Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

A Note on The Voris Confession

2016-04-22_17-02-01Yesterday, Michael Voris of Church Militant released a very difficult and courageous episode of the Vortex. In it, he alleged that the New York Archdiocese, in apparent retribution for his investigation of the strong homosexual culture within the clergy there, intended to publicly reveal his own past sins. If true, this would amount to an egregious violation of the 8th Commandment. And the sins in question were unquestionably shocking and unexpected. Voris said, in part:

I have never made a secret that my life prior to my reversion was extremely sinful. I have said many times — in public — that I was in a state of mortal sin, and had I died, I would have been damned. I also revealed these sins were of a sexual nature and that they occurred over a prolonged period of time. I did not reveal the specific nature or details of the sins, because when I returned home to the Church, I did not think that a full public confession of details was necessary in order to start proclaiming the great mercy of God.

Perhaps that was a wrong assessment. I don’t seriously know. Perhaps along these years I should have been revealing of greater detail. That, I now think so, but more on that in a moment.

Whatever the matter, I will now reveal that for most of my years in my thirties, confused about my own sexuality, I lived a life of live-in relationships with homosexual men. From the outside, I lived the lifestyle and contributed to scandal in addition to the sexual sins. On the inside, I was deeply conflicted about all of it. In a large portion of my twenties, I also had frequent sexual liaisons with both adult men and adult women.

These are the sins of my past life in this area which are all now publicly admitted and owned by me. That was before my reversion to the Faith.

Since my reversion, I abhor all these sins, especially in the world of the many many other sins I have committed having nothing to do with sexuality. I gave in to deep pains from my youth by seeking solace in lust, and in the process, surrendered my masculinity.

The original is much longer, and the text does not do justice to Voris’ presentation in the video, which every interested party should watch. Voris’ revelations were offered personally, and with obvious sincerity. He admitted his wrongdoing, rather than denying it. He expressed hatred for his own sins, not excuses. He offered a compelling case for the reality of his conversion, and how God’s gratuitous grace and mercy fuels his drive to do the work he does today.

I worked for three-years in a prestigious crisis communications firm. Our clients were some of the most powerful figures in their respective industries, and the issues they faced — often with huge legal or financial ramifications — were complex and challenging, and invariably played out in the media. I had the pleasure of watching some of the best and brightest minds in the PR business advise proactive responses to bad press, and in my opinion, Voris handled this situation exceptionally well. He got in front of the story. He owned his failings. He took much of the wind out of the sails of any forthcoming attack. He appeared to recognize one of his principal failures: that as one of the most aggressive investigators of homosexual activity in the Church, revealing his past sooner would have made him more credible and prevented such an attack.

If what Voris says is true, and this is being orchestrated by forces within the Archdiocese, it will be ugly. They will no doubt provide as many salacious details as they can dig up. I hope that if the Archdiocese of New York is really mounting such a smear campaign (an allegation the archdiocese has now denied)  that it backfires spectacularly, and earns them the opprobrium they so richly deserve. The odds that something like this would be an official effort sanctioned by Cardinal Dolan is highly unlikely; still, even if it was an “off the books” effort by high-ranking members of the clergy, it should be exposed and condemned.

The folks at Church Militant and I do not see eye to eye on some very important things. But today, I stand with Michael Voris against those who would use public detraction to destroy a man’s reputation. Michael has my personal prayers and my public support in this fight.

When I first saw the transcript of Voris’ comments yesterday evening, I was actually on my way out to go to confession. We’re all sinners, and God forbid any of us have to render a public accounting of things for which we are so deeply ashamed. I have no doubt that this was one of the hardest things Voris has ever done. I commend him for the way he handled it.

432 thoughts on “A Note on The Voris Confession”

    • Fr. Nicholson should stick to a monthly video schedule. Especially if the poor won’t give him the money they don’t have. Which is entirely possible.

      The reduced schedule will be better for his budget, and expend fewer resources of our common home.

      But what do I know about making monthly videos?

      Quite a bit, it turns out!

      Reply
    • Please spread this news and report the scandalous fact that the Pope left
      Christian refugees behind while rescuing ONLY MUSLIM refugees for giving
      them shelter and refuge in Rome. The lame excuse was the Christians had
      no valid papers. The Pope is the absolut head of the Vatican and he
      can decide to take anyone with or without papers in the Vatican. Pope
      Francis also urged the European to take any refugee with or without
      papers and attacked Trump for not wanting to take illegal Mexicans
      with no valid papers yet he rejects desperate Christian refugees due to
      papers. I have lost totally my faith in Francis.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550138/Betrayed-Pope-Lesbos-Christian-brother-sister-desperately-disappointed-told-rescued-Holy-Father-left-red-tape.html

      Reply
      • Francis having turned his back to a couple of Christian refugee families pales in comparison once he turns his back on the Catholic faith and the memory of the thousands of Catholic martyrs who died for the One True Faith in reformation times.
        Yes, October 31, 2016: Joint Lutheran-Catholic celebration of the 500 year Commemoration of the “Holy Reformation”. We’re all invited, btw.

        Reply
    • I know SSPX is a big issue but the root of the problem is Voris clearly supports the idea that Vatican II documents do not contain errors and heresies. Once you hold that belief you have to condemn SSPX and all traditional Catholics.

      Reply
  1. Quote from a Catholic:
    “As it stands now, the real victim in all this is the Archdiocese of New York who’re accused –without evidence– of being gay-shaming bullies by Voris.”

    Reply
    • Yeah, it’s just possible that Voris is playing the victim and the Archdiocese of NY is innocent. But that’s not the way to bet.

      Reply
        • Can you imagine the levels of madness necessary to rig this if Voris was lying? It’d be a murder-suicide, and for what? A momentary black eye for New York? It took a lot of courage to do what Voris did.

          Reply
        • I was thinking the same as I read Romulus’ post. A little like burning my house down to prove insurance companies are hard on their clients.

          Reply
        • In charity we must pray for MV and give thanks for his reversion. Although the pain he has been and is going through is great and self inflicted it is also true that surely, his sins are between MV, his confessor and the Lord. Period. They are private and not subject to our judgement or anyone else. That being said, to longtime MV observers his revelation is more of a confirmation than surprise.

          What is open to human/business judgement is the advisability of him vehemently taking on the defining sin within the Church, especially at the largest, richest and most powerful Archdiocese in the country, while knowing his own personal susceptibility to counter attack. The consequences are not insignificant to those who support him nor his innocent associates in Detroit.

          MV is a multiple Emmy award winning TV journalist. He is professionally trained, educated and a superb communicator. He knows how the media game is played better than 99% of those in the Catholic media and blogisphere. He knows Rule #1is: Never let your opponent define you.

          One could make a reasonable judgement that all things being equal, and given the entirety of the circumstances, MV made a human decision and decided it was prudent to make his personal disclosure when and if he had to and not before then.

          Why? Because one could also make a reasonable judgement that he had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by doing so before then. Would he have acquired the same level of recognition and influence had he done so before now? Human judgement says..”Probably not”. Maybe, all the noise surrounding him and the fast growth of CM distracted him from his and our ultimate Boss in the spiritual wars fought by humans.

          It’s never a good thing when the reporter becomes the story rather than the story he is reporting on. Hopefully, the Lord will make an exception due to the apparent depravity existing in the AD of NY.

          We will keep MV in our prayers. He will need them. It is evident that he has received some less than sound guidance on important matters. Hopefully, Truth will prevail sooner rather than later at the warehouse in Detroit.

          Reply
          • Pretty close, but MV is NOT a reporter – he’s an pundit or editorialist. While it is part of that job description to “report” some facts, it is done for the purpose of the commentary which follows in the same transmission, in print or digital form.

            Also, it would seem MV never believed he’d EVER have to reveal details about his past sin, rather than having calculated all along the most advantageous scenario for him to disclose it. Perhaps that was naïve, but certainly human.

        • Combox irony doesn’t always work well. What I was trying to suggest in my modest understated way, is that only a fool would bet that way.

          Reply
      • What Voris should have done is, if he thinks it is necessary tell his life story without accusing NY archdiocese at all, at least not name them. Focusing on the Crucified Christ rather than his own personal reputation. Again his soul would not be damaged even if there are untruths said about him. God would not look kindly on him and his outfit even they produce lies about the Roman Pontiff on a daily basis, calling good evil and evil good.

        Voris just opened up a can of unnecessary worms by accusing the archdiocese. Now they can go after Voris based on libelous claims. I hope Voris can support what he claimed.

        Reply
        • That’s a terrible idea. When you’re the face of an organization, you have to get out in front of things like this. His reputation affects not only himself, but all those who work with and for him, and all their readers and subscribers.

          It would be uncharitable to all of those people not to make the situation clear.

          Reply
  2. Whatever some people in the Archdiocese of New York might have been planning, they will do nothing now. They would realise that it would be not only pointless but counterproductive now. But I think it is likely Michael Voris will have to make public the evidence he had; otherwise it would seem as though he were making an outrageous claim against the Archdiocese.

    The online response – which I have not seen shows any condemnation of him whatsoever – demonstrates that Catholics are not ‘homophobic’. We do not hate or dislike or fear people who have a same-sex attraction. We are compassionate and loving. I suspect most of us have had or have difficulties living chastely (whether married or single) – we uphold standards for ourselves and others and are compassionate when our human weakness leads to failings.

    Reply
    • Perhaps, but then again most folks won’t find it credible that Michael suddenly rushed to reveal his sordid past simply to score points against the Archdiocese. That idea simply doesn’t add up.

      Reply
      • I doesn’t make sense to score points but maybe the archdiocese was coming after him legally.

        I remember a colleague who was called in to be terminated for lying. He turned himself in as an alcoholic which came with mandatory rehab and job protection. Now, it was difficult to fire him for dishonesty.

        Reply
      • One of the ugly fruits of original sin is the complexity of our motives(since we have become selfcentred and are no longer God centred thanks to Adam’s sin of pride) about doing the morally right thing that go with selfserving motives(which are often from weakness, also from o/s, and which can be mostly venial sins). Michael has already repented of his sins, which are the issue here. And, for sure, his public revelation of his sordid past, is no less sincere. And if he was also motivated by selfpreservation, that just means he’s not holy yet, and like the church encourages all of her faithful, to pray and pray and pray for ongoing purification thru Sanctifying Grace of weakness, blindness, pettiness, the desire always to justify ourselves, in addition to mortal sins. Michael is not responsible for what other people think. That’s their problem. And he does have a right to protect his good name from vultures in the New York Diocese.

        Reply
    • Absolutely! If you live and breath, you SIN, period! The Lord in his great mercy and love gave us the sacrament of reconciliation to take care of that. Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. As to the ADNY, they have already come out and said there has been no such ‘planning’ to smear MV. Hmm…..who do I tend to believe, MV or the ADNY? I find it very hard to believe that a man would come out publicly in DETAIL about his past sexual sins for the world to see and hear, if he didn’t have VERY credible evidence of a smear campaign against him in the works. MV has been an investigative reporter long before he started CM, so…….inexperienced he’s NOT.

      Reply
    • This is the only accusation the archdiocese has denied. I suspect Michael was lured into a trap. The NY attorneys have found at least one thing he said that was false (among so many that were true) and have begun the process of burying him legally. CM can’t afford the expense of defending itself. It’s expensive even to win.

      Reply
      • Amen, Voris was tricked , and fell for it….I think he should resign and begin working with Courage, a group of gay Catholics comitted to a chaste lifestyle

        Reply
        • He has promoted the work they do in the past. Their effectiveness is one of the reasons they are hated.

          They could use another masculine spokesman to dispel stereotypes.

          Being blackmailed is one reason why people with this vice had been excluded from the military.

          Reply
          • So he can inflict more damages to other traditional Catholics medias(Voris goes to NO Mass and support Vatican II so he is not a traditional Catholic, Michael Matt of Remnant regretted bring him into the traditional Catholics circle to give him credibility)? So he can continue to teach Catholics to practice the mortal sin of Papalotry which is against the First Commandment? So he can have the resources to call evil good every day, for example calling AL “Affirming Church moral teachings” which it is a complete diabolical document? Please wake up, I used to be a subscriber of CMTV too. All he does is manipulate people emotions by tearing down personal reputations of bishops and priests(Padre Pio one time threw out someone accusing a bishop stealing money) while ignoring the real crisis the Church is facing now which is the false teachings (not the lies fed by Voris who claim V2 is great only the interpretations are slightly off) of Vatican II and the Popes faithful to its diabolic disorientation. If you have money you should support this blog, the Remnant, akaCatholic and Catholic Family News, Lifesitenews (anyone did I miss any good Catholic sites?).

          • For me, MVoris’ attacks on traditional Catholics pegged him to be false opposition. More dollars are to be made promoting “super conservative Catholicism” (who remain diabolically disoriented) than promoting the outright rejection of Newchurch. At the minimum, MVoris should be advocating for Catholics to boycott the collection plate and letting Newchurch collapse altogether. Their Sunday “tithes” enable the evil to continue and spread. The parallel in the secular world are those Christians who, even when no law exists making them liable pay income taxes, pay it and help the General Government continue spreading their evil of usury, murdering babies, sodomy, adultery, regime change, etc. That said, however, I do have one question I ask of anyone who promotes The Remnant and CFN. Both of these traditional Catholic journals have refused the advertising dollars of revisionist historian, and traditional Catholic, Michael A. Hoffman II, who wrote “Judaism Discovered” and “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not”. Why is that? P.S. No doubt these two journals will also refuse MH2’s attempts to market his upcoming book, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”.

        • I’m no attorney, but I’ve been having the same thought. The man made ostensibly true claims about alleged threats to his reputation. He reported them by way of a general mention (no names were named) and responded by essentially defaming himself first. (Probably a legal term for this, but I don’t know it.)

          Materially, it would appear that the one who took the biggest reputation hit was Voris. Seems pretty unlikely that a court would find sympathy for a defamation suit under those circumstances. And I assume that any man willing to go before thousands of people and admit to his own shame a history of homosexual liaisons probably wouldn’t do so without some rock-solid information about what’s coming. The kind of information that he could actually produce if he were deposed.

          Am I missing something here?

          Reply
          • My point is more basic. Defamation suits are very hard to win in their basic elements. Even assuming that Voris’ claim that was denied by the Archdiocese was in fact sufficiently injurious to the Archdiocese’s reputation (“they are planning on releasing negative information about me” *might* be sufficient, but I am skeptical), they would also have to prove both that it’s false, and that Voris knew or reasonably should have known it was false. That is, they would need to prove that this dramatic public confession of his was all a ruse just so he could try to injure the reputation of the Archdiocese by claiming they were going to air his dirty laundry.

