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?
- Later on, he talks of the rebellion of many bishops against the faith. That's true. Where was the current pope five years ago? Was he in the ranks of those rebellious bishops? Read this article that details Cardinal Bergoglio's "spit in the eye" to Pope Benedict after the latter delivered his Regensburg address. What would Voris say of that??? This puts in an ominous light the allowance by Pope Francis to Muslims for praying to their idol in the Vatican gardens.
- Further down he opines that Pope St Pius X tried to stop modernism but then says he "accomplished nothing". I beg to differ. Pius actually had the modernists scurrying to hide. True, the modernists are quite open now, but that's only because the reforms instituted by Pius weren't continued.
- He talks of the delusion of being a "more friendly, accommodating Church", but doesn't acknowledge that Pope Francis is aboard that bandwagon (Amoris Laetetia talking of admitting adulterers to Holy Communion, etc).
- He complained about EWTN addressing the confusion that is being caused by the pope (is a donor at the root cause of that complaint?). I presume he's kvetching about this excellent video by Raymond Arroyo. In the past, EWTN has been silent about misbehaviors by errant bishops, for which the Vortex has rightly chided them. But this Vortex and that recent EWTN clip almost cause me to think that EWTN and Church Militant are switching places when it comes to facing and acknowledging the damage being caused by the pope.
- Moving on down, Voris says that "Years before the controversies around Pope Francis, before he was known anywhere outside of Argentina, Church Militant was saying the problem in the Church is unfaithful bishops, weak bishops, career-minded bishops and ignorant bishops." They certainly did so. Now where does CM think that then-Cardinal Bergoglio fit into that mix? Let's look at some of the Masses celebrated by Cardinal Bergoglio, shall we?
- Then Voris follows that with these questions: "What if the Pope came out tomorrow and said no more Holy Communion in the hand, no more altar girls, no more heretics speaking at the L.A. Archdiocese Religious Education Conference, no more cardinals leading parades with gays, no more horrible catechesis being taught in schools (provided he would even know any of this) — what if he came out and did all this? >Do you really think your local bishop in your local diocese, or the national conferences of Catholic bishops in all sorts of countries, would give it the slightest attention?" These questions are absolutely irrelevant. They constitute no justification whatsoever for lack of proper papal action.
- I don't have time right now to go through this whole mess, but I will close with a look at this blooper: "Well, all the problems in the Church are local — and it's the bishops. It's the bishops. It's the bishops." Not so! Doesn't the word "Catholic" imply "universal"? If Voris really believes this nonsense, then by what logic can he oppose giving autonomy to local bishops' conferences? Ubi Petri, ibi ecclesiam. (I hope I have that Latin right) Again, who/what is force-feeding this nonsense into the Vortex?
He closes by saying the real issue is the "disobedient bishops". Well, might one of these "disobedient bishops" be the Bishop of Rome (as he likes to call himself)? I hope this is the last time that I have to go through this analysis, but if the occasion presents itself again, we faithful Catholic bloggers will be up to the task.