Home
For background on the underlying issue, please see
One might hope that the “new” SSPX, as it ought, would accuse Vatican II and its resulting conciliar church of forming the lax “priests” who commit these crimes so widely.
One might further hope that, because of this crisis, the N-SSPX would warn its followers to stay away from the conciliar church and its horrific, evil fruits. The N-SSPX does no such thing because the N-SSPX wants to join the anti-Catholic conciliar church.
Former Pope Benedict and the N-SSPX both minimize this Abuse Crisis
The N-SSPX follows the minimizing tactics of conciliar popes. For example, while former Pope Benedict XVI oversaw (for the Vatican)
all cases worldwide of these abuse crimes committed by “priests”, he downplayed the problem by falsely claiming that in the United States “less than 1% of priests are guilty of acts of this type.”
The SSPX downplays yet more extremely than former Pope Benedict by hesitating to admit that
any conciliar “priests” have committed this abuse. Here are the N-SSPX’s words: “Even
if perverts or unbalanced men can be found among consecrated men ...”—thereby suggesting that it is doubtful that there are
any abusers
at all among conciliar “priests”.
Emphasis added. Here is the longer quote from the SSPX:
Even if perverts or unbalanced men can be found among consecrated men, we must not lose sight of the general hypocrisy that reigns in our “liberated” societies, where everything is permitted, and the worst depravities are encouraged.
Who would say “if the devil is not God” unless the person was leaving open that the devil might be God? Likewise, why would anyone who accepts these clergy crimes as fact say “if clergy are committing these crimes”?
By supposing that no conciliar “priests” are abusers when countless priests are, the SSPX fights the truth.
Pope Francis and the N-SSPX deflect blame away from the lax, conciliar “new priesthood”.
Clericalism, whether fostered by priests themselves or by lay persons, leads to an excision in the ecclesial body that supports and helps to perpetuate many of the evils that we are condemning today. To say ‘no’ to abuse is to say an emphatic ‘no’ to all forms of clericalism.
Thus, Pope Francis blames the conciliar “priest”-abuse on (comparatively conservative) Catholics who oppose democratic decision-making in the church. Of course, the true blame for this abuse lies with the lax, conciliar “priesthood” which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected—calling it modernist Rome’s “new priesthood”.
In his November 21, 1974 declaration of principles, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ...
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The N-SSPX uses a tactic similar to Pope Francis’ tactic—by deflecting the blame from where it belongs, viz., the lax, conciliar “new priesthood”. The N-SSPX blames evil media outlets, saying that any problem is only with a comparatively “tiny” group and the media have exaggerated this problem. Here are the N-SSPX’s words:
The
media attacks the Church furiously while pretending to forget that these cases, as scandalous as they
may be, are only a
tiny minority compared to the abuse committed by adults on children in schools, sports activities, or stepfamilies, not to mention the shady circles of fashion, the show business and the media.
Here is the longer N-SSPX quote:
The Hypocrisy of the World and the Statistical Reality
Even if perverts or unbalanced men can be found among consecrated men, we must not lose sight of the general hypocrisy that reigns in our “liberated” societies, where everything is permitted, and the worst depravities are encouraged. The media attacks the Church furiously while pretending to forget that these cases, as scandalous as they may be, are only a tiny minority compared to the abuse committed by adults on children in schools, sports activities, or stepfamilies, not to mention the shady circles of fashion, the show business and the media.
The creators of opinion, who are so careful to decry any form of amalgam on certain topics, between Islam and terrorism for example, or immigration and invasion, etc., are having a field day here. And yet, as the blog “[], Church and Media” recalled in 2016, the most complete study on the cases of [] abuse in the Church is that of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the University of New York, published in February 2004. Drawing up an inventory of all the court cases between 1950 and 2002, this study makes a strict distinction between allegations and condemnations.
Thus, out of the 4,392 allegations listed in the study, 1,021 led to police investigations resulting in only 384 criminal accusations. This enabled the blog to draw up more precise statistics on the cases of confirmed [abuse]. The numbers go from 4% of priests accused of alleged [] abuse, to 0.35% of priests actually convicted of these acts. Of course, “in this difference, not all the priests are innocent (some are no longer alive, statute of limitations, etc.), but there are some who are innocent, for unfortunately, false testimony and defamation do exist.” And based on the rate of convictions among the inquests that were conducted and completed without being interrupted by the statute of limitations or the death of the accused, the blog concludes that between 98.5% and 99.65% of American priests are innocent. The black sheep represent between 0.35 and 1.5% of consecrated men. Obviously, this is still too many.
