Thank you, Lou.

When I decided to write it all down, I found myself writing with "academic rage"; that is, I wanted to find each and every possible piece of evidence that could be checked and referenced and even used the SSPX's own words to make my case, with as much clarity as I could.

I wrote Submission 153 - mine - with so much heartache for all those kids, generation after generation, who were lost - lost to suicide, to drugs, to alcohol, to the streets, or just lost.

For almost a full decade, it was all I could do to get through the next hour without ending it all.

I don't have kids and could never imagine bringing a child into this world, only for it to have me as its mother. That would have been cruel.

But I wept while I wrote, because there are too many - far FAR too many - people who I knew who have suffered, and their own children have, as well. And that suffering is all so unnecessary.

I wrote this for C*, who was groomed at 15 by a Brother in the SSPX, and went on to marry him and have five children, only for that marriage to end, and the children irreparably damaged, psychologically. She still faces harassment from the SSPX community, and she's been ostracised by her family.

I wrote it for B*, then a 15 year old, victim of her father, who was doing things to her that I can't write here. And when her mother reported it to a SSPX priest, the priest told the mother "Well, if you aren't giving it to him, where else is he supposed to get it?" Now B has children of her own, and is trying her best to be a good mother, alone, whilst still being attacked and judged by SSPX priests.

I wrote it for my own brother, now passed away, bullied almost to the point of death by a SSPX teacher. And I wrote it for my best friend who suffered at the hands of the same priest as I did, at the same time - yet neither of us had any idea.

And I wrote it for the Michael's and all those kids who are going through their own private pain today. Some of whom will never breathe a word, but will suffer in silence for the rest of their lives.

I'm all for having a belief or something to cling to - it's the thing that keeps many people on stable ground in an unstable world. But that belief should be there to bring peace and stability, not harm and judgement.

The only belief I have these days is that we, where we can, should protect the young and vulnerable. And I use my pen and my (quite frankly, ridiculous amount of) education to make change wherever, and whenever I can.

This isn't about me. It's about the children whose parents read this post. This isn't about my story; it's about making change. Lou isn't about attacking the Mass itself, he is calling out those who harm others - either by words or actions.

And yes, you may dislike what the Pope says or does, but in the end of it, all Catholics need is "The God who loves us all, unconditionally" (Leo XIV). He's not saying only some deserve God's love and protection; he is saying that all deserve God's love and protection.

I can't bear the thought of someone else living through the same darkness that I did. I can't bear the thought of someone not having someone to turn to.

I'm doing this for the kids, the vulnerable and the lost. In case I save one life. And that's all that matters to me.

Marisha

*Names withheld

Dear Dan,

Try not to judge yourself. Many people seek out groups like this, not realising that the groups prey upon people who are vulnerable. My parents were vulnerable, and sadly, the SSPX exploited that.

I hope you are healing from it, and I hope you take the time to love yourself a little. It took me far too long to give myself a break and a hug. We're taught to self-flagellate, but I think others do that too well to us, so perhaps changing that to a little love and acceptance of self is far more healthy.

Take care.

The same words from St. Paul often come to mind when I reflect on my own experiences in the SSPX, yet they ultimately serve as a reminder to all of us, not just to one particular group. Those of us who have lived in the SSPX and been hurt by it may recognize the psychological blind spots and defensive mechanisms at work more readily than those looking in from the outside. At the same time, we who have left are not immune from bitterness or bias ourselves. Taylor Marshall is not exactly an innocent victim—he spent years publicly defending the SSPX—but it still takes humility and courage to admit you may have been wrong, and I applaud him for that.

"The revolution devours its own children." ~Jacques Mallet du Pan

I think Fr. Murray doesn't fully understand the SSPX. He's an outsider that sees the pretty lace, the cassocks, the incense etc.

