http://www.stop-pedos-trad.is/wp/index.php/2015/09/10/abbe-a-mele-a-une-affaire-de-pedophilie-des-sa-premiere-annee-de-sacerdoce/

*** The priest is SSPX Father Frederick Abbet

Switzerland, Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) is a product of the traditionalist middle of the Lower Valais. His mother, born L. (censored mention by the SSPX), is indeed the daughter of the L. (censored mention by the SSPX), former prosecutor of the Lower Valais, a lay people responsible for the purchase buildings of Ecône. Moreover, his uncle Fr. L. (censored mention by SSPX) is an iconic Swiss SSPX priest. Suffice to say that it comes from a true "dynasty" of Valais traditionalism. Moreover, his family through the force of things very close to that of Bishop Fellay, since he grew up in Riddes, the village which includes the hamlet of Ecône.

Ordained a priest in June 2004, Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) is first sent in Argentina, in the school of the child Jesus, in La Reja, in the province of Buenos Aires. According to the official version, his temperament proves unsuitable to the Argentine reality, so it is cut short. But how is strange: his departure is controlled by overriding reasons if he has to leave the school urgently just before Christmas, without waiting for the closing ceremony of the academic year (austral summer holidays begin Christmas). So he is then removed from Argentina, first to Colombia (first aid measure of Father Bouchacourt, each District superior can move freely on its territory any priest entrusted to it), then just follows  months of a strange and tortuous route: Madrid, Flavigny, St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, all informally, without these mutations being reported in the "Cor unum". Curious that he walks informally, systematically into positions without contact with children, an individual whose only problem is, it seems, to be unsuitable for the Argentine mentality.

In July 2005, Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) was participating in a summer camp in the town of Evolène (Valais) and is accused of pedophilia by the family of one of the boys. There  follows a canonical trial within the SSPX, the judge, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais acquitted him in June 2006, believing the evidence insufficient. However, Bishop Fellay estimates the disturbing facts sufficient to impose a disciplinary measure rather specific: a ban for 10 years from any contact with children. That such a decision is imposed means that, in the spirit of Bishop Fellay, the acquittal was probably due more to a lack of evidence that the innocence of the accused. In other words, the superior general said that caution was in order vis-à-vis a highly suspicious individual, who was to remain under supervision. Ah, the good general full of excellent caution! Yes ... but only 2 months later (August 2006), Bishop Fellay calls this same abbot A. (censored mention by SSPX) to Brussels, to a priory home under the same roof and even a primary school dormitory !! That is how to avoid being in contact with children for 10 years ?? "Sure," Bishop Fellay sends his ban by writing to Fr. Jürgen Wegner, a German, the then prior of Brussels. Accordingly, Abbot A. Wegner has apostates with Children: 09/2006 in its district letter he writes: "Fr. Abbet assists me for many administrative tasks." Only problem is that Father Jürgen  is forced to spend more than half of his time outside Brussels, since it is also higher, not 1 but 3 countries! He is superior Benelux district. In France, to us, the size of these three small countries might sound ridiculous but if we look at the figures, we see that the Benelux (75 000km²) is greater than Brittany and PACA region together. This is not negligible, and the Superior of such a grouping can obviously not remain permanently at the priory where he is also the local superior. This, Menzingen, who created the District of 3 countries, obviously knew. In other words, the General House knowingly confided to the Superior of the Benelux a mission impossible: keep an eye A. (censored mention by SSPX). But, of course, as a clerical habit well established in case of new "slippage" of the priest he would still be possible to show the letter of instructions and say "this is not the fault of Menzingen; instructions were given to the Superior of Brussels'. The mitred cowardice is a long tradition in the episcopate.

Should we then wonder what happened? In 2011 the abbot A. (censored mention by SSPX) is accused of "indecent assault with violence or threats" against several children Dutch and French national school SSPX Brussels, located in the same place that the Priory in the Eendracht Street. procedure described by the complainants: suck the #### of boys. And let no one accuse us of writing offensive things: what is shocking, it is these despicable acts, not the fact to denounce! Rather, it is helpful for parents to be aware that these things exist in the "middle tradition" and that we must be on guard. Anyway, Bishop Fellay can be proud: it has deliberately endangered dozens of children. Meanwhile, Fr. Jürgen Wegner was replaced by Father Benedict Wailliez and the latter also Superior of  3 countries could not spend all his time in Brussels. Like his predecessor, it was impossible to keep at eye Abbe A. (censored mention by SSPX).

Several children school of Valais testify against the priest and a criminal trial was held in Belgium in 2014. Again, Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) is acquitted for lack of evidence. One wonders what it takes to convict a pedophile suspect: ask him politely if he accepts being followed by a camera so that there is "sufficient evidence"? In any case, appeal was filed and waiting for a new trial.

This raises many questions, it is the behavior of the SSPX. On one hand, when Bishop Fellay wrote in April 2012 in one of the families, he takes some guilt for his countryman: "That  a priest  could perform such vile acts against children fills us with shame" then he provides support: "Even if a few words can erase the harm [...], these lines want to accompany you in this event and tell you how we would best help you." But in fact the families do not see anything happen. On the contrary, the General House as well as the Brussels priory hide information from families who, had they known, would have probably prevented the families losing their first trial. Parents are not informed of the troubled past of A. (censored mention by SSPX) in Argentina and Switzerland. It is careful not to say that Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) regularly sent money in Latin America ... "for children and their families." Think well: if it had been at known in time, such information could guide the investigation. Furthermore, nothing has been done to dig the next track: the year prior to the events is the subject of a criminal complaint, Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) had already often in the dormitory of the boarding school (while having prohibition "strict" to be in contact with children!) and going from bed to bed to "talk" with the boys. One of these students began a few months later, to touch their genitals in public. Faced with such information, this student's parents reacted by a total denial and face a situation as suspicious or the seat of the district nor the General House have sought to dig! Afraid to find ... More still: like Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) had ministered in part to Namur, Brussels some parents have expressed the desire to make contact with Namur parents to see if anything odd had happened there. Menzingen reassured them on the air: "Do not do anything, we take care of." Now these relatives Brussels realized later that no research had been conducted to Namur. Is it any wonder then that the families feel cheated? Why act as if there is nothing to hide? SSPX would she fear that these tracks make progress in the investigation?
>
> Even more shocking: at every court hearing of Abbot A. (censored mention by the SSPX), Bishop Fellay sent to Brussels his private secretary Raphael Granges, accompanying the abbot A. (censored mention by SSPX) to the entrance of the courthouse, and then disappears. Why hide that? Yes, hide because when the abbot Granges coming to Brussels, he does not meet the families of child victims, he did not even lodge the SSPX priory, and he comes in civilian clothes. However, he is in conversation with Father A. (censored mention by SSPX). After that, we will be told that Menzingen is white as snow and has nothing to hide ... Let's stop taking people for which remained: someone who has nothing to hide acts otherwise. "He that is upright come to the light for all to see that his works are of God" (John 3, 20).
>
> In short, Bishop Fellay therefore sends in secret his right arm in Brussels at each session of the trial, to speak with the accused A. (censored mention by SSPX) and then slip away under the guise of its civilian clothes (the abbot Granges being somewhat public and little known figure, he hoped not to be identified clearly by coming without cassock). Moreover, it is crucial to know that Father Granges has worked in a law firm before entering the seminary. And, coincidentally, he is a native of Riddes, the village where is Écône and, like A. (censored mention by SSPX) and Fellay, his family is part of the "club" of tradi families of the  Lower Valais . And with that, Bishop Fellay probably pretends that his private secretary does not provide legal aid to Father A. (censored mention by SSPX) to be acquitted? Is this the same Fellay who wrote to families: "We would better help you" ...

Furthermore, we must pinch when we see who is the lawyer of A. (censored mention by SSPX): Master Kennes. This is one of the greatest lawyers of Belgium, unaffordable for any "normal" person. Who pays the fees Kennes master? But above all, we must know that Kennes master is the No. 2 in the Uyttendaele cabinet. Marc Uyttendaele is a Belgian master equivalent Vergès: probably the biggest size of all lawyers in the kingdom. Decidedly, the SSPX does not skimp on the means to assist its priests! Of course, in parallel, it is careful not to help families afford a lawyer the same size. But that does not stop the beautiful words to the parents: "We would better help you." Then, ah, what a pity, parents have lost at trial.

With this, it is not surprising that families of children have lost confidence in Bishop Fellay. At the beginning of the scandal, some of them nevertheless believed the eyes closed and were offended one can doubt his word. Four years later, the families have been disappointed. Some, disgusted, are likely to give up. Only a couple of parents still want to believe it and tried somehow to keep a tenuous dialogue with Bishop Fellay.

