Two priests. One, Father Chad Ripperger, traditionalist and exorcist, is silenced. The other, Archbishop James Golka, postconciliar prelate, is the silencer. Attached to the lethal weapon that is Leo XIV's postconciliar, counterfeit 'Church', Golka has somehow made a deal with a man known to millions throughout the world for his conversations with demons, which have informed him of corruption and serious sin within the highest levels of the what should be the Mystical Body of Christ, which will prevent Ripperger from saying anything further in public, for a YEAR.
Fr Ripperger may be a white martyr, sacrificing himself and his priestly ministry in obedience to his bishop. Maybe that silence and obedience will win more souls for Christ than would his usual social media apostolate. Maybe this is heroic virtue which will merit him sainthood. Maybe it will inspire the followers who heard him state - on one of the most watched channels in the United States - that during exorcisms names, rituals, and crimes related to members of the hierarchy have come to light, in solidarity with Ripperger, to take up their cross and follow Christ.
The internet teems with theories on why and how Golka has silenced 'this turbulent priest', formulated by infuriated Catholics. He offended the feminists. He offended the Jews - they're not God's chosen people, Catholics are. He offended the Lavender Mafia who feel repulsed by masculine priests. He offended clerical closet homosexuals. So he's silenced while for Fr James Martin et al it's business as usual.
Which brings us to another little problem in the postconciliar Ape of the Church: the campaign seemingly underway to canonise the satanist Chicagoan Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, a mentor of both Francis and Leo. The Vatican is now vaunting the monstrous Bernardin as "an example for the Church and for the world". https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-10/cardinal-bernardin-an-example-for-the-church-and-the-world.html
If you know anything about the hideous history of Bernardin (if you've read "Windswept House" by another exorcist, Fr Malachi Martin) you're likely thinking that his 'canonisation' will be the last straw. You're likely to hie thee, not to a nunnery because Bergoglio/Francis pretty well exterminated the contemplatives (the powerhouse of prayer in the Church) but to a traditional parish and the Traditonal Latin Mass. And not before time.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB__J1O3e7M
Failing the putative Bernardin 'canonisation', you may well be convinced of the need to go out of the Vatican II Babylon (Rev 18:4) by the banning of the St Michael Archangel Prayer after Mass. Of course it can't be banned, any more than the Latin Mass can be banned, but just watch bishops like Mark Beckman of Knoxville, Tennessee, try to put it over on their flocks.
 |
| self-explanatory |
Then there's the Vatican interreligious dicastery head honcho Cardinal George Koovakad who argues that in his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, Antipope Leo formally included the worst public scandal in Church history - 'St' John Paul II's Assisi interreligious prayer meeting - in the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium.
 |
| On October 27. Pray it doesn't happen |
To cap it all off, today the soft porn peddler Cardinal Tucho Fernandez is inviting all the world to "Come To Me" ("Venite Ad Me"). #TraditionalCatholic #VaticanII #LatinMass #CatholicTwitter #LeoXIV Come to Tucho? Or Come with Tucho? Who would touch Tucho with a 40-foot barge pole even?
Three years ago, the Vatican's Synod website advocated mercy for demons: "What is a Merciful Heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists." The Bergoglians openly admitted their congress with demons. Fr. Malachi Martin and Fr. Gabriele Amorth were right to warn of the alliance between some in the Vatican and the devil. Now they're coming for the exorcists.
Vade retro satana!
More from Chris Jackson at Hiraeth in Exile:
The Exorcist Has Been Asked to Disappear
Apparently, Archbishop James Golka has found a rather efficient method of promoting synodal listening in Denver: persuade one of the most widely recognized traditionalist priests in America to stop speaking publicly for an entire year.
On October 19, the Archdiocese of Denver announced that Golka had recently met with Fr. Chad Ripperger concerning his ministry and the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother, commonly known as the Doloran Fathers. During that meeting, Golka asked Ripperger to undertake a one-year abstention from public speaking and interviews. Ripperger, we are assured, readily agreed.
The archdiocese calls it a voluntary arrangement that will permit the priest to concentrate on his community.
LifesiteNews reports something rather more consequential. Ripperger has canceled scheduled appearances, including his participation in LifeSite’s April 2027 anniversary gala. When asked whether he could contribute a video presentation or something in writing, he declined and referred questions about the restrictions to Denver.
There is a substantial difference between voluntarily reducing an exhausting travel schedule and withdrawing from virtually all public communication at a bishop’s request.
Then came another curiosity. LifeSite found Ripperger listed as retired in Denver’s clergy directory. The designation was subsequently reported removed. Whether this was a clerical mistake, an internal classification decision, or something else remains unexplained.
A priest internationally recognized for his ministry finds himself publicly sidelined. His archbishop releases an agreeable little statement thanking him for his service. Nobody explains the actual problem.
Welcome to the transparency of the synodal Church.
To be precise, Denver has not announced a canonical penalty, and subsequent reporting confirms that Ripperger remains a priest in good standing. The public statement also does not establish that he has been forbidden to celebrate Mass or exercise his priestly ministry privately.
Nevertheless, a priest’s public voice has effectively been withdrawn for twelve months, and the faithful have been given no substantive explanation.
That deserves considerably more scrutiny than another carefully manufactured chancery reassurance.
Ripperger Warned of Vatican Opposition. Seven Months Later, Golka Silenced Him.
There is something distinctly unsettling about the chronology of Fr. Ripperger’s sudden withdrawal from public life, and Archbishop Golka’s carefully sanitized announcement does precious little to explain it.
On March 5, 2026, Ripperger appeared on The Shawn Ryan Show. During the interview, Ryan revealed that he had spoken with some of the priest’s colleagues and had heard that powerful figures within the Church were unhappy with his activities.
Ryan put the matter directly to Ripperger: “The Church, the hierarchy, somebody doesn’t want you doing this.”
Ripperger answered: “That’s true.”
The conversation became considerably more explosive. Ryan explained that he had heard allegations about grave misconduct among high-ranking ecclesiastics supposedly being disclosed during exorcisms. Ripperger described similar experiences and claimed that individuals within the Church’s authority structure had been spiritually compromised.
At approximately 2:26, he acknowledged that people working inside the Vatican were unhappy with aspects of his ministry. He did not identify them, but suggested that those involved in serious wrongdoing would have obvious reasons to resent a priest publicly encouraging Catholics to combat evil.
These allegations are extraordinary. Statements attributed to demons cannot establish that particular churchmen committed crimes, and Ripperger offered no independently verifiable evidence identifying the officials concerned. Yet his acknowledgment that he had encountered ecclesiastical opposition was unequivocal.
Now consider what happened next.
On March 25, James Golka became Archbishop of Denver, assuming responsibility for the ecclesiastical territory in which Ripperger conducts his ministry. On October 19, Golka announced that he had persuaded the exorcist to abandon public speaking and interviews for an entire year.
What an extraordinary coincidence for a priest who had publicly acknowledged that people inside the Church wanted his activities curtailed.
Denver assures us that Ripperger readily agreed. Perhaps he did. A priest facing a request from his archbishop is hardly negotiating on equal terms, however, particularly when his community and apostolate operate within that archbishop’s ecclesiastical territory.
And what precisely was the alleged necessity for this remarkable intervention? Has Golka identified some doctrinal error requiring correction? Has Ripperger committed an offense? Is there an administrative crisis within the Doloran Fathers?
The archdiocese has announced none of these things.
Perhaps Golka acted entirely independently, for legitimate pastoral reasons. But Ripperger’s earlier testimony makes the silence surrounding the decision considerably harder to ignore.
Did Golka know about the Shawn Ryan interview? Had complaints reached Denver from Vatican personnel? Did anyone in Rome express concern about Ripperger’s enormous audience or his disturbing allegations concerning ecclesiastical corruption?
There is presently no evidence that Rome ordered Golka to silence the priest. Nevertheless, these questions are entirely reasonable, and Golka is exceptionally well placed to answer them.
The irony is that a hierarchy forever extolling transparency and synodal listening has once again produced a consequential decision accompanied by almost no explanation.
Perhaps Denver should spend less time assuring Catholics how grateful the archbishop is for Ripperger’s cooperation and a little more time explaining why that cooperation was requested in the first place.
A Traditionalist Exorcist in the Age of Synodality
Fr. Ripperger is hardly an obscure diocesan curate. Ordained in 1997 for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, he subsequently left the Fraternity and founded the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother in 2012.
He served as an exorcist in Tulsa before relocating his ministry to Denver in 2016, where Archbishop Samuel Aquila received the Doloran Fathers as a public association of the faithful.
Ripperger’s prominence has grown dramatically through books, conferences, and appearances on major podcasts, including those hosted by Tucker Carlson and Shawn Ryan.
His attraction to many traditional Catholics is understandable. He speaks openly about Hell, Satan, mortal sin, demonic possession, penance, spiritual warfare, and the necessity of supernatural grace.
These subjects occupied a central place in traditional Catholic preaching long before churchmen discovered the apparent necessity of discussing everything through the vocabulary of dialogue, accompaniment, inclusion, and lived experience.
Ripperger’s message is frequently severe. It is certainly unconventional by contemporary ecclesiastical standards. He also attracts an audience extending far beyond the usual traditionalist Catholic circles.
There is something particularly revealing about Golka’s own understanding of the modern Catholic media landscape.
In a June 29 interview with the National Catholic Reporter, the archbishop complained about Catholic YouTubers who, he suggested, were interested in making money and dividing the faithful. He also insisted that the Church must continue along the synodal path, becoming more attentive to the movement of the Spirit.
Golka did not identify Ripperger as one of the offending commentators. Nevertheless, the contrast is striking. Here is a priest whose interviews attract millions of viewers, speaking openly about subjects increasingly neglected in ordinary Catholic preaching. Seven months after Ripperger publicly acknowledged opposition within the ecclesiastical establishment, his new archbishop has asked him to withdraw from public speaking.
There is another curiosity. According to Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is, Golka and Ripperger had previously appeared together at a 2023 rosary rally and a November 2025 men’s conference. The priest and his public ministry were hardly unknown to the incoming archbishop.
Perhaps Golka has identified a genuine pastoral problem. Perhaps his concerns involve the priest’s controversial statements rather than his popularity. The archdiocese has offered no explanation sufficient to settle those questions.
For a churchman who has repeatedly praised listening and dialogue, Golka has created an extraordinary situation: millions of Catholics are left wondering why one of their most recognizable priests has agreed to spend a year without speaking publicly.
Apparently, the listening Church is still working out precisely whom it wishes to hear.
The Revised Exorcism Rite and the Postconciliar Discomfort With the Devil
There is a deeper theological question behind this affair.
For decades, traditionalist Catholics have criticized the postconciliar tendency to reinterpret supernatural realities through psychological, sociological, and therapeutic categories.
That tendency becomes particularly consequential when discussing demonic possession.
In 1999, the Vatican promulgated a revised rite of exorcism, replacing the older ritual substantially associated with the Rituale Romanum of 1614.
Among its critics was Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the famous Roman exorcist who died in 2016.
In a remarkable June 2001 interview with 30 Days, Amorth complained that the men responsible for the revision had failed to obtain sufficient practical input from experienced exorcists. He objected to restrictions concerning cases involving alleged curses and criticized the removal of prayers whose effectiveness, he believed, had been demonstrated through centuries of use.
Amorth went considerably further than merely expressing a liturgical preference. He described the revised prayers as ineffective in his experience.
That is a serious accusation from someone who devoted decades to the ministry in question.
Amorth’s objections illustrate an enduring question: what happens when a liturgical reform conducted in the name of modern pastoral sensitivity appears, to experienced practitioners, to have discarded practices they consider spiritually effective?
The traditional Catholic critique concerns the wider mentality behind such reforms. Modern churchmen frequently exhibit extraordinary confidence in the latest psychological categories while treating inherited Catholic practices as embarrassing remnants of an insufficiently enlightened age.
Proper psychiatric evaluation is essential. Genuine mental illness must never be casually declared possession, and an exorcist has a grave responsibility to distinguish the two.
But acknowledging medicine’s legitimate role hardly requires placing supernatural realities under the permanent supervision of modern therapeutic assumptions.
Traditional Catholicism insists that the devil is real, Hell is real, mortal sin is real, and spiritual combat is considerably more serious than a metaphor for overcoming personal difficulties.
Ripperger proclaims those realities without apparent embarrassment.
Could that be part of what makes him uncomfortable company for the contemporary ecclesiastical establishment?
It is a question Golka could easily help answer by explaining his decision.
A Celebrity Exorcist Is Still Accountable
There is another side to the affair, and it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it.
Ripperger has become something of a celebrity priest, complete with an expanding audience interested in demons, occult practices, supernatural experiences, and the hidden workings of evil.
That celebrity comes with dangers of its own.
During his appearances with Tucker Carlson and Shawn Ryan, Ripperger spoke about identifying demons by name and obtaining information from them during exorcisms. He described subsequently researching names associated with figures from pagan mythology, including Loki and Isis.
The traditional rite itself permits an exorcist to ask certain restricted questions, including the demon’s name, when necessary for the ministry. Such questioning is not automatically an abuse.
But the distinction between obtaining information necessary to expel an evil spirit and treating statements attributed to demons as a source of historical or theological knowledge deserves careful attention.
Demons, after all, are traditionally understood as deceivers. Their supposed disclosures are hardly reliable primary sources.
Ripperger’s claims concerning elaborate demonic hierarchies, ancestral influences, and particular mythological personalities sometimes appear to go well beyond what can be established from Scripture and the Church’s authoritative teaching.
An exorcist’s experience deserves respect. His conclusions remain subject to theological examination.
And there is a practical concern when such claims reach audiences unfamiliar with Catholic teaching. The more sensational the subject, the more important the distinction between revealed doctrine, traditional theological opinion, clinical evidence, and an exorcist’s personal interpretation.
There have also been criticisms of Ripperger’s statements about psychological disorders. Claims suggesting that serious psychiatric conditions can routinely be resolved through spiritual intervention require especially careful scrutiny. Nobody should abandon prescribed treatment on the basis of such assertions.
These are legitimate subjects for episcopal oversight.
Indeed, in March 2026, Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is published a lengthy criticism of Ripperger’s teachings and expressed hope that incoming Archbishop Golka would examine them.
That article establishes that left-wing critics were already calling for intervention months before this week’s announcement.
It does not establish that Golka agreed with those critics or acted at their request.
But here is the essential question: if Ripperger has publicly taught something contrary to Catholic doctrine, what exactly was it?
If the archbishop has identified errors, the faithful would benefit from knowing what those errors are. If the concern instead involves the administration of the Doloran Fathers or the burdens of Ripperger’s celebrity, that should be explained as well.
A year of silence accompanied by ecclesiastical pleasantries resolves none of these questions.
Judaism, Ecumenism, and the Boundaries of Acceptable Theology
Another possible source of controversy is Ripperger’s treatment of Judaism.
During his March appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, he articulated a traditional Christian understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, arguing that the Church is the people of the New Covenant and that the Mosaic religious order found its fulfillment in Christ.
Ripperger went further, describing the Jewish people’s rejection of Christ in collective terms and arguing that Christians now occupy the status of the chosen people.
Such statements are sharply at odds with the conciliatory language that has dominated Catholic-Jewish relations since Vatican II. Has Golka objected to Ripperger’s public discussion of these matters? Has any complaint concerning his statements about Judaism been communicated to him?
We have no verified evidence establishing either proposition.
Still, an archbishop anxious to preserve contemporary ecumenical relationships might reasonably regard such a prominent traditionalist voice as troublesome.
The appropriate response would be an open theological examination of his specific claims, with clear distinctions between legitimate doctrinal disagreement and genuinely objectionable assertions.
A mysterious year of silence merely encourages speculation.
The Rifle, the Chapel, and the Limits of Clerical Publicity
During a July 2026 appearance with Shawn Ryan, Ripperger posed holding a rifle in what appeared to be a church sanctuary.
The image predictably provoked controversy.
Ripperger subsequently explained that the chapel was unfinished, had not been dedicated, and was still under construction. There is no established basis for claiming that he posed with the firearm before the Blessed Sacrament.
It is also fair to question whether an exorcist priest should turn a sanctuary-like setting into the backdrop for an enthusiastic firearms photograph.
The older canonical tradition generally discouraged clerics from carrying weapons. The fact that a priest may lawfully own a firearm does not mean every public display of one is prudent.
What I find more interesting is the reaction the episode generated. On July 30, Where Peter Is devoted another lengthy article to criticizing Ripperger over the rifle.
The same publication had already urged Golka to scrutinize his broader teaching.
The photograph thus became another flashpoint in the campaign of public criticism surrounding Ripperger.
Did it influence Golka’s decision? There is no evidence presently establishing that.
Nor have I found a documented statement demonstrating that Golka personally objects to lawful firearm ownership.
It would therefore be irresponsible to announce that an anti-gun archbishop punished an armed priest.
But the spectacle remains revealing. Considerable ecclesiastical energy is spent debating a photograph of a priest holding a rifle in an unfinished chapel, while far more consequential controversies concerning doctrine, liturgy, and episcopal accountability remain unresolved.
One would hope that the modern hierarchy retains at least as much zeal for condemning mortal sin as it possesses for managing troublesome public images.
The Chiclayo Affair: Did Golka Help Neutralize an Abuse Victims’ Advocate?
My suspicions about James Golka go back well before his decision to silence Fr. Ripperger.
In February, I published “Leo XIV’s Golka Appointment: Rewarding a Cover-Up”, examining Golka’s involvement in the destruction of Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue’s ecclesiastical career. Coronado was a Peruvian priest and experienced canon lawyer who undertook the representation of three women alleging childhood sexual abuse by priests in Chiclayo, Robert Prevost’s former diocese.
The chronology is damning enough to demand an explanation.
On May 6, 2024, Coronado began representing the women. Twenty-five days later, Golka, under whom Coronado had previously served in Colorado Springs, signed a decree identifying him as under canonical investigation and questioning his suitability for ecclesiastical ministry.
According to El País, Golka described Coronado as unfit for the welfare of the faithful and accused him of pursuing frivolous lawsuits against diocesan authorities.
By August, the Peruvian Episcopal Conference had publicly declared Coronado ineligible to practice as a canonical advocate, effectively removing him from the women’s case.
Golka’s decree therefore formed part of the documented disciplinary history surrounding a priest whose ability to pursue extraordinarily sensitive abuse allegations was subsequently extinguished.
There had been an earlier dispute between Golka and Coronado, including restrictions imposed in 2023. That history prevents the May 2024 chronology from proving retaliation by itself. But it hardly settles the question of whether Golka’s subsequent intervention was justified.
Coronado has accused Golka of acting outside his canonical jurisdiction and, even more seriously, of subsequently modifying his decree without disclosing the changes to the defense. In an October 2025 rebuttal published by InfoVaticana, Coronado also accused Prevost of directing the investigation against him.
These are serious allegations against identifiable ecclesiastical officials. They deserve answers supported by the actual documents, canonical authority, and procedural record.
And what of the women whose allegations originally brought this controversy into the open?
Their complaints concerned Fr. Eleuterio Vásquez González, known as “Lute.” Recordings published by InfoVaticana in November 2025 captured diocesan investigator Giampiero Gambaro criticizing the previous ecclesiastical investigation as deeply superficial and procedurally defective. He described its handling in scathing terms and acknowledged serious errors extending into the Holy See.
Other recordings indicated that Prevost’s restrictions on the accused priest had stopped short of a general suspension from public ministry.
Consider the contrast.
A priest accused of abusing children remained free from a comprehensive suspension under the initial measures, according to the investigator’s account. Meanwhile, the canon lawyer representing his alleged victims found himself subjected to ecclesiastical proceedings that ultimately ended his clerical career.
Coronado faced allegations of his own, which he denies. Those accusations merit fair examination. They cannot serve as a convenient substitute for examining whether the hierarchy acted properly toward the women or whether Golka’s decree was lawful.
The attempts to discredit Coronado’s role deserve scrutiny as well. InfoVaticana subsequently documented his earlier representation of complainants against the Sodalitium organization, complicating the claim that he was simply operating on its behalf. One Chiclayo complainant also formally challenged El País’ portrayal of her October 2025 interview, insisting that Prevost’s handling of the case had serious deficiencies. She had separately criticized Coronado’s motives, but criticism of her lawyer did not amount to an exoneration of the hierarchy.
The suspicion of institutional retaliation remains a serious one. Did Golka’s actions serve legitimate disciplinary purposes, or did they contribute to neutralizing an advocate whose work threatened to expose failures in Prevost’s former diocese?
Golka’s signature on the May 31 decree is documented, as are the later restrictions on Coronado’s advocacy and the deficiencies alleged in the original abuse investigation.
Now this same archbishop has obtained a yearlong withdrawal from Fr. Chad Ripperger, another controversial priest whose public ministry has attracted opposition within the ecclesiastical establishment.
The circumstances differ. The recurring concern is whether episcopal authority is being exercised for demonstrably legitimate purposes or to contain men whose activities create difficulties for the hierarchy.
For an archbishop presiding over a Church supposedly committed to transparency, Golka has some serious questions to answer.
And Catholics have every reason to keep asking them.
The Servants of the Holy Family: Golka’s Other Campaign Against Tradition
My suspicions about James Golka go back well before his decision to silence Fr. Ripperger.
In February, I published “Leo XIV’s Golka Appointment: Rewarding a Cover-Up”, examining Golka’s involvement in the destruction of Ricardo Coronado-Arrascue’s ecclesiastical career. Coronado was a Peruvian priest and experienced canon lawyer who undertook the representation of three women alleging childhood sexual abuse by priests in Chiclayo, Robert Prevost’s former diocese.
The chronology is damning enough to demand an explanation.
On May 6, 2024, Coronado began representing the women. Twenty-five days later, Golka, under whom Coronado had previously served in Colorado Springs, signed a decree identifying him as under canonical investigation and questioning his suitability for ecclesiastical ministry.
According to El País, Golka described Coronado as unfit for the welfare of the faithful and accused him of pursuing frivolous lawsuits against diocesan authorities.
By August, the Peruvian Episcopal Conference had publicly declared Coronado ineligible to practice as a canonical advocate, effectively removing him from the women’s case.
Golka’s decree therefore formed part of the documented disciplinary history surrounding a priest whose ability to pursue extraordinarily sensitive abuse allegations was subsequently extinguished.
There had been an earlier dispute between Golka and Coronado, including restrictions imposed in 2023. That history prevents the May 2024 chronology from proving retaliation by itself. But it hardly settles the question of whether Golka’s subsequent intervention was justified.
Coronado has accused Golka of acting outside his canonical jurisdiction and, even more seriously, of subsequently modifying his decree without disclosing the changes to the defense. In an October 2025 rebuttal published by InfoVaticana, Coronado also accused Prevost of directing the investigation against him.
These are serious allegations against identifiable ecclesiastical officials. They deserve answers supported by the actual documents, canonical authority, and procedural record.
And what of the women whose allegations originally brought this controversy into the open?
Their complaints concerned Fr. Eleuterio Vásquez González, known as “Lute.” Recordings published by InfoVaticana in November 2025 captured diocesan investigator Giampiero Gambaro criticizing the previous ecclesiastical investigation as deeply superficial and procedurally defective. He described its handling in scathing terms and acknowledged serious errors extending into the Holy See.
Other recordings indicated that Prevost’s restrictions on the accused priest had stopped short of a general suspension from public ministry.
Consider the contrast.
A priest accused of abusing children remained free from a comprehensive suspension under the initial measures, according to the investigator’s account. Meanwhile, the canon lawyer representing his alleged victims found himself subjected to ecclesiastical proceedings that ultimately ended his clerical career.
Coronado faced allegations of his own, which he denies. Those accusations merit fair examination. They cannot serve as a convenient substitute for examining whether the hierarchy acted properly toward the women or whether Golka’s decree was lawful.
The attempts to discredit Coronado’s role deserve scrutiny as well. InfoVaticana subsequently documented his earlier representation of complainants against the Sodalitium organization, complicating the claim that he was simply operating on its behalf. One Chiclayo complainant also formally challenged El País’ portrayal of her October 2025 interview, insisting that Prevost’s handling of the case had serious deficiencies. She had separately criticized Coronado’s motives, but criticism of her lawyer did not amount to an exoneration of the hierarchy.
The suspicion of institutional retaliation remains a serious one. Did Golka’s actions serve legitimate disciplinary purposes, or did they contribute to neutralizing an advocate whose work threatened to expose failures in Prevost’s former diocese?
Golka’s signature on the May 31 decree is documented, as are the later restrictions on Coronado’s advocacy and the deficiencies alleged in the original abuse investigation.
Now this same archbishop has obtained a yearlong withdrawal from Fr. Chad Ripperger, another controversial priest whose public ministry has attracted opposition within the ecclesiastical establishment.
The circumstances differ. The recurring concern is whether episcopal authority is being exercised for demonstrably legitimate purposes or to contain men whose activities create difficulties for the hierarchy.
For an archbishop presiding over a Church supposedly committed to transparency, Golka has some serious questions to answer.
And Catholics have every reason to keep asking them.
The Servants of the Holy Family: Golka’s Other Campaign Against Tradition
For anyone inclined to believe that James Golka’s difficulties with traditionalist priests began with Fr. Chad Ripperger, there is another controversy worth examining. This one involves an entire community of priests dedicated to the traditional Latin Mass, a former disciple of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and a Vatican excommunication delivered through Golka himself.
The Servants of the Holy Family were founded in Colorado Springs in 1977 by Fr. Anthony Ward, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1973. Ward had helped establish the Society of Saint Pius X in America before leaving to found his own religious community. For nearly half a century, the Servants have maintained the traditional Mass, Divine Office, sacramental rites, and preconciliar Catholic teaching.
Their relationship with the diocesan authorities has been contentious for decades. Ward and his priests sought canonical recognition, corresponded with Vatican officials, and received assistance from sympathetic Catholic bishops. But recognition never came.
According to the community’s own history, the local bishops also refused to administer Confirmation to their faithful according to the traditional rites, forcing them to invite bishops from elsewhere.
Then Golka entered the picture.
In April 2024, while Bishop of Colorado Springs, Golka issued a declaration describing the Servants as a schismatic group. He characterized their celebration of Mass as illicit and a grave moral offense, warned Catholics that attending their ceremonies involved spiritual danger, and declared several of their sacramental ministrations invalid.
Think about that. A community founded to preserve the traditional Catholic priesthood and sacramental life was publicly presented to the faithful as spiritually dangerous.
The immediate controversy concerned Ward’s episcopal consecration on March 19, 2024, by retired Archbishop Telesphore George Mpundu of Lusaka, Zambia, without a pontifical mandate.
That is a serious canonical matter, and it deserves examination under the Church’s laws governing episcopal consecration. The historical difficulties surrounding traditionalist bishops, however, also require examining the extraordinary circumstances under which Catholic priests have sought to preserve the traditional sacraments since Vatican II.
Ward and the Servants argued that their decision arose from decades of frustrated efforts to secure regular episcopal assistance and canonical recognition. Whether that necessity justified their particular course of action is a legitimate theological and canonical question. It cannot be settled merely by repeating the word schismatic.
But Golka’s campaign did not end with his declaration.
On November 10, 2025, according to the Servants’ published monograph, Golka informed Ward that he had been excommunicated and that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, had directed the bishop to initiate proceedings for Ward’s dismissal from the clerical state.
Yes, Cardinal Fernández. The same Fernández whose theological career has become synonymous with the doctrinal adventures of Francis’s Rome was presiding over the dicastery responsible for this disciplinary action against a traditionalist bishop.
The irony is difficult to miss.
In their November 18 Monograph in Defense of Our Catholic Faith, Ward and his priests rejected the penalties as unlawful and defended their mission of preserving the traditional Mass and sacraments.
They also challenged the very premise that fidelity to Catholic Tradition could constitute grounds for separation from the Church.
EWTN’s December reporting, by contrast, adopted the diocesan characterization of the community as schismatic. InfoVaticana supplied the additional history of Ward’s association with Lefebvre and the community’s efforts to continue traditional sacramental life.
One need not endorse every decision made by Ward to recognize that Golka’s involvement was extensive and consequential. He declared the community schismatic, warned Catholics away from its sacraments, communicated the Vatican’s excommunication, and, according to the Servants’ account, was directed to pursue Ward’s removal from the clerical state.
This is considerably more than an unfortunate difference of liturgical taste.
And now Golka has obtained a yearlong withdrawal from public speaking by another priest whose uncompromising presentation of traditional Catholicism has attracted an enormous following.
Ward’s unauthorized episcopal consecration and Ripperger’s public ministry present different canonical circumstances. But both controversies demonstrate Golka’s willingness to exercise substantial ecclesiastical authority against traditionalist clergy whose apostolates operate beyond the ordinary diocesan framework.
The bishop who praises synodal listening has certainly demonstrated that he knows how to deliver disciplinary judgments.
What remains considerably less apparent is how much sympathy he has for the traditional Catholic priests and communities attempting to preserve what the postconciliar revolution has spent sixty years dismantling.
Rachel Mastrogiacomo: Who Really Ordered Her Off the Stage?
There is another troubling episode involving Archbishop Golka and the treatment of traditional Catholics in Denver, one I have investigated extensively in Hiraeth in Exile.
At the September 26 Restore Tradition Women’s Conference in Littleton, Colorado, Rachel Mastrogiacomo, a survivor of clerical abuse whose return to the traditional Catholic faith played a central role in her healing, was interrupted twice while delivering a speech critical of the Novus Ordo, Pachamama, and the postconciliar crisis.
The controversy began long before she approached the microphone.
As I documented in my original investigation, conference organizer Jane Brennan acknowledged in July correspondence that concerns about Rachel’s association with the Society of Saint Pius X had reached the host parish and Archbishop Golka. Brennan explained that ecclesiastical authorities would ultimately determine whether the invited speakers could participate.
The chancery subsequently supplied conditions governing the speakers’ appearances, including restrictions against promoting the SSPX or undermining ecclesiastical authority.
Rachel agreed to those conditions.
Even more revealing, a recorded preconference conversation establishes that Brennan waived the requirement to submit a speech outline and expressly encouraged Rachel to tell her story as she wished.
She was cleared to speak. She never promoted the SSPX during her presentation. Yet when her remarks turned toward the spiritual crisis in the Church and the deficiencies she perceived in the postconciliar liturgy, her presentation was interrupted.
Then her appearance disappeared from the conference’s online schedule.
Here is where matters become particularly uncomfortable for Denver.
A source told Hiraeth in Exile that a priest described as knowledgeable about the incident had attributed the instruction to curtail Rachel’s remarks to Archbishop Golka himself.
I have not independently verified that account. But it did not emerge in a vacuum: Golka’s involvement in the earlier review of conference speakers was already documented.
Conference speaker Abby Johnson subsequently claimed that a priest at the host parish had requested Rachel’s removal from the stage. Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish has expressly denied that Fr. Matthew McCarthy, or anyone representing the parish, gave such an instruction.
Restore Tradition’s organizers have also stated that the decision to remove Rachel from their website was theirs alone, without instructions from the archdiocese or parish. Her listing and recording were later restored.
Those statements deserve acknowledgment. But a denial concerning the website does not answer who instructed the emcee to interrupt the speech. And the parish’s denial leaves Johnson’s account, as well as my source’s allegation concerning Golka, in direct conflict with the official explanation.
So who gave the instruction?
Did Golka or anyone in his chancery communicate with conference personnel during Rachel’s presentation? Did someone interpret the previously imposed conditions as prohibiting criticism of the Novus Ordo or the postconciliar hierarchy? Or did the organizers make the decision entirely on their own?
These questions are especially pertinent because Denver’s ecclesiastical authorities had already involved themselves in scrutinizing Rachel’s traditionalist affiliations.
If Golka had nothing to do with the interruption, a clear account identifying who made the decision would go a long way toward resolving the controversy.
Instead, Catholics are left with conflicting explanations and an unanswered question about who exercised authority over a woman who had been expressly permitted to speak.
Three weeks later, Golka requested Fr. Ripperger’s yearlong withdrawal from public speaking. Ripperger had himself addressed the same women’s conference in September.
That coincidence establishes no connection between the incidents. Nevertheless, it gives traditional Catholics another reason to examine closely how ecclesiastical authority is being exercised in Denver.
The archdiocese had plenty to say before Rachel Mastrogiacomo spoke.
It would be useful to hear something definitive about who decided she should stop.
Why Was Ripperger Silenced?
Several explanations remain possible.
Golka may genuinely believe that Ripperger needs to devote more attention to his community. He may have concerns about the administration of the Doloran Fathers, the accuracy of particular public teachings, or the pastoral risks associated with a celebrity exorcism ministry.
Those would be recognizable episcopal concerns.
There is also the possibility of ideological discomfort: a high-profile priest preaching traditional doctrines concerning sin, judgment, supernatural evil, and the necessity of conversion has acquired enormous influence outside ordinary diocesan communication channels.
Such independence can be inconvenient to bishops accustomed to controlling the public presentation of Catholic teaching within their territories.
The pressure exerted by Ripperger’s critics, the controversies surrounding his podcast appearances, his disputed theological claims, and his unapologetically traditional religious identity all form part of the public background.
But none presently establishes Golka’s actual motive.
And that brings us back to the archbishop’s remarkably uninformative statement.
If the decision arose from legitimate pastoral necessity, explain the necessity. If doctrinal concerns are involved, identify them. If Ripperger requested relief from an excessive public schedule, provide enough information to establish that this is genuinely what happened.
The faithful deserve clarity, particularly when a priest’s public apostolate has reached millions of people.
For a hierarchy forever lecturing Catholics about the importance of listening, Denver has demonstrated a striking reluctance to explain what anyone is supposed to have heard.
Perhaps the great synodal accomplishment of October 2026 is that Archbishop Golka has finally discovered a voice he prefers not to hear.
One year from now, we are told, the arrangement will be reviewed.
Until then, the archbishop may continue speaking.
Fr. Ripperger apparently will not.
October 21, 2026 Update: The Earlier Investigation Denver Never Mentioned
Newly reported correspondence has added an important dimension to the controversy surrounding Archbishop James Golka’s restriction of Fr. Chad Ripperger’s public ministry.
According to AdVaticanum and an investigation by Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is, Denver investigated Ripperger in 2025 over concerns about his public statements concerning psychiatric conditions and medication.
The investigation began under Golka’s predecessor, Archbishop Samuel Aquila.
In a March 21, 2025 letter, Aquila expressed concern that Ripperger had allegedly encouraged people suffering from psychiatric conditions to consider abandoning medication in favor of exclusively spiritual remedies. Aquila directed that the priest refrain from counseling people and advising them to discontinue medication while an investigation proceeded.
The archdiocese subsequently consulted Fr. David Songy, a Capuchin priest with doctoral training in clinical psychology. Songy examined statements in which Ripperger associated bipolar disorder with demonic obsession and expressed concern that listeners might confuse psychiatric illness with spiritual affliction.
Significantly, Songy acknowledged that Ripperger’s statements might not constitute a canonical violation, particularly because the priest distinguished demonic obsession from possession. Nevertheless, he recommended restrictions designed to prevent potentially harmful misunderstandings.
In August 2025, Aquila issued a formal decree requiring Ripperger to observe professional boundaries, use appropriate disclaimers, consult qualified specialists before making statements about psychology and psychiatry, and remove certain videos from public circulation.
The available correspondence describes those restrictions, although the complete decree has not been publicly produced.
There is another detail worth mentioning.
During a January 19, 2026 interview with Matt Gaspers, Ripperger expressly cautioned listeners considering discontinuing antidepressants to consult their physicians. Whatever criticisms might be leveled against his broader approach to psychiatric illness, that statement demonstrates that he was capable of making the distinction diocesan authorities had demanded.
The newly disclosed correspondence certainly complicates the notion that Ripperger’s difficulties began when Golka arrived in Denver. They did not.
But it also raises questions about what happened afterward.
Did Golka inherit an active disciplinary matter from Aquila? Did the archdiocese determine that Ripperger violated the 2025 decree? Was the investigation ever formally concluded, and were the earlier restrictions modified or lifted? Were medical concerns discussed during the meeting that produced the yearlong suspension of public speaking?
Most importantly, if the October 2026 decision arose from specific violations of previously imposed restrictions, why did Denver describe it exclusively as a mutually agreeable opportunity for Ripperger to concentrate on his religious community?
There are serious pastoral reasons to insist that priests refrain from offering medical advice outside their competence. Catholic belief in demonic influence does not require dismissing legitimate psychiatric treatment or encouraging vulnerable people to discontinue prescribed medications.
Yet such concerns do not automatically establish the necessity or proportionality of a yearlong withdrawal from virtually all public communication.
Nor do they establish Golka’s actual motives.
The timing of Ripperger’s widely publicized allegations concerning corruption within the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains part of the story. So does the earlier investigation. Neither provides conclusive proof of why Golka acted.
What has changed is that the public now knows Denver possessed a substantial disciplinary history involving Ripperger that was entirely absent from its October 19 announcement.
This makes transparency more important, not less.
The faithful deserve to know whether the archbishop’s decision responded to a documented violation, a concern about the priest’s growing celebrity, an unresolved disagreement over medical and theological claims, or some combination of these.
Until Denver explains the relationship between the 2025 decree and the October 2026 restriction, the central question remains unanswered:
Why exactly has Fr. Chad Ripperger been asked to disappear from public speaking for an entire year?Golka Silences Fr. Ripperger: Another Year of Synodal Listening, Provided Nobody Speaks
 |
| St Anthony Mary Claret Luis de Madrazo St Anthony Mary Claret, please pray for the Church |
No comments:
Post a Comment