I hope comes out of this horrific situation is that Catholics begin to realize that there is no such thing as a "harmless" ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. We can't just keep saying "Whatever" and walk away or "I know a gαy couple and they are the nicest people."
-
It would seem that too many people are afraid of "gossiping" which enables child molesters to pursue their nefarious goals.
I don't think it's that simple. If I were to accuse a priest of being a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, unless I had hard proof, it could well be mortal sin calumny. So, for instance, there are quite a few Traditional priests whom I suspect of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. But I will not publicly state their names because I have zero hard proof of this. Instead, I put out warnings to people along the lines of "Trust No One" and here are some warning signs that might be a clue to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ inclinations.
Well we had this discussion many times here on CI back in 2009.
How do you get "hard proof" of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity?
Well, basically I don't have ANY proof in most cases, just a gut feeling, the so-called "gαydar" based on personal habits, mannerisms, etc. There was a study done where a surprising number of people could pick out gαy men just from photos of their faces with a high degree of accuracy.
-
I knew this family. His parents must be devastated. They've been SSPXers for over 25 years. Kevin had wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I think he was asked to leave after a year. He was never the same after that. One time I encountered him at ICC walking around in circles - in one church door, walk down the street and around the corner to come in the other church door. He kept doing it over and over. That was the last time I saw him. It was about eight or more years ago.
Prayers for all of them.
-
One time I encountered him at ICC walking around in circles - in one church door, walk down the street and around the corner to come in the other church door. He kept doing it over and over.
Was it All Souls' Day?
-
I wonder why he reportedly kept moving in with the victims' families. Why did they take him in? Under what pretext did he present himself for moving in?
-
One time I encountered him at ICC walking around in circles - in one church door, walk down the street and around the corner to come in the other church door. He kept doing it over and over.
Was it All Souls' Day?
No.
-
I long for the day these kinds of men are burnt until there's nothing left.
As astounding as this sounds to myself, sex abuse has become so common place in the news anymore that I doubt this will have much of any impact n it's own. If however, there is an avalanche of additional cases like this about to slide down like the Vatty II contingent some fifteen years back, we are in for some trouble.
If for one minute someone from the SSPX knew about this guy and did nothing, Bp. Fellay better find a nice underground bunker to hide in!
-
I wonder why he reportedly kept moving in with the victims' families. Why did they take him in? Under what pretext did he present himself for moving in?
Maybe because they knew him and his family well and watched him grow up and trusted him. If you knew the family, this is the last thing you would ever think would happen.
-
I wonder why he reportedly kept moving in with the victims' families. Why did they take him in? Under what pretext did he present himself for moving in?
Maybe because they knew him and his family well and watched him grow up and trusted him. If you knew the family, this is the last thing you would ever think would happen.
No surprises when it comes to human nature. People are people, burdened with Original Sin, subjected to temptations. Despite the harm he's done, I still feel sorry for this guy; seems like he's a deeply broken man who needs our prayers.
Sure the people who took him in could not have suspected this kind of danger to their own kids. But I'm wondering what reason he gave for wanting to move in. Presumably he would stay with his parents if he didn't have anywhere else to go. You would think he made some money trucking so that he could afford to have a place. When he asked to move in, what was his reasoning?
-
I wonder why he reportedly kept moving in with the victims' families. Why did they take him in? Under what pretext did he present himself for moving in?
I've noticed that (to me anyway) a surprising number of these kind of cases involve someone who "moved in" with the family. Some of the time there is a reasonable explanation for this given, but most of the time it just seems odd. This is one of those cases that just seem odd.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
You don't give much time at all to edit something on here.
I came back to delete the last sentence of my last post. Somehow I missed this upon my initial reading of the newspaper story:
Vassal said in an Oct. 2 interview with police that the seminary in 2005 deemed Sloniker to be mentally unstable after he tried to circuмcise himself.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
s
A "mind that isn't healthy" is a phrase often used by worldly people who deny the reality of sin, not only a sinful nature, but also the choice to sin.
-
Hey, Cera, babe, thanks for the correction.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
s
A "mind that isn't healthy" is a phrase often used by worldly people who deny the reality of sin, not only a sinful nature, but also the choice to sin.
We human beings are very complex creations, a combination of animal and spiritual. Only God knows the line between sin/free will and psychological debility. Only God knows the degree of guilt. I ask God for mercy upon me, for were it not for the grace of God and His grace alone, there isn't any sin I wouldn't be capable of committing. If I had grown up with this man's DNA, under his circuмstances, and experienced everything he experienced in his life, would I have been any better? I dare say that I would have turned out worse. And for the fact that I haven't I thank Our Father for His mercy.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
s
A "mind that isn't healthy" is a phrase often used by worldly people who deny the reality of sin, not only a sinful nature, but also the choice to sin.
We human beings are very complex creations, a combination of animal and spiritual. Only God knows the line between sin/free will and psychological debility. Only God knows the degree of guilt. I ask God for mercy upon me, for were it not for the grace of God and His grace alone, there isn't any sin I wouldn't be capable of committing. If I had grown up with this man's DNA, under his circuмstances, and experienced everything he experienced in his life, would I have been any better? I dare say that I would have turned out worse. And for the fact that I haven't I thank Our Father for His mercy.
Thank you, Lad.
It always helps to remember that there but for the grace of God goes any one of us.
-
I watched him grow up. He served Mass faithfully and was very devout, so it was no surprise to hear he wanted to become an SSPX Brother. I was surprised to hear he was asked to leave. Sometimes all it takes in life to reveal a mind that isn't healthy is a devastating disappointment.
Please do pray for him and his family.
s
A "mind that isn't healthy" is a phrase often used by worldly people who deny the reality of sin, not only a sinful nature, but also the choice to sin.
We human beings are very complex creations, a combination of animal and spiritual. Only God knows the line between sin/free will and psychological debility. Only God knows the degree of guilt. I ask God for mercy upon me, for were it not for the grace of God and His grace alone, there isn't any sin I wouldn't be capable of committing. If I had grown up with this man's DNA, under his circuмstances, and experienced everything he experienced in his life, would I have been any better? I dare say that I would have turned out worse. And for the fact that I haven't I thank Our Father for His mercy.
The modern man has all the answers: "Who am I to judge? "I don't know if I would do better" - "On this person couldn't do best"
REMEMBER? YES YES ! NO NO !
What you're doing is false false mercy. Is so false, so pathetic that is not even worth to say that this is the lowest level of human intelligence and the lowest level of human dignity.
The fact that two people has helped you (liked your comment) shows that they are bad or worse than you and your false mercy. They are helping you to show the lowest point of human morality.
In the end I come to the conclusion that many of you are not even ready to read 1 dot of the Bible, and you're here, pretending you are Catholics and crying for rapists and evil people
-
You being a bunch of cry babies , it's no wonder why we have bad priests!
Imagine a man living in a family of cry babies, "Who am I to judge?" people... of course... weak priests, weak society, weak values, weak morals.
You're the very reason why hypocrisy is one of the worst sins: You pretend fight against modernism and for tradition and at the same time act worse than people in the Novus Ordo
-
Only God knows the line between sin/free will and psychological debility. Only God knows the degree of guilt. I ask God for mercy upon me, for were it not for the grace of God and His grace alone, there isn't any sin I wouldn't be capable of committing. If I had grown up with this man's DNA, under his circuмstances, and experienced everything he experienced in his life, would I have been any better? I dare say that I would have turned out worse. And for the fact that I haven't I thank Our Father for His mercy.
(http://otr.orthodoxwitness.netdna-cdn.com/over-the-rooftops/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/featured-pope-francis-who-am-i-to-judge.jpg)
:fryingpan:
Would you mind giving me your address? I will send this shirt as a gift , tell me how many members you have in your family I may send to them as well if they agree with you
(http://lgbtweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Who-Am-I-To-Judge.jpg)
-
No, thank you.
-
When the civilized world was Catholic, what would have been the response of the people and the Church to this man and his monstrous crimes?
It would not have been to lament over his poor upbringing or tough knocks in life or mental instability. He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
He would have been sentenced to death for such heinous crimes, with a short interval allowed to attempt to save his soul before departing this world.
-
When the civilized world was Catholic, what would have been the response of the people and the Church to this man and his monstrous crimes?
It would not have been to lament over his poor upbringing or tough knocks in life or mental instability. He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
He would have been sentenced to death for such heinous crimes, with a short interval allowed to attempt to save his soul before departing this world.
But... as many people on this thread says: "Who am I to Judge?"
Even during the French revolution, the Catholic people were not 1% mentally weak as of compared of today. They would die rather than praise a criminal.
-
There was a study done where a surprising number of people could pick out gαy men just from photos of their faces with a high degree of accuracy.
usually men can do this immediately
it is also amazing that most women can not pick out a real ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, this is also a reason why they can prey on kids who have only women around. another reason why men traditionally did the teaching. yet most chapels have predominately women teachers.
-
Lucas there is a big difference between a person realizing that their soul is capable of the depths of evil and ... whatever fit you're having.
If *I* realize that *I* am capable of every evil and beg for God's grace and mercy, it doesn't mean I excuse the evil. It means I understand its depth and possibilities and approach my own salvation with fear and trembling. It's a realization of one's dependence, one's relationship with God's grace. It's more about one's understanding of self than it is about the other person. The sense of how evil such acts are and how sick human nature is triggers an outcry for GOD's mercy. Revelations like this ought to be a reminder for each of us to humble ourselves before God, do a little introspection. That introspection is interior and separate from the next question of what is to be done with people who prove themselves to be dangerous to society. That practical question, I agree with you, has been watered down greatly in the face of our very soft society.
As for what we are to think of the other person, shedding tears for a criminal is a perfectly Catholic thing to do, done by Our Lord Himself. He didn't sweat blood over the weight of our sins but then say "Oh except for pedophiles. They can go to Hell." The loss of any soul is worth shedding tears. Alexandria said she knows the family and is shocked by the revelation. Let her grieve in peace and hold on to what good she saw in him. Magna mentions a "short interval allowed to attempt to save his soul before departing this world." How do you think that is done, practically speaking? By force? No. Someone who still sees good in that soul, someone who still has hope for it, has to reach out and try to bring it back. Few of us are cut out for that but we should still appreciate that it has to be done. In this case, some people will be saddened and others will be angry. Both reactions are valid and even needed.
I hope this opens the eyes of some of the people vehemently against the Plan to Protect policies. (If it's been discussed here, I haven't seen the threads so this is not directed at anyone in particular.) The SSPX priests NEED protocols. Otherwise they are sitting ducks for this kind of article highlighting how they did nothing or next to it. Parents who keep thinking this doesn't happen "in the real world" (aka their own little trad worlds) need to wake up.