            The whole thing is laughable on its face.

            Even if Voris was mistaken about the Archdiocese planning to release info about his past, all he would need to show is that some people did in fact report that this was going to happen, and he reasonably relied on those reports.

            Sorry for edits, but I should note one more thing: New York and Michigan do not have good anti-SLAPP statutes, so if the Archdiocese was willing to go full sleaze, they could try to rack up legal fees as a form of punishment in and of itself. However, I think that would be disastrous from a public relations standpoint.

          • No, this is helpful. I’m assuming you’re an attorney or work in the legal field? Lots of questions along these lines have come up, and I’ve been thinking along the lines of what you present here, but I think of this only from a communications standpoint, and not that of litigation. What you’re saying makes sense.

          • I am, though torts and defamation are not my practice area. In that area, I know a little, but nothing from a direct practice standpoint, so without research I would not be able to comment more than the very general info above.

          • An archdiocese does not have a personal reputation, which is the one the law of defamation is concerned with.

    • Michael Voris needs to run as far away from this as possible….move on with his life
      Let Louie Verrechio take over the witch hunt, or maybe Steve

      Reply
    • I disagree. If these people are so malicious as to hire a detective to dig up dirt on Voris, they will release it anonymously, just as they originally planned.

      Reply
  3. ALERT Please Steve Skojec report the scandalous fact that the Pope left
    Christian refugees behind while rescuing ONLY MUSLIM refugees for giving
    them shelter and refuge in Rome. The lame excuse was the Christians had
    no valid papers. The Pope is the absolut head of the Vatican and he
    can decide to take anyone with or without papers in the Vatican. Pope
    Francis also urged the Europeans to take any refugee with or without
    papers and attacked Trump for not wanting to take illegal Mexicans
    with no valid papers yet he rejects desperate Christian refugees due to
    papers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3550138/Betrayed-Pope-Lesbos-Christian-brother-sister-desperately-disappointed-told-rescued-Holy-Father-left-red-tape.html

    Reply
  4. Steve: I commend you for supporting Michael. God bless you and your wonderful ministry. You and Michael are both very courageous.

    Reply
  5. I want to commend you Steve for showing solidarity with Michael Voris. Whatever differences each of us may have about CM’s editorial stance regarding things Catholic, we can recognise an injustice. A man having to disclose past sins because he’s being blackmailed is beyond the pale.
    Imagine the worry and stress that Michael must have gone through in deciding whether or not to disclose publicly what he said.

    Steve, your charity will be rewarded. God Bless you.

    Shame on the Archdiocese of New York.

    Reply
  6. It is a beautiful thing to see Catholics behaving like Catholics. Michael’s confession and the saintly show of support are signs of hope in these dark times.

    Reply
  7. God bless Michael for his courage. I care for him. I cannot imagine what pain he is in. But he is going to have to change the way he runs his apostolate now that this is public knowledge. He should have prepared for this as he has been carrying a target on his back for sometime. Sort of like exorcists, when engaged in the battle with the devil, the devil will reveal their sins back to them and everyone else in the room. He needs a good spiritual director.

    Reply
    • Hilary: I don’t think he needs to change the way he runs his apostolate at all. Either what he says when he writes and speaks is the truth or it is not. We have to stop confusing the message with the messenger. So often today we see people rejecting or accepting a speaker’s words solely because “he’s a Democrat” or “she’s a Republican.” Frankly, Mr. Voris has now shown that he is loyal to the truth and is willing to suffer for it. That counts for a great deal with me.

      Reply
      • “Either what he says when he writes and speaks is the truth or it is not. We have to stop confusing the message with the messenger”
        That is exactly what I’ve been trying to say, it is a distraction. People should focus on the heresies of Vatican II that Voris is defending. That in turn leads him to call evil good(Pope Francis’ AL) and good evil (other Traditional Catholic medias and SSPX). We need to pray for his conversion.

        Reply
      • This is unfortunate, I met Fr. Nicholson a year ago during a parish mission at our church and was touched by his sincere and seemingly theologically sound homilies at that time. That said I know that any and all who enter into the public square to defend the authentic Catholic faith become glaring targets for Satan and his minions. I pray for Fr. Nicholson fervently as I do all our priests knowing that if Satan injures a Sheppard he can destroy the flock. In the same way I pray for all who vigorously defend our authentic Catholic faith to the world in and out of the “machine”.

        Reply
      • I am perplexed … were the ‘self-loathing’ clergy sex abuse victims in Boston wrong to bash the ‘sacred hierarchy’ who victimized them and protected the criminal clergy by playing chess with moves to other parishes?

        As a 30 year detective it was my job to ‘find fault’ and follow the evidence. As a Catholic detective I hated the sin, and it’s effects, but loved the sinner.

        The blind ‘don’t say any thing bad or bash the sacred clergy’ line of thinking is what gave us the sex abuse scandles and continues today…. especially in the arena of homosexual clergy.

        Remember, only the homosexual sinners are the ones organizing to destroy the Church externally and internally. We do not see adulterers, liars, thieves, etc. organizing to force their ways on us … only them.

        Therefore their sin begets extra righteous hatred. In my opinion, what motivates Michael is ZEAL for souls … therefore the added hatred for really damaging sin (according to some saints, even the demons are offended by sodomy) is justified. It is ZEAL for souls that motivates former heroin addicts, who have found God, to rescue other addicts …. more addicts are saved by former addicts than all others combined.

        Those bishops and ‘sacred hierarchy’ who protect, defend, and excuse those who are killing souls and their Catholic faith deserve to be bashed and called out.

        Saint Michael did not sit around in prayer but bashed the devil with the words ‘Quis ut Deus’?!? – SERVIAM! …. and then proceeded to kick his but out of heaven with his flaming sword …. inaction will not protect the innocents whom the bishops have failed to protect. Yes, we must pray …. and then be Gods hands and feet by defeating evil with our flaming swords …. online and offline.

        We are blessed to have a few bishops who think and feel the same way as the laity does … They WANT us to stand up and say (bash in your words) something:

        See what Bishop Athanasius Schneider has to say:
        https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-god-needs-the-simple-faithful-to-protect-the-faith-in-this

        Pax,
        Mac

        Reply
      • What a spiritually blind response. It is clear by his own admission that Mr. Voris did once hate himself in the past but since his metanoia it is quite clear he loves himself.

        And one is to love his neighbor as his own self but here Father seeks to heap up scorn and abuse against his neighbor, and brother Catholic, who is a brave man who publicly witnesses to the truth.

        Reply
      • What is that all about? Come on…straighten up and fly right father paul. There is more complexity in people’s lives and where there motivations come from than sophmoric Freudian musings to dismiss people who criticize a heirarchy that frankly deserve criticism….they do not protect their sheep

        Reply
      • Michael’s coming forward with his past may be worth it if only to out unfaithful friends like Father Nicholson. Much of the hard-line reasoning used to ban posters was the same stuff Father Nicholson was posting about others – SSPX, Fr. Gruener.

        Having the “right” spiritual adviser is critical. Especially when one is so vulnerable as is the case when reverting back to the Faith and the life of grace.

        God bless Michael Voris and grant him a stalwart adviser to aid him in all ways.

        Reply
      • Fr Nicholson’s commentary is very disturbing. Not Catholic, not rational and full of personal hostility. Lord, have mercy.

        Reply
    • I also think the organization needs a lot more transparency. Michael is being transparent about his own past, but on the same post where he’s doing that, comments like this are being removed by moderators:

      Reply
      • Amen to that. Like Chris Ferrara said first he just totally not reporting what ever Pope Francis teaches then when the Remnant pointed out the problem the situation becomes worse now he just totally misrepresents what Pope Francis teaches. It is unbearable to read the comment box where the average Catholics believe Pope Francis led a great victory against Cardinal Kasper and gave us orthodox teaching that is faithful to Christ in AL. You almost want to cry for those folks who are misled by Voris & Co on the reality of the Church.

        Reply
    • The only way to combat this kind of thing is to have an atmosphere of honest questioning. They desperately need that, not just internally, but externally, towards the real crisis in the Church.

      Reply
  8. The lowest pits of hell are for these priests who should be saving souls. Even the Pope is more concern with global warming than he is about the sins of abortions, marriage, homosexuality. If my grandmother were alive today she would die of shock from the sins that have gone mainstream. When is God going to punish is …I beg now for his vengeance. .

    Reply
  9. As I stated prior in this forum, which is no secret to most of us practicing Catholics:
    The greatest words one could hear on this side of Paradise, ” . . . I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . . .” In addition, I would add to that that those words can only have any Value if they are relayed by a Catholic priest to one who possesses a truly contrite heart with a firm hope of being lovingly good.

    Ad Jesus per Mariam.
    JAMLY,
    eugene

    Reply
  10. I would point out that both ‘detraction’ and ‘calumny’ can be grave sins. So too, and I don’t suggest this is the case here, disclosing priest penitent information whether obtained first-hand or otherwise.

    Reply
  11. If Mr. Voris is reading this, I want raise my voice to assure him that no real Catholic thinks less of him in any way; all of us are sinners and only an utter fool would hold another’s mortal sins to be graver than his own. Anything he revealed is forgotten. But we are extremely sorry — and appalled — to learn that he felt compelled by threats to make public what is absolutely no one’s business but his. That these threats came from somewhere within the Church establishment is nauseating. What does it say about the spiritual state of those willing to participate in this kind of character assassination? Do they fear nothing at death? Do they even believe or are they complete hypocrites? The mind boggles.

    Reply
    • “That these threats came from somewhere within the Church establishment is nauseating.”
      Are you certain these threats came from the Church?

      Reply
      • Stop. Do you have a good reason to believe he’s making this up? Because of all the dumb conspiracy theories I’ve heard in my life — including but not limited to things about shapeshifting lizard jews — outing yourself as a former homosexual when you run an orthodox Catholic apostolate for reasons nobody can specify has got to be the dumbest.

        Reply
        • Sure Steve. I will desist. I think the burden of proof is on MV, not myself nor the Archdiocese.
          We disagree about Michael Voris the journalist. He has lodged two major accusations against the Archdiocese of New York. But he has not offered any evidence to support his monumental claims — 1. The existence of a major homosexual ring whose activities are, at least to some extent, known allegedly by Cardinal Dolan. 2. The Archdiocese of New York was prepared to “out” him.

          Michael Voris’ claims against the Archdiocese of New York are akin to his claims against the SSPX being anti-Catholic and schismatic. He never produced evidence that counted. He never produced a Papal declaration that the SSPX was schismatic.
          He has produced any evidence to support his claims against the Archdiocese of New York. Should he do so, then his claims would take on a different light.

          You and I agree that Michael Voris, the man, our brother in Jesus Christ, needs our prayers
          I will no longer make comments regarding this topic under this article posting.
          God bless.

          Reply
          • I don’t think Voris has to post any evidence. Any notion he made up these accusations to hurt the archdiocese is absurd on its face, and that’s what Steve was saying. Going public to blunt anticipated smears by the AoNY makes sense; for a controversial apologist to falsify a homosexual past just to smear the AoNY is a highly risky idea and one that is, frankly, too stupid to believe.

            From another angle, even the pope and others in the Curia have acknowledged the existence of a homosexual cabal in the Vatican, and certainly there have long been indications of like-minded ecclesial efforts here in America. Given NYC’s rivalry with Las Vegas as America’s premier City of Sin, do you really suppose there was no such planned effort to retaliate against Voris’ attacks on the capitulation by the AoNY to homosexual forces capture of St. Patrick’s Day?

            Cardinal Dolan is a shameful example of a bishop. He may not have anything to do with the smear on Voris, but plenty of others in the AoNY could well have had a score to settle.

            BTW, I do not like Michael Voris’ style at all while I agree with most of the points made in his videos. I also take exception to his recent shift against the traditionalist community, with whom I also take considerable exception while agreeing on the substance of their positions as well.

            I say this to make clear I am no partisan of Michael Voris, but I do find his claim exceptionally reasonable on its face, and do not require evidence for it to make sense. Besides, it may cost Voris too much to reveal if it “outs” some of his well-placed moles at the AoNY. I’d hate to see him betray their positions to the enemy in an unnecessary effort to attain credibility. Better to leave the moles in place to sabotage future efforts to betray the Church.

          • Unfortunately, the accusation contains no specific information as to exactly who did or is doing what, and with what ultimate purpose in mind. There is a broadside against the NY Archdiocese, with no substation offered that they are responsible. One can imagine that Michael has a number of “enemies” who possibly would like to hurt him. Why does he think it’s the Archdiocese that’s behind this effort? Why couldn’t it be his former “friends” in the gay community taking it upon themselves? Until he is prepared to reveal exactly what he claims to know, he’d do well not to accuse anyone. That “he wouldn’t go public if this weren’t true” is an assertion, not a sound argument in support of a charge against any specific individual or group.

          • There is no doubt that he showed tremendous courage coming “out” in this way. And, he should be thankful that so many he has alienated in the past are standing by him now.
            But, there is another possibility…
            Perhaps, Voris went too far in his attack on NY and he fell for a trap. During the O’Connor days, they let it be known that if a false accusation was made regarding clerical “pedophilia” there were plenty of NY lawyers friendly to the archdiocese willing to counter sue for them.

            Maybe they wouldn’t win but they could put you out of business defending yourself. Maybe this time Voris was a little too cocky and a little too sloppy.

            Something is definitely rotten in NY (and only Michael would touch it) but Voris’ masterstroke may have been in turning himself from the attacker into the victim.

          • Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so!
            I hope CMTV has better legal counsel than that. Is the ADNY a poor, powerless, friendless entity? My fervent prayer is that Voris’s sources will find the courage that he has found, to back up his assertions with their names attached. CMTV is playing in the big boy sandbox. And, while I’d guess that the ADNY actually regards CMTV as merely an annoying gnat to swat away with flat denials, Voris’s supporters do not. I, at least, believe him, and wouldn’t like to see the apostolate sued/destroyed/maligned. What is more likely is that this whole episode will be memory-holed- unless sources speak out. I pray that they do.

          • That is very true.
            While it is temping to just believe Michael (those of us from NY still harbor a strong distrust for the archdiocese) he has leveled a very damning accusation.
            Unless he can/will name names, they will just swat him away like a gnat.

            This has nothing to do with his past nor his conversion.

