Traditional Conference on Marriage/Family: “Porn Priest” & Bishop Fellay To Share Platform…
“Angelus Press is the publishing house of the Society of Saint Pius X. It has defended the Catholic Faith for over 40 years and now reaches the four corners of the globe with its numerous publications and products. Through these last 40 years Angelus Press has maintained an uncompromising adherence to Tradition and unflinchingly continues the work started by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre…” Source
Given the close association between the SSPX and Angelus Press, therefore, it is not difficult, to imagine the horror of one of our readers who emailed earlier today with the shocking news that a priest of the Diocese of Lincoln, USA, regarded as something of an expert in pornography and who promotes an entirely new approach to how to deal with impure thoughts, has been invited to address the Angelus Press Conference, 4-6 October: “Defense of the Family: Fortifying Catholic Marriage.” With Guest Speaker: Bishop Bernard Fellay – Source
Below, the biographical note about Fr Sean Kilcawley, taken from the diocesan website:
About Fr Sean Kilcawley, Director of the Office of Family Life
Fr. Sean Kilcawley is a nationally recognized speaker on Theology of the Body, Human Love and pornography addiction. He was ordained a priest in 2005 for the Diocese of Lincoln. He served as assistant pastor at St. Joseph and North American Martyrs and taught Theology of the body at Pius X High School from 2005-2009. In 2013 Fr. Kilcawley completed a License in Sacred Theology at the John Paul II institute for marriage and family studies in Rome and returned to the Diocese of Lincoln as director of Religious Education. Fr. Kilcawley currently serves as the Director of the Office of Family Life and theological advisor for Integrity Restored.com--a non-profit organization that seeks to restore the integrity of families affected by pornography by providing education and resources to individuals, spouses, parents and clergy; to both heal and prevent wounds inflicted by the sexualized culture.
My correspondent provided me with plenty of written evidence to demonstrate that this priest is most definitely not a suitable speaker for ANY Catholic event, let alone a supposedly traditional – SSPX – event. However, I’ve already written too much, so I’ll now let Fr Kilcawley speak for himself in the short video clip below. His advice on dealing with impurity contradicts, outright, the advice of saints down the centuries, so would YOU want your teenage children listening to this man? Are you happy to think that priests and parents, not to mention a traditional Catholic Bishop, will be listening to this man at a Conference ostensibly designed to defend the family and to strengthen Catholic marriage? No? Well, what should happen now, then? Should the invitation be withdrawn? We had to do this ourselves a few years ago, when we invited an American author to address one of our Conferences but, on uncovering some doubt about some of her claims, we felt we had no choice but to disinvite her. So… should Angelus Press withdraw its invitation to Fr Kilcawley?
Comments (104)
Americans are into this kind of stuff, I have noticed. I myself find it a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps the obsession with sexual morality is due to the influence of historical Protestantisn? Michael Voris is a perfect example, and anybody who has watched his videos will know how saturated they are with lurid and sensationalist descriptions of sexual sin. For Michael Voris, no Catholic was impure prior to 1962, and the crisis in the Church would end if only priests were chaste again. LifeSite News have a similar outlook. In the case of Voris, I think it is mainly down to his own psychosexual history, and a tendency to project, in the Freudian sense.
I don’t believe that Catholics should pay too much attention to secular psychology. In America psychobabble is big business. That’s why they’re so into self-help books and self-improvement culture. One big difference between Americans and Europeans is locus of control. For Europeans, as a general trend, the locus of control is exterior, meaning we view our lives to be controlled by outside forces. Whereas for Americans it’s interior, meaning they view the circumstances of their lives to be within their control. It’s the underlying psychology of the American dream, which itself has its genesis in the Protestant work ethic described by Max Weber.
American Evangelicals love fad psychology. The acceptance of fad psychology by Catholics has caused problems. For example, in the case of Courage Apostolate which was founded in America to help Catholic homosexuals live holy lives. The founder, Fr John Harvey, based his understanding of homosexual sin too much on bogus psychology. He would have been wiser to base his understanding of personal sin on the doctrine of origin sin. Consequently he came to believe that priests who engaged in pederastic abuse were merely suffering from a psychological problem, an addiction, that could be treated through psychological therapy. These priests never got better with therapy, and went on to abuse more children. Courage Apostolate recently made a public apology about the foolish and damaging actions of its founder.
I myself received counselling for a psychological matter relating to purity. I regret this deeply. It did much more harm than good. The methodology of this so called Christian counselling was based on bogus psychological theories, and was strongly Freudian, and had little to do with an authentic Traditional Catholic anthropology.
To sum up my last comment: sins such as homosexuality, pornograpy, masturbation etc. can be better explained by understanding original sin, not fad psychology. Fad psychology is always changing, it’s a fad! But the wisdom of the Church is timeless.
Miles Immaculatae,
You are correct – all impure thoughts, words and actions are attributable to Original Sin and thus to carelessness in the matter of choosing friends and recreational matter, to screen out everyone and everything that is unwholesome.
When Jesus taught us to pray in the prayer “Our Father…” we find the invocation “Lead us not into temptation, but DELIVER us from evil”. Jesus did NOT say “Come into my temptation” but “Deliver us”.Fad psychology is not part of the deal!
John Rayner,
That is a first class point. We have it straight from Jesus himself, to flee temptation – not ask him in to share our bad thoughts! I’ve never heard the likes of it.
John,
Fidelis is correct – you make a first class point. Our Lord Himself warns us to flee from temptations so Fr Kilcawley has some nerve suggesting that He was wrong to do so. St Paul has plenty to say on this topic as well, so Fr Kilcawley needs to be on the receiving end of some advice on how to deal with temptations to impurity – not delivering impure advice! It’s akin to a dentist advising us to eat more chocolate as that will prevent more tooth decay! If only!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/7d/6e/967d6e34515021780dffe79a385b15c0.jpg
Disinvite this [priest].
Sent from my iPad
Bernadette Milliken,
there is no question about it – Fr Kilcawley must have his invitation withdrawn. It would be piling scandal upon scandal if he is allowed to speak on the same platform as an SSPX bishop. I can’t imagine that will happen, and I think maybe there were crossed wires somewhere and the Angelus Press organisers didn’t know the full background of this priest. I can’t believe they would have invited him knowing he was into the rather crude “theology of the body” and telling people to invite Jesus to share their impure thoughts! It’s just too incredible for words.
Dr Alice von Hildebrand has been critical of the ‘Theology of the Body’ and wrote a book about it titled: “The Dark Night of the Body: Why reverence comes first in intimate relations”. I haven’t watched this EWTN interview, but she speaks about this subject, here:-
I have just checked a couple of the supposedly “traditional” sites and blogs and nobody else is reporting this scandal, probably not wanting to become unpopular with the SSPX Kudos to Catholic Truth which is the only truly independent publication we have. That’s what weak characters do, when they take up a position but then see that someone they look up to is on the other side. They either do what the apostles did, go silent or flee. Catholic Truth has not been afraid to report wrongness on the part of the SSPX as well as the modernists in the parishes.
I thought I was seeing things when I saw the blurb about Fr Kilcawley on the Lincoln Diocese website and then hearing things when I listened to him on the video. It is just too unbelievable for words.
He should definitely be uninvited and a public apology issued by whoever invited him in the first place.
Josephine,
Your comment is very interesting because I was just wondering how many, if any, of the bloggers here who are known to attend the SSPX chapels will come on to defend this choice of speaker, just because they hate to see the SSPX criticised.
That would be very interesting indeed because they insist that the SSPX is not in schism etc (and I agree with that) but then they sometimes treat it like a cult. It’s OK to criticise the Pope, bishops, priests in the Church but not the SSPX! LOL!
Absolutely, this priest should be uninvited and whoever invited him told off. Do any of the SSPX Mass attenders think this will happen?
Margaret Mary,
My own guess is that the SSPX Mass attenders here will just go silent. They won’t blog on this thread. I could be wrong, but I think there is a schismatic mentality among them which means they defend the SSPX no matter what.
Josephine,
It’s more likely to be a fear that their pleasant relationship with their priest might be adversely affected. That certainly won’t be the case in Scotland, I’m quite sure of it, but maybe in some of the English churches, that will be a concern. It’s frail human nature, so don’t be too hard on the absentees. Especially since, if the SNP get their way, we’ll soon be needing passports to cross the hard border that will separate England from Scotland. And it’s hard enough right now getting them to take our Scottish pound notes down there – when we have our own currency (well, the Euro or maybe the Sceuro) it’ll be even more difficult, so, as I say, go easy on our absent brothers and sisters in the Blogosphere…
This priest is a crazy! I wouldn’t let my children within a mile of him and that’s for sure. What’s happened to self restraint? Perhaps Bishop Fellay doesn’t realise what skewed ideas this priest has.
Crofterlady,
Bishop Fellay should be careful when accepting invitations to speak and make sure he knows who he will be sharing a platform with.
Josephine,
Your comment did make me smile because when I invited a certain SSPX superior to speak at one of our conferences, he politely declined and later told me that the real reason was that he couldn’t be sure with whom he might be sharing a platform. At a Catholic Truth conference! Can you believe it!
Anyone, as you will see from our Seminar advertisement, not all SSPX clergy are so mistrustful of our humble apostolate.
Crofterlady,
I think it would be a very safe bet to wager that Bishop Fellay is unaware of Fr Kilcawley’s disgraceful teaching on purity – let’s just hope that someone alerts him now, if he’s not yet been alerted to the matter.
“Inviting Jesus into my temptation” sounds somewhat like a combination of: (a) a follow-up to Pope Francis’ re-write of the Pater, and (b) the product of watching too much TV and playing too many video games. Any truly Catholic use of the imagination would be repulsed by imagining Our Lord joining you in the abuse of yours.
Watching Dr. von Hildebrand’s video posted by WF, this priest has clearly adopted the strategy of meeting the pagan culture halfway. Which, by the way, is another way of describing the agenda of Vatican II.
