On the Record: A Response to a Recent Controversy, With Retractions
My full response to Fr. Gabriel Lavery and other concerned parties surrounding the recent controversy on X, coupled with my reflections
The Controversy
Over the past 14 days, I have been at the center of a controversy that began when I criticized President George Washington for being a “committed Freemason, indifferentist and Liberal.” This prompted a priest who had been following me for some time, Father Gabriel Lavery, to respond after which I doubled-down and provided additional context. This was in keeping with my analysis earlier this year, featured at The Journal of American Reform:
Along with the eminent Cardinal Pie of Poiters — renowned for his commitment to sound doctrine, which necessarily entails anti-Liberalism — I hope Father Lavery can join me in echoing this prelate’s judgment, “The American and Belgian system, that system of philosophical-political indifference, will forever be a bastard system”.1 Of course, this is true despite the fact that tolerating our American system of separation as a lesser evil2 is both a practical necessity and the most expedient way to vindicate the social rights of God and His Church.3
Since this initial dispute, Father Lavery and I went back-and-forth over several topics, perhaps among the most contentious in our modern American paradigm: slavery, “curse of Cham”, National Socialism and many aspects of the “Race Question”. Throughout these exchanges, I have made it clear that, despite our disagreements, he is a priest and owed the respect due to his vocation.
Given that Father Lavery previously followed my account, I still do not understand why he chose not to reach out privately, first, before raising his grave concerns in a public and unexpected way. I would welcome a direct answer to that question:
On June 30, he blocked my account. Since then, he has continued to criticize my positions energetically on X, which regrettably has descended into — as will be made clear below — psychologizing, mischaracterization, false accusations and smears.
Because of the block, I have been unable to respond to him directly, make further distinctions or clarify my views.
Preliminary Reflection
As I have said before, I only want to be defended when I am in the right or when I have been falsely accused. With that in mind, I am deeply grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from fellow Catholics — regardless of their background, social standing, race, country of origin, positions on the current Crisis, etc. — and from my followers more generally.
During this difficult period, you have given me much-needed encouragement. Most importantly, many of you have prayed for peace, for the victory of Truth and my spiritual well-being.
Thank you, sincerely, to everyone who has reached out, offered words of support or kept me in your prayers.
Clarification Regarding Slavery and My 1st Retraction
On the specific issue of slavery and the servile state, I maintain — in keeping with Scripture, Tradition, Popes, the Holy Office Ruling of 1866, etc. — they are both per se lawful;4 that is, not opposed by their very nature to Divine or Natural Law.5 To claim that the Church has condemned slavery as such, or without qualifications, is a grave error and further gives ammunition to enemies of the Church, confirming them in their prejudice.
This is not to say, however, that the state of servitude is the ideal condition of man or consistent with the first intention of nature. In fact, that is directly contrary to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his 1888 encyclical In Plurimis “On the Abolition of Slavery”.6 The Catholic Church, animated by a true humanism and spirit of the Gospel, has always worked to ameliorate the condition of slaves and to abolish the institution where prudent — even universally. She has always rejected the idea of race-based slavery,7 which I also reject, and rightly maintained as Pope Pius XI taught, “The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations.”8
With this in mind, it is in the spirit of prudence that I am retracting (now-deleted) my translation of Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick’s 1861 treatment of slavery in his Theologia Moralis, which bore an imprimatur from Cardinal Engelbert Sterckx. Archbishop Kenrick’s writing outlined sound principles but also touched upon the status of American domestic slavery in relation to Pope Gregory XVI’s In Supremo Apostolatus; a question later addressed by a 1864 ruling from the Index of which Pope Pius IX was prefect. The status of domestic slavery for Catholics in the United States remains, as a result, a complicated subject.