-
There was a study done where a surprising number of people could pick out gαy men just from photos of their faces with a high degree of accuracy.
usually men can do this immediately
it is also amazing that most women can not pick out a real ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, this is also a reason why they can prey on kids who have only women around. another reason why men traditionally did the teaching. yet most chapels have predominately women teachers.
This is very true, in my own limited experience. My wife marvels how I can spot these guys a mile away while she doesn't see it; I'm nearly always proven right.
-
bla bla bla bla
REgarding criminals I have two answers: YES YES | NO NO
anything other than that is garbage to me.
Take care.
P.S: The family should be SHOCKED that they didn't find out early and prevented him to destroy the life of many children.
-
As for what we are to think of the other person, shedding tears for a criminal is a perfectly Catholic thing to do, done by Our Lord Himself. He didn't sweat blood over the weight of our sins but then say "Oh except for pedophiles. They can go to Hell."
Very well put. St. Therese prayed deeply for the conversion of a criminal being executed. Yes, of course, justice must be served, but Catholic society should pull the lever while sincerely praying, "May God have mercy on your soul."
We are all criminals before God and can only beg His mercy.
In this case, Francis' "Who am I to judge?" does indeed apply. We will be judged with the same measure with which we judge others.
Why can't anyone find the balance? Francis will ignore the objective sin in favor of mercy, while the Trads ignore mercy and love in favor of "truth". Of course there should be no conflict between the two, but I often wonder which extreme is worse. In fact, it is not merciful NOT to admonish the sinner. But neither is it merciful, well, not to be merciful.
-
bla bla bla bla
REgarding criminals I have two answers: YES YES | NO NO
anything other than that is garbage to me.
Take care.
P.S: The family should be SHOCKED that they didn't find out early and prevented him to destroy the life of many children.
Lucas, you are in great danger of losing your soul. Your attitude reminds me of the guy who throttled a debtor of his for a penny after his master had forgiven his great debt. Please ask God for guidance in this.
-
As for what we are to think of the other person, shedding tears for a criminal is a perfectly Catholic thing to do, done by Our Lord Himself. He didn't sweat blood over the weight of our sins but then say "Oh except for pedophiles. They can go to Hell."
In this case, Francis' "Who am I to judge?" does indeed apply. We will be judged with the same measure with which we judge others.
If you write another mediocre comment that shows your weakness on public with such low level of civilization and morality, I'll give you the stamp of His Holiness Pope Francis with your name signed.
And may God not help you but punish you for trying to defend paedophiles. In the good old days I'd give you a lesson with my two hands that you'd transform from a pathetic pedophile defender into a normal person
Too bad for you and for me the State Law protects you from me doing this. I wish I were in the 1800's.
-
Well, if you don't want me to lose my soul don't defend criminals.
Are you ready to do this to save my soul or it's just another of your false mercy that reminds me of Oprah Winfrey moral teaching??
-
There was a study done where a surprising number of people could pick out gαy men just from photos of their faces with a high degree of accuracy.
usually men can do this immediately
it is also amazing that most women can not pick out a real ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, this is also a reason why they can prey on kids who have only women around. another reason why men traditionally did the teaching. yet most chapels have predominately women teachers.
I usually have no trouble at all spotting them. It's not hard when they are so campy and in-your-face obvious. Even if not immediately obvious, something eventually tips you off, even if it's only a fleeting facial expression.
-
I'm sorry. You asked for it. Until you asks Matthew to delete your comments, you deserve this. In absurd situations, one cannot act normally. It's impossible.
(http://s4.postimg.org/pjzcduyx9/ffffe.jpg)
One day you'll thank me.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
People don't start to rape kids because he/she was raped
This is a heresy. Also this is a belief the marxists have. That's why the Resistance and SVs are so weak, people accepts paedophiles as "victims" and not as a criminals. People like you have the moral values of Caligula.
You have the same moral as Caligula and I shall ignore everything you said about everything.
One who endorses a paedophile can do anything, in fact one who defends paedophilia WILL do everything evil without seeing evil on it.
Before 1975, the Psychiatrists considered paedophiles not only sick but dangerous to society. The Masonic Lodges and pharmaceutical companies pushed them to take away their positions, so they did it.
-
He stopped being a victim when he raped and molested little boys.
-
He stopped being a victim when he raped and molested little boys.
Don't worry, if another criminal psychopath rapes your kids you won't find support here. There'll be support for the rapist instead. May God never allow anyone get in touch with any kid in this world, but the fact they do is because people regard them as "victims".
That's the sick reality we live. Fr Chazal "The air we breath is apostasy".
-
I deleted my comment earlier, but I can't let stand the poster who mentioned that he had been raised poorly, or from a trashy family, something to that affect.
He was raised in the SSPX since he was a child and went to their schools for twelve years. His family owned a farm in order to keep all of the children busy. Just like Bishop Williamson never got tired of telling them to do.
-
I deleted my comment earlier, but I can't let stand the poster who mentioned that he had been raised poorly, or from a trashy family, something to that affect.
He was raised in the SSPX since he was a child and went to their schools for twelve years. His family owned a farm in order to keep all of the children busy. Just like Bishop Williamson never got tired of telling them to do.
For some reason I just thought about Benedict VanderPuten who was pretty much raised the same way.
Since your motivation is picture him as a poor man who lived in a bad family, since you may know him personally, why should we trust in your judgment ?
Next time do this: Don't defend paedophiles and pray in silence not in public. EVEN if he was born in a bad family, it does not matter and just shows your bad faith to deceive people and adept your position which is defend to defend a criminal.
If go to to a jail, every mother will tell their sons are "angels , good hearted man and victim of society"
Even if her kid have 30 or 100 rapes in his account.
-
I deleted my comment earlier, but I can't let stand the poster who mentioned that he had been raised poorly, or from a trashy family, something to that affect.
He was raised in the SSPX since he was a child and went to their schools for twelve years. His family owned a farm in order to keep all of the children busy. Just like Bishop Williamson never got tired of telling them to do.
For some reason I just thought about Benedict VanderPuten who was pretty much raised the same way.
Since your motivation is picture him as a poor man who lived in a bad family, since you may know him personally, why should we trust in your judgment ?
Next time do this: Don't defend paedophiles and pray in silence not in public. EVEN if he was born in a bad family, it does not matter and just shows your bad faith to deceive people and adept your position which is defend to defend a criminal.
If go to to a jail, every mother will tell their sons are "angels , good hearted man and victim of society"
Even if her kid have 30 or 100 rapes in his account.
I'm not defending him.
Are you a troll-in-training or just an over zealous Dimond Bros. fanatic?
-
After Urrutigoity, the SSPX should take steps to prevent perversion.
Also, the parents and parishioners who remain silent and indifferent need to speak up to prevent this from happening to other children.
-
I deleted my comment earlier, but I can't let stand the poster who mentioned that he had been raised poorly, or from a trashy family, something to that affect.
He was raised in the SSPX since he was a child and went to their schools for twelve years. His family owned a farm in order to keep all of the children busy. Just like Bishop Williamson never got tired of telling them to do.
For some reason I just thought about Benedict VanderPuten who was pretty much raised the same way.
Since your motivation is picture him as a poor man who lived in a bad family, since you may know him personally, why should we trust in your judgment ?
Next time do this: Don't defend paedophiles and pray in silence not in public. EVEN if he was born in a bad family, it does not matter and just shows your bad faith to deceive people and adept your position which is defend to defend a criminal.
If go to to a jail, every mother will tell their sons are "angels , good hearted man and victim of society"
Even if her kid have 30 or 100 rapes in his account.
I'm not defending him.
Are you a troll-in-training or just an over zealous Dimond Bros. fanatic?
Oh, you're not? Why did you write crying for him, saying he was so good it was almost untrue, why you wrote that you couldn't believe such a good man could do it?
OH YOU WROTE THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT DEFENDING HIM
:jester: :jester:
-
I am always blown away on how much freedom parents give their children and how much trust!
There is a person I know in one of the SSPX parishes who molested a kid in Idaho... no charges were ever pressed- he was just told to leave the state. Now he is in another state and I see parents not paying any attention to him as he plays with and hangs around the children.
Have you warned the parents, children, priests, and authorities?
-
I deleted my comment earlier, but I can't let stand the poster who mentioned that he had been raised poorly, or from a trashy family, something to that affect.
He was raised in the SSPX since he was a child and went to their schools for twelve years. His family owned a farm in order to keep all of the children busy. Just like Bishop Williamson never got tired of telling them to do.
For some reason I just thought about Benedict VanderPuten who was pretty much raised the same way.
Since your motivation is picture him as a poor man who lived in a bad family, since you may know him personally, why should we trust in your judgment ?
Next time do this: Don't defend paedophiles and pray in silence not in public. EVEN if he was born in a bad family, it does not matter and just shows your bad faith to deceive people and adept your position which is defend to defend a criminal.
If go to to a jail, every mother will tell their sons are "angels , good hearted man and victim of society"
Even if her kid have 30 or 100 rapes in his account.
I'm not defending him.
Are you a troll-in-training or just an over zealous Dimond Bros. fanatic?
Oh, you're not? Why did you write crying for him, saying he was so good it was almost untrue, why you wrote that you couldn't believe such a good man could do it?
OH YOU WROTE THAT BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT DEFENDING HIM
:jester: :jester:
No, I'm not defending him. I wrote what I observed about him since he was a child and what I know about his family.
And take that stupid jester's hat off. It makes you look like an idiot.
-
We have a very good standard. I'd advice you to contact a psychiatrist
- Not endorse paedophilians and criminals =BAD! troll and Dimond fanatic.
- Cry, defend and treat a paedophilia like a person who has high blood pressure and pretend this sick didn't rape many kids = GOOD! Loving Catholic and good man.
This is getting better and better for Satan. It's unknown why Satan has chosen to manifest after I wrote - SI SI NO NO (YES YES NO NO) on criminals, but I suspect Satan likes peoples who are involved with raping of kids.
BTW before you replied to me, your situation wasn't bad. I was talking to Ladislaus
But now it's evident that you support Ladislaus.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
I am thinking about how society must deal with child rapists and child corrupters. And if society is going to deal with child rapists properly (fitting the punishment to the crime), the thinking must be correct at the individual level. Which is why I found it alarming to see the conversation so quickly turn to sympathy for the criminal and attempts to mitigate his guilt, particularly when we adopt 21st century excuses like “psychological debility.”