As for the SSPX’s gaffes, I’m sorry to say that in my experience, this is just one of many. Some of them are relatively minor, some are just shocking. I think it has more to do with the rampant administrative chaos in the Society than a mere oversight, carelessness, or compromise with Modernism (no doubt the “resistance to nothing” zealots will latch on to the “compromise” explanation and beat it to death.)
(A minor gaffe involving the Angelus Press surfaced last year, in a photo of their staff in their office, with the men wearing shorts and the women wearing pants. When some trad websites started making noise about this, the photo was then cropped at waist-level so that no one could see further south!)
Editor, following up on WestminsterFly’s video post, have we ever had a discussion about Theology of the Body (apart from Christopher West – I mean whatever has come straight from the horse’s mouth, you should pardon the expression)? I know nothing about it, but it would be useful should I find myself in a Novus Ordo environment.
RCA Victor,
I’m almost certain we’ve had a thread on Theology of the Body but on a quick search just now, can’t find anything.
For now, this article from Rorate Caeli should help you to get a grasp of the problems with this novel “theology”
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/theology-of-body-explained-traditional.html
Editor,
Thanks for that link, I will have a good read of it!
RCA Victor,
have we ever had a discussion about Theology of the Body…..I know nothing about it
I don’t know a lot about it either, but when looking into Fr Kilcawley, I found that he has a bunch of (filmed) lectures online about the topic: ‘Theology Of the Body’ (TOB).
There all 12, all lasting > 1 hour. I have not watched any yet:
https://godly.com/en/authors/fr-sean-kilcawley
My only experience of TOB came at a lecture with Bishop Keenan in Scotland, many years ago. I remember him mentioning homosexuality and saying “See, your body doesn’t fully make sense without reference to a body of the opposite sex”.
He explained this a bit more and i was struck at what a simple (in retrospect obvious) yet profound and completely irrefutable point it was.
(This kind of simple truth is always devastating when deployed in discussions about LGBT stuff etc)
And so that made a good impression on me, but it would be wrong to judge the whole concept on such a fleeting example.
Yes, I seem to remember some discussion on this topic and somebody, ? you Editor, called it “idolatry of the body”. Very witty and apt!
I think Fr Kilcawley means well,but I don’t like his description of his methods and I do think that the traditional response to temptation is much better.
Coming from an N.O background myself, I remember having my eyes opened when I read of what the Chuch used to teach people in this matter. I.e. that the Christian life is a combat and that we should *hate* sin. This kind of language is a world away from the modern Church.
Also, that we should pray immediately once we detect we are experiencing temptation and that we should never rely on ourselves to resist in an environment of ongoing temptation – rather we should “always flee”.
These are much more effective responses to temptation. I am still far from perfect, but thanks to these methods I can think of various examples where I have managed to intervene (if you will) and correct my train of thought, when being tempted.
The modern Church doesn’t teach that temptation should be fought. It only puts emphasis on Our Lord’s forgiveness, it seems to take it for granted that everyone will be habitual sinners incapable of change. (That no-one goes to confession any more is one more major flaw among many with this approach.)
I much prefer the traditional way, of prizing and fiercely defending our state of Grace. And quickly repairing any damage done, should we fail. (Our priest, on Sunday, lamented Catholics who persist in mortal sin). This puts responsibility on to the individual and motivates them.
I would tend to agree Father is not a suitable speaker, but then I regard Angelus Press as a reliable publisher and so it is hard to think that they could have made a big error with their invites.
I looked into Father Kilcawley’s background briefly, expecting a slimy James Martin type character.
On the contrary – while you cant judge a book by its cover – his “cv” does seem reassuring: West Point Graduate, United States Army Officer, then – as a clergyman – very well qualified and heavily associated with the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska (which I understand as being good diocese, with a significant traditional slant).
Gabriel Syme,
Father’s commendable background seems to be yet another indicator of how easy it is to go astray in the Novus Ordo world, even when you are in an “orthodox” environment. It doesn’t do any good to put up walls, when the windows are wide open.
The Diocese of Lincoln does indeed have a good reputation, established by (now retired) Bishop Bruskewitz, though he was not really a traditionalist. In fact, he got into a row with the SSPX at one point and tried to excommunicate both priests and laity in their local chapel!
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2863
Also, the FSSP’s seminary is near Lincoln, in Denton.
RCA Victor,
how easy it is to go astray in the Novus Ordo world, even when you are in an “orthodox” environment.
Indeed you are no doubt right.
The Diocese of Lincoln does indeed have a good reputation
Does this good reputation flatter the diocese in your opinion?
Initially I had a favourable opinion of +Bruskewitz, although this cooled when I learned of his treatment of SSPX Clergy and Catholics.
Maybe it was to reassure the modernist bosses, although my initial impression was that it was an attempt to stamp out any local competition to his own project.
In any case, it was needlessly harsh and unkind (not to mention invalid).
Gabriel Syme,
I should have qualified my statement about the Diocese of Lincoln: they used to have a good reputation while Bp. Bruskewitz was there, though considering his treatment of the SSPX it seems said reputation may not have been entirely deserved.
I also do not know anything about his successor. You would think, however, that the presence of an FSSP Seminary in this Diocese would be an indicator of orthodox health.
Gabriel Syme,
With respect, whether or not Fr Kilcawley “means well” is totally irrelevant – I doubt if would you want your lovely daughters to be told, by a priest, that when they have impure thoughts, to say “Jesus, you’re welcome into my imagination… to watch these thoughts (this porn) with me”… Or would you want them to be told to practise the virtue of trying to dispel such thoughts and desires; that having a fleeting thought is not, in fact, a sin, but dwelling on the impurity is the sin. And what is “you’re welcome to watch the porn/impure thoughts with me” if not an intention to dwell on such impurity? Given that Our Lady revealed to little (Saint) Jacinta, Fatima, that “more souls go to Hell through sins of impurity than any other sin” I would suggest that you would be protecting your girls from this wolf in sheep’s clothing. For, that is what he is – by definition – whether or not he “means well”.
I don’t care about his background in terms of academia and military prowess; his background in elementary Christianity is beyond impoverished. He should never have been let loose among those Roman collars.
Just take his words and apply them to the person tempted to steal from a bank. Ringing the local cop shop…
“Hi Officer. Listen, I’m tempted to rob the local bank; you’re welcome to come into my imagination and help me. Better still, come with me to the bank right now… help me work out the best way to rob it…”
http://worldartsme.com/images/handcuffs-clipart-1.jpg
I have to express my astonishment at this paragraph from your post in which, as ever, you stretch charity to the very limit, in an effort to avoid doing what I am doing – denounce this priest (and whoever invited him) as a complete disgrace:
You wrote:
I would tend to agree Father is not a suitable speaker, but then I regard Angelus Press as a reliable publisher and so it is hard to think that they could have made a big error with their invites.
Well, as one who DID make such an error back in (I think) 2009, issuing an invitation which I later felt obliged to withdraw, I don’t have that problem. It can happen. Unless, of course, it was NOT an error and they invited this priest in the full knowledge of his entirely UN-Catholic teachings on purity, to share a platform with Bishop Fellay.
Given that the crisis in the Church has lurched from confusion to chaos and back again, and given that I am already on record – more than once – pointing out that this crisis is extremely deep and affects every aspect of the Faith and Church life, there is no avoiding the fact that so-called “traditional” priests and their organisations are not immune from diabolical attack any more than the Vatican has been. So, I wouldn’t put Angelus Press on a pedestal. There’s clearly been, at the very least, a “mistake” in the invitation issued to Fr Kilcawley, but it is a mistake which should never have been made at this stage in the crisis. I mean, they undertook to organise a Conference in defence of Catholic family and marriage and then invite a “theology of the body” / pornography “expert” to speak?
Editor, I meant to reply to this post, but instead posted below – apologies!
There is no question about it, this priest must have the invitation withdrawn. He is definitely not a suitable speaker for any traditional conference on Catholic marriage and family life.
If this invitation is not withdrawn, then the SSPX cannot complain when the likes of Fr James Martin, the well known LGBT activist priest, is invited to speak as he was invited to speak at the Irish conference, or whatever it was called, on family life last summer.
In fact, they can’t even complain at this news today that he was invited to speak with the Pope for half an hour in the Vatican today, as reported by Catholic World Report
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/09/30/pope-francis-meets-with-fr-james-martin-at-vatican/
I have read the challenge that a few contributors have made to SSPX-affiliated bloggers; that they should come on to the blog and give their opinion of this scandal concerning the Angelus and Fr. Kilcawley.
As Editor and most others are aware, I no longer blog as a rule. However, I do feel duty bound on this occasion to take up that challenge and contribute my opinion, especially since I was the one who brought Editor’s attention to the scandal in the first place. She was thoughtful enough not to mention that in the introduction piece but it would be less than honest of me now to contribute without clarifying my part in raising the alarm.
Now as many already know I have been very closely allied to the SSPX for 35 years, defending it to the hilt as a work of God in a time of great apostasy. While doing this, however, I have never lost sight of the fact that the SSPX is not the Catholic Church, it is a lifeboat on stormy seas that depends very much on the integrity of its captain and crew to steer a straight course. That, sadly, has not always been the case.
It is no secret that Archbishop Lefebvre worried that the longer the SSPX remained apart from Rome the more likely was the possibility that a schismatic mindset would take hold and embitter the apostolate. I think we all saw that concern partly realised with the advent of the “Resistance” back in 2011/12. Fortunately, the cancer was cut out and the SSPX continued faithful to its task of helping the Church, though strong remnants of the destructive clericalism that inspired those revolutionaries still exists in too many superiors today; a hangover, if you like, from the too-great influence afforded Bishop Williamson in the formation and appointment of priests over many decades, often against the wise counsel of more insightful souls.
At any rate, while the Archbishop foresaw the danger of this bitter zeal establishing itself in the minds and hearts of some clergy, what he did not appear to foresee was the equally dangerous pitfall of indifference taking hold in others. We see evidence of this now in various recent events which, sad to say, neither Bishop Fellay nor his successor Fr. Pagliarani have been able or willing to correct.
