‘Welcome Christ to watch Impure Thoughts with you!’

Not open for further replies.


'Welcome Christ to watch impure thoughts with you!' - Shocking advice from
Novus Ordo Priest invited to SSPX Family Conference

September 30, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
“Advice” on overcoming temptation!


We weren’t going to write another post on this issue, but what we just discovered makes it necessary.

We return once more to “Fr.” Sean Kilcawley, a Novus Ordo priest and “Theology of the Body” guru in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. He will be speaking this Friday, Oct. 4, at the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X’s Angelus Press Conference on the topic of “The Dangers Lurking Online: Pornography Addiction and how it destroys Hearts, Minds, and Souls.” As a teacher of “Pope” John Paul II’s Modernistic, unchaste, and blasphemous “Theology of the Body”, we had already published a post blasting the SSPX’s decision to invite him to speak at a conference dedicated to the theme of “Defense of the Family”:

As we show in the post linked above, even the SSPX opposes the wicked “Theology of the Body” — in theory at least. If there was any doubt whether Mr. Kilcawley’s theology might negatively influence what he will say about overcoming a porn addiction, that doubt has now been put to rest. As the semi-trad blog Catholic Truth has just made the public aware, the following video clip shows Kilcawley “giving advice” on combatting temptations against purity:


Alas, the following commentary is likewise not suitable for children, as we have to quote and discuss this horrendous “spiritual advice.”

In the video, Kilcawley suggests that men who are struggling with habitual sins against the Sixth Commandment or are otherwise afflicted with temptations to purity, especially in the form of pornography, should not ask Christ for strength to fight these temptations, nor should they ask Him to take them away. He does not say that they should fly from them, either. Rather, he explains:

…a better way of approaching our temptations, instead of asking our Lord to take them away, which gives us the impression that Jesus enters into
our life to take away our temptations so that we can then fix ourselves and eventually be worthy of Him to come back and enter in, is to simply invite
our Lord into our temptation and into our thoughts in the present moment; to say, “Jesus, I want to look at pornography right now”, or, “Jesus, I’m
having an impure thought right now. You’re welcome into my imagination. You’re welcome to watch these thoughts with me.” Because as we do that,
the light of Christ can enter into our imagination, and His light scatters the darkness. In that moment in which we’re feeling unlovable or we’re feeling
a need for love, that need is responded to by He [sic] who is Love, the Person who is Love, our Lord Jesus Christ. And it’s with His help that we can
put our lives back in order again and live and love as we should. It’s a reminder to us that we’re never alone, that we can do all things through Christ
who strengthens us, and we can do nothing without Him. (Source; 0:35-1:44 min)

What scandalous and blasphemous garbage!

To ask God to take away our temptations suggests that we think we can “fix ourselves” without His grace? Has this man lost his mind?

St. Alphonsus Liguori is the Church’s Doctor of Moral Theology. His Prayer to Our Lady contains these lines:

And since you are so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations,
or at least obtain for me the strength to overcome them until death.

“There are three main things to be done”, Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey writes, “if we are to overcome temptations and make them redound to our profit: 1º we must forestall temptation; 2º fight it strenuously; 3º thank God after victory or rise up after a fall” (The Spiritual Life, 2nd ed. [Tournai: Desclee, 1930], p. 432; italics given).

With regard to fighting temptations against the virtue of holy purity, Fr. Tanquerey notes that it must be done “with determination and vigor.” He explains further that “we must turn away from them and take to flight by concentrating our attention on any other matter calculated to engage our faculties. Direct resistance in such instances generally increases the danger” (The Spiritual Life, n. 915, p. 434; underlining added).

