The Vatican Mafia Takes Off Its Remaining Kid Gloves

First, click on the video to play the music.  It will lend appropriate ambiance to the news that which I shall relate below the video.



In a manner that would do any Mafia don proud, the pope recently told his ambassadors not to criticize him "behind his back".  No doubt he alluded to Archbishop Vigano, who tried to approach him personally (much like the dubia cardinals) but was ignored.

So what's with all this "collegiality" talk?  Has his "bishop of Rome" schtick been a cheap public relations stunt?  Probably so.  It now appears that the pope is being more upfront about his real agenda.  The lovable persona is being laid aside now and it has become more clear that he is implementing his real goals.  The next post will discuss these.

Silence In The Face Of Errors - Even The Pope's - Means Culpability In Those Errors

In the June 15th edition of the Vortex, Michael Voris addresses the prelates who are more orthodox in comparison with some of their more progressive brethren.  He challenges them on their silence in regards to the homosexual poison that permeates Church life.  He prefaced the video by saying that it could put some noses out of joint but it had to be done.

While I stand in agreement with the content of that video, I now have a proposition for the CM staff.  I realize that it could cause them some heartburn, but so be it.  I'd propose that they take the transcript of that video and make some substitutions as they recite it to themselves in a mirror.   They could ask themselves why they are so silent about the role that Pope Francis has had in fostering the de facto implosion of the Church on so many fronts.  I recall mentioning that there was some awakening when they acknowledged that Pope Francis' words to Juan Carlos Cruz were harmful, but shortly thereafter they backpedaled by suggesting that the pope didn't utter those words.  As Voris asked the bishops if they feared losing friendships, etc, they might ask themselves what they might fear losing if they face the "elephant in the living room" that is the pope's undeniable culpability in the Church's situation.  Could it be certain donors?

I truly hope all faithful Catholics set aside their fears of this, that or the other and call out the errors, no matter from whom they emanate.

Austen Ivereigh - Water Boy For Papal Progressives

As the left wing in the US has been taking potshots at US history and those who defend our traditions, so too do their counterparts in Church circles snipe at those who defend the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Recently a Crud commentator named Austen Ivereigh penned a diatribe called "Pope Francis And The Convert Problem".   In his second paragraph, he claims "I don't want to be seen as sniffy and condescending towards people who become Catholic.."  The italics are mine and for a reason.  He doesn't want to be seen for something he really is; what else do we call it when he coins the term "convert neurosis"?

I could take an hour to unpack that mess.  Suffice it to say that he is simply trying his level best to disparage faithful intelligent converts as a lame excuse for not paying attention to their common-sense questions and objections.  I, a cradle Catholic, have documented scores of this pontiff's misdeeds and gaffes, and I haven't been the only one.  It doesn't take a degree in advanced theology to understand that those living in adultery cannot receive Holy Communion, etc, etc..  By the way - that is one reason why it should have taken the pope only a few minutes to craft a proper reply to the dubia that were submitted by the four cardinals almost one year ago.

Today we see that Mr. Ivereigh moved on to other faithful Catholics who have taken issue with the immorality that is sanctioned by Amoris Laetitia (or Amoralis Lamentia).  Today's Crud piece is called "Papal Confidante Says Amoris Critics Locked In Death-Trapped Logic".  That "confidante" is none other than Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, a.k.a. "Bishop Kissy-Face".  I dubbed him that because of a porn piece book that he wrote called "Heal Me With Your Mouth - The Art Of Kissing".  The article states that Fernandez helped draft Amoris; indeed they do have similarities to things he wrote long before the two synods: so much for Amoralis Lamentia stemming from all this "collegiality" of the bishops.

Going further down the article, we are treated to some very faulty theology from the bishop (surprise!).  To wit:"In the case of norms forbidding killing and stealing, for example, the norms are absolute, admitting of no exceptions; yet it is questionable, he said, whether taking life in self-defense is killing, or taking food to feed a hungry child is stealing."