The most secure guide that comes to my mind for how society should react to monstrous crimes against children is when society was Catholic. As far as I know, the process was objective and based on the act committed and not the criminal’s own hardships. While saints may have shed tears over and interceded for a criminal, there is no indication they considered the fact of having suffered as mitigating guilt for dealing out like suffering to others.
A final alarming aspect is that this man comes from a family that has had the benefits of Tradition for 25 years. If he can elicit our sympathy on the basis of psychological debility, then so can Nero.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
I am thinking about how society must deal with child rapists and child corrupters. And if society is going to deal with child rapists properly (fitting the punishment to the crime), the thinking must be correct at the individual level. Which is why I found it alarming to see the conversation so quickly turn to sympathy for the criminal and attempts to mitigate his guilt, particularly when we adopt 21st century excuses like “psychological debility.”
The most secure guide that comes to my mind for how society should react to monstrous crimes against children is when society was Catholic. As far as I know, the process was objective and based on the act committed and not the criminal’s own hardships. While saints may have shed tears over and interceded for a criminal, there is no indication they considered the fact of having suffered as mitigating guilt for dealing out like suffering to others.
A final alarming aspect is that this man comes from a family that has had the benefits of Tradition for 25 years. If he can be excused on the basis of psychological debility, then so can Nero.
If people adored Charles Mason, why shouldn't people say good things about a abuser of kids?
I won't be surprised if here on this topic people start to say Charles Manson was also a product of a bad family.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
I am thinking about how society must deal with child rapists and child corrupters. And if society is going to deal with child rapists properly (fitting the punishment to the crime), the thinking must be correct at the individual level. Which is why I found it alarming to see the conversation so quickly turn to sympathy for the criminal and attempts to mitigate his guilt, particularly when we adopt 21st century excuses like “psychological debility.”
The most secure guide that comes to my mind for how society should react to monstrous crimes against children is when society was Catholic. As far as I know, the process was objective and based on the act committed and not the criminal’s own hardships. While saints may have shed tears over and interceded for a criminal, there is no indication they considered the fact of having suffered as mitigating guilt for dealing out like suffering to others.
A final alarming aspect is that this man comes from a family that has had the benefits of Tradition for 25 years. If he can elicit our sympathy on the basis of psychological debility, then so can Nero.
Go help him escape tonight from the Kootenai Jail and turn him over to Lucas for torture. You can sit nearby in your rocking chair with your knitting in hand chanting over and over "Guillotine! Guillotine!" :stare:
I'm outta here and sorry I came back.
Signed,
The Ole' Pious Fraud
-
Finally found our village idiot. Take good care of him Matthew! :wink:
-
Go help him escape tonight from the Kootenai Jail and turn him over to Lucas for torture. You can sit nearby in your rocking chair with your knitting in hand chanting over and over "Guillotine! Guillotine!"
Your comment is pervert and sick, please stop comparing sex kid abusers to injust Catholic's who were murdered by freemansons.
You are worse than I taught, much worse.
What kind of darkness is necessary to compare a paedophile who abused many children defenceless with poor Catholic people murdered by sick liberals?
-
The boy who said he was whipped by Sloniker said he shared that with Father Patrick Crane. He also told the priest that Sloniker made him strip naked.
Crane, who now is with another Society of Saint Pius X church – Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix – was interviewed by a detective Sept. 22. He said Sloniker worked with the church camp from 2003 to 2006 and that he did not have any issues with him.
When the detective shared that one of the alleged victims said he had told Crane about Sloniker whipping him, “Crane said he remembers part of it, but it was mostly because (the boy) did not want to attend the camp.”
Crane added that he remembers not asking Sloniker back after that, and also told the detective that if something had been brought forward, he would have said something “because this was during the time the church was being looked into for other abuse allegations across America,” the detective wrote.
Here's the part I don't understand. A boy tells Fr. Crane what Sloniker did to him, but Fr. Crane just thought that the boy didn't want to attend the camp? What does that even mean? Did Fr. Crane not believe the boy? I don't know what else would account for the priest not doing anything about it.
That terrible situation should have been a huge red flag.
-
I am always blown away on how much freedom parents give their children and how much trust!
There is a person I know in one of the SSPX parishes who molested a kid in Idaho... no charges were ever pressed- he was just told to leave the state. Now he is in another state and I see parents not paying any attention to him as he plays with and hangs around the children.
Have you warned the parents, children, priests, and authorities?
Yes, when we saw children near him or communicating with him- we would alert the parents. The parish priest was also aware and knew the family even before he was a priest. He hand many dealings with the young man and the family and we would make him aware of anything unusual.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
I am thinking about how society must deal with child rapists and child corrupters. And if society is going to deal with child rapists properly (fitting the punishment to the crime), the thinking must be correct at the individual level. Which is why I found it alarming to see the conversation so quickly turn to sympathy for the criminal and attempts to mitigate his guilt, particularly when we adopt 21st century excuses like “psychological debility.”
The most secure guide that comes to my mind for how society should react to monstrous crimes against children is when society was Catholic. As far as I know, the process was objective and based on the act committed and not the criminal’s own hardships. While saints may have shed tears over and interceded for a criminal, there is no indication they considered the fact of having suffered as mitigating guilt for dealing out like suffering to others.
A final alarming aspect is that this man comes from a family that has had the benefits of Tradition for 25 years. If he can elicit our sympathy on the basis of psychological debility, then so can Nero.
Go help him escape tonight from the Kootenai Jail and turn him over to Lucas for torture. You can sit nearby in your rocking chair with your knitting in hand chanting over and over "Guillotine! Guillotine!" :stare:
I'm outta here and sorry I came back.
Signed,
The Ole' Pious Fraud
What kind of darkness does a person needs to write such a comment?
I'd love to send this comment by Alexandria, mocking the kids who were abused, to psychopaths. I bet a few of them will see evil in this.
Go help him escape tonight from the Kootenai Jail and turn him over to Lucas for torture.... "Guillotine! Guillotine!"
So the Catholics who were murdered are to be compared to a sex abuser?
I never called to kill or anything,
I just said DON'T SUPPORT A CRIMINAL , SPECIALLY A PAEDOPHILE!!!
Note: This Alexandria (i think is a woman) deleted a comment in which her(?) were crying for this criminal, saying he was good, he was so good she(?) could not believe.
Is just me or this more wicked than anyone could imagine?
-
This thread takes the cake for the most appalling series of posts I have ever read on CathInfo. At least Magna opera Domini has his/her head on straight ....
-
I wonder why he reportedly kept moving in with the victims' families. Why did they take him in? Under what pretext did he present himself for moving in?
That's the strange part to me... I think some people don't understand that true charity starts within a family before it extends to others. The families needed to love their children enough to protect and not allow this evil to come in at any time.
-
Lucas, the only darkness I see here is in your own soul. I pity you also and am praying for you. Too much Dimond can be a bad thing.
It is possible to grieve for the victims and deplore the crimes and feel sorry for the poor fallen soul of the perpetrator all at the same time. Feeling sorry for the perpetrator does not constitute an endorsement of pedophilia.
-
You people need to read at least this thread again.
It started with this person (Alexandria) appealing to emotional saying the criminal was a good person. After I said I don't like criminals and no one who defends them, this person said it he/she was not defending him
Then I pointed out that this was not true. She/he was actually emotionally appealing to him and we should not trust he/she judgment.
But for my surprise.. well you can read on the last three pages, Alexandria mocks a very decent and honourable comment and by this very fact makes fun of the kids who suffered just because people, like myself and others don't agree that we should have mercy on this offender and he's not a victim..
-
Lucas, the only darkness I see here is in your own soul. I pity you also and am praying for you. Too much Dimond can be a bad thing.
It is possible to grieve for the victims and deplore the crimes and feel sorry for the poor fallen soul of the perpetrator all at the same time. Feeling sorry for the perpetrator does not constitute an endorsement of pedophilia.
Ok. Please tell me one quote from me that has Darkness and after that you will allow me to compare to the things you and Alexandria said about crying for a sex abuser
Agreed? IF you don't, I have nothing to say to you, ever, never, and I hope that you don't need to have a case with rape in your family to see the evil that you're saying
I hope you have at least some common sense to understand that those who are in condemnation are the kids FOREVER
If you don't plan to prove darkness in my comments, I'll ask you politely to never address to me.
-
One should understand that I could not do anything but expose you that's why I made the image.
And I don't regret it 001% because there's no way that I will endorse "Who am I to Judge?" on this issue, that I won't do even by torture.
-
He is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Do you not think that he is possibly both?
There is something in his history that brought him to this point and I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that he was a victim first.
I am thinking about how society must deal with child rapists and child corrupters. And if society is going to deal with child rapists properly (fitting the punishment to the crime), the thinking must be correct at the individual level. Which is why I found it alarming to see the conversation so quickly turn to sympathy for the criminal and attempts to mitigate his guilt, particularly when we adopt 21st century excuses like “psychological debility.”
The most secure guide that comes to my mind for how society should react to monstrous crimes against children is when society was Catholic. As far as I know, the process was objective and based on the act committed and not the criminal’s own hardships. While saints may have shed tears over and interceded for a criminal, there is no indication they considered the fact of having suffered as mitigating guilt for dealing out like suffering to others.
A final alarming aspect is that this man comes from a family that has had the benefits of Tradition for 25 years. If he can elicit our sympathy on the basis of psychological debility, then so can Nero.
I don't know about the death sentence, but at minimum prison terms should be much longer because high percentages of offenders return to prison after release.*
I mentioned the victim-offender relationship because the pattern is real and people who have been victimized should be tested early and often for signs of pedophilia. In a study I just glanced through, nearly 50% of child molesters surveyed had been abused themselves as children.
*78% within 2 years according to this site (http://yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html).
-
If we recall the Urrutigoity thing, then we have to ask ourselves how the SSPX can be so innocent. And the entire event (the Urrutigoity thing) cannot be placed only at the feet of Urrutigoity as others in the seminary were involved. My point is that evil infects all and to assume the SSPX is not infected is just hogwash. This same thinking applies to the family who was "so good" that they could not be part of such a thing. I know from experience that the best cover their tracks. There was once a good Catholic man who I thought I knew to be a good man, honest, upright, just, etc. In reality he was addicted to porn, and his addiction has ruined people. That just proves you cannot judge by what you believe should be the case.
-
Are people really mitigating guilt when they consider that a predator may have at one point been a victim himself? Maybe some people do. I don't think it's necessarily always the case. Simply knowing and considering the FACT that many predators were once preyed upon doesn't in any way mean a person doesn't also know that the now-predator made their choices of their own freewill and must pay the consequences.
I think this is an important point to consider because it's one more piece of the puzzle, one more hint at how people and parents can spot and prevent further damage.
