Author Topic: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case  (Read 5412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Carissima

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
  • Reputation: +456/-214
  • Gender: Female
Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2021, 11:53:29 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 2)  It's all about you then, Carissima, isn't it?  Not about scores, maybe hundreds, of sspx youngsters who have been victimized by sspx priests.  Not about sspx leaders who have covered up for these priests.
    What makes it all about me? Because I attend Mass and receive valid Sacraments from priests of the SSPX? Am I supposed to boycott the priest God has sent me because there are corrupt priests in the same organization he is a part of? Am I culpable for the bad things that happened to victims of evil Shepards?
    I have said it here before, I don’t leave my children alone with priests, and I have never had an inappropriate friendship with any priest, so therefore being a victim of one myself, or my children, would be much more unlikely. In many of the SSPX abuse cases presented, these were the fatal flaws and why there were victims of these predators in the first place.
    If I left my child alone with a family member that victimized them, I would first blame myself. As their parent and guardian it is natural to do so. These people instead blame an ‘organization’, and more than likely, for the potential financial compensations available from litigation against them, or to join in the continued smear campaign against the Catholic Church and Her prelates. 

    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11385
    • Reputation: +3112/-582
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #31 on: February 27, 2021, 07:59:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Most of us called BS on Kauffman's story for the same reasons described here, the nonsensical insanity about Fr. having a key and regularly assaulting her against her will while she didn't take even the slightest measures to make it stop.

    This actually underscores that, despite Voris' recent endorsement of the #metoo movement, where every single allegation is treated as truth, sometimes people make crap up and cause damage.  Although Arzuaga appears to have sinned against his vow of chastity, a consensual affair and rape are two different matters, and the SSPX was wrongly smeared for "ignoring" rapes.

    Was a year of penance a "slap on the wrist"?  Not sure, since we don't know all the details.  I probably would have suspended him from ministry for longer than that.  But it's not as if nothing was done.
    No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not.  And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too.  Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators.   The year vacation doesn’t work.   Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood.  Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.  
    After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.  




    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)


    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11385
    • Reputation: +3112/-582
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #32 on: February 27, 2021, 08:12:50 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • No. You boycott the priest who is in state of mortal sin.  You write letters and emails until the bad priest is removed. 

    Many good men left seminaries to have families because many seminaries and schools were loaded with sodomites. Sodomites are ruling the world. 

    History is repeating itself.  Remaining and silent to mortal is why the Church is in crisis.  
    You shouldn’t receive sacraments, if you don’t stand up against the mortal sin within any religious order or dioceses or your own parish or diocese. 

    Who loves the masks?  Sodomites.   Who is getting a kickback for the jabs?  Sodomites.  Who worships themselves and mudder earth? Sodomites.  Who closes Churches and schools? Sodomites.  

    Vatican is sodomite city.  The Sspx was too quick to join the seat of the one of the anti christs who worships mudder earth.  

    We need more manly priests like late Father John Oconner who defended the faith in the 1980s. 






    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7350
    • Reputation: +7296/-680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #33 on: February 27, 2021, 09:04:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the SSPX truly wants their faithful’s spiritual & financial support, then Fr. Pagliarani should be pressured into presenting an annual, “State of the Society” report.

    This would include open discussions on relations with Rome, financial resources and priestly assignments.

    The SSPX has operated for decades like a black-ops corporation.

    It is not the Church and it IS accountable to it’s remnant Catholic flock.

    Too often, SSPX scandals, like zionist lawyers starting shell corporations or sɛҳuąƖ improprieties come out through rumors which have to be investigated by Resistance trads in order to bring sunshine onto the occurrences & accusations.

    In most cases problems do exist and the SSPX’s initial response is to sweep it under the rug.

    Disgression in most cases is reasonable.

    But gone are the days when an  SSPX superior can say, “Stay off the internet”. OR “I don’t have answer you, because my grace of state allows me to make an independent decision” (Fr. Griego).

    We understand that the SSPX is founded from an “Old World” culture, but Catholics don’t have to accept their old world arrogance and abuse of power.

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Online Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 661
    • Reputation: +456/-214
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #34 on: February 27, 2021, 10:06:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not.  And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too.  Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators.   The year vacation doesn’t work.   Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood.  Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.  
    After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.  
    Agree 100%
    There is no excuse these priests that offend so grievously are still in business anywhere in the world. Whether they offend on purpose, or by weakness. 
    And it is a grave failure on the part of the Superiors of the SSPX to not remove and defrock these wicked men.
    Those Superiors are either worldly priests and bishops suffering from human respect for there confreres, or, they are infiltrators that work for Satan. Probably a mixture of both. 
    Other Catholic organizations are suffering under the same disorders as well. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26868
    • Reputation: +15388/-3945
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #35 on: February 27, 2021, 10:27:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not.

    You're acting as if this is a punishment for the priest.  Well, the priesthood isn't given to the individual for his own glory, but for the good of the faithful.  It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual.  As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26868
    • Reputation: +15388/-3945
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #36 on: February 27, 2021, 10:28:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators. 

    And you stop the calumny.  This Kauffman woman was involved in a consensual situation.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26868
    • Reputation: +15388/-3945
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #37 on: February 27, 2021, 10:32:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No. A priest who breaks his vow or promise should be removed consensual or not.  And clergy who protected and knew should be removed too.  Stop with protecting these sɛҳuąƖ predators.   The year vacation doesn’t work.   Instead of watching them like a hawk, they should defrock these perverts because they were unfit for the priesthood.  Most sɛҳuąƖ predators will never repent and stop sinning.  
    After watching Father John Oconner video, it seems that traditional Catholic groups are in mortal sin of sơdơmy starting with the seminary as it is with novus Ordo and before novus Ordo.  