We will do a little unpacking here.  The Fifth Commandment forbids murder.  Not all homicide is murder.  Thus the homicide in self-defense would not be any sort of violation of the Fifth Commandment.  The Seventh Commandment forbids the taking of property against the reasonable will of the owner.  If the taking of food is the only way to feed a starving child, the reasonable will of the owner would be to give the food.  In both cases, the Commandments are not violated.  See how these progressives attempt to justify situation ethics by obfuscating the language?

In the following paragraph he attempts to continue the obfuscation in order to justify the mortal sin of adultery.  In this case, both parties in adultery are endangering their own souls and each other's, as well as inflicting scandal upon the children.  That is what is being touted in Amoralis Lamentia.

Now who are these "amoris critics locked in death-trap logic"?  That august number might include the converts whom Ivereigh vilified in his earlier article.  They most certainly include the dubia cardinals who seem to be preparing a formal correction.  Ivereigh appears to have a new job - damage control for the Vatican progressives.

What The Hell Is Going On At Church Militant TV???

Several of us have commented on the Vortex cited in my post yesterday.  We have found our comments removed.  My blogging colleague at Connecticut Catholic Corner is one of them - us.  Please read her account.  My one tiny disagreement with Julie is that I think the behavior of Church Militant personnel - particularly those on the comment page - portend something far more ominous.  Rather than "laugh and let it go" I think some of the stench there needs to be exposed, as many good people are contributing to CM's "premium" program.  They deserve to know what they are supporting.

Before I commence, I'd like to extend an invitation to those others who have also found their comments deleted by the moderator of that page.  You may post your comments here - provided, of course, that they are respectful and in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church.

One hardly knows where to begin so I'll start with the little scolding tossed in my face by the moderator.  If one goes to that comment page, you can find this original posting. (Note - if these pictures are too small, just click on them and larger images will appear in their own windows.)

First, I notice that the moderator has adopted the same condescending attitude towards faithful Catholics evinced on one of the first Vortexes in which Voris castigated his colleagues for questioning the doings and sayings of Pope Francis.  In reading this, one might think their readership is comprised of delicate snowflakes similar to those on college campuses who scurried for "safe places" after seeing Trump's name chalked on sidewalks.

Ironically the condescension is applied to Festus, for for according to the moderator, he wouldn't have "succumbed to the temptation to respond".  Is the moderator saying that Festus does not have the intellectual and spiritual fortitude to control himself?  Well, given what Festus wrote on my last post, I can see from where the moderator draws his/her apprehensions, but that is the responsibility of Festus.  By the way, I don't see any similar scolding directed to Festus.  Does anyone else?


But there are some other comments that make me wonder whether or not Festus might be a CM insider.  Here's one:

Why, oh why, would Festus "have to say that"?  Where does that come from????

Here's another.  As I read this, it appears that Festus speaks rather authoritatively regarding the Download and its features and purposes.  I could very well be incorrect about this, but Festus appears to be quite familiar with the Download; his tone speaks of someone who is "in the know".

As I said earlier, my comments on that vortex were deleted.  Ostensibly what can get comments deleted are if they contain criticisms of the pope.  Apparently that's not the only criteria for deletion.  I can only suppose deletion can happen simply due to the caprices of the moderator.  How else do we explain the following?

Here is a discussion during which Festus trash-talked LifeSiteNews, Voice of the Family, Rorate Caeli.  You'll notice in the middle of this picture a notation advising that a comment was deleted.  It was mine.  I have my deleted comment posted below the discussion.

You'll notice that my comment had no mention whatsoever of the pope.  Therefore it cannot be said that the comment was in anyway critical of the pope.  So why was it removed?  Is it because I called out Festus for his slander of the other sites?  For the record, I believe that LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family did a yeoman's job of unpacking the messes known as Laudato Si and Amoris Laetetia.  But getting back to why my comment was removed, and not Festus' slanderous one, is it because I rightly rebuked their buddy?

