SSPX: Church Militant Guilty of Peddling Sleazeeditor
Editor, Catholic Truth, writes…
Our blogger, Athanasius, has now studied the recent articles about the SSPX published by the American organisation known as Church Militant (CM), which were brought to our attention recently.
To describe those articles as “sleaze” is an understatement, by any standards. Their most recent piece can be read here but we warn readers that there are descriptions of graphic sexual deviancy published therein, and so, since Athanasius’s article below is perfectly understandable without the need to read the CM articles, we do not recommend visiting the link; we supply it only in the interests of necessary documentation for those who require to see the writings at source.
A Response to the Church Militant Reports on Former SSPX Priests Accused of Homosexual Abuse…
Having read the sexual abuse trilogy produced by Church Militant against the SSPX, one question above all remains to be answered: Has this been a noble cause for justice or an exercise in vengeance?
The first step to answering this question is to ask another… Given that this handful of accused homosexual abuser priests are no longer in the SSPX, and given the new, very strict guidelines that all religious communities are obliged to follow concerning child safety, is there anything constructive to be gained from this trilogy?
The answer is clearly and emphatically no; there are no young men or children presently at risk in the SSPX and no predators presently at large within its priestly structure of 500 – 600 clerics. Hence, it seems more likely that this is a set of historical accounts written up with a view to doing more harm than good.
I think anyone with a knowledge of Church Militant’s very deep seated hatred for the SSPX over many years will be hard pushed to imagine that justice was ever the motive here, bearing in mind that Michael Voris is himself a former sexual pervert who, unjustly in my opinion, was forced to admit as much in public before others revealed his past sins with a view to discrediting him.
I mention this because it seems strange to me that a man who had himself suffered such injustice would be so ready to reveal the sins, or perceived sins, of SSPX superiors, not even sparing the holy memory of the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre.
That superiors within the SSPX may have failed in the past to adequately address predator priest issues is sadly all too familiar in the Church. How many times have we heard of superiors failing to take appropriate action against abusers for fear of scandalising the faithful, or simply because they were negligent due to incredulity, failing to believe what the victims’ parents themselves were apparently failing to believe from their own children’s accounts? Sadly, it is a very common theme.
Whatever the reason for past failures in the SSPX, scandalous as they are, it is fairly certain that the superiors themselves were not sexually deviant men intent on enabling abusive priests. At worst they were irresponsible, perhaps even criminally so, God alone knows. No one will escape the divine justice, that’s for sure, although, thankfully, God judges by intent and not by perception.
Speaking of which, I am fairly sure that Church Militant did not intend by its graphic revelations to enable paedophiles, as I suspect its detailed descriptions may well do. I am no psychiatrist but it seems to me that such deviants may be drawn like magnets to stories revealing graphic accounts of child sexual abuse, if only to pleasure their sick minds with whatever images the Church Militant accounts conjure up for them.
Has anyone thought about this? Do these people not realise that the Church has a very good reason for referring simply to impure acts rather than detailing those acts in a graphic way? But then I suppose when the end is vengeance you really have to be graphic enough in detail to elicit an emotional response from readers, even if some happen to be deviants whose emotional response is altogether different from that which was intended! Graphic details of child sexual abuse are for courts of law, not for public platforms where anyone can read them and be incited to offend.
Worse still is the possibility that weaker souls could be lost to the faith as a result of such revelations, as happened en masse in Ireland when the secular media reported its stories on clerical abuse and the failures of superiors, demanding severe and immediate punishment for all who failed.
I wonder if the authors at Church Militant have considered that if just one immortal soul is lost as a result of the utterly depressing and demoralising stories they have published, stories that will result in no natural or supernatural good whatsoever, then there is every possibility that they themselves may lose their souls as a result.
Had children still been at risk in the SSPX then there would have been every good reason for Church Militant to highlight the fact, but that’s not the case and they know it.
So what is the motive? Well, given that Our Lord suffered the ultimate injustice in this world, even to the point of being betrayed by one of His own, the motive is clearly not justice in the Catholic sense that teaches us that divine justice is unavoidable, infallible and far stricter. No, this is vengeance, a desire to do harm to a priestly fraternity which, while it has suffered its share of “filth in the Church”, to quote Pope Benedict XVI, is nevertheless in general a good and holy institution founded by God through His servant Archbishop Lefebvre in a time of great crisis in the Church.
If it were not for the SSPX there would be no Traditional Mass in the Church today, no Traditional priesthood, no Traditional doctrine, all would have been swept aside by now. Had Church Militant included this vital objective observation, along with a balancing reminder that the greater majority of SSPX priests are good and holy priests, then I might have been inclined to believe that the intention is to serve some form of natural justice. But no, it is a biased piece of sleaze reporting that benefits no one other than bitter people and perhaps the aforementioned paedophiles who may enjoy, if such is the word, the filth CM has printed for their deviant pleasure.
That natural justice for genuine victims of clerical abuse within the SSPX or anywhere else may yet be possible, is for the proper legal authorities to assess, for they, not Church Militant, are solely empowered to investigate and report in such criminal matters.
In the meantime, anticipating the response of Church Militant and anyone foolish enough to trust its motives, I lay down the following challenge:
Show me one good to come from this sleaze story that will truly benefit victims, the Church or any individual soul, naturally or supernaturally, which could be said to equate with true Catholic justice.
That’s all I ask, just one concrete proof that this was about true Catholic justice and not the secular worldly parody of justice that convicts without trial and demands public humiliation for all who are perceived to have failed in their duty to protect. The author of the above article is Martin Blackshaw, who lives in Scotland – aka our blogger, Athanasius.
The traditional calendar, names today, Friday 8th May, as the Feast of the Apparition of St Michael the Archangel. Our editorial comment on this subject concludes, therefore, with the recitation of the prayer to St Michael, which we suggest be offered for Michael Voris and his team, i.e. all those involved in the work of his organisation, Church Militant…
Holy Michael, Archangel, defend us in the day of battle.
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of he Devil;
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts,
by the power of God, cast down into Hell, Satan, and all wicked spirits,
Who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.
