jeudi 2 juin 2016

What Does the Church Teach About revealing the Sins of Others?

Ces extraits ont été pris dans  The Recusant n°31

The Catholic Encyclopaedia: “Detraction is the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer. […] There are times, nevertheless, when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. … Even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common good or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way. The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction. 
 The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another’s sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation. 
 No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation. ” 

1917 Code of Canon Law: 
Canon 1935: “ 
§1. However, any faithful is always allowed to denounce the crime of another, to ask for satisfaction or reparation of damages, or also for love of Justice, so that some scandal or evil may be repaired.
§2. Furthermore, there exists an obligation to denounce in all those cases in which such obligation is imposed by some law or particular legitimate precept, or even by the same natural right, for reason of danger to the faith or religion, or by cause of any other imminent public harm.” (§1. Quilibet tamen fidelium semper potest delictum alterius denuntiare ad satisfactionem petendam vel damnum sibi resarciendum, vel etiam studio iustitiae ad alicuius scandali vel mali reparationem. §2. Imo obligatio denuntiationis urget quotiescunque ad id quis adigitur sive lege vel peculiari legitimo praecepto, sive ex ipsa naturali lege ob fidei vel religionis periculum vel aliud imminens publicum malum.)

[Summa theologica]

“With regard to the public denunciation of sins it is necessary to make a distinction: because sins may be either public or secret. In the case of public sins, a remedy is required not only for the sinner, that he may become better, but also for others, who know of his sin, lest they be scandalized. Wherefore such like sins should be denounced in public, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Timothy 5:20): “Them that sin reprove before all, that the rest also may have fear,” which is to be understood as referring to public sins, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 7). 

On the other hand, in the case of secret sins, the words of Our Lord seem to apply (Matt. 18:15): “If thy brother shall offend against thee,” etc. For if he offend thee publicly in the presence of others, he no longer sins against thee alone, but also against others whom he disturbs. Since, however, a man's neighbour may take offense even at his secret sins, it seems that we must make yet a further distinction. For certain secret sins are hurtful to our neighbour either in his body or in his soul, as, for instance, when a man plots secretly to betray his country to its enemies, or when a heretic secretly turns other men away from the faith. And since he that sins thus in secret, sins not only against you in particular, but also against others, it is necessary to take steps to denounce him at once, in order to prevent him doing such harm, unless by chance you were firmly persuaded that this evil result would be prevented by admonishing him secretly. 

On the other hand there are other sins which injure none but the sinner, and the person sinned against, either because he alone is hurt by the sinner, or at least because he alone knows about his sin, and then our one purpose should be to succour our sinning brother: and just as the physician of the body restores the sick man to health, if possible, without cutting off a limb, but, if this be unavoidable, cuts off a limb which is least indispensable, in order to preserve the life of the whole body, so too he who desires his brother's amendment should, if possible, so amend him as regards his conscience, that he keep his good name. For a good name is useful, first of all to the sinner himself, not only in temporal matters wherein a man suffers many losses, if he lose his good name, but also in spiritual matters, because many are restrained from sinning, through fear of dishonour, so that when a man finds his honour lost, he puts no curb on his sinning. Hence Jerome says on Matthew 18:15: “If he sin against thee, thou shouldst rebuke him in private, lest he persist in his sin if he should once become shameless or unabashed.” Secondly, we ought to safeguard our sinning brother's good name, both because the dishonour of one leads to the dishonour of others, according to the saying of Augustine (Ep. ad pleb. Hipponens. lxxviii): “When a few of those who bear a name for holiness are reported falsely or proved in truth to have done anything wrong, people will seek by busily repeating it to make it believed of all”: and also because when one man’s sin is made public others are incited to sin likewise. Since, however, one’s conscience should be preferred to a good name, Our Lord wished that we should publicly denounce our brother and so deliver his conscience from sin, even though he should forfeit his good name. Therefore it is evident that the precept requires a secret admonition to precede public denunciation.” (Summa Theologica, II.ii, Q.3, art.7, respondeo)

Concerning Fr. Stephen Abraham

Abbé Abraham, auquel Mgr Williamson a donné un ministère public dans la Résistance, malgré ses tendances homosexuelles et pédophiles. 

I do not support Greg Taylor nor the Recusant but I think that Greg Taylor was right when he wrote this letter, because children are in danger. I think Fr Abraham is a dangerous priest and that Bp Williamson and Faure are wrong. I will speak more in detail about Fr Abraham later.

