The “Misunderstanding” That Reveals a Church Without Christ the King
The Pillar portal reports that Fr. Jakob Rolland, chancellor of the Diocese of Reykjavík, claims allegations of advocating illegal “conversion therapy” stem from a journalist’s misunderstanding during an interview about Catholic teaching on sexuality and Holy Communion. Rolland states he explained that a lesbian journalist in a same-sex relationship would need to “reconsider her way of life” to become Catholic and receive Communion, but did not advocate trying to change sexual attraction itself. The incident sparked national controversy, police investigations, and political calls for prosecution, while also generating unexpected interest in conversion to the Catholic Church. Rolland laments that Catholic sexual morality is deemed “unsuitable” in Icelandic society and notes support from other religious groups, including Lutherans seeking to convert.
The central tragedy is not a media “misunderstanding,” but the profound, systemic apostasy of the conciliar sect’s clergy, who operate within a framework that has deliberately dismantled the supernatural, hierarchical, and missionary nature of the Catholic Church. Rolland’s statements, however well-intentioned, are a natural fruit of the post-conciliar revolution—a compromised, naturalistic, and ineffective half-measure that cannot and will not save souls. His error lies not in stating Church teaching, but in presenting it through the lens of a “church” that has abandoned the absolute, non-negotiable demands of Christ the King and the sacramental economy He instituted.
1. Factual Deconstruction: A “Teaching” That Is No Teaching at All
The article presents Rolland’s explanation as a correct, if awkwardly communicated, presentation of Catholic doctrine. This is false. His language is that of the conciliar sect’s modernized, psychological, and pastoral jargon, utterly alien to the uncompromising moral theology of the Catholic Church.
* **On “Reconsidering a Way of Life”:** The Catholic Church does not merely ask sinners to “reconsider” their way of life. She commands, with the authority of Christ, a **firm purpose of amendment** (propositio emendationis), which is an essential part of the Sacrament of Penance. This is not optional counseling; it is a divine law. Rolland’s phrasing reduces a supernatural obligation to a vague personal choice. The true Catholic teaching, as defined by the Council of Trent, is that for mortal sin (which includes all deliberate sexual acts outside of valid marriage), **contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction by works are required for forgiveness**. There is no “reconsideration” without the intention to cease sinning immediately and permanently. His language implies a process of discernment rather than the absolute “Go and sin no more” of Our Lord (John 8:11).
* **On “Inclination vs. Sin”:** While technically correct that an inclination is not a sin, the conciliar sect’s presentation obsessively separates the *inclination* from the *act*, creating a false dichotomy. Traditional Catholic moral theology, following St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches that while the *temptation* (probatio) is not sinful, **deliberate consent to the sinful thought or desire is a mortal sin**. More importantly, the modern focus on “orientation” is a product of 20th-century psychology, not Catholic doctrine. The Church’s consistent teaching, from the Fathers through the Syllabus of Errors (condemning proposition #58: “All the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches… and the gratification of pleasure”), is that **the flesh must be mortified** (Colossians 3:5). The “inclination” itself, if not mortified through prayer, fasting, and avoidance of occasions, is a disorder to be fought, not a neutral identity to be “accepted.” Rolland’s silence on the necessity of asceticism and the virtue of chastity is a catastrophic omission.
* **On the Goal of “Becoming Catholic”:** The ultimate goal is not membership in an institution or adherence to a set of beliefs. It is **salvation of the soul** from eternal damnation. The article’s entire framework is sociological (media controversy, police investigation, societal acceptance) rather than supernatural. There is zero mention of the **state of grace**, the **necessity of sanctifying grace**, the **reality of Hell**, or the **final judgment**. This is the hallmark of the conciliar sect: it has replaced the doctrine of *salus animarum* (the salvation of souls) with the doctrine of *acceptatio socialis* (social acceptance). The “conversion” Rolland describes is reduced to a change of intellectual assent and lifestyle, not the **regeneration of the soul by Baptism** and the continuous **cooperation with sanctifying grace** through the sacraments.
2. Linguistic & Rhetorical Analysis: The Language of Naturalism and Victimhood
The tone of the article, and by extension Rolland’s reported statements, is one of defensive naturalism. Key phrases reveal the infected mentality:
* **“Conversion therapy”:** The priest uses the term coined by the world’s legal and psychological establishments, which is designed to frame all attempts to change sexual behavior as coercive and harmful. A Catholic priest should **refuse to use this category**. The true Catholic act is not “therapy” but **pastoral correction, fraternal admonition, and the call to repentance**. By accepting the terminology, Rolland concedes the debate to the world’s framework. He should have stated: “The Church does not practice ‘conversion therapy’ as defined by man’s law. She practices the **ministry of reconciliation** (2 Corinthians 5:18), calling souls to repentance and amendment of life according to the immutable Law of God.”
