Fr. Gabriel Lavery

Sean Wright of @TheWMReview emailed Bp. Pivarunas to say that I had defamed him in this tweet, and he demanded that it be taken down. So, I deleted it and am explaining it here for those who might have also misunderstood it. For some reason, Sean took the third paragraph and applied it to himself and told the bishop that I was accusing him of promoting national socialism, Hitler, etc. I think most people can see that paragraph was referring to AR's errors and not to WM Review. The entire tweet was a reply to @CathFamPodcast (Kevin) as a quote tweet. Everyone knows how important it is to not take things out of the context of the thread on X. Kevin had stated that he is against "cancel culture" unless it's regarding "dogma" or "scandal." My third paragraph was a direct reply to that comment. I began it as "You say..." All can see that "you" refers to Kevin, and that the errors I mention are referred to AR alone and no one else. I was asking Kevin how those errors of AR can possibly *not* be a matter of gravely erroneous and scandalous teachings. The scandalous nature of these teachings was confirmed later, finally, by AR retracting them. In the first two paragraphs, the plain meaning is that I was disappointed that those who in "one way or another" had promoted the errors of AR did not make a statement against his pro-Hitler/NS comments, his comment about priests in concentration camps, etc. My obvious point (2nd paragraph) was that so much of the needless debate over the last week (while AR continued defending his errors) could have been avoided had his friends and supporters not fallen into silence in the face of these revelations of his errors. A clear, public repudiation of these errors by his friends and supporters would have done much to correct him sooner. The support to which I was referring, and to which I clearly referred elsewhere, was WM Review's post on June 26 supporting American Reform and ending with the blanket statement: "I'm proud to work with someone like this, whatever his views, and to defend him against unjustified criticism." x.com/TheWMReview/st… Had I written a statement like that in support of someone and later found out they had pro-Hitler comments, etc., I would have distanced myself from him and repudiated his statements. Stephen Kokx, for his side, had long supported AR prior to this and gave a platform for his ideas, and made it clear he would continue to have him as his editor at @IntegritasMag. While Stephen privately messaged me to say he did not approve of AR's "American Hitler" comment, it seemed to me he mostly did not address my concerns about AR either in public or in my many private messages back and forth with him. Again, some clear action on Stephen's part would have alleviated so much of the contention and been a credit to him. Kevin, for his part, had expressed some very qualified support for AR on June 26: "I deeply disagree with Reform on some issues but I don't feel like he is someone just throwing around random ideas because he watched one YouTube video." And after AR's retraction said: "I battled @AmericanReform_ privately and publicly over some of his opinions for years." I thank Kevin for that clarification, but I only wish there would have been a unified expression of disapproval against the pro-Hitler/NS/concentration camp stuff in the midst of the debate when it really mattered to steer souls away from these errors. Lastly, in case anyone is thinking Sean had to email the bishop because of any lack of response from me, I want to be clear that, to my knowledge, Sean made no attempt to reply to the tweet or otherwise contact me to explain that he understood it as accusing him of those errors.

🤔

Those responsible for the crisis in the Church are those who perpetuate it. The Church is indefectible, and a true papacy cannot lead the faithful into a false religion. Heretics and non-Catholics do not constitute the Mystical Body of Christ. A comment like this, however well-intentioned, only deepens the confusion, because it treats as a crisis of governance what is, at its root, a usurpation. Leo is not the cause of the crisis because he simply is not the Roman Pontiff; he is the leader of the counterfeit religion that has been built since the Council. This must be stated clearly and without equivocation, so that the faithful do not remain lost in this confusion. If Leo cannot be Pope according to Catholic doctrine itself regarding the nature of the papacy, then the duty of resolving the crisis falls upon the true ministers of the Church, the bishops who preserve the integrity of the Faith. And it is precisely because they do not assume this duty that confusion and contradiction persist. The bishops of the Society, immersed in Gallicanism and Jansenism, despite possessing valid apostolic succession, uphold positions that distort Catholic doctrine and ultimately prioritize the preservation and perpetuation of their own group rather than the common good of the Church as a whole. Is this Catholicism?

The story has clear marks of being spurious, many similarities to other condemned devotional pamphlets. However, the prayer itself seems fine and it is common to see it without the attached story/promises. I have a large collection of info on condemned or forbidden devotions and prayers covering several centuries, but have not seen anything against this prayer.

@maccabeanpapist This seems to be one of those prayers with extraordinary promises attached of which we've been cautioned?