There's more where all that came from, but I don't want this post to get too long.  I'll close this one with a comment that Festus sent to me last evening.  I alluded to it this morning as I replied to what Festus left on my post last evening.  Here it is...
"Is that what you told the Nuncio when he tried to navigate your blog to get the details together?
No, you didn't even do him that courtesy - you just gave in a link to your home page and suggest that he trawl through your blog to find the relevant details. Presumably while doing that he found what you were saying about the Pope. Have you considered tha t perhaps you and your blogger friends might have had something to do with what happened the priest?  As you say it was "after" you and your blogger friends pubished dirt and no doubt publically castigating those who issued an apology to Ms Johnson that more serious charges were raised.  When I do a search on key words blogger does not allow me to control the order in which the posts appear"Do you know what that is? That is a bad workman blaming his tools.  I don't need to discredit you. Your sloppy blog is more than adequate for that job."

Does this sound like a rational person engaging in calm and reasonable discourse or the rantings of someone who has some very serious issues?  But this is the person that the CM Moderator allows to puke all over their comment page while deleting the comments of others offering cogent thoughts (and I reiterate my invitation to them).  I pray that he is not affiliated with Church Militant TV.

As I've said before, I respect CM's right to exercise their own policies in the governance of their apostolate.  However, when they display disrespect for our policies in the governance of our apostolates, then they must be called out.  Whether or not this is the last such post that I'll write is largely up to them.

Michael Voris - Doubling Down On Denial Of Serious Papal Problems

Generally I've found Michael Voris and his Church Militant TV apostolate to be very informative and helpful through the years - particularly the Vortex series.  Regrettably though, he's evinced denial of the serious problems that Pope Francis continues to pose for the Faith.  When these episodes have presented themselves, I (and others) have seen it necessary to refute them for they are full of logical flaws.  Indeed, it is only the utilization of flawed logic that would cause one to deny evidence that repeatedly presents itself to the public.  If logical fallacies aren't the root causes of the denials, the latter might be engaged at the request of a donor.  It's one or the other; I don't know which.  At any rate, see here, here, here, here, here

As I did in most of those previous posts, I'm going to analyze the lack of logic posed in this Vortex.  I may not necessarily go in the same order as the script of this Vortex.

• In the first paragraph, Voris acknowledges the problematic and even harmful nature of the pope's repeated erroneous remarks.  As he states, a blind person can see the glaring problems.
• In the second paragraph, his train of thought starts to jump the rails.  He talks of this "industry of blasting the pope for his confusing conflicting statements".  Industry?  First, we are kept busy addressing the confusing statements, but that's because they issue from his mouth non-stop (especially when he's aboard planes).  Second, let's be clear that "addressing the confusing statements" is NOT equivalent to "blasting the pope".  I truly believe that a donor is feeding this script to Voris.  Then he talks of a notion that "everything that's wrong in the Church can be solved by the pope".  That's not a correct picture of the papacy at all.  He does have the sacred charge of safeguarding the deposit of faith.  Unfortunately these "conflicting statements" have had the effect of endangering the deposit of faith.  Is it too much to ask that the pope not pose a danger to the faith?

Pro-Aborts And Vatican Progressives Lash Against Those Who Speak Truth

It seems that if Archbishop Fisichella has his way, Yours Truly (and others) will be excommunicated for speaking the truth about the grievous errors that are pouring forth from the Vatican on a daily basis, with a goodly portion of that error coming from the pope.  In the same breath with which he spoke of this "year of mercy", he said that those who speak out against the pope's errors are guilty of "physical violence" and might require the ministrations of these specially-commissioned "missionaries of mercy".   Fortunately, this nonsense from Fisichella appears to be its own collection of many errors; Dr. Ed Peters, canon lawyer, did an analysis that showed Fisichella's claims to be in contradiction to canon law.