I read all of the CM piece and no doubt that the main character was a Pervert but as for the rest of the Article it is shady to say the least. It’s all He said This , He said That . He should have Known of This He should Have Known of that . In one accusation it says it took the accused Priest more than 2 years to Sexually Abuse someone that he seen on a regular basis. Personally I find that something of a Contradiction. Although Voris himself never wrote the Article he would have course have Edited it . He seems to be a Man on a Mission. Or maybe it should be a ‘ Man Who Needs To Go To A Mission ” .
The closing line of your comment is spot on, I think this man needs to do something about his spiritual life as soon as possible. A retreat would be of greater advantage to his soul, I think, not to mention the author of the articles.
I will never believe that Catholics who recount graphic filth in public print, especially involving youngsters, are pure of mind or heart. There’s something seriously amiss with their conscience, not to mention a complete absence of the wisdom of the saints.
I have posted on here a few times of my cowardice in not speaking out when a Guy I knew for most of my Life accused Priests of Sexual Assault.
The Main Stream Media ( especially the Guardian, no surprise there ) took up his case with Gusto . Of course I couldn’t have proven that the Sexual Assaults never took place. Neither could they be proven that they did take place . We now live in a Society especially if your a Catholic Priest or a Catholic running for The Supreme Court that Your Guilty until Proven Innocent. Funny how the same thing that happened to Brett Kavanaugh isn’t acted upon by congress with Joe Biden.
While it is often impossible in historical cases to prove that they did happen, it is likewise impossible to prove they didn’t. That’s why the courts always had a statute of limitations on all crimes, because after a certain period of time it becomes very difficult to get to the truth beyond reasonable doubt. Very difficult, though God remains as ultimate judge who sees all and repays all.
I’m not arguing for or against the article above as I don’t really know the history between Voris and the SSPX, but if he is discussing sexual abuse, and quoting victims describing the things done to them, how are they supposed to describe it? If the priest in question touched a certain part of anatomy, what should the victim say? I didn’t read any ‘graphic filth’, apart from what appeared to be quotes from a victim (s) of this priest.
That is certainly the way of the world, but as Athanasius points out somewhere, graphic descriptions may be required in court, but not in a report, and certainly not in a report published on a Catholic site. As a former Protestant you will be aware of St Paul’s warning to the Ephesians (and possibly the Galatians, not sure) that followers of Christ should avoid all unwholesome, crude talk. You ask how are they supposed to describe it… Answer, they’re not. Every other publication refrains from graphic descriptions – in my experience, they only refer to “sexual abuse”. Whatever, it is not necessary in any Catholic publication to speak crudely, for any reason, ever.
You make a good point. There is a very great difference between disclosing past traumas (in all their gritty details) to a tabloid journalists such as Voris et al. and giving evidence to a court of the land. In a court one gives evidence under oath, and this evidence is kept secret under penalty of the crime of ‘contempt of court’. The evidence is also subject to criminal procedure and judgement is given my a qualified judge or jury of judges or ordinary citizens.
Big difference. I cannot help but think that these victims have spoken to Voris from a place of hurt, and that Voris has exploited them, as journalists tend to do (and i know because I’ve dealt with them).
I myself have experienced trauma in the past. I often have unexpected and intrusive memories of these past experiences and this causes me to suffer extreme embitterment and dysphoria. It always passes, eventually. Anything I say or write during these episodes I almost always usually regret. You see, we should never say or do anything from a place of emotion, only reason. Reason is spiritual, whereas emotion is just the result of brain chemistry, and our physical bodies are subject to the affects of the Fall.
I’ve dealt with a journalist in the past, and this particular journalist had an axe to grind, and he exploited my grievances which I disclosed during such an episode that I describe. And I deeply regret the things I told him. I cannot but help think that Voris and Niles at Church Militant have exploited these victims who are really badly hurting. You see these victims hate what their victimisers have done to them, they don’t necessarily per se hate the SSPX. But Voris and Niles don’t care about these victims more than they care about bashing the SSPX. Voris and Niles are simply exploiting the victims so they can indulge their hatred of SSPX. It’s twisted.
Yes, you’re right, esp. your last paragraph. The abuse probably did happen, but it’s being taken advantage of to further an agenda.
The secular press are very good at doing this. Voris and Niles are behaving like the secular press and using their same tactics.
My congratulations to Athanasius for this excellent article rebuking the inflammatory anti-SSPX “Church Militant” for their outrageous attacks. I have preferred to remain silent on this side of the ocean while our District has marshaled its forces and published some preliminary responses. Since some of the “sources” of these attacks come from close to home for me, I may at some future time write a suitable refutation. Till then, my habit is to remind people that Our Lady is still Queen of the SSPX. She will give its enemies enough time to repent and then bring down her heel.
Thank you for your kind remarks, I hope soon to see your own rebuttal of this disgraceful assault on the SSPX.
For Michael Voris to recount such graphic filth in public under the banner of “Church Militant”, portraying the SSPX as a haven for perverts without objective regard to the greater number of good priests and people associated with it, is about as vile as it gets. I hope all Catholics of good will now see what manner of man Voris actually is, the lengths he’ll go to.
I have no idea what drives this man but it certainly is not a thirst for justice, much less a desire to edify Catholic souls. He’s really and truly secular gutter press material.
You’re right, though, Our Lady is Queen of the SSPX, the institution having been consecrated to her by Archbishop Lefebvre, her servant, whose holy memory Mr. Voris has so scurrilously attempted to destroy. The man is more to be pitied than scorned.
We’ve discussed here, with great frequency, the highly questionable nature of this Church Militant operation, including, lately, its possible connections to Opus Dei. I can’t quite shake the impression that when I look at Voris, I’m looking at an empty suit, a public relations stunt man.
I do have a couple of questions, one about Athanasius’ fine piece, the other about a new development:
1. “Vengeance” is mentioned as a possible motive for this smear campaign, but I’m not clear on vengeance for what, if any, specific incident.
2. The latest development is that the SSPX has established an independent review board to review allegations of clerical sexual abuse. However, I see on their website that they are already partnered with an organization called “Plan to Protect,” To wit:
“Plan to Protect® helps the SSPX with policy development, upkeep and implementation as well as with training and certification of SSPX Plan to Protect® staff. With their years of experience, they supervise and audit our efforts; furnish training, give advice, and exercise supervision as necessary; and provide a wealth of support materials.”