St. Alphonsus teaches:

…as soon as a temptation against chastity presents itself, the remedy is to turn instantly to God for help, and to repeat several times the most holy names of Jesus and Mary, which have a special virtue to banish bad thoughts of that kind. I have said immediately, without listening to, or beginning to argue with the temptation. When a bad thought occurs in the mind, it is necessary to shake it off instantly, as you would a spark that flies from the fire, and instantly to invoke aid from Jesus and Mary. (Sermon “On the Vice of Impurity”)
Not surprisingly, neither St. Alphonsus nor Fr. Tanquerey mentions anything about “inviting Jesus into your temptation” and have His light outshine the impure thought, or any such nonsense. Kilcawley’s counsel will keep people lingering in their temptations and quite possibly increase them.

We’ll refrain from commenting on his blasphemous proposal that Christ should be welcomed to “watch these thoughts with me.” When a Catholic is tempted and cannot flee from a temptation, he should distract himself, look at a Crucifix, or repeat the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, but certainly not “share the temptation with Christ”, so to speak.

Earlier on in the video, Kilcawley tells the struggling sinner that he is “already worthy of our Lord’s love”, which is a plain lie. We are not worthy of God’s love — His love for us is gratuitous, a genuine gift. There are numerous Scripture passages teaching this rather obvious truth; for example:

And Jacob said: O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, O Lord, who saidst to me: Return to thy land and to the place of thy birth, and I will do well for thee, I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies, and of thy truth which thou hast fulfilled to thy servant. (Gen 32:9-10)
And king David came and sat before the Lord, and said: Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house, that thou shouldst give such things to me? (1 Para [1 Chron] 17:16)
What is a man that thou shouldst magnify him? or why dost thou set thy heart upon him? (Job 7:17)
And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. (Mt 8:8)
I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (Lk 15:18-19)
And St. Alphonsus wrote: “The man who has lived like a brute, does not deserve to sit with the angels” (Sermon “On the Vice of Impurity”).

That a Novus Ordo priest would offer blasphemous spiritual danger to souls is to be expected. The real question is why the Society of St. Pius X thinks this man is suitable for instructing their adherents on anything related to holy purity, or anything spiritual, for that matter.



Last edited:


In the Church many have their hands in their hair, because things that have never been seen are happening. There have been popes of all kinds in two thousand years, but a pope had never happened in the church who, in the homily of the Mass, utters phrases that - in the mouth of anyone else - would be considered blasphemy. The otherriers, for example, pope Bergoglio, in Santa Marta, came up with an expression that must have frozen the listeners (even if then nobody has the courage to say anything).

Commenting - in a totally absurd way - on the biblical passage of the serpent raised by Moses in the desert (Numbers 21, 4-9), he affirmed that Jesus "became sin, made himself a devil, a serpent for us". Textual. But how can we say that Jesus "became a devil"?

Jesus, for Christian doctrine, took upon himself the sins of all, paying for everyone as a sacrificial lamb without blemish, so that St. Paul writes: "He who had not known sin, God treated him as sin in our favor, because we we could become God's righteousness through him "(2 Cor 5:21).

But to say that Jesus "became a devil" is something completely different (with a gnostic flavor). The Son of God became man to redeem men, he did not become a devil to redeem the devils, who, I remember, are totally connoted by the inextinguishable hatred of God (it is unimaginable for a Pope to say such a thing about Jesus).

Lost - There is now a long series of sortie of this kind with which Bergoglio has long bombed the poor flock of increasingly disconcerted and bewildered Christians. To Eugenio Scalfari he declared that "there is no Catholic God". On 16 June 2016, opening the Conference of the Diocese of Rome, in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, he came out stating that Jesus, in the episode of the adulteress, "is a bit of a fool". Then he added that Jesus - always in the episode in which he saved the woman from stoning - "has failed towards morality" (this text too). Finally, even that Jesus was not "clean" (it is not known that he meant).

Add to this the "magisterium of gestures", such as the fact that in greeting the faithful he never makes with the hand the sign of the cross, or his obstinate refusal to kneel before the tabernacle and before Jesus the Eucharist (while he kneels in a whole series of other occasions in which there is no Eucharist).

Various other shots could be added, above all on questions concerning morals, for example always in Scalfari he said that «each of us has his own vision of the Good and also of the Evil. We must incite him to proceed towards what he thinks is Good "(a perfect manifesto of relativism, the end of Catholicism).

