-
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/05/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/
Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, ordains a priest during a 2009 ceremony in Econe, Switzerland. (Credit: CNS photo/Denis Balibouse, Reuters.)
An explosive report airing tonight on Swedish television charges that the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X knew about at least three cases of its priests being accused of sɛҳuąƖly abusing minors, but failed to enforce a 'zero tolerance' policy. An alleged victim told Crux he believes the Vatican should have done more to hold the society accountable.
ROME - A major report airing tonight on Swedish television docuмents four clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse cases, with previously unknown details on three of them, within the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist breakaway group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
At the center of the report are four different men. Three are priests, who remain in active ministry, and one is a former seminarian and volunteer at a church run by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Idaho who’s been sentenced to life in prison (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2016/oct/28/cda-trucker-gets-life-abusing-boys/) after being found guilty of abusing seven boys over the course of a decade.
They allegedly have abused at least 12 minors over the span of three decades, in France, Germany, Australia, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
The report comes out just a day after the Vatican announced, with Pope Francis’s approval, that priests belonging to the traditionalist society, which currently has no legal standing within the Catholic Church, will be able to celebrate sacramentally valid marriages (https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/04/04/pope-francis-offers-way-recognize-marriages-traditionalist-group/).
Since its inception in 1970, the SSPX has been a lightning rod in the life of the Catholic Church. It’s seen in a favorable light by some Catholics who harbor reservations about the liberalizing reforms unleashed by Vatican II (1962-65), but as retrograde and dangerous by others who object to its hard-line positions on matters such as ecuмenism, inter-faith dialogue, religious freedom, and liturgical reform.
Some have also accused the SSPX of turning a blind eye to prejudices the Church has made strenuous efforts in recent decades to combat, including anti-Semitism.
Beginning with Pope Paul VI in the 1970s, every pope has made efforts to reach out to the Society and try to re-integrate it into the Church, seeing healing schism as a time-honored papal priority.
Most recently under Pope Francis, a hypothesis has been floated that the group might be brought back into the fold through the canonical structure of a personal prelature, which is currently held only by Opus Dei. That possibility had been suggested under emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.
It’s not clear whether the new revelations will set back those reunion efforts. In any event, they raise questions about the extent to which the society is committed to the fight against clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse, which has become a defining cause of both recent popes and also the Catholic Church around the world.
The Catholic Church today vows to respect a policy of “zero tolerance” with respect to both abusive priests and also bishops who engage in cover-ups.
(Producers of the Swedish program interviewed a variety of commentators and reporters on Catholic affairs. This reporter was among those interviewed, speaking not on the abuse allegations but the general situation of the SSPX and the Church.)
A source who claims to be a victim of one of the three priests featured in the Swedish TV report spoke with Crux on Monday night, on the condition of anonymity. He said that if he could speak to the Vatican department in charge of negotiations with the SSPX, he would tell them that they are being “irresponsible and hypocritical, in the sense that they [members of the Vatican department] know full well about these stories.”
That department is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), headed by German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, which includes a commission called Ecclesia Dei, responsible for outreach to the traditionalist body. Though officially headed by Müller, the commission is run on a day-to-day basis by Italian Archbishop Guido Pozzo.
The CDF is also the Vatican department with lead responsibility for handling cases of clerical sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
As things stand, however, the Vatican’s influence over the SSPX is extremely limited. Father Eduardo Baura, a professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, told Crux that Rome has a “moral obligation to ask, demand, for something to be done, for the priest to be removed from ministry,” when accusations of abuse surface.
“But it has no legal power, because the SSPX doesn’t recognize the Vatican’s authority,” Baura said.
The 37-year-old survivor spoke with Crux over the phone, using the pseudonym “Andre,” the name which the makers of the program Uppdrag Granskning, produced by Sveriges Television, also employed.
Andre said that although he has little faith in the CDF, he also has no reason to believe Francis knows about the cases of sɛҳuąƖ abuse within the society.
Producers divided their research into two episodes, one of which will air tonight (Wednesday), the second one next week. The second episode deals with the case of the former seminarian, Kevin Gerard Sloniker, who is today in prison.
Producers decided to omit the names of the priests, since they have not been found guilty by any civil court, identifying them as Father P, Father S and Father M. Two of those priests, P and S, reportedly have left the SSPX to join a splinter group led by British Bishop Richard Williamson, who, in 2009, gave an interview to the same Swedish program in which he cast doubt on the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Williamson was later expelled from the Society and founded his own group, popularly referred to as “the Resistance.”
P is identified as a French cleric, first accused of sɛҳuąƖly abusing a minor in the 1980s. Uppdrag Granskning spoke to Andre about him, the abuse he says he endured at his hands, and efforts made by the SSPX to cover-up for the cleric.
In the program, Andre shares a secretly recorded conversation between him and a man identified as Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, today First Assistant to Swiss Bishop Bernard Fellay, who heads the SSPX. Pfluger’s position is considered the second most important within the society.
The recording reveals that the society knew P abused at least two other minors from 1987-1990, and that he was transferred from one parish to another.
Andre said his family did not report his own abuse to civil authorities.
“I think they should have done so, however … They did not, no,” Andre said. “I think it was because of the fear of going against the SSPX.”
That decision not to report the abuse is a pattern found in all three cases.
“ to shake things up. [I’ve began doing so] back in 2005.” he told Crux. “I first complained about that priest just a few years after the abuse, in 1991, and then didn’t hear back about him for many, many years.”
In the recordings, Pfluger reads fragments from letters showing that P had been found guilty of sɛҳuąƖ abuse and banned from ministry, particularly with children. Yet that sentence, he conceded, was never enforced.
“The major error on our part is rather why we did not implement it,” Pfluger says on the tape. “That’s precisely the problem. Father [Franz] Schmidberger changed his mind. That’s the problem.”
Schmidberger was the first successor of Lefebvre as head of the SSPX, and is currently the rector of the SSPX seminary in Germany. It was to him that Andre first wrote denouncing the abuses. In response, both he and his family were promised P would no longer be allowed to work with children.
Later in the tape, Pfluger is heard saying that his superiors repeatedly told P he was no longer allowed to minister to children, but “he did not believe it and continued.”
Twelve years ago, Fellay reportedly allowed P to organize camping trips for children, and it was a flyer about those trips that alerted Andre of the fact that he was still in contact with minors, despite the assurances given to his family.
When Andre wrote to Fellay expressing outrage, the bishop sent Pfluger to talk to Andre. It was that conversation he recorded, which allowed for the events to be reconstructed.
(https://cruxnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CDF-letter-on-Father-P-398x555.jpg)Letter from the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith obtained by Uppdrag Granskning, regarding the case of the man being identified as Father P. (Credit: Courtesy of Uppdrag Granskning.)
[color][size][font][font]
Docuмentation from the CDF, and revealed by the Swedish TV program, shows that the Vatican knew about the case and instructed Fellay to subject the accused priest to a canonical trial.
That decision, Andre said, is one reason he doesn’t “feel good about the Vatican.” He told Crux that it “makes no sense to me” that they would entrust the trial to the SSPX.
“They gave a mandate to Bishop Fellay to judge the man he’d covered up for,” he said.
P eventually was found guilty by the SSPX trial and transferred to the Maison Notre-Dame de Montgardin in the French Alps. It’s allegedly a retreat home, but critics say it doubles as a “golden jail,” where the priests found guilty of sɛҳuąƖly abusing minors are sent to lead a life of “penitence and prayer.”
P refused to go, and, according to officials of the SSPX, he joined Williamson’s Resistance in 2014. Yet the Uppdrag Granskning program obtained pictures from as recently as 2015 that prove P took part in priestly ordinations of the Society held in Econe, Switzerland.
A second priest featured in the investigation, called M, was found by producers in Paris, where he’s stationed now, and Montgardin in the French Alps, where he’d been sent by the society when it was determined that he had engaged in what the SSPX described as “immature conduct” around children while stationed in Australia.
Before being sent to Montgardin, M had also served in Ireland, and the Swedish program presents a letter from a mother of one the children under his care there. She wrote that she didn’t know about actual abuses, but only “grooming” of at least one boy and one girl.
“I heard this from a priest who wished to warn me to keep my children away from the camps” under M’s care, the mother said.
In the letter, the mother also wrote about a rumor as to why the priest was hastily moved to Montgardin.
“He had been moved for molesting young boys,” she wrote. “This last information actually came from Germany.”
M is currently ministering in Paris. The SSPX reportedly denies that the case involves sɛҳuąƖ abuse, yet they have declined to explain what was meant by the reference to “immature conduct,” or why he spent two years in the society’s retreat house in the Alps.
S, an Englishman, was accused of sɛҳuąƖly abusing at least one boy in 2006 while stationed in Mulhouse in France. Reportedly, he was tried by the SSPX, found guilty, and barred from ministry. That same year he was transferred to a residence owned by the society in Bristol, and then to London in 2012.
S reportedly underwent years of therapy and counseling, until, in 2014, he left the SSPX to join the Resistance. He currently lives with Williamson in the coastal town of Broadstairs, some 80 miles from London. He’s once again in active ministry, and there are pictures of him celebrating Mass for this splinter group in Ireland and England.
The program airing tonight shows footage of Jean-Michel Faure, who was ordained a bishop by Williamson in 2015. In it, he’s asked about S.
“Of course, you must have no endangerment, you must not put anyone, any soul in danger,” Faure says. “If these precautions are taken, then you may try to save the soul of this priest.”
Among other questions raised by the Swedish TV report, the revelations may suggest yet another stumbling block to reconciliation between the Vatican and the SSPX, beyond well-known magisterial matters.
Observers may also wonder if the society will be willing to accept, and implement, the “zero tolerance” protocols now considered mandatory by the Catholic Church in the fight against child sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
Editor’s Note: This article is one of two on the report by Uppdrag Granskning. A second, exploring Pope Francis’s attempts to bring the Society of Pius X into full communion with Rome, will be published tomorrow.[/font][/font][/size][/color]
-
Wait a minute. This says that there are two pedophile priests who are with Bishop Williamson. What the hell! And then there is Tethrow with Father Pfeiffer. What the hell! Is there any truth to this?
-
Fr S must be Fr Abraham.
No idea who the other 2 are.
-
Wait a minute. This says that there are two pedophile priests who are with Bishop Williamson. What the hell! And then there is Tethrow with Father Pfeiffer. What the hell! Is there any truth to this?
Well I don't know about this French "Father P" but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Fr. Stephen Abraham was with Bp. W.
I'm not sure if we're supposed to talk about it, though.
-
Centro,. Which side are you on? Why on earth would you want to publicize this vile article? You are encouraging calumny and detraction.
-
Maybe there is a reason for this to be aired. There are interests who want to interfere with a reconciliation;
Perhaps not coincidentally, the same Swedish television program, Uppdrag Granskning, had broadcast an explosive interview with Bishop Richard Williamson in 2009, just after Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunication of SSPX prelates. In that interview Bishop Williamson (who has since split with the SSPX) voiced his doubts about the reality of the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31222
-
Maybe there is a reason for this to be aired. There are interests who want to interfere with a reconciliation;
Perhaps not coincidentally, the same Swedish television program, Uppdrag Granskning, had broadcast an explosive interview with Bishop Richard Williamson in 2009, just after Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunication of SSPX prelates. In that interview Bishop Williamson (who has since split with the SSPX) voiced his doubts about the reality of the h0Ɩ0cαųst.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=31222
You would not be so smug if you were sɛҳuąƖly assaulted.
-
Accessory to Another’s Sin
I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done
-
This is an awful article if true. I have faith that Bishop Williamson will clarify the statements against him.
But strategically, I am having a problem understanding if the Jєωs want the SSPX under Rome or out of it- there is a reason this article came out after the "marriage debacle." There must be zio-factions infighting.
-
The Guardian is running the story:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/catholic-sspx-resistance-uk-harbours-clergy-accused-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-richard-williamson
A British Catholic priest who has been excommunicated twice by different popes is allegedly harbouring clergy accused of sɛҳuąƖ abuse in his renegade religious order.
Richard Williamson, who was illicitly ordained as a bishop in 1988 by an ultra-conservative group, the Society of St Pius X (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/29/traditionalist-catholics-pope-francis-painful-confusion) (SSPX), and later convicted of h0Ɩ0cαųst denial by a German court, is now head of the “SSPX Resistance”, based in Broadstairs, Kent.
Two Catholic SSPX priests who have been accused of sɛҳuąƖ abuse have found a refuge in Williamson’s breakaway movement, according to an investigative docuмentary to be aired on Swedish television on Wednesday.
The Golden Jail, made by Ali Fegan, a Swedish journalist whose interview with Williamson about his h0Ɩ0cαųst denial (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jan/22/catholicism-schism-h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial) was broadcast in 2009, claims that the SSPX protected priests and failed to report claims of abuse to the police or civil authorities. Internal canonical trials of two men – one French, one English – were allegedly conducted with Vatican approval.
The English priest, referred to as Father S, left the SSPX before the conclusion of the trial to join the SSPX Resistance in 2014, going to live in Broadstairs. He declined to speak to the docuмentary team.
The French priest, Father P, was found guilty and banned from working with children. He joined the SSPX Resistance, and was filmed celebrating mass at a church in Bordeaux last November. He also refused to discuss allegations against him with the TV journalists.
Williamson’s movement, also known as Respice Stellam, describes itself (https://respicestellam.wordpress.com/about/) as “a group of traditional Catholics who wish to practise their faith without compromise to liberalism or modernism”. It says reforms over recent decades have “contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the sacrifice of the mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life.”
More than 100 former SSPX priests around the world have joined the renegade order, according to the docuмentary. Its headquarters is in a detached property in Broadstairs, named Regina Martyrum House, with a statue of the Virgin Mary in the front garden.
Members of the UK branch of SSPX Resistance celebrate mass each Sunday in a hired room in Earlsfield public library in south London, which recently put on a display of books for h0Ɩ0cαųst Memorial Day. A spokesperson for GLL, which manages the library, said: “The hall booking is with the Stella Maris Mass Fund – which is a registered charity.” The booking had been running since January 2015 with no problems reported, the spokesperson said.
Mass is also celebrated by the group in Bingley, West Yorkshire, and Liverpool.
The SSPX confirmed that Father S and Father P were accused of sɛҳuąƖ abuse when priests in the order, that canonical trials were held, and that both men later joined the SSPX Resistance.
In the case of Father S, an allegation of sɛҳuąƖ abuse was reported to civil authorities in France where he was based at the time, the order said. The SSPX moved Father S to Bristol, where he had therapy for several years. The civil authorities closed the case without further action, according to SSPX. His canonical trial was still in process when the priest left the order to join Williamson’s group.
Father P was found guilty and forbidden to work with children, although permitted to celebrate mass. The families of his alleged victims said they did not wish a complaint to be made to the civil authorities.
“The SSPX, under no legal obligation to report at that time, chose to respect the wishes of these parents,” said the SSPX statement. An alleged victim did make a complaint 25 years later to the police, who are currently investigating, it said, adding: “A number of our priests are cooperating.
Williamson, who did not respond to Fegan’s or the Guardian’s requests for comment on the allegations regarding the two priests, has a turbulent history in the Catholic church.
The son of an Anglican vicar, he was educated at Winchester College and Cambridge, and later converted to Catholicism. He joined the SSPX, which was highly critical of what it saw as a moral and theological crisis in the church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/oct/11/second-vatical-council-50-years-catholicism) in the 1960s, which sought to make Catholicism more relevant to the modern world.
In 1988, Williamson was one of four SSPX priests ordained as bishops by the SSPX founder, archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, against the orders of Pope John Paul II (https://www.theguardian.com/world/popejohnpaul2). All four were instantly excommunicated.
But in January 2009, the excommunication was reversed by Pope Benedict XVI (https://www.theguardian.com/world/pope-benedict-xvi) in an attempt at reconciliation with the order. Three days earlier, in a filmed interview with Fegan, Williamson insisted that no Jєωs were killed in nαzι gas chambers. The Vatican said it had not known of Williamson’s h0Ɩ0cαųst denial when it lifted the excommunication.
The move came under fire from Jєωιѕн groups and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. In February 2009, a German court fined Williamson €12,000 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/26/british-bishop-h0Ɩ0cαųst-fine) after convicting him of h0Ɩ0cαųst denial. In 2014 the conviction was upheld (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/179663) on appeal but the fine reduced to €1,600.
The Vatican’s rapprochement with SSPX has continued under Pope Francis, who this week paved the way for recognition of marriages (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/04/04/pope-francis-paves-way-for-recognition-of-sspx-marriages/) conducted by the order’s priests.
In 2012, Williamson was expelled from SSPX, allegedly for failing to show respect and obedience. He immediately called for a Catholic “resistance”.