One example was when Fr. Paul Robinson was granted permission to publish a controversial book entitled “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science”, in which publication it is asserted that Catholics may accept the Big Bang and billions of years evolution theory provided they acknowledge that God was the architect of it all. In other words, there are parts of Genesis that we can simply write off as not factual. Once you go down that road it is not long until the infallibility of Sacred Scripture is no more.
Now there were numerous complaints about this work of Fr. Robinson as well as great controversy on the Traditional Catholic forums, more particularly because a Novus Ordo company published the book and inserted references to “St. John Paul II” into the Preface. The Preface was duly sanitised but the book was allowed to stand and Fr. Robinson maintained his good standing in the SSPX.
Another example is from much further back, the 1990s, when the Angelus promoted the International Third Position under then-editor Fr. Kenneth Novak (SSPX).
The ITP was essentially a lay organisation run by people from radical backgrounds who found their way into the SSPX and proceeded to interpret and promote Catholic Social Justice in accordance with their ideological agenda. Their promotion of Dorothy Day, a radical Socialist referred to in her time as “Marxist Mary”, should suffice to demonstrate how radical this group was. The ITP was a problem in the SSPX for a long time, particularly in England and America, primarily because the superiors failed in their duty to stamp it out, generally dismissing as “troublemakers” those who rightly complained about its poisonous influence.
Now we have Fr. Kilcawley being invited to share a podium with Bishop Fellay, a really astounding development. As one trustworthy source put it:
“Fr. Kilcawley’s method of fighting temptation to impurity is not the Catholic / Christian way. The Catholic method is to implore Our Lord, as our Lord and Saviour, to give us the grace and strength necessary to resist and fight off the temptations, by turning away from / fleeing the temptations (not to continue to watch the impure thoughts with Jesus), and to separate ourselves from the near occasions of sin with a firm purpose of amendment, in order to remain faithful in our love for Him and to preserve the state of grace within our souls.
As St. Philip Neri says: “In the war against the vice of impurity, the victory is gained by cowards—that is, by those who fly from the occasions of this sin. But the man who exposes himself to it, arms his flesh and renders it so powerful, that it will be morally impossible for him to resist its attacks.” (See St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermon for the 1st Sunday after Easter).
In the 1930s and 1940s, sex education and sex therapy were introduced into the Western World by Cultural Marxists as a modern-day method of addressing sexual disorders, hang-ups and addictions. But the true goal of Marxists was not to conquer the disorders of impurity and heal the wounds of sin, but rather to corrupt Christian morals by telling people they should not feel guilty about their sexuality and sexual desires. This idea was the basis for the sexual revolution and “free love” movement of the 1960s.”
When Fr. Pagliarani succeeded Bishop Fellay as Superior General of the SSPX he gave an interview in which he alluded to a problem in various regions with holy zeal in some priests, not a complete loss of the virtue but rather a lessening of it. He rightly pointed to the fact that the SSPX now has established priories, schools and Mass centres in most countries and that this comfort, together with a marked lessening of persecution from the Modernist hierarchy of the Church, has led to a kind of laxity that is actually very dangerous.
I immediately recognised what Fr. Pagliarani was alluding to, having witnessed it first hand in the UK over a lengthy period. However, there is no point in Fr. Pagliarani or any other superior in Menzingen or elsewhere bemoaning this manifestation if they are not prepared to show by example when the faithful complain to them about the equally scandalous issues like Fr. Kilcawley’s address at the Angelus Conference.
It is high time they realised that the faithful are not second class citizens to be spoken down to or ignored when they refer concerns to their clerical superiors, they are the children of God depending on their priests to show the humility and zeal of Our Lord in attracting souls to holiness.
The Church is in the mess it is today precisely because the clergy, throughout the ranks, thought themselves a closed gentlemen’s club whose members could use their God-given authority in any way they thought fit while trampling the faithful underfoot if they dared object. That Pharisaical mindset must be avoided at all costs in the SSPX if the apostolate is to continue in fidelity to the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre who was so holy and humble. So it begins with priests and Bishops being able to admit mistakes and take the necessary action to correct them, such as, in this case, uninviting Fr. Kilcawley from the Angelus Press Conference. Silence and/or slapping down those who complain is not an option if the clergy wish to be truly like Our Saviour. Holy zeal and humility must be outstanding in all clerical superiors, without which they will never sanctify the souls under their care.
Athanasius,
Good to read your thoughts again, I hope you’ve been well.
Here’s a thought that occurred to me whilst reading your post: it would seem that the SSPX frequently shares one key feature of the post-Conciliar Church: the failure to discipline. Or, its inverse, the tendency to discipline unjustly, especially in the cases of those who are attempting to defend the truth.
Athanasius,
I was one of those who doubted that SSPX Mass attenders would comment on this thread, so I am glad to see I was wrong!
Your remarks about the new Superior are very interesting and I agree with you 100% that there’s no point in saying fine things if he’s not prepared to take action to put things right.
Josephine
I thought you made a good point when you invited SSPX affiliated bloggers to come on and make their voices heard, these are very important issues and the faithful have to make their position clear. As regards the new Superior General, I’m afraid the jury is still very much out on Fr. Pagliarani. I’ve exchanged a little correspondence with him, which appeared promising but proved hollow. I’m afraid I am not personally impressed. Let’s hope he does do something about this Fr. Kilcawley business, though.
Athanasius,
I echo the comments saying it is good to see you back.
Thank you for this interesting post, I am especially interested in your comments on the ITP and Fr Robinson’s book, which I may pester you about sometime (alas I need to go offline right now!).
RCA Victor
I’m keeping very well, thank you, and I hope you’re well too.
You have absolutely nailed it. There is a tendency both in Tradition and Novus Ordo for clergy of all ranks to either fail to discipline or to discipline the wrong people. Most, if not all, of the present problems in the Church arise from this disorientation. I have been quite surprised over time to note that SSPX superiors use exactly the same tactics as their Modernist counterparts when it comes to dealing with concerns raised by the faithful, they simply respond with silence. It’s almost as if they cannot admit the possibility that a priest or bishop can get it badly wrong, or that a subordinate could possibly have insight into something that they, the ordained, fail to see. Sad to say it’s a form of pride and it can be very destructive.
Welcome Athanasius, I have missed your contributions.
Silence in the face of questions and/or criticism is of course the favourite response of Pope Francis. It is the easy way out but it answers nothing and leads to anger and frustration from this3c2ho ask the questions and those who hope for answers.
Elizabeth
You’re very kind, thank you.
Of course you’re quite correct, Pope Francis is known for this silence when senior prelates and others question his dubious behaviour, it’s a classic tactic of those who misuse authority to enforce personal agendas and it’s scandalous, especially in a Pope.
Many of the faithful following Vatican II wrote to priests and bishops about the various changes to their religion that they neither understood nor felt comfortable with, the response was generally silence or at best a one-line note saying “Your comments have been noted”. That’s why a good number turned to the SSPX whose priests and bishops are at least orthodox in the faith. The danger, though, is that the same method of dealing with concerns raised by the faithful seems to be exactly the same and that’s extremely destructive.
Ann Barnhardt is on to it. barnhardt.biz
Hopefully enough people will voice their concern and Fr. Kilcawley will be disinvited.
Catherins (not sure if that is supposed to be Catherine although we already have a blogger of that name, complete with miraculous medal avatar)…
Just to be sure that you are aware, Ann Barnhardt is one of those who has taken upon herself an authority which no lay person possesses, to pronounce Pope Francis an “antipope” and Benedict still pope. She may be a full blown sedevacantist, by now, I’m not sure. Anyway, two things: if you read our House Rules you will see that we do not promote or quote these people here, so please resist the temptation to come back on to defend her position – won’t wash. And secondly, here is a very good answer to her position:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/02/adam-schiff-knew-of-the-whistleblower-complaint-days-before-it-was-filed/
This is so serious a matter for the SSPX that I decided to send the following to the Angelus Press. I wanted to copy it to the Suprerior of the U.S. District, Fr. Wegner, but was unable to find his email address. I hope the person at the Angelus Press who receives my email will pass a copy to Fr. Wegner who is principally responsible for this scandal. Anyway, Here it is minus two paragraphs of personal advice at the end:
Dear Angelus Press,
I am greatly disturbed by the news that Fr. Sean Kilcawley has been invited to deliver an address at this year’s Angelus Press Conference, sharing a podium no less with Bishop Fellay.
Surely you must know that Fr. Kilcawley’s Modernist methods in respect to maintaining chastity contradict everything the Church Traditionally teaches through her saints regarding purity and how to preserve it. Indeed, in his promotional video, Fr. Kilcawley even appears to blaspheme by suggesting that Catholics should not ask Our Lord to remove impure thoughts but rather invite Him into the mind to co-view them. This is astonishingly presumptuous advice and a certain road to Hell.
Now you will be aware that Fr. Kilcawley is a disciple of John Paul II’s highly controversial ‘Theology of the Body’, or as some call it, more accurately I suspect, “Theology of the Bawdy”. If that is not sufficient to raise alarm bells then I fear the SSPX has very seriously deviated from its purpose of safeguarding faith and morals in accordance with Sacred Tradition.
The modern novelty of introducing psychology and “therapy groups” into matters pertaining to faith and morals aligns perfectly with the agenda of Cultural Marxism, which, by attributing habitual impurity to a state of mind, at least in part, conditions Catholics to become comfortable with impure thoughts and conversation.
Our Lady of Fatima said that more souls go to Hell by sins of the flesh than by any other sin. Her remedy was prayer (particularly the rosary) and penance, I do not recall the Blessed Virgin advising psychology and open therapy sessions for “porn addicts” to openly discuss the lurid details of impure vice. Nothing is more certain to cause further sins of impurity than discussing with presumption that which the saints say should not so much as be mentioned among us.
Here are some quotes from the saints that highlight just how far from their wisdom Fr, Kilcawley is with his culturally Marxist mentality.
“In the realm of evil thoughts none induces to sin as much as do thoughts that concern the pleasure of the flesh.”