But what is most striking is the progressiveness of the increasingly unheard-of statements about Jesus, culminating in the sentence of the day before yesterday ("he became a devil"). What explanations can be found? The first that comes to mind is theological ignorance. True, Pope Bergoglio is not culturally equipped and is one of the few people who came to the cardinalate and then to the papacy without a doctorate in theology. But above all, if one is so unprepared in theology and so imprudent as to make declarations on the verge of blasphemy, it is good that he does not hold the highest office (even doctrinal) of the Church because it would be like putting a boy, who does not even know how to drive a car , to pilot a Boeing. Or at least it is good that you do not speak in arm.

Secondly, the lack of theological qualifications does not explain such disconcerting statements, because one can take any parish priest of Christianity who has only done the seminary (without other titles), and certainly will never say such things. Not even one who simply attended the Catechism. The fact is that Bergoglio literally theorized "incomplete thought". And those who continue to have a solid thought are disqualified as doctrinaire, fundamentalist and rigorous. He declared this in an interview with Father Spadaro criticizing the past learned of the Jesuits: "epochs (in which) in the company" he said "a closed, rigid, more instructive-ascetic than mystical thought was lived". Then in Evangelii Gaudium he took it upon "those who dream of a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuances" (n. 40). And finally he wrote: "Sometimes, listening to a completely orthodox language, what the faithful receive, because of the language they use and understand, is something that does not correspond to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ" (n. 41).

Today we have the first pope who - instead of being the Custodian of doctrinal orthodoxy - criticizes the "completely orthodox language". According to some, he does it to justify the goodies he says and wants to continue to spread. But this stubborn will, which has been constant for four years now, suggests that there is a systematic decision to deconstruct Catholic doctrine or at least subject it to such delegitimization as to make the idea pass, in the Christian people, that everyone can say, think and believe what he wants. It is the empire of relativism. Indeed a Barnum Circus. But, perhaps, to fully understand what is happening, it is good to remember the "dramatic struggle" in the Church, of which he spoke, a year ago, at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Msgr. Georg Gaenswein, secretary of Benedict XVI, about the 2005 Conclave, which led to the election of card. Ratzinger, to whom the then card was opposed Bergoglio, supported by progressives.

Clash - Gaenswein evoked precisely the Conclave of April 2005 "from which Joseph Ratzinger, after one of the shortest elections in the history of the Church, came out elected after only four ballots following a dramatic struggle between the so-called" Salt Party of the Earth " (Salt of Earth Party) around cardinals López Trujíllo, Ruini, Herranz, Rouco Varela or Medina and the so-called St. Gall Group around cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy-O 'Connor () The election was certainly the result also of a clash, the key of which had almost provided Ratzinger himself as cardinal dean, in the historic homily of 18 April 2005 in St. Peter's; and precisely there where "a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and leaves only its own ego and desires as its last measure" had contrasted another measure: "the Son of God and true man" like "the measure of true humanism "". Gaenswein then added that at present the mentality that Benedict XVI had opposed is prevailing and "the" dictatorship of relativism "has long been expressed in an overwhelming way through the many channels of new media that could barely be imagined in 2005" . Words that make us understand what drama is going on inside the Church today. One of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, Robert Spaemann, a personal friend of Benedict XVI, thundered some time ago on Die Tagespost with an article with an eloquent title: "Even in the Church there is a limit to tolerability".

Another important Catholic philosopher, Josef Seifert, a collaborator of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, intervened with very harsh criticism, which motivated him thus: «the Pope is not infallible if he does not speak ex cathedra. Various Popes (like Formosus and Honorius I) were condemned for heresy. And it is our holy duty - out of love and mercy towards so many souls - to criticize our bishops and even our dear Pope, if they deviate from the truth and if their mistakes damage the Church and souls ». Such an explosive situation in the Church had never been seen.

Antonio Socci

Not open for further replies.