Two years ago, Williamson ordained without papal approval another former SSPX priest (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/h0Ɩ0cαųst-denying-bishop-consecrate-bishop-without-pope-consent), Jean-Michel Faure, as a bishop at a ceremony in Brazil. Both Williamson and Faure were excommunicated by the Vatican.
In an email to his supporters around the time of the illicit ordination, Williamson said the “nightingale’s nest” of the Catholic church had been occupied by “modernist cuckoos”.
“Wherever the remainder of the true nightingales are visibly gathered, in whatever makeshift nest, they are in the church, they are the true visible church, and their beautiful song testifies to anyone who has ears to hear that the cuckoos are nothing but cuckoos who have stolen the catholic nest which they presently occupy,” he wrote.
-
Here's a better source article from Sweden I found on google:
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/new-cover-ups-of-assaults-by-catholic-priests
The Swedish reporting team found the priest, Fr. "P" in Bordeaux and confronted him, photo included.
Still works with children
The SSPX Resistance unites over 100 priests around the world. They quickly gained many followers in France. The Society’s priests hold mass regularly in about 20 locations. Uppdrag granskning found Father P in a rural community outside Bordeaux after a well-attended mass. The congregation consists of about 40 adults, 20 children and six choirboys. Four of the choirboys look to be about six or seven years old. And the priest clearly demonstrates that he doesn’t want to answer any questions.
“Go away, go away, there is nothing for you here. Get out of this building. Get out of here. This is private land! Go away!” Father P says.
-
Took some digging, but I found the 58 minute Swedish television docuмentary, so you can watch it.
It is in Swedish, but it has English subtitles:
https://www.svtplay.se/video/13177559/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-13-2?start=auto
-
How can anyone calling themselves Catholics believe the lies of the vile media run by anti-Catholic liberals and not question everything they say. It is almost as if you want to believe the worst. God help you for your lack of Charity and sense of Justice.
-
How can anyone calling themselves Catholics believe the lies of the vile media run by anti-Catholic liberals and not question everything they say. It is almost as if you want to believe the worst. God help you for your lack of Charity and sense of Justice.
Do you have any evidence for the accusation that in this case the media is lying? Or are you just saying they lie often but you don't know if this story is true or lies? Or are you just saying they are lies because it makes the resistance look bad?
-
Cebu, I don't know what world you're living in, but here in this one there really are pedophile priests. The Novus Ordo is crawling with them, though they are keeping a much lower profile in recent years because of the outcry. What makes you think that the SSPX or the Resitance would be granted complete immunity from these predators? (If your neighbor complains of rats overrunning his residence, it might behoove you to investigate your own for signs of encroachment.) These perverts need to be brought to light, and if there have been NO style cover-ups, they must come to a screeching halt. If they aren't to be defrocked entirely, well then send them to somewhere similar to Papa Stronsay-and they can just stay there in prayer and penance with no return ticket. Either way, they shouldn't be protected and allowed around the faithful for any reason. And with all the black-eyes the resistance already has, the last thing we need is the accusation that our bishops are keeping pet pedos. Just sayin...
-
Most of you (apart from the cult members on here) accept that Bishop Williamson is correct on so many things but you don't and won't on this one case. Why not? Perhaps he may well know more than you. All you know is what is reported by the vile media and the wrecusant who mix truth and lies to suit their own ends. You are true revolutionaries by setting yourself up as judge and jury in this particular case.
You will be judged as harshly as you judge others by the Good and Just Lord above when your time comes.
-
When these accusations come up it is a difficult situation. If you believe them and they are not true then the clergy lose their good name unjustly. But if you do not believe them and they are true then children get abused and have their faith ruined and their lives destroyed. What is best to do? I don't know.
-
IRELAND
IrishCentral
Gerry O’Shea @IrishCentral April 04, 2017
I recall clearly a shocking conversation that I had about 20 years ago, with a fine man from Tralee, Co. Kerry about the Christian Brothers Industrial School in that town. He recalled that some of the boys confined in the industrial school attended classes with him in The Green, the brothers' local high school. He remembered that when the final bell rang to end the school day they would bolt for their living quarters because if they tarried at all they claimed they would be beaten.
My other memory of that conversation is much more disturbing. He told me that local people would sometimes hear screams at night from the school. As a teenager, he was surprised by this and asked his father, who worked as a laborer in the town, what was going on to cause such nocturnal cries.
His father replied that such matters were beyond his ability to deal with and that his son was better not talking about them -- a very understandable response in those times.
The scene of boys crying out for help to a deaf and seemingly uncaring community in my own county 50 or so years ago, is seared in my memory. The men in clerical robes were paid by the state and honored for their work by the local clergy and dignitaries.
Posted by Kathy Shaw (kashaw@peoplepc.com) on April 6, 2017 11:56 AM
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/print.html
-
Matto, thank you for your reasoned reply. It is a difficult situation. Our Lord Himself says that a millstone should be tied around the neck of anyone who offends little children and rightly so.
The hysterical reaction of MW does not help. How can they have watched the docuмentary unless they speak Swedish? No where does it say that the English priest was a convicted paedophile. What docuмents about him or testimonies about him is MW referring to? There aren't any. Where is MW getting this from and what on earth is the piece they posted about someone in Ireland got to do with this case, but hey why let the truth get in the way. MW you should apply for a job at 'The Guardian' or some other vile media outlet.
-
If you watch the docuмentary, it shows Fr. Schmidberger to be PERSONALLY responsible for the decision of putting Fr. "P" in charge of children's camps AFTER they knew he had molested several children.
-
How can they have watched the docuмentary unless they speak Swedish? No where does it say that the English priest was a convicted paedophile. What docuмents about him or testimonies about him is MW referring to? There aren't any.
Thank you for demonstrating that you are a total IDIOT.
The docuмentary HAS ENGLISH SUBTITLES. You just click on the little "translate" button in the upper right corner.
The better question is: why are you REFUSING TO WATCH IT?
https://www.svtplay.se/video/13177559/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-13-2?start=auto
-
The docuмentary also shows the SSPX's Fr. Pfluger talking about and admitting his awareness of the victims of Fr. "P" in France.
The docuмentary also shows the SSPX's Fr. Laurencon - on camera- pretending he doesn't understand English and walking away and refusing to answer questions in Montgardin.
-
It is worth mentioning that when the Swedish investigators go to interview Bp. Fellay, they are directed to his Austrian PF firm, which in turn tells the team they can find Fr. "P" at the Resistance parish in France.
How thoughtful of Max Krah.
-
The show provides this photo of all the Resistance:
-
The show provides this photo of all the Resistance:
These photos are obviously not all of the Resistance. E.g. I see the sedisvacantist Fr. Trauner (actually his picture is there twice) and the sedisvacantist Fr. Abrahamovic. Both have no contact to the Resistance.
-
These photos are obviously not all of the Resistance. E.g. I see the sedisvacantist Fr. Trauner (actually his picture is there twice) and the sedisvacantist Fr. Abrahamovic. Both have no contact to the Resistance.
It is obviously a picture of the show's research. I highly doubt some investigative reporter is necessarily going to precisely know all the "differences" between each of the priests of the Resistance, i.e. which are "independent," which are "sede," which are with Fr. Chazal, which are with Bp. Faure, which are with Bp. Williamson, which are with Fr. Pfeiffer, etc.
Heck, this is a Resistance DISCUSSION board, and has been since 2012 and WE don't even have anything HERE that resembles a list compiling who the Resistance priests are around the world. I recognize a few of the faces, but certainly not all of them.
-
Who wants to bet that Michael Matt at The Remnant will not report on this docuмentary?
-
mw2016 you did good, difficult to see innocent people appear to be presumed guilty by association, simply by walking in procession, but this needed to be known, we trusted the sspx, and we are where we are now, God help us... :facepalm:
-
I find very suspicious the fact that after "Father P" joined the "Resistance", he was invited to participate in the ordinations in Econe. No priest who has left the SSPX is ever seen in their property or welcomed. You can see "Fr. P's" participation in the last few minutes of the docuмentary.
https://www.svtplay.se/video/13177559/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-13-2?start=auto
-
You have misunderstood.
In the docuмentary, Bp. Faure is shown being asked about Fr. Abraham.
The other pedophile priest they profile, Fr. "P," is working under the Domincans at Avrille at the Resistance parish in Bordeaux.
And, no, I don't think that the parishioners were "unhappy" about their pedophile priest Fr. "P" shoving the reporter, since they actually helped Fr. "P" attack her by slashing the tires on her car.
I was referring to your statement about +Faure's statement about the priest saving his soul, that is what he said about Fr. Abraham. Whatever. Does +Faure have any authority over the Dominicans? I doubt it.
You are assuming it was all of the faithful taking part in the act of vandalism with the tires and that they were all applauding the woman being shoved. I said I doubt that they all were on board with that and I do doubt it. There have to be some of them who have a decent formation. For all we know it may have been one hot-headed person who did the slashing of the tires. Sheesh! I don't think any of us would wish to be judged by the actions of all of those in our parishes or chapels.
-
I watched the whole video. It makes both Menz and the Resistance look like pedo-harboring hypocrites. I'm sure part two will be worse, since the media always seems to build up slowly to a shocking and more memorable climax. That this comes out in the ambushing media (there has been some talk about it on forums in the past) only at this point goes to show that some faction is desperate to put a hitch in the re-unification and smear the resistance for good measure. Regardless of timing, this is ugly and may get even more so before it's over. All that aside, any priests with such blemishes on their backgrounds need to be removed and kept away from our faithful. In the video, +Faure's attempt to explain keeping one particular priest makes for a nifty soundbite to be used by anti-trad forces. imo +Fellay better steel himself for part 2.
-
I watched the whole video.
+Faure's attempt to explain keeping one particular priest makes for a nifty soundbite to be used by anti-trad forces.
imo +Fellay better steel himself for part 2.
Part II airs next week, and will cover the rapes of children at Post Falls by Kevin Sloniker.
I wonder if Fr. Vassal will be watching...
Producers divided their research into two episodes, one of which will air tonight (Wednesday), the second one next week. The second episode deals with the case of the former seminarian, Kevin Gerard Sloniker, who is today in prison.
-
I think it will be very interesting to see if this Swedish team of journalists got some of the victims families in Post Falls to talk about what happened, and to talk about Fr. Vassal's inactions.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/oct/28/trucker-who-molested-boys-from-his-church-will-spe/
-
Let the Victims speak. Scandal will come, and let it out!
-
MW
Perhaps I am idiot for not understanding how to watch the TV on the internet as you so charitably put it.
Your bitter zeal has blinded you. I plainly stated that i was talking about the English priest. I did not talk about the others because i did not know any FACTS about them and will not rely on an extremely anti Catholic member of the vile media who is a proven liar.
Have you ever checked any of the 'facts' with any of our bishops before you detract from their good name? I have checked with Bp Williamson. He has not ever met the French priest who is claimed to be living with him. So that's one big lie exposed. What else has been made up ? Taking away someone's good name is akin to murderer as we read in Scripture.
-
1. This is not CathInfo's first expose on a topic like this. We've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. We've talked about St. Gertrude the Great in Cincinnati, OH, Immaculate Conception Academy in Post Falls, and others. We should be experts now in handling something like this. I personally have learned a lot.
2. The source is clearly an anti-Catholic, anti-Tradition hit piece. Some have, nevertheless, embraced this as their cause du jour, and formed a virtual lynch mob against +Williamson, etc. without so much as asking for their side of the story first! *cough* Mw2016 *cough*
3. As always, the only useful contributions to a thread like this are from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, and adding proof (facts and Internet research) to the community body of knowledge, for the sake of souls and the common good.
4. As always, rumor mongering, starting rumors, gossip are forbidden. The same goes for name-dropping people who aren't involved in any way. For example, "Who could Fr. P be?" and following up with several guesses. Would you want your name mentioned several times in a thread discussing pedophilia? I didn't think so.
5. Unwelcome and unhelpful, yet not strictly forbidden: useless interjections like "Pedo priests should not have access to our children!" or "Something needs to be done to protect the children!" You don't say! I think we can all agree on these no-brainer directives. You might as well add something purely emotional, like the famous "Think of the children!"
6. Unadvisable and possibly sinful: convicting a priest or bishop in the court of your own mind, without even giving him a chance to speak on his own behalf. Double demerits if the charges came about by the agency of a clearly anti-Catholic source, and you chose to believe the words of anti-Catholics rather than the default goodness ("benefit of the doubt") of the priest/bishop in question!
7. You do know what benefit of the doubt means, right? It means that every priest and bishop is good, unless we have hard evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT which forces us to believe otherwise. Everyone is entitled to this charitable "benefit of the doubt". Everyone gets to start out, by default, as a good guy. Even the Freemasonic, protestant United States got this one right: "Innocent until proven guilty".
8. Related to point #1, the issue of SCOPE has come up. If a scandal breaks in Ohio, is it lawful to spread it all over a United States message board? I had to figure this one out. Considering there is a lot of internal churn in the United States (moving is easy), Traditional Catholics move across the country all the time to be near a school, and there are no Ohio Trad Catholic message boards... I decided the answer was "Yes". But when you make your scope too broad, you get into a situation where you don't know what you're talking about. What do I know about the Trad scene in France? You can fit my knowledge of the French Traditional scene into a very small thimble. And frankly, the same goes for 99.9% of the other members of CathInfo.
So how can we have a useful, legitimate discussion about events which we know nothing about? All we can do is emote, wave our pitchforks, and string 'em up!
9. Mob mentality is a real thing. Ask any psychologist. You also can't reason with a mob. That's why I have to forbid lynch mobs on CathInfo -- a mob mentality prohibits reasonable discussion. And if you can't have reasonable discussion on a discussion forum, then what is it good for? Nothing. A forum is ONLY useful for intelligent, rational discussion. That's why, as a matter of course, I have to ban people who prove they are high on emotion and low on reason.
10. CathInfo does not host lynch mobs, and CathInfo will not be used as a virtual courtroom to try, convinct, and/or execute priests or bishops "in absentia". If you have evidence, then post it. Otherwise, hold your peace. Silence is golden.
-
The docuмentary talks about two other French priests, who live in France - one in Paris, SSPX and one Resistance in Bordeaux.
You probably would do well to watch it.
You do realize how ridiculous it is for a Trad to wave around -- not her Trent catechism or his Bible -- her remote control and point to her TV set? Trads aren't even supposed to have a TV, or at least not trust the Mainstream Media which is owned by тαℓмυdic Jєωs, who are enemies of God from the beginning.
-
Wow. I'm really glad I watched the docuмentary, because I otherwise would not have known how easy it is to get away with molesting kids in traditional circles. This is very unsettling. If the Society had handled convicted pedophiles in the first place, the young man in the piece never would have been molested.
-
Seems the Pope is acting swiftly on these type of allegations. He may not like the bad press that will accompany the announcement of a reconciliation as the affair hits Catholic and possibly mainstream media. The Church's enemies would no doubt rub his nose in it..
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/06/french-bishop-fired-over-inappropriate-behavior-with-youth.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/06/french-bishop-fired-over-inappropriate-behavior-with-youth.html)
-
The docuмentary makes no such claim.
The docuмentary talks about Fr. Abraham who lives with Bp. Williamson, which is true.
The docuмentary talks about two other French priests, who live in France - one in Paris, SSPX and one Resistance in Bordeaux.
You probably would do well to watch it.
I watched the whole video. It seems that if they would really have wanted to expose the truth and make a serious investigative work, they should have caught up with their own contradiction. This was not a "live", spur of the moment, video.
There are some very disturbing elements in the video, though, and they seem based on facts. But it also seems that they got carried away and became un-professional at some point, like trying to capitalize from some elements of truth, and building a whole charge against the very essence of the Society and the Resistance.
And it was the same journalist who interviewed Bishop Williamson in november 2008. The bishop said that "evidence shows that no Jєωs died in the gas chambers, nor because of a system set-up by Hitler. and not six millions" (or words to that effect). The media then said: "Bishop Williamson denies the h0Ɩ0cαųst". Now, that was NOT what the bishop had been saying. He has not said that NO Jєωs died during WWII! Just that they didn't die in the gas chambers, and not in such great numbers as are currently alleged, and not as the result of system set-up by Hitler. That is not the same thing as saying that no Jєωs died!
This shows that the technique of good liars is always the same: Build your case on the foundation of some elements of truth, and go from there to extrapolate, exaggerate, and condemn. The real purpose of the video is not to save children. It is to show that the Society, and the Resistance, are two fringe, extremist, right-wing, break-away "Catholic" groups that are breeding pedophiles and are protecting them, and that such groups are not following Vatican guidelines on the matter, and therefore they should not be allowed to re-enter the Church.