Concerning Fr. Stephen Abraham 

by Greg Taylor 


[Editor’s note - The following was written online towards the end of September, 2015. It has disappeared from more than one website, and the website where it was originally written ( was mysteriously shut down against the wishes of its owner not long afterwards. And yet it remains unchallenged to this day. No public reply, nor any denial have been made, nor will they be. Several people have since contacted the author with the evidence of their own experiences which confirms the conclusions contained herein. None of them yet have spoken up publicly, however.] 

A Word to my Future Critics I write the following not because I take any joy in it whatsoever but because I feel it my duty before God. Everything narrated herein is true, and there are many people able to substantiate it. If the matter were unsettled, or if there were any doubt, or if it were only a question of ‘accusations’ and not facts, I would not presume to bring this to a wider audience. As long as I believed that it served the interests of the common good, I kept quiet; now that I see that my silence is only allowing certain other unscrupulous souls to deepen the scandal, I am convinced that this is the course of action which the good of Tradition, the Church and the Catholic Faith demands. Like the family who would not press charges, the easy way out would be to keep quiet and leave the thankless and unenviable task to someone else, later on. But how much harm might be done in the meantime, and would I not share in the responsibility for that harm? Finally, please consider that if I write this under my own name and not hiding behind the anonymity which characterises all things internet, it is only because I know that there are many people who have a vested interest in suppressing it and who will therefore attempt to cast doubt on it. Plenty of things are said anonymously on the internet, few of them true. Where something is as serious as this, anonymity would neither be honourable nor helpful, as it would be used as a motive of disbelief by those who do not, or will not believe. Therefore, whilst I am aware of the huge personal risk and the hatred which will doubtless be poured out on me, I offer what I have to tell below openly and honestly, with a clear conscience and confident that Almighty God still looks out for those who love Him. Fr. Abraham The following are not opinions, speculations or suspicions, but facts. They are beyond denial and can be substantiated. For clarity, I have attempted to keep them in more or less chronological order as they occurred, and not necessarily as they came to light. 

1. Fr. Abraham was ordained in the early 1990s and stationed in the Philippines and France, ending up in England. Two accusations were made against him, both essentially the same in nature (homosexual, pederastic) though separated in time by a decade or more and at opposite ends of the earth. The first was in the Philippines in the 1990s, the second in France approximately ten years ago. 

2. I have spoken to the priest who was stationed with Fr. Abraham in the Philippines in the 1990s and to whom the first accusation was made. Upon hearing the accusation against Fr. Abraham from the young man in question, whom he knew personally, this priest then told the local superior who eventually passed it up to Bishop Fellay. He is very critical of the way in which both the superior and Bishop Fellay handled the matter. Bishop Fellay told him, so he says, that every accusation has two sides to the story. He told me that he felt that they both reacted too slowly and did not take it sufficiently seriously. Action was, however, eventually taken. 

3. In the end Fr. Abraham was moved to France. Priests and faithful in France were unaware of why he had been moved there. 

4. His victim in France, approximately ten years ago, was a boy of 14. 

5. Fr. Abraham spent some hours in a French Police cell but was released because the family did not wish to press charges. 

6. This time the result was that the SSPX authorities forbade him to exercise a priestly ministry and sent him to live in relative seclusion, first in Bristol and then in Wimbledon. He was still allowed to dress as a priest, however, to be called “Father”, and despite everything he still did have social contact with whichever faithful came to call at the priory. 

7. At the end of 2013, roughly a year after being expelled from the SSPX, plans were going ahead for the purchasing of a house for Bishop Williamson, located in Broadstairs. Bishop Williamson said to at least one person that he would not be willing to go and live there unless Fr. Abraham left the SSPX priory and came to live with him. He also said the same to Fr. Abraham directly. Fr. Abraham agreed to this, and thus Bishop Williamson was willing to move into the new house in Broadstairs. 

8. In January 2014 the purchase was completed and Fr. Abraham left the SSPX priory in Wimbledon to go and live in the new house at Broadstairs. He arrived some weeks before Bishop Williamson, who did not move in until the following March. I am told that he went “with the blessing of Fr. Morgan” (the District Superior) though I did not hear this from Fr. Morgan himself and am undecided as to what this might entail even if it is true. 

9. Until the very last moment, as long as he was still living in the SSPX priory, Fr. Abraham performed no priestly function or ministry. It was therefore viewed by everyone as being his departure from the SSPX to live in Broadstairs which was the occasion and cause of his resuming his priestly ministry. 

