This has just come to my attention:

Subject: AN OPEN LETTER: THE CURRENT SITUATION AT OXLEY

Dear Fr. Fullerton,

AN OPEN LETTER.

I am sending you this email as a matter of importance and urgency, regarding the current serious situation here in the Oxley parish in Brisbane.

As I am sure you know, over many months now, there have been a series of disruptions, disagreements, and upset parishioners, including recently myself, regarding the actions and behaviour of some priests here, particularly, but not solely, Fr. Taouk, and I feel it is both necessary and important to get this information to you ASAP, so that you may take the appropriate action, as it is getting very serious, and will only get worse.

I must stress that I am not the only complainant in these regards.

In recent times here we have had:

1. A choir member resign from the church choir due to a disagreement;

2. A couple recently withdraw their daughter from her first holy communion, and had her make it at another traditional Mass;

3. Around 50 parishioners very upset regarding the goings on here, and are going to traditional Masses in other areas, and withholding their donations.

4. Several people walking out during Fr. Taouk's Sunday "sermons," being very upset and even annoyed at what he was ranting on about, and not giving a sermon at all.

5. Other people being refused holy communion by Fr. Taouk, for no valid or legitimate reasons.

6. We have had adverse reports as to his behaviour from as far away as South Australia, so it is not just us.

In addition to these events, I personally have apparently been made the target/scapegoat of Fr. Taouk's psychopathic reactions to these events, and was called out of the Church by him before Mass last Monday morning, when I was half-way through my Rosary, which I like to pray before Mass during the week. He started to rant and rave about my leaving the church during his "sermon" the day before (Sunday) and said he would refuse me Holy Communion.When I asked him on what grounds, he did not have an answer. He insisted I apologise to him. I asked him what for, as I had done nothing wrong, and he said for walking out. I pointed out that I was only one of several who went out when he started to rant about the "Resistance" and "nit-picking" et al, and that it wasn't a sermon at all. He said he would refuse me holy communion, and would not allow me back into the church until I apologised to him. Again I asked him what for, as I had done nothing wrong. I pointed out that I was half-way through my Rosary, when he waved his arm and said, "go and say your Rosary somewhere else."

When I went to go towards the door to re-enter, and continue with my Rosary, he assaulted me and pushed me away - twice - and then when I then reached over to take hold of the door handle to open it, he physically brushed my hand away. I pointed out to him that he had assaulted me, and that I felt he had a psychological problem, and that he might consider getting himself seen to, as I had done nothing wrong. I simply want to pray my Rosary, hear Mass and receive holy communion. I have a witness who saw and heard what was going on.

Later that day, those who were aware of his assault on me advised me that they thought it was so serious that I should report it to the Police, so after much thought, I went over the the Sherwood Police and made a report. I understand that the Police will be visiting Fr. Taouk soon, if they haven't done so already. That was Sunday afternoon.

I waited outside on Monday morning until he went in and dressed for Mass and went up to the altar, then went back in to the Church to where I had left my Missal when he called me out, and completed my Rosary and heard Mass. Following his ranting, I did not want to upset him any more, so I did not go up the receive holy communion, as he said he would refuse me anyway. That was Monday.

Last evening -Tuesday - I went and heard Mass at another suburb. The priest had no problem administering holy communion to me.

This morning (Wednesday) I went to the 7.30 am Mass again, and said my Rosary in the usual manner privately before Mass. Come Holy communion, I thought he would be over his bad mood by then, and I went up and knelt at the altar rails, and Fr. Taouk had obviously instructed the altar "boy" John Massey, who I know, to by-pass me with the communion plate, and he would not give me holy communion. Twice he by-passed me with his communion. I stayed and prayed the rest of the Mass at the communion rails, then came back to my seat and prayed another Rosary.