Basically, the video wants the viewer to make a broad general and sweeping conclusion: "Traditionalist groups are bad for children. Parents of victims are afraid to complain, because these traditionalist groups are cults. This is also why these priests protect each other. This has to stop! Such groups should become illegal, as they cannot reform themselves! The Vatican is also guilty by knowing these cases and still trying to re-integrate the SSPX"
I am a hardliner against pedophilia, and am for the strict application of the old canon law. But before to do that, we have to be sure that the accused receives a fair trial.
-
I watched the whole video. At first they said that Fr. M was still in the SSPX and based in Paris. But later on, after about 3/4 of the video, they do say that he is now with Fr. S. and Bishop Williamson in Broadstairs.
You're going to have to produce a timestamp for that.
If the video DID indeed say that, then we have here at least one bald-faced lie. From the mainstream media no less! Oh, how unbelievable that the mainstream media should utter a falsehood!
::)
UPDATE: I got to the bottom of it. Having watched the video myself, I figured out the source of confusion.
The video shifts gears, to try to prove that "Montgardin" is a de-facto SSPX prison for priest-criminals. The priest who "joined Bishop Williamson's Resistance in France" is a man who had a disagreement with Bishop Fellay -- a spiritual/Faith-related matter -- and was accused of being rebellious.
Nevertheless, this anti-Catholic hit piece BLURRED OUT THE MAN'S FACE as if he was a criminal, even though the entire roster of pictures should have been blurred out for the same reason: "rebellion" against Bishop Fellay. All the men in the photo are Resistance -- they all rebelled and went against Bishop Fellay! If joining the Resistance makes you a criminal (complete with needing to blur out your face, to maintain anonymity) then ALL the priests should have their faces blurred out!
This is an example of the sensationalism, lies, distortions, and exaggerations you find in the lying Mainstream Media. Don't trust the vile media!
-
Here is screenshot. Note that ALL the priests in their "Resistance priest montage" are equally "guilty" as this priest. So they should all have their faces blurred like so many criminals, if joining the Resistance makes you a criminal!
I can't emphasize this point enough. This man didn't do anything wrong. Not even a little indiscretion! How many of you caught this the first time through?
I want you to be honest -- how many of you thought this man was a pedophile (or at least accused of such)?
If so, congratulations! You are victim #10,345,001,837 to be deceived by the Mainstream Media.
See the insinuation? This hit piece is calculated to confuse people and lead you to THEIR pre-determined conclusions. Sure, you and I (intelligent, rational Catholics) are able to sort out all the truth from the fiction -- but most people are going to be left with a vague impression "Tradition = bad", "Resistance = bad", "Bishop Williamson = bad", etc.
-
I can't emphasize this point enough. This man didn't do anything wrong. Not even a little indiscretion! How many of you caught this the first time through?
This non-criminal is Fr. Pinaud. The photo is taken from here: http://cristiadatradicinalista.blogspot.com/2014/01/derniere-lettre-de-mgr-fellay-labbe.html
-
"Father P" is Father Philippe Peignot.
He was included in a CathInfo thread here (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?pretty;board=19;topic=41686.0).
-
A bit about the journalist --
Fegan is a well known non-christian, belonging to a core of powerful marxist/communist staff at Swedish television that hates Catholicism. I think he is of Jєωιѕн descent. Also, Bp. Arborelius invited him and Belinda Olsson to a private dinner before the interview with Bp. Williamson.
Most probably, Bp. Arborelius as well as other high ranking progressivist(s) in the Vatican are responsible for this new docuмentary.
-
The three priests whose faces are blurred out in the picture of all the photos on the wall are the three pedophile priests they are profiling in the docuмentary under their pseudonyms, "Fr. P," "Fr. S," and "Fr. M."
Not true. Fr. Pinaud is blurred out and he has no such accusations against him. His only "crime" was a disagreement with Bp Fellay which amounts to the same disagreement every Resistance priest has with Bp Fellay.
-
So if you guys already knew about this priest so much that you have an entire thread with a graphic description of his sɛҳuąƖ abuse on the boy (now adult) interviewed in the film, why are you guys giving me a hard time for being shocked and outraged??
Pardon me, but that film is the first time I am hearing of ANY of this, so I am NOT going to have some kind of blase, smart-alec ("we've already been there, done that, bought the t-shirt", as Matthew said) reaction to this docuмentary.
Clearly, the reporting done by these journalists is ACCURATE. According to the thread you linked, you guys seem to have already known about Fr. Peignot and act unsurprised.
Well, I'm surprised because I did not know! And I really don't care about the media's so-called goal of making the Church look bad - the Church DOES look bad! The SSPX looks horrible, and the Resistance doesn't look any better. Way to go, all three bishops, who got themselves into this mess they're in.
I imagine it will all be made worse next week when the Post Falls episode airs.
I did not connect the previous thread with this video until late yesterday when I was trying to determine who "Father P" could be.
The previous report did not connect Fr Peigot to the Resistance as the video claims to do.
Matthew's comments of "been there, done that" were in response to new scandals in general, not this one in particular.
It's fairly common knowledge that the SSPX has had a number of accused pedophile priests, but a second accused priest among the Resistance would be news to me at least.
-
I googled Fr. Peignot's name and this list of Resistance priests came up, something I was saying we need anyway. Click the translate button when it loads to read in English.
http://www.unavox.it/CartinaResistenza.html
It says Fr. Peignot works with USML.
And provides this link:
http://www.unavox.it/Docuмenti/Doc0736_Unione_Sacerdotale_Marcel_Lefebvre.html
-
Lest we forget: Throughout history God has continually allowed the anti-Christ enemies of the Church to punish/purify/prune the Elect. I don't imagine that anti-Christ Swedish TV is necessarily any exception. Whether the Elect benefit from the process and if so to what degree would seem to depend on their willingness to "get with the program" in cooperating with the graces God most surely wishes to bestow upon them through their trials and tribulations.
One other point: Let's not forget how the media more often than not pushes the pedophile priest/cleric narrative when in fact the actual narrative should much, much more often read pederasty, not pedophilia. The reason they push the pedophilia narrative as opposed to the pederasty one is, of course, because they don't want to taint the public's perception of their sacred queer/homo cow/idol with any connection to pederasty.
-
I wanted to add a few more thoughts to this thread.
First, a few big picture concepts:
1. "zero tolerance" might be good politics for today's liberal sensibilities, but it does not always equal good justice. Think of the classic case of suspending 2nd graders for bringing aspirin to school, or middle school girls for bringing Midol to school. Or putting a school in lockdown because a boy brought a cap gun to school. The real goal for Catholics should be a just judgment, weighing justice against mercy, and applying the virtue of prudence to make the best and wisest decision in a given case.
2. In certain cases, the multitude of private, sometimes shameful facts in an individual's life should not be aired about in public or on the Internet. Instead, the case should be referred to the proper authorities. In the case of a cleric, that would be some kind of Church authority, who has access to all (or at least the majority of) the facts to properly judge a case. Moreover, this authority would have the ability/faculties, education/experience, duty of state, and grace of state to properly judge a case.
3. Related to #2, Catholics should have no problem trusting their superiors to make these judgments, as long as the superiors in question show every sign of taking their job seriously.
4. The Resistance is basically like the Traditional movement: anyone can join. There is no "Pope of Tradition" who decides who can and cannot be a Traditional Catholic. There is no central command to accept or reject members. Anyone rejecting Vatican II can claim to be a "Traditional Catholic", and anyone having a problem with the new direction in the SSPX can leave the SSPX and call themselves "Resistance". But it doesn't end there: they can still be called Resistance BY OTHERS if they have any problem with the SSPX or have left for any reason remotely resembling one of the many "issues" the Resistance speaks about. The key point to note: a priest doesn't have to even refer to himself as "Resistance"; people will label him on their own. Lastly, there are some in the Resistance, anxious for numbers, who try to claim for the Resistance every priest who has left the SSPX for any reason during the past 10 years. THIS IS WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO MAKE A RESISTANCE DIRECTORY OF PRIESTS. There is a lot of grey area.
5. Some "Resistance" priests are de-facto Independent, and would be more accurately referred to as such.
And a few more specific points, which information I have on good authority:
1. +Williamson and +Faure have no connection to Fr. Peignot (he is the one the Swedish program referred to as "Fr. P") Also, Fr. Peignot never joined the USML.
2. +Faure has no connection with Fr. Abraham.
3. +Williamson sincerely believes in the repentance and rehabilitation of Fr. Abraham. +Williamson's motivation is one of mercy. One might lawfully disagree or question the prudence of the Bishop in this specific matter, but that is as far as one can reasonably go.
4. Common sense also insists that not all actions are equally grave. It's true that a woman is technically an adulteress even if she just kisses or caresses a man who is not her husband. But that doesn't mean that kissing a strange man and fornicating with a strange man are the same thing, or of equal gravity. The Church Herself makes a distinction between "incomplete actions" and "complete actions", in the case of something like adultery. (I use the example of adultery because that is a sin relatively similar to the matter at hand, and easier to talk about because it's more common and slightly less evil.)
5. Referring back to the matter at hand, the matter in Fr. Abraham's case was something "much less serious" than what people usually think about when they hear "pedophilia".
6. The Dominicans of Avrillé have clarified as well: they said that the "Chapelle Sainte Cécile" in Bordeaux, where Fr. Peignot celebrates Masses and appears in the Swedish TV video, "does not depend directly or indirectly on them (or on any Dominican tertiary)."
My source has thus far been unable to determine whether that chapel is under the responsibility of another priest of the Resistance. It appears on the website of the USML:
BORDEAUX
Chapelle Sainte Cécile
Messe à 10 h
Pour tous renseignements : chapellesaintececile@gmail.com
https://www.francefidele.org/
-
@Matthew: Fr Abraham's link to "SSPX Resistance" (whatever the label means) is unquestionable and well docuмented. It is up to +W to take responsibility. Simple enough.
Now, Fr Peignot is listed on the Italian website as "sacerdote amico" of USML, as he was on the France Fidele website until the page disappeared or went private. I believe the former is simply an Italian translation of the latter. What the press sees is USML (therefore "SSPX Resistance") trying to conceal their link with an admitted child abuser. Why would USML want to hide they are working with him, which is now a proven fact?
Are USML ashamed of whom they befriend? In any instance, Chapell Sainte Cecile is listed as an official USML chapel and I believe Fr Rioult also goes there once in a while. The connection is quite clear. Avrille and +F cannot claim they have nothing to do with Fr Peignot. Let them grow a spine a take responsibility.
-
Hello everybody. For anyone familiar with the French trad scene, "Fr. P." is obviously Fr. Philippe Peignot. He is every bit recognizable (both in descriptions and video) for anyone who knows him even remotely. A search his name will return countless valuable results.
For English speakers, he was exposed among others by Mediapart (France) and Stop Pedos Trad (Iceland):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2LdAaPZkI4
https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/mot-cle/father-philippe-peignot
https://twitter.com/dodonatien/status/849604650697359360
http://website.informer.com/stop-pedos-trad.is
-
This is, in large part, why I don't do "groups.". You're bound to be disappointed eventually, and might even be stretched to make mild apologies for things like this. Better to take it priest by priest.
Edified to hear the outrage. I thought most were aware at least of Fr. Abraham. Evidently not. Good to see people who don't want to take a "nuanced" approach to sex predators.
As to Fr. Abraham's particular "brand" of pedophilia not being quite as horrendous as what one might think:
What this means is that Abraham likes pubescent, not prepubescent boys. In other words, his sodomy is a bit more "developed" than the Podesta crew.
How consoling. Maybe he can teach the seminarians.
-
Good to see people who don't want to take a "nuanced" approach to sex predators.
As to Fr. Abraham's particular "brand" of pedophilia not being quite as horrendous as what one might think:
What this means is that Abraham likes pubescent, not prepubescent boys. In other words, his sodomy is a bit more "developed" than the Podesta crew.
How consoling. Maybe he can teach the seminarians.
I couldn't agree more.
In the film, there are 12 victims. Fr. Peignot's now-adult victim says his abuse at the hands of Fr. Peignot began when he was just 11-years old.
I find no consolation by someone trying to say "oh, that's just pederasty, not exactly pedophilia!"
That's a load of bull.
The man is clearly a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ - but he is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who likes little boys. That is SICK, no matter how you try to parse it with some semantics to obfuscate the fact that the man is a convicted PREDATOR.
A predator who is pictured in the film giving Mass with 3 or 4 6-7 year-old boys and then changing clothes with them ALONE in a small room.
-
Now, what about insisting said perverts wind up hamstrung?
So, the question is what course of action are you going to request? Should the SSPX be responsible for Fr. Peignot even though he's gone independent? If so, what should Bp Fellay be doing to address the situation? Should Bp Williamson send Fr. Abraham out so that he too can become an independent priest? What should we be recommending?
-
A permanent lockup for rehab, perhaps. Along with educated therapies and accountable oversight.
So, how are you suggesting Bp Williamson and/or Bp Fellay go about this?
-
Certainly, the victim in the docuмentary has a right to feel that way about BF who had he done his job, the kid wouldn't have been molested. For this reason alone, the laity have a right to condemn BW for permitting his ward to mingle with children. It brings down condemnation, puts innocent children at risk, and sends a loud and clear message to pedophiles that they will be tolerated. Lock em up and throw away the key. Watch pedophilia disappear.
I agree.
I can tell you that if Bp. Fellay had kept Fr. Peignot out of ministry, as he was sentenced, that now-adult victim would never have been molested.
That was the entire point of why this man came forward - he saw a camp flyer showing that Fr. Peignot was STILL IN ACTIVE PUBLIC MINISTRY, and worse, conducting BOYS' CAMPS with the SSPX!
That guy had a POOL of victims to choose from for YEARS!
It was like shooting fish in a barrel for Fr. Peignot.
-
I can also tell you that if I had a son at Post Falls who was raped by Kevin Sloniker, who the SSPX allowed to have public positions of authority around children (altar server training and camps) even though they knew he was a predator, that I would get a lawyer and I would be waiting with police at the next sceduled date for Bp. Fellay to set foot on US soil for Confirmations to have him arrested.
Cardinals Law and Bernadin were sent to the Vatican specifically to evade their criminal charges in the US.
Yes, I would not hesitate to press charges if my son had been victimized on Bp. Fellay's watch. And I'd press charges against Fr. Vassal and Fr. Crane too.
-
I agree.
I can tell you that if Bp. Fellay had kept Fr. Peignot out of ministry, as he was sentenced, that now-adult victim would never have been molested.
That was the entire point of why this man came forward - he saw a camp flyer showing that Fr. Peignot was STILL IN ACTIVE PUBLIC MINISTRY, and worse, conducting BOYS' CAMPS with the SSPX!
That guy had a POOL of victims to choose from for YEARS!
It was like shooting fish in a barrel for Fr. Peignot.
I agree that Bp Fellay didn't do the right thing, but what I don't see is what the right thing would have been. I think the answer in Fr. Peignot's case would be to convince the victims to press criminal charges. Bp Fellay's attempt to "lock him up" in monastery prison didn't work. Father just moved on to work as an independent priest.
-
So, how are you suggesting Bp Williamson and/or Bp Fellay go about this?
I think that a layperson can rightfully be concerned about this situation, and yet not really know the best way for Bishop Williamson and Fellay to go about solving the problem. Seeing a problem isn't the same thing as knowing what the best course of action may be.
I, for one, would like to know why Bishop Williamson insists that Fr. Abraham practice a public ministry. He may have a good reason, though I can't really think of what that may be, except maybe to give Fr. Abraham a sense of purpose.
-
I can also tell you that if I had a son at Post Falls who was raped by Kevin Sloniker, who the SSPX allowed to have public positions of authority around children (altar server training and camps) even though they knew he was a predator, that I would get a lawyer and I would be waiting with police at the next sceduled date for Bp. Fellay to set foot on US soil for Confirmations to have him arrested.
Cardinals Law and Bernadin were sent to the Vatican specifically to evade their criminal charges in the US.
Yes, I would not hesitate to press charges if my son had been victimized on Bp. Fellay's watch. And I'd press charges against Fr. Vassal and Fr. Crane too.
The problem is the actual victims don't seem willing to put their children through a public trial in order to have the perpetrators convicted.
-
I agree that Bp Fellay didn't do the right thing, but what I don't see is what the right thing would have been. I think the answer in Fr. Peignot's case would be to convince the victims to press criminal charges. Bp Fellay's attempt to "lock him up" in monastery prison didn't work. Father just moved on to work as an independent priest.
It ain't rocket science!
You don't need to convince the parents to press criminal charges.
You send the pedophile priests away, which is what was done. Until it was UNDONE and Bp. Fellay RETURNED him to public ministry. THIS WAS ALL IN THE FILM.
Fr. Pfluger is shown SAYING that "we made a mistake" in allowing him "out" to "do camps again."