What is not disputed is that the Atlantic Slave Trade was absolutely condemned9 and the enslavement and purchase of African slaves without a just title must be considered abhorrent “man-stealing”. However, the domestic question for Catholic slaveholders10 in the 19th century is a separate — albeit related — matter, and here the opinion of Archbishop Kenrick was not without merit. The merit was substantial enough that it became the subject of an entire dissertation at the Catholic University of America, written by Rev. Joseph D. Brokhage, S.T.L., under the direction of Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R. On pages 163-4 of the dissertation the reader finds:11
In hindsight, introducing this highly contentious issue into my coverage of current events by way of reference was a mistake. I apologize to anyone who was scandalized as a result. Going forward, I will work to avoid other instances of this imprudence and present a more balanced view of the issue, more careful to avoid the impression I am doing anything other than witnessing to Catholic teaching and sound philosophical principles.
False Accusations from Father Lavery and His Ugly Campaign
What I want to make clear is that I am not accusing (nor have I been) Father Lavery of smears, misrepresentation or false accusations because of my past sympathy for, or qualified support of, National Socialism. That is what he imputed to me, but they are not my motivations.
Father Lavery was right to take issue with the aforementioned and correct me, albeit in a way I do not believe was without serious problems. Good men, perhaps, may disagree and consider his method appropriate: I am content with that.
However, what I am taking issue with — made more difficult owing to his blocking of my account on June 30 — are the following list of objective offenses; a list which is not comprehensive but representative:
June 30
(link) — “There is no such thing as ‘healthy racism,’ nor did Pius XI ever use that phrase or teach it.” | Response I & II
(link) — Fr. Lavery blocks my account “@AmericanReform_”
July 1
July 4
(link) — “It doesn’t matter how he explains this ‘inferiority’ of other races which he clearly teaches is also a genetic inferiority; it is a fact that in his mind they are inferior, and this is merely an obvious symptom of his underlying dislike of other races no matter how much he protests otherwise.” | Response I, II, III & IV
(link) — “AR knew about this quote at least a year or two ago and continues to hide it from everyone—deliberately!” | Response
(link) — “[AR] teaches that the United States is only for ‘whites’…. There’s something mentally wrong with this obsession of his.” | Response
July 5
(link) — “AR is pure evil.” | Response: then why am I doing this?
(link) — “AR is disgusting, and I am disgusted with anyone who supports him.” | Response: “ ”
(link) — “AR is not a reasonable man.” | Response: “ ”
(link) — “It’s no surprise that American Reform jumped in to dispute Father, but to no avail.” — Response
July 7
(link) — “At this point if people can’t see ARs total blindness, arrogance, and self-deceit caused by his addiction to white national socialist ideology, then they are purposely trying not to see it (emphasis added).” | Response: then why am I doing this?
(link) — “[AR] said that Nazis sending Catholic priests to concentration camps in Dachau is ‘understandable.’” — Response
After reviewing the full context and responses, I believe any objective third party will see that these examples go well beyond spirited disagreement. They are rather repeated examples of psychologizing, mischaracterization and personal attacks.
A Catholic priest should elevate the public conversation, not descend into an ugly campaign of this kind. I invite Father Lavery to meet a higher standard than the one he has shown the past 14 days. Further, I believe he owes me a public apology, and the same to those he has misled — wittingly or unwittingly.
Regarding National Socialism, the Addresses of Pope Pius XII and My 2nd Retraction
Throughout our exchange and with lots of reflection, I have come to realize Father Lavery was right about my errant sympathies and qualified support for National Socialism, attempting to distinguish between “good and bad” elements in the movement and ideology. Up until very recently, my position was substantially the same as outlined publicly on my Journal in a (now-deleted) post last autumn, October 1st, to be exact.12
My conscience has been pricked. I thank God for the grace to see this, and Father Lavery for publicly correcting me.
To my longtime followers, the news of my qualified support and sympathy for certain aspects of National Socialism will not come as a shock. While I have never been a doctrinaire National Socialist, nor presently wanted the political-social system resurrected in our American circumstances, I must acknowledge that — until recently — it was not clear that my views fully aligned with the teaching and explicit condemnation of National Socialism13 by Pope Pius XII. This is the same Pope who authoritatively interpreted Pope Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical on the situation of the Catholic Church in the German Reich, Mit brennender Sorge.
This misalignment was further illustrated by my imprudent decision to publish (now-deleted) a study on this Journal by an author who will remain nameless, along with my promotion of his work. Specifically, in the third installment, I erroneously and scandalously said — following the author — that Pius XII’s 1945 address was “historically reckless and devoid of magisterial authority.” While I did say this, it was never my intention to impugn the Magisterium as such, which is why the above argument was given.
I therefore publicly and wholeheartedly subscribe to the following magisterial pronouncements of the Vicars of Jesus Christ, giving them the required assent14 demanded by the respective Popes:
Mit brennender Sorge by Pope Pius XI (March 14, 1937)
Address by Pope Pius XII in St. Peter’s Square (March 18,1945)
Address by Pope Pius XII to the College of Cardinals (June 2, 1945)
I maintain that National Socialist ideology is incompatible with Christianity — the very ideology which Pope Pius XII described as “the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the denial of His doctrine and of His work of redemption, the cult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood, [and] the overthrow of human liberty and dignity.”15
I also recognize and apologize for the foreseeable scandal caused by two things in particular:
Critically reviewing or appearing to soften the judgement on an ideology (National Socialism) and regime (German Third Reich and its leader, Adolf Hitler) that has been condemned in various ways by the Popes (even if doing the same for Soviet Russia, modern-day China, etc. would not cause any scandal).
Publishing something that criticized Pope Pius XII as sharply as it did.
Going forward, I will be actively working to distance myself from National Socialist ideology, the socio-political movement it animated and any inappropriate or scandalous jokes — such as calling for an “American Hitler”. Father Lavery has rightly drawn public attention to other instances of my mistakes [1], [2], which I recently deleted. I will continue reviewing my body of work for any further corrections or removals that may be necessary.
As a further witness to my sincerity, I will by publishing the full 1945 address of Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of National Socialism next week at my Journal. This will double as a clear alert to any of my followers, hopefully pricking their consciences (if necessary), and making sure they are not being steered into a failed and naturalistic ideology.
Finally, with this error of mine, I do not want an opposite error to be advanced, whereby it becomes impossible to critically examine — in a dispassionate and respectful way — the pre-conciliar Popes, especially Pius XII, excepting St. Pius X, whose reigns preceded the revolution of Vatican II and the dire Crisis every Catholic now finds himself in. What I am referring to, of course, is the discussion of historical policies, actions or inactions in the practical order, along with an unhealthy accommodation to the modern world, all of which are distinct from the exercise of the Sacred Magisterium and do not compromise the indefectibility or infallibility of the Catholic Church.
Final Reflection
In all of this, I do not want anyone to think that my desire for fundamental political and social change has been affected. I remain committed to the project of “American Integralism”, which is to say the application of Catholic political philosophy to the present circumstances of my country. With this, it will involve the energetic and healthy defense of our people, our race, something which I wrote about last year and stand by to this day:
For White Americans, we are seeing our country being overrun with mass immigration and its causes maintained, legal (Republicans) or illegal (Democrats), both of which threaten to destroy the unity of our people and the racial character of our country. This is not about hating other races, or denying their natural or civil rights, but behaving as they would if they were in our shoes. What would African people do in Nigeria if their populations were being systematically replaced with immigration? Would Nigeria still be the same country if half of its population were comprised of Indians and Chinese? It’s worth thinking about… Would they be sinning, necessarily, or treated as fanatics or “bigots” by engaging in activism and promoting public policy to reverse this existential threat? Necessarily would their motives be questioned and subjected to the deepest pathologizing? For all these things, of course not…
This is made worse when laity, and especially misguided Catholic clergy, do not appear to publicly recognize and affirm that “race is a fundamental value of the human community”, which has a “necessary and honorable function” in worldly things.16 Yes, this holds for every race of men, as the universality of the Catholic Church does not negate, rather it perfects, the particularity within the human family.
“If Christ the God-man is the ideal image of the Christian, this does not mean that there are no ties of blood and affinity, from nation to nation, from race to race, from government and subjects, from citizens to the dear soil of the fatherland. On the contrary, all these individual and collective relations find their higher perfection through the Christian experience of the virtues of the individual, race, nation and state, and which all have their ideal image in the human and divine perfections of the God-man Jesus Christ.” — Fr. Constantinus, O.F.M., 1933
White races (those with European ancestry, united in a physiological union)17 are no exception:
Along with many other young Catholic men — coming from various backgrounds, social standings, races, countries, positions on the current Crisis, etc. — we do not have the emotionalism that surrounds the post-World War II consensus nor believe in the power of its taboos. While it is true many among the older generations are laden down by this “baggage”, our generation is certainly not without its grave problems which, by the grace of God, I want to help ameliorate.
For any young man, including myself, we must be respectful to our elders and their wisdom, own up to our mistakes and continue fighting for the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, using His means — the sacraments — to achieve this.
I pray and hope this essay will be well-received by anyone who has read this far. Again, I want to thank Father Lavery for publicly correcting me. I apologize to anyone who has been scandalized by what I have previously published, and I hope I can be an example and warning to at least a few souls.
Please continue praying for peace and true reconciliation between myself, Father Lavery and any affected parties.
END.
Qtd. in Fr. Théotime de Saint-Just, O.M.C., La royauté sociale de N.-S. Jésus-Christ d’après le Cardinal Pie: Essai de synthèse doctrinale, (1925), p. 189.
French original: “Le système américain et belge, ce système d'indifférence philosophico-politique, sera éternellement un système bâtard ”.
Incidentally, it is worth highlighting what Cd. Alfredo Ottaviani wrote in his 1935 public law theses:
But liberal Catholics press on: if not absolutely, at least comparatively the system of separation is both good in itself and perhaps better than the other systems which can be had in modern society. For today States are either given over to supranationalism, and therefore infected with the principles of jurisdictionalism, by which the Church is reduced to servitude and considered an instrument of government; or they are overcome by ultra-democratic principles, and therefore the Church would be attacked in them if, not content with common law, she wished to be protected and held superior: for she would be calumniated as one seeking to dominate in the State and to capture privileges for herself, and she would be exposed to the hatred of the masses and to persecutions, with great peril to souls.
But the hypothesis of the greater evil, which by tolerating separation could be avoided, is also calmly considered by the Church. Yet this hypothesis differs entirely from the thesis of liberal Catholics which constitutes a general system.
[…]
It is to be noted moreover that such a condition of the Church is to be tolerated by Catholics only for a time, namely until matters can be brought to the point where the legitimate order of relations between both societies can be vindicated and profitably restored to practice; hence it is clear that the duties of Catholics are greater for the protection of the rights of the Church, and that they ought to contend more vigorously for them in a separated State, than where the normal relation of harmony between both powers prevails. But what the duties of Catholics are, both in opinions and in deeds, both in private life and in public life, whether in contributing to the administration of civil affairs or even in the exercise of political offices, has been accurately described and defined by Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei.
St. Peter (1 Pet., II. 18); St. Paul (1 Tim., c. VI); St. Augustine, (Commentary on Psalm 125, no. 7); Pope Alexander III (Third Lateran Council, no. 27); Pope Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, no. 71); St. Thomas (ST II-II, q. LVII, art. 3); Pope Nicholas V (Dum Diversas); Pope Leo XIII (In Plurumis, no. 10).
The 1866 ruling from the Holy Office (Answer to a question from the Vicar Apostolic of the Galla Tribe in Ethiopia, Collectanea S.S. of Faithful Propaganda, 1907, no. 1293, a. 4, pg. 719) is as follows:
Although the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations, and although it is especially due to them that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples, nevertheless, servitude itself, considered in itself and all alone (per se et absolute), is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law, and there can be present very many just titles for servitude, as can be seen by consulting the approved theologians and interpreters of the canons. For the dominion which belongs to a master in respect to a slave is not to be understood as any other than the perpetual right of disposing, to one’s own advantage, of servile work, which dominion it is legitimate for a person to offer to another person. From this it follows that it is not repugnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, exchanged, or given, as long as in this sale, or buying, or exchange or giving, the due conditions which those same approved authors widely follow and explain, are properly observed. Among these conditions those which are to be especially looked at are whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the seller does nothing by which the slave to be transferred to another possessor suffer any detriment to life, morals or the Catholic faith. Therefore, Christians, about whom one is speaking in the first question, can licitly buy slaves or, to resolve a debt, receive them as a gift, as long as they are morally certain that those slaves were not taken from their legitimate master or reduced to slavery unjustly (emphasis added).
Fr. Walter Hill, S.J., Moral Philosophy, (1891), pp. 257-62.
Pope Leo XIII, In Plurimis, (1888), no. 3.
Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus, (1537), para. 2-3.
Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge, (1937), no. 18.
Cf. My article on Integrity Magazine published on May 28, 2026:
Absent from Magnifica Humanitas was Pope Gregory XVI’s condemnation of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in his 1839 letter In Supremo Apostolatus. Paul III’s 1537 bull Sublimis Deus was also not mentioned, despite its proclamation of the equal humanity of American Indians and its condemnation of their unjust enslavement.
Cf. Kenneth J. Zanca, Ph.D, American Catholics and Slavery: 1789-1866, (1994), pp. 220-1
Rev. Joseph P. Brokhage, Francis Patrick Kenrick’s Opinion on Slavery, (1955), pp. 163-4.
For a window into my thinking, this is the relevant excerpt from the now-deleted post:
Some readers, likely, may be interested in our current position with respect to National Socialism, not only considered doctrinally, but also as a political-historical movement. The following is by no means a settled and definitive position, although we feel comfortable beginning to outline this publicly. As always, with the examination of more evidence, the views presented herein are subject to change, though we do not anticipate anything substantial. Fundamentally and especially in light of Bishop Hudal’s writings, contemporaneously, we would have supported a committed effort of rapprochement with National Socialism. That is, qualified support for its political program, with serious reservations about its radical elements, yet with a generally positive and sympathetic attitude toward the regime and its Führer, Adolf Hitler. Today, we believe far too many Catholics are uncomfortable admitting how much National Socialism got right, nor do they have the right attitude about the same. That said, this is far too complex a matter for such a short answer, yet it will have to suffice for now.
As strange as it may sound, the question of National Socialism is one of the most important questions facing Americans today. Why? Nearly all contemporary political discourse is dominated by the specter of “Nazism”, “anti-Semitism” and “Hitler”. Smears like “Nazi” are ubiquitous, and that term is used, deliberately, to morally intimidate and discredit opponents. Nay, it is equivalent to calling someone a public sinner, albeit with modern language. More specifically, it is to call someone the worst kind of sinner. One cannot help but be reminded of the similar moral and social weight that the charges of “heresy” or “blasphemy” carried in Catholic society. A society dominated by Jewish taboo, rather than Christian order, is naturally going to mark out its dogmas.
Further, as a matter of political realism, as soon as you articulate, much less implement, Catholic political philosophy in America you will be smeared as the aforementioned, a “Nazi” or “Nazi-like”. Interestingly, this is regardless of how you present your arguments, or how you self-identify your beliefs. Our enemies, whom we must love, whether Conservatives or Progressives are equally willing to employ this tactic in the pursuance of their respective programs, which differ only in degree not kind. The Synagogue, which exercises the most power over our country, does the same, though, more often and with greater intensity. Sadly, many otherwise intelligent Catholics are no exception, either. Along with most non-Catholics, they are willing to employ smears and invective against the sharpest opponents of, choosing several examples, liberalism, democratism, Judaism or feminism. In short, we can say the proliferation of error. So, rather than worrying about what our enemies call us, along with our “liberal Catholic” friends, it is better as a purely practical approach—in our view—to demythologize that period of history and appreciate the intransigence, progressiveness and other good aspects of National Socialism.
Presently, does this mean we should resurrect National Socialism or any party dedicated to it in America, no, that is not our position. Other goodhearted men, perhaps, may be inclined to do this but that is not our desire for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the time of National Socialism has passed and we are not in Germany. We live in America and we need to apply Catholic political philosophy to our—in some important ways— unique circumstances. This has the added benefit of ensuring a perfect coherence between the principles outlined to rule America and Catholic orthodoxy, unlike National Socialism, which was not without its flaws. Pure doctrine is essential, it has primacy, meaning it informs political praxis. Praxis, though secondary, is not to be disregarded or dismissed, rather it needs to be carefully weighed and placed in right order. This does not mean, however, that the National Socialist system is to be discarded or for us to pretend it is without instructive value. We want to protect and preserve the White race, bring order to America and outlaw indecency and immorality, but these aims are not unique to National Socialism, yet it would be a mistake not to acknowledge its contributions in each of these areas. In addition, we can appreciate its organizational structure, respect for authority and uncompromising approach to statecraft.
I deliberately chose (and will continue) to avoid using the terms “Nazism” or “Nazi” for two reasons, one based on the judgment of Pius XII, the other drawing its force from contingent circumstances. Respectively, they are:
Pius XII never employed either term — to my knowledge — in his condemnations of National Socialism, much like he did not use “Stalinism” or “Commie” or when condemning communism or those attached to it.
The way in which “Nazism” and “Nazi” are deployed as smears, i.e. weaponized in bad faith and used in a hyper-elastic manner, by the worst enemies of the Catholic Church to oppose any and all restoration of Christian order.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions, (1956), pp. 109-17.
Pope Pius XII, Address to the College of Cardinals, (1945), para. 21.
Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge, (1937), no. 8.
Additionally, there is a real, existential danger if these legitimate views on race and its significance to this life, underpinned by true charity, continue to be circumscribed by influential Catholics — whether lay or clerical — even in self-styled “traditionalist” circles. Finding themselves made enemies of those who ought to be their greatest defenders, many otherwise good-willed men may seek out ideas being offered by various non-Catholics to address and, ultimately, solve the Racial Question. It will surely be a mixture of sensible and inhumane measures, rather than exclusively the former. Further, unlike us Catholics, these radicals (for lack of a better term) have a noted tendency to deny the natural rights of other races or wholesale embrace exaggerated and unchristian racism. These are other races who are loved equally by God — they are are our brothers in the same human family and have the same eternal destiny.
Fr. Theodor Meyer, S.J., Institutiones iuris naturalis, seu philosophiae moralis universae secundum principia S. Thomae Aquinatis: ad usum scholarem. Ius naturae speciale, (1900), Vol. 2, p. 302; Fr. Édouard Hugon, O.P., Cursus philosophiae thomisticae: Philosophia Naturalis. Biologia et Psychologia, (1906), vol. III, p. 165.
See also: In May 1934, then Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli — acting as the Vatican Secretary of State — identified race as a “biological fact” in a confidential memorandum to the German government, recognizing its importance to this life while simultaneously warning against radicalism which was on full display by the National Socialists (Michael F. Feldkamp, Pius XII. und Deutschland, Göttingen, p. 113):
The Church recognizes race as a biological fact and does not deny the life values or the cultural stimulation that repose in race — when understood in certain boundaries, apart from all unscientific and ahistorical exaggeration. But she also knows that to make race thinking absolute, or to make it into a replacement religion — these are false paths, which lead quickly to disaster.
In the original email which went out to subscribers, I mistakenly added a footnote (no. 16) from a summary of a work which I do not endorse. This was a note of mine, taken verbatim from another author, which was *not supposed* to be published.
I do not want to presently give my opinions on any pre-conciliar Popes and their indirect involvement (real or imagined), which in no way pertains to the indefectibility of the Church, with the Judeo-Masonic world order which has ruled the world since WW2.
A humble and judicious retraction, American Reform. I think you have been generous towards Fr Lavery and his concerns, and I hope that he extends the same magnanimity to you. Sadly, I think his (at least) liberal-adjacent tendencies have been a significant problem here.
I encourage you to keep up the same high-quality writing and thinking which is all too rare among many younger Catholics.