Conservatives v/s SSPX: Schismatic? or State of Necessity?

(While I have been drafting this, Tucho Fernandez met the SSPX’s Fr. Pagliarani who was informed in no uncertain terms to drop their plans in order for more ‘dialogue’ from Rome on their aspiration of consecrating more Bishops. The response from the SSPX will clearly determine their direction).

One thing that Bergoglio & co. did to completely nail it, is having an American Pope installed as Pope in 2025 (Almost a year into his papacy, let’s stop pretending that Prevost was rightfully ‘elected’ by the Holy Spirit).

Nothing was the same after that. Rad-Trads picked fights with Trad Inc, Sedes amped up their rhetoric, Conservatives went back to a blissful nights rest with sweet dreams of Leo (Prevost) cooing hymns in latin while dressed in Papal regalia, some folks from Trad Inc. turned into ‘crypto-popesplainers’ blocking those they felt were ‘crypto-sedes’ on Twitter, while a few others took to Pelican Plus, and last but not the least, the SSPX seeing no intent or support from Rome, decided to go ahead and consecrate new Bishops.

While the SSPX legacy during and after Abp Lefebvre is not without controversy, which in many ways may be valid, it is not be the point of this blog in which I hope to only demonstrate the kind of ‘filial charity’ that those who pledge unconditional loyalty to the papacy demonstrate to other fellow Catholics. When it comes to the SSPX, some of the harshest critics are among the Conservatives, especially those who take the position of the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ perpetuated by Benedict XVI.

Cardinals such as Raymond Burke and Gerhard Ludwig Müller are the leading examples of such voices. Speaking of the SSPX, Cardinal Müller took a ‘not so subtle’ jab by referring to them as “Lefebvrians” in an interview with Raymond Arroyo, stating that attending a Mass with the latter was “not a catholic understanding” (See: The World Over October 30, 2025 | Catholic Tradition & TLM: Cardinal Gerhard Müller, at the 04:46 to 05:00 minute mark approximately).

Similarly Bishop Eleganti has issued a condemnation of the SSPX through a correspondent Niwa Limbu who posted the Bishop’s views on Twitter (click here). Eleganti makes a sweeping accusation, after citing several canon laws, by referring to the SSPX as those who “feign devotion”, who establish “one’s own hierarchy and a leadership independent of Rome” and the oft repeated canard – The SSPX are “schismatic”.

Michael Matt, although making it a point (as usual) to remind everyone of his pedigree & confirmation at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre, did disagree with such views by Bishops and Cardinals whom he reminds everyone that he loves. Matt, to his credit, in this video (from the approximate 40 minute mark to the 45 minute mark) talks about a press conference in 2008 where Cardinal Hoyos (The Head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) made it evidently clear about the position of the SSPX in response to the question from Matt.

He follows this up with a short snippet of his interview with Bp. Athanasius Schneider (who he cites as a Vatican observer of the SSPX sent by Rome). Earlier in the video as well, Matt (at the 4:34 mark in the same video) cites that Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications on the SSPX and goes on to ask a fair question: if the SSPX is in schism, “why is it that the Pope himself lifted the excommunications?”

I also caught up with a video of John Henry Westen, Frank Wright, and the ever affable Fr. Charles Murr, who similarly in their discussion on Faith & Reason/Sign of the Cross, upheld the state of necessity in the Church today, and as a corollary, therefore also stood by the ‘controversial’ stance taken by the SSPX. You can find the video here.

However, some Conservatives have perhaps turned the SSPX’s decision into a likely smear campaign. Christine Niles, of Church Militant fame, now an independent reporter/podcaster under the banner of “Forward Boldly”, has been pursuing an altogether irrelevant line.

Ever since the SSPX announced their decision, Niles has been posting about an SSPX priest (Fr. Patrick Groche) whom she describes as a “long-time sexual predator”, further claiming that the SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani “went easy on” this priest.

I am sure Niles reached out to the SSPX on this matter and I am unsure of the response that was provided to her, if at all. Gauging by her post, there doesn’t seem to be a response from the SSPX.

Let’s assume the worse-case hypothetical scenario; that Fr. Pagliarani and maybe the SSPX Bishops as well, “covered-up” sexual abuse.