It's really simple - you don't let them OUT! PERIOD.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
Why are you, or anyone here, having a hard time seeing "what is the right thing to do"??
In my opinion, Bp. Fellay probably just "let" him go to the Resistance.
Didn't someone already say that? The SSPX is dumping their GARBAGE on to the Resistance.
And the Resistance, idiotically, picked it up. How stupid.
-
I think that a layperson can rightfully be concerned about this situation, and yet not really know the best way for Bishop Williamson and Fellay to go about solving the problem. Seeing a problem isn't the same thing as knowing what the best course of action may be.
I, for one, would like to know why Bishop Williamson insists that Fr. Abraham practice a public ministry. He may have a good reason, though I can't really think of what that may be, except maybe to give Fr. Abraham a sense of purpose.
I don't see an obvious answer. I don't think we should populate our monasteries with problem priests. They're religious houses, not prisons.
I think if there is an obvious answer, then we should express it to the bishop in a unified voice. I think that if there isn't an obvious answer as to what Bp Williamson should be doing, then we shouldn't be so quick to presume he's doing the wrong thing.
-
I don't see an obvious answer. I don't think we should populate our monasteries with problem priests. They're religious houses, not prisons.
I think if there is an obvious answer, then we should express it to the bishop in a unified voice. I think that if there isn't an obvious answer as to what Bp Williamson should be doing, then we shouldn't be so quick to presume he's doing the wrong thing.
You may be right about not populating monasteries with problem priests.
I don't think that there can be an obvious answer until we have more information. We don't know why Bishop Williamson has insisted that Fr. Abraham practice a public ministry. I'm not sure that it would make a big difference to know either way, but at least we'd see the reasoning behind it. I don't really see this particular situation as being all Fr. Abraham's fault. After all, he was willing to stay with the SSPX, and not practice a public ministry.
I think that since the situation involves the safety of children, it can't really be presumed that Bishop Williamson didn't do anything wrong in insisting that Fr. Abraham practice a public ministry. If I attended the chapel or church where Fr. Abraham celebrated Mass, and I had children, then I would leave and not return, and I would inform Bishop Williamson as to why. The faithful who attend there can vote with their feet. The problem is, there are so few Resistance Mass centers. Where else would they go?
-
The SSPX has Montgardin for a reason - it was their prison for the ROT. And they initially did the right thing, they sent him there.
But, then they were released, and they never should have been.
Last I checked, the SSPX cannot hold a man against his will. And, I don't believe either Fr. Peignot or Fr. Abraham were ever at Montgardin, so again we have a fact issue here.
-
Last I checked, the SSPX cannot hold a man against his will. And, I don't believe either Fr. Peignot or Fr. Abraham were ever at Montgardin, so again we have a fact issue here.
I am not at all surprised that the SSPX has a facility such as Montgardin. The Novus Ordo has similar facilities, and they are also well-docuмented in the media.
They are not "holding them against their will." They go for their punishment out of obedience to their superiors.
This facility is in New Mexico:
http://www.koat.com/article/jemez-springs-facility-transformed-into-priest-rehabilitation-center/5068115
Even the Wall Street Journal reported on it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323926104578278600322685648
-
From the Boston Globe, here's another one in Maryland:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/04/02/priest-treatment-unfolds-costly-secretive-world/deAcdZXnaXuLvHcPbNip7L/story.html
-
They are not "holding them against their will." They go for their punishment out of obedience to their superiors.
Are "punishment and obedience" your only concerns? Is there not more to it than that?
-
What do you mean?
The bottom line, is that they are not fir for public ministry. There are facilites that exist solely for the fact that there are priests not fit for public ministry.
Instead of hiding them, Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson and Bp. Faure need to send these men to the appropriate facility for their disorder. There is no defense to keeping them in public ministry.
You don't know what I mean? Do you consider the two priests in question to be human beings?
-
Here is more from the Wiki entry on the NM facility:
Fitzgerald became increasingly convinced even then that such priests could not be cured, could not be trusted to maintain celibacy and should be laicized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicized) even against their will. Moreover, Fitzgerald opposed vehemently the return of sɛҳuąƖ abusers to duties as priests in parish situations. Although some bishops refused to hire sɛҳuąƖly abusive priests based on Fitzgerald's refusal to recommend them for parish duties, others ignored Fitzgerald's advice. In general, it appears that bishops chose to ignore Fitzgerald's recommendations, preferring to rely on the advice of medical and psychological experts who asserted that treatment was feasible.
There you go.
Historically, the bishops refused to recognize the recommendation that pedophiles were not rehabilitatable and they put them back into public ministry.
Sound familiar??
-
You don't know what I mean? Do you consider the two priests in question to be human beings?
BTW, The punishment 500 years ago was death. Are you saying you disagree with Pope St. Pius V's punishments??
These guys are getting off easy in our day, when you think about it, getting to go live in the French Alps at the "Golden Jail."
-
With all due respect, I think there may be some on this thread and the other similar one who did not catch my drift when I stated:
One other point: Let's not forget how the media more often than not pushes the pedophile priest/cleric narrative when in fact the actual narrative should much, much more often read pederasty, not pedophilia. The reason they push the pedophilia narrative as opposed to the pederasty one is, of course, because they don't want to taint the public's perception of their sacred queer/homo cow/idol with any connection to pederasty.
In no way whatsoever was I trying to downplay the culpability of any clerics or seriousness of sɛҳuąƖ offenses of any of the clerics who may have been involved in the sordid mess covered on this thread. Rather, I was simply pointing out the culpability of the vile media in consistently trying to steer the public away from associating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity with priests who molest youngsters. They want the public to only think children, not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in spite of the fact that the clear and well docuмented fact is that most priests who go after youth/children go after pubescent boys, not prepubescent boys nor prepubescent or pubescent girls. Please let's get that straight. The vast majority of priests who are sinfully involved with young ones are involved with males, not females and hence we are dealing with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests involved in the sin of pederasty. Our Catholic faith is one of making proper distinctions, is it not? That said, in no way should it be inferred that pederasty is any less of a sin than pedophilia, It may even be worse since male on male is not only disordered, it is also in the unnatural order regardless of age.
Again, it is the media that wants everyone to think pedophilia instead of pederasty in spite of the fact that most of the sɛҳuąƖ crimes of priests with the youth are ones involving pederasty. Some pedophiles are pederasts, but not all pedophiles are pederasts. This is all very well docuмented in Randy Engel's 1200 plus page magnum opus: The Rite of Sodomy where among other things she covers in detail the sad and disgraceful former connection of Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensler to the SSPX: http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/ (http://www.newengelpublishing.com/exploiting-traditionalist-orders-the-society-of-st-john/) .
-
how many times do you wicked reprobates need to be told fr abraham aint no pedofile, how many times to be told that a accusation was made against him and was reported to the cops by him at once and after they investigated they found nothing to take any action about. it aint rocket scienceand hell is full of malicious slanderous old gossips all puffed up with vain pride and twisted sense of righteousness
-
I am not at all surprised that the SSPX has a facility such as Montgardin. The Novus Ordo has similar facilities, and they are also well-docuмented in the media.
They are not "holding them against their will." They go for their punishment out of obedience to their superiors.
Except, in the primary case at hand, he didn't go. Fr. P was assigned to Montgardin, but left the Society instead. That's pretty clear evidence that the simple policy of "sending away" a priest guilty of pedophilia doesn't work.
Further, it's least likely to work in the most necessary of cases -- those who are unrepentant and malicious.
-
I am astounded by the amount of defense these clerics are receiving. In the good ole days that trads are always talking about, i.e. the age St. Pius V and St. Peter Damian, an offender like this would be handed over to the secular authorities to be burnt at the stake. St. John Chrysostom was of the opinion that if a priest ever committed a single mortal sin after his ordination, it would be a sign that he was surely damned. Bishop Williamson's actions are an affront to two millennia of Catholic Tradition. He, of all people, should know better. We, of all people, should know better.
happenby, mw2016 - do not be shamed into silence. You are not overreacting. Traditional Catholics of all walks should be enraged. I'm not even a Resistance supporter and I feel utter disappointment over this. Here I am hoping that the Resistance, even if I don't agree with it in practice and theory, would at least produce a few solid priests and faithful. Here we are a few years later, practically no vocations, and up to our neck in scandals.
So much for reading the Rite of Sodomy, condemning the Conciliar establishment for its rampant protection of perverts, and playing Athanasius contra mundum. All too human, all too human.
-
Here is an article from the local French paper about the SSPX's 2011 purchase of Notre Dame de Montgardin, and 12 priests arrived shortly after:
http://www.ledauphine.com/hautes-alpes/2011/09/13/les-lefebvristes-s-installent-dans-les-hautes-alpes?image=8B9E0FAD-D70C-40B6-A97A-706D6A864DD9
On the mailbox, the name of the new owner: Fraternité Saint-Pie-X. The Monastery of Montgardin belongs since last spring to the Lefebvrists, a current of the Catholic church in conflict with the Vatican.
This arrival was without drum or trumpet. So discreet that the bishopric of Gap and Embrun had not heard of it a few days ago. Bishop Di Falco-Leandri says he has nothing to say about the news, still considered "a rumor". Perhaps because the new occupants of the monastery did not come to him.
They are, however, there at Montgardin. Abbé Dominique Lagneau, who comes from Anjou, has been settled since last month in the place where he was appointed with the abbot Deviller. Accompanied by an official of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, he came to present himself to the mayor of the commune, Roger Mamo. "They told me they would welcome a dozen priests. I understood that it was a contemplative house. They seemed nice to me at first, but I do not know. "
The Lefebvrists call themselves traditionalists. But for many, it is a fundamentalist movement. The arrival of these citizens, unlike the rest, does not worry the mayor of Montgardin. "I do not make a religious judgment, I am an atheist," says Roger Mamo. I do not have a negative bias towards new people. I hope to have at least the same positive relationships I had with the sisters. The buildings were previously occupied by nuns, true false Carmelites, who have since been in the south-west of France.
The faithful ask themselves questions. Johanna Muller, head of the parish of Montgardin with her husband Roland, has no idea what the Lefebvrists are doing at the monastery, but she thinks they want to enlarge the buildings. She does not see their installation a good eye. "We are already not so united, there are so many currents, if there is one more, it will disperse even more the Church, especially if they attract those who are for the ancient traditions. I prefer the unity of the Church, that's what worries me. "
Not sure that the brotherhood of St. Pius X intends to proselytize in the Hautes-Alpes. Abbé Lagneau did not wish to speak until he met with Di Falco-Leandri. For several years the Lefebvrist movement had wanted to establish itself near Notre-Dame-du-Laus. But at the priory of Marseilles, the Abbe Radier evokes a "rest house" where the priests of the movement would come to spend "a more contemplative time" devoted to "pray, meditate, study." "This is the first house of its kind for the Saint Pius X fraternity in the world! "
And this is Montgardin's website:
http://laportelatine.org/district/prieure/montgardin/montgardin.php
-
how many times do you wicked reprobates need to be told fr abraham aint no pedofile, how many times to be told that a accusation was made against him and was reported to the cops by him at once and after they investigated they found nothing to take any action about. it aint rocket scienceand hell is full of malicious slanderous old gossips all puffed up with vain pride and twisted sense of righteousness
Thank you, Don. The ignorant condemnation of Fr. Abraham was made in England over two years ago by members of the Pfeifferite cult as part of their attack on Bishop Williamson. The Bishop has investigated Fr Abraham's situation and has no worries or concerns about him. Ordinary members of the Resistance regard Fr Abraham as an excellent priest and are happy to go to his Masses, including families with children.
-
he resides in Broadstairs and publicly gives Mass
and later "Fr. Abraham still gives public Masses today."
Are you helping the Swedish journalists, by any chance, MW2016? You don't appear to be a Catholic, as no Catholic says that priests "give Mass".
-
and later "Fr. Abraham still gives public Masses today."
Are you helping the Swedish journalists, by any chance, MW2016? You don't appear to be a Catholic, as no Catholic says that priests "give Mass".
What you say is ridiculous. I have been Catholic for my whole life, 6+ decades, and I have heard this phrase used and many like phrases that all meant the same thing. She's been here longer than you have. And as for the Swedish journalists, they don't need any help, we in Tradition, have done it to ourselves.
-
Reading this thread and the other one on similar topic.......Here's what comes to mind...Mark 2:17
[17] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=48&ch=2&l=17#x) Jesus hearing this, saith to them: They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.
The real question should be: if the allegations are true, then is there repentance and reparation? I agree with the Bishop's response.... As long as there is no danger to the faithful ( Laity i.e. both children and adults) soul's and necessary precautions are taken..... then one should also try and save the soul of the Priest in question.
Seems like the kind Bishop is acting Christ-like....
-
"The kind bishop is acting Christ-like"?
"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6
The people saying that this is acceptable obviously haven't dealt with the long term affects of sɛҳuąƖ abuse. Pedophilia doesn't have to mean penetration. Even fondling, inappropriate looks/solicitation is disturbing and damaging enough. sɛҳuąƖ abuse destroys entire lives.
-
So much for reading the Rite of Sodomy, condemning the Conciliar establishment for its rampant protection of perverts, and playing Athanasius contra mundum. All too human, all too human.
What is too human? the Traditional movement? You are barely a Trad, considering your "preferred source" for "the Latin Mass" (or should I call it the "Extraordinary Form"?) is the indult/diocesan.
You obviously know little to nothing about the Traditional Movement. In particular, the reason why we don't seek permission from the conciliar authorities for what we do.
But reading your post (above), you seem to be almost hostile to the movement. "Playing Athanasius"? There's no playing. Only a conciliar Catholic (perhaps a conservative one) would say that.
But I shouldn't be surprised. You yourself admit you're not a supporter of the Resistance. But what some don't realize is
Resistance = Traditional Catholic, in its most basic, non-Sedevacantist form.
Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Mw2016, please take a breather from these 2 threads (this main one, plus the one you started).
I'm locking the other one, as I've always held that it was a duplicate, redundant thread, born from your above-average passion/emotion/bitter zeal about this topic. Why have you posted 10x more than the #2 poster in this thread? I'm sure you would suggest that "you alone truly care" or the rest of us are heartless, pedo-enablers, but I strongly disagree. Instead, you have me wondering what you're compensating for. Are you making up for something in your past or something? Maybe there was a time in your past that you blame yourself for being cowardly, not standing up for what is right? It might not be the case, but the thought has sure entered my mind a half-dozen times. There has to be some reason why you (and you alone) are "leading the charge". You being a female, no less.
At any rate, we've all heard your opinion plenty of times over the past EIGHT PAGES (15 posts per page). I'm sure no one is in the dark about how you feel.
I don't even care if YOU post in this thread, as long as it's some kind of facts, research, quotes, or something like that. But please refrain from SPAMMING/FLOODING the thread with your opinion over and over. It's getting annoying to some of the membership, including myself.
Matthew
-
No.
The faithful are not saying, "Off with his head!" No one is calling for Fr. Abraham's eternal condemnation.
In the film, the faithful asked their Bishops Williamson and Faure to DO THE RIGHT THING and get this priest out of public ministry.
Whatever happened to "three strikes and you're out"??
Fr. Abraham had victims in two countries, starting in the early 90's and going up to 2006. He was then shuffled off to a THIRD country. This means he has had more than one strike. He somehow STILL gets the opportunity to find victims through the years, even though the film says the SSPX had stripped him of his public ministry.
Fr. Abraham's long track record of repeated acts against children makes it all the more IMPORTANT for Bp. Williamson to REMOVE him.
Glad you aren't asking for Fr. Abraham's ETERNAL condemnation. But you do seem to ask for his condemnation in this world. If I recall the video correctly, Fr. Abraham wasn't accused of touching children at all. He was accused of writing letters to them. "Grooming" I think it was called.
I wouldn't let him near children (I think it's good to err on the side of safety), but then I don't know him at all. Bishop Williamson obviously has a different view, of course.
-
Glad you aren't asking for Fr. Abraham's ETERNAL condemnation. But you do seem to ask for his condemnation in this world. If I recall the video correctly, Fr. Abraham wasn't accused of touching children at all. He was accused of writing letters to them. "Grooming" I think it was called.
I wouldn't let him near children (I think it's good to err on the side of safety), but then I don't know him at all. Bishop Williamson obviously has a different view, of course.
I think you're confusing "Fr. S" (Abraham) with "Fr. M".
-
Mw2016 is not located in England, nor does she have any connections to England.
Yet she chooses to believe her fantasies about the situation, rather than the first-hand reports I've heard. Why? Why choose to believe A over B? When B is clearly and obviously a more reliable source? Perhaps because "B" might lead to the calling off of a perfectly good hangin'. No lynch mob wants nasty old "reason" to throw a wet blanket on all the "fun".