One of my family members is watching this unfold now with her inlaws. A little girl was being molested by an extended family member. Do you know how they first spotted a problem? The little girl started to pattern the "play" with other children at daycare. She didn't know any better, this is what she had been shown. But now her parents will always have to be extra vigilant, not only that she is not victimized again, but also God forbid, that she not carry on with it herself. My family member also knows not to let her own children play unsupervised with the little girl. It's not fair, it's not the little girls' fault and they make sure the parameters set aren't obviously "marking" her, but it's a reality they can't take chances with.
There are people who are simply predators from day 1 and who gravitate toward evil with relish. But a lot of people are exposed to evil as victims and then turn around and embrace it as predators. There is a psychological aspect to sin and the only time that's a problem for Catholic thought is when freewill and sin are denied or downplayed. I don't see that happening here.
-
Speaking of Urrutigoity, I came across his holy card in one of my books just yesterday. I didn't realize I had it and it was a shock to see. My first inclination was to throw it out. That made me realize I had to say a Hail Mary for him and put it back so that every time I used that book, I had to pray for him again. Trust me, there was no trace of bleeding heart in that move. Overcoming our emotions doesn't only apply to the soft ones, it applies to the harsh ones too.
-
Are people really mitigating guilt when they consider that a predator may have at one point been a victim himself? Maybe some people do. I don't think it's necessarily always the case. Simply knowing and considering the FACT that many predators were once preyed upon doesn't in any way mean a person doesn't also know that the now-predator made their choices of their own freewill and must pay the consequences.
I think this is an important point to consider because it's one more piece of the puzzle, one more hint at how people and parents can spot and prevent further damage.
One of my family members is watching this unfold now with her inlaws. A little girl was being molested by an extended family member. Do you know how they first spotted a problem? The little girl started to pattern the "play" with other children at daycare. She didn't know any better, this is what she had been shown. But now her parents will always have to be extra vigilant, not only that she is not victimized again, but also God forbid, that she not carry on with it herself. My family member also knows not to let her own children play unsupervised with the little girl. It's not fair, it's not the little girls' fault and they make sure the parameters set aren't obviously "marking" her, but it's a reality they can't take chances with.
There are people who are simply predators from day 1 and who gravitate toward evil with relish. But a lot of people are exposed to evil as victims and then turn around and embrace it as predators. There is a psychological aspect to sin and the only time that's a problem for Catholic thought is when freewill and sin are denied or downplayed. I don't see that happening here.
Pedophiles need to be brought to justice and punished to the fullest extent of the law for their own salvation and to serve as a deterrent to others contemplating committing similar crimes.
At the age of 30 it's too late to reform a predator. There is no "cure" for pedophilia. They have to be isolated from children forever. A monastery could be an option after serving a very long sentence. But more than likely he will be sicker after prison than before.
-
Are people really mitigating guilt when they consider that a predator may have at one point been a victim himself? Maybe some people do. I don't think it's necessarily always the case. Simply knowing and considering the FACT that many predators were once preyed upon doesn't in any way mean a person doesn't also know that the now-predator made their choices of their own freewill and must pay the consequences.
I think this is an important point to consider because it's one more piece of the puzzle, one more hint at how people and parents can spot and prevent further damage.
One of my family members is watching this unfold now with her inlaws. A little girl was being molested by an extended family member. Do you know how they first spotted a problem? The little girl started to pattern the "play" with other children at daycare. She didn't know any better, this is what she had been shown. But now her parents will always have to be extra vigilant, not only that she is not victimized again, but also God forbid, that she not carry on with it herself. My family member also knows not to let her own children play unsupervised with the little girl. It's not fair, it's not the little girls' fault and they make sure the parameters set aren't obviously "marking" her, but it's a reality they can't take chances with.
There are people who are simply predators from day 1 and who gravitate toward evil with relish. But a lot of people are exposed to evil as victims and then turn around and embrace it as predators. There is a psychological aspect to sin and the only time that's a problem for Catholic thought is when freewill and sin are denied or downplayed. I don't see that happening here.
Pedophiles need to be brought to justice and punished to the fullest extent of the law for their own salvation and to serve as a deterrent to others contemplating committing similar crimes.
At the age of 30 it's too late to reform a predator. There is no "cure" for pedophilia. They have to be isolated from children forever. A monastery could be an option after serving a very long sentence. But more than likely he will be sicker after prison than before.
I agree. They are hardened in sin, a phrase I prefer to use than "addicted". "Addicted" doesn't do enough to convey the heavy responsibility we have in fostering our habits.
-
Russia introduces chemical castration for pedophiles
http://www.infowars.com/russia-introduces-chemical-castration-for-pedophiles/
“Pedophiles are sick and dangerous people who will never be full members of society, and this is why our goal is to protect healthy people, our children, who have their whole lives ahead of them”
It is old news but what think you of such penalty being introduced in America? The amount of cases of sɛҳuąƖ predators damaging forever the purity of our children is truly horrifying.
-
Castration is actually quite a good penalty. Removing their sɛҳuąƖ organs serves, not only as just punishment, but might actually help improve their condition. Mind you, they should still be separated from mainstream society for the rest of their lives, however, it could help lead to their own personal salvation.
-
the problem is that the taxpayer pay for their medication
:(
-
the problem is that the taxpayer pay for their medication
:(
Oh, I'm not advocating 'chemical' castration. Put them under with anesthetic, then cut it off. All of it.
-
@Ladisulaus: Looks like you still don't know why I said that your writing on DNA and "social environment " theory to understand the criminal. was heretical
The reason is: when you put someone's else DNA on trial (trying to understand and implying that DNA + environment controls the behaviour) you're putting God's creation on trial.
Another way of saying: You are trying to understand something that we cannot. We don't know why people are born the way they are.
And finally: Any -let me repeat, ANY- attempt to understand DNA and our "genetics" by reason will either fall into eugenics ("evolutionary adaptation") OR social environmentalism. Both are frauds and leads one into confusion and frustration.
Accept the good and expel the evil". Even if expelling the evil is politically incorrect.
-
@Ladisulaus: Looks like you still don't know why I said that your writing on DNA and "social environment " theory to understand the criminal. was heretical
Like the Dimonds, you throw the term "heretical" around way too freely.
-
@Ladisulaus: Looks like you still don't know why I said that your writing on DNA and "social environment " theory to understand the criminal. was heretical
Like the Dimonds, you throw the term "heretical" around way too freely.
You can't say "Well because" this X person receives bad DNA and/or live in a bad home X does A, B, Y and expect NOT me to call you a heretic for that.
What you are saying is heretical, there's no way to run from it. Does not matter how beautifully you try to picture your sorrow for the perpetrator. It's also a sign of hypocrisy.
-
The reason is: when you put someone's else DNA on trial (trying to understand and implying that DNA + environment controls the behaviour) you're putting God's creation on trial.
Controls, no. Influences, yes. We have free will, but we also have a nature with various tendencies. Some people are more prone to anxiety or depression or alcoholism or whatever due to a combination of their genes and their life experiences, etc. There's absolutely nothing even close to heretical about acknowledging that.
-
What you are saying is heretical, there's no way to run from it.
No, what you are saying is utterly idiotic. See my previous post.
-
It's also a sign of hypocrisy.
That doesn't even come close to making any sense.
-
Does not matter how beautifully you try to picture your sorrow for the perpetrator.
It has become common to compete for social approval through conspicuous effusions of sympathy for disruptive minorities, subversive causes, deviants, and criminals of various stripes. That is the liberal spirit of the times. We'd have to be blind to fail to notice it affecting traditionalists.
-
What you are saying is heretical, there's no way to run from it.
No, what you are saying is utterly idiotic. See my previous post.
Ok, I'm sorry if I said something offensive which isn't true. As of now I can't say if any or which my previous statements were false or wrong about what you tried to say. And there's no point in trying to go on that direction again.
I don't want to continue in this because it does not make sense, the only thing I really didn't like was that you said that there were darkness in my soul/comments. While I think I'm still right to say that Alexandria had very dark thoughts that showed on his/her comments.
-
While I think I'm still right to say that Alexandria had very dark thoughts that showed on his/her comments.
Alexandria was making a point using sarcasm; she was not comparing the perpetrator of these crimes to executed Catholics. You misunderstood what she was trying to say.
I called out the darkness in your soul for not being able to find any charity or compassion for the perpetrator. Pray that God does not judge you as harshly. We all commit a thousand sins every day against God and yet He continues to forgive us. As grave and horrendous as it might be, even child rape is not an unforgivable sin. Our Lord's mercy and the merits of His Passion surpass any evil we human beings are capable of committing.
-
Very well, you are right on this last sentence. Regarding Alexandria that is a different issue for the moment. I say that I didn't mean to offend his/her but even with ironic (which I noticed) it was at least a bad comment
-
Does not matter how beautifully you try to picture your sorrow for the perpetrator.
It has become common to compete for social approval through conspicuous effusions of sympathy for disruptive minorities, subversive causes, deviants, and criminals of various stripes. That is the liberal spirit of the times. We'd have to be blind to fail to notice it affecting traditionalists.
This has nothing to do with "social approval" but with the charity towards others that God demands of us. You can't seem to find the proper balance. What seems to be "affecting traditionalists" is bitter zeal and lack of charity more than anything else I'm afraid.
While on the one hand I recognize that justice demands this man be jailed for life or even executed for his crimes, at the same time he is a soul created in the image and likeness of God, whom God desires ardently to save, and for whose crimes of pedophilia Our Lord suffered on the cross. If Our Lord loves him so much as to suffer so terribly for even these sins of his, then who exactly are we to withhold our own charity and compassion for this poor man?
Unfortunately there's too much Pharisee in too many Traditionalists. When Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, we all need to look at ourselves. Too often when we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, we identify with the publican and think, ironically, "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" instead of searching our own souls for even the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) ways in which we are indeed like the Pharisee.
-
Very well, you are right on this last sentence. Regarding Alexandria that is a different issue for the moment. I say that I didn't mean to offend his/her but even with ironic (which I noticed) it was at least a bad comment
You just don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. If would be the first one to insist that the book should be thrown at this guy, both in justice and also to prevent him from doing this to anyone else ever again. But, at the same time, if I were a priest, I'd be first in line to try visiting this poor soul in jail to see if I couldn't try to be an instrument in the salvation of his soul. If this man were to save his soul and even to become a saint, would this not be the greatest glory to the Mercy of God? Recall the man who murdered St. Maria Goretti, Alessandro Serenelli. That to me is the most moving part of the story, even more than St. Maria's refusal unto death to commit a mortal sin, that St. Maria not only forgave him on her deathbed but then appeared to him and interceded for his conversion. He ended up living a devout life in a monastery.