During a vacancy of the Holy See, a Church with no path back to authority, no means of restoring her visible head, and no prospect of government is not the Church described by Christ or taught by Catholic theology. In light of this reality, are Catholics willing to seek the means God has provided for the restoration of the Papacy, or are they more comfortable strengthening their own groups and circles?

Excerpt from Pope St. Pius X’s 1910 Apostolic Letter on the Sillon: papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10notr…

@CarlPendleton6 @Psalm399 @TheWMReview He really doesn't hold those errors, but he definitely should have just replied to the tweet to make his point, IMO.

@Psalm399 @FrLavery @TheWMReview I won’t hold back @TheWMReview must have a guilty conscience to think something that was not about him was about him…. Really email the Bishop….. come on man

Sean Wright of @TheWMReview emailed Bp. Pivarunas to say that I had defamed him in this tweet, and he demanded that it be taken down. So, I deleted it and am explaining it here for those who might have also misunderstood it. For some reason, Sean took the third paragraph and applied it to himself and told the bishop that I was accusing him of promoting national socialism, Hitler, etc. I think most people can see that paragraph was referring to AR's errors and not to WM Review. The entire tweet was a reply to @CathFamPodcast (Kevin) as a quote tweet. Everyone knows how important it is to not take things out of the context of the thread on X. Kevin had stated that he is against "cancel culture" unless it's regarding "dogma" or "scandal." My third paragraph was a direct reply to that comment. I began it as "You say..." All can see that "you" refers to Kevin, and that the errors I mention are referred to AR alone and no one else. I was asking Kevin how those errors of AR can possibly *not* be a matter of gravely erroneous and scandalous teachings. The scandalous nature of these teachings was confirmed later, finally, by AR retracting them. In the first two paragraphs, the plain meaning is that I was disappointed that those who in "one way or another" had promoted the errors of AR did not make a statement against his pro-Hitler/NS comments, his comment about priests in concentration camps, etc. My obvious point (2nd paragraph) was that so much of the needless debate over the last week (while AR continued defending his errors) could have been avoided had his friends and supporters not fallen into silence in the face of these revelations of his errors. A clear, public repudiation of these errors by his friends and supporters would have done much to correct him sooner. The support to which I was referring, and to which I clearly referred elsewhere, was WM Review's post on June 26 supporting American Reform and ending with the blanket statement: "I'm proud to work with someone like this, whatever his views, and to defend him against unjustified criticism." x.com/TheWMReview/st… Had I written a statement like that in support of someone and later found out they had pro-Hitler comments, etc., I would have distanced myself from him and repudiated his statements. Stephen Kokx, for his side, had long supported AR prior to this and gave a platform for his ideas, and made it clear he would continue to have him as his editor at @IntegritasMag. While Stephen privately messaged me to say he did not approve of AR's "American Hitler" comment, it seemed to me he mostly did not address my concerns about AR either in public or in my many private messages back and forth with him. Again, some clear action on Stephen's part would have alleviated so much of the contention and been a credit to him. Kevin, for his part, had expressed some very qualified support for AR on June 26: "I deeply disagree with Reform on some issues but I don't feel like he is someone just throwing around random ideas because he watched one YouTube video." And after AR's retraction said: "I battled @AmericanReform_ privately and publicly over some of his opinions for years." I thank Kevin for that clarification, but I only wish there would have been a unified expression of disapproval against the pro-Hitler/NS/concentration camp stuff in the midst of the debate when it really mattered to steer souls away from these errors. Lastly, in case anyone is thinking Sean had to email the bishop because of any lack of response from me, I want to be clear that, to my knowledge, Sean made no attempt to reply to the tweet or otherwise contact me to explain that he understood it as accusing him of those errors.

@Psalm399 @TheWMReview No worries.

@FrLavery @TheWMReview I can't reply to this how I want because it would probably be imprudent. But I will say I hope you are not being held at fault.

@TradCatTaylor 😂😂😂

POV: You said literally anything on Catholic twitter

@bruferreiracds @D1870473838573 @TradCathSermons @daniel_see1978 @omnia_ad_jesum You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what's going on.

The podcaster had already shown a seemingly unwarranted dislike toward me, despite the fact that we had never had any personal interaction, and he was already clearly bothered by my tweets even before my criticisms of the thesis. After my posts about the thesis, it became evident that something there bothered some people or hurt their egos. That was when he joined them in attacking me, which also explains why this priest who defends the thesis retweeted his post, further feeding his ego. He ended up joining people who do not even share the same position he claims to defend, with the goal of “canceling” someone who, in reality, defends the very same position he says he supports.