Evidence such as:
Fr Pivert has said that these laity who set themselves up as judge and jury of priests are true revolutionaries, but their bitter and vicious zeal blinds them to it.
I know the families who go to Mass in Earlsfield and they all know about Fr Abraham's history and nevertheless still wish for him to say Mass for them. In fact, they would be devastated if he was unable to do so.
-
Actually, it is shameful that you have two females leading the charge on this. Where are the MEN on this? Only a handful of 3-4 men have even bothered to stand up and acknowledge that our parental anger about the bishop's failure on this is justified. Shouldn't YOU be leading the charge?
Because I disagree with your premise.
Sometimes, the good men are all on the sidelines because the "charge" is not a worthy cause. Plus men tend to be more rational and aren't set off on a confused, emotional tangent by a Swedish TV program.
No one has tried selling ice cream cones for your garden, made of manure. I'm the first to think of it! I can LEAD THE WAY and start my compost-dung-ice-cream-cone business and make a million bucks!
...or maybe there's a REASON no one has done it before...
Either something is "off" with you, or something is off with the rest of us. I say it's you. You say it's all of us.
Whatever...
-
I think you're confusing "Fr. S" (Abraham) with "Fr. M".
Indeed.
Lots of emotion, lack of precision, lack of controlled reason, blurred lines and confusion.
And speaking with the utmost confidence on topics they haven't the faintest clue. I mean,
A) we're speaking about priests who have seldom (if ever?) been in America, and we've never been to their neck of the woods either.
B) we're speaking like a judge and/or jury who has all the facts of the case, when we really don't know anything.
C) we're speaking about chapels we've never set foot in.
Am I wrong on any of these points? This goes for several members, including Mw2016, Happenby and Arsenius (and maybe 1 or 2 others).
All I'm calling for is for laymen to know their place, and stay there. And for a bunch of us to mind our own business. What goes on in a Trad chapel in England is between God, Bishop Williamson, Fr. Abraham, and the congregation there. Where does Mw2016 come in? She doesn't. That's my point.
Unless she's set herself up as some kind of self-appointed "guardian of souls", some kind of superhero whose superpower is "loving and caring". Her heart can love 100X more than any of ours, I guess.
You'll have to forgive me, as I'm not a superhero and thus I only have a "normal" capacity for caring about the innocence of children and such...
But seriously, if she has no connection to the chapels in question, why is she spending hours on the Internet ranting about how derelict Bp. Williamson is? I guess she wants all the priests involved to be castrated, hung, drawn and quartered. Would that satisfy her bitter zeal?
Does she really think she'll have to answer to God if she doesn't "speak up" and make her 30th post in this thread? NEWSFLASH: You've said your piece. No one can accuse you of silence. You are absolved, Mw2016. Your hands are clean. Go in peace.
-
The next epoisode is about Post Falls.
What are you going to do then? What if the school scandal is included in their Post Falls reporting?
You certainly offered your full support in the ousting of perverts in Fr. Vassal's jurisdiction (both school and parish) in that case, but you selectively do not offer your support in the ousting of Bp. Fellay, Bp. Williamson, and Bp. Faure's perverts. Why is that?
Apples and oranges. Two different cases can have two different verdicts. It's basic logic.
And I never suggested Fr. P should have a public ministry. Fr. P needs to go to a monastery and do penance for the rest of his life. I read that post about what he did -- it wasn't pretty.
I'm not going to presume to say what I would do if I were Bishop Williamson. If I were him, I would know Fr. Abraham better, etc. Let's just say I have some measure of trust left in my heart, despite so many betrayals over the years. Sadly, some have completely lost all ability to trust, just like others have lost all ability to love (for fear of being hurt). Again, it's sad.
I also have some measure of humility -- to admit I don't know everything, I'm just a layman, etc. Why should I second-guess every judgment made by a priest or bishop? Who do I think I am?
I think the USML should remove that chapel (where Fr. P says Mass) from their listings, to prevent future confusion. I don't know who runs the chapel. I think multiple priests say Mass there. But all I know is that when Fr. P applied to be in the USML, he was rejected. So he is not a member.
-
Feet of clay, let us all remember that phrase, just because a tv program makes a report, does not mean it is not true, unpalatable, YES, but again,dont shoot the messenger, the spin might be against the resistance, but the reality is these things happened within SSPX,
-
Feet of clay, let us all remember that phrase, just because a tv program makes a report, does not mean it is not true, unpalatable, YES, but again,dont shoot the messenger, the spin might be against the resistance, but the reality is these things happened within SSPX,
I don't think anyone is denying that their report is very condemning of Fr. P, Bp Fellay, and Fr. Schmidberger. The question is to what extent does this report have to do with Bp Williamson, Bp Faure, or Bp W's decision to let Fr. Abraham offer Mass for the 3 dozen or so Resistance faithful in London.
-
Fr. P needs to go to a monastery and do penance for the rest of his life. I read that post about what he did -- it wasn't pretty.
I'm not going to presume to say what I would do if I were Bishop Williamson. If I were him, I would know Fr. Abraham better, etc. Let's just say I have some measure of trust left in my heart, despite so many betrayals over the years. Sadly, some have completely lost all ability to trust, just like others have lost all ability to love (for fear of being hurt). Again, it's sad.
I also have some measure of humility -- to admit I don't know everything, I'm just a layman, etc. Why should I second-guess every judgment made by a priest or bishop? Who do I think I am?
I think the USML should remove that chapel (where Fr. P says Mass) from their listings, to prevent future confusion. I don't know who runs the chapel. I think multiple priests say Mass there. But all I know is that when Fr. P applied to be in the USML, he was rejected. So he is not a member.
On the first priest, we agree.
On the second, I think the public interest would be better served all around for the faithful and the reputation of the Resistance alike if Fr. Abraham was just Bp. W's butler. It doesn't really seem like Fr. Abraham is a hill worth dying on to me.
-
NO, the question is who are the ostriches here, no one is coming out smelling of roses, neither BW or BF, et al, a golden jail, and take up where we left off, Naw, seems wrong piled upon wrong.
-
This is completely erroneous. Fr Abraham was not only convicted of the crime of perverted acts and ordered not to mix with children, ...
Quite a bit of "he said, she said" going back and forth here. Perhaps you could show us where/who/when he was convicted and exactly what his punishment was? I, for one, don't know.
-
The requirement for Bp. Williamson to maintain the highest degree of credibility and nobility is not to be underestimated. He, above all the bishops, ought to maintain the utmost standards and avoid at all costs the merest whiff of scandal or impropriety.
This board went bonkers when Fr. Pfeiffer endorsed Fr. Tetherow, another pedophile priest, but yet they have no such reaction of horror to Bp. Williamson's own association with a pedophile priest. Seems silly to me, at best.
With Fr. Pfeiffer, association with Fr. Tetherow was just the latest in a long line of bad decisions. Also, those priests are in the United States and many people have first-hand experience of Fr. Pfeiffer and/or Fr. Tetherow to attest to actions.
Bp Williamson does not have a long history of poor decision-making and Fr. Abraham is an unknown to most Americans. I have spoken in person to someone who has known Fr. Abraham most of his life and she speaks very highly of him.
I do generally agree with your first statement, but I'm not Bp Williamson, and he's obviously decided that housing Fr. Abraham and allowing him to offer Mass to those who have requested it is worth the cost. It's his decision to make. Toss it in with Poem of the Man God and questionable visionaries -- he does what he thinks is right and doesn't seem to care what it does to his reputation.
-
Under Bishop Fellay, Fr A was tried and ordered to stay away from children, which apparently, the SSPX seems to have carried out until he left. BW hired him on at Broadstairs and put him back in business unbeknownst to the laity who now actually defend him. Now this is very interesting, because normal people won't defend someone who has a standing order not to mix with children for perverted behavior, unless of course, they are in the dark.
Unless you can show me something to the contrary, my understanding is that Fr. A's assignment to work at the priory in London did not follow a trial of any sort. Now, this is not to say that he is not guilty of something, only that Bp Williamson is not violating any decree of punishment by offering Fr. A a different place to stay.
And, at least some of the laity in London have known Fr. Abraham since before he was a priest -- he's a local, not an unknown tossed upon them.
-
With Fr. Pfeiffer, association with Fr. Tetherow was just the latest in a long line of bad decisions. Also, those priests are in the United States and many people have first-hand experience of Fr. Pfeiffer and/or Fr. Tetherow to attest to actions.
But how can you consider Fr. Pfeiffer's association with Fr. Tetherow to be a bad decision, when you consider that Bp. Williamson's association with Fr. Abraham isn't a problem, or bad decision?
I don't understand how a physical location can make such a difference. Are pedophiles only really considered harmful if we have first-hand knowledge of them in our own country?
-
The fact is Fr P, and Fr M are totally different people to Fr Abraham, it is disquieting that BW is acting as if there is no problem regarding Fr Abraham, if that is the case BW should give his reasons for having trust in said Father, and clear the air, for the other two mentioned Priests, that is for BF and Menz to explain...
-
On the second, I think the public interest would be better served all around for the faithful and the reputation of the Resistance alike if Fr. Abraham was just Bp. W's butler. It doesn't really seem like Fr. Abraham is a hill worth dying on to me.
When the majority of people who insist on crucifying Bp Williamson over this are people who don't like him to begin with, there's not nearly as much damage as one might perceive. Yes, The Recusant and Swedish TV are going to make it sound as bad as possible, but they aren't going to support Bp Williamson either way.
Who does support him? The elderly couple in London who are friends with the bishop and requesting Fr. Abraham to say Mass for them and whoever else wishes to show up. If you're imagining dozens of possible victims at Fr. Abraham's fingertips, you're quite mistaken as to the reality.
-
But how can you consider Fr. Pfeiffer's association with Fr. Tetherow to be a bad decision, when you consider that Bp. Williamson's association with Fr. Abraham isn't a problem, or bad decision?
I don't understand how a physical location can make such a difference. Are pedophiles only really considered harmful if we have first-hand knowledge of them in our own country?
It's not just physical location, the situations are not the same. But, all other this being equal, CathInfo is more likely to have reliable information about an American priest than an English one. And, we're mostly just guessing when it comes to knowledge about the French priest unless you're in contact with someone in France.
I really can't answer as to why Fr. Tetherow is bad because I don't know anything about him. However, there are others on this board who do know a lot about him and strongly recommend he be avoided. I didn't read everything about him because the number of charges against Fr. Pfeiffer were already numerous and Fr. Pfeiffer was the primary topic.
I don't think Bp Williamson's association with Fr. Abraham is a bad decision at all (ie. butler), but his allowing him to say Mass for a small group in London is certainly more debatable.
-
Unless you can show me something to the contrary, my understanding is that Fr. A's assignment to work at the priory in London did not follow a trial of any sort. Now, this is not to say that he is not guilty of something, only that Bp Williamson is not violating any decree of punishment by offering Fr. A a different place to stay.
And, at least some of the laity in London have known Fr. Abraham since before he was a priest -- he's a local, not an unknown tossed upon them.
Here you go.
It's in the docuмentary.
It's at the 30:51 mark.
"In 2006...[under the SSPX..] Fr. Abraham was isolated, underwent years of therapy, and was banned from working as a priest. He was also brought before a Church tribunal, but chose to leave the SSPX before the verdict was passed...After joining Bp. Williamson's Resistance, all that seems forgotten."
So, yes, it would seem that Bp. Williamson is, in fact, violating the SSPX's decree that Fr. Abraham be banned from working as a priest.
Gold Peak:
I came across this blog, however do not know who this person is who has this blog. Has a Facebook page in a different language. If any of you could shed light on the author of this article. And what is Father Abraham first name?
-
It's an interesting question. Is the decision made by the SSPX that he not work as a priest required to carry with Father if the leaves the SSPX? I know nothing about canon law, but it would be the difference between doing something wrong and doing something possibly imprudent.
-
What a Twilight Zone. There are two types of trads. Those who can be convinced that there's a good reason to have pedophile priests administering the faithful, and those who can't.
I'm a proud member of the latter group. I must not have Matthew's humility.
-
What a Twilight Zone. There are two types of trads. Those who can be convinced that there's a good reason to have pedophile priests administering the faithful, and those who can't.
I'm a proud member of the latter group. I must not have Matthew's humility.
You are being sarcastic, right?
-
It's hard to tell nowadays.
I don't accept that a person cannot discern whether he, himself, is being sarcastic.
-
The people saying that this is acceptable obviously haven't dealt with the long term affects of sɛҳuąƖ abuse. Pedophilia doesn't have to mean penetration. Even fondling, inappropriate looks/solicitation is disturbing and damaging enough. sɛҳuąƖ abuse destroys entire lives.
Arsenius, Please do NOT twist what I wrote, I did not say that this is 'acceptable' .....nor did I say that the lives of victims of sɛҳuąƖ abuse are not affected….nor did I say that Pedophilia does NOT destroy the lives of the innocent victims.
On the Contrary, I think it is a horrible crime against the innocent. In fact, I went to the next stage, which is repentance and reparation.
Let me explain to you, and the likes of mw2016, what I was trying to get at, once more.
a) Repentance
Acts 9:3 And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. [4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=9&l=4#x) And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=9&l=5#x) Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Why did Jesus save Paul? If you recall, a short time before this incident, Saint Stephen was martyred and Paul persecuted many innocent Christians. Yet Paul was forgiven because he REPENTED and changed his ways?
b) Reparation
Luke 7:37 And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment. 7:38 And standing behind at his feet. She began to wash his feet with tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment.
Did not Jesus, forgive and save this sinner?
Hence in a true conversion there is a renewal of faith, sorrow for sin and total reparation.
So my question for you, and the likes of mw2016 (who keep repeating and promoting the Swedish journalist report as if it were gospel truth) are:
a) If and only if these ‘accusations’ can be substantiated, do you know if these priests have repented and have made reparation for their past behavior?
b) Have you taken the time to investigate the accuracy of the accusations in the report?
c) Did you go to the parishes that these two priests say Holy Mass (in England and France) and speak to the parishioners and take their opinion? Did you see if these priests are indeed supervised during their interactions with the Laity after they allegedly joined the ‘Resistance’?
While you and mw2016 are at it, I would recommend that you also investigate Pablo/Kentucky too, because not too long ago there was a lady who went to volunteer at Kentucky, and accused the cook of abusing and mistreating her.
And yes, I almost forgot the hundreds of ‘Novus Ordo’ so called Clergy who had infiltrated the Catholic Church and the large settlements that followed? Does anyone ask why the Swedish Journalist does not cover those grave cases too? Is there a bigger picture to this report?
At least in the report, when questioned, the ‘Resistance’ Bishop emphasizes the need for safety of the 'souls' of the laity and the need for proper supervision so that no lives are endangered.
However, in the case of Kentucky there was no response at all. In fact the person who was being accused continues to stay ‘in charge’ of ‘operations’?
And in case of the ‘Novus Ordo’ atrocities by some Clergy …… I don’t even know where to begin…….
-
I've loved BW from the first time I saw him and desire only that he cease and desist for the sake of Tradition and Traditional Catholics. All Catholics have the duty to avoid scandal: priests and bishops too. It grieves me that my bishop has shown a lack of prudence in this matter, and it is the only reason I post here on this subject. I'd do the same to my brother/husband/uncle/father/mother/sister flirting with trouble.
Same here.
I received the slap of Confirmation on my cheek from Bp. Williamson himself.
I have always loved him. That is why it is so painful to see his egregious error which has put the souls of children in danger, and brought scandal to the faithful of the SSPX and the Resistance. We all want to see him do the right thing.
The filmmaker's had one thing exactly right at the beginning of the film; the secrecy of the SSPX. It is the most damaging thing. The more they try to hide their dirty secrets, the more of a failure they are.
-
Jacob
That is a complete fabrication. The decision to admit Fr U was made by Fr Schmidberger, as Superior General, and Abp Lefebvre, it was not made by Bishop Williamson.
-
What a Twilight Zone. There are two types of trads. Those who can be convinced that there's a good reason to have pedophile priests administering the faithful, and those who can't.
I'm a proud member of the latter group. I must not have Matthew's humility.
I must not have it either. Here we are, Catholics of all walks, you a sedevacantist (correct me if I'm wrong), mw2016, happenby Resistance supporters, myself (who according to Matthew am "barely a trad"; I'll leave it for God to decide) - and we all think this fiasco is wrong, imprudent, and indefensible. This isn't a Resistance vs. anti-Resistance, Trad vs. Modernist deal. Some of my close friends (real friends, not people I "know" on the Internet) who are supportive of the Resistance think this is crazy as well; they just aren't being vocal about it on this forum.