While I'm sure that won't stop Fisichella, it does show how hollow are his veiled threats.  I suspect that won't stop him or his buddies from attempting to silence us and prevent us from upholding Catholic truth.  Similar things were accomplished in the Archdiocese of Washington over three years ago.  In my own parish, at the beginning of Lent, Father Marcel Guarnizo denied Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian, thus upholding Canon 915.  When she went pouting to the Washington Post, Bishop Knestout - with the approval, if not direct order, from Cardinal Wuerl - stripped Father Guarnizo of his faculties and apologized to the lesbian for the attempt to prevent her from committing sacrilege.  She made no secret that she wanted to destroy Father Guarnizo.  Had Father been incardinated in this diocese and not elsewhere, I'm sure that the cowards of the DC chancery would have fallen all over themselves to do her bidding and laicize Father.

On another front, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch (a Minion Most Mindless if ever there was one) threatened to "take action" against "anti-muslim speech".  Apparently the Messiah Most Miserable is quite adept at picking officials who neither know nor respect the US Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.  Now, after a well-deserved drubbing after her tyrannical remarks, she appears to be back-peddling a bit.  Too late, Toots!  You're wise if you don't overreach yourself but now we know how your brain ticks (using the word "brain" loosely).

Do you see a pattern here?  Progressive lemmings ensconced in high places, be it the Vatican or Washington DC, are lashing out against those who are exposing their chicanery.  When the light shines, cockroaches run and they resent those who shine it.  Perhaps we prick their consciences when we do, or simply make it harder for them to do their misdeeds under scrutiny.  By God's grace, we must be doing something right; their rage and venom is proof.  Hopefully they'll learn and be converted to real Christianity.

Shining The Light Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Today's Vortex addresses why Catholic bloggers will continue to shine the light on clerical misbehaviors - despite the whining and pouting of those who insist upon wearing rose-colored glasses in the face of clerical mischief.  It is their evil, more than that of laity, that has so much potential to damage the church simply because of the authority they do wield.  Indeed, untold numbers of souls have been led astray by nonsense from clerics.  Witness the gays who now have reason to believe that their mortal sins are affirmed by Cardinal Dolan as a result of the St Patrick's day parade fiasco.  And yes, witness the millions who now believe adulterers will be allowed to commit the sin of sacrilege with Holy Communion thanks to the grotesque relatio released by Pope Francis.  Yes, I will continue to shine the light - despite the stubborn resistance of some to seeing the truth.  One such individual is Jeff Mirus - more on that below the video.



Mirus penned a piece recently, to which I link now.  I'll unpack a few salient points - but not all for I don't have time for that.

Let's look at the second paragraph.  Since you'll have it open in a separate browser window, I'll interject my comments in red throughout this copy.  "Every few weeks (or perhaps every few days), Pope Francis says something that annoys or even appalls those who like their Catholicism neat and tidy.  His "neat and tidy" quip is really quite condescending.  That's a cheap shot, Mr. Mirus - for shame!  At any rate, we prefer the faith being portrayed clearly and unambiguously, for the sake of poor souls who really do need the truth with no gimmicks for the sake of their eternal salvation.  Pope Francis seems to enjoy not only shaking things up (which he has admitted) but speaking colloquially, and therefore with less theological and pastoral precision than might otherwise be the case. My readers know that I don’t think this is nearly as dangerous as many do,  for those who are not oh-so-sophisticated to wade through sloppy presentations, the lack of theological precision can well damn them nor do I think Francis is attempting to push the Church in an unacceptable direction I cannot divine whether or not he's attempting to push the Church in a bad direction; regardless of his motives that is in fact what he's doing."

Let's look at this one.  "I don’t think Francis thinks in the categories of left and right, liberal and conservative, that so many Western Catholics use as a kind of ecclesiastical shorthand to categorize conflicts over doctrine, liturgy and moral principles. Rather, I think Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted, And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a BIG problem on its own, when so many don't know the basics of faith and morals.  Even bishops, as evinced by the nonsense from the Sin-Nod last October display ignorance of their faith.  In their case I hope it's ignorance, lest they be culpable of serious sins but is really fed up with clericalism and formalism (call it systemic rigidity or riskless ministry) which prevents the Church (in her members) from being profoundly evangelical and constantly engaged in sacrificial service to those who are materially, morally and spiritually poor. This does lead to misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are  half due to our own inadequate categories of reflection  So what does Mirus call it when so many, of diverse perspectives and levels of Catholic knowledge, glean the same messages from the Pope?  When anyone attempts to communicate, he/she accepts the responsibility of communicating their message clearly.  It just isn't acceptable to blame the recipients of the message for repeated failures to communicate clearly."