          • If not his sources, the names of those in the archdiocese plotting this and proof. Sexual sins come from human weakness but he is saying real evil against him was being plotted. Others knew this and kept quiet. The intent he claims they had for this was to quiet him

          • Who in there right mind would make such a confession if it weren’t true. Go get them Michael, and if they sue you we’ll start a go fund you fund.

          • Father Nicholson seemed to take Michael at his word – and good riddance. Perhaps CM can now look to discern its true friends moving forward.

          • Christine, I learned years ago, after coming out of a cult, taking a man at his word was the dumbest thing you could do. Unless the man had a reputation for sane behavior, be suspicious at all times for safety’s sake. Mr.
            Voris’s behavior over the last couple of years has been rather strange. He has told us never to openly criticize the Pope, had called those that do spiritual pornographers, had lied about winning Emmys, when a search of the Emmy website reveals no such person named Michael Voris ever won one, and his very strange behavior when he reversed himself on his report about Cdl Burke. It was these types of behaviors that led me to cancel my premium subscription to CMTV. After all, if my past experiences taught me to be
            wary of strange behaviors by religious personalities, why should I ignore them when it comes to your boss?

          • Normally I wouldn’t respond to this sort of comment, because it sounds like someone who bears ill will against Michael & won’t be convinced no matter what I say — but I will step in to clarify that Michael Voris has NEVER lied about winning Emmys. Please call the Michigan Chapter of NATAS (National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences) if you need proof that he’s in the record.

            And, because people have levelled such false charges against Michael in the past, we have a gallery with proof of his Emmys as well as other journalistic & broadcasting awards he has won.

            It’s one thing to disagree with him, which is your right — it’s quite another to spread lies about him, which is absolutely NOT your right — not if you consider yourself a Catholic in any sense of the word.

            https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1ANfLbw6L12MzduZVFKTzVrU3c

          • Chrissy, I went to the official Emmy website, and they have nobody named Michal Voris listed as an Emmy winner. The awards called Emmys are only given for national level achievements. Michael’s were strictly regional awards for local achievements. BTW, I see that you have a nice display of Mikey’s regional awards in your reply. But, they don’t prove a damn thing, because the regional awards aren’t Emmys.

          • Wikipedia: “The Emmys are presented in various area-specific ceremonies held annually throughout the calendar year, ranging from honoring nationally televised shows to regionally and locally produced programs.”

          • Chrissy, none of those awards you show in that gallery are Emmys. They’re strictly regional awards. NATAS Michigan is a regional organization and can only hand out regional awards, none which are called Emmys. An Emmy is only given at the national level. I went to the official Emmy website, and no one named Michael Voris was listed as an Emmy winner. So who’s lying now Chrissy? Are you a Catholic in any sense of the word?

          • The name is Christine Niles. NATAS offers Emmy awards at both the regional and national level, depending on whether it’s a regional or national broadcast.

            When you’re proven wrong, the appropriate response is an apology — not dogged insistence on your error. It just makes you look foolish.

            Conversation over.

          • Chrissy, when I heard Voris say he was an Emmy winner, he gave the impression that he was a winner of a national award, not a regional one. When I looked at the national awards, I found no Michael Voris listed. If he would have been more specific about the awards he won, there would have been no confusion.
            And speaking about admitting you’re wrong, I’d suggest that you and the rest of the CM.Com mafia apply that to yourselves. Stop your bind worship of Pope Francis and quit trying to explain away his outrageous attacks on traditional church teachings, his smearing of Catholics who refuse to go along with his sacrileges, his attacks on capitalism, and his support of socialism,.and his cozying up to the Muslims and other infidels, to name a few.
            And have your young fresh faced employees stop that obnoxious nonsense of monitoring other websites for negative comments about Voris and CM.Com., and banning people who make less than compllmenary comments about Dear Leader Voris on those sites. If you continue to do that, change the name of your organization to Gestapo.Com or KGB.Com

          • That’s enough, Stephen. We treat our guests with respect here until they do something that warrants their eviction.

            While I’m banned from commenting at CM without cause, I have no intention of retaliating by doing the same to Christine. I don’t blame her for wanting to share her side of the story, and she has done so with civility.

            I don’t want trolling here. Not on either side of an issue.

          • Steve,
            Thanks for your comment and for trying to bring the attack on Christine Niles to an end. What I found most objectionable about the posts re the Emmys question, was that the poster kept calling Christine Niles “Chrissy” when she specifically asked him not to. I found that both offensive and deliberately berating and a form of bullying. When he did that any argument he had became irrelevant to me.

          • I’m sorry if I you thought I was too rough on Christine Niles. It wasn’t my intention to be. It’s just that I’m tired of the bs’ing job that CM has been doing on the public for the last two years. A little about my background will explain why I responded the way I did.
            Thirty years ago, I came out of Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church Of God cult. In order for me to come out of that group, I had to learn something about cult mind control. When I look at the way CM.Com has beheaved in the last two years, I see cult methodology in action. Tell people not to criticize the leader publicly, (the Pope), name calling (the spiritual pornographers meme), unjustified attacks on other religious groups (the SSPX) and the attempt to silence and harass critics on their own site and others is very typical of the way a cult operates. It was seeing these tactics that caused me to turn away from CM.Com. And quite frankly, when someone try’s to pull this kind of nonsense on me now days, I can get rather upset!
            Looking back on my interactions with Christine Niles, I was harsh with her. I don’t think she’s a bad person. She’s just a naive young person like I was years ago in the Armstrong cult. She’s starstruck by Michael Voris, just like I was with Armstrong. It is natural for her to defend her leader. But, she and the other youngsters at CM.Com need to mature and realize Voris has feet of clay like anyone else in the world.
            And a word about Voris’s confession. Like anyone else in the Church, I rejoice when a sinner repents. But, I have to agree with Chris Ferrara about “getting ahead of the story”. I saw this tactic used in the Armstrong cult all the time. It was always used to defuse opposition within the group and outside the group. Because of the use of such a tactic, I don’t think CM.Com has much of a future. Voris is the center of attraction at CM.Com, and once that image is defaced, they will never be able to be what they were in the past.
            To Mrs. Niles, I’m sorry my behaviour has caused you such distress. I’ll no longer refer to you as Chrissy or denial. But, as a concerned former cult member, you and the other youngsters at CM.Com need to beome aware of how all of you can be manipulated in a tightly controlled environment. Please read up on mind control in books like The True Believer, and the many articles posted on the internet about such things.

          • It’s not about being rough. It’s about being civil. If civility and respect can’t be the hallmarks of the discussion here, I don’t see what the point is of having one at all.

          • It seems you haven’t completely left the mindless crap of HAWCD behind. Some honest prayerful soulsearching followed by a good confession will help.

          • Son, your reaction indicates you need to follow the advice I gave Christine. Grow up Tom, and leave the cultic atmosphere of CM.Com behind.

          • Tom, I did walk away from what I was involved with 30 yrs. ago. When I saw Voris & Co. Were using cult methods of control, I split from them. Your answer to me is typical of the mind control stuff I saw in the cult I was in. Learn how you’re being manipulated by Voris, Niles, & Rafe. Study articles on mind control and you’ll have an awakening like I did 30 yrs. ago.

          • Steve,
            I have been banned from CM.com, too, for frank criticism of the pope. It is too bad that CM.com, 1Peter5, The Remnant, CFM, etc., cannot join forces among their respective readerships and rally civil, orthodox opposition to the modernism that seems to have a full nelson on the Vatican right now.

            And I do recognize a grain of truth in SD’s lament. CM.com has apparently veered off its initial course to defend Catholic Truth and instead subscribes to the “private interpretation” of its founder, to the detriment of the Catholic Church at large.

            Michael Voris, I love and respect you, and am thankful for the honest intent of your organization, but at the same time I wish that you would put aside your pride, come to your senses and come to the aid of the Church in need in these near-apocalyptic times, Brother!

          • You’re pretty vindictive. I’ve been a fan of MV and staff for over 3 years, and I’ve never gotten the umpression that they practice, “blind worship of Pope Francis”. Having legitimate questions and concerns about this Pontiff, does not require running off at the mouth, that you give every indication of doing.

          • And you’re a typical Voris fanboy in true believer fast foward. Hurry on back to CM.Com where you won’t see stuff that will upset your tummy.

          • Is it a coincidence that your ridiculous ad hominem attacks mimic the queers on the Authentically Catholic blog???

          • Sorry, but I won’t snap at your bait for a flame war. BTW, how many blogs do you visit to defend Voris? It must be pretty tiring!

          • Like we should take him at his word that SSPX is in schism? You’ve established quite a reputation as a Voris fangirl even before you started working for CM. You view him through rose colored glasses and cannot be considered an objective source of information about him. You’re a Voris PR spinmaster.

          • see I knew your opposition was about him not being far enough to the right. and he did not need proof about the SSPX because they made no secret. They publicly on their home page said it is a sin and an offense to GOD to go to the NO mass. That it is better to stay home than go to the NO if there is no TLM near by. Telling people not to go to the mass celebrated by the man they call the Pope how is that not schismatic behavior even if its not formal which is what he said

          • Romano Amero, Michael Davies, Ralph Wiltgen, Abbot Vonier, Roberto DeMattei, Archbishop Lefebvre, even Joseph Ratzinger. Take some time and read these. Start with the Davies trilogy.

          • Since when did SSPX need a papal declaration before being schismatic?

            Pro tip: A papal declaration that one is in schism is an after-the-fact action. Bonus tip: lack of a papal declaration is not proof that one is not in schism.

          • Let’s avoid the SSPX rabbit hole. The Church’s current position is that there is no schism, only canonical irregularity. Leaving it at that and keeping the thread on track would be helpful.

          • LOL. You cannot be serious. Everyone knows that the archdiocese of New York is full of homosexual priests and has been for decades.

            These priests ruined my life, my sibling’s life, my parents’ lives, and my many aunts’, uncles’, and cousins’ lives, and their childrens’ too. I was born in NYC. (And I don’t run with the SNAP crowd. I forgave the Church without a cash apology.)

        • I would urge a little caution on this Steve. Clearly you are going all in on this but time and perspective will bear out the reality….

          Reply
          • Not going all in. Just saying that there’s not a scenario I can think of where a man benefits by outing himself in this way unless he is quite certain the information he has is correct. There are too many drawbacks and not enough positives.

          • Well call me a cynic, but i can see the benefits of this play by Voris. He is a practical man. As far as i can tell, his organisation has been haemorrhaging subscribers and good will for some time. Given their self imposed blackout or spin on all things Francis they have become increasingly irrelevant and ignored in the faithful Catholic world (a market they have tried unsuccessfully to hostile take over lets not forget). They are even loathed now for their unfair treatment of faithful Catholics across a range of important issues. This announcement has now put Voris front and centre once again and generated a wave of attention, good will, and donations i don’t doubt. This will be a much needed shot in the arm for his organisation. He is now the victim again rather than the perp.

            So what has actually happened here? Nothing more than knowing specifics of someone past sins so far. I don’t see this as particularly brave or amazing. I would personally be looking for Voris and CM in general to start making up for all the damage and division they have caused within the faithful Catholic community to be impressed. No sign of that yet…..i am still in wait and see mode. Voris has suckered people in before. He has form here…..i urge caution.

          • “Voris has suckered people in before.” Since I don’t know the man, and since everyone seems to be laying his cards on the table, would you care to provide an illustrative example of your assertion?

          • For one example of suckering people? The way he ingratiated himself into the traditionalist Catholic community. Grew his organisation within that fold to a position of trust and strength, then done his best to undermine/destroy them. The Remnant newspaper sticks out particularly in my mind. Deleting his former opinions when it became financially expedient? People trusted him, and he tried to destroy their life work…. Voris has much to apologize and make up for.

          • I confess complete ignorance of the matters you mention here, so I’ll leave the explanations if any are forthcoming to Voris himself.

          • Your “complete ignorance” is not yours. It’s Pilgrim 74’s assasination of Michael’s character by despicable innuendo.

          • Steve, Michael may be quite certain, but if wants others to be equally certain, they have to know what he knows. If he’s not prepared to disclose his information he should refrain from commenting about the NY Archdiocese. That ” I think Michael is credible, why would he make it up?” isn’t enough. He may believe it, we need to know why. And he is making specific accusation against the Archdiocese, not against “someone”. There could be any number of nefarious characters out to smear him. Why does he conclude it’s the Archdiocese of NY?

          • Well, because MV has been actively investigating and reporting of the total corruption in the ADNY, in both extortion and a huge organized homosexual sex ring. He has interviewed parishioners in the know (hidden from view and voice distortion) who have pretty damning evidence. Not to mention the fact that he is very experienced as an investigative reporter and no doubt screens and verifies his sources to the inth degree. Most importantly, who on earth would do such a thing without some pretty solid evidence? It doesn’t make much logical sense.

          • What you say is true enough but he has no doubt irritated people elsewhere as well. Sure he has investigated the NY Archdiocese, but they don’t exhaust the list of those who would theoretically have a motive to attack him. So he needs to lay out his evidence complete with names, dates, and quotes establishing the truth of his claim that it is the ADNY and not someone else who is behind this.

    • I think less of him for being so gullable as to fall into the trap, we have got to be smarter, as Jesus said, wise as serpents, innocent as doves

      Reply
      • But when you come down to it, isn’t all sin the result of gullibility? If we always had our brains about us and weighed everything before acting, we wouldn’t see sin as a very good deal. None of us is that calculating, though, because of original sin. For humans I believe that is the source of mercy, viz. the realization that we too are fallible, weak, and thus “gullible.”

        Reply
        • Unfortunately even Jesus said the people of the world are smarter than in the kingdom, we need to wise up…only through Our Lady

          Reply
  12. I am blocked from posting over at CM, so could a kind poster who is not blocked please post this over there for me:

    “Dear Michael,
    May God Bless You and assist you in your struggle to uphold the Holy Dignity and Eternal Truth of Our Holy Mother Church. I know my posting privileges were put on time out, so I hope that a Mod gives this message to you.

    In the Love of Jesus Christ,

    Fr. RP

    PS: Remember, many a great and terrible sinner became a great and Holy Saint!”

    Reply
  13. I thought it was evident and that everyone knew about it. MV gave many hints about that. And I had always thought that his strenght and his right to speak have its foundations on his past sins. So for me nothing has changed after this.
    God loves you, MV!