    What are you babbling about anyway?  You're conflating about a half dozen things here.  Arzuaga wasn't accused of sơdơmy.  sơdơmy does in fact immєdιαtely disqualify from the priesthood.  I mentioned that we don't know all the details, but this was not necessarily an act of predation, since Kauffman appears to have been a willing accomplice in the sin.  I'm stating a principle that it's never been the practice of the Church to remove a priest for even an isolated sin against his vow of chastity.

    Of course, you also use the word "remove" ambiguously.  He can be "removed" from public ministry and then "removed" from the priesthood, i.e. defrocked.  If the deeds are public, he should certainly be removed from public ministry due to scandal and sent away to a monastery, but should not necessarily and automatically be removed from the priesthood.  Other considerations could factor in of course.  If the danger of recidivism is high, or if there were aggravating circuмstances where the act would constitute rape or predatory behavior or some other details.



    Online Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 661
    • Reputation: +456/-214
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #38 on: February 27, 2021, 10:36:13 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual.  As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.
    For the sake of the Church suffering under its current persecution at this time, shouldn't these offending priests at least be taken out of public service to the Faithful, retire and say Masses privately? 

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2587
    • Reputation: +2726/-437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #39 on: February 27, 2021, 06:59:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Quote
    It's never been a practice of the Church to suspend a priest even after a single grave sin against his vow of chastity ... provided it's heterosɛҳuąƖ and consensual.  As I noted, it's different in the case of a repeat offender, but the principle that a priest should be removed after even an isolated incident isn't indicated by Church law.



    Part of what you say may be true about heterosɛҳuąƖ, consensual affairs adjudicated under Church law. I’m not a church historian or canon lawyer, so I can’t firmly refute your contention. But let’s be clear, we’re not talking about “a single grave sin against (the) vow of chastity.” In the cases of Frs. Arzuaga and Van Der Putten, we’re certainly not talking about that. They are accused of committing multiple grave sins against chastity. Hardly “isolated incident(s).” Hardly single, unrepeated events.

    Since April 20, 2020, Church Militant has filed at least 30 special reports on sɛҳuąƖ perversion and pedophilia, committed by priests in the Society. Reported incidents go back to the eighties if I’m not mistaken. Again, if not mistaken, not one of those CM videos or written reports describe a one off. They all treat of multiple instances of priest perversion- some stretching over years.

    These same CM articles and videos suggest that the hierarchy of the SSPX fails to act against offending priests. They fail in many instances even to discipline them, much less, remove them from the priesthood.
    If CM has slandered and wrongly calumniated the Society’s good name, over and over again since April, then Superior General Pagliarani and Bp. Fellay have every right to sue and take CM to a court of law. But, to my knowledge, that has not happened. The SSPX is a pretty litigious bunch historically. They’ve not been shy in the past about going to court. Why not now?


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2587
    • Reputation: +2726/-437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #40 on: March 01, 2021, 06:53:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some of you may wonder where my topic on Fr. Ramon Angles went.  Matthew informs us that Google stepped in and issued a warning about it, apparently.  Googe said the topic was "dangerous and derogatory."  Subsequently, for whatever motive, Matthew removed the topic from the CI mainstream, and placed it in sub-forum. Good luck to a lot of you in trying to find it.

    I will add here a link to yet another another article on Church Militant.  This article highlights SSPX's refusal to investigate the checkered history of Fr. Pierre Duverger,  who is currently stationed in Sanford, FL.; and is an assistant to the prior of that chapel.  He is, also, I believe, the principal of the boys' academy there.

    SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com)


    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7350
    • Reputation: +7296/-680
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #41 on: March 02, 2021, 09:03:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some of you may wonder where my topic on Fr. Ramon Angles went.  Matthew informs us that Google stepped in and issued a warning about it, apparently.  Googe said the topic was "dangerous and derogatory."  Subsequently, for whatever motive, Matthew removed the topic from the CI mainstream, and placed it in sub-forum. Good luck to a lot of you in trying to find it.

    I will add here a link to yet another another article on Church Militant.  This article highlights SSPX's refusal to investigate the checkered history of Fr. Pierre Duverger,  who is currently stationed in Sanford, FL.; and is an assistant to the prior of that chapel.  He is, also, I believe, the principal of the boys' academy there.

    SSPX Priest Dogged by French Sex Scandal (churchmilitant.com)
    Wow! 
    Father Angles has helpers in high places  :popcorn:
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2587
    • Reputation: +2726/-437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #42 on: March 03, 2021, 01:35:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Incred: Wow!

    Hi Incred.  I'm interested in your "Wow!"  Does that mean Wow!, perhaps, because you had never heard of Fr. Duverger and his alleged predations, and are surprised to learn of them now?  Or, perhaps, you were not aware this priest is still a priest in good standing with SPPX in Sanford, FL? Or, do you mean Wow! for some other reason?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 26868
    • Reputation: +15388/-3945
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #43 on: March 03, 2021, 01:55:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow!
    Father Angles has helpers in high places  :popcorn:

    Hey, I think it was your post that did it, Incred.   :laugh1:  Google's Judaien-filter spotted it immєdιαtely.

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2587
    • Reputation: +2726/-437
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Backpedals on Kauffman Case
    « Reply #44 on: March 05, 2021, 12:19:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The fact is, both well known SSPX priests, Fr. Ramon Angles and Fr. Pierre Duverger, are still in active ministry with the Society.  Angles is the top Canon law adviser to SSPX.  Duverger is an assistant to the prior in Sanford, FL and the principal of the boy's academy there. Why is this?
    Maybe it's time for Bishop Williamson to weigh in with comments.