I’m not clear, given the Society’s membership and subscription to “Plan to Protect,” why they needed to establish an independent review board, unless that was the latest recommendation of Plan to Protect.
I can’t really answer the question of why the SSPX is establishing an independent review board, although it sounds very plausible that this forms part of the “Plan to Protect” strategy.
The vengeance thing, for me, comes in with all the disgruntled former SSPX “witnesses” brought forward in the Church Militant piece. I don’t mean the people claiming abuse, I mean those throwing in their tuppence worth of damage without really knowing anything, people like the one we discussed a while back who left the SSPX only to later be charged and found guilty on various church theft charges, a man who plays the pipe organ at the services of Lutherans, Anglicans and goodness knows what other heretical places of worship. No one will convince me he’s a credible witness to anything.
Overall though, it was the absence of any kind of balance or objectivity that made me think “vengeance”. Maybe “vengeful” would have been a better word to choose, though it means much the same thing. Something spurred Voris to lend a platform to these accusations and it wasn’t justice!
Thank you, I think that’s a strong possibility, and it reminds me of the mentality of the “Resistance” in their attacks against the Society, attacks which do indeed originate, so I was told several years ago, in the vengeful schemes of Bishop Williamson against Bishop Fellay.
Speaking of +Williamson, I note he plays a rather ignominious role in the CM narrative regarding this pervert priest from Argentina.
I hadn’t noticed this response from you yesterday, yet have subliminally thought along the same lines today. Here it is, save you searching:
If there is one valid alert to come from the evil Voris attack on the SSPX, it is that two of the priests accused of abusing youngsters are now with Bishop Willamson’s “Resistance” clique. Yes, that’s the same Bishop Williamson who appears to have accepted, protected and promoted the now infamous Fr. Urrutigoity at Winona seminary. Now that’s definitely worth further investigation because it represents a possible real and present danger to children. Just shows how God brings good even from evil.
Forgot to mention a headline I saw yesterday: Voris is now claiming credit for the new independent review board!
Perhaps he will next claim that Al Gore is a liar, and that he, Michael Voris, in fact, invented the internet….
Well it has to be said, the man is very good at inventing things!
You got that right. Although, while I agree that he can invent things, I’m not so sure “good” is the description I’d have chosen, not after the excuse he made to get out of meeting me during his visit to Scotland, some years ago. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, maybe a thousand times, but – as Groucho Marx once said – if I’ve told you this before, don’t stop me, I want to hear it again… 😀
Michael Voris was apparently keen to interview someone who could discuss the Scottish Catholic “scene” (well, I’ve always imagined myself in Hollywood) So, after scratching their heads for ages trying to think of someone, the organisers told me, the only name with which they could come up, was unworthy li’l ole me.
Thus, I had a telephone call from one of the organisers, asking if I would be willing to be interviewed by Michael for one of his videos during his visit here, and I very humbly, as is my wont, said “yes”… Although, knowing that the interview was to be conducted by an American, I probably added “well, sure, shucks, pleasure, WOW!” Anyway, having set up appointments with top hairdressers and beauticians (who made me sign disclaimers in case the problems were as insurmountable as they seemed at first appearance – so to speak) I awaited the return call to confirm the details.
Here’s the return call…
The New Me (following beauty treatment)… “Yes…. Hi! WOW! Good to hear from you again! Howzitgoing with Michael?”WOW! ”
Organiser… er… em…well…O yes, going fine …But…
The New Me… O, great! That’s marvellous. I’m looking forward to his talk at Carfin. Can’t wait! Isn’t he just brilliant? Fancy, he coming to Scotland! Or, should I say Scaaaaatland! (laughter – from me…) OK, so when do we do the interview? What will I wear? Should I buy a new outfit? Will there be a huge audience?
Organiser… er… em…well… No, actually, Pat. He’s not able to do the interview after all…
The New Me… O, goodness me, I hope he’s not feeling intimidated because I’m so famous or anything? Tell him I’m really just an ordinary girl, er… gal, with a brand new face and hairdo, but apart from that, just an ordinary girl… gal…
Organiser… O no, nothing like that. It’s just that he hasn’t got his internet equipment with him, that’s all, so he’s having to leave interviews this time.
The New Me… I see… Well, can’t be helped. That’s fine. At least I didn’t buy a new dress and I can visit lots of friends to get my money’s worth for the beauty treatment… No problem… See you at the Carfin talk… Bye….
On entering the hall for the Carfin talk, the first thing I saw was a load of internet equipment up there on the stage, and when he returned home, I found this…
Still, our interview would not have been a success since the very first words he uttered in the hall at Carfin were to assure the audience that this crisis was no big deal – there had been plenty of crises in the Church, this is just the latest. And, I thought, to think I’d struggled with my rather challenged parking skills to hear him talk nonsense like this, plus to treat us all like a classroom full of dimwit children: “Put your hand up if you know someone who is lapsed from the Faith… ” That sort of silly stuff that wannabe teachers do… I didn’t put my hand up because even then I didn’t know anyone who was practising the Faith – well, I exaggerate, but only just.. You’ll get my drift. I just listened in astonishment to the whole impoverished talk, and didn’t even feel inclined to ask a question or make a comment, which is not at all like moi. Believe me.
Later, I had a letter published in The Herald denying, stoutly, that Catholic Truth had paid for his trip here (heavens, Catholic Truth hadn’t even paid for my beauty treatment 😀 ) as Garry Otton, notorious homosexual campaigner had claimed. As a matter of interest, Garry had attended the Voris talk and approached me to introduce himself (told you I was famous) and he seemed ever so friendly. I didn’t know who he was, at first, he was so nice to me, but once he told me his name I realised that we had locked beliefs and opinions in the press from time to time. Anyway, here’s his take on the Voris Carfin talk – you honestly couldn’t make it up (although, to a large extent, Otton did…)
For the record, the reason Voris didn’t want to interview me is 99.99999% because the organisers would have told him that I attended the Glasgow SSPX church, which is about the next worst thing to dealing drugs anyone could do at that time. Happily, I think things have moved on a little in Scotland. Drug dealing is definitely rated more deadly/criminal than attending SSPX Masses. I think…
My God Ed You fairly get about I personally had never heard of Gary Otton but after what I read there about him av no doubt that he would make an excellent SNP . Or if the terrible Person known as Patrick Harvie abdicates his Green Party Thrown they have one who can step up to the plate in an instant. Also as a so called Local Boy as far as Carfin is concerned it’s the First time I knew it was just across the road from Motherwell. It’s a true saying right enough
You Do Learn Something New Everyday.