    Reply
    • Speaking as someone with a similar history to Michael’s, I can genuinely say I never picked up on “it”. I am still quite perplexed. That said, I do remember a video of his about five years ago where he referred to “chaste, formerly active homosexuals” as leading heroic, countercultural lives. I thought it generous and fair minded back then. The video did garner a bit of mockery on trad forums at the time, though. In retrospect, I suppose the vid now takes on a somewhat different meaning.

      Reply
  14. “We’re all sinners, and God forbid any of us have to render a public accounting of things for which we are so deeply ashamed.”

    I have been reading a book by Father Garrigou-Lagrange on the four last things, and in it, he makes the case that all our sins, public and hidden, will be exposed to everyone at the last judgment in order to show forth God’s perfect justice.

    A terrifying thought.

    If true, it just means that Michael Voris did his earlier than the rest of us.

    Reply
    • That was one of the best books I have ever read in my life. Nothing compares to that book. What an illumined mind Father Garrigou-Lagrange had!

      I am now reading his book “The Three Stages of the Interior Life” and it is beyond this world. Truth! Such beauty to read the Truth like that!

      Here is one of my favorite quotes from his book “The Last Four Things”

      “Our inclination to our last end can change as long as the soul is united to the body (which has been given to it as a en instrument of tendency to its end), but this inclination can no longer change after separation from the body because the soul judges in an immutable fashion, according to this last inclination, and thus is fixed in its choice.

      The humble man will continue to judge definitively according to the inclination to virtue; the proud man will continue to judge according to his pride, with a bitterness indeed that will never end. His pride is now eternalized, hence his voluntary choice, fixing himself in obstinacy.”

      Reply
  15. Like other posters I am blocked from commenting on churchmilitant. I think the next step is for Mr. Voris to take back his comments on the one thing that prevents us from watching him more….admit that he is wrong about the SSPX.

    In regards to this issue at hand. Shame on the N.Y archdiocese. I hope that whoever is involved in this plot gets exposed. I have a feeling the good folks at churchmilitant already know something thankfully.

    Reply
  16. Who better to describe the soul killing impact of “irregular” situations than a repentant MV? His story should be a footnote in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

    Reply
  17. Michael’s coverage of homosexuality’s grip on the New York Archdiocese hit the fan and splattered the truth of it in honest-to-goodness recognizable patterns.

    The splattering rang (and smelled) true. There was nothing false about. In the reporting there were tags and ways of putting things that could only come from one who understood what he was looking at.

    This is o bad thing – let alone poor journalism.

    It is a well know fact that those who had been “in the life” – when leaving, discarding it – can sent the slightest sting of its foul smoke three city boroughs away. And are despised and hated for it. If the homosexual culture (within or without the Church) was ISIS-like they would behead such apostates gladly & gleefully. As they are today attempting to do with Michael. The homosexual culture will not countenance anyone of their own who has shut the door against them. Dusting the remainder of one’s homosexuality into their eye blinds with dark fury.

    “Apostates” such as Michael must be dealt with utterly & finally.

    And this:

    Who is doubting Michael’s conversion/reversion? Is the Archdiocese staining his return to Christ and his Church with doubt, tall tales, and allusions of falsity?

    When one truly repents and slouches off his past – renounces all claims of possession over it – it is left to God to make of it as he wills for his larger purposes. As he is, today, doing with and through Michael’s disclosure.

    Reply
  18. There was this woman who had a sexual affair with a married man. Perhaps, she had other affairs too. The people of her congregation were going to stone her to death. A certain man was there. He threw out a challenge. He among you is without sin be the first to cast a stone. The congregation dispersed without harming the woman. The last words from this kind and brave mN to the grateful woman were ‘Go’ he told her and followed it with is loving advice ‘Sin no more’.

    I hope the mob that is throwing stones at Michael get the message.

    Reply
    • Me too Mal, but usually people that are dead in their sins, absolutely do not have the ability to see much of anything. Only the grace of God has the capability of removing the scales from their eyes. It’s where our prayers for them are so crucial.

      Reply
  19. And yet you repeat the accusation that the Archdiocese of New York had some nefarious plan to attack Mr. Voris. What he did in divulging his past lifestyle was courageous, no doubt. But to implicate the Archdiocese in something like he implied is just plain wrong, as Mr. Voris has been wrong in the past and has not apologized for it. BTW, the Legion weathered their storm and are as strong as ever, thank you very much.

    Reply
    • Yes. I repeat it because it is newsworthy that he says it is true. This is how news works. Public allegations are fair game for reporting on.

      As for the Legion, they’re an organization founded upon the cult of personality that fed and maintained an extreme sexual predator. They should not be allowed to continue existing. But that sentence was a fragment of an earlier draft in which I spent much more time discussing how the two situations were different (I had a front row seat to the Fr. Maciel scandal as it unfolded) which I ultimately chose not to include in my final version. I’m glad you caught it. The sentence has been removed.

      Reply
    • “…[W]eathered their storm….”? I think the Legion visited a storm on others, innocent men caught up in the crude and perverted sexual machinations of its leader, an absolute fraud. It’s impossible to believe those near the leader didn’t know he was a demonic pervert, so I agree with Steve that the organization should have been disbanded completely. Beyond the corruption at its heart, I have personal intelligence that suggests the Legion was a secretive, sick organization even at the parish level, one that suffered from a cult of the personality surrounding Maciel.

      Reply
  20. Great article. Glad you wrote it Steve.

    God bless Michael Voris. God bless Church Militant. God bless the work they are trying to do.

    But CURSES & VEXATIONS & BAD LUCK on the Church Militant Moderator and his Ministry of Comments tactics! Their comment gulag must be brimming full!

    They now ban people immediately if their punctuation, typing speed, or font choice even remotely resembles a criticism. Seriously.

    It’s gotten so bad there is now a link at the top of the CM site that says “Sign up to get banned immediately and save us all some time! Act now and save 10% on a Premium Ban, good through the end of the age!”

    If Voris would do two things, CM would be great in my book again:

    – Talk about the Pope. I mean come on. AL? When the Pope is the news and you are not talking about the Pope you are not talking about the news. And if you are news organization, you have to talk about the news. Otherwise you are what exactly? A strange website that publishes non-news and little sermonettes on thin news days?
    – Issue a preemptive retraction of all the SSPX nonsense. Just admit it was an error in judgment just like the failure to disclose the past. Get ahead of the SSPX regularization. It’s coming. You’ll get cred for that as well.

    Without fixing those two things (and fixing the comment policy), I would think they are going to have a tough go at it from here forward.

    Reply
    • LOL. As a recently banned commentor because I dared quote the Philippines bishops conference going for Holy Communion for adulterers (mentioned on this site a few days ago) and Cardinal Schonborn and the like saying the same, they take the same approach with Francis as Francis does in things like omitting St John Paul II indicating that Holy Communion cannot be given in those circumstances. CM is quiet on Amoris Laetitia except quoting Cardinal Burke. Papolatry at work.

      Reply
    • No they won’t have a tough go at it, from reading the mostly kind and supportive posts across the Combox Cosmos, and not just at CM.

      I have read through CM’s policies on anti-pope comments, and can understand where they are coming from. They have a point regarding the many, many Catholics who cannot or will not process what is happening in Rome. Ultimately, though, in trying to protect the little old church ladies and other Catholics who cannot stomach the acid-churning footnotes in AL and other reflux-inducing antics, they are letting these very same Catholics down. But there are lots of them. Thus, I think CM will be just fine.

      A footnote, as footnotes seem to be all the rage these days: They might be a tad heavy handed with the delete button, but they are good people over at CM. One of the moderators was very kind and reached out to me at a particularly tough moment in my life. The moderator didn’t have to do that, and did it anyway.

      Reply
  21. So, instead of fearlessly preaching the Godpel and re-evangelizing the faithful, the NY Archdiocese digs up dirt on a layman? If they hired investigators it wasn’t for free. Forget entities like the CCHD, the faithful’s contributions are squandered at the diocesan level, too!

    Reply
  22. Good that Michael Voris got this off his chest and on the table as for certain someone was going to out him eventually. I would hope Michael’s next step in speaking the truth would involve speaking the truth about Pope Francis who he has , for unknown reasons, surrounded with a protective veil of mis-information. On both accounts Michael has endangered his credibility. Let us pray for his sake and ours that Michael speaks the truth before he is forced to.

    Reply
    • he can’t do that because he supports the teachings of Vatican II. Everything is about Vatican II which Sister Lucia calls it Diabolical Disorientation.

      Reply
      • I think this is because of Michael’s Opus Dei involvement which forbids, I think, speaking critically of the current Pope.

        Reply
  23. There is no doubt that he showed tremendous courage coming “out” in this way. And, he should be thankful that so many he has alienated in the past are standing by him now.
    But, there is another possibility…
    Perhaps, Voris went too far in his attack on NY and he fell for a trap. During the O’Connor days, they let it be known that if a false accusation was made regarding clerical “pedophilia” there were plenty of NY lawyers friendly to the archdiocese willing to counter sue for them.

    Maybe they wouldn’t win but they could put you out of business defending yourself. Maybe this time Voris was a little too cocky and a little too sloppy.

    Something is definitely rotten in NY (and only Michael would touch it) but Voris’ masterstroke may have been in turning himself from the attacker into the victim.

    Reply
  24. Perhaps MV’s hatred for his own sexual failings is that which inspires him to rout it out of the Church. We all have regrets probably and would do a number of things differently if we had the chance. Surely we regret to see others making the same mistakes. This country’s headlong fall into sexual deviancy(of all kinds) means little girls cannot even go to the bathroom.

    Reply
  25. There is no doubt that he showed tremendous courage coming “out” in this way. And, he should be thankful that so many he has alienated in the past are standing by him now.
    But, there is another possibility…
    Perhaps, Voris went too far in his attack on NY and he fell for a trap. During the O’Connor days, they let it be known that if a false accusation was made regarding clerical “pedophilia” there were plenty of NY lawyers friendly to the archdiocese willing to counter sue for them.

    Maybe they wouldn’t win but they could put you out of business defending yourself. Maybe this time Voris was a little too cocky and a little too sloppy.

    Something is definitely rotten in NY (and only Michael would touch it) but Voris’ masterstroke may have been in turning himself from the attacker into the victim.

    Reply
  26. I have no idea of the possible politics involved. God will judge that. Those who wish to double and triple guess the matter can call me naive, if they wish: I’ve been a great and terrible sinner, on the very brink of damnation itself– and so I cannot but offer prayer and encouragement to a repentant man.

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/SNTSIN.HTM
    Saints & Sinners

    Reply
  27. AMEN Steve. What he did took a TREMENDOUS amount of courage ad humility. And NO I do not believe he did ANYTHING wrong by not going into the details of his past life from the beginning. He did all that was necessary in the sacrament of reconciliation, and even being a public figure does not obligate one in the least to disclose sins of the past. To tell you the truth, I don’t know if I could have done that. We ALL have sins and dirty laundry that we don’t want to ‘broadcast to the world’. ‘Let he that has not sinned cast the first stone’. If Michael is correct and the ADNY has plans to smear him, even the planning of such, I would think, mortally sinful, and ESPECIALLY the planning, as that would be premeditated. Good luck to those prelates with their eternal salvation!

    I have never agreed with his stance on the SSPX nor his stance on ‘no criticism of a sitting Pope’, but truly his heart is in the right place as to serving the Lord in His Church. Prayers for Michael and CM as they openly and candidly fight the demons inside the Church of Christ.

    Reply
    • Christine, please relay to Michael and all at CM that you are going to be now in my daily Rosary, as I am confident that many brothers and sisters in Christ will keep you in prayer as well. Although there are disagreements, there is no lack of love for the family of Christ in His Church. In thanks for all you do at CM in your courageous battle with evil, even within the Church. I for one (and I am sure many of us) stand shoulder to shoulder with CM in this epic battle.

      Reply
    • Christine, we would all seriously like CM to consider revising it’s comment policy to increase scrutiny and transparency. The register of banned names is far too long and this can’t help the CM mission. This a great opportunity to spread the grace around that Michael has been shown.

      Reply
  28. How is any alleged archdiocesan research into Michael’s private life any different from Michael’s investigations of gay priests? People in glass houses…

    Reply
    • It is about as different as one can imagine. The motivation for one is to destroy a man who has changed his ways and repented, while the motivation for the other is to prevent the infiltration and subversion of the church.

      Reply
    • Mr. John:

      You posted in part: “How is any alleged archdiocesan research into Michael’s private life any different from Michael’s investigations of gay priests?”

      That is a good question. The first thing that pops to mind is that Roman Catholic priests usually make public vows or promises to live chaste, celibate lives; and we in the pews, in effect, promise to materially support the vowed priests in return.

      For a half century our bishops enabled gay, chasteless priests to prey upon teenage males with abandon. Reasonable laymen can no longer trust their bishops and priests.

      If we laymen cannot trust our Bishops and priests to live their publicly vowed, chaste lives then on what matters can we trust them?

      And, yes, Mr. Voris is in urgent need of a haircut.

      Thank you for bringing this matter up.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Reply
    • Because Michael failed due to weakness. What he exposed was corruption.
      One sodomized for pleasure the other to harm. Both sinful but different.

      Reply
    • It’s one thing if I poison my own dog and bury him on my property. It’s quite another if I poison every dog in the community where I live.

      Reply
  29. Homosexuality affects judgement, that is why the Church is so confused, gay men should not be leading the Church, not because they are bad, but because their spiritual judgement and discernment is affected by the homosexual disorder

    Reply
      • Yours is a cheap shot that adds nothing but vitriol to the discussion. I agree with Tom Venditti and I believe what he says applies equally to civil government, although the homosexual disorder is less serious there because civil government necessarily deals with less serious matters.

        Reply
    • Our perspective of reality is effected by an infinite number of factors. To focus only on “affect” at the expense of other realities, such as supernatural conversion and repentance is to discredit the action of Grace in the life of man.
      Be careful. You will miss the Gift.

      Reply
      • If you listen to his confession, he admits to bad judgement a number of times, not sure who his spiritual director was, but you cant keep this secret, being gay…. Especially when fighting gays

        Reply
        • From whence do your bad judgements arise?
          That the “gay” agenda is without question entirely destructive and immoral, you cannot employ this bogus analysis of yours when dealing with individuals who carry the challenge of same-sex attraction – particularly those who are courageously
          comporting their lives according to the Gospel. Be very careful. There are saints who have struggled with this issue. You might even know one or two. This case illustrates that you need be very careful in making blanket judgements. The attempt to justify bigotry against individuals because of an immoral movement is against charity.