-
Does not matter how beautifully you try to picture your sorrow for the perpetrator.
It has become common to compete for social approval through conspicuous effusions of sympathy for disruptive minorities, subversive causes, deviants, and criminals of various stripes. That is the liberal spirit of the times. We'd have to be blind to fail to notice it affecting traditionalists.
This has nothing to do with "social approval" but with the charity towards others that God demands of us. You can't seem to find the proper balance. What seems to be "affecting traditionalists" is bitter zeal and lack of charity more than anything else I'm afraid.
While on the one hand I recognize that justice demands this man be jailed for life or even executed for his crimes, at the same time he is a soul created in the image and likeness of God, whom God desires ardently to save, and for whose crimes of pedophilia Our Lord suffered on the cross. If Our Lord loves him so much as to suffer so terribly for even these sins of his, then who exactly are we to withhold our own charity and compassion for this poor man?
Unfortunately there's too much Pharisee in too many Traditionalists. When Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, we all need to look at ourselves. Too often when we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, we identify with the publican and think, ironically, "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" instead of searching our own souls for even the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) ways in which we are indeed like the Pharisee.
I did not discourage anyone from charity. I specified conspicuous displays. The illogic of your reply, and the effusive denunciation of my supposed lack of charity, suggest that the criticism I actually made was on-target.
-
Very well, you are right on this last sentence. Regarding Alexandria that is a different issue for the moment. I say that I didn't mean to offend his/her but even with ironic (which I noticed) it was at least a bad comment
You just don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. If would be the first one to insist that the book should be thrown at this guy, both in justice and also to prevent him from doing this to anyone else ever again. But, at the same time, if I were a priest, I'd be first in line to try visiting this poor soul in jail to see if I couldn't try to be an instrument in the salvation of his soul. If this man were to save his soul and even to become a saint, would this not be the greatest glory to the Mercy of God? Recall the man who murdered St. Maria Goretti, Alessandro Serenelli. That to me is the most moving part of the story, even more than St. Maria's refusal unto death to commit a mortal sin, that St. Maria not only forgave him on her deathbed but then appeared to him and interceded for his conversion. He ended up living a devout life in a monastery.
I think Our Lord did say that we are to visit the prisoner. I recently read the life story of St. John of the Cross. He was originally called John of God, and he felt the need to serve the poor and lowly due to his great sins of his previous life before his conversion. I hadn't ever read about that part of his life before.
I recall, too, hearing about the priest who visited Timothy McVeigh in jail. Some might feel that the Oklahoma City bombing was a false fαℓѕє fℓαg, but I don't think it was, after reading the account of Fr. Smith who visited McVeigh in Jail, and reading how ultimately McVeigh asked Fr. Smith to hear his confession and also his remorse for the crime which killed a lot of people, especially children. McVeigh originally refused to see Smith or any other pastor, and quite a few tried to see him, but Fr. Smith wouldn't give up.
Due to the danger to society, I hope that Sloniker will spend the rest of his life in jail, or at a monastery, but I hope too for his conversion, and that he'll repent and realize that he had no right to do what he did.
-
Unfortunately there's too much Pharisee in too many Traditionalists. When Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, we all need to look at ourselves. Too often when we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, we identify with the publican and think, ironically, "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" instead of searching our own souls for even the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) ways in which we are indeed like the Pharisee.
Well said!
You're absolutely right -- many people think "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" which is the ultimate irony.
When listening to a sermon -- especially anything from Our Lord -- we should dig a bit deeper and see if it applies to US in any way. Sure, it's easy to dismiss things as "not applying to me". But if you scratch the surface, you'll see that it DOES apply to you, just not 100%. And you end up benefiting spiritually from every sermon if you do this.
Sure, Father is specifically talking about people who don't go to Mass on Sunday. But how well do you assist at Mass? How well do you celebrate the rest of Sunday? Could you improve at all? That kind of thing.
Even if he's talking about porn, and that's not a problem for you, just change "porn" to "undue curiosity" and there will be matter for your own improvement.
-
The reason is: when you put someone's else DNA on trial (trying to understand and implying that DNA + environment controls the behaviour) you're putting God's creation on trial.
Controls, no. Influences, yes. We have free will, but we also have a nature with various tendencies. Some people are more prone to anxiety or depression or alcoholism or whatever due to a combination of their genes and their life experiences, etc. There's absolutely nothing even close to heretical about acknowledging that.
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that God’s grace is sufficient for all men at all times to reject sin. Period. Though one of the punishments for repeated sin is to be, in a sense, for a time, left in your sins.
I think there are two separate issues being argued over:
1. excuses put forth on behalf of the perpetrator, and
2. quick expressions of charity toward a repeat rapist of children.
For some others and myself there are no adequate excuses, no factors that ameliorate the guilt. Who better than someone who was raped as a child knows the ugliness and pain that he is inflicting on another innocent? As stated above, God’s grace is sufficient for each and every man. On the practical level, our criminal system is rife with that approach and has in too many cases gutted the application of justice.
It would be easier to embrace the expressions of charity toward the rapist if they had not been accompanied by the excuses. And timing helps. If we had fully processed the horror of the sin, fully mourned over the loss of innocence and destruction of the children, seen justice done in the form of a sentence that would forever protect the innocent and adequately punish the guilty, then most informed Catholics would likely be ready to turn a charitable gaze toward the criminal and pray for his conversion.
-
Unfortunately there's too much Pharisee in too many Traditionalists. When Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, we all need to look at ourselves. Too often when we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, we identify with the publican and think, ironically, "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" instead of searching our own souls for even the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) ways in which we are indeed like the Pharisee.
Well said!
You're absolutely right -- many people think "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" which is the ultimate irony.
When listening to a sermon -- especially anything from Our Lord -- we should dig a bit deeper and see if it applies to US in any way. Sure, it's easy to dismiss things as "not applying to me". But if you scratch the surface, you'll see that it DOES apply to you, just not 100%. And you end up benefiting spiritually from every sermon if you do this.
Sure, Father is specifically talking about people who don't go to Mass on Sunday. But how well do you assist at Mass? How well do you celebrate the rest of Sunday? Could you improve at all? That kind of thing.
Even if he's talking about porn, and that's not a problem for you, just change "porn" to "undue curiosity" and there will be matter for your own improvement.
Much better said than I could have.
When we listen to the Sacred Scriptures or sermons, we need to listen for how it applies to us and how it benefits us. Everything said always applies to all of us ... even if in more subtle ways. We all have Pharisee in us.
Or I wonder how many of us are subtly tempted to have disdain for the Jews who were demanding the Crucifixion of Jesus. Well, every time we commit a mortal sin, we are calling for Our Lord to be crucified. And every time we commit venial sin we are calling for the Lord to be scourged (hurt but not put to death). We might as well have been there shaking our fists while shouting "Crucify Him!" And we don't even have the defense of "knowing not what [we] do".
-
And these are not sins of weakness. Clearly, there was planning over time in the form of grooming with gifts and presents, asking permission for and arranging trips, selecting to live with families whose children would provide opportunity for his crimes. These crimes were premeditated and required a series of steps to accomplish.
-
It would be easier to embrace the expressions of charity toward the rapist if they had not been accompanied by the excuses. And timing helps. If we had fully processed the horror of the sin, fully mourned over the loss of innocence and destruction of the children, seen justice done in the form of a sentence that would forever protect the innocent and adequately punish the guilty, then most informed Catholics would likely be ready to turn a charitable gaze toward the criminal and pray for his conversion.
You seem to be saying that all of the factors that you've outlined above have to be in place first before a charitable gaze or prayers for conversion be given to the criminal.
So....we should not turn a charitable gaze, nor pray for his conversion until he is sentenced to jail, and also until everyone here fully realizes the full horror of his sin/crimes and also fully mourned over the loss of innocence and the destruction of children? That's a tall order.
-
I'm sorry, the psychology and genetics stuff is bilge. I agree with Graham -- in these liberal times crimes are fawned upon and excused with sham charity. I have not the least notion about Ladislaus' intentions. It's sin. We are all possessed of a free will. This wicked man consented, freely and fully, I suspect to a good many sins of thought and intention before the first disgusting sin of act, but in any case, he freely consented to impure and unnatural temptations, whether they came from the Devil or from the corrupt flesh.
He should hang or face the electric chair. It would be God's justice and, perhaps, would open his eyes to the horrors of Hell and bring about true repentance.
Pray for the wretch.
-
:cry:
-
For some others and myself there are no adequate excuses, no factors that ameliorate the guilt. Who better than someone who was raped as a child knows the ugliness and pain that he is inflicting on another innocent? As stated above, God’s grace is sufficient for each and every man. On the practical level, our criminal system is rife with that approach and has in too many cases gutted the application of justice.
You would think so, right?
But that is a simplistic view of human nature.
You say the words "destruction of children" but I don't think you know what that means because you still expect them to think, feel and act normally.
-
I agree with Graham -- in these liberal times crimes are fawned upon and excused with sham charity.
Excused -- that is, excuses are offered, even if they don't purport to mitigate the guilt 100%. The important thing is to offer some excuse for the poor pedophile while pointing the finger at "uncharitable trad pharisees" with "darkness in their souls," for whom, not unexpectedly, no excuses are made.
-
Does not matter how beautifully you try to picture your sorrow for the perpetrator.
It has become common to compete for social approval through conspicuous effusions of sympathy for disruptive minorities, subversive causes, deviants, and criminals of various stripes. That is the liberal spirit of the times. We'd have to be blind to fail to notice it affecting traditionalists.
This has nothing to do with "social approval" but with the charity towards others that God demands of us. You can't seem to find the proper balance. What seems to be "affecting traditionalists" is bitter zeal and lack of charity more than anything else I'm afraid.
While on the one hand I recognize that justice demands this man be jailed for life or even executed for his crimes, at the same time he is a soul created in the image and likeness of God, whom God desires ardently to save, and for whose crimes of pedophilia Our Lord suffered on the cross. If Our Lord loves him so much as to suffer so terribly for even these sins of his, then who exactly are we to withhold our own charity and compassion for this poor man?
Unfortunately there's too much Pharisee in too many Traditionalists. When Our Lord rebukes the Pharisees, we all need to look at ourselves. Too often when we hear the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, we identify with the publican and think, ironically, "Thank God that I'm not like that Pharisee" instead of searching our own souls for even the subtle (or even not-so-subtle) ways in which we are indeed like the Pharisee.
well , I don't like this comment. Same mistakes you made before.