-
Today on France Infos (news channel of state TV): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/religion/pedophilie-de-l-eglise/le-mettre-hors-d-etat-de-nuire-andre-poursuit-le-pretre-qu-il-accuse-de-pedophilie_2134879.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/religion/pedophilie-de-l-eglise/le-mettre-hors-d-etat-de-nuire-andre-poursuit-le-pretre-qu-il-accuse-de-pedophilie_2134879.html)
-
Today on France Infos (news channel of state TV): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/religion/pedophilie-de-l-eglise/le-mettre-hors-d-etat-de-nuire-andre-poursuit-le-pretre-qu-il-accuse-de-pedophilie_2134879.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/religion/pedophilie-de-l-eglise/le-mettre-hors-d-etat-de-nuire-andre-poursuit-le-pretre-qu-il-accuse-de-pedophilie_2134879.html)
Thank you for posting this.
It is important to know that one of the victim's profiled in the film has a lawsuit filed against his abuser.
I am surprised the lawsuit was not mentioned in Part 1.
I wonder if Part II about the Post Falls scandal will reveal that any of the parents there have filed suit against Bp. Fellay or Fr. Vassal. The statute of limitations certainly have not run out.
From the article:
André sues the priest whom he accuses of pedophilia
A traditionalist abbot, accused of sɛҳuąƖ abuse at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, has been the subject of a complaint since September.
Nearly thirty years later, will justice recognize André's victim status? In September 2016, the engineer filed a complaint of sɛҳuąƖ assault and attempted rape against a priest he accused of abusing him in Belgium and France when he was a child. In January, a judicial investigation was opened in La Roche-sur-Yon (Vendée). "It's a first victory," said his lawyer, Nelly Souron-Laporte
-
This morning, I trimmed some of the "fluff" from this thread -- just as I did with the Post Falls thread when it was a few days old.
You know, removal of tangents, posts with no real content, repetitions, "nevermind"s, etc. And one other category of post, namely:
One member in particular was quite repetitious, so I removed a lot of her "opinion-only" type posts, since they were repetitious in the extreme, and she was dominating the thread. This is not her personal blog or soapbox. The truth is that she is ONE VOICE out of many, ONE American laywoman, and I wanted the contents of this thread to reflect that REALITY. She has a right to her opinion, but she doesn't get to be 50% of the discussion. If she wants to go start her own blog, she can be my guest. She obviously has the time, energy, and passion for it!
I kept 100% of her posts where she made actual contributions to the discussion: links, docuмentation, research, etc. You know, posts worthy of the space they take up on my server. Opinions are like armpits; everyone has one, and they stink. (Word to the wise: the original quote was obviously not "armpits" since everyone has TWO of those. I'll leave the original quote to your imagination...)
I say: contribute to the discussion as much as you want, give your opinion once or maybe twice for emphasis, and then be silent and let others give theirs. No one likes a loudmouth who tries to control the "narrative" for an entire thread. No offense intended towards the woman in question, but such behavior is usually an objective sign of pride.
-
Well I have not even got to give my opinion! It was taken off!
I will repeat, there are priests in the resistance who think that the resistance should not co-operate with Fr. P.
I will not give names, because of the Bishop Williamson idolators lynch mob.
I am not a Pfeifferite in case you you are tempted to think that.
If you want to be anonymous and new, then prepare to defend yourself against what all of us are going to think.
You say you're not a Pfeifferite. That's great. Who are you, may I ask? You are brand-new on CathInfo, and have made 2 other posts, with no significant content. You didn't post in the "Introduce Yourself" thread or anything.
You can't expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt we'd give a 5 year veteran. Heck, for all we know, you were banned at some point and this is a 2nd (or 3rd) account for you.
-
Mw2016,
Happenby's posts had the same standard as yours, and she fits in the same category. I only got rid of a few "passionate opinion" (not to say "hysterical") type posts, which added NOTHING of value to the thread.
I have to think of the good of the forum -- the entire membership -- not just the exaltation of YOUR precious opinion. You complain that the thread is 8 pages long, but 8 pages (X 15 posts per page) is still almost 120 posts! Newcomers will still find that PLENTY to wade through. Not everyone has the amount of free time YOU have, for example...
Information is certainly of value. But these posts by Happenby added no information. Just giving us her 2cents worth, her opinions, and her feelings. Opinions are like armpits...
I already explained my reasoning for removing a bunch of your posts. If you have any questions, re-read the post above, or PM me.
As I said before -- your opinion (a.k.a., your commands for Bishop Williamson, Bishop Faure, etc.) have been duly noted. AND I was even magnanimous enough to let them stand in the thread, even though I disagree with most of them.
I just went into the database to quickly count how many posts you've made in this thread -- the number of SURVIVING posts that is. Twenty-seven. Divided by the current total which his 117, that means that Mrs. Mw2016 has made 23% of the posts in this thread!
And you're complaining because you're no longer 50%? Who the HECK do you think you are? I wouldn't complain if I were you. I'm giving you a free soapbox as it is. Show some gratitude.
My point is that you can give someone else the floor now.
-
A priest falling into such perversions are such great crimes that when someone falls into such sins I would never trust him again no matter how much he claims to be repentant. And when his superiors are lenient and allow him to act as a priest again and even be around children, I hold them guilty of the crimes the pervert commits in the future.
-
Am I not allowed to remain anonymous?
I'm not expecting you to have a great respect for me, I am expecting you to listen to WHAT I am saying.
-
Mw2016,
Stop promoting that stupid Swedish Mainstream Media filth. It's not a Fifth Gospel. If anyone wants to watch it, they know where to find it. The link is on CathInfo enough times as it is.
I can do my job, thank you very much. But thanks for the help though. My job is to worry about the good of the membership, as regards finding and organizing the information here.
I think it's really ironic, and shocking, that you are so quick to dismiss the posts of so many Traditional Catholics here, like WE'RE the bad guys, yet you have the Swedish journalists up on a pedestal. Maybe if I became a Christ-hating anti-Catholic journalist you'd start revering my words as well? Seriously: anything they say on TV, you revere it as God's own truth. Newsflash: just because something is on TV doesn't make it true. Same goes for the Internet.
If you would more than skim the posts of others, you would have read that the entire congregation(s) of Fr. Abraham are well aware of his past. In other words, the danger has been address, alleviated, and neutralized. The danger is when parishioners are exposed to a predator, unawares, especially when children are involved (boys camps, altar server training, etc.)
Another point that no one has brought up: the Resistance is so small, its facilities so meager, that there is little-to-no opportunity for "grooming", which is always the precursor to any predatory actions. When the whole Mass takes place in a tiny one-room chapel, or hotel room, it's hard to get any alone time with the altar boys, know what I mean? The priest flies in, says Mass, maybe has dinner with a parishioner, and then flies out. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predator scandals ONLY happen in large, professional, "established" churches, whether those churches be protestant, novus ordo Catholic, or large Trad organizations (SSPX, FSSP, ICK, Diocesan), etc. You have to have a certain amount of infrastructure (priories, sleeping quarters, living areas, closed-off sacristy, classrooms, dormitories, etc.) for privacy to even be possible!
For all the talk about the Resistance, no one has pointed this out.
P.S. What the heck do you know about Canon Law? What you don't know about it could fill an ocean, and what you do know could probably fill a thimble. And yet you presume to attack Bishop Williamson in the post you just made. Who do you think you are, you proud and headstrong woman?
St. Paul said women should remain silent in Church. I understand why!
-
I have placed a temporary ban on Mw2016. I have too much to do this week to spend all day arguing and moderating CathInfo. Besides my normal duties of state (you know, good old paid work!) I have to prepare for an out-of-town trip to celebrate Holy Week.
A few posts ago, I went into the database to quickly count how many posts she had made in this thread -- the number of SURVIVING posts that is. Twenty-seven. Divided by the current total which was 117 at the time = Mrs. Mw2016 has made 23% of the posts in this thread!
And yet she cries "censorship" because I won't let her be 50% of the posts. Start your own blog, lady!
She'll be duly unbanned next week.
-
To be fair, I will reverse the bans on FlatEarthInquisitor, backdownunder, and DeProfundisClamavi if ANYONE can show me JUST ONE forum where insulting the moderator to his face will not result in an immediate ban.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable.
I've been asking for someone to prove me wrong on this for years -- still no luck. I'm still waiting.
Micro-forums with less than 150 members don't count, by the way. Forums just starting out are often crazy tolerant, since they're desperate for members and activity.
-
I think we all thought traditional Catholicism would be a safe haven from the sodomites in the Novus Ordo. But, no, while there may not be as many sodomites, there have been sodomy rumors and scandals among the SSPX, the sedevacantists, the resistance, and independent traditional Catholics. As we are all going to frequent confession and trying to avoid all sin including venial sins (I am sure some of us are careful about all of our thoughts and even about eating a little too much or drinking too much soda and other such things) it seems some of our priests are secretly laughing at us while they are slaves to impurity, are watching sodomitical child porn and even sodomizing our children.
-
I think we all thought traditional Catholicism would be a safe haven from the sodomites in the Novus Ordo. But, no, while there may not be as many sodomites, there have been sodomy rumors and scandals among the SSPX...
Just keep in mind what the discussion is about. There is no question of child depredation taking place at ANY resistance chapel anywhere in the world. No one is claiming otherwise. What is at issue is the background of a couple of priests.
Even the worst offender mentioned so far by the Swedish TV station, "Fr. P", hasn't committed any crimes at the "Chapelle Sainte Cécile" (mentioned on the USML website), where he is currently stationed.
All the dirty laundry of these 2 priests happened when they were SSPX priests.
All I want people to realize, calmly and without emotion, is that we don't have all the facts of these cases. Some of us would like to think that we do, but we don't. We've done the equivalent of "reading 1 book" which does not make us an expert.
Knowing a few facts about a case doesn't make us qualified to render a judgment on a case, any more than reading a book on computers makes us a computer expert, or taking 1 year of piano lessons makes us a professional pianist.
You know that saying, that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?
-
Just keep in mind what the discussion is about. There is no question of child depredation taking place at ANY resistance chapel anywhere in the world. No one is claiming otherwise. What is at issue is the background of a couple of priests.
There are two or three priests with ties to the resistance with histories of sodomitical perversions that I have heard about. I do not know if any of them have abused children in the resistance. There have been no reports of this yet that I have seen. But I would not be surprised if any of these priests did fall into these sins again. I am sure the devil will try to tempt them to commit these sins and they have the history of giving in to these temptations.
-
I think we all thought traditional Catholicism would be a safe haven from the sodomites in the Novus Ordo.
If that's what you thought, then you were naive in the extreme. Might I point out that you said something like this at the beginning of the Post Falls expose thread as well. And I would answer much the same way:
Did you think that Trad baptisms washed away the damage caused by Original Sin, as well as Original Sin itself? Sorry. Traditional Catholics, both clerics and laity, are still fallen human beings, tempted by the devil to commit various sins. Sin is as possible for a Trad priest as it is for a Novus Ordo priest. The only advantages the Trad priest has is A) more truth B) less error and C) better spiritual formation.
The advantage of the Traditional Catholic world is that we have the truth. We don't allow ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to take over our seminaries. We don't play pornography or R-rated movies at our seminaries. We don't teach doctrines of Sigmund Freud (a pervert) at our seminaries. And Traditional Catholics get a lot more truth and REASON than the Novus Ordo, which is essentially sentimental, emotional, neutered, and feminine to begin with. The ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who infiltrate have an easy time, with such a foundation already built!
That is what one has to hope for by jumping on board the Traditional Catholic ship. Escaping all sin? Not going to happen.
-
As Bishop Williamson would say: we all have to THINK and DO OUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE. We can't just be lazy, send our kids to a private school, and not give them another thought. SORRY. If you're a lazy parent, then you deserve whatever happens to your children. There is no free lunch. Sorry! We have to THINK, even if IT HURTS.
We all need to keep our eyes open for the warning signs of child predators. Be on the lookout for inappropriate friendships, gifts, touching, and other "grooming" behavior. And we have to be very careful how many "opportunities" we give any man to permanently damage our childrens' souls.
If your goal is for your children to experience everything life has to offer, with an impressive list of activities checked off their "bucket lists", then you've picked your poison. I, personally, would rather my children risk their purity a bit less, and be a bit less "fulfilled". Let them experience eternal joy in heaven. Then they won't mind that they never got to experience Disneyland or summer camp.
-
Yes. I expected traditional Catholic priests to not be sodomites. If that is being naive to the extreme then call me naive. When I see other traditional Catholics I assume they are not sodomites, do not use birth control, do not watch porn, do not masturbate, etc, even laymen, but especially the priests. But of course I have never heard the confessions of my fellow traditional Catholics so I do not know what skeletons they have in their closets.
-
Yes. I expected traditional Catholic priests to not be sodomites. If that is being naive to the extreme then call me naive. When I see other traditional Catholics I assume they are not sodomites, do not use birth control, do not watch porn, do not masturbate, etc, even laymen, but especially the priests. But of course I have never heard the confessions of my fellow traditional Catholics so I do not know what skeletons they have in their closets.
That's a lovely delusion, quite charming, but it's dangerous. Because when you find out that some Traditional Catholics DO fornicate, DO masturbate, etc. then you are tempted to give up on the Faith altogether.
So you start out with an above-average regard for Trads, which sounds great, but you're just setting yourself up for a fall in the end. The devil grins with delight: "Just wait..." he says to himself. As long as he gets you in the end, he doesn't care how he does it.
It's the same tactic the devil uses on things like fasting. He will actually push you to EXCESSIVE fasting, so you will give up on all mortification and lose your soul in the end. Even though fasting is quite useful and meritorious. You'd think the devil would NEVER push you to fast more, just like one might think you can NEVER go wrong by thinking too good about your fellow Traditional Catholics.
Moral of the story: You want the truth. We need the truth to get to heaven. All deviations or exaggerations, whether to the right or to the left, to excess or defect, lead to hell rather than heaven.
-
That's a lovely delusion, quite charming, but it's dangerous. Because when you find out that some Traditional Catholics DO fornicate, DO masturbate, etc. then you are tempted to give up on the Faith altogether.
Dangerous. I don't know. When the post falls scandal happened I was shocked but I was never tempted to give up the faith. When this scandal happened I was shocked but I am not tempted to give up the faith. Would it be better to be full of rash judgments and assume that everyone else is addicted to mortal sin?
It is like every time there is a serial killer the reporters interview the neighbors and they always say "well he was such a nice guy. I can't believe he was ever capable of doing something so horrible."
-
Dangerous. I don't know. When the post falls scandal happened I was shocked but I was never tempted to give up the faith. When this scandal happened I was shocked but I am not tempted to give up the faith. Would it be better to be full of rash judgments and assume that everyone else is addicted to mortal sin?
It is like every time there is a serial killer the reporters interview the neighbors and they always say "well he was such a nice guy. I can't believe he was ever capable of doing something so horrible."
Let me explain it this way. Take the case of a person falling into sin.
You can err by defect of contrition: "I didn't sin. It's only human to want ____. I have nothing to be sorry for." and fall into presumption and pride.
You can err by "excess" of contrition: "Oh, woe is me! I've fallen into sin. I'm so wretched, even God can't help me. I'm certainly lost for sure..." and fall into despair. This is actually a different version of pride -- to think one is THE WORST sinner, and that even God can't help them. Note the key element here is a loss of peace of soul over one's sin(s). It's as if they thought they were above sinning, and are flabbergasted that they fell into sin.
Then there is the correct attitude: "Why should I be surprised, that a wretched sinner has sinned. Have mercy on me, O Lord." -- do penance, strive to reform, and keep your interior peace.
You can assume everyone around you is a worm (defect of charity)
You can assume that everyone around you is a saint (that is to be detached from reality)
Or, you can be in touch with reality, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt whenever possible (don't assume any INDIVIDUAL is guilty of any particular sin, unless proof is shoved in your face) but being cautious IN GENERAL about the mass of humanity.
It's not rash judgment, but prudence that tells you to refrain from giving your neighbor your debit card, or leaving the door unlocked.
Likewise it's not rash judgment, but prudence that tells you to forbid your wife to be alone with another man. You're not thinking the worst about her, or rash judging her, you're just acknowledging fallen human nature and being prudent.
You don't accuse your next-door neighbor of being a thief. Or your across-the-street neighbor. But you lock your house because thieves do exist, and we should be prudent (cautious).
I hope that helps.
-
I do not expect traditional Catholics to be perfect, even the priests. But I do expect them to be free from habitual mortal sins if they are receiving the sacraments. I expect regular non-Catholics to commit mortal sins all the time but not traditional Catholics. I try to think highly of everyone I know from church and would be shocked if I found out that any of them were sodomites.
-
I do not expect traditional Catholics to be perfect, even the priests. But I do expect them to be free from habitual mortal sins if they are receiving the sacraments. I expect regular non-Catholics to commit mortal sins all the time but not traditional Catholics. I try to think highly of everyone I know from church and would be shocked if I found out that any of them were sodomites.
