Predator priests don’t abuse random children. They groom them by insinuating themselves into families; often (though not always) fatherless families. The priest is beloved by the whole family, and the abused child is either not believed, or is afraid to tell anyone. It probably doesn’t happen as much today, but this dynamic used to be prevalent. Do people abuse the system today? Absolutely. But, it was negligence, especially on the part of bishops that promoted it.

@salliperson

As I've said below to Martin, I struggle with this idea that people who have been abused in this shocking way keep silence - for any reason - for years, indeed decades, before speaking out. I really struggle to believe that.

@Marra Magdalena Garbarino

Says who? That fake science called psychology, or the association of compensation lawyers? The classic (and natural) response is to report to parents or trusted adults.

Patricia McKeever/ Sean Johnson/ Martin Blackshaw: Having something so shameful, so degrading happen to you - a child - by an adult everyone trusts - is psychologically and emotionally crippling. How to say it? How to admit it? How to cope with the inner turmoil and pain? So you internalize it. And then it begins to eat at you. Your try harder to suppress it; to block it out. Years go by. Finally, when there is enough distance between you and the thing that hurt you, when that crippling pain no longer has such a hold on you, when you are an adult on equal terms with your abuser, then, and only then, can you face the nightmare and speak of it.

@Carol H
I've heard/read this many times, Carol and I have to accept that, if this has been your personal experience, so be it. Generally speaking, however, I find it impossible to comprehend. Most especially with regard to children. Think how quickly they run to mother to snitch on a sibling for the simplest thing. I struggle to believe that these same children would remain silent about something so obviously seriously wrong but, I dare say, there are exception to this as to every other rule.

I understand what you are saying but unfortunately the exception is the child that speaks out. As John A. Cassini pointed out, part of the reason is the way abusers work. They befriend the family. They befriend the child. They make the child feel special. They start with "innocent" embraces that slowly, gradually go further in order to make it feel "normal". They begin to use emotional blackmail - easy to do with a trusting child. Then, by the time it has become serious, the child is made to feel that they are the ones who instigated it all and "what would your mother say if she knew?" This is when the internal conflict of fear and guilt kick in. You are totally correct in your assessment of a child's usual knee jerk reaction to something that bothers them. The difference here is that they drawn in so gradually they don't even realize it is happening until its too late.

With regards to the topic at hand - every single abuser or priest with inordinate temptations, needs to be rooted out, exposed, defrocked - immediately. No second chances. For the record, I attend a SSPX chapel and I love the SSPX priests as a rule. But Bishop Fellay - and any other superior who is guilty of the same - including Bishop Williamson of the resistance movement - needs to be hauled up and made answerable for introducing, protecting, or shifting round these abusers. I am a parent of a son who was deliberately exposed to such danger by these superiors and I can tell you now - if anything truly serious had of happened, the SSPX would have had hell to pay. And I strongly warn all parents reading this: be on your guard. Yes, the SSPX is one of the best orders we have in this modern age. And there are many, many SSPX priests who are holy, brave and upright men. But until this sick practice of ignoring red flags and playing pass the parcel with predators stops, the SSPX is not the totally safe haven we all thought it to be.

@Carol H

I have never accepted this modern theory that countless numbers of children have suppressed the truth about abuse at the hands of priests and other adults through shame, guilt or the fear of not being believed. I know this is the modern psychological argument put forward by lawyers in courts as a means of arousing emotions and winning compensation in so-called "historical" abuse cases. It doesn't wash with me. Children are not that complicated and, if genuinely loved by parents, will always run immediately to mum or dad for solace and protection if assaulted. All this psychological stuff is far too complex for the minds and hearts of children. Sorry, I don't buy it.

As for the SSPX superiors, you probably already know that in Menzingen the mindset is one of clericalism and, to some extent, narcissism. They have no concern for you or your family when it comes to scandals like these, or indeed other potentially soul-destroying events. Protecting ordained members of their clerical gentleman's club is their one and only priority and so they close ranks around bad priests, putting up a wall of silence like a kind of Masonic brotherhood.

I can say this with absolute certainty having recently been expelled from my SSPX church of 40 years in Glasgow. The Prior, Fr. Sebastian Wall, was challenged by me and Patricia McKeever for expressing heterodox (to say the least) views on the Low Mass. There were other unCatholic matters related to this priest, but space forbids full explanation. His curate, Fr. Reid Hennick was also challenged for making schismatic declarations from the pulpit. Patricia was first to be expelled in the most brutal manner, denied any and all recourse to justice via superiors in London and Menzingen. They were all copied into correspondence wherein damning evidence of wrongdoing by these two priests was clearly presented, yet silence was their only response.