-
Many Catholics use poor and criminals as means for salvation just like marxists.
They think the poors have some kind of special sanctity just because they lack "materials" goods.
Same thing for the criminals. These are not the ones excluded from the society. They have excluded themselves and we need to see if they are really sorry and fear God, then we may cry for them. First look at your own family and your neighbour, then you may want to have mercy on criminals.
-
I don't think that anyone is downplaying the terrible gravity of Sloniker's crimes. It bothers me that the two SSPX priests who were interviewed seemed to be making excuses, but it might be that the reporter only put in those comments which seemed to be excuses. In any case, I hope that the SSPX priests will look back to see what they could and should have done differently, and I hope, too, that certain protocols will be put into place, like has been done in the Novus Ordo parishes, which seems to be working.
However, we should never underestimate the power of forgiveness. To forgive someone who has wronged us in a horrible and criminal manner is one of the most difficult things that we can ever do, and I think that our Lord and Our Lady know this of course. It is believed that St. Paul, before his conversion, was a witness to St. Stephen's forgiveness of his murderers, and that it had a profound effect on St. Paul (then Saul).
Our Lady has so often implored us to pray and offer sacrifices for sinners. She even showed the fires of Hell to the children, so that they might be emboldened to pray and offer sacrifices for sinners. We can pray for the victims of Sloniker, that they may experience healing and that they can also forgive him, which might seem like an impossibility. Thank goodness that Sloniker is behind bars, but I still hope that he can repent.
-
well , I don't like this comment. Same mistakes you made before.
Yes, you've made it quite clear that you dislike anything having to do with charity.
-
well , I don't like this comment. Same mistakes you made before.
Yes, you've made it quite clear that you dislike anything having to do with charity.
This charity that cries for the distant wolf and don't look out for the sheeple near you I'm not interested in.
-
I don't think that anyone is downplaying the terrible gravity of Sloniker's crimes. ... Thank goodness that Sloniker is behind bars, but I still hope that he can repent.
This ^^^
Some people mistake having charity for Sloniker as being the same as "making excuses". There can no excuse legally. Yet God alone will judge him in the internal forum. We judge his actions to be deplorable in the external forum, but the degree of guilt only God knows and only God has the right to judge. I'm sure that this will be met again with the idiocy of the Francis pictures ... from someone on this thread who isn't even a Catholic. But the point is that the Church has NEVER judged the internal forum (de internis Ecclesia non judicat). What Francis did (and the Relatio does), however, is to make internal forum considerations trump the objective external forum.
-
Honestly, if all Traditional Catholics had the same attitude as some of you posters on this thread, I would run, not walk, but run back into the Novus Ordo.
-
Honestly, if all Traditional Catholics had the same attitude as some of you posters on this thread, I would run, not walk, but run back into the Novus Ordo.
(http://www.doorsonline.co/images/accessories/Wood_Door-Liner_skirting.jpg)
Don't look back Lot's wife
-
@Ladislaus it's pretty clear you can't live with people knows the diference between charity and marxist apologetic ("Oh, Save the Poor" - "Who am I to Judge?")
-
I don't think that anyone is downplaying the terrible gravity of Sloniker's crimes.
I ask myself where posters direct their focus. With some posters the requirements of justice seems like a formality, admitted to be sure but mostly, it appears, to get them over with so that they may dwell on mitigation for child rapists and florid exhortations not to judge pedophiles, lest ye be found having "darkness in your soul."
-
These sick liberals "run" and "get tired of " when someone else disagrees with them.
Let's see
-- DNA determines bad behaviours: check
-- broken home is the reason for abusing minors: check
-- those who don't want false charity on criminals are evil: check
-- Would go back to the Masonic Lodge in Rome for Francis "Who am I to Judge?" charity: check
Who's wrong here , His Holiness Ladislaus?
-
1. Grace builds on nature
2. Attending a centuries-old Mass once a week in a dead language (Latin) does NOT cover up all psychological, emotional, and mental issues that a person might have. Or any other baggage for that matter.
3. You still have to be prudent and careful, even with fellow Trads.
4. Trads commit sin too. Not just silly, common, non-embarrassing sins, either.
5. Yes, that includes the big ones -- adultery, fornication, etc.
A great number of Trads are into fantasy games and things of that nature. They think they are "mature" enough to get into such gaming, but do not realize it has nothing to do with maturity. Instead, these types of games have been consistently found to be gateways into the occult. It may not always manifest in that way, but instead might take the form of malign spiritual oppression. This can lead to extreme depression, sɛҳuąƖ aberration, psychosis and other mental instabilities.
-
In my past experience (I knew all the Urrugigoity crew, another seminarian who was obviously in my mind gαy and who later shacked up with some guy openly, etc.), here are some warning signs:
1) If a priest/seminarian/brother/cleric is excessively meticulous about his appearance (constantly ironing things, attached inordinately to expensive cassocks, really into lace and frilly surplices, seems very materialistic in other ways).
I'm not sure about this though. This would mean putting someone like Fulton Sheen in this category. I can see it leading to pride, but not necessarily into gαyville. What about marines and other army vets who go to seminary? They are known for pressing, shining (shoes), shaving, and combing their hair.
-
In my past experience (I knew all the Urrugigoity crew, another seminarian who was obviously in my mind gαy and who later shacked up with some guy openly, etc.), here are some warning signs:
1) If a priest/seminarian/brother/cleric is excessively meticulous about his appearance (constantly ironing things, attached inordinately to expensive cassocks, really into lace and frilly surplices, seems very materialistic in other ways).
I'm not sure about this though. This would mean putting someone like Fulton Sheen in this category. I can see it leading to pride, but not necessarily into gαyville. What about marines and other army vets who go to seminary? They are known for pressing, shining (shoes), shaving, and combing their hair.
Obviously none of these things taken in isolation is definitive. That's just one thing all these guy had in common. Besides, it's one thing to be clean, etc. and another thing to be vain. You know the difference between the guy who just stays clean but is otherwise manly and the guys who have an almost effeminate vanity about them. So if you see this and you see some other things that off the gαydar, just be cautious.
-
Righto. Thanks for clarifying.
And oh..trust me. I have a very piercing "gαydar"--to my wife's consternation--but she'll confess it's always been right on target and saved us from many potential disasters.
-
I haven't read all these replies, so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said.
After coming to tradition and SSPX from the modern worldliness of Protestantism and Novus Ordo, I found most people to be fairly niave regarding the ways of the world.
At first I found this quite refreshing. But when an incident occurred with our best friends that could have been prevented if only people knew the signs of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and perversion, I realized that this naivetee is very dangerous not only to the children and parents but also to the priests as well.
A priest today simply cannot be too "friendly" toward the children outside the presence of the parents. This is just a terribly sad fact. A great many trad priests don't understand this and often offer to give classes for this or that or take the children on some field trip, etc. Unfortunately this opens up the portal of accusations and suspicion. There have been any number of priests wrongly accused of misconduct. I know of two who were accused of intoxicating young boys and possibly taking advantage of them. None of this was true, of course, but the entire scandal could have been avoided. We do not live in the 19th century.
Parents today just cannot trust anyone. I am sorry to say that, but you just can't. We must be on guard constantly. We are VERY cautious about where our children go and who they go with. Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody. On many occasions, without violating anyone's privacy, I have warned parents to rethink allowing their children to go to certain people's homes.
Ultimately we are responsible for our children's welfare.
I might also add, just because someone is a trad priest, it does not mean that they are trustworthy with your kids. Be cautious.
Also, I don't know if this is an issue in SSPX or even FSSP, but in independent circles some of the priests were once NO priests, have left for various reasons, and have been conditionally ordained by some bishop somewhere. I caution people always, always, always, to check these priests out before trusting their children with them. Some of these priests have been removed from their NO dioceses for terrible acts and have gravitated toward tradition because they like the bells and smells and because trad parents are often very naive. It makes their young boys easy prey.
In regards to the report, my biggest question seems to be why in the world a parent would allow a child to travel on the road alone with a truck driver?
Please, parents, do not check your brain at the door around traditional Catholics. They are not immune to sinful thoughts and behaviors! We have a duty to protect our kids!
-
I haven't read all these replies, so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said.
After coming to tradition and SSPX from the modern worldliness of Protestantism and Novus Ordo, I found most people to be fairly niave regarding the ways of the world.
At first I found this quite refreshing. But when an incident occurred with our best friends that could have been prevented if only people knew the signs of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and perversion, I realized that this naivetee is very dangerous not only to the children and parents but also to the priests as well.
A priest today simply cannot be too "friendly" toward the children outside the presence of the parents. This is just a terribly sad fact. A great many trad priests don't understand this and often offer to give classes for this or that or take the children on some field trip, etc. Unfortunately this opens up the portal of accusations and suspicion. There have been any number of priests wrongly accused of misconduct. I know of two who were accused of intoxicating young boys and possibly taking advantage of them. None of this was true, of course, but the entire scandal could have been avoided. We do not live in the 19th century.
Parents today just cannot trust anyone. I am sorry to say that, but you just can't. We must be on guard constantly. We are VERY cautious about where our children go and who they go with. Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody. On many occasions, without violating anyone's privacy, I have warned parents to rethink allowing their children to go to certain people's homes.
Ultimately we are responsible for our children's welfare.
I might also add, just because someone is a trad priest, it does not mean that they are trustworthy with your kids. Be cautious.
Also, I don't know if this is an issue in SSPX or even FSSP, but in independent circles some of the priests were once NO priests, have left for various reasons, and have been conditionally ordained by some bishop somewhere. I caution people always, always, always, to check these priests out before trusting their children with them. Some of these priests have been removed from their NO dioceses for terrible acts and have gravitated toward tradition because they like the bells and smells and because trad parents are often very naive. It makes their young boys easy prey.
In regards to the report, my biggest question seems to be why in the world a parent would allow a child to travel on the road alone with a truck driver?
Please, parents, do not check your brain at the door around traditional Catholics. They are not immune to sinful thoughts and behaviors! We have a duty to protect our kids!
Great comment
I'll try to give an advice for Priests , SSPX and similars:
If you don't talk about the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs abomination, if you don't condemn the heresies, if you don't talk about the evils of sins (specially homossɛҳuąƖity and child lovers) these sick people will never be afraid to commit their crimes at your backyard.
IF a Priest says every week that what's going in the world is 100% abomination and sɛҳuąƖ perverts are everywhere and talk about what happens in Hell for those people, most situations like this could be prevented. We all know the world is evil and sick but some priests prefer talking about charity and love. That's the kind of omission that leads souls directly to Hell.