Well, it's true in a way -- we don't expect to find child predators, murderers, etc. at our Trad chapels. In this respect, I was a bit surprised/shocked when a parishioner from a Trad chapel committed ѕυιcιdє several years ago. It's also quite disappointing when you hear about a family breaking up, adultery, divorce, separation, etc.
But as I said above, my shock didn't last long, because I knew that this young person lived in the world, and very well could have the same problems everyone else has -- including temptation to ѕυιcιdє. Going to a Latin Mass once a week doesn't make you automatically different from everyone else in the world. That is why, to some extent, nothing ever surprises me once my reason kicks in.
-
This really has very little to do with moral outrage over someone's sin. Temptation is strong and the will is weak. People sin, even priests, even grievously. It's been going on forever and it'll keep happening because we all fall short of glory.
But we're not talking about John Doe spotting Fr. Smith at the local strip club.
This is really about the public danger imposed on the faithful by someone in a position of moral authority being a sɛҳuąƖ predator.
-
This is really about the public danger imposed on the faithful by someone in a position of moral authority being a sɛҳuąƖ predator.
1. Being a sɛҳuąƖ predator, or having been a sɛҳuąƖ predator on 1 or 2 occasions in the past? Objectively speaking, there's a difference. Obviously unrepentant/unreformed and repentant/reformed are two different things. Now one's course of action might be the same in both cases -- that much is open for debate.
I might allow a former Lutheran to run the chapel bookstore or be choir director -- as long as he's a Trad Catholic now. But if he's still a proud Lutheran, forget it!
2. Also, what kind of "sɛҳuąƖ predator" was he? Did he rape a boy, or did he just write love letters to a boy? Call me crazy if you want, but I think there should be a distinction between the two. It's simply not just or fair to prosecute a man who got into a fight (breaking the 5th Commandment) as a murderer. Nor would it be fair to implement some kind of "Zero Tolerance" policy against violence -- both the boy who hits another boy, and the boy who shoots another boy receive the same punishment. How is that just?
Speaking of "Zero Tolerance"...
3. Where in Catholic doctrine is the phrase "Zero Tolerance" even found? It's everywhere in the modern, liberal world today, but that's beside the point. Where in Catholic teaching does anyone speaking about "Zero Tolerance" for anything? I posit that "Zero Tolerance" is a foreign concept to Catholic thinking. Catholics are concerned about JUSTICE. Period. The Catholic Church is also concerned about achieving JUSTICE.
But so-called "zero tolerance" often leads to miscarriages of justice. It's the lazy way out. It's also a liberal delusion ("everyone is equal", "fair means exact equality", etc.) We don't admire or follow the liberals on anything else, so why do we buy into their "zero tolerance" nonsense?
So when you combine these two errors -- raising all crimes to the same level and then implementing a blind "we aren't allowed to profile anyone" zero-tolerance policy -- you end up with injustice rather than justice.
Why don't we have zero-tolerance for all other crimes, and lynch anyone the rightful courts decides to set free? After all, we can't trust those courts to take their job seriously and pursue justice. ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals of any kind: thieves, murderers, drug pushers, you name it.
Where does it end?
-
1. Being a sɛҳuąƖ predator, or having been a sɛҳuąƖ predator on 1 or 2 occasions in the past? I think there's a difference. Obviously unrepentant/unreformed and repentant/reformed are two different things.
Many Catholics go for absolution repeatedly for the same sins to which they are predisposed. They may be truely contrite and have every intention of avoiding the near occasion of their sin in the future, perform their penances and are full or remorse. They are sincerely repentant. Until they slip again, and find themselves back in the confessional, hangdog and sorrowful.
When their recurring sins endanger the safety and souls of parish families, then priests, bishops and even laymen are duty- bound to make sure the danger is removed.
The recidivism of 136 extrafamilial child molesters who had received phallometric assessment in a maximum security psychiatric institution from 1972 to 1983 was determined over an average 6.3-yr follow-up. 50 had participated in behavioral treatment to alter inappropriate sɛҳuąƖ age preferences. 31% of the Ss were convicted of a new sex offense, 43% committed a violent or sɛҳuąƖ offense, and 58% were arrested for some offense or returned to the institution. Ss convicted of a new sex offense had previously committed more sex offenses, had been admitted to correctional institutions more frequently, were more likely to have been diagnosed as personality disordered, were more likely to have never married, and had shown more inappropriate sɛҳuąƖ preferences in initial phallometric assessment than those who had not. Behavioral treatment did not affect recidivism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved
Not sure I would like those odds if it were my family members at stake. If we were talking about embezzlement or arson, and the person in question had only committed those sins on "1 or 2 occasions in the past", well, I doubt many parishes would choose to put him in charge of their precious property. How much more precious the souls entrusted to a priest or bishop?
-
I've been reading all of the comments, and it's developed a circular pattern, precisely, IMHO because there hasn't been an answer or any type or solution to these insinuations or charges.
I love Bishop Williamson- like others have so stated, and I would like to believe that I haven't been attracted into a "cult of personality" regarding the Bishop, although I have always been drawn to his incredible courage, honesty and faithfulness in the face of constant provocation and duplicity. I can't help but admire that- I think he is a great man.
I in no way believe that the Bishop is harboring "pedophile" priests with any nefarious intent, and I certainly DO believe the Zionists had to drag +Williamson in on this story, even though the focus was on the SSPX, so that the SSPX faithful ( if aware) would not possibly resort to leaving the SSPX and join the resistance-that certainly would never do! The motivation was strictly to funnel the faithful out of Tradition and not to "taint" zio-controlled Conciliar Rome with the Truth of Tradition and the Jєωιѕн role in the corruption of mankind, ( including the promotion of pedophilia) by allowing the SSPX "in". Same MO as last time.
They are very threatened as they knows the destruction of their world hegemony and enslavement ( and worse) can only be seen through the clarity of the Traditional Catholic Church Founded by Christ. This little group of Traditionalists is the greatest threat that they have. Ever wonder why "Russia" is the target of every ill in on the earth and must be destroyed? The intent to destroy Russia is at a hysterical level!
The devils have a greater understanding of Fatima than we ever will-their "lives" depend on it, and time must be short. I have often thought that Satan's proud self-deceit must insist on the destruction of Russia so, in his twisted mind, it could never be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, and his evil show would go on ad infinitum. Silly, but in his pride he always takes it to the extreme, and it surely goeth before a fall.
Bishop Williamson may feel no obligation to address the charges against the(se) priest(s), as there maybe a level of detraction and the story may run much deeper and may be more personal than he feels is in our best interests to know. (There is also the issue of being put on the defense by the zio-videographers- they will keep doing it at every critical juncture , no doubt)
However, because of the publicity, the nature of the possible crimes, and the scandal that has erupted among the faithful, I beg that the good Bishop responds to this situation, for our sakes.
I personally know how a child's life is ruined forever by the destruction of their innocence. I pray that this be addressed.
-
1. Being a sɛҳuąƖ predator, or having been a sɛҳuąƖ predator on 1 or 2 occasions in the past? Objectively speaking, there's a difference. Obviously unrepentant/unreformed and repentant/reformed are two different things. Now one's course of action might be the same in both cases -- that much is open for debate.
I might allow a former Lutheran to run the chapel bookstore or be choir director -- as long as he's a Trad Catholic now. But if he's still a proud Lutheran, forget it!
2. Also, what kind of "sɛҳuąƖ predator" was he? Did he rape a boy, or did he just write love letters to a boy? Call me crazy if you want, but I think there should be a distinction between the two. It's simply not just or fair to prosecute a man who got into a fight (breaking the 5th Commandment) as a murderer. Nor would it be fair to implement some kind of "Zero Tolerance" policy against violence -- both the boy who hits another boy, and the boy who shoots another boy receive the same punishment. How is that just?
Speaking of "Zero Tolerance"...
3. Where in Catholic doctrine is the phrase "Zero Tolerance" even found? It's everywhere in the modern, liberal world today, but that's beside the point. Where in Catholic teaching does anyone speaking about "Zero Tolerance" for anything? I posit that "Zero Tolerance" is a foreign concept to Catholic thinking. Catholics are concerned about JUSTICE. Period. The Catholic Church is also concerned about achieving JUSTICE.
But so-called "zero tolerance" often leads to miscarriages of justice. It's the lazy way out. It's also a liberal delusion ("everyone is equal", "fair means exact equality", etc.) We don't admire or follow the liberals on anything else, so why do we buy into their "zero tolerance" nonsense?
So when you combine these two errors -- raising all crimes to the same level and then implementing a blind "we aren't allowed to profile anyone" zero-tolerance policy -- you end up with injustice rather than justice.
Why don't we have zero-tolerance for all other crimes, and lynch anyone the rightful courts decides to set free? After all, we can't trust those courts to take their job seriously and pursue justice. ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals of any kind: thieves, murderers, drug pushers, you name it.
Where does it end?
I inadvertently posted from the wife's account-- didn't realize she was logged in.
Justice is what Pius V issued for these types: public execution.
Anything short of that is mercy.
Letting the wolf back in the fold? That's insane at best.
-
However, because of the publicity, the nature of the possible crimes, and the scandal that has erupted among the faithful, I beg that the good Bishop responds to this situation, for our sakes.
I personally know how a child's life is ruined forever by the destruction of their innocence. I pray that this be addressed.
It's already been three years, I wouldn't hold your breath.
-
1. Being a sɛҳuąƖ predator, or having been a sɛҳuąƖ predator on 1 or 2 occasions in the past? Objectively speaking, there's a difference. Obviously unrepentant/unreformed and repentant/reformed are two different things. Now one's course of action might be the same in both cases -- that much is open for debate.
I might allow a former Lutheran to run the chapel bookstore or be choir director -- as long as he's a Trad Catholic now. But if he's still a proud Lutheran, forget it!
2. Also, what kind of "sɛҳuąƖ predator" was he? Did he rape a boy, or did he just write love letters to a boy? Call me crazy if you want, but I think there should be a distinction between the two.
With all due respect, even a love letter points to a severely disordered priest. There is no room for sodomites of any kind in the Catholic priesthood.
If we're going to make distinctions as to the severity of this man's alleged crimes, can we not also distinguish between a love letter to a young lady and one to a young man? The former is at least ordered to nature. The latter is inexcusable. And all of this assumes he didn't do something far worse to that child. All sins of the flesh are particularly dangerous, but when the desire is so terribly disordered and unnatural, it's even more repulsive.
I know I've read your comments about the danger of scandal and how it harms the faithful. I am concerned that allowing the offending priest to remain an active member of clergy while harboring even mild ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ/pedophilic tendencies has the potential to scandalize and therefore harm.
As a mother, I'm deeply concerned.
-
Part 2 :(
https://www.svtplay.se/video/13242448/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-14-1?start=auto&tab=senaste (https://www.svtplay.se/video/13242448/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-14-1?start=auto&tab=senaste)
-
With all due respect, even a love letter points to a severely disordered priest. There is no room for sodomites of any kind in the Catholic priesthood.
Apparently there is room for them in one Resistance chapel in the UK.
-
Part 2 :(
https://www.svtplay.se/video/13242448/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-14-1?start=auto&tab=senaste (https://www.svtplay.se/video/13242448/uppdrag-granskning/uppdrag-granskning-sasong-16-avsnitt-14-1?start=auto&tab=senaste)
The first half of the video is about the damage done by Kevin Sloniker. The mother of several of the boys involved is interviewed. Tragic, really.
The second half is about Bishop Williamson and that h0Ɩ0cαųst video. It's obvious that the Swedish television is out to get the SSPX, and though they are wrong about Bishop Williamson's view of the h0Ɩ0cαųst (I agree with Bishop Williamson's stance on that issue), they are right about the tragic circuмstances of the sɛҳuąƖ abuse within the SSPX.
-
Quite a bit of "he said, she said" going back and forth here. Perhaps you could show us where/who/when he was convicted and exactly what his punishment was? I, for one, don't know.
Well said …. You bring up some good points. There are many unanswered questions I would add ….
a) --- Was the alleged victim tracked down by this pro-Zionist Swedish reporter to undermine the SSPX and ‘Resistance’ as they still form the last bastion of opposition to the ‘Brotherhood of Death’?
b) --- Did the person(s) who post ‘Multiple times and repeat themselves on this topic’ actually do their due diligence or investigate all these charges? What about ‘innocent until proven guilty’? Does it not hold anymore?
There are two judgments, the Earthly judgement and the Heavenly judgement. Obviously the Heavenly judgement is NOT for us to decide. In this particular case, the earthly judgement too is not present, except on this message board!
c) --- If individuals really want the truth, there are many more charitable ways of going about this. As mentioned earlier they need to investigate further instead of blindly believing the audio clips they hear in the docuмentary, they need to do extensive research and interview parishioners / clergy in England and France, find out the existing facts and situation at the present time, investigate what preventative measures are in place, whenever these priest are around the faithful? ……. But unfortunately, none of this due diligence is done and there is no ‘new’ substance that sheds any ‘new’ light on the topic... Instead there is a ‘repetition of the same report again and again and again’…. Please give us all a break and post something new!
I am not condoning any actions of the priests involved, IF these incidents actually happened….besides we do not know if there is sincere repentance/reparation and adequate preventative measures in place. I am concerned that some of the posters on this message board are going based on a docuмentary by a reporter who has a track record of trying to hurt the SSPX and the ‘Resistance’.
Mr. Ali Fagan has an agenda and we all know what it is…..
A simple search on google would reveal the extent of child abuse in Sweden and by the Zionist Jєωs, has anyone questioned WHY does Ali Fagan not focus on issues in his own back yard! Yet, he endeavors to bring up a subject that puts all of the SSPX and ‘Resistance’ in bad light?
Here are some links that demonstrate the huge increase in child abuse in Sweden. Ever wonder why this passionate reporter, does not cover reports on the atrocities being carried out in his own ‘Country’ and by members of his own ‘Religion’? A quick search will reveal hundreds of cases of pedophilia by Zionist and Zionist Jєωιѕн Rabbis across the world..
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201701101049438130-sweden-pedophilia-ring (https://sputniknews.com/europe/201701101049438130-sweden-pedophilia-ring)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sɛҳuąƖ-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sɛҳuąƖ-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html)
I am not trying to ‘shoot’ the messenger. However, in this case the ‘messenger’ has an obvious and long standing hatred of the True Catholic Church and the Real ‘Sacrifice of the Holy Mass’!
-
Looking forward to His Excellency Bishop Zendejas's clarification of these pedophile scandals.
-
I recently came across this quote from "The Eponymous Flower":
"The Society has had contacts, as Monsignor Fellay confirms, in Argentina with the then primate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. 'He has known us for a long time.' If there were problems with a local bishop, one had turned to the primate. He said: 'You are, of course, Catholic and not schismatic. I'll help you.' He did."
Are you kidding me? :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
This is the same Cardinal Bergoglio who was under investigation by the Argentine authorities for murder before he became "pope humble". :o
So now we hear that the SSPX is harboring pedophile priests. Gee, what a surprise. ???
All of this wants to make me crawl under a rock and wait for better times. The spirit of Charity seems to be leaving the church like the air in a balloon.
Where is the bottom? How is this all going to end?
Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us, You are our only Hope.
-
Bergoglio removed two third-world Jesuits from undercover and many covert marxitas from Argentina. Just to get the problem out of it, not out of conviction.
Pedophile priests are in the neo-FSSPX (Father "M", who is no longer hiding in Paris, after the report have been removed) and concealed by Fellay. He also had the rapist Roisnel, already imprisoned :facepalm:.
Do not take it badly, but Williamson has the pedophile Abraham and Peignot (who escaped from the SSPX to avoid canonical judgment and what shows their lack of repentance). Do not forget Marshall Roberts, old acquaintance of the bishop. The bishop is angry when they touch the subject, it is evident that it conceals it. So does Faure ... :facepalm:
My fear is when I attack again, the children will have a bad time ... :-[
-
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27332660_179304032837936_4215769200500320641_n.jpg?oh=f67616a6b52ea6e35cbdb4b162da6942&oe=5AD81634)
-
But we're not talking about John Doe spotting Fr. Smith at the local strip club.
In Fr. Roberts' case, this is essentially what happened.
-
Marian Horvat sounded the alarm at another Resistance parish where yet another pedo priest showed up.
Fr. Colletti at OLHC in Orange County. Fr. Perez did the right thing and recently gave him the boot, just like he did to Fr. Roberts years ago. Even though there were uninformed parishioners who wanted to keep him.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/M001-Colletti.htm
-
Good job, SB.
-
Since this whole thing has been brought up, what's the status of the lawsuit, Matthew?