If true, does it help to resolve the canonical status of the SSPX since 1988? No.

Does this resolve the issue that Rome is in crisis & perhaps even apostasy as I posit in my previous post? No.

Does this mean that the mission of the SSPX initiated by Abp Lefebvre was null and void? Again, No.

However, if true, does it mean that the SSPX need to face discipline from Rome in specifically the matter of sexual abuse? Yes.

These are unrelated matters and need to be pursued independently.

However, what is distasteful to see is Niles’ apparent desire to discredit the standing of the SSPX, to perhaps further cast doubt in the minds of her followers and those trying to understand the conundrum at hand by frightening them with the ‘sexual abuse’ bogeyman.

I popped a question to her in some of her posts since 05th Feb that I could find concerning the SSPX, to which I have not received a response from Niles yet (click here)

Also, a brief search of Niles’ Twitter posts in context with Fr. Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles, better known as Fr. Lute who was dispensed by Leo recently from credible sexual abuse, found no results. A search of all her several videos since May 2025, especially her news roundups, was deemed impractical towards verifying this. Is Niles therefore being selective, having an element of bias in her reporting?

I also recall Niles posting on Twitter after his papal meeting, accusing James Martin SJ of having a “long track record of fudging the facts” (no references or citations were provided by her), questioning why he ought to be believed about the meeting with Leo in September 2025 after their meeting – as though the entire meeting was fabricated by Martin SJ and Leo (more importantly) had no role to play in it.

It is thus clear from the above that Niles does hold a bias in her reporting. If the news is inconvenient, it is seemingly filtered & twisted to fit a narrative, or even ignored in entirety (example: the James Martin SJ-Leo meeting, Fr. Lute-Prevost coverup). Conversely, if there is a kernel of truth in an unrelated matter (SSPX mishandling abuse cases) which can be weaponized to dissuade others from things she dislikes (example, the SSPX in entirety), the story is amped up and repeated regularly in order to cast doubt on the character of the person/society.

Niles is a journalist & these actions do not behove seasoned journalistic practices. Rodrigo Zamith, writing in “The American Journalism Handbook – Concepts, Issues, and Skills” (UMass Amherst Libraries, 2022), in a section titled “Bias” lists three biases namely issue bias, framing bias, and source bias. Speaking of “source bias”, he provides examples as follows (emphasis mine):

…source bias, refers to the differential treatment of a story depending on who the main actors are — as with offering more positive coverage to members of a certain political party. Source bias can also refer to a proclivity toward giving certain kinds of sources a larger (or any) voice within a news product, such as a journalist being more likely to quote government officials than activists or demonstrators.

I opine that Niles’ ‘informal’ public posts on Twitter in context with the SSPX, fall in this category of bias – as articulated & mentioned above, she clearly has a “proclivity toward giving certain kinds of sources a larger voice”. Here “larger” can be substituted with ‘negative’ against the SSPX, and ‘absent’ (if not ‘minimal’), to similar actions (sexual abuse coverups) by the newer papacy of Leo (whatever may be the motive for this).

While some may contend that Niles’ posts on Twitter constitute her opinion, it is to be noted that a journalist does not clock out on social media. One of the guidelines to journalists who post on social media in context with integrity is:

“Assume that your professional life and your personal life will merge online regardless of your care in separating them.” (source)

While I am not here to judge Niles’ integrity, there is certainly an element of bias in her reporting of the SSPX, especially the timing of her bringing it up now, which is in stark contrast to the absence of any reporting by her in the now public matter of Prevost’s handling of the Lute case.

Note that the above is in no way a broad-brushing of the honest investigation and reporting Niles has undertaken in the past, either for Church Militant, or independently. If this post can be seen as feedback rather than criticism, it is Catholicism that will benefit greatly.

Conservatives who tend to be the more ultramontane, need to weigh in their views in order to uphold ‘filial charity’ towards the SSPX, whose only crime, in their own opinion, constitutes disobedience – a disobedience undertaken in fidelity to the preservation of the Depositum Fidei & Traditional Catholicism. If Conservatives are unable to see the distinction between fidelity to the Pope and fidelity to the Depositum Fidei & Catholicism as a whole, there is no point in trying to align themselves with Traditional Catholicism. They may as well be content in the synodal church that we are almost within.

Ave Maria.