          Reply
          • James Voris was in the lifestyle for at least 10 years as an adult man in his 30’s. This wasnt SSA struggles, rather embracing a lifestyle…. If you want him to be your teacher, go for it….

          • “fooled around” Call it what it actually is. The Mortal Sin of fornication on multiple occasions. And the Mortal Sin of Adultery if any of them were married.

          • Rather, sir, I think we can take a great teaching from God’s action in his life. “And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”
            2 Corinthians 9

            Christian life is a battlefield. It is not neat and pretty. It can be quite revolting. If you are not burdened with one of the nasty realities that many Christians shoulder every day, thank God you have been exempted, but don’t deny His Grace is to be found in the journey to conversion found in the lives of many men and women with whom we attend Mass.
            It used to be we would go to confession every week because Roman Catholicism was not ashamed of being a Church of sinners in a continual struggle while on earth to conform to the Will of God. Conversion is not “once and done.” It need be chosen each moment. Moment to moment. There is no truce until Eternity. Until then I will gladly learn from any man not afraid to engage in the battle which is the journey to the Heart of Jesus Christ.

          • Perhaps you’ll explain the lack of Christian charity shown by CM moderators. Why are so many people banned from the site? Even those who ask respectful and legitimate questions are banned. The moderator responses are not always (or even often) very charitable. Since only comments that rubber stamp CM talking points or express praise of CM and Voris are allowed, it looks like you folks are hyper-sensitive and overly defensive.

          • St. Paul murdered Christians. St. Augustine had an illegitimate child. Just because someone sinned in the past does not disqualify them from preaching the gospel as long as they have repented. Would I like to see the evidence against the archdiocese? Yes, but right now Voris was the one who took the risk and has the most to lose from this debacle.

        • Michael Voris is not gay.

          He does not struggle with same-sex attraction.

          When he left that life 14 years ago (one that included women) to return to the Church, he left it utterly. It is dead to him. There is no attachment, no attraction to his former sins — only horror that he was at one time in thrall to Satan. That’s how he sees it. Even when he was involved in the lifestyle, he was deeply conflicted, never really convinced that he belonged there or that it was anything he really wanted.

          I won’t go into the details of his somewhat traumatic childhood that led to such confusion later in his life, but suffice it to say, God has healed him of many emotional wounds, and in His grace has restored a rightly ordered sexuality and authentic masculinity to Michael. He is truly a “new creation in Christ.” And, quite frankly, as someone who works with him on a near-daily basis and has spent many hours talking with him and hanging out, Michael is one of the straightest, most masculine guys I know. The past really is dead to him.

          Reply
          • Christine,

            Thank you for taking the time to come here to explain. I think this is an important thing to know more about, especially as regards Michael’s role in forming and mentoring young Catholic men. He seemed to intentionally avoid addressing this in his video, saying only that his sins were in the past, but not ever mentioning if the same was true of the SSA that led to them.

            His syntax regarding that part of his life was curiously detached — he never identified as having had a particular orientation; instead he states he had “live-in relationships with homosexual men” (the emphasis was on their homosexuality, which is different than admitting that he was involved in “homosexual relationships”). He also said that he “lived the lifestyle” (but “from the outside” – I’m not sure what that means). He then went on to say that his later “liaisons” were with both men and women, which speaks to his “confusion” but is also a perplexing and unusual progression.

            I know that some people state that they are healed of same-sex attraction, despite the controversy this causes in the minds who don’t think it’s possible. I would like to believe that it is possible. Still, I think it would be helpful for Michael himself to make this clear for the sake of those who are concerned.

          • Was it 14 years ago? According to his own conversion testimony, made in 2013, it was 2004 at his mother’s funeral where he finally made the jump. There is a Feb 2014 posting from one of his former boyfriends who claims he was invited to sing at Mrs. Voris’s funeral.

            If true that is not leaving it utterly. You don’t invite your former homosexual lover to your Catholic mother’s funeral

  30. I am not allowed to post on the Voris site because I intended to disagree with his rants against the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. Voris…what a silly little dope.

    Reply
    • Mr. Matthew Joseph:

      You posted in part: “Voris…what a silly little dope.”

      Mr. Voris does not moderate his comment boxes. His minions do. They, the monions, do not appear to be interested in obeying the Great Commandment.

      At this time I think Mr. Voris should be publicly supported by all followers of Jesus Christ.

      God bless

      RIchard W Comerford

      Reply
      • If Michael had not anticipated being outed he wouldn’t be in need of support. Is that irony or something else? I would be condemned to punishment too. I know what mortal sin is. And think of the invective he hurled at Cardinal Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl. These men are naked at some point every morning just like the rest of us. I do not regard them as examples of Catholicity but I always wondered at the force with which Michael denigrated them: Was there some kind of, oh, I don’t know, some kind of “compensation” going on with these verbal lacerations? If Michael wants support he can see a therapist.

        Reply
          • Form and matter. Act and potency. Being composed of a rational animating principle and mutable (mortuable) material. Then the threshold of psychological power with the powers of the animating principle: the psyche. (read the Human Soul, Abbot Vonier) . There the potential for the volition to be, to some degree, subject more to the passions and less to the (immaterial) intellect, not withstanding malformation of the volition or intellect or the memory. So what do the good churchmen say to themselves when they are shaving in the mirror? Are their sentences Roman Catholic? This is a serious question. What does the one who hurls invective at them have in psychological threshold which might be to the exclusion of charity? I went through intense therapy each week for a year and then made a general confession during an Ignatian retreat with the SSPX. It took me two hours on my knees to make that confession. One of the retreatants mused during a break on the fourth day that all of us were going to need knee surgery. It was like spending 5 days on ones knees recognizing during the first two days the gravity of ones moral state and during subsequent days preparing for re-entry into the world. Who knows how grave are the sins of another? Not me. I had some very serious sins and a good deal of psychological and, more to it, voluntary/intellectual harm sustained after many years of poor faith and disoriented will while imbibing the tepidity of the post Vatican II church. I took it personally when Michael went after the Society.
            By the way, can you tell me how to set up a recurring payment to IP5?

        • Mr. Matthew Joseph:

          Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: “And think of the invective he hurled at Cardinal Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl.”

          For a half century the American Bishops enabled, protected, and in some cases ,promoted sexual predators from within the ranks of the Roman Catholic priesthood. During that time, by my estimation 9 out of 10 Catholics stopped practicing the faith. Our Bishops can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt.

          and in part: “Was there some kind of, oh, I don’t know, some kind of “compensation” going on with these verbal lacerations?”

          I do not know. I am not a shrink. But if our shepherds turn us over to the wolves then sharp words are merited indeed.

          and in part: ” If Michael wants support he can see a therapist.” The Great Commandment requires us to love our neighbor, to include Mr. Voris.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          Reply
          • If Catholics who left the true Faith knew their what the definition of “Church Militant” was, they would have stayed and fought the wolves with bishops rings. The laity who abandoned Christ the King when He needed them won’t get any sympathy from the Great Judge at their Particular Judgment. Viva Cristo Rey! Our Lady of the Rosary…only She can help you. St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, pray for us and protect us from evil. St. Rita, pray for us.

          • Mr. Nicholas Landholdt:

            Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: “they would have stayed and fought the wolves with bishops rings”.

            Great point. But how does a layman fight his bishop? A successor to the Apostles.Perhaps one can only endure persecution from one’s own bishop?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

        • One need only regard the comportment of Cardinals Dolan and Wuerl during the pontificates of John Paul and Benedict. Now that the barn door is open they follow the current presently in vogue. They are cowardly sycophants.

          Reply
          • I mean, hey, look at the photos of Cardinal Dolan flanked by Mitt Romney and Barak Obama at the Al Smith dinner… A Morman and a Muslim and the good churchman in the middle, his head thrown back in jocular up-roar. But what ever. I don’t think Steve Skojec wants too much digression…it is more important for me to have a Roman conscience. To that end there is the Breviarum Romanum, the Liber Usualis, regular readings of St. Thomas and a long habit of reading Latin. And Catholic devotions to Our Lords Passion.

  31. Michael Voris is a flawed man. Out of his human weakness God’s strength has been manifested in this instance. May it be so in my life. Indeed, in all our lives.
    Praise be Jesus Christ!

    Reply
  32. Michael Voris now has the St Augustine moment which he can use to show that a grace filled life after sodomy is possible. He should spend more time on that. I find it no surprise that a sodo- diocese as all too evident with Dolan doing what he did over the past few years in approving of said abominable sin would want to silence the only public critic. Let’s hope that more evidence and pressure will take out that influence there, including Dolan. He obviously has no fear of God in promoting sodomy. We can also see how the humiliation of Voris’ past life makes him invulnerable to the attacks of the enemy, as long as he remains humble, since a fear of a trashed reputation is removed. I forget which Psalm prays to remove from me the fear of the enemy. If only CM were so honest about Amoris Laetitia. So Michael now is your chance to show sanctity particularly to sodomites. As Mother Angelica always said don’t waste the opportunity. I cannot comment on your site since I have been blocked by the zealots.

    Reply
  33. “The folks at Church Militant and I do not see eye to eye on some very important things. But today, I stand with Michael Voris against those who would use public detraction to destroy a man’s reputation. Michael has my personal prayers and my public support in this fight.”

    This is where I stand, as well. I don’t claim to know what information is known or whether the NY archdiocese had planned what Voris accuses of them or not, but I will say that, had it been the case that public defamation was attempted, I do believe it would have backfired spectacularly. Faithful Catholics in this day and age are hardly likely to be traumatized, scandalized, or even particularly interested in stories of sinfulness prior to reversion. Heck, we’re not even all that surprised in stories of sinfulness AFTER reversion. We are human and this world is over-flowing with sin. The true surprise, and thus our eternal joy and hope, is that so many find their way back to HIs loving care.

    Reply
  34. Went to confession myself this morning. We might recall that some who have tried to shine light on the darkness of sodomites in the clergy have ended up dead….Fr. Kuntz comes to mind as one. The need to cover sin is great.

    Reply
    • If I was a whistleblower priest, I’d be packing. I’m not, but I still pack. LOL. Congressional candidate here and a big advocate of State Militia here. I’m promoting Catholic Action to establish Sanctuary States for defense against the anti-Christian army the Synagogue of Satan is raising. Think Mordor and the Orcs.

      Reply
  35. This is one of the many beautiful Graces of the Catholic Church: Reconciliation is actually a Sacrament.

    God bless you Mr Voris. The Good Lord loves a contrite heart. Just ask St Dismas…..

    Reply
  36. The Voris statement is clear.

    The statement by the archdiocese of New York, is not. It is ambiguous. I mean, it might have finished collecting and in any case in view of Voris’ honesty, it might have decided not to release anything in which case their statement would of course be true?

    A typical statement from a group hurriedly come together behind closed doors.

    Why not say, “ and never has done” for instance.

    Good for Voris!

    Reply
  37. We who have been banned from commenting on CM should get together and send Michael a Spiritual Bouquet reminding him that he is in Our Lady’s arms.

    You may not like us but we still love you.

    The Banished.

    Reply
  38. Michael attended seminary for 2 years in the 1980s—when our seminaries were at the height of depravity that was not only tolerated, but encouraged. (I personally have been told this by more than one former seminarian from that period.) According to the 2011 essay “Politics Color John Jay Study” by Bill Donohue of catholicleague . org , the bishops deliberately downplayed the role that rampant homosexual behavior among clergy and seminarians had in the sex abuse scandal. In this touching video, Michael tells us that “In a large portion of my twenties, I also had frequent sexual liaisons with both adult men and adult women.” Presumably this included those seminary years. I have a hunch that those who were about to expose Michael’s past were contacts from those seminary days. If this is so, Michael has an opportunity to give us an insider’s view of the seminary life that likely helped to temporarily drive him from the Church. We don’t need names or other ‘sensitive’ details, but telling us what seminary life was like at that time would give us a view that the cold data of the John Jay Study never will reveal.
    Michael Voris often is criticized for his acerbic tone. However, perhaps what underlies his sharpness is the fact that the “institutional” Church which he once planned to serve as a priest, betrayed him during that period when it SHOULD have been forming his vocation.
    I pray for Michael and for the Church Militant apostolate. And remember: even Jesus displayed “righteous anger” at times, sparing no words for the “vipers and hypocrites”.

    Reply
  39. Im not prejudging him, im post judging him. He lived with a dude in his 30’s. ! ? I understand the mechanics of that and its gross. He does not owe me an explaination. This current episode is about strategy in the face of likely extortion. His offering on ‘masculinity’ or his ‘sexually confused ‘ schtick is a joke. Turn in your man card Mike. Many of us out here have been providing for families since our early 20’s. Tell us about your earthly father and the back-hander you wish he gave you. Im not hearing a prodigal son story on this at all.

    Reply
  40. His life as well as his sins are between him and God just like the rest of us. I wouldn’t put it past the NY diocese to threaten something nasty like this. This kind of backroom politics is what drives people away from the Church.

    Reply
  41. Would I like to hear what evidence Michael had to push him to make this move? Yes, he made serious accusations that require evidence. This may have been Michael being paranoid, this may have been a smear campaign by the diocese, this may have been a rogue secretary who had it out for MV. We don’t know for sure and probably never will especially if the evidence just consists of a verbal reference from one of Voris’s sources. One thing no one can doubt is that MV did a very brave thing and he should be supported for that even if his accusations against the diocese fall through. There are those who are saying these past sins disqualify MV from being a leader in the church. To them I just say “God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.”

    Reply
  42. I don’t need to participate in Michael Voris’ past sins by watching the video. I’m running for Congress. If someone tries to blackmail me for my past sins, I’m not going to help them by confessing past private sins that are between me and my confessor. They will have to do that themselves and further bury their souls in Hell. See my Landholt for Congress page on FB. Help me, help you restore the power to We the People and together we will crush the Synagogue of Satan and his useful idiots controlling the traitors in Congress.

    Reply
  43. “Michael Voris wielded transparency like a weapon this week, exposing his own sinful past so that it could not be used against him or the organization he leads.”

    Transparency triggered by someone else threatening to reveal your past is not transparency. It’s a PR tactic called “getting ahead of the story.”

    Real transparency is nothing being hidden from the beginning, especially something as horrendous as this. Had Voris come clean at the outset and had made it his theme that homosexuality is not an “orientation” but a disorder from which one can recover with God’s grace, then we could speak of transparency. But had he made that admission at the outset, I rather doubt he could have achieved any prominence as a member of the Catholic Internet commentariat.