Here Mirus shows evidence of swallowing the "god of surprises" kool-aid.  "In the challenge of love, God shows up with surprises…. So let yourselves be surprised by God: Don’t be afraid of surprises, afraid that they will shake you up.  Don't you think that depends on the nature of the particular surprise in question?  They make us insecure  Really?  Why should they?  but they change the direction we are going in. True love makes you “burn life”, even at the risk of coming up empty-handed."  Why this fetish regarding "surprises"?  Are we aware that God is immutable?  That His word doesn't change?  When we come across anomalies and are surprised by the same, maybe - just maybe!- that sense of "surprise" is really a warning from our good sense to stay away from the source of alarm.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to unpack this entire mess from Mirus (at least not in this post).  I will look at one last thing.  "We have a standing joke in my household. When I express an opinion about Pope Francis, my wife asks: 'How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?'"  I echo Mrs. Mirus' question, not only to Mr. Mirus but to all who refuse to take off their happy-clappy rose-colored glasses.

Sedevacantism - Seducing From The One True Church

My blogging colleague The Eponymous Flower put forth a piece earlier touching upon the serious problems caused by Pope Francis' imprudent actions and remarks.  She makes two excellent points that we must all bear in mind as we try to deal with the seemingly nonstop barrage of nonsense emanating from the Vatican these days.

1. Faced with the incongruous proceeds from the Pope lately, many Catholics have become deluded by sedevacantism.  I said the following in a previous post but will repeat it again.  If such Catholics see flaws in the Holy Catholic Church and are distressed because they know it to be the One True Church, by what convolution of logic do they abandon that same One True Church?  Under no circumstance whatsoever can this sin of apostasy be justified.  These Catholics place their immortal souls in grave danger.  Still, another question must be answered.  For all the snarky comments I've received alleging that I don't appreciate that the Pope is a Pope of the world and not just the United States, I must wonder if the Pope realizes that he is the Pope of these traditionally-oriented Catholics who feel deep hurt at being dismissed as "rosary counters" and the such.  Do those commenters care about that question?  I will not hold my breath waiting for a reply.
2. Further down the article we see that the Pope is definitely infallible when four criteria of the Extraordinary Magisterium are met.  Otherwise, his teachings are solemnly binding only insofar as they conform to Tradition already set forth by the Magisterium.  The four criteria are below:
1. He solemnly teaches as Pope.
2. He teaches on faith or morals.
3. He teaches definitively.
4. He teaches so as to bind all Catholics.

I'll now touch upon a piece put out by Mundabor a few days ago called "The Bloggers, The Orks and The Uruk-Hai".  Not being much of a movie-watcher, I don't understand the references to "orks" and "uruk-hai" (whatever the heck they are).  I absolutely agree that we must shine the light and cry out when things contrary to the Faith issue forth from the Vatican (or even the Pope's pen or mouth).  We may no longer demure from that task.  However, I do think Mundabor crosses an unacceptable line when he speaks of "mocking him, ridiculing him, making him a laughing stock".  Ladies and gentlemen, it's one thing to shine the light on erroneous doings and sayings from the Pope; it's quite another thing to belittle him as a person.  He is the Holy Father; he is the Vicar of Christ.  His person must remain inviolate.  As we speak the truth about troublesome words and actions, we must take great care not to attack his person.  

But we must speak out.