I think he means Carfin Grotto is in the Diocese of Motherwell. Sometimes us lazy people cut it down to “Motherwell”. Shock horror.
The lesson is that Otton and Voris are well suited, equally adept at making up stories!
I think you had a narrow escape at Carfin, if you ask me, otherwise you would have been forever tainted with a Church Militant association. Or should that be immortalised? At least you kept your reputation in tact.
Reputation intact? Me? I have just tried to find a joke that fits that concept of moi having a reputation worth keeping untainted, and – unsurprisingly – there isn’t one 😀
Instead, I got this reply from Google…
I read “vengeance” as referring to Voris’s persistent claims that the SSPX is in schism: his sudden statements in that vein lost him friends in the “traditional” community in the USA – previously he had shared platforms with, e.g. Michael Matt & Co.
That they set about correcting him on the status of the SSPX with irrefutable evidence, can hardly have pleased him. That’s my take on the vengeance – he seeks to “get” the SSPX and this is as good a way as any, it seems to me, considering his lack of logic, as evidenced in his insistence on the baseless charge of schism.
Think about it: even the POPE has said that the SSPX is “Catholic”, not schismatic, and it’s not that long since Voris was insisting that nobody can criticise a pope! Logic is not his strong suit!
I didn’t want you to feel left out, so I must also agree with your analysis of “vengeance”! I’ve been taking lessons, you see, from our Peronist Pope…. 🙂
But, I venture to ask, what about the Opus Dei connection? Do they have a wild hair about the SSPX?
BTW, I need to correct something in my initial post in this thread: I mean to refer to Voris as a public relations *front man,* not a “stunt man.”
Come to think of it, though….
Since the Opus Dei people are 200% papolatrists, I think we can take a wild guess at their attitude to the SSPX. But you didn’t hear it from me, OK?
Believe you me, Opus Dei do not take kindly to SSPX. They regard them as heretics and schismatics. I tried tilting at that windmill with them many times but had to let it go. As Ed said, they are 100% papolatrists.
I know one Opus Dei priest-numerary and he is tolerant of my sympathies to Archbishop Lefebvre and the FSSPX. They’re a mix bag. But yes, I agree, they are on the whole ‘papal positivists’ (as I like to call them). Perhaps 99.9%
All I can say, my friend, is that you have had a better experience with them than I have. They ruined my spiritual life.
I did know a priest, and he was a diocesan priest who was a non-numerary member of Opus Dei. He was an inappropriate spiritual director and he caused harm to me, although he most likely didn’t intend to.
Another priest of Opus Dei is a a numerary preist of Opus Dei. He is a very good spiritual director. The difference is, he wasn’t a preist to begin with, he was a layman. He was then selected to become a priest by the governance of Opus Dei, probably on account of his moral character and his wisdom and pastoral skills. I suspect there is a difference in quality between the two kinds of Opus Dei priest. Which type did you encounter?
I encountered a numerary priest. His advice led to me being wracked with guilt and scruples. I still don’t have a functioning spiritual life because I am terrified of going back to the scruples I had before. [Editor: I removed personal health disclosure – please avoid]
I experienced something similar. Perhaps being converts we made the mistake of taking these priests too seriously… we failed to realise that the Catholic Church is idealistic, i.e. holds the faithful to extremely high standards, but doesn’t crucify us if we fail to meet these standards. Protestants have it the other way around.
Rigorists and fanatics are not suitable spiritual directors for sensitive people. These days I would always be more discerning in my choice of spiritual director. I was also very zealous in my youth, which meant I was less critical of inappropriate spiritual advice.
I don’t think they help being rigid and insensitive. It’s just their personality. I suspect the preist I encountered may have had autism.
The UK district of the FSSPX has published its safeguarding policy on the internet. It is clear that the UK district are doing all they can to protect children and vulnerable adults to the highest standards. As for Voris, I have long felt there was something dodgy about him. I met him in Carfin when he visited in 2013, and I got a strange vibe from him then.
One of our American friends, a sometime blogger here, username Wurdesmythe, emailed Athanasius this morning, copy to Catholic Truth, in gratitude for Athanasius’s article. He is unable to blog at the moment, for technical reasons, but gave permission to reproduce his message. See below…
Thank you for your article on CT about the CM attacks on the SSPX. One of the priests named in the attack articles is school headmaster at my new chapel home: he is a kind and generous priest, and these slanders and betrayals are a great cross for him, as they have been for all the innocent priests named. Sadly, some of the parents of students are talking about removing their children from the school “just in case.” It is another consequence of the gossip. It was good to see you making a public defense. Be assured of my prayers. Ends.
The CM articles are a total disgrace. There’s no way they can be justified. To reveal cases that are now past history and the priests now gone from the SSPX, without any evidence that the problem is ongoing, is nothing short of gossip. CM lost any credibility it had anyway, IMHO, when Voris took the position that it was never right to criticise a pope. How ridiculous. Then he got out of that one by saying you could criticise him for his moral teachings (when it became obvious that he was in the wrong to say that immorality was allowed, e.g. Communion for the divorced and remarried etc) but not for anything else.
Voris is a complete plonker, and his going after the SSPX on such flimsy grounds is just more proof of that.
Voris has it the wrong way around about criticising the Pope regarding morals and doctrine.
