https://catholictruthblog.com/2019/09/29/traditional-conference-porn-priest-bishop-fellay-to-share-platform/Here are a sample of SSPX supporters (very critical of the Resistance) yet they were very upset about Fr. Sean Kilcawley being allowed to speak at the Conference and the excuses made by Jim Vogel.says: September 30, 2019 at 3:39 pm “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.says: October 4, 2019 at 10:46 pm 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!says: October 17, 2019 at 3:38 pm 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 sɛҳuąƖity 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.”says: October 17, 2019 at 7:44 pm RCA VictorNo, 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!
Topic: The Danger Lurking Online: Fr. Sean Kilcawley (Theology of the Body expert) (Read 1572 times)