Other Blogs/Sites On The Popewars

First, let me make plain that the term "popewars" was coined by Michael Voris (at least he's the first to use it, to my knowledge).  Many other faithful and orthodox sites seem to take exception to being labeled as de facto sedevacantists.  Here is a sampling:

• LMS Chairman
• Mundabor  and one more
• That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill
• Creative Minority Report
• Tenth Crusade and one more

To date, Michael Voris has failed (or refuses) to differentiate between: 1) sedevacantists who have de facto exited the Church (albeit "stage right") and 2) faithful Catholics who voice concerns over papal gaffes precisely because we love the Church.  Until that happens, he will cripple his own apostolate.  Again, if Church Militant TV has adopted a policy of not speaking on papal mistakes of words/actions, that is entirely their prerogative.  We object only to his de facto denigration of our own chosen directions.

Are We Purveyers Of "Ecclesiastical Porn"???

Some of us hoped that the next Vortex would clarify doubts regarding whom Church Militant TV intended when they issued their opinion why any criticism of the Pope is wrong.  Well, it appears that Michael Voris has.  First, I do think he has done a tremendous service in exposing so much corruption in the Church hierarchy.  Second, I don't doubt him when he says that Church Militant is being attacked by some for not openly making concerns known to the Holy Father regarding questionable actions.  Third, I am indeed saddened  that any vitriolic messages would be sent to them for their policy.  Fourth, I can also believe him when he says that some who take issue with the Pope's words go on to mock his person; I too consider that to be wrong.

As readers of this blog know, I have in no way denigrated the Holy Father personally nor disrespected the office of the Papacy when I've made criticisms regarding objectively questionable words/acts.  I also have not lobbed one criticism to Church Militant TV for their chosen policy and I certainly haven't sent any vitriol their way (in fact, I have not sent one email to them).  My grievance with Church Militant TV is that they have seen fit to chide those of us who do believe it incumbent upon us to raise some red flags.  They have made no distinction between those who do tear at the Papacy and those of us who question the Pope precisely because we do love Holy Mother Church.  Many of us have raised the point of such distinctions numerous times; it is all over the blogosphere.  Again in today's Vortex no such distinction is being recognized, although Church Militant TV cannot claim ignorance regarding our concerns.  Is it not reasonable to assume that the distinction is being omitted precisely because Church Militant TV is lumping us all together?  I hope to be proven wrong on this matter.

After the jump break, I will post the video, with my minute-by-minute rebuttal afterwards.

More Input Regarding Objection To Papal Missteps

A Catholic blogger (in England, I believe) named Mundabor had something to say regarding the Vortex's fit at those of us who object to some of the Pope's words and actions.  Please read.

Terry Carroll of Church Militant TV replied.  Mundabor posted the comment and his own rebuttal.  Please read.  I think Mundabor did an excellent job in bringing the conversation back to the central issue.  That is, if CMTV chooses not to address Pope Francis' blunders, that is completely up to them.  What troubles us is when they liken us (who do speak up) to those who hate the Church.  That is unacceptable.

To illustrate that our stance is appropriate, I link to a LifeSiteNews article posted back in October when problems were becoming too evident.

I still hold Church Militant TV in respect for the yeoman's work that they have done in exposing so much chicanery by progressive elements in Church hierarchy.  I hope and pray that a clarification will soon be issued by them.

Vortex: Giving Some Misstatements A Pass??

In 99% of his videos, Michael Voris is spot on with the Vortex "where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed".  However, he seems to be giving some misstatements a pass if they issue forth from Pope Francis.  Not only that, but he continues to chide those of us who call out inanities and distortions, regardless of source.  Logical fallacies abound in this and I'll try to unpack as best as I can.

First, he seems to think that the only ones noticing the miscues of Pope Francis are "extreme left" and "extreme right".  That's simply not true; every now and then Voris intimates that he himself has noticed them (See 2:58-3:03, 3:10-3:13, 4:30).  In artificially dividing them into two camps of either progressive liberals or sedevacantists without acknowledging any honorable motives on the part of us who also see the problems, he demonizes us.