I was wrong. Good work Stephen refuting me via positive action. I mean that. I can respect that, man to man. It turns out there is a bishop who will lend his implicit support to novel ecclesiology, coupled with Nazi sympathy so recently retracted that the ink — if were present would scarcely be dry. Not to mention public calumny so fresh that it may not have even reached the doors of the confessional, if it does at all. I wonder why His Excellency Sanborn would feel so genuinely comfortable in such company? Is it because the R&R and the RCI are the same ecclesiology, professing functionally the same flawed inversion of true Catholic principles, simply arriving at differing conclusions on the Holy See? RCI to R&R: 'No matter, this difference is but a detail, and is easily overcome. You can be Catholic and stand in judgement of the Popes, we will show you the correct way.' For the record, as far as I am aware His Excellency is vehemently anti National Socialism, and has completely orthodox views on slavery. Further he is exceptionally circumspect about whom he associates with. That is what makes the message conveyed by this action perplexing. The rest makes perfect sense. Anyways, @StephenKokx congratulations on recieving the implicit backing of a Bishop that I mockingly opined your theological melting pot would never recieve. You proved me wrong, and I genuinely commend you for the the rare insight it provides. There may be a meritorious aspect of @IntegritasMag after all.

Today, 10 July, 2026, we have heard with great sadness of the peaceful passing of Mr Ivan Rae Sim, the Father of our Rector Major, Fr Michael Mary. He was 96 years of age. Of your charity please pray for the repose of his soul. He was a man always full of wonder and gratitude. One can only imagine how grateful he will be for your prayers from Eternity, and the wonder he will find in seeing those prayers rising from all the corners of the world! May he rest in peace. (Posted on Fr Michael's behalf.)

@bruferreiracds Congratulations! I will remember your family in my prayers today.

Today, my husband and I celebrate four years of marriage. 💖 From our union, God has already blessed us with three beautiful children, who make our joy even greater. In fact, this week two of our daughters are celebrating their birthdays. It truly is a very special week for our family. Please pray for us! 🙏🏻

@realsedepicante @TradCathSermons I'm sorry, but I cannot support those who criticize and judge true Popes and still spread false teaching.

"Further, I believe he [Fr Lavery] owes me a public apology, and the same to those he has misled — wittingly or unwittingly." --American Reform.

Some anons are bad anons; others are good anons. The ones with the "Approved by Kevin" label are the good ones. Anons are a "complex subject" as AR says about anything on which he wishes to provide lack of clarity. For myself, I don't generally have a problem with anons, but when they pretend to set themselves up as some sort of authority and start telling priests what to think, they should be a decent human being and put their name on their opinions.

@FrLavery @libertyqueenbee @MichaelNineveh @ASimpleMan20 @habibianalytics I have to say that I find it ironic that @CathFamPodcast is so eager to defend WMreview and AmericanReform when they are both "anons", according to his own definitions.

Quite interesting. Fr. Coughlin multiple times uses the words democracy and Americanism positively: "Is there NO one to defend Americanism?" Maybe American Reform will change his profile pic.

I didn't take Cory's tweet ill although he should have been more careful about the facts before stating it. It was necessary to set the record straight on Bp Dupanloup and that was a reasonable opportunity to do so. Had Cory not tweeted, I was going to quote tweet Stephen's post myself anyway.

@StephenKokx @AmericanReform_ @MerriamWebster, can you please explain the difference between threatening someone and simply asking them to do what is reasonable to request? There seems to be a language barrier here.

Threatening to dox @AmericanReform_, Father?

@Catholic_Colin_ @libertyqueenbee @MichaelNineveh @ASimpleMan20 @habibianalytics @AmericanReform_ Yes. I don't think we Catholics need to be hiding, especially when someone like him wants to pass himself off as someone we should listen to.

@FrLavery @libertyqueenbee @MichaelNineveh @ASimpleMan20 @habibianalytics @AmericanReform_ Are you seriously suggesting that he dox himself? Please tell me I’m reading this wrong

@StephenKokx @AmericanReform_ Or maybe just asking for some common decency? If you are presenting yourself as the bastion of truth waging supposedly the great counter revolution and victory, I think maybe you should show your face? Especially if you're going to be suggesting that priests are liberal?

@charleybrown77 @NovusOrdoWatch I think I saw that at the time.

@FrLavery @NovusOrdoWatch did a helpful podcast regarding Mawdsley. x.com/charleybrown77…

Yes, this mindset of criticizing the official actions and even decrees of the Pope is unfortunately an R&R legacy which people are unwilling to give up. It's an indication that, as laudible as AR's retraction is, it was not a total one and leaves some important things undone.