-
Agree with CathMom. When we meet people who are "odd" or setting off intinctive alarms why do we ignore that? You can be polite without giving approval. We should charitably shun people we suspect or have knowledge of having improper inclinations. Are trads a little too PC?
-
I lived in Post Falls for 8 years and attended Immaculate Conception. I do not know Sloniker, but one of my friends actually knows him well, and worked with him in ND. He called the other day and was shocked to find out all the details. He said he never saw any danger signs or got any weird vibes from him.
Unfortunately these types of incidents coming out of that church does not shock me. That place has a very poisonous atmosphere. The absolutely worse human beings I ever had the inopportunity to meet , are in that area. I actually did a blog talk radio program about 6-7 years ago and did some programs on the problems there.
A large percentage of the families there have some kind psychological or spiritual disorder that is really hard to pin down. They “do” all the right things ( go to mass, pray the rosary etc.) but for some reason it just doesn’t seem to get internalized. A large percentage of the children fall away from the Faith, the girls get pregnant at young ages, have children out of wedlock,(sɛҳuąƖ immorality among the kids is rampant) commit ѕυιcιdє, fall into drug abuse , all at an alarming rate.
In their defense that whole area is a bizarro world. They are the most atheistic part of the country, and have this kinda hippie mentality. For such a small population they continually have rapes, murders, pediphiles , and a lot of petty crime and high unemployment sprinkled on top of all that.
My advice to anyone considering relocating, stay away from the Post Falls / Coeur D Alene area !!
-
I lived in Post Falls for 8 years and attended Immaculate Conception. I do not know Sloniker, but one of my friends actually knows him well, and worked with him in ND. He called the other day and was shocked to find out all the details. He said he never saw any danger signs or got any weird vibes from him.
Unfortunately these types of incidents coming out of that church does not shock me. That place has a very poisonous atmosphere. The absolutely worse human beings I ever had the inopportunity to meet , are in that area. I actually did a blog talk radio program about 6-7 years ago and did some programs on the problems there.
A large percentage of the families there have some kind psychological or spiritual disorder that is really hard to pin down. They “do” all the right things ( go to mass, pray the rosary etc.) but for some reason it just doesn’t seem to get internalized. A large percentage of the children fall away from the Faith, the girls get pregnant at young ages, have children out of wedlock,(sɛҳuąƖ immorality among the kids is rampant) commit ѕυιcιdє, fall into drug abuse , all at an alarming rate.
In their defense that whole area is a bizarro world. They are the most atheistic part of the country, and have this kinda hippie mentality. For such a small population they continually have rapes, murders, pediphiles , and a lot of petty crime and high unemployment sprinkled on top of all that.
My advice to anyone considering relocating, stay away from the Post Falls / Coeur D Alene area !!
This is an interesting observation. Criminal profilers and forensic scientists refer to the Pacific Northwest as "The Killing Fields" because of the very high rates of murder and sadistic crimes. Post Falls has a large meth distribution syndicate and there was a huge bust there in few years ago.
Coeur d'Alene has a growing sodomite population.
Dr. Anthony Chichoke, a well-known author and researcher of natural health and resident of that area has said that the rate of Down's Syndrome born into that area (Spokane/North idaho) far exceeds the nation. He believes it's from radiation from the Hanford Nuclear site. He's also said that there is an out-of-proportion ratio of girls to boys born, with girls vastly outnumbering boys born. He said it's just not normal.
As for the traditionalist community it's worldly, as you have pointed out. Are there families who truly have the Faith and practice it with sincerity in Truth? Sure. By their fruits you shall know them and SSPX-going families who have large numbers of fallen away children are proof of that. Participating in the sacramental life of the Church is not enough if you don't hold the Faith in your heart and mind.
-
I agree with Graham -- in these liberal times crimes are fawned upon and excused with sham charity.
Excused -- that is, excuses are offered, even if they don't purport to mitigate the guilt 100%. The important thing is to offer some excuse for the poor pedophile while pointing the finger at "uncharitable trad pharisees" with "darkness in their souls," for whom, not unexpectedly, no excuses are made.
Ironic and untrue.
I had already wondered a few things that might help me understand a of couple of people's inability to make distinctions in this discussion. Since I don't actually know anyone and I am unable and unwilling to be that vested in it, those wonderings remained a mild curiosity in my own mind. Plus it comes off as condescending and belittling to offer reasons for someone's ignorance or obstinacy (or any other bad trait) right in the middle of a discussion. I have done it and I've had it done to me. It very rarely ends well or does anything constructive. Barring bad will or willful ignorance, it's usually only time, experience and grace that can make a real difference. In the meantime, patience is invaluable to all sides.
-
I haven't read all these replies, so forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said.
After coming to tradition and SSPX from the modern worldliness of Protestantism and Novus Ordo, I found most people to be fairly niave regarding the ways of the world.
At first I found this quite refreshing. But when an incident occurred with our best friends that could have been prevented if only people knew the signs of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and perversion, I realized that this naivetee is very dangerous not only to the children and parents but also to the priests as well.
A priest today simply cannot be too "friendly" toward the children outside the presence of the parents. This is just a terribly sad fact. A great many trad priests don't understand this and often offer to give classes for this or that or take the children on some field trip, etc. Unfortunately this opens up the portal of accusations and suspicion. There have been any number of priests wrongly accused of misconduct. I know of two who were accused of intoxicating young boys and possibly taking advantage of them. None of this was true, of course, but the entire scandal could have been avoided. We do not live in the 19th century.
Parents today just cannot trust anyone. I am sorry to say that, but you just can't. We must be on guard constantly. We are VERY cautious about where our children go and who they go with. Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody. On many occasions, without violating anyone's privacy, I have warned parents to rethink allowing their children to go to certain people's homes.
Ultimately we are responsible for our children's welfare.
I might also add, just because someone is a trad priest, it does not mean that they are trustworthy with your kids. Be cautious.
Also, I don't know if this is an issue in SSPX or even FSSP, but in independent circles some of the priests were once NO priests, have left for various reasons, and have been conditionally ordained by some bishop somewhere. I caution people always, always, always, to check these priests out before trusting their children with them. Some of these priests have been removed from their NO dioceses for terrible acts and have gravitated toward tradition because they like the bells and smells and because trad parents are often very naive. It makes their young boys easy prey.
In regards to the report, my biggest question seems to be why in the world a parent would allow a child to travel on the road alone with a truck driver?
Please, parents, do not check your brain at the door around traditional Catholics. They are not immune to sinful thoughts and behaviors! We have a duty to protect our kids!
Your husband should be suspended from his job!
I agree that parents often have a false sense of security at church. People also forget they are public places. I've seen so many times children going to the rest room alone when the same parents would never allow that at Walmart or a Holiday Inn lobby.
-
"Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody."
That sounds a wee bit illegal.
-
Let's not assume that her husband lacks legal authority to conduct these searches. It's not illegal in all states to do it without pre-existing probable cause.
-
The fact that he was buying children expensive gifts and taking over night trips with them should have brought up some red flags.
One of the children even told another priest about it and the priest did nothing. Priests have to take every allegation seriously. Parents seemed to be aware enough to tell people to stay clear of him but did not get police involved. Again a lot of adults let children down by not listening or taking proper action.
And how does a guy that gets tossed out of the seminary for trying to perform a circuмcision on himself end up being a counselor of children?
-
The fact that he was buying children expensive gifts and taking over night trips with them should have brought up some red flags.
One of the children even told another priest about it and the priest did nothing. Priests have to take every allegation seriously. Parents seemed to be aware enough to tell people to stay clear of him but did not get police involved. Again a lot of adults let children down by not listening or taking proper action.
And how does a guy that gets tossed out of the seminary for trying to perform a circuмcision on himself end up being a counselor of children?
I was informed recently that the suspect attended a Resistance Christmas Vigil in Post Falls a couple of years ago and one of his family members also in attendance made sotto voce comments that the suspect had "brought his 14 year old boyfriend" to the Mass. The person who related this to me was a minor at the time and probably didn't understand what was being said. So this shows that the family of the suspect was aware of his activities long before the arrest.
-
Many Catholics use poor and criminals as means for salvation just like marxists.
They think the poors have some kind of special sanctity just because they lack "materials" goods.
Same thing for the criminals. These are not the ones excluded from the society. They have excluded themselves and we need to see if they are really sorry and fear God, then we may cry for them. First look at your own family and your neighbour, then you may want to have mercy on criminals.
Yeah, you are right. There are plenty of poor people that don't rob and rape. It is a disgrace that families allow pedophiles, incest and sodomy in their families because they come off as being "nice."
Lucas, where are you from?
-
The fact that he was buying children expensive gifts and taking over night trips with them should have brought up some red flags.
One of the children even told another priest about it and the priest did nothing. Priests have to take every allegation seriously. Parents seemed to be aware enough to tell people to stay clear of him but did not get police involved. Again a lot of adults let children down by not listening or taking proper action.
And how does a guy that gets tossed out of the seminary for trying to perform a circuмcision on himself end up being a counselor of children?
I was informed recently that the suspect attended a Resistance Christmas Vigil in Post Falls a couple of years ago and one of his family members also in attendance made sotto voce comments that the suspect had "brought his 14 year old boyfriend" to the Mass. The person who related this to me was a minor at the time and probably didn't understand what was being said. So this shows that the family of the suspect was aware of his activities long before the arrest.
They are accomplice to sin and crime.
If they have info, they should contact the law.
-
"Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody."
That sounds a wee bit illegal.
First of all, it is perfectly legal. It's his job.
Second of all, I don't give two cents about these pedos privacy. They don't get better, they keep offending.
My children are safe today because my husband knows who is an offender or not.
BTW, everyone has access to public records. Criminal records are public, as are home deeds, and property transactions.
Don't be an idiot.
If I can protect my children, I will.
-
Let's not assume that her husband lacks legal authority to conduct these searches. It's not illegal in all states to do it without pre-existing probable cause.
Criminal records are public records. My husband has access to the entire data base. It is not illegal to check it.
As for the mental health records, he only relates the public record--whether or not this person was committed for a dangerous situation. Also perfectly legal, and a matter of public record.
I am glad he does it. My kids are safe. Other children in my neighborhood are not.
Trust me you never know. These pedos lie in wait for your kids. You can't be with them 24 hours a day. To think you can is unrealistic and idiotic. They do grow up.
I have seen trad kids sheltered their entire lives, leave home for college, or work and really fall into dangerous situations because they had zero clue at how the world works and how to discern people"s character.
Is that what you want for your kids?
-
"Fortunately my husband has access to criminal records and mental health records. He checks everybody we know. Everybody."
That sounds a wee bit illegal.