He correctly states the reactions of "the right" and "the left".  The "right" (and he seems to be lumping faithful Catholics and sedevacantists together) are displeased with various misstatements on the part of the Holy Father.  He rightly says that these same misstatements cause jubilation on the part of the "left".  Then he says "both camps are wrong".  Does it not dawn on Voris that they are reacting to the very same misstatements?  Both camps are having their typical reactions precisely because they have the same understanding of the Holy Father's pronouncements.  And just why, oh why, do these folks of widely differing perspectives read Pope Francis in the same manner?  Is it logical to assume that all these vastly differing people have identical perspectives on the Holy Father?  Or does the cause for such "interpretation" lie in the message itself?

So poor Pope Francis is just so misunderstood (see 5:50)?  Funny!  As I said in a previous post, I don't recall the previous two pontiffs having such a difficult time making their messages plainly understood.  In fact, the left hated these two men precisely because there was no hint of ambiguity (or nuance as Cdl Dolan calls it) to their words.  They also knew better than to give interviews.  Now why does this Pope continue to give interviews, after all the debacles that have resulted in this first year alone?  That's a fair question and I offer it for consideration.

At 3:48-4:15, Voris launches into those on "the right", stating that all in this group attack the Holy Father as a person.  That's simply not true.  In artificially lumping people into two categories, Voris seems to be accusing those of us voicing concern over the Holy Father's imprudent utterances and who pray for the pope and plead with him to do what it takes to ensure that no obstacles to the Faith arises from his pronouncements.  The Holy Father has had a year now to get the proper Vatican staff in place and yet the gaffes continue to emanate from the Vatican.  It is not an "attack on the Pope" to state plainly that this buck stops at his desk.  I don't know about these emails to which Voris alludes; I trust what he says is the case - but that is no cause to demonize us all.  And yes, he does so precisely because he doesn't acknowledge that those of us who take issue with the Holy Father's pronouncements may have the good of the Church at heart.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.  That is the truth - and therein lies a key problem.  If billions of people are hearing garbled messages from the Pope, they will understandably believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ are likewise incomprehensible.  We know that there are different levels of papal pronouncements and that interviews don't rise to the level of pronouncements at all.  Still that is the image that an uncatechized world sees.  I join with thousands of other faithful Catholics in loudly urging the Holy Father to tidy up his presentation and pointing out to him the havoc he wrecks by his careless utterances.  If Michael Voris cares not to join us in this effort, I've no problem with that.  I do take issue with Vortexes such as this that undermine our message.

Why Does CMTV Urge Us To Blindfold And Gag Ourselves?

First, as you read the following, I ask that you keep the post from Friday in mind.

Last week ChurchMilitantTV (fronted by Michael Voris) replied to some alleged criticisms from other well-respected Catholics.  The latter allegedly criticized Voris for not taking public issue with Pope Francis for missteps and blunders during this first year of his papacy.  The other leaders are Chris Ferrara and John Vennari.  I say their criticisms of Voris are alleged because the Church Militant article linked to no source for them.

Louie Verrecchio, on behalf of Vennari and Ferrara, issued a rebuttal to Voris in the form of a spoof of the Vortex episodes.  I respect Michael Voris highly, and as regular readers know I post almost all the Vortexes in this blog.  However I must concur with Verrecchio on this occasion.  I post the two documents now, urging study of both of them:

• Church Militant statement: http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.php
• Verrecchio reply: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/751b83874a7bdfab126e65e854b51207-193.html

To be honest, I think the CMTV statement is so full of logical flaws as to be rather nonsensical.  I'll point out some of them, and I won't necessarily go in order of the document flow.

I read the articles that it cites.  While they do take exception with objectively questionable things that were done and said by the Holy Father, nowhere do I perceive personal attacks on the Holy Father or his papacy per se.  I wish to point out that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope" are NOT equivalent.  I take a dim view of the obfuscation of that difference.