    My question is how does someone with a past like this, even if he is right with God today, get to be a public commentator issuing judgments against the likes of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?

    My view is that the only appropriate response to Voris’s revelations is an embarrassed silence, and certainly not a ringing defense of his “transparency,” of which there was really none.

    Reply
    • Even an old window can be polished and made clear. I come from the PR world, so I use “transparency” a bit differently, perhaps, then others might. It isn’t a question of chronology, but of disclosure when disclosure is warranted.

      Still, I agree with you that this should have been out there from the beginning (and I said as much in the post). It’s impossible for certain to say how it would have affected him. I have a lot of respect for Joseph Sciambra, who has been extremely open about his homosexual past and the damage it has done both to him and to so many men he has known. He is one of the hardest hitting against things like “the new homophiles” and the use by Catholics living celibately with SSA of the term “gay.” He’s also been very critical of the doors opened by the synods. I find his thoughts particularly compelling because he knows well how ruinous the road we’re all heading down truly is.

      I don’t think Voris’ past has much of anything to do with his credibility on +Lefebvre or the SSPX. He was wrong on those issues on a factual basis alone. Why look deeper than that? The bias was unjust, the tone was rancorous.

      My choice in saying what I said here had to do with my disgust at seeing one of the more corrupt parts of the institutional Church attempt to discredit a man who got too close to exposing their dirty laundry. Voris is wrong about a number of things, and I’ve not been shy about saying so. But his investigation of the Archdiocese of NY is something that is long overdue.

      I suspect we’re not at the bottom of this story yet, and my followup piece (which I don’t know if you’ve read) says as much. And I could speculate further, but I won’t. For now, know that our views on the matter may be closer than it appears.

      That said, there’s nothing wrong with commending a man for coming clean. Whether or not it was prompted by a threat, it was still no doubt a difficult thing to do, and to take public responsibility, as he appears to do, is certainly better than passing the buck or continuing to keep it quiet. He must know what it could cost him. And maybe it will. A few kind words of support in this instance cost me very little at all.

      Reply
      • I agree the bottom of this story has yet to be reached.

        Let me say this about Voris and his investigations. In the midst of the worst crisis in Church history—Amoris latetitia is the most horrific papal document in Church history—a massive investigation of how a “gay” monsignor in the Bronx spent a lot of money on himself and his boy toy while the Archdiocese tried to cover it up doesn’t strike me as groundbreaking work. That story can be repeated in practically every diocese in the Western Church. Take your pick. Investigate them all. You will find such scandals in just about every one of them.

        Church Militant seems to be dedicated to the proposition that we must never examine the cause of the ecclesial disease, which lies in Rome, but rather ignore it completely while demanding endless outrage over whatever symptoms Voris and his band of cub reporters are pointing at, and jumping up and down over, this week.

        And perhaps you saw his ludicrous back-tracking on washing the feet of women, which he blasted as absolutely intolerable a few years back, but now finds a way to justify because Francis has patented the abuse?

        The whole show from the warehouse in Detroit strikes me as a massive distraction.

        Reply
          • Thanks Father. I would say Voris didn’t just say “Rome Okay” but “Rome is right even when it teaches heresies”

        • I take for granted that their policy on ignoring this papacy is idiotic. I’ve written about it, I’ve had a nice little private flame war with Terry Carroll about it, I goad them on various occasions just to make sure they still have a pulse.

          I still think that the reporting they were doing matters — precisely because you can map this not just to every diocese, but to Rome. I mean, Msgr. Battista Ricca, anyone? THAT guy is the administrator of the papal household? He’s been caught with men several times.

          And the homosexual cancer, whatever demonic thing is driving it, is a big part of the corruption we’re seeing now. How many German prelates are pushing for the re-definition of sin and the destruction of the institution of marriage because they’re actually angling for acceptance of sodomy?

          So while CM’s negligence on Francis and Amoris Laetitia is inexcusable, I still think that waking people up to what’s going on in New York might shed more light on the rest (probably entirely inadvertently from CM’s perspective.) Not many people are going to read Randy Engels or Michael Rose, but they might watch a CM special report on the gay infiltration of the clergy.

          Maybe I’m grasping at smelling salts here, I don’t know.

          For the most part, I pay them very little attention, because they don’t really deserve it as long as they’re going to play coy with the biggest crisis in the Church.

          But I also have long thought that if they’d pull their heads out of….the sand, they’d be a powerful ally. They have a lot of traffic and a big reach. I know, I’m probably hoping for far too much. Perhaps especially now.

          Reply
        • There was also his backtracking on the song Amazing Grace after the Holy Father was filmed singing it. There are many examples.

          I agree, we haven’t reached the bottom of this story and if he drops the story he was trying to cover in NY, it will only confirm for many that there is more here than his public mea culpa. Personally, I think his association with Opus-never-criticize-the-pope-Dei needs to be investigated for it may be those people who tipped him off. If what he says about NY is true (probably), NY’s best strategy would be to allow him to go away quietly.

          People are offering their prayers and moral support because it’s the right thing to do. Will they be so quick to open their chequebooks?

          Reply
    • Mr Chris Ferrara:

      You posted in part: “Transparency triggered by someone else threatening to reveal your past is not transparency.”

      But are not our sins usually so to speak private? Between our soul and Almighty God. And indeed are we not all sinners? If our past life is to be a determiner can anyone of us be so pure as to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ?

      Although I object to the thuggish behavior of Mr. Voris’ minions can we not admit that he has done great service to Holy Mother Church?

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      Reply
      • No, our sins are not private when, as Voris has done for years, one refers to them publicly and repeatedly. Voris had a duty to make full disclosure in this case because we are dealing, not with individual sins long ago absolved, but an entire lifestyle based on sodomy for years on end. As he admits, he should have revealed this from the beginning.

        Reply
        • Mr Chris Ferrara:

          Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: “As he admits, he should have revealed this from the beginning.”

          Perhaps you are right. I am uneasy about this, in part, becasue God can make use of any of us to do good; and at what point (if any) do we say that a person’s past is too sinful to allow him to preach?

          Was there not a heresy (Donatism?) wherein some folks who had heroicly resisted persecution in the 4th century refused to accept priests and layman who had not given back into community?

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          Reply
        • If you are starting a ministry for junkies, your street cred as an ex-junkie is the foundation of your ministry. You don’t start a ministry for junkies and never reveal that you were junkie. You only hide information like that because you think will it hinder you.

          Think about the weird mass-culling of commenters at CM over the last year plus. And then an announcement like this. And then hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of comments on the confession article…and not a single negative comment to be found (unless you grabbed a screenshot like I did before they were deleted). There was more than a bit of savvy in all this.

          The whole thing about “Limiting God”…he managed to turn the confession into a sermonette. A confession with a sermon. That is what we have here, in part. It’s confused, sincere, tormented, humble, weird, and preachy all at the same time. I’m all for confession, but not ones loaded with platitudes and strangeness.

          I’ll say it again because this is ultimately where I land: God bless Michael Voris.

          However I don’t feel the same way about CM and their internal culture which seems to have cultivated a cult-like cult of personality 🙂 How can someone at the head of an organization like this be a cultbuster (going after DNY) when they spin their own “cult” to protect themselves? It just doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t in the end add up correctly. It won’t work. Confess, and then block all discussion? Accuse but have the facts wrong (SSPX) That’s just a little weird and a little impossible and a few other little things.

          Will they recover? Not if they don’t cover the news. For instance, no mention of the bomb Bs. Schneider just dropped today. Crickets (so far). Sooner or later people will catch on that they are not getting the news. And every time someone posts “hey, what about…” and they get banned…how does that scale exactly? A steady stream of temporary suckers for the premium subscription until they get banned? How does that work at all? Are they just collecting low information Catholics with disposable income for a subscription? From the comments on the confession article, that seems to be in some part very true.

          Reply
        • Mr. Ferrara are you saying Voris has to disclose it even he is not trying to preempt attacks against him? Isn’t it between him and his confessor?

          Reply
      • “Although I object to the thuggish behavior of Mr. Voris’ minions can we not admit that he has done great service to Holy Mother Church?”
        One can make the same argument for Catholic Answers, EWTN, etc. But Voris is different, he used to be lean towards traditional Catholicism comparing for example Catholic Answers which has always been Neo Catholic. But now Voris has changed he has made clear his position on Vatican II documents and he has outdone even Jimmy Akins of Catholic Answers in defending Pope Francis’ false teachings.

        Reply
          • I’ve listened to the folks over at Catholic Answers, particularly Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples. Pretty good stuff. What have they said or done that is wrong?

          • First I want to let you know that I understand exactly how you feel because I am a convert to the Faith and I used to listen or read or watch video online from them. Also you can add many others like Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn etc. It is going to take longer than one post to explain everything. But basically they are Neo(New) Catholics who support the teachings of Vatican II while traditional Catholics (with a wide range of spectrum from Sedavacantist, SSPX, FSSP, diocesan traditional priests etc.) oppose the teachings of Vatican II documents. The danger of the teachings of Neo Catholics are they are not liberals and like you said many things they got it right. But they are with Vatican II on rejecting major dogmas of the Church, such as Outside Church No Salvation. I would urge you to Google “Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God?” and you would see Tim Staples’ track on this question, please spend some time to read his readers’ comments. The truth is objective not depending on one’s subjective belief. The dogma of the Church is objective truth, which tells us we worship God the Trinity. While Muslims worship the Devil objectively because they reject Christ’s divinity. Even subjectively they might think the worship the true God. Also I encourage you continue reading this blog and other traditional media like the Remnant etc. God Bless!

          • FSSP is in union with the Church while sedevacantists and SSPX are NOT. In fact, penance and matrimony are not even valid in SSPX – though Francis did validate their confessions for the Year of Mercy, doubtlessly, as a conciliatory gesture. That means you can’t substitute SSPX masses for Roman Catholic ones.

            I read Tim Staples’ take on Islam – presumably the article you referred to in the link below – and I find everything he said was right. Staples is a very knowledgeable man.

            http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/do-muslims-worship-the-same-god-catholics-do

            Besides, a certain amount of politics is involved when writing about other faiths, particularly, irrational and incendiary ones like Islam. Benedict intimated what he really thought about Islam, albeit through the words of another, in his Regensburg Address of 2006 and it resulted in Muslim rioting that killed many people.

          • “FSSP is in union with the Church while sedevacantists and SSPX are NOT. In fact, baptism and matrimony are the only 2 sacraments valid in SSPX – though Francis did validate their confessions for the Year of Mercy, doubtlessly, as a conciliatory gesture. That means you can’t substitute SSPX masses for Roman Catholic ones.”

            This is simply factually incorrect. Do a bit of reading here, for starters:

            https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/will-cardinal-muller-meet-sspx/

          • No, I was 100% factually correct. The link you posted contains the Church’s relevant statements from Benedict and Muller on SSPX’s status within the Church.That is to say, they have NO status. It’s clear as the nose on your face, but you don’t want to see it.

            The lifting of the excommunication was a conciliatory gesture by Benedict to try to bring them back into the fold. Ditto on Francis’ part for temporarily restoring their faculty to hear confessions for the Jubilee Year.

            You have a theology degree, so I don’t know why you refuse to give assent to the Magisterium’s pointed directives. Yes, SSPX clergy have valid ordinations, and 5 of the 7 sacraments performed by them are valid, albeit illicitly conferred. Their marriages are neither vaild nor licit because they lack canonical form. As well, their confessions are invalid and illicit (aside from the temporary Jubilee year reinstatement, canon 144 and danger of death circumstances) because SSPX priests have no faculty.

            Even if their schism is material as opposed to formal, the fact is that SSPX members are heretical because according to canon 751:

            Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

            But, no problem because SSPX doesn’t recognize canon law and the papacy anyway. They, on their own authority – whatever that means – claim that state of emergency in the Church allows them to put aside canon law and override the Magisterium.

            Yes, there is a crisis of dissent within the Church, and they are part of it, albeit for opposite reasons. However, it’s not the type of emergency that legitimizes their arrogant, defiant, sedevacantist position. And, no, the NO mass is not the work of the devil. And, no, a Catholic can’t go to a SSPX mass even if it does have “better liturgy” than a NO mass – unless they can’t get to a Roman Catholic one. And, aside from this year, no, they can’t go to an SSPX priest for confession – unless they are in danger of death or can’t find a Catholic one.

          • Will, there’s a great deal of factual error here. You actually dug the hole deeper. I don’t have time to go dig up all the Vatican communiques on this matter, but let me do what I can off the top of my head:

            – You CAN go to an SSPX chapel to fulfill your Sunday obligation if your intention is to attend a TLM, not to engage in a “schismatic mindset.” The PCED has made this clear to those faithful who have asked. They have also said that it is acceptable for Catholics to contribute to the SSPX collections.

            – Having “no canonical status” is not the same thing as being not “in union with the Church.” It is an entirely unique situation that has never before happened in Catholicism; a group which holds to every Catholic doctrine and adheres to not one single heresy is considered to be in “irregular canonical status” because they object to theological innovations in matters of discipline and governance and in a pastoral council. Their theological objections, incidentally, are unassailable. Bishop Schneider, as an official Vatican visitor to the SSPX, has made clear that in his opinion there are “no weighty reasons…to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition.”

            He has also said:

            “When someone or something is unimportant and weak, nobody has fear of it. Those who have fear of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X ultimately have fear of the perennial Catholic truths and of its demands in the moral and the liturgical domain.

            When the SSPX tries to believe, to worship and to live morally the way our fore-fathers and the best-known Saints did during a millennial period, then one has to consider the life and the work of these Catholic priests and faithful of the SSPX as a gift for the Church in our days – even as one of the several instruments which the Divine Providence uses to remedy the enormity of the current general crisis of the faith, of the morals and of the liturgy inside the Church.

            In some sectors of the SSPX there are, however, as it is the case in every human society some eccentric personalities. They have a method and a mindset which lack justice and charity and consequently the true “sentire cum ecclesia,” and there is the danger of an ecclesial autocephaly and to be the last judicial instance in the Church. However, to my knowledge, the healthier part corresponds to the major part of the SSPX and I consider their General Superior, His Excellency Monsignor Bernard Fellay, as an exemplarily and true Catholic bishop. There is some hope for a canonical recognition of the SPPX.”

            – In a letter on May 3, 1994, Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, answered a question sent to him about the SSPX as follows:

            “As far as your question is concerned, I would like to point out immediately that the Dicastery for ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St Pius X. The situation of the members of that Society is an internal affair of the Catholic Church. The Society of St Pius X is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the sense that this Dicastery uses those terms. Certainly, the Mass and the sacraments administered by the priests of the Society of St Pius X are valid.”

            – While what you say is technically true about sacraments requiring jurisdiction (Matrimony and confession), the question of “supplied jurisdiction” remains open. There are certain sins which carry delicts from latae sententiae excommunication that priests must appeal to Rome to resolve. (They provide, as I understand it, provisional absolution pending confirmation from Rome that the penalty is lifted. Astute readers can correct me if I have this process wrong.) I have been told by sources within the SSPX that when they appeal to Rome on matters so absolved in their confessionals, Rome ALWAYS confirms their absolutions — even before the Year of Mercy indult. This confirms, in a practical way, that Rome recognizes the validity of this sacrament. (I wouldn’t have staked my soul on it, but it’s something to consider)

            – The lifting of the excommunication was not ONLY a conciliatory gesture, but a juridical one. No member of the Society remains in a state of juridical schism with Rome. Not one. This matters. And Benedict’s affections for the society are made clear in his 2009 letter explaining his decision.

            – I will reiterate: there IS NO SCHISM. Schism is, according to canon law, “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” To what legitimate request of the Holy Father has the SSPX refused to submit? Their theological objections are predicated upon the existing doctrines of the Church which are inviolate and immutable — things that no pope has the power to change.

            – Far from putting aside Canon law, the Society claims their “state of emergency” predicated UPON canon law; specifically, canons 1323 & 1324. You can argue the point, but you can’t deny that there is one, or that their position is essentially juridical in nature.

            – There is NO heresy in the SSPX. None.

            – Worth remembering is that St. Joan of Arc died a “heretic”; St. Athanasius was excommunicated. Neither of these ecclesiastical penalties was correct, and both were later exonerated

            – Anecdotally, a friend of mine knows an FSSP priest who “defected” from the Society. This priest was personally told by Pope Benedict that “Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century; you must bring his thought into the Church.”

            – It also appears relevant at this time to note that Pope Francis, for whatever reason or agenda, has told the Society that he considers them Catholic. It appears that full reconciliation is imminent.

          • I realize SSPX has had decades to develop a casuistry of justification for their position but, like a faulty math theorem proof , if ANY of its suppositions are faulty, the whole thing falls apart. And it doesn’t take a theologian to see the breach in their logic right from the get-go.

            “It is an entirely unique situation that has never before happened in Catholicism; a group which holds to every Catholic doctrine and adheres to not one single heresy is considered to be in “irregular canonical status” because they object to theological innovations in matters of discipline and governance……”

            The fly in the ointment stands out like a thrashing buzzard. SSPX does adhere to a single heresy – and that’s all it takes to be a heretic. SSPX categorically rejects the authority of the Pope; in fact, they reject the authority of the entire Magisterium. That would mean Christ got his promise of aegis wrong. Yes, the excommunication was lifted, but as Benedict sternly warned, the removal was strictly for the personal sanctification of the wayward bishops, not a reintegration into the Church or an approval to keep on doing their own thing. To wit: When Francis, as a peace initiative (as it were), validated their confessions for the Jubilee year, Bishop Bernard Fellay defiantly responded that he didn’t need the pope’s permission for anything. Ergo, he must think he’s the ONLY pope. Because if we don’t have to listen to Francis, but we do have to listen to him, he must be the true pope.

            I could say a lot more, but that by itself is enough to nix the notion Catholics can transfer their allegiance to SSPX, or even shuffle it back and forth. Besides, as a Catholic, why would I want to go to confession to a priest that I knew had no authority to grant me absolution? It would be one thing if I didn’t know, but the ‘common error’ privilege would definitely not apply if I knew. I would be committing a sacrilege .

          • “SSPX categorically rejects the authority of the Pope”

            That’s a complete fabrication. If I didn’t think you believed it, I’d say it’s a malicious lie. From their own easily-accessible FAQ:

            “The Society of St. Pius X has always recognized and adhered to the authority of the pope, and, as noted by prominent Roman authorities (e.g., Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos), the SSPX is not schismatic.”

            You’re evidently unable to understand the dichotomy here. The SSPX holds true all that Catholics have held true for centuries. They resisted the post-conciliar experiment because it deviated from these teachings (just as Amoris Laetitia now is) and objected to what the pope(s) were doing on the grounds that not even a Vicar of Christ has the power to contradict his predecessors — which is also true.

            I have always disagreed with the act of disobedience in consecrating the four bishops. I believe that God, as with Abraham and Isaac, rewards obedience even in circumstances which appear impossible. But I will not say that theological minds greater than my own and well-qualified canonists who say that the SSPX have, in fact, a juridical point that merits consideration are wrong. I have, over the years, expected as much, but as I watch the institutional Church and its eagerness to embrace heresy, I wonder if, in fact, the state of necessity/emergency may in fact have existed.

            But that is for God to decide. As it stands, the Church does not take nearly so harsh a stance as you do towards the society. Nor could they. They have never been suppressed, and they cannot be condemned — to do so would be to condemn the Catholic faith as it has always been believed and practiced.

          • 1) The present vicar of Christ hasn’t done anything yet except write some sloppily worded opinions in an Apostolic exhortation, which, ultimately, is only a personal reflection, and thus not guaranteed to be free of error. Certainly cause for concern, but he hasn’t crossed the line. A moot point because SSPX jumped ship under John Paul II and he could hardly be accused of heresy – though he did make one potential error in Evangelium Vitae (n.99) regarding limbo, which was later corrected.

            2) “The Society of St. Pius X has always recognized and adhered to the
            authority of the pope, and, as noted by prominent Roman authorities
            (e.g., Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos), the SSPX is not schismatic.”

            Are you kidding? Then why did Fellay say that he didn’t need the pope to make SSPX confessions valid?

            3) “But I will not say that theological minds greater than my own and
            well-qualified canonists who say that the SSPX have, in fact, a
            juridical point that merits consideration are wrong. I have, over the
            years, expected as much, but as I watch the institutional Church and its
            eagerness to embrace heresy, I wonder if, in fact, the state of
            necessity/emergency may in fact have existed.But that is for God to decide. As it stands, the Church does not take nearly so harsh a stance as you do towards the society.”

            I have no stance, harsh or soft. I’m merely repeating what the Church has decided. But I haven’t been able to find any canonists, well qualified or not, who consider the SSPX arguments valid. Take a look at Ed Peters’ examination. His well reasoned conclusion is that, beyond all doubt, they broke canon law. There are some arguments for SSPX, but they seem to me to be cunningly dishonest.

            If you start analyzing their “supplied jurisdiction” apologetics, you invariably come up with the torturous and forced, pseudo-sophiticated casuistry found in the quasi-sedevacantist Remnant. They’re quite lengthy but easy to take apart.

            http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0515-c-jackdon-sspx-confession-valid.htm

          • Your inability to grasp this is staggering.

            I’ll only address three points:

            1. “Then why did Fellay say that he didn’t need the pope to make SSPX confessions valid?”

            BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE SUPPLIED JURISDICTION

            2. “I have no stance, harsh or soft. I’m merely repeating what the Church has decided.”

            No, you’re exaggerating what the Church has decided. See here:

            https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/on-the-sspx-follow-pope-benedict/

            3. “Take a look at Ed Peters’ examination. His well reasoned conclusion is that, beyond all doubt, they broke canon law. ”

            The last person I’m going to go to on this is Ed Peters, who can justify almost anything. Including most of this papacy.

            The Catholic Church LOVES heretics. It loves Kasper and Marx and Daneels and Bonny and Koch and Kung and Rahner and you name it.

            The Catholic Church disciplines almost nobody. Pope Francis personally intervened to reinstate Fr. Sean Fagan, who blatantly contradicted Church teaching on sexual morality in his books, and was never asked to repent.

            The only reason the SSPX is in hot water is because they opposed the post-conciliar revolution. That’s it. They are a living indictment of all the crazy nonsense that has been allowed in the Church since the 1960s, and that drives Rome crazy. They can’t condemn the SSPX, because they believe all the same things my grandfather was taught as a cradle Catholic. But they can’t regularize them without admitting that their criticisms are valid.

            There is no injustice in the Church — none — like that of keeping the SSPX in “irregular status” for simply holding the line on Catholic teaching (on religious liberty, interreligious dialogue, the liturgy, etc.)

            If you’re unable to see that they’re Catholic in every meaningful sense of the word, and only wound up in the situation they’re in because the conciliar/post-conciliar popes threw out what Catholics believed and how they worshiped in several VERY important ways, then I can’t help you.

            The consecrations was their one mistake. On everything else, they were completely right.

          • Well okay, I think I’ve finally gotten it: SSPX priests have the ‘supplied jurisdiction’ because they think they have it. Why didn’t I see that before?

            One other thing I have a “staggering inability to grasp” is this: If SSPX is ‘sui juris,’ as you, Bishop Fellay and the Remnant crowd maintain, why not pack it in and join SSPX? After all, there should be no logical reason for you to endure a church with a simulacrum leader and liturgy, when you can get the real deal elsewhere. Save yourself the aggravation and join SSPX if you think they have the fullness of truth.

            However, I’m guessing you realize that if you did, it wouldn’t take long before it, too, was riddled with internal dissension – and soon thereafter we’d have an SSPXX, then an SPXXX…..ad infinitum.

        • Mr. Daniel:

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “One can make the same argument for Catholic Answers, EWTN,”

          I am not familiar with Catholic Answers. EWTN featured a string of priests, who unlike Mr. Voris, were engaged in seriously immoral activities while preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ.

          and in part: “Catholic Answers which has always been Neo Catholi”

          Our Lord and Savior did not divide His Church into a “Neo Catholic” and opposing wings. Perhaps we should not do so also?

          and in part: “he has made clear his position on Vatican II documents”

          I am unaware of Mr. Voris’ position on V II documents. I pray it is the same as the Holy Ghost’s position.

          and in part: “he has outdone even Jimmy Akins of Catholic Answers in defending Pope Francis’ false teachings.”

          I am not very familiar with Mr. Akins either. I am also unaware that Holy Father Francis has formally promulgated one of more false teachings.

          So. Let us ask ourselves. How many souls have we won for Christ? What significant sacrifices have we made to do so? And then think awhile on what Mr. Voris has done.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          Reply
        • Mr. Will Branson:

          Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: “what that all about?”

          I suspect that Mr. Voris, like Mr. Skojec, has won a few souls for Christ. One way to spread the good news of Jesus Christ in the 21st Century is via the dreaded combox. Here the spiritual works of mercy (counseling the doubtful, instructing the ignorant et al) can be practiced. Every exchange is an opportunity to win yet another soul for Our Lord.

          However Mr. Voris employs anonymous minions to work his comboxes. These cyber thugs themselves are often ignorant of the faith, which is fine, but sadly also play thought police excommunicating anyone suspected of heresy instead of practicing the spiritual works of mercy. They do great, great harm. Many lost opportunities.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          Reply
          • Anonymous minions and cyber thugs? I thought they had only one (overworked and underpaid) moderator. He (she?) seems pretty smart, but perhaps overly strict. We’ve had a few exchanges, both positive and negative. One problem though: They make mistakes just like everyone else; however, when confronted, they turtle. For example, Voris’ castigation of Benedict for resigning and abandoning his flock. Father RP and I independently, pointed out that it was allowed under canon law in addition to other substantive reasons, but it drew no response.

            Every blog has a right to set their own rules. However, of important note is the disconnect between the bulk of their members and their staff in terms of knowledge of the faith – and, for lack of a better term, gumption.

            For the most part, CM attracts the apparition crowd, a demographic that positively avoids discussing theological issues as if it were the plague. Mention of the latest apparition or miracle rivets them, while complex matters of vital importance, requiring understanding so they can be properly responded to, leaves them cold. For example, the rules regarding formal and material cooperation in evil with respect to employment and voting. Whenever I brought such issues up, I’d find myself talking to the proverbial wall. They just want to fire off (alleged) quotes from Our Lady of XYZ telling us when the next asteroid or other chastisement will hit.

            If I, as a layman who hasn’t studied philosophy, theology or hermeneutics, find it frustrating, how much more would an audience knowledgeable in those fields be put off?

            And when they get knowledgeable and helpful members (like Father RP), they suspend or ban him. That leaves me shaking my head.

          • Terry Carroll, executive producer (and rumored financier) of CM told me in May of last year (via email):

            “Michael writes every word of every Vortex script, every word of every conference talk he gives (actually, conference talks aren’t even written down!), and I and Simon Rafe, for the most part, have been the “email responders” for the past five years (I don’t do that any more since our staff has grown from the six who were there when I started to the 30+ we now have, and I’m going to be 70 in July!). That anyone but Michael Voris is responsible for what issues from our apostolate is beyond laughable.”

            Make what you will of that, but there’s certainly more than one moderator.

          • Ah yes, the renowned Simon Rafe. This from Catholic News Agency back when Church Militant TV was still Real Catholic TV:

            “Voris was equally surprised by evidence showing that his staff apologist and program host Simon Rafe – who is the webmaster at St. Michael’s Media, and co-authored its “Saint Michael’s Basic Training” apologetics course – had also written the “adult” role-playing game “Castle Dracula,” and fan-fiction depicting homosexuality in the Star Wars universe.

            “I don’t know anything about this,” said Voris, when presented with descriptions of the works and evidence of Rafe’s authorship.

            “As recently as August 15, the website batcave.co.uk hosted the text of “Castle Dracula: A Tunnels & Trolls Solo Adventure by Simon Rafe.” Signed and dated “Simon ‘The Darknight’ Rafe, Baptism of Our Lord, 2010,” the work contains a paragraph vividly describing a sexual encounter with “a beautiful Elven woman” revealed to be “Asrel, the goddess of love, life, health, healing, beauty and sex.”

            “Rafe gives the player a series of options in the scenario: “If you would like strength and vitality, turn to 70. If you would like health and life, turn to 383. If you would like true love, turn to 467. If you would like sex appeal, turn to 203. If you would like sexual potency, turn to 366. If you would like make love to the goddess (even if you are female – Asrel is an equal-opportunity lover!), turn to 11.”

            Yet Rafe is still a player in their operation. According to the Wiki entry:

            “Rafe removed the materials from the internet and apologized for ‘actions I took as a private individual.’ St Michael’s Media and RealCatholicTv.com curtailed Rafe’s duties to only administrative and technical obligations, suspending his involvement in other areas which had included public speaking and hosting productions.”