I meant to add… Voris has it the wrong way around for the following reasons: If I hear that Pope Francis is having [inappropriate] parties in Domus Sanctae Martae, then I have no right to judge him. I can pray for him, absolutely, and if I happen to be his friend I can speak to him in private about the matter. But I have no right to judge him, and certainly not in public. This is because I am not the competent judge, and I do not have access to the whole truth of the matter. I am ignorant and all I know is hearsay. Hearsay may well be based on truth but of its own self it is not evidence. It is not up to me to make myself an investigator, judge, and jury.
Differently, were the Pope to announce that all men are saved and that one does not need to be Catholic to go to heaven, then as a Catholic, I have a right and duty to resist this error. And should another Catholic having heard the pope speak this then fall himself into this same error, I have a right and duty to contradict the Pope.
Am I correct about this? I think I am correct for the following reason… In the past we did have popes who had [inappropriate] parties. However, this did not constitute a crisis in the Church, and in fact the Church was relatively healthy actually.
We may judge him as we would judge any other professional. Given his job title, holding inappropriate parties is a cause of scandal, for those in attendance and everyone else involved or potentially involved.
So, were I to meet him next day when he was clearing out the lemonade bottles after his noisy party, he’d be treated to a huge slice of my “judgment” – trust me.
The only thing we are prohibited from judging, is the eternal destination of souls. We are not prohibited from correcting errors and bad behaviours – otherwise, we would need to close down the law enforcement agencies from the local police stations to the High Court.
I ought to have made a distinction… I would consider the courts of the land to be a ‘competent judge’ as Saint Paul makes clear in Romans 13:1-7. I just don’t hold myself to be a competent judge in the matter of hearsay, and neither is Voris!
If I myself had to clean up after one of the Pope’s hypothetical parties, then I myself would judge him privately. But I wouldn’t write a sensational article in the press about it.
If I overheard hearsay that someone was abusing a child or vulnerable adult, I would report it to the authorities, or at least I hope I would have the courage to. But it is up to the civil authorities to investigate and judge the veracity of that hearsay, not me.
I don’t think hearsay should ever be reported on because of the damage it can do to reputations. Hearsay isn’t allowed into a court of law for that very reason. Personally speaking, I would never inform on anyone on the basis of just hearsay, which is often wicked gossip. Just look at the suffereing of Cardinal Pell on the basis of hearsay.
Yes, actually, come to think of it, I believe what you say is true, and I now agree. By Catholic standards of morality we should not report hearsay. It can ruin innocent people’s lives.
However, I have the impression that the law requires that persons in a position of care, i.e. teachers, social workers, health care professionals etc. must report hearsay on account of mandatory reporting rules. They are essentially coerced to report it or else it could jeopardise their own reputations and livelihoods. Even if there is no legal obligation to report, they are still coerced to do so, because of the current climate of paranoia around the subject. For example, I did safeguarding training for volunteers at my local diocesan curia offices. The training leader gave us a true/false quiz. One of the statements was “Children sometimes make up accusations of abuse”. Most of us responded “true”. The training leader informed us that the answer was “false”.
Please don’t think I’m trying to justify Voris’s attacks on the SSPX – he is definitely not my cup of tea and I never visit the CM site, I’ve really no time for him at all. I attended his talk in Scotland when he came to Carfin, and was definitely not impressed.
However, this part of the article linked above (I did visit but skimmed the explicit descriptions) makes me wonder what the answer is to it:
” The circumstances lead one to question the involvement of Lefebvre — founder of the Society — in this affair, as he had complete knowledge of Urrutigoity’s predation in the seminary, but gave the green light for him to be ordained a priest of the SSPX.
That really is worrying. Is there a satisfactory explanation?
I think the only answer to your question is that there cannot be a satisfactory explanation. If Archbishop Lefebvre knew about the seminarian’s predatory behaviour and actually allowed him to be ordained, knowing about it, he was obviously in the wrong. However, we need to remember that even canonised saints have had to spend time in Purgatory for various failings, despite having cause to be canonised. Not everyone in positions of authority, in the world and in the Church, can honestly say they have never failed in any matter, sometimes even grievously.
I think a lot of bishops were very negligent in this matter, for various reasons over the years in the 20th century. I’m not sure we can judge them by today’s standards where we look with horror on such abuse. Who knows what kind of way they viewed it then, perhaps not realising the full gravity of what it actually was. I don’t know, but I think honesty has to prevail and just admit that if he knew about this man’s disgraceful behaviour, the Archbishop was wrong to let him be ordained.
The way CM refers to the Archbishop as “Lefebvre” is one pointer to their motive which is to discredit the SSPX just because they hate it. IMHO, it doesn’t discredit either the SSPX or the Archbishop. It just shows that neither was perfect and the SSPX is still not perfect, I think it’s safe to say, since nothing is perfect in this world (especially not CM !)
There is a satisfactory explanation, it’s that the statement is utterly false. Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991, almost 30 years ago. I knew him and I can assure you there’s no way he would have shielded a sexual predator priest, not even the remotest possibility. This is the danger of people like Voris recounting historical stories that are difficult to check on, it’s how sleaze reporting gains legs. Believe me, it’s trash.
What reason do we have to mistrust Dr Jeffrey Bond who quoted +Williamson who in turn was quoting Archbishop Lefebvre? I know these stories are impossible to prove, with the only evidence being witness statements, but how can you know that the Archbishop didn’t trust +Williamson’s advice over Fr Urritigoity’s opponents?
That quote was taken from a 2002 synopsis of the situation regarding Urrutigoity under Bishop Timlin in Scranton, Pennsylvania, wherein Dr. Jeffrey Bond recounts the story of what Bishop Williamson told him.
There are two aspects to this: First, if the Archbishop did allow Urrutigoity to enter the Winona seminary with the “watch him like a hawk” line, which I don’t believe for a second, then he did so against the backdrop of an active and destructive sedevacantist element that had infiltrated into the SSPX in its early days. You may recall that Archbishop Lefebvre was forced to expel the infamous nine priests in North America who were pushing sedevacantism. These were trusted priests, including senior seminary professors who not only tried to turn the SSPX sedevacantist but also bought a lot of property on behalf of the SSPX and put it in their own names. Hence, when they were expelled they kept a lot of buildings that rightfully belonged to the SSPX but were legally theirs because of their fraud. So we can see how claims that a seminarian was being persecuted by a known sedevacantist seminary rector in Argentina might have been accepted as plausible.