–St. Thomas Aquinas
“In temptations against chastity, the spiritual masters advise us, not so much to contend with the bad thought, as to turn the mind to some spiritual, or, at least, indifferent object. It is useful to combat other bad thoughts face to face, but not thoughts of impurity.”
–St. Alphonsus Liguori
“Filthy talk makes us feel comfortable with filthy action. But the one who knows how to control the tongue is prepared to resist the attacks of lust.”
–St. Clement of Alexandria
The man of impure speech is a “person whose lips are but an opening and a supply pipe which hell uses to vomit its impurities upon the earth.”
–St. John Vianney
”There is no remedy so powerful against the heat of concupiscence as the remembrance of our Savior’s Passion. In all my difficulties I never found anything so efficacious as the wounds of Christ: In them I sleep secure; from them I derive new life.”
–Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church
”If you desire to be chaste, be retired, be modest, be mortified.”
–Saint Leonard of Port Maurice
”Humility is the safeguard of chastity. In the matter of purity, there is no greater danger than not fearing the danger. For my part, when I find a man secure of himself and without fear, I give him up for lost. I am less alarmed for one who is tempted and who resists by avoiding the occasions, than for one who is not tempted and is not careful to avoid occasions. When a person puts himself in an occasion, saying, I shall not fall, it is an almost infallible sign that he will fall, and with great injury to his soul.”
–Saint Philip Neri
St. Philip Neri further admonishes that: “In the war against the vice of impurity, the victory is gained by cowards—that is, by those who fly from the occasions of this sin. But the man who exposes himself to it, arms his flesh and renders it so powerful, that it will be morally impossible for him to resist its attacks.” (See St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermon for the 1st Sunday after Easter).
I hope you receive the grace from God to realise the great error you have made in inviting Fr. Kilcawley to address Traditional Catholic parents and their children in a matter that will certainly expose them to grave moral danger. You should keep very clearly in mind that if a single soul is soiled by Fr. Kilcawley’s dangerous psychobabble propaganda then you and all who approve his Modernist methods, that novel psychology which has ruined so many priests and lay Catholics since Vatican II, will pay a very high supernatural price for your complicitness in the ruination of innocence.
Athanasius,
That’s good that you emailed. So did I – here’s my humble effort:
TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE…
Please note that we are discussing the scandal of your invitation to Fr Kilcawley to speak at your forthcoming Conference, on our blog.
https://catholictruthblog.com/2019/09/29/traditional-conference-porn-priest-bishop-fellay-to-share-platform/#comment-73795
There are, as you will see, a number of calls from the Catholic faithful in the UK and America, to withdraw this invitation. Our blogging community is drawn from various parts of the world. Signed… Editor etc.
Let’s hope the shock of knowing that this scandal is being discussed at the other end of the world, might shake them up a little.
Editor,
I hope the person at the other end did actually click on the link and read the comments, though I have serious doubts. My feeling is that the arrogance is now so entrenched in high places that this outrageous event will go ahead. I have never so much wanted to be proven wrong but my experience is that all concerns and complaints will be met with the usual silence. Tomorrow will tell all!
Athanasius,
If Fr. Robinson’s book presented no problem to them, I’m as skeptical as you are that this issue will result in anything more than furrowed eyebrows. Does your Glasgow SSPX PP know about this? If so, does he have any suggestions?
RCA Victor
I don’t know if our PP is aware of this, he should be. As usual, though, it’s the faithful, not the clergy, who are vigilant and active in this scandal. That’s tragic!
Continuing to digest the reactions of other bloggers, I do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of this matter.
I interpreted the priest’s advice as an proposal to bring Our Lord to mind when we are tempted, with the idea being the juxtaposition of Christ and Sin would “shake us out of it”. I appreciate this is not a traditional concept, as I have stated, but it did not initially strike me as terrible. However Editor’s reference to “dwelling on sin” (which I can understand) has made me reconsider this.
I would not consider myself naive (maybe I flatter myself) but I would tend to be confident about any person associated with Angelus Press or Bishop Fellay.
It’s remarkable then, to think they could issue without due diligence. What then, was the positive case for the invite of Fr Kilcawley?
Gabriel Syme,
Their lack of due diligence has bitten them before. Several years ago Bishop Fellay agreed to an interview with some British TV hack who was notoriously hostile to the Faith, especially the traditional Faith. The interviewer (whose name escapes me – perhaps Editor remembers this episode) walked all over the Bishop in very dishonest fashion. The interview was a stupid idea and should never have happened.
Gabriel Syme,
You are not “naïve” but you remind me of my beloved, departed mother (!) who would stretch charity to the very limit and used to drive me nuts when she made excuses for the manifest rudeness of others, when it was obvious that they were simply horrible people, and deserving of all that is coming to them… 😀
You clearly try to see the best in everyone and that is humbling for the likes of me who can see SO clearly the sins and faults of the lot of them!
Kinda joking there (!) but I hope I’ve learned to distinguish between looking objectively at the words and actions of those at the centre of this crisis, without in any way judging their motives, their heart and soul.
I’m blessed too, in having been educated prior to Vatican II so that I heard teachers and priests speaking about the need to dispel what were euphemistically termed “bad thoughts” and to confess impure sins, whether in thought, word or action – without any names of impure thoughts, words or actions being used. That, in itself, helps protect our purity. We were simply alerted sufficiently to be able to recognise the devil at work when under attack. I remember as a young woman in my early twenties hearing people refer to a particular sin of impurity “in action” and I’d never heard that word before. I had to look it up in a dictionary! I was sorry I’d checked. There’s a lot to be said for the “old” way of doing things because the “old” way shows much more awareness of the truth about fallen human nature than the modern “psychology” based approach does.
I can see no positive case for inviting Fr Kilcawley but clearly someone has fallen for the mistaken notion that it is good to confront such temptations – “our sexuality” – upfront, and speak openly about them. It’s akin to posting an advert in the local paper to the effect that you’ll be leaving your front door unlocked next week.
Speaking of due diligence, I took a quick look around this “Integrity Restored” organization represented by Father. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, not a part of the Catholic Church, though Bishop Gainer of Harrisburg, PA is their Episcopal Moderator.
Their main therapist, Dr. Peter C. Kleponis, belongs to this group: https://www.aacc.net/about/ which is also not Catholic, but uses the generic term “Christian”: “…we want to serve the worldwide Christian church…” (whatever that is).
RCA Victor,
It just gets worse and worse. Or, put another way…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/8c/ef/6d8cef64504b5f4432c972b34bf98633.jpg
I have just researched some articles by that therapist, Dr Peter C. Kleponis, and I can see that he’s a typical American Catholic fad psychologist. These organisations like the one Father Porn Priest are part off don’t blast long. They only last a few years and then they fall apart because the people who run them come to see their fad psychological theories for what they are, nonsense. And they become disillusioned, and sometimes they hurt vulnerable people with their ineffective clinical methods.
There was another dangerous Catholic fad psychologist Dr Joseph Nicolosi. He was revered by many American conservative Catholics, and when he doed recently he was widely defended by various North American conservative Catholics, such as Life Site News. I think their was even a short obituary on an American district SSPX website page. Nicolosi was a quack, a liar, and promoted immoral therapeutic methods, for example attempting to reverse homosexual attractions by encouraging clients to arouse themselves with opposite sex pornograpy. Horrendous stuff.
Gabriel Syme
There are two answers to your comment. The first is that Bishop Fellay, good man that he is, was never really a leader and so a lot of things happened under his watch, especially when Bishop Williamson, a very dominant force, was around, that weakened the structure of the SSPX.
What I mean by this is that Bishop Williamson favoured a certain kind of temperament in the priests he championed for authoritative positions, chiefly those who could demonstrate to him a harsher disposition which he viewed as a strength but which the faithful viewed as clericalist and anti-pastoral. I think that became eminently clear at the time of the break away when a number of priests of this known disposition left the SSPX and adopted a very negative stance against Menzingen and its negotiations with Rome.
The problem today is that a number of priests of the same disposition, that is, priests in positions of authority who are not particularly disposed to question themselves, much less admit to mistakes or countenance correction from subordinates, remain in positions of authority. Hence the various examples quoted in my earlier comment citing Fr. Robinson’s book, the ITP and now Fr. Kilcawley. This is definitely a worrying trend that Menzingen will have to address going forward if the faithful are to be sanctified rather than scandalised.
The second answer, and this is purely my opinion based on decades of observance, especially of matters relating to education in the U.S. District, is that the SSPX has been infiltrated by cultural Marxists. How high that infiltration reaches and whether it involves clergy as well as laity, I have no idea. All I can say for sure is that this latest manifestation, the most brazen to date, is markedly cultural Marxist and it appears to be largely unopposed by those whose duty it is to keep watch.
I won’t go into great detail here about how I have come to this conclusion, suffice it to say my suspicions are based on many years of intelligence gathering, the icing on the cake being the invitation of this psychology priest (a classic cultural Marxist tactic) into Traditional Catholic circles. The next step, if I’m right, is that SSPX seminarians and priests will be subjected to psychological assessment, a method that was widely employed in seminaries after the Council resulting in the ruination of the priesthood.
I know one priest of the SSPX who left his modern seminary many years ago precisely because of this danger. He was told by his bishop at the time that he was “too close to God and too far from the people” before being advised that he should speak with a psychologist. Well he knew how that would end so he upped sticks and went to the SSPX.
One of the favourite tricks of the psychologists, especially in modern seminaries, and they have admitted to great success with it, has been to remove all mental and moral barriers to thinking and speaking about sex. They know fallen human nature well and so the ploy was to acclimatise priests and seminarians to feel comfortable with impurity in thought and speech, knowing that this would be the beginning of the end of their chastity. We all know of the clerical scandals that have resulted from this demonic programme, and I’m not just referring to child sexual abuse by priests. There was a book co-authored by some priests many years ago (can’t remember its title) in which the sexual scandals that were going on in modern seminaries were exposed to the full. One example was of seminarians being advised to date girls before ordination to test their vocation to the celibate life. Another example was of seminarians watching pornographic movies in the seminary during holiday time. This is what results from psychology being introduced into the Catholic spiritual life, priests and seminarians disarmed against the flesh by programming that exhorts them at best to be at ease with impure thoughts and conversation and at worst to “explore their sexuality”. It’s straight from Hell and it must never be allowed under any guise to enter into the SSPX.
Should we be scandalised by such an infiltration into the SSPX? Certainly not, for the devil will always seek to destroy this work of God by any means. But we do have to be aware that the devil often appears disguised as an angel of light. In this case I believe the disguise is this apparently harmless psychology business promoted by a priest and quite scandalously endorsed by other priests who should know better. I do not say that Fr. Kilcawley is of ill intent or that he is deliberately trying to corrupt morals, just that he is a Novus Ordo victim of a Novus Ordo novelty of cultural Marxist origin who should not be allowed within a mile of a Traditional Catholic Conference podium.
I have now sent the link to this thread to Father Kilcawley. Let’s hope it makes him think again about the way he thinks and speaks about sexual impurity.
Is there any point in writing to priests? Do they ever reply? In my experience lay people who complain are dismissed as fruitcakes and querulants. I have sent numerous letters to the clergy about the most appalling and scandalous things and most often then have withheld comment by not replying. (But they usually reply to complaints about trivial things where making comment is not likely to get them further into trouble.)
I used to think that priests refused to act on complaints from the laity because they were cowards. But now I have come to realise that priests have a victim mentality and they believe themselves to be under siege. A priest once said to me “we [priests] are all very vulnerable because of all this safeguarding”. Safeguarding, as it happens, is a set of procedures that the Church was forced to enact in order to better to protect genuinely vulnerable people from priests! See here how the clergy have inverted it? It’s clerical narcissism. Priests, in my experience, look out for each other and bishops and diocesan curias will always side with their priests in cases of non-criminal grievances brought to their attention by laity.
The safeguarding adviser at a Scottish diocese once said to me that if it’s a police matter then tell the police, and if it’s not a police matter then we [the diocese] are not interested.
I realise now that if you want redress from the Catholic Church you need to have a lawyer do it for you. Lawyers are the only people that modern Catholic churchmen are afraid off.
Miles Immaculatae,
I would – very sadly – strongly advise you never to write to express concerns about anything in the SSPX as I know, from personal experience that any such concerns are interpreted as complaints and simply (literally) filed away. Then, when you’ve written a few, you officially enter the category of troublemaker! Doesn’t matter if your intentions are the best – it’s a very strange phenomenon and I used to laugh to myself listening to one of our former priests extolling the virtues of Saint Catherine of Siena, having read her letters myself ! She told off popes without apology, even telling one to resign if he wasn’t up to the job!
There’s a definite mismatch in clergy minds. As long as someone is dead and, better still, canonised, their letters are wonderful. Doesn’t matter how cheeky she was, Catherine Benincasa, now that she’s St Catherine of Siena, was a terrific letter writer. Not just canonised, she’s also a Doctor of the Church, for goodness sake. While we are still alive and breathing, however, it’s not wise at all, to write to express concerns – and as for outright complaints? You kidding? Nope: I’ve not written a single expression of concern for quite a while now and, indeed, I have resolved never to do so again. Our local priests are very nice, don’t get me wrong – well, you know that yourself, but something happens to people when they are given positions of authority – they appear to think themselves if not infallible, well, at least, above and beyond anything remotely resembling criticism – even if it’s not intended as a criticism. Strange stuff. Anyway, forget about writing letters. Just pray. Oh and pay. Oh and… obey!
Don’t worry, I shall not send correspondence to the SSPX or its clergy expressing complaint or criticism. If I lose the SSPX, which is a lifeboat, then there will be no place left me to go! I already feel extremely unwelcome and uncomfortable in diocesan TLMs on account of malicious gossip made by various diocesan priests about me. I was even prevented from singing in the choir at Cardinal Burke’s recent Mass at Immaculate Heart of Mary Balornock, which I felt was particularly spiteful and discriminatory.
Miles Immaculatae,
Snap! You are now one of …well… those of us who are banned from the Cardinal Burke’s & Other Celebrity Prelates’ events in Balornock.
Wear it as a badge of honour. The person who prevented you from singing in the choir would be the same person who actually organises these events and who banned myself, my family and an elderly gentleman – common denominator being the connection to Catholic Truth.
He doesn’t like us because, you see, we’ve politely confronted him about the fact that he is in charge of spreading the TLM around the place, but fulfils his own Sunday obligation at the novus ordo Mass in St Aloysius – where he is a member of the choir.
Truly, you couldn’t make this stuff up. You just couldn’t!
In 2013 I tried to establish a chapter of Juventutem, the international group for young Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass. I had the full support of Juventutem’s UK chaplain, an FSSP preist who lived in Reading. However, Bishop Keenan of Paisley, who was priest at Turnbull Hall at the time, put an end to this group before we even got started. The man that you allude to in your comment did not come to my rescue, and I never even met him, not once, even though at the time I was one of the very few people under the age of 30 who were attending the diocesan Traditional Latin Mass at Sacred Heart Bridgeton. I also remember during this time that Una Voce Scotland didn’t even have an up-to-date website with accurate Mass centre information. Absolutely pathetic. Who decides who is president of Una Voce? Was he elected? How did such a useless and inept person become president of Una Voce Scotland?
Father Keenan said that those of us at Turnbull who were attached to the the old Mass could not have a regular TLM until a stable group of persons was established at Turnbull Hall, then after a while we would get a Traditional Mass. So in place of Juventutem another group was established by a man chosen by Father Keenan, who was not even a student at the time. By order of Bishop Keenan I was banned from joining this group, and the ban remains in place to this day as far as I know. The group is called the Confraternity of Saint Benedict and still meets at Turnbull Hall on a Monday evening. Six years later after this group has been founded there is still no Traditional Mass at Turnbull Hall, even though very many students over the years have asked for one. It’s absolutely pathetic. The new chaplain, Fr Ross Campbell, is equally hostile to the Traditional Mass. A group of young people in desperation have taken to traveling to Edinburgh every Sunday to attend the FSSP Mass there. They do not attend the diocesan TLM at Ballornock, and I do not blame them, for were they to turn up there would president of Una Voce Scotland welcome them with open arms and announce his joy that the next generation of Traditional Catholics are attending his Mass?
These experiences have led me to believe that the TLM offered within diocesan structures is not conducive to the progress of Tradition. In fact, my experience has taught me that these Masses keep people away from authentic Tradition. I won’t ever attend one again. I will stick only with SSPX from now on
The fact I was already involved with Catholic Truth in 2013 is certainly the reason that Juventutem was vetoed by Bishop Keenan. Some gossip got back to me and I discovered that a Glasgow Archdiocese priest had called me a “mad Lefebvrist”, and this very same priest is supposedly one of the diocesan priests who are friendly to Tradition! Nonsense. These diocesan priests who like the TLM are not remotely Traditional, they just like dressing up.
The TLM group at Turnbull Hall (that still has no TLM) has turned away many people from joining, and they do not allow women to join. The founder of the group (who wasn’t a student, he just hung out at Turnbull Hall) said to a friend of mine that it was an exclusive group and not everyone was welcome to join. They had absolutely no apostolic spirit. It’s a secret fraternity. A few years ago I reflected on these experiences and I questioned if I was right ever to have become Catholic.
Miles Immaculatae,
Your experience has been dreadful and I feel I should apologise on behalf of the Scottish Catholic community for the way you’ve been mistreated, but never question if you were right to have become a Catholic.
I know it must be very hard for converts who have converted at this time when the Church is going through such a crisis, but it’s still God’s ark of salvation and you need to be in there. It speaks volumes about your commitment and understanding of the faith, despite your trials, that you are here, on this Catholic blog (some say it is the only really Catholic blog in the UK) doing your bit. So, please know that you are right to have converted and that you are loved, by God and by us!
Thank you. Of course deep down I do not regret becoming Catholic.
I think that the bellicosity, tribalism, and hostility that I have encountered in the Church in Scotland is due rather to the crisis in the Church than to any innate disposition of Scottish Catholics. One effect the crisis is that is has out enmity between groups of ordinary Catholics.
I mentioned in my first comment on this blog post that I had been harmed in the past by Catholic quacks and their dubious psychological theories. Here is a video of Dr Joseph Nicolosi promoting pornograpy in therapy:
https://youtu.be/dzrZCSwLANo
And here is a page of the USA SSPX website promoting and praising the same Dr Joseph Nicolosi:
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/american-psychologist-joseph-nicolosi-passed-away-28546
Alan Chambers, the former leader of the organisation that ran the conference where Nicolosi gave this speech has said publicly that he banned Nicolosi from speaking at subsequent conferences because he was promoting the use of pornograpy in clinical practice. Here is a direct quote spoken by Nicolosi:
“I do not use heterosexual pornography with my clients. I do ask them (if they wish to do this; some clients do not, and I never expect my clients to do anything they do not wish to do) to bring up a compelling image from gay porn that they wish to reduce the power of, and we work on diminishing its power (a technique with which we have had considerable success).”
Source:
https://thinkprogress.org/ex-gay-in-fighting-exposes-silliness-of-dangerous-sin-motivated-treatments-bc2eeaa865db/
This is absolutely absurd: the use of homosexual pornograpy to help diminish homosexual temptations? Not only is this immoral from a Catholic perspective, what Nicolosi says is pure psuedo-science and EMDR in combination with pornographic stimuli does not cure homosexual attractions. It’s pure quackery. And Traditional Catholics should know better than to promote it. It’s not popular in Europe, we don’t tend to give credence to this kind of rubbish, but in America it’s big business.
Dr Nicolosi was promoted by Courage Apostolate for years. The same Courage Apostolate founded by Fr John Harvey who recommended that pederast abuser priests receive therapy from men like Nicolosi, and then be moved to other parishes.
Keep your children away from fad psychology. I think it’s demonic.