Patricia was subsequently emailed by Fr. Wall, who blatantly lied about the 'Catholic Truth Scotland' blog she edited at that time (2 years ago), saying that she had used it repeatedly to attack the SSPX. In fact, that blog brought many souls to the SSPX over many years. Anyway, Fr. Hennick then followed up with one of the nastiest emails I've ever had the misfortune to read from a so-called priest of God. He stated quite categorically to Patricia that people would be put at the door of the church to prevent her from entering for Mass, adding that if she somehow managed to evade the guards then he would suspend Mass until she removed herself from the congregation. There was talk of trespassing and calling the police, etc. In fine, this woman of perfectly good standing was being blackmailed into not returning and the weapon used was the Holy Mass and Sacraments, not to mention public humiliation.

I was subsequently warned by the same Fr. Hennick that if I did not stop protesting this outrage against Patricia, then I would be expelled also. I was told that the District Superior in London at the time (Fr. Robert Brucciani) had already given Fr. Wall permission for this.

Well, exactly one year after Patricia's expulsion, I received a one-line email from Fr. Brucciani to say that I was no longer welcome in any SSPX church. All of my previous correspondence to him and the Superior General in Menzingen (Fr. Pagliarani) had met with silence and now I received just this single line without explanation or justification.

I actually ignored this outrage and went to Mass as usual on the following Sunday. They had anticipated this, though. At the church gates stood a thick-set man wearing dark glasses and steel-toe-capped boots. He certainly didn't look like he was there for devotional reasons - and so it proved.

My mother was with me as usual. She's 86 years old and suffers from post-stroke fatigue and constant dizziness. She was hanging on my arm as we made our way up the staircase. It was she who asked the man who he was and he responded "a security guard". Yes, the actually hired a security guard!

We brushed past him and continued up the staircase when a woman of the congregation shouted out saying that she was instructed by the priest to call the police if we entered the building. she sent text messages to Fr. Wall, who at that time was in the confessional, to say that we ignored both the guard and the warning. This became apparent when we entered the church and sat down in our usual pew. I usually led the rosary before Mass, but not on that day. Fr. Wall appeared immediately from the confessional and took up a position in front of the tabernacle. Chuckling nervously while wringing his hands, he began to address the few people gathered in the church. Thank God, the majority of people still hadn't arrived for Mass. "I have a rather embarrassing announcement to make", said he. Knowing what was coming next, I interjected with "Father, you are standing in front of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, who receives all sinners into His presence. So, what you are about to declare says more about you as a priest than it does about me." His response was to smile and say "the police have been called".

I was worried about how the stress of this shocking behaviour might affect my mother and so I told her we were leaving. Fr. Wall made his way outside the church and I gave him a few harsh words as I left. I will never forget the gleeful smile on his face as we passed. He should have been weeping with sorrow! That's when I became convinced that he is a sociopath. It made perfect sense when weighed with past behaviour.

Two Traditional bishops and countless SSPX priests, one very senior, have confirmed to me that what they did to Patricia and myself was unjust and not Catholic, which explains why they could not answer our repeated requests to them to justify their actions by Church teaching and preaching. Indeed, Fr. David Sherry, the new District Superior for the UK, has also gone silent on this hugely important question. I have to add here that Fr. Sherry, unlike the others, has responded to my correspondence to him with the utmost respect, but has failed like the rest to see and address the evil that was done. He has clearly been instructed by his boss in Menzingen not to get involved and has chosen to obey men rather than God and conscience.

The upshot of it all is that while I agree with you that the greater majority of SSPX priests are good and godly men, the hierarchy is rotten through with clericalism and ambition. Hence, they don't care how many souls get damaged by a small handful of rogue clergy. Their business is to silence everything and pretend that all is well. I have warned them that if they persist in this pride then they will ultimately destroy Archbishop Lefebvre's apostolate. The Archbishop acted quickly and decisively with bad priests, as the record amply shows, but these ones who came in behind him are a different breed altogether. The only thing that matters to them is that they rule with the iron fist. They tolerate no lay opposition, even when clearly in the wrong.