Let us return to the master of personality Uyttendaele, who co-directs master Kennes a common practice. Marc Uyttendaele is an unsavory character for a Catholic, even more so for a priest, husband of Laurette Onkelinx, Ségolène Royal Belgian, this lawyer uses his wife's function to "shopping" in the Belgian ministries and councils, for get maximum 'markets', that is to say get juicy litigation files, in many administrations. As ethics do little embarrassed, he was involved in several scandals about it.

To choose as his defense a firm of such a character is saying a lot about his own morality: "Tell me who your friends are, I will tell you who you are." In addition, master Uyttendaele is a professor at the university, a Belgian university notoriously Masonic identity. Socialist, as we have seen, it doubles as a laïcard "eater of priests" (except, oddly, when the "priest" in question is accused of pedophilia). How can a priest he contact the office of such a person? It is a scandal in the evangelical sense, a cause of falling for souls. Curiously, Bishop Fellay, who had ordered Bishop Williamson to challenge his lawyer, "because of scandal," do not fault the firm chosen by Father A. (censored mention by SSPX). Two weights, two measures…
>
> Obviously, Father Granges, the legal secretary of Bishop Fellay, fort to do when it comes secretly in Brussels. Is that the stakes are high for the SSPX: whether Abbot A. (censored mention by SSPX) is acquitted on appeal, it will be deemed innocent and Bishop Fellay not be worried for deliberately endangering children (to have placed a person suspected of pedophilia under the same roof as a boarding school). Wailliez and Father, who did nothing when a mother of victim informed him of very specific suspicions of pedophilia on the Abbé A. (censored mention by the SSPX), can also sleep soundly . In other words, if the abbot A. (censored mention by SSPX) is cleared on appeal, it is also superior general and the Belgian SSPX will be "clean".

Moreover, even if the appeal led to a condemnation of Valais, we must know that Father Waillez was transferred to Sri Lanka this summer 2015. By chance, far away from Europe and almost out of reach cooperation judiciary. It is thus clear that Bishop Fellay starts to maneuver his private secretary-lawyer. In contrast, less well understood why then, in 2012, he did not question the guilt of Father A. (censored mention by the SSPX), and promised to families to help them. "Words, words, words," said Shakespeare. Actions speak louder than words.

Mark:

Imagine how "tired" the boys were of being sodomized. Imagine how tired the boys and parents were of their warnings being ignored by SSPX priests.

Yeah.  Imagine how tired the parishioners of Pilar's old parish might have been to have heard the ICC scandals repeatedly mentioned.  After all, according to Pilar, it must have been old hat for them.  I mean, let's move on!  

"Who Took Johnny"  docuмentary of a kidnapped boy for porn and more.  On amazon to order/ to watch.  The boy's picture on a milk carton.

I’m still bothered by Pilar’s attitude.  The Protestants, (I was one), often accuse Catholics of being tolerant of sin.  After all, say many Protestants, all the Catholic has to do is go to confession, get absolved, and then go out and commit the same sins again.

Protestants say that yes, but you might mention that it is not true.  In order for your confession to be valid, the Catholic MUST have the intention to TRY not to sin again.
Many Protestants say since Christ died for our sins, and as Luther said, "go and sin boldly." Is this what is happening?

mw:

It's scary that these types care more about that than caring about legal action against the PERPETRATORS. That is a DIABOLICAL disorientation of right and wrong.

More than scary, it's terribly disappointing that sspx types, who might argue that they are on the cutting edge of true "traditional" Catholic praxis, are no more enlightened theologically or advanced morally than the dullest members the fallen and despised Novus Ordo church. Maybe it's time to become Lutherans.

Following up on my last post. I showed this whole discussion to a relative who practices law in another city in Idaho. He's not Traditional Catholic but not against us. He agreed with what I said about the theater teacher. He said a judge would find that whole thing really interesting. Did any of the perverted acts happen on trips? At play rehearsals or at the auditorium? Did they involve kids who were "the favorites" or the big roll players in the plays? Did it include the ones who dressed like girls? And by the way, back to what my son said about Billy Budd--Google "Herman Melville gαy" and see what happens. I heard that SSPX schools read Oscar Wilde books because he repented and became Catholic at the end. Why are we reading Melville and making our kids cross dress?

And to clarify what I said about trips and play rehearsals, I should have been more precise. I meant to ask only whether any illicit actions had occurred by students involved in that teacher's projects, not that he was directly or personally involved.