Miles Immaculatae,
Your post bears witness, once again, to the SSPX’s due diligence carelessness. That article you linked on the SSPX website was actually from LifeSiteNews – although the header says “Source: District of the USA.” But since this is the USA District website, one wonders why its source is itself…
The Society’s internal chaos is an ongoing problem.
Yes, I agree, I think it is just mindless carelessness that they linked this article. Life Site News is not Traditional. It’s a neo-Catholic establishment. Now the folk at Life Site News may be good, sincere, well meaning folk, but they aren’t Traditional, and as such they are disorientated. Consequently, any organ of the FSSPX should take great care not to endorse them or anything tinged with moral or doctrinal error.
Confused and disorientated people like me look to the SSPX for clarity!
I noted Athanasius’ comments about his long-term observations of the SSPX, and his opinion that cultural Marxism has infiltrated the Society. I’ve been watching the Amazon Synod Roundtable discussion on YouTube sponsored by Voice of the Family, with some very big names (including, strangely enough, Voris). Unfortunately there is a scrolling chat window to the right of the video, containing some of the most absurd comments.
One of them, however, was interesting, in that a woman claimed with great certainty that Modernism had not infiltrated the Society! I had to wonder if she would recognize Modernism if she saw it….
RCA Victor,
I’m surprised that Voris participated in that discussion about the Synod – he, of course, would just LOVE to know about this SSPX disappointment. Laughably, he is still banging “the SSPX is in schism” drum, so maybe this would come as a relief to him – proof that they’re NOT in schism after all, if they’re pushing impurity.
Could you – I mean COULD you, make up this stuff? That’s the correct grammar but it doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it, as “you just couldn’t make this stuff UP”!
I realised Michael Voris had lost the plot when he said it was immoral to judge the Pope based on doctrinal contentions, but acceptable to judge him based on moral contentions. He’s got it completely the wrong way around!
RCA Victor
The problem with this woman, as with so many others, is that while they look for signs of Modernism they fail to notice an infiltration of the principles of cultural Maxism into the education system, of which Fr. Kilcawley is the most brazen to date. The schooling system in the U.S. has had other problems in this regard, I think I mentioned here before about certain teachers and reading materials being deployed in SSPX schools in the U.S. The main problem lies in America and I think Menzingen really needs to look at the hierarchy there.
I dont think this has been posted (see below).
Louie Verrercchio has spoken with James Vogel, who is editor at Angelus Press, the organiser of their conferences and a communications director for the US district of the SSPX.
Regarding the controversy, Mr Vogel says, in brief summary:
– the SSPX take objections to Fr Kilcawley;s invite seriously and will address them
– the conference will not be changed in any way
– the conference will not be streamed live, as per previous. Instead audio will be provided later. People are asked to listen in full, before making judgement.
– Angelus Press hopes to address this matter in full via a forthcoming podcast
– Fr Kilcawley’s presentation has been pre-vetted, which is a standard procedure for all invited speakers
– Mr Vogel states the presentation will not be controversial, but notes that the SSPX does not endorse any of the speakers work in its totality, regardless of who they are.
– Mr Vogel has invited concerned parties to contact him with comments or queries, at
jvogel@angeluspress.org
https://akacatholic.com/angelus-conference-controversy-sspx-responds/
Not a great response, but it seems more of a primer that “more is to come” by way of explanation / reassurance.
Based on these comments, It is a concern that a controversial speaker could be invited but then Angelus Press / SSPX would shrug off concern by saying “we don’t endorse the totality of their work”.
A sedevacantist or holocaust denier could be invited, based on that criteria.
Gabriel Syme,
That is a very unsatisfactory “assurance” – not least because the conference will not be streamed live, as previously. Simply audio later – yes, after it’s been carefully edited.
And if this priest is not going to controversial – what on earth is he going to say?
You are spot on with your remark about a sedevacantist/holocaust denier being eligible to speak under that silly “we don’t endorse the totality of their work” – if they can’t endorse the totality of their work, they shouldn’t be invited.
I remember hearing/reading that Pope Benedict had prefaced his book on Our Lord with a warning it wasn’t necessary accurate, or words to that effect.
I made an instant decision neither to purchase it or read it – ever.
Editor
Your point is spot on. Can you imagine the Angelus Press inviting Cardinal Walter Kasper to speak at the Angelus Conference on, say, devotion to Our Lady and then trying to justify the invitation by saying “we don’t agree with his heresies but he gives a nice wee talk on Our Lady, and we’ll be watching him anyway because we know he can’t be fully trusted”. It’s ludicrous!
Gabriel Syme
The comment you post containing Mr. Vogel’s response to the Fr. Kilcawley invite appears to be very similar in tone (arrogant) as a response put up on a closed SSPX group discussion on Facebook, over which Mr. Vogel is one of several administrators.
Here’s what I think is his response to concerned Catholics in the U.S. and other parts of the world to the Fr. Kilcawley affair. Naturally, my comment follows!
SSPX Faithful Group Admins
“People may or may not like the fact that Fr. Kilcawley is speaking at the Angelus Conference. However, in the SSPX, decisions like this are not made haphazardly, but rather for the good of souls. If the Society did not consider the necessity great, Fr. Kilcawley would not have been asked to speak. It is no mere academic exercise. Because of this great cancer infecting souls, the District has called in an expert in this matter to speak. Judge the wisdom of SSPX by its fruits and not by speculations.”
The first thing to note about this comment is the arrogance with which it is delivered. The second point of note, much more worrying, is the reference to “great necessity”. What does the author mean by this? The third point to note is the false claim that Fr. Kilcawley is an expert when we know he’s nothing of the sort. Fr. Kilcawley is a Novus Ordo psychology priest, the very personification of everything the SSPX stands against in its fight to maintain faith and morals.
The faithful who have raised genuine concerns about this “Theology of the Body” priest have done so for very good reason, and they deserve no less than a full and proper explanation. The days of clerics and their jobsworthys responding with “pay up and shut up” are long gone, the post-conciliar clerical betrayal diminished that trust forever. This Fr. Kilcawley business wreaks of cultural Marxist infiltration of the SSPX on a grand scale, sharing a podium with Bishop Fellay no less, and it warrants immediate investigation by Menzingen.
And just in case they still can’t see the danger Fr. Kilcawley represents to purity and innocence, especially in the young, then let’s recall again his blasphemous suggestion that instead of asking Our Lord to remove impure thoughts, or fleeing them as the saints admonish, we should rather invite Our Lord into the mind to co-view them. That one statement alone should have been sufficient for any Traditional Catholic priest or lay person in authority to declare Fr. Kilcawley persona non grata. Urgent answers must be forthcoming together with urgent action against whoever was responsible for this outrage.
.
Gabriel Syme,
Pardon me for reverting to my blunt self, but I am so tired of BS artists. In the case of this particular response, if the SSPX takes the objections seriously, then why is it that they refuse to change the conference in any way?
Answer: they don’t take the objections seriously. And extrapolating from that, they really don’t know what is for the good of souls and what is not. They are living in an ivory tower completely removed from Catholic reality…and probably terrestrial reality as well.
Pathetic.
And I believe Athanasius has dealt with the other ramifications in his post below.
(Sorry, that’s Athanasius’ post above mine, not below)
Just a quick response to Mr. Vogel welcoming questions/queries about Fr. Kilcawley. I wrote to him via the Angelus Press and received no response. I also wrote to Fr. Wegner, U.S. District Superior and received no response, at least not yet. Too late now that the dirty deed is done!
Angelus press is announcing that the 2019 Conference was “a great success” and “acclaimed “The best Conference yet” by many attendees!”
This is on email (I am on their mailing list) and also their website here:
https://angeluspress.org/blogs/blog/angelus-press-conference-2019-a-great-success
Has anyone seen or heard more about the responses Mr Vogel claimed would be issued regarding the objections about the conference?
There is a “conference audio” section here, but it has not been updated for 2019 so far:
https://angeluspress.org/collections/downloads/Conference-Audio
Gabriel Syme,
It will only confirm suspicions if that priest’s talk is not published in full. It was difficult to watch those photos of that crowd and imagine their faces when Fr Kilcawley told them to invite Jesus into their imaginations to watch porn with them.
I can’t get over that – how on earth can Bishop Fellay justify it?
Gabriel Syme
I wrote to both the SSPX District Superior of the U.S. (Fr. Wegner) and Mr. Vogel at Angelus Press, pointing out the obvious in accordance with the Traditional moral teaching of the Church and her saints. The silence ever since has been deafening which leads me to believe that Fr. Kilcawley’s invitation to speak at the Conference is down to more than misguided good will. They are either too proud to admit their blunder or they are cultural Marxist infiltrators into Tradition. I suspect the former, though the latter’s principles triumph. Either way it’s extremely worrying.
They have published Father Kilcawley’s talk in full at this podcast link
http://sspxpodcast.com/
I would be interested to know what others think of it.
I meant to say I am now giving serious thought to voting for the Scottish Family Party who made that video. I hope Brexit is done by the time of the election as I really would prefer to vote for a party which is committed to real family values.
I agree – Richard Lucas is very brave in that video and John Swinney is a real moral coward. I think he knows he is in the wrong about this but is too weak a character to resist the LGBT crowd.
I would be tempted to vote for his party as well, but if you read the Principles, it finishes with a statement that they are opposed to abortion except in extreme circumstances which could mean the usual, rape, disability or whatever. That’s a no-go for me.
MM I see what you mean regarding the stance on abortion but, if we wait for the perfect party to vote for, we’d never vote! And, it’s by voting that we get a change of parties and any party has to be better than what we’ve presently got. I’ve decided to join the Scottish Family Party and I’ll also spread the word amongst my family and friends.
As to that video content, it is vile beyond words.
Rarely have I witnessed anything so overtly evil as this SNP corruption of childhood innocence promoted as “education”. Surely so-called responsible politicians, teachers and/or parents who even contemplate the presentation of such perverted filth to kids in the name of “equipping them for the world” should be brought to trial for crimes against humanity. I know that what they propose is certainly one of the worst sins before God, who said:
“But he that shall scandalise one of these little ones of mine, 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.” Mattew 18, 6-8.