The author of that CMTV piece (and it may not be Voris!) goes on to say that "it is our judgment that most Catholics should not read these articles".  I beg his pardon, but who does he think he is?  He's entitled to his opinion of these pieces - so let others form their own.  Here are two of the pieces:

•  http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/90-quo-vadis-franciscus
•  http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html

These, and a piece written by my friend at the Tenth Crusade (also touching on this exchange) begin to list our concerns with Pope Francis.  It bears mentioning again that no one is taking issue with any solemn pronouncements by His Holiness.  Regarding lower-level matters, though, we must raise alarms when we see them, for some will regard his actions as having the weight of solemn declarations.  I'd also like to call to mind my blog piece from Friday (to which I linked at the top of this piece).  In it is cited the example of St. Paul confronting St. Peter's erroneous behavior; Peter was the first Pope.

Moving on, we read this head-scratcher.  "Assume, for the sake of argument, that everything one learns from ecclesiastical porn sites and articles is true. Every claim, every allegation, is true. Bad news all around for the Church. Question: how are you a better Catholic for knowing all this, and what is the proper Catholic response?"  First, I take exception to CMTV describing Ferarra's and Venneri's works as "ecclesiastical porn".  Now let's reply to the questions.  First, we are better Catholics for knowing the complete "lay of the land".  We know precisely for what we should pray and we contemplate what action would be advantageous to correct poor situations.  Second, the proper Catholic response is never willful ignorance; that itself may constitute sin against prudence.

I'm going to take a "leap in evaluation" and try to glean the thrust of the following paragraphs of the CMTV tome in one sentence: "We know the Church is in crisis; the proper Catholic response is to focus solely on our personal holiness - nothing else."  If that is the case, CMTV is incorrect on this matter.

Here's another series of incredible sentences from the CMTV piece: "While we greatly admire and are the beneficiaries of the work of those on whose shoulders we stand in the work to help restore the Catholic Church to its authentic glory, we can neither support nor encourage their ongoing, unnecessary and harmful attacks on the Church and the Holy Father. Most Catholics are not even aware of the many disconcerting words and deeds of Pope Francis and his predecessors. Most Catholics have no idea that there were ecumenical events at Assisi or that Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran. Most Catholics, including most bishops and priests, don’t even know that there is a crisis in the Church today. They do know, however, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and, presumably, the guardian and protector of Catholic orthodoxy. Who benefits from attacks on the Rock on whom Our Lord established His Church (Matt 16:18)?"

Unpacking this might require its own post, but I'll give it a try in this one post.  We'll do this "bullet-style".

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll state once again that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope/church" are NOT equivalent.  CMTV, please stop the disingenuous blurring of that difference.
• This paragraph couples the wide-spread ignorance of the crisis in the Church with knowing that the pope is head of the church.  It seems to be accepting, if not condoning, this ignorance.  However, that is a far cry from the message conveyed in a previous Vortex episode in which Voris completely denounced the mental oblivion of the Catholic in the pew regarding the real crisis.
• Can another question be asked?  How about "who benefits from Catholics being kept in the dark regarding ills within the Vatican?"

This post could go on and on, but I'll close it now where the CMTV closes their's - with commentary on Genesis 9:18-27.  CMTV rightly praises the actions of Sem and Japheth.  Does it dawn on the CMTV author (I don't think it's Voris himself), that the two honorable sons would not have known their father needed their ministration had it not been for the tattling (call it "ecclesiastical porn") of their errant brother?  Cham's motives aside, he did alert his brothers to a dire situation, which they then addressed and corrected. Else, Noe might have died of exposure (drunkedness increases the risk of hypothermia).  Similarly, we need to sound the alarm over anomalies that we see in Church life, regardless of their source, so that appropriate actions can be taken.

Actually, there's another more fitting close.  I started this post by citing a Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Thomas Aquinas.  I'll close it with a quote from another Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Catherine of Siena: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence!"

Our Church is rotten.  We must have the courage and holiness to confront the rot where it occurs.  This blog will remain part of that choir of "a hundred thousand tongues".  We need more, not less, such tongues.