* **“She asked if I meant that she should change”:** Rolland’s reported answer, “Well, that’s your choice,” is an abdication of prophetic authority. The prophet does not present God’s law as a “choice” among options. He declares: “Thus saith the Lord!” The Catholic priest, acting *in persona Christi*, must proclaim the moral law as **non-negotiable and binding under pain of eternal damnation**. To present it as a “choice” is to reduce the Ten Commandments to a menu item. This is the language of the post-Vatican II “church” of dialogue, not the **Catholic Church of dogmatic definitions and canonical penalties**.
* **“They are fed up with this LGBT propaganda… They are afraid.”:** This appeal to the fear and frustration of young people is a classic modernist tactic—aligning with a perceived popular sentiment against a specific manifestation of evil (LGBT propaganda) while maintaining the same naturalistic and personalist foundations that allow the evil to exist. The true Catholic response is not to exploit societal fatigue, but to **preach the Cross**. Young people need to hear that they are called to **heroic chastity**, to **take up their cross**, and to **fight the concupiscence of the flesh** with the sacraments and asceticism. The article frames the issue as one of “freedom to criticize,” not the **freedom of the children of God** (Romans 8:21) from slavery to sin and Satan.
* **“Support from Bahá’í people… Viking religion… Lutherans”:** This is presented as a positive sign. For a Catholic, it is a symptom of **religious indifferentism**, a plague condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Propositions #15, #16, #17). The “Viking religion” (a neo-pagan sect) and the Bahá’í Faith are **false religions**. Lutheranism is a **heresy**. Their support for a Catholic priest’s statement on sexual morality is not a victory; it is a proof that his statement was so watered-down and naturalistic that it could be endorsed by non-Catholics. The true Catholic faith is **exclusive**: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church there is no salvation). Any “support” from outside the true Church is a sign that the message has been compromised to fit the world’s lowest common denominator.
3. Theological Confrontation: The Absolute Primacy of God’s Law Over Human Law
The entire incident revolves around the conflict between Icelandic law (banning “conversion therapy”) and divine law. Rolland’s position, as reported, is a weak attempt to find a “middle ground” that satisfies neither. The true Catholic position, from *Quas Primas* and the *Syllabus*, is one of **uncompromising war**.
* **Christ the King’s Reign Over All Societies:** Pope Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, declared that the Kingdom of Christ “encompasses all men” and that “it matters not whether individuals, families, or states, for men united in societies are no less subject to the authority of Christ than individuals.” He explicitly states that rulers must publicly honor Christ and obey Him, and that laws must be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments. **Icelandic law, which prohibits the preaching of repentance from mortal sin under the guise of banning “conversion therapy,” is a direct violation of the reign of Christ the King.** It is a **Syllabus Error #44**: “The secular power has authority to… pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church.” The state is usurping a power that belongs to God alone. The Catholic response must be: **“We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)**. Rolland’s attempt to explain his way out of a legal contradiction shows he does not believe in the **social reign of Christ**.
* **The Nature of Pastoral Authority:** Rolland says the journalist asked if the Church provides “such counseling.” The Catholic Church does not provide “counseling” as a psychological service. She provides **sacramental confession, spiritual direction, and the preaching of the Gospel**. The priest’s role is not to be a therapist but a **judge and physician of souls** (*iudex et medicus*), as defined by the Council of Trent. His power to bind and loose (John 20:23) is a **judicial and sacramental power**, not a consultative one. By reducing his role to offering “counseling,” he empties the priesthood of its supernatural character and makes it a mere functionary of the natural order.
* **The Omission of the Sacramental System:** The article mentions the Eucharist and the requirement of a state of grace. But it says nothing about the **necessity of sacramental confession** for those in mortal sin to return to a state of grace. This is the central, missing element. A person in a same-sex relationship living in mortal sin **cannot receive Communion** (Canon 916). To receive Communion, they must first **confess their sins to a priest with contrition and purpose of amendment**. This is not “counseling”; it is the **Sacrament of Penance**, a judicial act where the priest, by the power of the keys, **absolves** or **retains** sins. The entire conciliar post-*Ordo Paenitentiae* (1974) has gutted this sacrament, turning it into a “reconciliation service” with general absolution and a focus on “healing” rather than **judgment and remission of sins**. Rolland’s silence on the absolute necessity of sacramental confession for someone in his situation is a damning admission of the sect’s abandonment of sacramental theology.
4. Symptomatic Level: The Fruit of the Conciliar Apostasy
This incident is a perfect microcosm of the post-conciliar “church’s” total failure. It demonstrates:
* **The Hermeneutics of Continuity in Action:** Rolland is trying to apply “pre-conciliar” moral teaching (“reconsider your way of life”) within a “post-conciliar” pastoral framework that has rejected the **four marks** of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) in favor of **dialogue, accompaniment, and integration into the world**. The result is a **lukewarm, ambiguous, and ineffective presentation** that satisfies no one—the world sees it as bigotry, and Catholics see it as weak. This is the inevitable fruit of Vatican II’s *Dignitatis humanae* (religious freedom) and *Gaudium et spes* (the “signs of the times”), which placed the Church’s teaching under the judgment of the world.
