I have made one very big mistake here, which is that I thought this was about the Open Letter recently published on Rorati Caeli's website. In fact, this is about an old 2019 article by Dr. John Lamont. Had I read things properly at the start, I wouldn't have involved myself in the conversation. I'm not really into speculation on what someone wrote 5 years ago versus today's situation with the SSPX. As a result of my faux pas, some of my subsequent comments must have caused a bit of head scratching. I'll be careful in future to read if the discussion is based on current events, historical events or a combination of both for speculation reasons.

@Sean Johnson

The first act is possible, although unheard of in Tradition. The second act is not remotely possible without Cardinals judging the Pope as a formal rather than material heretic, which requires a judgment of soul, which only God can do. I emphasise again, despite what theologians may have theorised informally many centuries ago, that no subordinate or group of subordinates in the Church can depose a Pope. God alone can end a Pontificate, unless a Pope abdicates.

@Sean Johnson

That linked SSPX explanation of what Bishop Fellay actually said is more like the real story, although I will add that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said that he did not immediately forbid seminarians from attending the New Mass because he wanted them to discover for themselves its inherent Protestant theology, which, thank God, they did. These were in the early days of the New Mass and the SSPX when lines were still being drawn and the New Mass had not yet revealed its full potential as a weapon of mass destruction (pun intended). What is clear from this is that Bishop Fellay was in no way endorsing "pius" New Masses, as the translation tried to assert.

@Patricia McKeever

Here is the exact quote from the Open Letter itself which takes it beyond what is legitimate to bordering on sedevacantism: "If Pope Francis refuses to resign, the duty of the bishops and cardinals is to proceed to declare that he has lost the papal office for heresy." This line is what discredited the letter in the eyes of many who would otherwise have backed it. It went beyond public rebuke.

As for the SSPX priests in Scotland, you're absolutely right about them. Archbishop Lefebvre would never have tolerated those two schismatics in his Society, nor would he have countenanced our expulsion for exposing their dangerous errors. It's the toleration and protection offered to these types of extremist clergy that has me most concerned about the direction the SSPX is taking under Fr. Pagliarani. The spirit is more cult than Catholic, no doubt about it.

Still, as you know, I will not be returning to that parish TLM either due to the trampling of Church rubrics and other Modernist innovations. Heaven is presently being stormed while my family and I remain now 2 weeks without Mass. We cannot have SSPX schismatic priests as taskmasters and we cannot have Modernist priests who serve two masters, it's a nightmare scenarion just trying to stay Catholic.

@Sean Johnson

I will concede that there is something odd about the appointment of Fr. Pagliarani to the position of Superior General, by which I mean he was unknown to most people when he appeared from nowhere in 2018. It also has to be said that as a Superior General in the fight for the Faith against Modernism, he's as useful as a chocolate teapot. There is no getting away from the fact that he was a disastrous appointment, not only in terms of taking the fight to the Modernists, but also in his internal administration of the SSPX, which is highly questionable. We'll know soon enough whether he's just unsuited to the position or if he has something more nefarious in mind.

@Sean Johnson

The difference between the "Filial Correction" and the Open Letter under discussion is evidently that the former did not call for the deposing of the Pope. Rather, it stayed within the limits extended to subordinates in the Church to fraternally and publicly correct a superior.

@Sean Johnson

Can you provide a trusted source for the +Fellay/Novus Ordo claim? I've never heard that one before and, to be honest, I would be extremely surprised, nay shocked, if +Fellay ever said anything remotely like that. The reason is that the SSPX rejection of the New Mass has never been about how "Pius" or otherwise it's celebrated, but about the Protestant theology underpinning the rite and the clear danger to faith that represents over time.

@SeanJohnson

Greetings to you too, I hope you're well.

It's a really odd situation going on with SSPX under Fr. Pagliarani, the present Superior General. What I mean by this is that every report I've read about him and his background suggests that he's less favourable to any kind of rapprochement with Modernist Rome than was his predecessor Bishop Fellay, yet the SSPX under his stewardship appears to be heading in the direction of more and more appeasement with Modernist Rome in general, and with this horrendous Pope in particular. That may change very soon though if the touted new SSPX episcopal consecrations go ahead in the near future.

As one who has had immediate dealings with Fr. Pagliarani, I can say for certain that he is a ruthless individual who has absolutely no conscience when it comes to trampling faithful who write to him with serious concerns about certain schismatic SSPX priests and their unCatholic behaviour, so this perception of lap dog to Rome doesn't fit well with other facts. I have no idea why he is keeping so tight lipped about this horrendous Pope, but I've a feeling it's not motivated by hope of a personal prelature. It's bizarre actually!

Anyway, the point of my comment was that on this occasion the SSPX is correct. The Open Letter lost all weight when it drifted off into sedevacantist territory by suggesting that a Pope can be judged a formal heretic by Cardinals and deposed. That kind of fairytale stuff takes holy zeal too far and becomes bitter zeal. If I'm correct, then it's high time Fr. Pagliarani applied the same justified intolerance to not a few of his SSPX priests - likewise driven by anger and bitter zeal.

While I understand the legitimate and justified anger of the writer and signatories of the Open Letter to Pope Francis, I do have to side with the SSPX on this one. I am not presently a great fan of the SSPX hierarchy, but they are absolutely correct in stating that these kinds of efforts will meet with very little response. Besides that, no power on earth can depose a Pope, regardless of the theories tossed around for debate by St. Robert Bellarmine and others of theological note. No Pope has ever been deposed in the Church by subordinates, not even the few in history who disgraced the Office of the Papacy, because, like it or not, God alone is his judge. Remember, St. Robert Bellarmine, quoted favourably by sedevacantists and schismatics, actually wrote that while subordinates may resist a Pope who tries to destroy the faith, they cannot judge or depose him. St. Thomas Aquinas said the same thing. If the Open Letter had been merely a public rebuke of Francis, like that of St. Paul to St. Peter, then it would have carried a lot more weight with others in the Church. As things stand, it overstepped the mark by suggesting that subordinates may convict the Pope of heresy and depose him. The erroneous sedevacantist spirit evidently conceived this letter, which is why the SSPX has rejected it in the strongest terms.

@Seabass

Yes, I know that certain parts of the U.S. have had their own troubles with SSPX clericalism and other cult-like behaviour. Indeed, I know of good American priests who have been treated very badly by Menzingen for raising concerns about certain teaching methods in the schools, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the good SSPX priests far outweigh the rougue element. The problem is that the rogue element seems to enjoy the protection of the Menzingen elite, and that's very worrying. These clericalist types follow the methods of the Gospel Pharisees, which is precisely why you have correctly observed that they act contrary to the spirit of Our Lord and His Church.

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.

@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 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

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

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

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

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.

@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.

@salliperson

I don't buy this intimidation argument, at least not in the majority of such historic cases. The natural reaction of any child who has been abused in any way is to tell their parents immeditely. I know that this is exactly how I would have reacted as a child - it's the normal thing for children to do. This idea that they keep it all buried inside because of fear or a misguided feeling of personal guilt just doesn't chime with human nature and the natural inclinations of children. I've said for years that if the money aspect of compensation were taken out of the equation then only the genuine cases would come forward. There should never have been such an incentive in the justice system to begin with, it's begging for a flood of false claims. Take that out and watch the crime reports drop off, that's my view.

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.