Here we have proof positive that the SNP is a cultural Marxist party intent on eradicating all Christian culture and morals from our society. This is what Marxists do, as the Popes have warned, they target incautious youth with destructive propaganda, indoctrinating children to rebel against God, against virtue and even against the natural order. They know that to bring down Christian society they have to eliminate its foundation, Christian marriage and the Christian family, and nothing achieves that goal as easily as teaching the kids 100 ways to become little sexual perverts whilst protesting that they are ensuring a healthy development. This is the “Father of Lies” at his best!
I would hate to be a child growing up in this world today, exposed to all manner of evils by those whose duty it is to shield the young from harm, especially moral corruption. What kind of human beings are these people who view such filthy material with an approving nod that all children should see it? This is where I’m afraid I have to stop myself from saying what I think of them.
Our Lady of Fatima told the three children that a majority of souls go to Hell through sins of the flesh, and yet here we have the Scottish government facilitating the eternal damnation of so many by its policy to make sins of the flesh “fun” for the young to view and emulate. Yes, it’s straight from Hell and what a judgment these facilitators will face when they pass from this short life to eternity!
I received the following response 5 days ago from James Vogel at the Angelus:
Many thanks for your e-mail: I didn’t have a chance to read this until after the conference as I received it during. My apologies! I’m only now catching up on e-mails.
We recorded a podcast explaining why we invited Father along with the audio of his talk from our conference itself:
http://sspxpodcast.com/
I hope this helps; we appreciate your writing to us and ask for your prayers.
Pax et Bonum,
James Vogel
Since it didn’t begin to touch on the many points raised in my original communication with Mr. Vogel, I sent another letter (below). Thus far I have received no further response from anyone in charge, so I thought it right to make my letter public for all to read and weigh.
“Dear Mr. Vogel,
Thank you for your kind response to my email concerning Fr. Kilcawley.
I listened to the podcast you linked but I have to say, respectfully, that it did not diminish my concern in the least, nor, if I understand correctly, has it alleviated the concerns of so many other Traditional Catholics equally worried by this development.
You will doubtless be aware of the controversy generated not so long ago by Fr. Paul Robinson’s book “Realist Guide to Religion and Science”, a work which, rather than strengthen the belief of the faithful in Sacred Scripture, left many of the lesser informed disturbed and ill at ease by its dismissal of certain aspects of the Creation account recorded in Genesis.
Not only is the subject matter of this book too complex for the average Catholic to understand, it also contains personal errors in observation and conclusion that take Fr. Robinson’s thesis much further than the Church would permit in normal healthy times. Why a Traditional Catholic priest chose to open such a Pandora’s box in an unprecedented era of great crisis of faith is beyond me, yet the book is endorsed by the SSPX hierarchy.
Now we witness the same imprudent course being followed in relation to Catholic morals by way of Fr. Kilcawley’s psychology angle on pornography addiction. Once again the approach is novel and controversial, the work of another pseudo-“expert”, that leaves Catholics unsettled by the apparent contradiction it represents with the Traditional teaching and methods of the Church and her saints.
The basic rule of thumb I apply in such matters as these is that any subject touching faith and morals which leaves the faithful disturbed in mind or soul is not from God, regardless of how well intentioned the instigators of the scandal may be.
In Fr. Robinson’s work I see more Rationalist than Realist and in Fr. Kilcawley’s work I see more Cultural Marxist than Catholic Moralist. It may surprise you to learn in respect to the latter that the very same sex and sexuality tactic was employed by psychologists in post-conciliar seminaries to the very great detriment of priestly celibacy, a fact that certain of the psychologists involved proudly chalked up as a success given their secularist view of chastity as “repressive”.
In this regard, I have heard that seminarians in Virginia are now being asked to undergo psychological evaluation before ordination, similar to what is done in modernist seminaries. If true, then the SSPX really is losing the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre; for the introduction of psychology into the Catholic religion, as per the Modernist example, is certainly indicative of a decline in supernatural faith.
As a pertinent aside, I recall reading the text of an interview with the infamous serial rapist and killer Ted Bundy, his final testament if you like before being executed by the State for his crimes. Claiming to have repented and made his peace with God, a claim which God alone will know to be true or false, he declared that his actions were simply those of a man who, despite a happy, healthy and religious upbringing, fell into the trap of viewing pornographic magazines. This, he said, was the beginning of an insatiable lust that led to ever degenerating actions until he reached the point of utter depravity.
Bundy more or less cast scorn on the psychologists who looked to his mind for answers to his behaviour. To paraphrase his response he said: “I was neither mad nor sad, I was just plain bad”. Bundy did not hesitate to acknowledge that his actions were due to his state of soul, the presence of evil and the absence of grace, a truth that fits well with Traditional Catholic teaching.
And if further proof were required that addiction to impurity is a vice that God’s grace alone can deliver its victims from, I offer the examples of St. Mary Magdalene, St. Augustine and St. Mary of Egypt. All three were delivered from their enslavement to lust by supernatural grace, not a psychologist in sight!
That access to pornographic material is more widely and easily accessible in our time does not alter fundamental Catholic teaching that mortal sin is an act of the will, not of the mind. If depression is present in the mind of a person in mortal sin then it is the sin that’s causing the depression, not the other way around. This glaring fact led Bishop Fulton Sheen to declare that psychology is merely Confession without absolution. In other words, it’s worthless.
I would go further and add that it is also extremely dangerous, for it contradicts the Church and her saints who admonish the faithful to play the coward when it comes to impure temptations, fleeing every occasion of impure thought and conversation. How can this ever square with Fr. Kilcawley’s advice that Christ should be invited into the mind to view impure thoughts with us, or with his therapy groups in which sex addicts openly discuss amongst themselves the details of their sinful behaviour?
Our Lady told the three children of Fatima that the greater number of souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh. To counter this tragic trend she encouraged prayer, penance and mortification. At no time did she advocate the use of psychologists. If I recall correctly, however, Fr. Edouard Dhanis employed psychology to undermine the integrity of the Third Secret as well as Our Lady’s request for the consecration of Russia by suggesting that Sister Lucy’s pious childhood memories had intertwined with Our Lady’s words and distorted her message. Very clever and hugely ironic!
Well I think I have said enough on the subject to hopefully cause you, Fr. Beck and Fr. Wegner to reflect. As far as I can tell, and this can be ascribed also to the Fr. Robinson business, the only people to be helped by these innovative initiatives are the so-called “Resistance” folks who present them as solid proof that the SSPX is drifting into Modernism. As much as I have vigorously opposed their claims in the past, I cannot do so now because on this occasion, sadly, their assertions have a solid foundation.
What I hope to see in the coming days, please God, is a very public change of heart on the part of Frs. Beck, Wegner and yourself, a recognition that with the best will in the world the Fr. Kilcawley invitation was a monumental error in judgment. What this would demonstrate to the faithful is that even SSPX intellectuals and clerical superiors can make mistakes, though with the marked difference of having the humility to own up to them. I think this would certainly go some way to undoing the damage this event has caused to so many souls. To this end, I would appreciate it if you would give Frs. Beck and Wegner a copy of this letter.
Please be assured of my prayers.”
Athanasius,
What a splendid, clear and irrefutable letter! When you say you have received no response from anyone in charge, I’m guessing you also sent this to the SSPX hierarchy? I hope so…
RCA Victor
No, I haven’t sent the letter directly to the SSPX hierarchy but I did ask James Vogel to pass it on to the U.S. superiors, Frs. Beck & Wegner. What I should do now is post a copy to Fr. Pagliarani in Menzingen. I’m a little lethargic in this regard, though, because years of experience have taught me that the SSPX hierarchy does not generally pay much heed to concerns raised by ‘impertinent’ faithful. Harsh as it may sound, the general rule seems to be to close ranks around members of the clerical brotherhood whenever concerns are raised by lower beings.
How I miss the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre!
Athanasius,
Maybe you could talk Editor into including your letter as an article in the next newsletter….if those Happiness Engineers don’t get in the way…
RCA Victor
Now that you’ve sent out the subliminal message, so to speak, we’ll have to wait and see if the chief happiness engineer has the space or the inclination to slot that one into the newsletter. I think space may be tight, what with all the myriad of other subjects that have to be slotted in to the newsletter. I’m just happy that I was able to keep folks up to date here on the blog. You see, now I’m on my way to being a happiness engineer!
Athanasius & RCA Victor,
While I would LOVE to have included the letter in the November newsletter, it is just jam packed, finished and about to go to the printer. Sorry! I’ve had to set aside quite a few bits and pieces which I would have loved to include but just not possible this time.
I’ll see what can be organised for the January edition – but what an awful start to the New Year that would be! No offence, Athanasius – you’ll get my drift. Actually, unless John Swinney has removed his disgraceful approval of the pornographic material he is permitting to be used in Scottish schools, I think I can see a wee pattern there, so don’t lose hope. Or rather, let’s hope that it’s all sorted by then and children are no longer at risk from such abusive sex education. Then the hunt will be on for something else to put in the newsletter 😀
Editor,
I suspected that would be the case. I think “Chief Happiness Engineer,” however, is a much more impressive title than “Editor” – though it might have certain Orwellian overtones…
…as in…”We;re sending you to the Chief Happiness Engineer, Winston, for some re-programming of your dangerous thoughts…”
Apologies, Athanasius – no idea why your latest comment went into moderation.
Editor
Not to worry, it’s the WordPress platform to blame for that. I knew you would spot the comment eventually.
Athanasius,
Thank you for your understanding. I’ve had hassle every time I’ve tried to log in today, so the WordPress “Happiness Engineers” (who were undoubtedly less than happy by the end of our session!) advised me to try another browser. Took me a while to work that one out but now I’ve managed to log in thanks to (drum roll) … Firefox.
Let’s see how long it lasts. The mysteries of the internet are much harder to fathom, in my humble view, than any mystery of the Faith!
And now that I’ve worked it out – I need a break 😀
Editor
Good old Firefox, the only browser I use, though I think it’s slowing down with all the security updates they’re giving it. If it continues to get slower then I’ll simply fire the fox and move on.
Editor,
Funny you should mention Firefox: I stopped using that browser about 5 months ago, because it kept getting hacked, i.e. a fake “warning” screen would appear, freezing the browser and the computer, and instructing me to call Microsoft.
I became suspicious when I noticed a pattern to this hacking: it always happened right after I viewed two “right-wing” websites, WorldNetDaily and TheNewAmerican. So I ran all manner of anti-virus scans, uninstalled and reinstalled Firefox per the instructions of some tech assistance website…but when it happened again I switched browsers to Opera, and haven’t had any trouble since.
RCA Victor,
Well, forewarned is forearmed, as the saying goes, so thank you for that. I’ve never been much of an opera fan but needs must if Firefox drives, to paraphrase the old saying!
RCA Victor
I’ll watch out for that, had no idea Firefox was that vulnerable. Mind you, telll me one browser of website that’s not vulnerable to hackers. It’s enough to hack you off!
Hello,
I just want to add that I appreciate the letters that were written against the talk given by Fr. Kilcawley at the Angelus conference. Even if it doesn’t seem as though your concerns were taken seriously, it’s good that you wrote. If no one complains, then it will be assumed that there wasn’t a problem.
The issue of Fr. Kilcawley was brought up and discussed (debated) before the conference, on the CathInfo forum. Some of you may know it, or may have heard of it, as the “Resistance” forum. This comments section of this blog was recently referred to there (in a positive manner), so I thought I’d mention it.
Marcy Ray,
Thank you for this information – greatly appreciated.
Kilcawley changed things up a bit from his normal routine, but even in his vetted talk, not only was group therapy (man-centered) programs heavily recommended, he was allowed to invite SSPX priests & laity to attend his “My House Workshop for Men” – a 3-day intensive in Kansas City where he is on the team with 3 other therapists (so traditionalists can go learn his unvetted modernist approaches in that forum).
The site for that workshop is FULL of anti-Catholic modernist materials. His IntegrityRestored.com site is advertised, again, which heavily promotes Theology of the Body & authors who degrade the Faith. That same controversial video on how to deal with impure temptations is on a link for priests (which also contains a link to an article on why 12-step group programs are a good idea, though Traditional Priests have warned about them.). His Porn Plague talk with all of its feelings-based, man-centered, Theology of the Body-influenced philosophies is posted under Resources. Classes for children (which include Theology of the Body) are recommended on the site. And Bishop Barron (who praised Henri DeLubac for his nouvelle theologie & believes Christ is simply a “privileged” route to salvation among many routes) is on the Resource page speaking favorably on a psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, who presents the archetypal psychology of C.G. Jung, a disciple of Sigmund Freud. Psychologists, such as Freud & Jung, are known to destroy the Faith, but no one would guess that by watching Bishop Barron’s video. Barron recommends this psychologist/author, lauding his use of the Dao symbol for balance & says at the very end that he is worried about his gnosticizing tendency. (And we wonder why Catholics are confused.) Psychotherapists & social workers are recommended on this site. It is all very humanist. https://centerforhealingkc.com/myhouse/my-house-initiative https://centerforhealingkc.com/resources/audio-books
In the videos below, a Traditional Priest explains why group therapy/12-step programs are harmful to the Catholic faith & how having accountability partners is evil (though Kilcawley highly recommends it). The details of the evils of group therapy/12-step addiction programs begin at timestamp 35:40: https://youtu.be/3i6vyzo-K3c Part 2: https://youtu.be/bNT7W49J-Aw
When dioceses/NO priests have adopted these Marxist methods, it is extremely troubling that traditional priests are looking to them for advice. There are concerns about teachers in our SSPX school adopting some of these ideas/methods. Some attended the conference. There is a popular “Catholic” group therapy/sharing circle program (similar to what Fr. Kilcawley recommends) being adopted in Catholic schools. It would fall under “Communist Sensitivity Training”. It is used in Fr. Kilcawley’s diocese, and I fought it in my diocese. It was created by a human dignity curriculum writer for the U.N.’s World Youth Alliance; she incorporates training by a non-Christian international social justice organization, & its book has the imprimatur of the Archbishop of St. Louis. (Another example of the New Order destroying the Faith.) I have feedback from some of the top Catholic researchers in the country explaining why this program is anti-Catholic. This program (& other psychological & group therapy-type programs, like Fr. Kilcawley’s) leads to a breakdown of the Faith, consensus morals, & a destruction of the Divine authority structure as it is a horizontal feelings-based approach to behavioral issues vs. a vertical dogmatic approach to spiritual issues that affect behavior.
Here is the link to Kilcawley’s talk: http://sspxpodcast.com/2019/10/danger-online-fr-kilcawley/
Here is the link to Fr. Wegner’s and James Vogel’s comments on Fr. Kilcawley’s invitation: http://sspxpodcast.com/2019/10/interview-fr-wegner-vogel-conference/
It’s troubling to hear them rationalize this invitation & that SSPX priests will now be referring laity to Fr. Kilcawley & his methods.
Cathjnc,
Thank you for taking the trouble to write your lengthy post and provide linked evidence. I will check out the links as soon as possible.
My own over-riding thought throughout this, has been how few SSPX Catholics have been able to bring themselves to criticise this shocking invitation and its aftermath.
How on earth anyone can defend it – AND, above all, defend Bishop Fellay’s participation in it – is beyond my simple Catholic mind.
And how anyone can keep silent – suggesting complicit consent – is another puzzle. If a modernist bishop were sharing a platform with a priest as confused, sexualised and disturbed as Fr Kilcawley, there would be no shortage of vociferous criticism. Talk about forked tongues.
Cathjnc
What you describe is shocking in the extreme, the SSPX superiors cannot be ignorant of this. You hit the nail on the head with the word “conditioning”. This is truly Cultural Marxism at work within the SSPX. I remember not so long ago that in one of the SSPX schools in the U.S. there were serious questions over the content of some of the literature, especially one particular book called “The Green Knight” in which there is a strong hint at a homosexual relationship. It’s very worrying.
For the record, here is how the SSPX USA District is reporting this Conference in its Review of 2019…
http://2019.sspx.online/en_US/17971/250571/angelus_press.html
Thanks for sharing the link. Included in the online document is the following link re: the relationship SSPX priests are developing with Conciliar bishops: http://2019.sspx.online/en_US/17971/250574/contact_with_bishops.html
Also, see this article where an SSPX spokesman describes the open and warm relationships being established with Conciliar bishops & the pride of the SSPX in impressing these enemies of the Faith with SSPX’s traditional flocks (as if they are a commodity to be shown & sold off to these utilitarian bishops, who consider the local constituency as primarily human capital): https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/dozens-of-us-bishops-approve-sspx-weddings/
I’ve learned that our Conciliar bishop in the U.S., who supports Marxist agendas in his very own schools (sold children’s souls for vouchers, broke his promise to parents), is planning on giving a talk at the local SSPX chapel (welcomed by their trusted SSPX priest, who has seemed to develop a cozy relationship with him). This modernist bishop’s political charm will likely pull innocent souls & the naive over to his side & his modernist philosophies. The next time the innocent children of this chapel see this bishop on the news, again, with his right-hand man endorsing the message of a “priest” dressed in lavender laymen’s clothing covering up the homosexual scourge, these innocent souls will likely trust this message as well as the lavender priest that the bishop is endorsing. SSPX priests are poisoning their own flocks by bringing in those who do not have the True Faith (like Kilcawley & these Conciliar bishops). Satan’s latest plan is to conceal his works with traditional aesthetics. These utilitarian freemason bishops see traditional flocks as potential human & material capital. They are willing to exchange use of N.O. buildings, administrative resources, etc. as bait to bring traditionalists into the modernist folds, mixing modernist philosophies (man-centered, feelings-based, UN-driven) with the cover of the TLM.
Archbishop Lefebvre warned about this: “It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”
CathJNC,
I have checked your links and to be honest, I think it’s a good thing that the Society priests are having positive interaction with the diocesan bishops. In the first link, all the praise is coming from the diocesan bishops TO the SSPX, not the other way round. I think such contact is very different from the disgraceful invitation to Fr Kilcawley, allowing him to peddle impurity.
Obviously, if there are cases, such as the bishop of your own diocese who “supports Marxist agendas in his own schools”, then that should not be happening. However, I don’t think the SSPX should be cutting off all contact with the bishops of the dioceses – if they do that, how are the bishops to be given the chance to change for the better? Also, how are the SSPX faithful to learn to interact with those in the diocesan parishes, to teach them the truth?
IMHO, the policy of keeping isolated, heads down until the crisis passes, causes a schismatic mentality and that is not at all a good thing.
Having positive interaction with SSPX priests is one thing…bringing in the unconverted with their modernist anti-Catholic ideologies to influence & instruct innocent souls in traditional flocks at schools & chapels is another. Clergy should be converted before being brought in as trusted shepherds to the innocent souls who are trying to learn & conform to tradition. The diocesan bishop peddles modernism that endanger souls….just as Kilcawley does. He peddles the same errors of Theology of the Body that Kilcawley peddles in his addiction programs; he peddles socialism, relativism, global one world education (which is the one world religion), etc. Sadly, most Catholics have become modernists themselves & are blind to this danger & believe that young traditional families & children should interact with the New Order believing that the subjects will convert the superiors. Archbishop Lefebvre said this was an illusion.
Archbishop Lefebvre: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people! If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” Fideliter, July/August, 1989
“Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church – what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.” – Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, July/August 1989
The modernist bishops are in schism, not the traditionalists. ABL: “It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976) The bishops have plenty of chances to change for the better. This bishop works with the Institute of Christ the King and their flock, who embrace much modernism due to the bishop’s influence. Only prayer and sacrifices can change him. Shepherds must protect their flocks from the modernists who destroy souls and the True Catholic Faith.