I am reminded here of Fr. Paul Morgan's outburst when I challenged his rebellion against Bishop Fellay at the time of the Rome negotiations back in 2011. As DS of the UK at that time, he was using his position to publicly undermine and ridicule Bishop Fellay as a traitor to Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course, Fr. Morgan was sedevacantist and Bishop Fellay was doing the Catholic thing by trying to negotiate a personal prelature for the SSPX with Pope Benedict XVI. Anyway, he tried to threaten Patricia and myself from the pulpit in Glasgow becuase the Catholic Truth blog exposed his behaviour and when I asked him about this in the sacristy, he attacked and assaulted me. Bishop Fellay subsequently apologised to me for this outrage but failed to take action against Fr. Morgan. This tragic priest was granted a further 7 years as a Society priest before abandoning it for a sedevacantist sect. He did a lot of damage to a lot of souls before he left and it was all down to Bishop Fellay protecting a rogue priest at any and all cost. Enough said.

Martin Blackshaw: First of all, thank you for sharing that with us. And I'm so sorry it happened. I realise now why Patricia's name was so familiar to me - I used to follow her blog during "the great spilt" and was impressed with her balanced and just reporting. I found it a place of sanity in those heady days. Anyway, that certainly puts things in perspective. I do not know the priests you speak of - other than Fr. Sherry who used to be based here in Ireland and Fr. Morgan who used to visit - but I do recognise that "gentlemen's club" attitude you speak of. For what it's worth, try meeting with Fr. Sherry if you can - we have always found him a good listener and fair. Sure, he may not be able to do much as you said, but at least he will know your character and hear your side of the story man to man. As for the your following statement: "...the hierarchy is rotten through with clericalism and ambition. Hence, they don't care how many souls get damaged by a small handful of rogue clergy. Their business is to silence everything and pretend that all is well... they will ultimately destroy Archbishop Lefebvre's apostolate" I couldn't agree more. And sad to say, you are dead on about Fr. Morgan, and about Bishop Fellay protecting these troublesome priests...

@Carol H

Thank you for your very kind and understanding comment. I'm afraid, however, that it would be utterly pointless speaking face-to-face with Fr. Sherry. I reiterate again that in our extended correspondence, Fr. Sherry has never failed to respond kindly and respectfully. Sadly, that's as good as it gets, for he has demonstrated very clearly that he is not prepared to discuss, much less redress, the public scandal that these priests are responsible for. His responses have always been very short and evasive, so the message could not have been clearer. I cannot tell you how disappointing this was, for I had held Fr. Sherry in high regard prior to this event. Now I see he is just like the rest of them when it comes to doing what is right rather than what the clerical gentelman's club in Menzingen demands. It's all so tragic.

@Carol H

Fr. Wall has been in Scotland for almost 7 years now and has created only divisions since his arrival. I went to visit him at the priory when he first arrived, taking with me a short list of housebound faithful who hadn't had a sacramental visit from a priest in nearly a year. I gave him names and addresses and he promised that these souls would be visited, adding that Our Lord mandated visiting the sick. However, many months past after that conversation and still no visit to the sick housebound, so I approached him again. He said he had lost the list I'd given him and asked if I could give it again, which I promptly did. More months past and still no visit to the sick housebound. I eventually had to contact his superiors in London and Menzingen to force the issue. One of the sick people on that list had thrombosis and was therefore a ticking time bomb. She could have died at any time without having received Extreme Unction because of Fr. Wall's sloth.

I should add here that a little over 2 years ago I was treated at the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh for throat cancer. It's quite a brutal treatment in that it lowers the immune system, burns the skin, suppresses taste buds and saliva glands and makes food consumption very difficult due to internal swelling and bleeding in the throat. I'm pleased to say that the cancer is now gone and everything bar the saliva glands has returned to normal. The point is that I caught some kind of virus while undergoing my treatment, a virus that resulted in constant vomiting and diarrhoea. I was hospitalised for 5 days days in a quite serious state, unable to consume food or water for the duration. At no time during my illness did the priests in Scotland ask about my health or attempt to visit me in the hospital. I know for certain that previous SSPX priests would have, but not these priests. That's just to emphasise the point about the sick.

Anyway, back on track, Fr. Wall then attempted to suppress the Leonine prayers after Low Mass. When I asked why he was doing this he replied that the Church had never intended these prayers to be recited after public Masses, only private Masses. I demonstrated to him that his understanding of Church teaching in the matter was seriously flawed, but, again, it took complaints from other faithful and a few lines to superiors before he backed down.