When I finally left the Church to come home, he was waiting for me out at the front, and approached me again, and started up his ranting again, insisting that I apologise to him. I said that there was nothing to apologise for, and he wanted a guarantee from me that I would not walk out on his "sermons" again. I said that no, I couldn't give such a guarantee, as it would not be right, that I was perfectly within my rights, and that they weren't sermons anyway, they were rantings, and that he was obviously paranoid on Sunday about the fact that here was an independent Mass being celebrated on the Sunday evening elsewhere. He had previously had two "spies" go over there, sneaking around in the dark, and take numbers and count heads and report back to him. (This is Catholic?)

I told him:

(a) I could not give such a guarantee, as it would be out of order,

(b) that there were several others who walked out also;

(c) that he should be apologising to me, for assaulting me.

(d) that he wasn't giving a sermon anyway, it was repetitive ranting about the Resistance, and what he called "nit-picking." Nothing to do with a sermon.

I also told him that I had reported the incident to the Police on the Sunday, which I did, to the Sherwood Police.

He then threatened to take out a restraining order on me, prohibiting me from entering church premises. I asked him on what grounds, he couldn't tell me. I asked him if he had any idea as to how much I and many others had contributed to the society over many years to buy and renovate the church. He said "I don't care." This shows total irresponsibility. Again I suggested to him that he had a problem, and that he should go and get himself looked at. I suggested that he consider applying for a transfer, and that I understood that Outer Mongolia was nice this time of the year!

I told him that I had to go to the toilet, and left, as it was going nowhere.

I ask that you do something urgently Father, as it is going from bad to worse, and the number of people going to the alternate Masses is steadily growing, and it is none of my doing. Move him out of here, before the court case.

I suggest that he might consider eating a Valium sandwich before he approaches me again.

I pray that at least some of you will see the light, before the total collapse of the SSPX. As you know, dozens of priests have left the SSPX, and it is getting itself into serious trouble.

Thank God for Abp. Lefebvre.

Sincerely

Brian McDermott

On behalf of myself, and many other concerned Traditional Catholics.

Apparently, Fr. Taouk is a nut.  Priests can go off their rockers tool.  The Immaculate Conception Church here in Post Falls has a priest who, some believe, is a bit unbalanced.  He was involved somehow in incidents which brought the police out to the priory at least twice in the past.  I think, actually, there was a third such incident, but can't verify that.  On one of these occasions, I happened to be present and witnessed part of it.

Are you at liberty to state the nature of these incidents at Post Falls, hollingsworth? Thanks. All this is very disturbing, indeed.

No, I am not.  But rest assured these incidents occurred.

Yikes!

If this information is false, this is a most grave slander.

If this information is true, this is a most grave detraction.

What benefit has your soul gained by posting this?

Do we really need to yet again post the definition of "detraction" here?  Clearly this is NOT detraction.

Clearly, you don't know what detraction is.

So yes, it would be good to post the definition once again:

(From Latin detrahere, to take away).

"Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Zeitun

Do we really need to yet again post the definition of "detraction" here?  Clearly this is NOT detraction.

Clearly, you don't know what detraction is.

So yes, it would be good to post the definition once again:

(From Latin detrahere, to take away).

"Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

You forgot this part:

Quote

Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit.

ZING!

Nope:

It is now for you to demonstrate how revelation of this (alleged) incident was necessary for the protection of the common good (Noting that the ramifications of the alleged incident had no further implications than those at this particular parish).

"...or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator..."

If this is the part you are saying exonerates the OP from detraction, then you might have a point, presuming the post was made with the intent of regaining access to the sacraments (i.e., "the good of the narrator"), rather than venting anger simply to tell the world about what allegedly happened.

I thought that was evident.  

I don't like the language used in the letter (is it an "Aussie" thing?).

Fr. Taouk's paranoid bullying tactics are the same as those undertaken by the Novus Ordo clergy since the 1960's. He should instead preach truth and imbibe the scriptural wisdom:


 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:38-39)

I haven't seen any be refused communion at the mass celebrated in the Novus Ordo for a long time. (more than 30 years)