* **The Loss of the Sacramental Mind:** The true Catholic mind sees every interaction through the lens of **sacraments, grace, sin, and judgment**. The conciliar mind sees it through the lens of **communication, perception, law, and social acceptance**. Rolland’s primary concern is the “misunderstanding” and the legal/political fallout. A pre-1958 Catholic priest’s primary concern would be: “This soul is in mortal sin. I must warn him of the danger of Hell. I must direct him to confession. If he refuses, I must refuse him Communion to avoid his own damnation and the sacrilege of receiving unworthily.” The **supernatural finality** (salvation/ damnation) is absent from Rolland’s reported narrative.
* **The False Ecumenism of “Shared Concern”:** His mention of support from Lutherans and pagans is a direct application of the conciliar error of **ecumenism**. The true Catholic Church has **no communion, no solidarity, no shared moral campaign** with heretics and infidels. We may *use* their opposition to a specific evil (like LGBT ideology) as a tactical alliance, but we never present it as a “shared” Catholic value. Lutherans reject the sacrificial Mass, the Papacy, and most sacraments. Pagans worship demons. Their support is a poison, not an encouragement. Rolland’s delight in it shows he has internalized the **indifferentism** condemned by Pius IX.
5. The Only Catholic Response: Christ the King or Nothing
What should a true Catholic priest have said? He would have said something like:
> “The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, teaches that homosexual acts are **intrinsically evil and gravely sinful** (cf. Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 20:13). Any person living in such a relationship is in a state of **mortal sin** and is **on the path to eternal damnation** unless they repent. To become a Catholic, one must be **baptized** (if not already validly baptized) and must **abjure all sin**, making a **firm purpose of amendment** with the help of God’s grace. This requires **sacramental confession** to a priest, where the sinner confesses his sins with contrition and receives absolution. Holy Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. To receive It while in mortal sin is the **supreme act of sacrilege** and brings immediate condemnation upon the soul (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). The Church does not ‘counsel’ about changing ‘lifestyle.’ She **commands** the sinner to **sin no more**, and provides the **sacraments**—Baptism, Confession, Eucharist—as the **only means** of grace for salvation. Icelandic law that forbids the Church from calling sinners to repentance is a **tyranny of Satan** and a violation of the **social reign of Jesus Christ**, who is King of kings and Lord of lords. We obey God, not men.”
This is the **uncompromised, supernatural, hierarchical, and sacramental** Catholic faith. What Rolland represents is the **naturalistic, psychological, and democratized** religion of the conciliar sect. His “misunderstanding” is the logical outcome of a generation of clergy formed in the **smoke of Satan** (Paul VI, 1972) who no longer believe or teach the **terrible judgments of God** (Romans 1:18-32).
The article ends by noting increased interest in conversion. This is a **dangerous illusion**. Converts attracted by a weak, ambiguous, and socially acceptable “Catholicism” that merely asks them to “reconsider” their lives will receive a **watered-down sacramental system** and a **man-centered religion**. They will not be equipped for the **combat against the world, the flesh, and the devil**. They will be absorbed into the **abomination of desolation** standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15)—the counterfeit church occupying the Vatican.
The true Catholic Church, which subsists in the **faithful who profess the integral Catholic faith** and are served by **bishops and priests in communion with the pre-1958 Magisterium**, continues to exist in the catacombs. She prays for the conversion of souls, but she knows that **conversion requires the supernatural grace of God, received through the valid sacraments administered by validly ordained priests in communion with the true hierarchy**. The “converts” coming to the Diocese of Reykjavík are not being brought into the **one fold of the Catholic Church**; they are being incorporated into the **neo-church of the Antichrist**, where the **sacrifice of Calvary is profaned**, the **magisterium is denied**, and the **kingship of Christ is mocked**.
Conclusion: The Choice Before Iceland
Iceland now faces a choice. Will it follow the **naturalistic, human-rights-based secularism** that forbids calling sin a sin? Or will it submit to the **absolute, supernatural law of God** as proclaimed by the **Catholic Church**? The “Catholic Church” represented by Fr. Rolland and the “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) offers a **compromise** that satisfies neither God nor the world. It is a **stumbling block to the weak** and a **scandal to the strong**.
The only solution is the one offered by Pope Pius XI in *Quas Primas*: the **public, solemn, and legal recognition of the reign of Jesus Christ** over all nations and all aspects of life. Until the **conciliar sect** is completely repudiated and the **true Catholic faith** is restored in its integrity—with the **Roman Pontiff** (a valid and orthodox pope) exercising his full authority over all temporal affairs—there can be no true peace, no true justice, and no true salvation for Iceland or any nation. The “interest” shown is a **sad irony**: souls are being attracted to a **sinking ship** because it looks less ugly than the alternative, not because it is the **ark of salvation**.
Source:
Icelandic priest says ‘conversion therapy’ allegations stem from misunderstanding (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 31.03.2026