Secondly, If Bishop Williamson told Dr. Bond that Urrutigoity was kicked out of Winona because of subversive rather than sexual misconduct, then Bishop Williamson must be capable of the most extraordinary lies. Fr. Urrutigoity’s sexual deviancy at Winona seminary is precisely why he was thrown out and why Bishop Fellay wrote to warn Bishop Timlin about him.
I’m not convinced that any weight can be put behind this story of what Bishop Williamson may or may not have said. Voris borrowed from an account written up almost 20 years ago without checking with the source for confirmation.
Athanasius and CC1,
Bishop Timlin was one of the worst derelict and scandalous bishops in the United States:
Just read about him. Shocking.
Yes, absolutely shocking stuff.
I think the part you left out of your citation tends to prove, in addition to Athanasius’ comment below, that this is made up of whole cloth. That part is:
“Watch him [the pervert priest] like a hawk.”
That doesn’t strike me as something that the Archbishop would say, or do: if he had doubts, he would not have admitted the seminarian, rather than half compromise by admitting him with the caveat “Watch him like a hawk.”
As a sidebar, if you look up the characteristics of a hawk, you might find that some of them fit Bishop Williamson, who was responsible for the admission of this pervert at Winona, rather well. And I’m not talking about acuity of vision, either….!
At the very least Archbishop Lefebvre would have established a full canonical investigation and would have personally checked the stories of the seminarians. To just write off such a serious accusation with “watch him like a hawk” was definitely not the Archbishop Lefebvre I knew.
How well did you know the Archbishop? Was he a personal friend?
Ultimately we cannot judge. We are not the competent judges. In the future, the Church, according to the rigorous and traditional process, will have to investigate Archbishop Lefebvre during his cause for canonisation, as they once did for all candidate Saints. I suspect they will find the Archbishop not culpable, and I believe that one day he will be made a Saint.
Bear in mind that John Paul II has also been accused of covering up abuse (Marcial Maciel). Has Voris ever spoken about this? Would be dare to?
Even if Archbishop Lefebvre had acted in an immoral way, then it wouldn’t per se undermine the mission of the FSSPX, i.e. that there is a crisis in the Church, it goes to the top, we have a duty to recognise that the pope is pope, but resist him, for example the new Mass. Even if it transpired that Archbishop Lefebvre were having [inappropriate] parties in Êcone before he died, it wouldn’t per se undermine the general point he was making.
Never having heard of the kind of parties you keep mentioning, I Googled and found, as I suspected, that they are not exactly tea parties. I have, therefore, removed the term from all of the posts wherein you use the description. “Parties” would have sufficed to make your point or “inappropriate” parties – I’ve replaced the term which you originally used with “inappropriate”. I trust that you will understand – we’re trying to keep this blog as Catholic as possible and not the kind of place where anyone will find impure talk, at any level. I say that knowing that you mean no harm.
You’re still an A* bloggers, be assured !
Yes, I understand. I used that name for a particular kind of party because the former prime minister of Italy, Berlusconi, was alleged to have hosted them, as reported in the press some years ago. But I agree, we need to be as morally impeccable as possible in our use of words since our enemies are out to accuse us. They lie in wait ready to pounce on the tiniest moral infractions.
I’m in the mood to pile on, so as a general comment about Voris’ use of the word “Vortex” to describe his so-called investigative videos (“Where lies are trapped and exposed”), this has always irritated me, and perhaps he should look up how vortexes work. Objects don’t get exposed in them: they swirl down the drain, as in a draining bathtub, or up into a twister, as in a tornado.
For example, if Editor dropped a little piece of chocolate into a draining bathtub, it would not be trapped and exposed, it would head down the drain and disappear, and she’d have to repair to the cupboard for another piece.
Likewise, if some cattle were caught in a tornado, they would be swept up and deposited miles away, dead as a doornail. The operative word, in both cases, is “suction.”
I’d be sending for a plumber, no kidding!
I really do not understand the people who say that the hierarchy didn’t know how to deal with cases of abuse. Can someone explain how knowledge of paedophilia and how to deal with reports and accusations was different in the 20th century Church and wider society than the 21st? I would have thought the obvious way to deal with such priests is to report accusations to the police and remove a priest from his duties until the matter is proven. If the accusations are found to be true then the priest should be laicised and handed to the civil authorities for punishment. I don’t believe they didn’t know how to deal with paedophilia. The authorities in church and state knew how to condemn homosexuals and how to deal with them. What’s the difference?
In my opinion, remembering my own initial reaction to the claims of such abuse by nuns and priests, it was just so unthinkable that a religious or a priest/deacon would do such a thing. Thus, in my case, certainly, the initial reaction was one of disbelief that such a thing could happen. And thus my instinct was to dismiss the claims.
Obviously, if a bishop were receiving such reports and did not investigate, that is indefensible, just as anyone in a supervisory position over anyone else, has a duty to make sure that their employees/subordinates are behaving appropriately.
I tend to make a distinction, though, between the early claims of such abuse and later allegations when there was some background history, giving the benefit of any doubt.
Cases such as the McCarrick scandal, however, where the evidence was jumping up and down for all the world to see, as Archbishop Vigano has intimated, are totally indefensible.
I totally agree – and have said the same since these cases multiplied – that any priest found guilty of child abuse (or those who have affairs) should be immediately laicised. For all sorts of reasons, I believe that should be the choice facing a priest who is seriously tempted into an affair. I do this, and I will be (not “may” be) laicised.
I know, I know, I’m a hard wummin.
A reasonable person would expect you to have reacted to such claims as you did. that is, with naive disbelief …
“As if anything could be unclean for those who have clean hearts! But for these men, defiled as they are by want of faith, everything is unclean; defilement has entered their very thought, their very consciences.” — Titus 1:15 (Knox)
But I agree, for a bishop not to investigate an allegation of this kind is indefensible.
You are correct … there were ways of redressing such crimes in the canon law and disciplinary procedures of the Church during the 20th century.