Then I approached him about his refusal to recite the prayers of the Low Mass in audible voice for the faithful to follow in their missals. He deliberately whispered all the prayers of the Mass so that no one knew where he was at any given moment except when altar server responses gave them a clue. His response was a heterodox one. He claimed that the Low Mass is called "Low" because the Church intended it to be silent. I corrected him saying that the true Latin name for Low Mass is "Missa Lecta" (meaning spoken Mass) and the Church teaches that only the Canon is to be said in silence. It made absolutely no difference to him.

The next strange thing I noticed was that he stopped Stations of the Cross through Lent and also suppressed the annual blessing of St. Blaise. This was just before the COVID lockdowns. He then began to enforce sung Masses every Sunday in Glasgow. These were on average almost 2 hours long and included homilies of up to 40 minutes. Now, if you knew the church in Glasgow (St. Andrew's), it is absolutely perishing cold in winter, such is the poor heating system in place. It's also a place where parking is seriously restricted to one hour. Since my mother, and doubtless other elderly faithful, was on blood thinners, she was physically shaking with the cold every week in winter. I also have to say here that his sermons were never pious and rivetting, they were schoolteacher-type lectures, largely history lessons that did nothing for the soul.

On this point about sermons, he told me again that Trent allowed priests up to one hour to preach on Sundays. I checked that out and found that Trent actually said the opposite. Sermons were to be short and memorable. I also discovered that Sts. Francis of Assisi and Francis de Sales advocated short homilies for maximum supernatural effect. Indeed, the latter saint said "The tree that puts forth too much wood, bears no fruit." I put this to Fr. Wall and, once again, he shrugged and ignored it. It wasn't about sanctifying the faithful, it was about Fr. Wall demonstrating his intelligence to everyone.

Next thing we knew, he was splitting the small congregation between two Sunday Masses, one Low and one sung. The Low Mass was set at the earliest possible hour (8.30am), followed by the sung Mass at 10am. Needless to say that despite the hardship, the greater majority attended Low Mass. In essence, however, both Masses were celebrated in a half-empty church. It was ludicrous.

Fr. Wall eventually dumped Glasgow and moved himself over to the SSPX church in Edinburgh where he set up a camera and started streaming 2-hour sung Masses every week with up to 8 altar servers. It was all over the top for effect and those Masses are still streamed on Youtube. I really feel for the faithful in Edinburgh who have borne with this now for several years.

My sister and her family stopped attending Mass in Edinburgh a short time later. They had been attending Mass at that church for 30 years but could no longer stand Fr. Wall's methods. The final straw was when he declared that he would no longer hear Confessions before Mass since he considered that those rushing in to confess before Mass were ill-disposed to receive the Sacrament. People were told that Saturday would be the day for Confession henceforth. He didn't care about the fact that many of the faithful travelled great distances into Edinburgh every week just to get to Mass and that this declaration was going to make their lives a lot harder. It was also nigh-on impossible to park outside that Church on any day other than Sunday. He didn't care about that, he only cared about his performances for Youtube.

Anyway, matters came to head when he preached a sermon in Edinburgh on Trinity Sunday, 2022, which was a direct assault on Low Mass Catholicism.

Before going into this, I should point out that in Holy Week of that year both he and his curate, Fr. Reid Hennick had broken the strict rule imposed by Archbishop Lefebvre on all SSPX priests binding them to exclusive use of the 1962 missal. There was a very good reason for this since the Archbishop was aware of schismatic priests within the SSPX who rejected the legitimate authority of two Roman Pontiffs (Pius XII and John XXIII) to revise the liturgical books. Indeed, in 1983, the Archbishop expelled 9 schismatic priests in North America for precisely this illicit rebellion. All 9 went on to join sedevacantist sects and six went on to become illicit sedevacantist bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre was a saint and he saw the danger.

At any rate, Frs. Wall and Reid Hennick, his American convert curate, decided that there was more pomp and spleandour in the pre-1962 Holy Week ceremonies. They were the only two priests in the entire SSPX that year to break the rule of Archbishop Lefebvre and not a word was said to them.

Now, back to this Trinity Sunday homily that Fr. Wall preached and posted on Youtube for public consumption. He declared that 1950s Low Mass Catholicism was "tick box Catholicism". It was all rushed, according to him, so that the people could simply tick the Mass box and get on with enjoying their weekend. The message was that our parents and grandparents were superficial Catholics absent of liturgical depth, accommodated by Church authorities who approved Low Mass as a stepping stone to the Novus Ordo. His disdain for Low Mass was now dangerously out in the open.