First of all, it is perfectly legal. It's his job.
Second of all, I don't give two cents about these pedos privacy. They don't get better, they keep offending.
My children are safe today because my husband knows who is an offender or not.
BTW, everyone has access to public records. Criminal records are public, as are home deeds, and property transactions.
Don't be an idiot.
If I can protect my children, I will.
Based on the way you phrased it it's perfectly reasonable for me to question whether he's breaking the law. You said that he has access to mental health records, which I assumed means that he's accessing information not open to the public and then sharing confidential information with people.
I know that some mental health information is accessible to the public, such as that on pedophiles.
-
The fact that he was buying children expensive gifts and taking over night trips with them should have brought up some red flags.
Correct. This is stereotypical "grooming" activity.
And how does a guy that gets tossed out of the seminary for trying to perform a circuмcision on himself end up being a counselor of children?
There is a timeline issue here. It said that he was a counselor from 2003-2006 but got bounced from the seminary in 2005. So there was an overlap only at the end with this incident. Perhaps the seminary didn't put out the necessary "All Points Bulletin" to be "on the lookout" for this guy. While he may have been deemed mentally unstable, perhaps no one deemed him an actual threat to anyone else. There are many mentally unstable people (to varying degrees) who don't necessarily pose a threat to anyone else.
-
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?
-
Hollywood has a new film out about child abuse scandal in the church called Spotlight. Just in time for the holiday season, eh? :scratchchin:
-
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
-
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?
-
It's probably worded that way because WHERE ELSE would the faithful be????
-
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."
-
Instead of shunning novus ordo Catholics who are faced with infertility and don't have children shun these perverts which are in SSPX and the Catholic Church.
The faithful needs to wake up and stop worshipping bishops and other clergy and start worshipping God.
-
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.
-
Maybe ICC controls the Pacific Northwest news media? :rolleyes:
Nothing on this??? :tv-disturbed:
-
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.
-
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.
:applause: :cheers:
Good for you! They aren't to be trusted with your children. No church organization is trustworthy anymore.
-
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.
-
I do not believe the issue is fαɢɢօt priests, but how much diligence was shown by the priests in charge when they had:
(1) a "self-circuмcision" that led to seminary expulsion
and
(2) parental reports (even if the allegations were not "at the school or camp").
Doing the calculus, I tally ZERO diligence.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but my children are, body and soul, incalculably valuable.
-
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."
Did he circuмcise himself because he didn't learn about water baptism in his SSPX seminary formation? :jumping2:
-
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?
-
I know Kevin Sloniker very well. He is a relative of mine and I honestly believe he is mentlly unstable. I also believe the chirch had many opportunities to intervene amd turns a blind eye to abuse.
Perhaps no one on this forum knows but, Kevin's father is a very strict, highly abusive person. He had somethng like 13 children and he beat all of them; my mother watched Kevin be whipped with a horse whip once by his father. His mother contracted what I believe to be polio and his father wouldnt let her go to a hospital because it was Gods will and now she is wheelchair bound. This happened with his youngest son too who now walks with crutches. They were beat if they did not recieve holy communion every week.
Almost all the children now have serious issues and all of them behave abnormally due to their upbringing. However, as the father is very religious, the family (until this) was in good standing with the church.
Kevin went to the seminary and was kicked out but no one knew why. He tried to join the Army and was mysteriously rejected. He wondered and bounced around, always behaving strangely.
A family member of mine once woke up around 6 am to Kevin sitting at their kitchen table in the dark and he said hed been there for a few hours. He had literally just walked into their house while they were all asleep and just sat in the dark.
He had a prayer closet in his room with a whip and kneeler and he would flog himself. Later wecheard he used the whip on his victims.
Kevin never seemed to have an idea regarding normal social behavior was, probably due to neglect and abuse.
I hate Kevin for what hes done and Im sick thinking of him. But, the abuse and neglect was, I believe, widely known in the parish, and practically condoned. I believe his very strict Catholic upbringing pushed him to that place and no one intervened when he was young and vulnerable. I feel the SSPX largely neglects cases of female and child abuse .
I have even heard in person Father Crane, the priest in this case, give a sermon and FROM THE PULPIT shame a child for reporting physical abuse against his parents claiming the child was interested in entering foster care for the benefit of free college.
-
Dancing:
I feel the SSPX largely neglects cases of female and child abuse .
I have even heard in person Father Crane, the priest in this case, give a sermon and FROM THE PULPIT shame a child for reporting physical abuse against his parents claiming the child was interested in entering foster care for the benefit of free college.
I think we can come in behind Dancing, and confirm at least some of what he says. We know personally one of the sisters and the crippled brother. This Sloniker sister is one of the nicest, sweetest persons we have ever met. If not mistaken, she is presently taking care of her parents in their home, plus holding down a job of her own.
We have met the mother and father on one occasion. Yes, the mother is confined to a wheelchair.
She and her husband were in a nursing home together. A couple of years ago, the daughter, a kind, compassionate and self-sacrificing an individual, as one could ever meet, invited our "resistance" choir in Post Falls to that facility around Christmas time, in order to sing carols to those assembled in the day room. Her parents were present, and she organized the event particularly with her parent's enjoyment in mind.
The crippled brother is a fine person in his own right, as friendly and harmless an individual as we've ever known. The whole thing, as revealed by Dancing just makes us sadder and more depressed about it all. As I said, these are two of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet, and they are totally undeserving of the kind of upbringing which they had. It is one of those mysteries of suffering that most of us can not quite fathom.
I will have to agree 100% with Dancing, that "the SSPX neglects cases of female and child abuse."
By and large, at least at ICC in PF, the priests keep their distance from the people. They are available, most of the time, either only in the confessional or by private appointment. Otherwise, they keep their distance from the lowly lay rank and file. Most of them would probably not know what was going on among the people anyway.
In another post hereafter, I'll share another anecdote about SSPX abuse and neglect.
We know Fr. Crane too. From our association with him, what Dancing reports, we can easily believe that Father behaved just like the former describes.
-
I know Kevin Sloniker very well. He is a relative of mine and I honestly believe he is mentlly unstable. I also believe the chirch had many opportunities to intervene amd turns a blind eye to abuse.
Perhaps no one on this forum knows but, Kevin's father is a very strict, highly abusive person. He had somethng like 13 children and he beat all of them; my mother watched Kevin be whipped with a horse whip once by his father. His mother contracted what I believe to be polio and his father wouldnt let her go to a hospital because it was Gods will and now she is wheelchair bound. This happened with his youngest son too who now walks with crutches. They were beat if they did not recieve holy communion every week.
Almost all the children now have serious issues and all of them behave abnormally due to their upbringing. However, as the father is very religious, the family (until this) was in good standing with the church.
Kevin went to the seminary and was kicked out but no one knew why. He tried to join the Army and was mysteriously rejected. He wondered and bounced around, always behaving strangely.
A family member of mine once woke up around 6 am to Kevin sitting at their kitchen table in the dark and he said hed been there for a few hours. He had literally just walked into their house while they were all asleep and just sat in the dark.
He had a prayer closet in his room with a whip and kneeler and he would flog himself. Later wecheard he used the whip on his victims.
Kevin never seemed to have an idea regarding normal social behavior was, probably due to neglect and abuse.
I hate Kevin for what hes done and Im sick thinking of him. But, the abuse and neglect was, I believe, widely known in the parish, and practically condoned. I believe his very strict Catholic upbringing pushed him to that place and no one intervened when he was young and vulnerable. I feel the SSPX largely neglects cases of female and child abuse .
I have even heard in person Father Crane, the priest in this case, give a sermon and FROM THE PULPIT shame a child for reporting physical abuse against his parents claiming the child was interested in entering foster care for the benefit of free college.
We knew the family for years beginning in the early nineties. No one would have thought judging from appearances, which is why this came as such a shock. I know one of the daughters had tried her vocation in Carmel. This incident taught me a valuable lesson although it is now quite late in life to learn it - much truth to the old saying "Appearances are deceiving." Don't ever take families at face value no matter how pious they appear.
As for the priests at ICC, try finding one (unless, of course, you have oodles of money and are a big cash cow) when you need one.
There's no excuse for the irresponsible way this was handled by the SSPX. Apparently the SSPX isn't any different from the novus ordo - protecting their reputation at any and all costs.
-
Dancing Eggs, thank you for coming here and shedding more light on the background. It helped me to understand the situation better and the "why" of it.
-
Where was the children's mother while these beatings and denial of medical care was taking place?
Dancing Eggs you are quick to criticize the SSPX clergy. Did your mother call CPS and local law enforcement after watching the father beat his child with a horse whip? Did she try to seek custody of the children?
-
Tiffany I agree with you. There seems to be a huge effort to blame the priests but I don't understand what exactly is expected of them. What they hear in the confessional they can do nothing about. As for what they hear outside of the confessional, do people expect them to meddle in everyone's families and business? Because honestly that's what personally investigating or calling the police on every rumor they heard would amount to and if they did that, people would be complaining!! Those wanting to blame the clergy should take a moment to really think about that. What do they want parish life to look like in reality, in practice. Other than counseling those who ask for it, the priests aren't exactly public enforcers and they aren't meant to be.
The blame goes where it ought to go, the father and the mother. Perhaps there were friends and neighbors who saw and did nothing.
Of course this is all assuming Dancing Eggs' version is completely and objectively accurate.
-
I have even heard in person Father Crane, the priest in this case, give a sermon and FROM THE PULPIT shame a child for reporting physical abuse against his parents claiming the child was interested in entering foster care for the benefit of free college.
Good heavens, this frightens me so much!
We just received a LECTURE from Fr. Crane here in PHX this morning on how it is AGAINST Canon Law to not send your kids to Catholic school. He even mentioned that priests once refused the Sacraments to parents who did not send their children to the school.
I think the parents in Phoenix need to get together and demand an answer from Fr. Crane regarding his CULPABILITY in the debacle with Sloniker and the boys at ICC in Post Falls!
If, as the detective said, and the news reported, that a boy told Fr. Crane he did not want to go to camp because Sloniker had STRIPPED HIM NAKED AND HORSEWHIPPED HIM and Fr. Crane did not go to the police then Crane has a LOT to answer for!
-
I do send my kids to Catholic school. In our home.
-
BTW, his sentencing, related to the 7 charges, has been postponed until 10/28/2016.
-
And how is it that you would know any of the particulars regarding the Sloniker case and his actions at the parish?
-
And how is it that you would know any of the particulars regarding the Sloniker case and his actions at the parish?
Published articles give detailed facts and timelines of his whereabouts and involvement.
Case files are also available publicly.