An excuse, among others, given by the Church was that secular experts had recommended that credibly accused priests be referred to therapy, and that this would be sufficient to stop them from offending.
That is not a legitimate excuse because child rape and molestation have always been a grave sin according to the Divine law, the natural law, and the positive laws of the Church of previous millenia.
The reason these churchmen didn’t act is because they did not have sufficient grace to act. Saint Augustine says that is no sin none of us wouldn’t commit were it not for the grace of God. God, in his perfect justice, has withdrawn his grace, as a chastisement against the Church, and ultimately the world.
Keeping my cynical nature in mind, I would hazard that any bishop who claims not to know how to respond to reports of clerical sexual abuse, or ignores those reports, is probably a homosexual – and there is a significant but unknown percentage of homosexuals in the hierarchy.
If a bishop is a homosexual, that means he is part of a network of homosexuals, and it also means that said network is likely to threaten to expose him if he acts against an offending priest.
I think, therefore, that it is mostly a matter of extortion or blackmail which is the cause of these failures to act.
On that subject, there is a new headline about Cardinal “Nighty-Night, Baby” Tobin of New Jersey (a McCarrick protege). Twitter has a photo of his Director of Operations wearing a T-shirt that says “Smile if you’re gay.”
I would be careful of referring to Bishops who cover up child sex abuse as homosexuals. Whilst homosexual activities, like fornication and adultery, are wicked acts, I don’t think that homosexuality is synonymous with paedophilia. The majority of abuse is done by heterosexual men by their own families. If you had a son who was ‘gay’ would you suspect him of being a paedophile, or watch him like a hawk, to borrow a phrase, when he was around children? What if these priests are abusing girls? How do you know Popes and Saints weren’t same sex attracted?
Whilst I’m on the subject: I don’t know much about Voris or his personal predilections but I would call him a pervert as the author of piece above did. Whilst his actions are gravely sinful, to use terms such as sodomite, pervert etc is counter-productive. If we want to save homosexuals, we won’t be successful at it if we use words what they would perceive to be insults. We have to strike a balance between condemning sins but without shutting the door on people. Plus, before we refer to ‘perverts’, we don’t know what struggles Voris experienced. Hence, I think we should show a bit more understanding. I repeat, what would you do if you had a ‘gay’ son?
I disagree. The John Jay study revealed that 81% of the clerical abuse in the United States was performed by homosexuals, and not upon children, but upon boys in their early teens and older. Thus, I’m not referring to “child” sexual abuse. That is a mis-characterization of the problem, and I stand by my earlier post. I believe that type of disordered attraction is called ephebophilia.
And if I had a “gay” son, which thank God I don’t, first of all I would not use the term “gay,” which has been co-opted by homosexuals to sugar-coat their disorder. Then I would have him study carefully the teachings of the Church about celibacy, accompanied by much prayer and mortification.
As for understanding, the Church understands human nature, in all its disordered variations, better than anyone. Therefore, the highest form of understanding is to pass on what the Church teaches about homosexuality. That said, however, I agree that the word “pervert” is likely to cause a defensive reaction, so I will stick with “homosexual.”
You will note that I wrote the word ‘gay’ in inverted commas. I did that for brevity’s sake, as it would have been tedious to keep on typing homosexual. I agree with your middle paragraph, as that is what I would do. I would be patient and compassionate, and explain the church’s teaching and counsel him to receive the Eucharist and go to confession to receive all the grace necessary.
Even the word homosexual is problematic because it could mean one of two things and everything in between. And secularists are able to exploit this in order to attack us.
Victor i could not agree with you more about the word GAY being described as Homosexual . In this the Month of Our Lady it especially irks me as the Hymn The Sun Is Shining brightly words were altered . At the end of the Hymn the words used to be ” And all the World is Gay, for it is the Month of Mary the lovely Month of May ” these have now of course been changed .O to remember the days when being GAY meant being Happy and Joyful.
Editor – visit the Month of Mary thread to hear The Sun is Shining Brightly, with the words unchanged from days of yore…
Catholic Convert 1,
I remember Cardinal Winning getting blasted in the press for speaking about homosexuality as a perversion, but he stuck to his guns. Also, Pope John Paul II said – when speaking about abortion but it applies across the board IMHO – that the time has come to call things by their proper name (“abortion is murder”).
If something is perverted it means wrongly used, and that is true about those who use the gift of sexuality in a perverted way. It’s not a personal insult, it’s just an accurate description, a fact. It applies to anyone who misuses something, including their sexuality, not just homosexuals.
I understand your point about the definition of pervert, but as both myself and RCA Vic said that word would lead to people to go on the defensive. These people, like all of us, are susceptible to sin and deserve compassion and respect. Many of them face unspeakable suffering, both internal through guilt or external through persecution and being expelled by their families.
On account of my sensitive nature, I too used to get wound up by these language wars that take place around this subject. Now I just let it go over my head, and in charity, I contextualise what the other person has said to take from it the most innocuous interpretation possible.
Just to throw another thought into the mix, homosexuals – especially activist homosexuals – have become so well-armed with their own self-righteous lexicon and their own illusory “rights” that they are well-nigh unapproachable with the truth, no matter in what form or in what gentle language it is couched. The truth, to them, is “hate,” and therefore, the Catholic Church (that is, those rare clergy and laity of the Church who actually affirm Church teaching) is a “hate group.”
I sometimes wonder if the best course for these thin-skinned people is to wait until they have reached the end of their disordered rope before reaching out to them. Sooner or later, the endless parade of sexual partners, drugs, alcohol, bars, and orgiastic parties will drive them to higher ground.
He said, optimistically…
I suspect +Winning was referring to persons who engage in and/or promote specific interpersonal actions which offend the natural law. He will surely not have been referring to habitually continent persons who experience an exclusive and long-standing sexual attraction to the same gender. The problem he encountered was that it is not clear what be meant when he said ‘homosexual’, it could mean more than one thing, same with the word ‘gay’. Secular critics were able to exploit this and construe him as a nasty homophobe. These ambiguities lead to language wars and these are pointless battles to be fighting… One just goes around in circles.