In response to this outrage, I wrote a counter article which Patricia published on her blog. This was after private complaints to Fr. Wall and his superiors went unanswered. He was well informed in advance about the article and invited to comment on the blog as he saw fit. He ignored this as well.

Anyway, the gist of my article was to highlight that 1950s Low Mass Catholicism was a golden period for the Church and that, far from leading to the Novus Ordo, the Novus Ordo was introduced by the enmies of our Holy Religion to bring that golden period to an end.

You can ask parents or grandparents from that time what the Church was like and they will tell you how wonderfully the faith was practiced in those days. In Ireland, for example, Dublin came to a standstill at 12pm every day when the city Angelus bell sounded. Cars stopped in the street and the people got out and knelt to say the Angelus prayers. That's how greatly the faith was held and practiced in the 1950s.

Every city parish around the world in those days had at least 4 priests. There were numerous Sunday Masses in every parish with people queing down the street to enter the church for the next Mass. The seminaries were full, as were the houses of religious orders. The missions were thriving and Protestants were converting in vast numbers, especially Anglicans. In addition, the statue of the Blessed Virgin of Fatima was doing the rounds of the world and millions came out to greet her. National leaders joined with Church prelates in cities packed with the faithful as nations were publicly consecrated to Our Lady's immaculate heart. The miiracle of the doves was witnessed over and over again in various countires. Indeed, such was the heavenly manifestations at these Marian events that Pius XII declared "there are so many miracles that Our eyes cannot believe what they're seeing". This was the 1950s Catholicism that Fr. Wall was disdaining in his homily and I was not having it.

He was predictably furious about that article and decided that Patricia would be put out of the SSPX for daring to publish it. Because she is female and a senior citizen, he saw her as an easy target for revenge even though I was the one who challenged him. He obviously doesn't know Patricia as well as he thinks, but she went quietly because she didn't want to cause scandal to others by turning up at church for Mass and being forced to leave by the police.

I could say more but this comment is already getting way too long. Suffice it to say in conclusion that Fr. Wall's bitter zeal curate, Fr. Reid Hennick, was only too happy to assist in telling Patricia where to go.

This same Fr. Hennick, on Good Shepherd Sunday, 2023, declared from the the pulpit that all Novus Ordo priests are canonically unfit for ordination and that bishops who ordain them are guilty of mortal sin. He further added that Novus Ordo priests who learn the rubrics of the Latin Mass and celebrate it are "playing dress up". It was the clearest declaration of formal schism I have ever heard an SSPX priest make and yet not a single member of the faithful or any of his superiors were interested. They all remained silent while he effectively declared that outside the SSPX there is no salvation. It was this scandal together with the expulsion of Patricia and myself that confirmed to me that the SSPX is now now cult-like in its hierarchy.

I think the final count of family and others who left with us is around 20. The vast majority were unmoved by events, such is the ignorance of Church teaching and practice and the subservience to SSPX inculcated into the faithful. As Fr. Hennick so clearly described it in an email to Patricia "The contract between priests and failthful is transactional, which is to say, SSPX priests provide Mass and the Sacraments in return for obedience". This "obedience" he refers to is blind obedience, the very error that led to the conciliar dismantling of the Catholic Faith and which Archbishop Lefebvre described as contrary to the spirit of the Church. We are the free children of God in the Church, bound only by what is authoritively handed down and in line with Traditional teaching, not slaves to the whims of rogue clergy who present themselves as higher authorities than Our Lord.

It's a heartbreaking development and it demonstrates that the SSPX hierarchy is now imitating the methods of the very "pray, pay and obey" Modernists it was established to counter. This is cult-like, not Catholic.

@Carol H

Carol, I forgot to answer your questions, so here goes.

Yes, Fr. Wall is English. He was born somewhere like Hull but spend a lot of his younger life in Wales. As for where we go for Mass now. Well, there is one Traditional parish Mass left in the entire City of Glasgow @ St. Brigid's, Toryglen. There were three parish Masses up to about 18 months ago until the new Archbishop arrived. He's very much a Francis man and very much a Traditionis Custodes man, so he immeditely suppressed two of the Masses and left just one. Now he's talking about merging churches in the city due to priest, parishioner and funding shortages - all bitter fruits of the Conciliar Reformation - and Toryglen is one of the churches that could be closed. I said right at the beginning that he only left St. Brigid's open for a short time, intending to suppress the Mass of the saints and martyrs there as well under some pretext in the future. I think he now has his pretext and I firmly believe that church will close soon.