10. From January 2014 onwards Fr. Abraham offered Mass in Broadstairs, Kent and from January to March 2014 at the Resistance chapel in London. This was done with the explicit Fr. Abraham Page 15 Page 16 Fr. Abraham approval and even (at times very strong) encouragement of Bishop Williamson. On one Sunday in February Fr. Abraham had been scheduled to offer Sunday Mass for the Resistance Mass in Scotland, but having left his ticket behind in the house, was about to turn around and go home. Bishop Williamson insisted that he go anyway and travel up by coach. 

11. At about this time (I cannot recall the precise date), wishing to satisfy a feeling of unease and with the common good in mind, I asked Bishop Williamson in confidence what it was that Fr. Abraham had done which had earnt him suspension from the SSPX. Bishop Williamson replied that he did not know. 

12. Although some faithful remembered Fr. Abraham from twenty or more years prior, many had only a passing acquaintance with him or none at all. Almost from the very moment Fr. Abraham began to be involved with the Resistance, several faithful in London, Kent and Scotland remarked that he appeared to have decidedly ‘homosexual’ mannerisms. 

13. In March 2014 I decided to “un-invite” Fr. Abraham from saying Mass for the Resistance in London. However much I might wish to do so now, I cannot in all honesty claim that my reason doing for this was the grave moral concern outlined above, of which we knew little at that point; rather I was motivated by a mixture of things, chiefly: concern over the contradictory things Fr. Abraham was saying in his sermons, such as his recommendation that the faithful attend the SSPX; the confusion which he had already caused in the congregation; and his avowal that he was not a Resistance priest and disagreed with the Resistance priests on some points. It is true that mixed in with this was a definite uneasiness about certain visible homosexual mannerisms which I and several others had noticed, but at this stage we would have felt unable to mention them, having nothing more than our own observations and suspicions and no inkling that something far more serious lay behind. 

14. When rumours of a very serious nature concerning Fr. Abraham began to circulate in the early summer of 2015, two faithful who attended his Mass in Broadstairs decided to ask Fr. Abraham directly and in a face to face conversation, if nothing else so as to give him a chance to defend himself in the event that the rumours were malicious and unfounded. They therefore arranged a private interview with him at the house in Broadstairs. At this private interview, Fr. Abraham admitted to them that it was true that he had been the object of two separate accusations, and that the accusations were what had led to his suspension. Furthermore, he admitted that the accusations were true and that he was guilty of what he had been accused. He also said that he was not ‘cured’ of the temptation, that he still laboured under it, and that such incidents could happen again in the future. To one of the two faithful, a family father, he said that if ever the man were to catch him looking at his children in an unusual way, he was to give him a stern look or a sign so as to make him snap out of it. 

15. Bishop Williamson is fully aware of all of this and yet he allows Fr. Abraham to exercise a public ministry. Although he has been asked not to return by most of the Resistance groups where he has at one time or another offered Mass, notably Ireland, Scotland and London (in 2014, before a rival Mass centre was set up), Fr. Abraham continues to offer Mass and hear confessions in Broadstairs and at the rival venue in London. Three or four weeks Fr. Abraham Page 17 ago [i.e. late August 2015] he led a Pilgrimage to Canterbury. Pictures of this are on the internet. A few months ago he did First Holy Communions in London. Again, pictures of it are publicly available on the internet. 

16. Bishop Williamson does not merely allow or tolerate this state of affairs: it is he who is chiefly responsible for it, not only due to the circumstances of Fr. Abraham’s resuming of public ministry (outlined above) but also due to his episcopal rank. There is good evidence to suggest that it is chiefly out of obedience to Bishop Williamson that Fr. Abraham is still ministering in public, and that were it not for this he would no longer do so. On the occasion of the private interview conducted in Broadstairs with two faithful, Fr. Abraham himself expressed doubt as to whether he should be exercising a public ministry or whether he ought to retire into seclusion. When he said this he was speaking privately face-to-face with the faithful and Bishop Williamson was not present. A little while later, and after he would have had an opportunity to speak to Bishop Williamson privately, he spoke to the same people again and his tone and attitude were quite different. 

17. Further to this is the undeniable fact that Bishop Williamson does not consider that there is any reason for anyone to be concerned about Fr. Abraham, as he has said more than once. He has reacted very angrily towards any faithful who have tried to raise concerns regarding Fr. Abraham, and although he has not attempted to deny the “accusations” which (thanks to Fr. Abraham’s moment of honesty) we now know to be facts, yet he has suggested that it is not a concern because “it was a long time ago.” 

18. At around the start of the summer of 2015, when the facts concerning the reason for Fr. Abraham’s suspension were first beginning to emerge, I and others from amongst the faithful felt unsure what to do. It had been commented that it was not fair that we, mere laymen, should be left to carry so great a burden, worrying for the future and wondering what should be done. At the same time if we did not even try to do something, we would by our silence become complicit in any future misadventure by that priest. Bishop Williamson had already shown that he would not listen and was hostile towards anyone raising the issue with him. Since we felt that something had to be done, I decided that I would approach Bishop Faure and plead with him to do something to help. I did not have any contact details for Bishop Faure, however. All I had was news, via a French website, that he would be performing confirmations at Avrillé over Pentecost. 

19. I therefore travelled to France at very short notice, intent on speaking to Bishop Faure face to face, and waited at Avrillé, refusing to leave until I had done so. In the end I was there for five days. Bishop Faure was very polite, listened intently to all I had to say, smiled a lot, and made sympathetic noises. However, whenever I pressed the question of action and asked him to do something he became evasive, was reluctant to suggest anything and did not say anything that amounted to much. The closest I came to obtaining any real advice from him essentially was: “That sounds very serious. We’d better hope that nobody finds out.” It was useless to point out to him that the scandal was getting out anyway, that word had already spread around many people in Britain and Ireland and would in all likelihood continue to do so, and that what was needed was real action. In the end, despite a conversation lasting a couple of hours at least, I left essentially empty handed and unable to report anything hopeful on my return. 

20. Not many weeks later, in the summer of 2015, Bishop Faure offered Sunday Mass publicly in the London chapel served by and associated with Fr. Abraham. In Summary: A priest who is a predatory homosexual pederast guilty of two known delicts, at least one of which was against a legal minor, and who by his own admission is still tempted and who is thus still a real danger, is brought into the Resistance by Bishop Williamson and is sent by him out onto the Mass circuit alone. This, despite the fact that the priest had already been suspended by Bishop Fellay for precisely this reason, despite the pleas and concerns raised by a number of faithful, despite the priest himself indicating that he is still potentially a danger and that it could happen again, despite the teaching and laws of the Church, the dictates of common sense and above all the interests of the common good. Bishop Faure was approached for help on the matter, but offered no advice, promised no help and finally gave a public gesture of support for Fr. Abraham by saying Mass at his London venue. A small number of faithful who are devoted to Bishop Williamson, although they are aware of the facts concerning Fr. Abraham, are nevertheless keen to promote him for reasons of their own making, and photographs are regularly published on a website operated by them showing Fr. Abraham ministering to unsuspecting souls, leading pilgrimages, etc. These actions only serve to spread and deepen the scandal and amongst other things, show that silence on our part is no longer helping the interests of the common good. According to the law of the Church, to say nothing of common sense, this priest should not be functioning as a priest in public any longer. If he were to live out the rest of his life in seclusion, offering up prayer and penance, I am convinced that he could well become a Saint. If the current situation continues, disaster, scandal and further damage to the Church, Tradition and the Priesthood are around the corner. His Bishop is deaf to all pleas and the other Bishop associated with him refuses to act. In such circumstances as these, what are the faithful to do? 

jeudi 4 février 2016

Should we always think about martyrdom ?

I am sorry for my mistakes in English... From now on, I will write in English time to time, when I think it is necessary.

Our Lord : "Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows" 
Matthew X, 30.

In the Resistance, especially in the English-speaking Resistance, we can often read this kind of text : "Catholic Martyrdom - French revolution - Vendée 1793 - 250,000 Deaths. We Catholics may well be headed to a very similar martyrdom. Brace yourselves with the Rosary!" 

It is years this apocalyptic atmosphere lasts. It is not a good thing to think always about martyrdom, because it creates a negative and artificial atmosphere of insecurity. It creates unbalanced people. It makes people worry about the future while God wants them to live in the moment. 

God wants us to love him and to adore him now. 
He wants us to do his divine and holy will now. If we do now what God wants, he will take care of us either by giving us the strenght for martyrdom, if we are called to it, or by protecting us, if we are called to rebuild christianity after we will have had a chastisement.

Freemasons and people who don't love God are much more in danger than Catholics because the Apocalypse suggests they will die by the hand of God (natural disaster - cf. the sixth seal of Apocalypse)

Instead of worrying for ourselves, we should worry for freemasons and sinners who are going straight to hell. They are preparing for themselves an eternity of horrible sufferings. Freemasons, while deceiving good people are themselves deceived by the devil who made them false promises. They do not realize that the same Lucifer who taught them to lie to people is lying to them, too. They are blinded by the temporary power they have on earth.

Let's pray for their conversion and let's trust God for ourselves. If we prefer to die rather than to disobey God, we are sure our all-powerful and loving God will always chose what is the best for us. This certainty is sufficient. We have nothing to worry about, except not to do His will and the salvation of the poor souls of sinners.