CathInfo.com

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.

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.

 

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?