Then we will have nowhere to go for Mass and will have to content ourselves with reading the Gospel of the day at home and reciting the rosary. Patricia found herself in that situation when the Mass was suppressed at church she attended after the SSPX. She couldn't go to St. Brigid's at that time because she was still dropping off family members at the SSPX and the time of both Masses coincided. Fr. Wall was made aware of the situation but emailed her to say that if she attempted to come back to the SSPX church "there will be a scene". The only other option at the time was for her to sit in her car and recite the rosary outside the SSPX church waiting for her family to emerge, which is what she did. Fr. Wall found out about this and remarked that she was "playing the martyr", which was as wrong as it was callous.

@Carol H
Carol, thank you for your kind words about the Catholic Truth blog - hugely appreciated.

Also, just to mention that I understand you remarks about speaking with Fr Sherry - I held him in high regard when he was in Scotland and even shared a platform with him when we were both invited to address a Conference in Cork - but I know that at least one woman in Glasgow wrote to him on his arrival in London as District Superior to ask for a meeting with him about the bannings (she was horrified to witness, in person, what happened to Martin on the day HE was banned) but while Fr Sherry acknowledged her email, he made no mention of her request for a meeting. Ambitious clergy is, I believe, a particular feature of the SSPX now. I know there are ambitious clergy all over the place, but I see a particular tendency in the Society, kind of in the nature of things, if you get my drift.

@Martin Blackshaw

Just to clarify one thing, Martin. You wrote the following about my expulsion, referring to Fr Wall: He obviously doesn't know Patricia as well as he thinks, but she went quietly because she didn't want to cause scandal to others by turning up at church for Mass and being forced to leave by the police.

Well, it didn't occur to me that he would call the police. I was told by Fr Hennick that people would be put on the door to keep me out, but if I somehow got in, then he would simply not begin the Mass until I was removed. Which I took to mean that someone or some group would either persuade me to leave or physically remove me. I didn't know what to think.

The reasons I chose not to just attend as usual (which I now regret), however, and which I stated in my email(s) responding to the banning, was two-fold. As I said to the priests at the time, I'm always careful not to impose my company where it's not wanted, so I assured them that I would accept (not respect) their banning; thus, the threat of having me actively removed could be set aside. But Father Hennick had also warned me that my niece and her children (one of whom was a server at Mass) would be subject to unnecessary drama if I insisted on attending, so again I assured him that I was indeed mindful of my family members and didn't want them to suffer any embarrassment. I, therefore, went quietly for those reasons. I continued to drive my niece and children into Mass while I went on to the diocesan Mass - until the archbishop of Glasgow ended that provision. But there was a third reason why I decided just to accept the banning and it is this: I truly believed that once Fr Wall's temper had cooled and he had time to reflect on the whole situation, he would find a way to invite me back, given that a few members of the congregation had asked him to reconsider.

Had I thought of the possibility of ending up in handcuffs, I must admit, that would have been reason # 4, without a doubt

The whole situation is a scandal but who was it said "there's always something to be glad about"... In short, it is through this scandal that I have been able to identify my (very few) true friends from the rest. Signed Pollyanna

@Patricia McKeever

Thanks for that clarification, Pat. It all came back to me as you related the events again. I'm still shocked by it all, even after this time, and even more shocked that a so-called Traditional Catholic congregation just accepted this cult behaviour, real evil, without uttering a word of objection. I hope for their sakes that this is due more to ignorance of Church teaching than indifference and absence of charity. I would add here that, like yourself, faithful I considered to be friends for many years simply forgot all about me when I went. It was as though I never existed. That was certainly a painful eye opener and really worrying from the point of view of what kind of Catholics the SSPX is actually attracting. I truly hope this tragic episode represents the exception rather than the rule.

@Carol H

I am deeply grateful for your prayers, especially on this great Feast of the Sacred Heart. The matter is now in God's hands, there is nothing more I can do on a human level. We are living through a crisis which is essentially a crisis in the clergy. SSPX clergy are no exception, there are bad apples there as well as in the hierarchy of the Church proper. The difference is, and this is what makes them all the more dangerous to souls, is that they present themselves in cassocks as Traditional priests of God while behaving worse than pagans I know. They always remind me in their arrogance of the Gospel Pharisees. It as though they view the present crisis in the Church as lay rather than clerical at its source. Such pride! Yes, I'm afraid Our Lord alone can sort this mess. All I can do now is let as many as possible know that the SSPX hierarchy is in trouble spiritually and good priests and faithful need to watch the superiors like a hawk.