-
And here' evidence of yet another pedo cover up by +Fellay
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avref.fr%2Fcommunique-de-presse.html&edit-text=
The French original is on Gloria TV: https://gloria.tv/text/R3YKGfV2LsZZ239wBoxpsDrGQ#
Press release
Conviction of a Swiss pedophile priest: the Fraternité Saint-Pie X on the grill for 'criminogenic attitude'
§1
The AVREF (Assistance to Victims of the Drifts of Religious Movements in Europe and their Families), the association "La Parole Libérée", and the group SAPEC (Support for Abused Persons in a relationship of religious authority) wish to recall a few facts all docuмented.
In his indictment, the Advocate General had quarreled the Fraternity of St. Pius X, going so far as to say that it "should have been on the bench of the accused" (Article from La Dernière Heure, 24.X.2017). It should be remembered that, while the SSPX provided elements for the conviction of Abbé Frédéric Abbet, it was only between the first instance and the appeal that it took this position. During the investigation, she made the retention of information, hiding the fact that Frédéric Abbet had been implicated in Valais since 2005 for similar facts. AVREF has convincing docuмents on this subject. When the families of the Belgian victims learned from other sources this heavy past, the SSPX blocked in several ways: by refusing first to put them in touch with the Swiss victim and even to give them his identity, then imposing them to go through a lawyer specially engaged for this purpose. A lawyer of a very particular kind: faithful to the Geneva chapel of the FSSPX, he behaved as an affidia of Bishop Fellay more than a lawyer, treating Belgian families with extreme contempt and systematically hindering their taking contact with the Swiss victim. We do not see cooperation with the courts.
On the contrary, the Congregation of Ecône has been called into question, and it must be, for having placed the abbot
Frédéric Abbet under the same roof as his boarding school in Brussels, while she suspected him of sɛҳuąƖ abuse, following the case of 2005. In their judgment, the judges of appeal describe this putting in contact with children of "criminogenic" (article of La Capitale, 14.XII.2017). It is only by carefully narrowing the opinions of four magistrates, the public prosecutor and three judges, that the Society of St. Pius X manages to give itself the good role.
The signatory associations also note the negligence of Abbe Benoît Wailliez, who was specifically and urgently warned by a mother of the child of the risk of pedophilia by Frédéric Abbet and who took no action. AVREF has a copy of this statement. Recall also that Father Benoît Wailliez waited 6 years to produce an important piece of evidence, during an appeal hearing.
§2
Finally, the signatory associations specify that the question is not only that Abbé Frédéric Abbet was forbidden to be in contact with children for 10 years. In 2006, he had been canonically tried for the 2005 events in Switzerland and, despite his acquittal, the Ecclesiastical Judge ordered the Superior General, Bishop Fellay, to place him "during the said ten-year period in positions of apostolate that will preserve it from any promiscuity cuм pueris and adulescentibus [with children and adolescents] "(canonical judgment of 06.06.2006). Two months later, Bishop Fellay appointed Frédéric Abbet in Brussels, under the same roof as a boarding school.
At present, the Fraternité Saint-Pie X is preparing to canonically judge Abbé Frédéric Abbet for the second time, this time with a mandate from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Are the Vatican authorities aware that they are doing justice in their name by a bishop who trampled on a canonical judgment whose ink was barely dry? How to trust such "justice"? It is time for the Roman authorities to understand that they are likely to offend the victims a little more and to undermine the credibility of what they call their "struggle" against sɛҳuąƖ abuse.
§3
In any case, the AVREF www.avref.fr , The released word www.laparoleliberee.fr and the SAPEC Group www.groupe-sapec.net stand beside the victims and their families to advise them, whether psychologically or in the procedures, canonical and civil. After this heavy questioning of the SSPX, it is inevitable that the latter will assume its responsibilities, criminal and civil.
AVREF recalls that it has dealt with the case of Frédéric Abbet in his "Black Book of the FSSPX" and she announces that she will publish an expanded version of this Black Book in early 2018.
January 10, 2018
Aymeri Suarez-Pazos , Assistance to Victims of Religious Drifting in Europe and their Families (AVREF) - Contact: 06 58 06 12 72
François Devaux, The Liberated Word
Jacques Nuoffer , Support Group for Abused People in a Relationship of Religious Authority (SAPEC Group)
-
It seems Google Translate had failed to pick the first paragraph.
The SAPEC Group , La Parole Libérée and the AVREF join forces for this communiqué on the condemnation of a Swiss pedophile priest: the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X on the grill for 'criminogenic attitude'
After the recent conviction on appeal (December 13th) of the traditionalist priest Frédéric Abbet for pedophilia in Belgium,
RTBF.be:https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/bruxelles/detail_bruxelles-cinq-ans-de-prison-dont-trois-ans-ferme-pour-un-%20pretre-pedophile?id=9788334
the FSSPX (Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie X) has issued a statement in which it congratulates itself for its role in this matter.
FSSPX.ch: http://fsspx.ch/fr/news-events/news/fraternit%C3%A9-saint-pie-x-%E2%80%93-communiqu%C3%A9-de-%20presse-du-13-d%C3%A9cembre-2017-34256 (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://fsspx.ch/fr/news-events/news/fraternit%25C3%25A9-saint-pie-x-%25E2%2580%2593-communiqu%25C3%25A9-de-%2520presse-du-13-d%25C3%25A9cembre-2017-34256&usg=ALkJrhgu-SgCgWRnLAP-o_Wq_IjOUaxnmA)
The AVREF (Assistance to Victims of the Drifts of Religious Movements in Europe and Their Families), the association
"The Liberated Word" and the SAPEC group (Support for Abused Persons in a Religious Authority Relationship) wish to recall a few well-docuмented facts.
-
I'm very angry and sad. It seems like there has been an increase of sɛҳuąƖ perversion within the whole Catholic Church. Traditional Catholicism is dangerous too. Where is the anger and outrage from the laity?
Since USA has legalized gαy marriage, there seems to be an increase of sɛҳuąƖ perversion. There are many traditional Catholics leading a double life.
No more resistance, sedevacantist etc for us.
And of course Novus ordo.
Might as well go to diocesan TLM. Until I get sick of the hypocrites there.
Cathinfo my sanctuary.
Might end up in the catacombs of home.
May Jesus have mercy on all of us!
-
Recap of perverts in resistance:
B. Williamson has fr. Abraham and possibly fr. Piegnot.
Fr. Pfeiffer has fr. Roberts and is "good friends" with Mr. Tetherow (laicised) and Mr. Cordaro (laicised).
..
1. Either you are sure, in which case there is no need for the word 'possibly', or you are not, in which case you are guilty of rash judgment and slander.
2. Since you did not add 'possibly' in Fr. Abraham's case, you must believe you have some solid evidence against him. Why did you never publish it?
3. Fr Pfeiffer is not part of the Resistance. He's a cult leader who answers to no one but himself (and to Pablo maybe).
You ought to chose your words more carefully. Your hatred for perverts is no excuse to drop your standards.
-
And yet, Fr. Abbet was in charge of the camp my son attended in Los Gatos in 2008 or 2009! Unbelievable that those in authority would allow him to lead a BOYS camp.
-
And yet, Fr. Abbet was in charge of the camp my son attended in Los Gatos in 2008 or 2009! Unbelievable that those in authority would allow him to lead a BOYS camp.
You got the wrong priests. It was Ft. Patrick Abbet that was in charge of the Los Gatos Boys Camp.
-
Thank you for telling me, I was just about to grill my son! Fr Frederic Abbet is the accused, I never knew there were two SSPX priests with that last name! Poor Fr. Patrick Abbet, I hope he is never mistaken again for the accused.
-
Since USA has legalized gαy marriage, there seems to be an increase of sɛҳuąƖ perversion. There are many traditional Catholics leading a double life.
May Jesus have mercy on all of us!
It's sadly true... it doesn't matter what group you belong to; Mainstream (Novus Ordo), Indult, SSPX, Resistance, or some Sedevecantist group. All of them have perverts in them or some who are at least warpped minded. I myself am quite broken hearted because I have come to realize how corrupt the girl I'm most attracted to is. She even thinks ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is ok!! And it's so painful...
But we have to keep praying and hold on to Hope. That is what makes us different then everyone else. As bad as things are around us, and even if the fullness of the Apocalypse culminated tomorrow, as Catholics we are OBLIGED to Hope and pray
-
I'm very angry and sad. It seems like there has been an increase of sɛҳuąƖ perversion within the whole Catholic Church. Traditional Catholicism is dangerous too. Where is the anger and outrage from the laity?
Since USA has legalized gαy marriage, there seems to be an increase of sɛҳuąƖ perversion. There are many traditional Catholics leading a double life.
No more resistance, sedevacantist etc for us.
And of course Novus ordo.
Might as well go to diocesan TLM. Until I get sick of the hypocrites there.
Cathinfo my sanctuary.
Might end up in the catacombs of home.
May Jesus have mercy on all of us!
-
THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT WARNINGS FROM THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY CAN NEVER BE THOUGHT ABOUT ENOUGH IN THIS EVIL AGE IN WHICH WE LIVE.
SOMEONE HAS GIVEN A THUMBS DOWN TWICE TO THIS REPLY IN OTHER POSTS and which is REPEATED HERE AGAIN, AND I AM SO AWARE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS;
at CATH INFO we have so many good Catholics but we also have these: shills, AA-1025 TYPES, INFILTRATORS as BELLA DODD WARNED US ABOUT, DUPED ONES, ETC.
PRAISE, HONOR, GLORY and THANKS TO JESUS CHRIST and HIS and OUR MOTHER FOR THEIR GRACIOUS WARNINGS TO US AS FOLLOWS:
Our Lady of La Salette on the 19th of September
(1846) appeared to two youth, Melanie and
Maximum on a Mountain in La Salette,
France. Her words, spoken through Her
tears to them, are chilling and include many
admonitions that may give an answer.
If my people do not wish to submit
themselves, I am forced to let go off
the hand of My Son. It is so heavy and
weighs Me down so much I can no
longer keep hold of it.
I have suffered all the time for the
rest of you! If I do not wish My Son
to abandon you, I must take it upon
Myself to pray for this continually. And
the rest of you think little of this. In
vain you will pray, in vain you will act,
you will never be able to make up to
the troubles I have taken over for the
rest of you.
Our Lady then went on to explain that the
reason for Her continual prayers results,
in part, from failure to honor the Lord's
Day (Sunday) which is against the Third
Commandment of God; and for those taking
the name of God in vain, against God's
Second Commandment. Then Our Lady
continued with a greater concern:
The priest, ministers of My Son, the
priests, by their wicked lives, by their
irreverence and their impiety in the
celebration of the holy mysteries,
by their love of money, their love of
honors and pleasures, the priests
have become cesspools of impurity.
Yes, the priests are asking vengeance
and vengeance is hanging over their
heads. Woe to the priests and to
those dedicated to God who by their
unfaithfulness and their wicked lives
are crucifying My Son again!
God will strike in an
unprecedented way. Woe to the
inhabitants of earth! God will exhaust
His wrath upon them, and no one will
be able to escape so many afflictions
together.
The chiefs, the leaders of the
people of God have neglected prayer
and penance, and the devil has
bedimmed their intelligence. They
have become wandering stars which
the old devil will drag along with
his tail to make them perish. God
will allow the old serpent to cause
divisions among those who reign
in every society and in every family.
Physical and moral agonies will be
suffered.
Italy will be punished for her
ambition in wanting to shake off the
yoke of the Lord of Lords ... Churches
will be locked up or desecrated .•• Woe
to the Princes of the Church who think
only of piling riches upon riches to
protect their authority and dominate
with pride.
The civil governments will have
one and the same plan, which will be
to abolish and do away with every
religious principal, to make way for
materialism, atheism, spiritualism, and
vice of all kinds.
-
THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT WARNINGS FROM THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY CAN NEVER BE THOUGHT ABOUT ENOUGH IN THIS EVIL AGE IN WHICH WE LIVE.
SOMEONE HAS GIVEN A THUMBS DOWN TWICE TO THIS REPLY IN OTHER POSTS and which is REPEATED HERE AGAIN, AND I AM SO AWARE OF THE REASONS FOR THIS;
at CATH INFO we have so many good Catholics but we also have these: shills, AA-1025 TYPES, INFILTRATORS as BELLA DODD WARNED US ABOUT, DUPED ONES, ETC.
PRAISE, HONOR, GLORY and THANKS TO JESUS CHRIST and HIS and OUR MOTHER FOR THEIR GRACIOUS WARNINGS TO US AS FOLLOWS:
Our Lady of La Salette on the 19th of September
(1846) appeared to two youth, Melanie and
Maximum on a Mountain in La Salette,
France. Her words, spoken through Her
tears to them, are chilling and include many
admonitions that may give an answer.
If my people do not wish to submit
themselves, I am forced to let go off
the hand of My Son. It is so heavy and
weighs Me down so much I can no
longer keep hold of it.
I have suffered all the time for the
rest of you! If I do not wish My Son
to abandon you, I must take it upon
Myself to pray for this continually. And
the rest of you think little of this. In
vain you will pray, in vain you will act,
you will never be able to make up to
the troubles I have taken over for the
rest of you.
Our Lady then went on to explain that the
reason for Her continual prayers results,
in part, from failure to honor the Lord's
Day (Sunday) which is against the Third
Commandment of God; and for those taking
the name of God in vain, against God's
Second Commandment. Then Our Lady
continued with a greater concern:
The priest, ministers of My Son, the
priests, by their wicked lives, by their
irreverence and their impiety in the
celebration of the holy mysteries,
by their love of money, their love of
honors and pleasures, the priests
have become cesspools of impurity.
Yes, the priests are asking vengeance
and vengeance is hanging over their
heads. Woe to the priests and to
those dedicated to God who by their
unfaithfulness and their wicked lives
are crucifying My Son again!
God will strike in an
unprecedented way. Woe to the
inhabitants of earth! God will exhaust
His wrath upon them, and no one will
be able to escape so many afflictions
together.
The chiefs, the leaders of the
people of God have neglected prayer
and penance, and the devil has
bedimmed their intelligence. They
have become wandering stars which
the old devil will drag along with
his tail to make them perish. God
will allow the old serpent to cause
divisions among those who reign
in every society and in every family.
Physical and moral agonies will be
suffered.
Italy will be punished for her
ambition in wanting to shake off the
yoke of the Lord of Lords ... Churches
will be locked up or desecrated .•• Woe
to the Princes of the Church who think
only of piling riches upon riches to
protect their authority and dominate
with pride.
The civil governments will have
one and the same plan, which will be
to abolish and do away with every
religious principal, to make way for
materialism, atheism, spiritualism, and
vice of all kinds.
Well, you got a thumbs-up from me. This is so accurate that it reads like something written after the fact (and I am not suggesting this is the case).
The part about the priests needs to be put up on those big digital billboards --- but first of all, the bishops would throw a fit (is this something we need to care about?) and the Jack Chick-reading fundamentalists would have a field day with it (ditto).
And as far as CV being part of this chastisement... an infinitesimally small portion of the world population has gotten sick, an even smaller portion has died, people are losing their jobs (some temporarily, some possibly permanently), and some people are going stir-crazy at home. The sick and dead part, that speaks for itself. Jobs --- carry-out restaurants, Walmart, and grocery stores are hiring, hey, it's honest work, it's better than nothing, and many people are over-extended anyway (bought more house than they need and can afford, in slavery to the mortgage and consumer debt monster, accustomed to a lifestyle that nobody needs in order to live and to flourish). Cabin fever? Hmmm... Rosary, reading the Bible and traditional Catholic books, educating oneself online even on worthwhile secular topics, gardening, home improvement, cooking and baking, exercise in the yard and one's neighborhood... the list goes on.
I will concede that being an old retired guy, who's a homebody to begin with, makes it easy for me to sit back on my high horse and spout off about what other people should be doing. But if lack of work and inability to go out and about are hard to bear... penance, offering one's sufferings, accepting it as temporal punishment, that's just Catholicism 101.
-
This is so accurate that it reads like something written after the fact (and I am not suggesting this is the case).
But if lack of work and inability to go out and about are hard to bear... penance, offering one's sufferings, accepting it as temporal punishment, that's just Catholicism 101.
There is nothing that GOD and His beautiful MOTHER who is our BLESSED MOTHER has left unknown regarding the times which are upon us and what we must do.
Most especially, the hoped and promised CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA done in complete obedience, will usher in the REIGN OF CHRIST THE KING and THE TRIUMPH OF THE IMMACULATE HEART.
THIS is worth fighting for in this evil age in which we live.
We PRAY and HOPE for every beautiful blessing for everyone at Cath Info and our families in our daily Holy Rosary.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL.
PRAISE, HONOR, GLORY, and THANKS TO GOD and our MOTHER,
THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.