Because we have a clear teaching magisterium that cannot err, with a Pope possessing ultimate authority to define all doctrine and settle all ecclesial matters, the Catholic Church is One. There are no “denominations” in Catholicism. Yes, there is demographic, ethnic, cultural, and liturgical diversity, but it is only in non-essentials. In essentials, every Church is the same, and every Catholic believes the same doctrines and worships in the same way. So why is it that there is a not inconsiderable group of baptized Catholics who identify themselves as traditional Catholics? Now, there are, of course, Spanish Catholics and Irish Catholics and American Catholics, intellectual Catholics and working-class Catholics, Chaldean-rite Catholics, Anglican-Ordinariate, and Byzantine Catholics, but considering what we have written above, should “traditional Catholic” be added to this list, for isn’t being Catholic just to be traditional, by definition?

Perhaps these people aim merely to distinguish themselves as orthodox Catholics in contrast to those who claim to be Catholic but are obviously not, that is, obvious heretics or apostates who reject some or all of Catholic tradition. But here’s the thing: traditionalists always contrast themselves with what they call “Novus-Ordo” or “Conciliar” Catholics, that is, those who do accept all the teachings of the Church, both pre- and post-Vatican II. It is just that they do not regularly attend the so-called “Traditional Latin Mass” nor think that Vatican II and, say, natural family planning are problematic. And I know all this because I was once one of these, and boy did I love thinking of myself as traditional, and being called a traditional Catholic, for there was nothing I wanted less than to be lumped in with those Catholics.

So, “traditional Catholic” is a sociological category, not an ecclesial one. It is a category of the mind, as EMJ likes to say. It is a distinction without a difference. There is no such thing as a “traditional” Catholic, only a Catholic. Those who self-identify as such imply that they are the only true Catholics and thus are really inner-circle, pathologically arrogant, schismatic cultists. They are gnostics. This can be seen in their unwillingness or incapacity to take a step back, to adopt a Socratic stance toward their commitment and allegiance to their traditionalist narrative and critique of the post-conciliar Church, which may be a true narrative and accurate critique, but it is not taught by the Magisterium, and so does not demand religious obedience. Having some Socratic distance from it is not a sin, but the gnostic traditionalist thinks it is. Traditionalist narratives, explanations, criticisms, attitudes, etc., are founded on nothing more certain than fallible judgments on concrete historical and ecclesial particulars. If you combine this kind of unwillingness and incapacity to take a step back, this absolutely unyielding stance regarding one’s traditionalist allegiance, as opposed to simply having the ordinary allegiance to the Catholic Church, with an a priori and intractable unwillingness to attend even just an occasional well-celebrated, reverent Novus Ordo (for, attendance at a Novus Ordo, regardless of the quality of its celebration, constitutes for them “spiritual contamination,” à la Donatism), you have the recipe for the spiritual poison of gnostic traditionalism.

Of course, one can exclusively attend the Tridentine Mass if one so chooses, but only because it is an approved option. It is not the case, as the gnostic traditionalist thinks, that those with different approved commitments are somehow less Catholic, or that one’s commitment to the traditional Mass doesn’t depend entirely on the Church’s pleasure to permit and endorse such a commitment, but merely on one’s own gnostic insight that this is what “true” Catholics do. Such an attitude reflects neo-Donatism rather than Catholicism, and in today’s ecclesial situation, it can rightly be called gnosticism.

Interesting piece. Ironically enough, it was during the COVID lockdowns that I really began to see the problems with what the SSPX was doing. I didn't mind that they kept the doors open when other institutions shuttered them, but blatant denial of the reality of what was going on in the hospitals and in other countries, and the shaming and ostracizing of those who were concerned and chose to wear masks and isolate themselves was striking. When it came down to getting vaccinated or not, the anti-vaccine rhetoric was rampant in many circles, but particularly in the SSPX ones. At the same time they were willing to try every other crackpot remedy that was suggested on the internet rather than get vaccinated. The distrust of any institution outside of the SSPX is astonishing. I ended up leaving for personal reasons, but the shattering of the illusion was something that was necessary to allow the deconstruction process to begin.