Patricia,

You'd have more chance of getting a comment from a Trappist monk than from an SSPX superior. They don't do clarifications on anything for concerned/scandalised faithful, either publicly or privately, because they have a wrong understanding of the word "superior"! That kind of clericalist arrogance will be the downfall of the Menzingen elite unless they start practicing a little humility very quickly.

@Martin Blackshaw Well said! SSPX Superiors have a real problem. There is a serious lack of charity and overall concern for evangelization. You know, like what we're all asked to do as part of the the Great Commission. Instead it's, "let's see how few priories we can get away with" so we don't ruffle modernist feathers in Rome.

Also, I absolutely detest their contempt for the laity.

These abuse cases are a grand manifestation of the absence of charity.

It's heart breaking that we are having this conversation. It just reaffirms my suspicion that the SSPX was infiltrated from the get-go; that certain characters got in with the deliberate intention to subtly undermine Archbishop Lefebvre's work and stimulate corruption. After-all, they did it to the Church, and thought they had won. But then God rose up a brave Archbishop to kick back with a traditional army. Howling with disbelief, the enemy threw themselves into a frenzied search for new agents to send in. Who they are, we can only speculate. But given this new "spirit" that has been invading the Society, we know they are there working away in the shadows. A touch dramatic? Given the amount of abusers deliberately ordained and protected, I think not. Given the amount of good, loyal parishioners who have been maligned and character assassinated, I think not. I only pray that intelligent, solid priests like Fr. Sherry find the courage and conviction to stand up and address what they know is wrong. Meanwhile, we sacrifice and pray for these priests. Like yourselves, we went through hell and back here in Ireland with the resistance minded priests, and as I mentioned earlier, our son was exposed to an abuser while in the care of a superior (and yes, the top dogs did not care). If anything, this wake-up call has made us stronger and more determined, not to let this "spirit" win. It can't fight prayer. And it can't fight Our Lady. And it can't fight those who refuse to be cowed :)

Carol H,

You have hit the nail squarely on the head with that comment, for I too have come to believe that the SSPX is infiltrated. It's the only explanation for some of the recent outrages and it is perfectly logical given that the devil was never going to let the apostolate thrive without a fight. The concern for all of us is that if these agents of evil gain full control of the levers of authority, then the SSPX is effectively done for. As you rightly observe though, we still have the power of prayer in our favour. I think the most worrying part on that front is that most of the good priests and faithful in the SSPX are either oblivious or indifferent to a certain change in direction these past 10 years. Barring a handful, they seem not to have noticed the downward turn in holy zeal or the upward turn in compromise and worldly ambition. Worrying times indeed. Anyway, I'm away from it now with little chance of returning. In a strange way though, that expulsion opened my own eyes to just how cult-like the UK apsotolate has become. It was the same here in Britain when Bishop Williamson and his schismatic cohorts were influencing events. Little did we realise at that time that the spirit would shift so radically from their bitter zeal to no zeal at all.

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head - Bishop Williamson's "bitter zeal" was aimed at leading the "hot heads" out of the society so that the Society would be left easier to control. That, I'm personally convinced of; that it's been a two handed game. Look how we have all been divided: Pro-Williamson. Pro Fellay; my gut instinct tells me it was all nicely orchestrated. And as you pointed out, we are now left with a more sedate spirit and priests who are too scared - too careful - or too new to raise their heads above the trench-line. But I see hope on the horizon. The plandemic brought a fresh wave of people onto the field and certainly here in Ireland, things are starting to blossom again. England's going to be harder because the priests have been more influenced by our Shakespeare loving bishop. Hang in there though. New priests will come and you'll be allowed to return. Also, I'm still convinced that our New District Superior will be working away behind the scenes for the good of the laity. It's just going to be a bit of a waiting game while he settles in ...

@Martin Blackshaw

That's my own first instinct - to ask why it takes so long for these allegations to come to light and I'm afraid I struggle to believe them. I think the normal response is to scream from the rooftops in such a situation and not to be intimidated or blackmailed into silence. Who knows. I dare say the truth will emerge in due course.