en.news
33.1K

SSPX: Dreadful "Negligence" And No Apology

For over a year and until short time ago St Michael the Archangel's school in Burghclere, England, which is operated by the Priestly Society of St Pius X (SSPX), had the “Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic …More
For over a year and until short time ago St Michael the Archangel's school in Burghclere, England, which is operated by the Priestly Society of St Pius X (SSPX), had the “Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool” published on its webpage as part of a 34-page “Child Protection Policy” document.
Brook is a British “sexual education” organization that promotes contraception, abortion, gender ideology and sexual perversion.
The “Traffic Light Tool” considers as safe and healthy sexual development for teenagers solitary masturbation, sexually explicit conversations with peers, obscenities and jokes, interest in pornography, having sexual relationships, consenting oral or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability.
It is unclear how such a text could end up as part of a “child protection” policy for an SSPX school.
In a letter to the parents Father John Brucciani, the headmaster of St. Michael’s school, explained in the meantime …More
Temperance
Wow! Satan has even crept into the SSPX?! This just shows how Satan never needs rest! He is working so very hard to bring all of humanity to the fiery pit with him. The end must be near because Satan is everywhere! Gaurd your souls and pray hard you don't fall into any traps the Devils are planting!
Rory McKenzie
Fr. Brucciani does not mention to parents (since they know this already) that he arrived in England from his assignment in America, no earlier than the end of July. He could have had nothing to do with the 2016 policy. He took the offensive material down while explaining how he thinks it might have come to be in the school's materials. It certainly seems more plausible to me that it was a mistake,…More
Fr. Brucciani does not mention to parents (since they know this already) that he arrived in England from his assignment in America, no earlier than the end of July. He could have had nothing to do with the 2016 policy. He took the offensive material down while explaining how he thinks it might have come to be in the school's materials. It certainly seems more plausible to me that it was a mistake, than that it was on purpose. In any case, it cannot possibly be attributed to Fr. Brucciani. Here is part of his explanation to parents:

"In 2016, the Hampshire County Council Child Protection Policy Template for Schools (available on their website) was used to update our child protection policy here at St. Michael's School. The template contained the Brook Sexual Behaviour Traffic Light Tool, which describes as normal certain sexual activities and attitudes that are sinful. Unfortunately, due to a lake (sic) of oversight or distraction, the Brook Tool was overlooked and published as part of St. Michael's School Child Protection Policy.

Ten days ago, before any polemic arose, I read (and updated) the policy for the first time. I noticed the Brook Tool. I inquired if its inclusion in our CP Policy was a legal requirement. Since it is not a legal requirement, I withdrew it."

It seems to me that it is likely that Fr. Brucciani is completely confident that his predecessor as headmaster of the school is innocent of deliberately allowing these materials in to what is probably a rather obscure policy statement. Why did it not come to light during the 2016 school year at all? Did all of the parents and staff secretly share in a desire to promote that ungodly garbage? It makes more sense to me that it was an accident.

One must be pleased that there are still many good Catholics who would be appalled at anyone, and even more, the sons of Marcel Lefebvre, of promoting satanic filth. Presumably, those who are rightly appalled at the shocking reports, will be pleased to consider plausible explanations for how this happened. It seems like it probably involves some culpability on someone's part, a lack of due diligence.

But it isn't possible for me to believe that "the SSPX" condones this filth, as Maudie asks. Or that Fr. Brucciani is "one of them"(sexual deviants?). it is undoubtedly helpful to me to have come to admire Fr. Brucciani during his time in America as our prior. Hopefully, I have offered a few thoughts that might give those who are concerned about this episode reason to entertain a hope that the SSPX is against sexual perversion.
Maudie N Mandeville
an "attack on the SSPX." Why, does the SSPX condone this filth? We question why a pope does not discipline errant/devious priests and bishops. Will Bishop Fellay do anything? Please God, don't tell me that Fr. Brucciani "is one of them." btw, who oversees SSPX schools??