False “traditional resistance” protects and promotes a…pedofile priest

This article of Mr. Greg Taylor has been posted in Archbishop Lefebvre Forum. For the sake of souls, it needs to be in the public domain even if deemed by some the straw that….

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 who 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 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 approval and even (at times very strong) encouragement of Bishop Williamson. For example, 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 ago 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.

Comments are closed.