In France, statistics show, according to the National Observatory of Social Action, that in 75% of the cases recorded, abuse of minors happens in the family, and a quarter of these cases of abuse are committed by other minors. The proportion of Catholic priests convicted and imprisoned for such acts, all sentences combined, represents 0.48% of the clergy in function, as the French Bishops’ Conference pointed out on January 23, 2017. As serious as it may be, it remains a marginal reality, much more marginal, in any case, than the media, always ready to pounce on an opportunity to dishonor the Church, would have it.
The Church intercedes for her wounded children, not for this hypocritical and corrupt world for which Christ refused to pray (see Jn. 17:9).
Emphasis added; slightly edited (at brackets) for delicacy.
The N-SSPX not only deflects blame from the lax, conciliar “priesthood”—which is where the blame belongs—but the N-SSPX falsely suggests the media is the problem “if” there are any pervert-“priests” and that this abuse involves only a comparatively “tiny” minority.
The N-SSPX also deflects blame for the abuse caused in the lax, conciliar “new priesthood”, on the grounds that godless civil society is worse. By contrast, relatively conservative Catholic media sound the alarm about abuse in the new, conciliar priesthood:
Whereas the N-SSPX faults the media for (supposedly) exaggerating the “priest”-abuse crisis, Lifesitenews.com reports on a new study which specifically blames this abuse on the immorality of the conciliar hierarchy and the “new priesthood”, i.e., upon that fact that:
you’ve got eight times the proportion of [unnaturally impure men in the conciliar priesthood] as you do in the general population—it’s as if the priesthood becomes a particularly welcoming and enabling and encouraging population for [that kind of unnaturally impure] activity and behavior.
This is a crisis! Yet the N-SSPX deflects blame from the lax “new priesthood” to the media. Pope Francis could not ask for a better partner than the N-SSPX to deflect blame from that same conciliar “new priesthood” which Archbishop Lefebvre entirely rejected.
The N-SSPX minimizes the abuse crisis by citing the lower abuse numbers from a report which conciliar “bishops” commissioned and financed.
Honest Catholics know that they cannot trust the conciliar “bishops” to protect the innocent. Those conciliar “bishops” want to appear to defend innocent victims. However, they never implemented the “Dallas Charter” regulations to restrain their “priests”, until the media and other external pressure drove them to do so in 2002. Even then, the “bishops” exempted themselves from this regulation.
The Ordinary of the Diocese of Burlington, VT, “bishop” Christopher Coyne, admitted (concerning his own fellow-“bishops”), that “The mistrust underlying all this was earned ....
The bishops had proven over the last two decades that they had not been able to police themselves.”
The U.S. conciliar “bishops”
hired and paid for a
study by John Jay College which concluded that 4% of “priests” are credibly accused of committing abuse which became public (at least eventually).
A
different study, not paid for by the U.S. “bishops”, concluded that the actual percentage was about 50% higher than that,
i.e., about 6%. These statistics, of course, include only abuse for which there were complaints which were made public, at least eventually. In other words, these percentages leave aside unreported as well as privately-handled abuse.
Even using the lower statistics used by the U.S. “bishops” and the N-SSPX, this abuse still shows there is a crisis. This abuse is a type of spiritual death caused by 4% (or 6%) of the “priests” not counting (maybe much higher incidences of) unreported abuse as well as privately-handled abuse. Doubtlessly, the victims number in the thousands or tens of thousands in the U.S. alone.
Further, the “bishops” shuffle the “priest”-abusers from parish to parish to hide the spiritual death they cause. Also, the conciliar dioceses settle confidentially with victims, to keep this spiritual death hidden.
Let us suppose an analogous crisis of physical death:
- Suppose there were a soft drink which was sold throughout the U.S. (and throughout the world), of which, 4% (or 6%) of the cans caused death, killing thousands or tens of thousands of persons in the U.S. alone.
- Suppose further the stores and the soft drink’s manufacturer moved the cans from one store to another, when the people began to notice persons dying from the soft drinks they bought at a particular store.
- Suppose then (like the “bishops” in the current “priest”-abuse crisis) the soft drink’s maker made confidential settlements to keep the deaths hidden from the public.
No honest person would say the type of thing which the N-SSPX says about the spiritual deaths caused by “priest”-abusers, viz., Even if there are any poison soft drink cans, the media is blowing the matter out of proportion from what is only a tiny minority of soft drink cans.
Conclusion
Plainly, the “new” SSPX is trying to ingratiate itself with the conciliar revolutionaries. The N-SSPX minimizes the evil of the conciliar hierarchy and the lax “new priesthood”. The “new” SSPX will say anything to have its followers accept the coming deal with modernist Rome. This shows that you should not expect the truth from the N-SSPX.
Regarding the “new” SSPX’s deceptiveness, read these articles, quoting the SSPX and citing to its own sources: