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.  

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.

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?

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 

Wow!
Father Angles has helpers in high places  

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