            These kinds of sexual embarrassments arise again and again with efforts to turn the Faith into a continuous TV show involving celebrity priests and laity. Witness the rise and fall of EWTN celebrities on account sexual misconduct, including no fewer than five priests (Frs. Roberts, Stone, Euteneuer, Cutié and Corapi).

            Undaunted, EWTN continues to feature Fr. Sirico, who was ordained to the priesthood despite his notorious “gay activism” and his presiding over numerous “gay weddings.” Asked recently by National Catholic Reporter about his involvement in “gay weddings,” Sirico not only declined to repudiate them unequivocally, but actually depicted them as helpful:

            “I believe that my activities in the 1970s, though representing a very different political and theological stance to the ones I hold today, nonetheless help me to understand the complex issues that go into the debate ‘gay marriage.’ These insights have also been helpful in my pastoral work with persons who have same sex attractions and have given me a greater sensitivity into the struggle to live a chaste life.”

    • Bad boy, Mr Ferrara. If you think the only appropriate response to Voris´s revelation is an embarrassed silence, Why don´t apply that to yourself?

      Reply
      • Because no one has observed an embarrassed silence, that’s why, but rather the Internet has been flooded with comments that invite comments. If people had not rushed to praise this belated revelation, I would have said exactly nothing.

        Reply
    • I think Christopher, your self- righteousness is becoming more and more “transparent”. What a ridiculous comment, as though your motives and drives are pure and holy. MV has repented. Which you agree with. If he has ulterior motives now(see my comment above)who can throw the first stone? Can you? Can I? No!!! Prayerfully look to your own soul first. Look for the “plank” in your own eye first.

      Reply
      • That’s rich. Here is Voris on Cardinal Dolan (at the same time he was still concealing his past):

        “You sully the bride of Christ with your wickedness,”

        “What the hell is wrong with you?”

        “…[Y]ou no longer believe the Catholic faith.”

        “Do you think you have any chance of escaping hell when you die if you don’t repent of this before your death? Do you even believe in hell?”

        “How dare you parade… around New York in the red robes of a bishop?…”

        “You need to repent publicly and swiftly. You need to admit the many sins of scandal you have caused… for the sake of your own soul…”

        “What you are doing is evil and wicked…. Do not think the punishment visited on you will not be of the most severe when you die….”

        ·“You need the humility to publicly recognize your sin, admit it, repent of it, and resign your office now….”

        “And for the record, any other bishops who have lost the faith need to step aside as well for the same reasons.”

        You can return to Church Militant now.

        Reply
        • You protest too much. When I listened to MV’s confession, I did not see the need for this public revelation. But in light of everything that followed. I’ve changed my mind. That he should have admitted his sordid past from the get go. However, that’s the easy part. It’s easy to say what someone else should have done. What would I have done under similar circumstances?? What would you have done?? I probably would have done what Michael did. This is where your self righteousness comes thru loud and clear.

          Reply
          • You raised an objection. I answered the objection. You replied that “I protest too much” and then repeated the objection. This is known as trolling. I am not interested in indulging it.

          • You want to play at being a lawyer. Save it for your clients. My comments are aimed at the spiritual life, yours and mine.

          • Why not ask Voris what he would have done if he were in Cdl Dolan’s shoes? It’s easy to sit on the sidelines as Voris does and find fault with the way Cdl Dolan responds to any particular situation. Voris has set a double standard. He demonstrates neither humility nor Christian mercy when speaking of Cdl Dolan or spotlighting the sins of prelates while hiding the gravity of his own sins (and I suspect he spent more than a bit of time, effort, perhaps even money, in keeping references to his homosexual lifestyle off the internet and out of the public eye). You seem to have no problem with Voris’s lack of charity toward Cdl Dolan but take exception to someone questioning the “transparency” of Voris’s eleventh hour confession.

          • Obviously. you haven’t noticed that you and quite a few others(the herd mentality)are sitting on the “sidelines”, not Voris. In your self absorption, you can’t grasp MV’s generosity of spirit and courage to do what he and his staff do everyday. The herd mentality militant, at least in this particular post of Steve’s. He for the most part avoids all this mindless chatter.

            I owe a debt of gratitude to Voris and crew for helping me to see the vast extent of the moral corruption within the church since Vat ll.

            The point you made about Michael and Cdl. Dolan is pathetic. Really!! You should be ashamed. Tragically, shame is no longer accepted as an appropriate response(depending on circumstances)because the West has rejected the Church’s infallible doctrine that we are wounded by Adam’s sin of pride and are prone to do things that are shameful.

            One thing that I notice in some comboxes is the lack of awareness that some posters display, an awareness of their own sinfullness. And one of the worst is the sin if self -righteousness. Of all the sins, it with pride is universal. No one escapes.

            I dare say that Michael, if he has not already humbly accepted the parallel between his coverup and Cdl. Dolan’s betrayal, he will with God’s grace. Since grace is always and everywhere offered by His infinite generosity.

            The difference is that Michael has repented of the sins of his sordid past, and his apostolate is witness to that. As for Dolan, he has not repented, and his words and actions are witness to his ongoing betrayal of Christ and His church. So he got exactly what he deserves from Michael, who has spoken so fearlessly, directly and passionately against Cdl. Dolan’s colossal corruption. So for you to say that Michael “demonstrates neither humility nor Christian virtue” is absurd. To speak the truth, especially when unpopular, is the height of humility and virtue. But Michael is still a sinner. Period.

            And while I’m on the topic of humility, the lack of respect for truth displayed by you and some others in this forum is appalling. The ad hominum attacks and your strawman attack just above in your comment to me. Well, what can I say?? Not good and not Christian.

  44. The fact that the New York Archdiocese, an arm of the Roman Catholic Church, is the perpetrator of this horrendous act makes it even more evil.

    “When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” John 8:7

    Jesus did not condemn the woman, but he did say “Go, and now sin no more.”
    ——————————————-
    One truly cannot make this stuff up.

    Reply
  45. You mentioned you did not see eye to eye with Church Militant on some very important issues. I was under the impression your apostolate and theirs are both loyal to the Magisterium.

    Reply
    • We disagree on whether the Magisterium (particularly our present pontiff) is faithful to the Magisterium, and whether a lay organization can declare a religious congregation in schism (when the Church doesn’t). Those are some big issues. I’m sure there are more, but those are top of mind.

      Reply
  46. One thing that just occured to me while reading this article again. Homosex culture usually involves the sexual abuse of children. Has Voris been around this sort of stuff during his time in the velvet underground?

    Reply
    • Maybe he was one of the children so abused. Would explain the anger. Plus abuse isn’t always a physical act. Or even an act at all. Omission is a sin also, and is spiritually abusive if you fail to warn someone of grave danger of sin.

      Reply
  47. A priest wrote something at akacatholic (I support both blogs) accusing Christ Ferrara wrote something here. Here is respond I wrote at akacatholic. Hopefully we can all use objective facts and logic rather than emotions on this matter.

    “Finally, I must say I was rather surprised by Chris Ferrara’s response to Michael Voris’ situation as posted on 1Peter5. He took a rather cynical line, was ungracious to the man verging on the vindictive. No matter how vigorously we may disagree on very important issues, still, surely even at the human level we must feel pity at seeing someone having to abase themselves so publicly, and at the supernatural level be glad to see someone rescued from a life of sin and embrace the Faith anew”

    The opposite is true (by the way anyone know if Voris has released any evidence on his very serious charge against New York Archdiocese?) Mr. Ferrara is the one (and possibly Michael Matt, John Venarri and others who have not jumped on the bandwagon of denouncing NYAD and canonized Voris) who has a cool head and respects the objective truth rather than emotional one sided unsubstantiated serious accusation. What is the objective truth that everyone including Voris can agree on? That is he has either changed his mind or made it clear when before his position was not clear before, that he is a faithful supporter of the diabolical disorientation of Vatican II. There is no dispute on that one. After he changed his mind and started attacking The Remnant (why is there no tears from those fans of Voris when there was huge drop on subscribers of the oldest traditional newspaper in the country and Chris Ferrara has to appeal for donation so many of us besides being subscribers start giving monthly support) and all traditional Catholic medias who oppose the teachings of Vatican II documents calling them publishers of “pornos”. So the bottom lines are these two questions
    1) Is Voris not a heretic if he supports Vatican II (please if anyone has any doubt go to their web site there is an article challenging anyone can find error in any of the Vatican II documents. of course the challenge does not allow you to actually challenge them at all the interns would delete any comments not praising Vatican II)?
    2) Does his public confession of a past personal sin on the 6th commandment make him a non heretic?
    3)If he refuses to provide evidence to support his public accusation against NYAD(why does he have to name NYAD in the first place if his objective is preempt any attacks coming his way? now NYAD has responded it forces him to provide proof), would you consider him at least a suspect of Calumny against the Holy Church and one of the successors of the Holy Apostles?
    God Bless!

    Reply
  48. I wish to add some other thoughts to this discussion about Michael Voris.
    When he was in the velvet underground, did he ever see or take part in the sexual abuse of minor children? Homosex culture is notorious for this. As a person who has known several victims of childhood sexual abuse, I think this is very possible. And after he claimed he quit the queer lifestyle, did he ever go to the police about child victims he knew about?
    Was Voris a victim of childhood sexual abuse himself? I think this is very likely. Nearly all of the stories I’ve ever heard personally, or read about in articles or books, almost always trace homosexual and other types of sexual abuse and behaviors back to childhood sexual trauma. Voris hints that his family life during childhood was chaos, so that would be a perfect setting for sexual abuse from a family member, a family friend, or a neighbor.
    Was Voris setting the scenario of himself as a ‘reformed” homosexual up years before he admitted it? I believe he did six years ago in a Vortex he did showing homosexuals as “victim souls”. In the light of current developments, this video sounds like Voris himself is pitying himself as a victim soul. However, Randy Engels rips apart Voris’s faulty logic about homo victim souls in this short article. http://www.speroforum.com/a/41124/Michael-Voris-and-homosexual-victim-souls#.VyTCma8o7ml
    Why is the CM.Com studio located in a known homosexual neighborhood? Ferndale, Michigan is a well known queer to go place, like the Castro district in San Francisco is. It seems strange to me that a person who has turned his back on the gay lifestyle would place his business in a gay neighborhood. All of the books or articles I’ve ever read about people who have made the break from this lifestyle get out of such places and avoid them all together. Couldn’t Voris and Carrol gotten some property in a decent neighborhood?
    Why did CM.Com keep Simon Rafe after he was exposed as a writer of homo stories? Years ago, even in a secular business, if you were caught doing something like this, you would have been fired immediately! At Caterpillar Inc., where both my father and I worked all our lives, years ago if you were in management, and got caught in adultery, you had the choice of being demoted to a factory job, or going out the door. If you were found to be queer, it was just out the door! Nobody who considered themselves to be decent wanted to be around such persons. Yet a Christian business kept a writer of homo fiction on staff.
    In all, I fear that Michael Voris’s confession was just a cover your ass ploy. I share Chris Ferrara’s skepticism about his actions, based on Voris’s past public behaviors.

    Reply
    • The longer he goes without saying anymore about the scandal in NY, the more people will wonder the same things.
      Even organizations that care little about morality have known that people with backgrounds like this are easily blackmailed. If Ferrara is right, and we haven’t reach bottom, what has really changed with this revelation?

      Reply
      • I don’t know, but he couldn’t have picked a worst name for the program. Pause is queer slang for sex. I hope sincerely that this wasn’t a sick joke on his part!

        Reply
        • He had better keep his “pause” off those nice young men.
          This is the near occasion of sin for him and he puts the vulnerable at risk.

          If he falls due to human weakness, he could undo all the good he has done because it will just make his followers cynical and likely to despair.

          One wonders if this is how he was recruited.

          Reply
  49. No evidence has been brought forth to back up his charge and yet he has dropped his investigation of the biggest scandal in the Church (outside of Francis’ papacy) since the “pedophila” story of 2002 broke.
    What’s even more queer is that he is now recruiting young men in his “Pause” program to teach them about, of all things, MASCULINITY. The Onion couldn’t come up with better satire.

    Reply
    • Now SV, Christine Niles sez Voris is the most masculine man she knows, so show a little faith in Mr. Voris’s program. Sarc off.

      Reply
      • 3rd person of the Trinity told her that he was going to be her husband. How’s that working out?
        Watch his melodrama and hand gestures. There are a lot a red flags and indications that he needs more prayers in this area.
        Blowing off Mass because you’re busy is a lousy idea. Daily Mass is a better one.
        And not at the goofy ones he prefers in Detroit

        Reply
        • Okay.
          But the fact remains that no evidence has been brought forth regarding his accusations against the archdiocese and he has dropped the most explosive story he ever got his hands on.
          Yet, he and his people continue to slam anyone who has anything critical to say about the man currently sitting in Peter’s chair.

          Reply
          • You’re correct. Those are facts, and as such, fair game.

            I tend to suspect his accusations against the Archdiocese are real. What many people don’t know is that he went to seminary there. I suspect that his inside information came from contacts formed in those days – as did, no doubt, their dirt on him. Perhaps they’ve formed a stalemate.

          • He tells EVERYONE that but merely taking a few classes from Smitty at Dunwoodie does not make one a seminarian for the Archdiocese of NY.
            Even the Chinese Patriotic Church sent people there then.
            The archdiocese has Michael exactly where they want him thanks to their army of attorneys, none of whom are Catholic but rather adherents of that “other great Monotheistic Faith Tradition.”
            Leaking details about one’s private life just ain’t the NY way.

          • If MV made up a story that the Archdiocese was going commit the sin of detraction so that he could gain sympathy or thwart a lawsuit, such a violation of the Eighth Commandment could be a greater sin than what he confessed to publicly in his Vortex.
            It means he slandered the Church for personal gain making himself no better than the Christophobes in Hollyweird.

        • My comment was not meant to be what you call an ad hominem. It was aimed at Voris’s Pause program being given a name that was also queer slang for sex. Mrs. Niles comment was brought in because it was very ironic in the light of what was going on.

          Reply
          • OK. I misread your comment earlier. But I do want to stay away from unnecessary personal commentary.

            There are real causes for concern here, and the facts alone are sufficient to highlight that.

          • I’m glad we ironed that problem out. I like your blog because it deals with the reality of what’s going on in the Church. I meant no malice toward Christine Niles, but IMHO, she’s a very naive young lady to say what she said in defense of Voris.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...