In charity it is best to contextualise what people say to take from it the most innocuous interpretation possible. Alas, the secularist enemies of our religion are not so charitable… Say one clumsy statement and they will destroy you.
I think it is almost certain that Cardinal Wiining was referring to those who commit unnatural sins rather then those who are attracted to the same sex. The latter is not a sin when resisted. In fact it can be hugely meritorious before God, just as any resisted sin is. As the saying goes…we should hate the sin but not the sinner. God knows, we all have our temptations in this life, be they of a sexual nature or in some other deadly way.
I see that no one from Church Militant has ventured onto this blog in response to Athanasius’ challenge. Anyone surprised?
When the first part of their porn trilogy emerged I went on to the CM website and placed an objective comment. That comment was deleted and I was instantly banned from the site. So much for transparency and honesty. The truth is they can’t respond to the challenge I presented at the end of the rebuttal because there is nothing good or just in what they’ve done, though possibly much evil.
And to think, it was Voris who accused other Catholics of being ‘spiritual pornographers’! (meaning those who publicly criticised Pope Francis)
That’s a great point!
I second that good point.
I third it.
Has anyone sent them the link though? They might not know about it.
Most of the big hitter in the States have never heard of Catholic Truth Scotland.
St Paul The Great,
What makes you say that? Do you live in the States?
Note: your questions were not answered.
I do not sit in front of a screen blogging continuously. I have a life.
I’m in England, but have extensive contacts in the States. Your editor hasn’t told the whole truth.
Editor: (1) we do not have anyone here blogging under the username Patricia (2) such a silly term “I have a life/get a life” (for obvious reasons) (3) please explain what you mean by “…editor hasn’t told the whole truth”… about what? Please spell out what you mean. I, for one, would like to know since I do my best to be truthful at all times, and never deliberately or knowingly speak falsehood. So, spill – you have my permission to divulge all – I’m as curious as everyone else 😀
St. Paul The Great
If all you can manage is a couple of vague sentences then I suggest you leave blogging well alone and get on with whatever life you have. Leave the commenting to people with sufficient social skill to be able to exchange honestly and with clarity. I feel sure St. Peter The Great would second this good counsel. 😀
St. Paul The Great
If true then they need to broaden their horizon. There is a Traditional Catholic world outside of the U.S.
I agree – but I don’t believe that the American publications don’t know about Catholic Truth. For one thing, Voris knows about it or he wouldn’t have gone out of his way not to interview the editor when he was here in 2013. He must have known he’d be biting off more than he could chew! LOL!
I believe Voris team googled traditional Catholic in Scotland and came across the site. The decision not to go ahead was nothing to do with the SSPX and more to with the realisation the organisation consisted of two or three elderly women.
Editor: your meaning is not clear. Obviously the SSPX is does not consist or two or three elderly women, and if Voris thinks that Catholic Truth “consists of two or three elderly women” then there we have the evidence, crystal clear, that the research methods over there at Church Militant leave plenty to be desired! The “Voris team” could not be more wrong. Still, that’s not exactly breaking news to us 😀
Our apologies – it’s one elderly woman ! I believe the even SSPX in the U.K. don’t support Catholic Truth Scotland.
Editor: “our” apologies? You using the royal “we”? We ARE impressed. Again, however, you couldn’t be more wrong, but if so, why would it matter if Catholic Truth were only “one elderly lady”? Are you one of those old fashioned sexist men, or are you ageist? Shocking. For the record, though, let me say again, for the final time, we’ve had quite a bit of what you would term “support” from various priests, SSPX and diocesan – some of whom have both addressed and attended our Conferences, participated in our various events, you name it. The name of our current Prior was featured on the advertisement for our now cancelled (due to the Wuhan-virus) Education Seminar, scheduled to take place on 23 of this month. So, I think you’d need to re-think your definition of “support” Sugar Plum 😀 Now, this has been fun, but it’s now over. Byeeeee!
PS you need some lessons on identify fraud… 😀
I’ll take it you folks, Church Triumphant and Ecclesia Militia, are here to do your bit for the boss, Michael Voris. Well you have the opportunity to take up my challenge if you think you can, otherwise you’re wasting time and space here.
Be assured though, you won’t be instantly banned on Catholic Truth the way Voris bans opposition voices on his CM website. We value truth here, hence the name, we don’t silence it, neither do we twist it like your boss does.
So if you something to say for your boss, say it. Otherwise, get ye behind us!
For someone purportedly representing Church Militant & Michael Voris, this was a very nasty comment.
Do NOT hold your breath.
Well done for excellent, well-balanced and Catholic article.
Thank you. I won’t hold my breath because I would need to be the Man from Atlantis waiting for honesty from these people. CM doesn’t do truth, it does character assassination.
By the way, you can Google Patrick Duffy, the Man from Atlantis, an old sci-fi programme I used to watch on TV.
Don’t need to Google him – I was in love with him!
For ease of mind I can assure you that I wasn’t, although I liked him as an actor.
That’s the kind of trash talk that I can imagine the enemies of Christ would say after the Resurrection; “elderly woman at the foot of the Cross”; “hysterical woman” at the tomb. “What kind of witnesses are these?”
The Truth is not dependent upon numbers, age, or gender.
It’s a good point, though. A handful of women remained loyal at the foot of the cross with only one man standing with them, St. John. The rest of the men were away hiding!
I was being facetious, of course they know about this blog.
They don’t have the support of the SSPX in the U.K. either.
Editor: we never look for “support” from any quarter. We are just ordinary Catholics seeking to do our Confirmation duty to be Soldiers of Christ. Any priests who do not want us to do that, well, what can I say? For the record, though, we’ve had quite a bit of what you would term “support” from various priests, SSPX and diocesan – some of whom have both addressed and attended our Conferences, participated in our various events, you name it. The name of our current Prior was featured on the advertisement for our now cancelled (due to the Wuhan-virus) Education Seminar, scheduled to take place on 23 of this month. So, I think you’d need to re-think your definition of “support” Sugar Plum 😀
St. Marcel Initiative
If there is one valid alert to come from the evil Voris attack on the SSPX, it is that two of the priests accused of abusing youngsters are now with Bishop Willamson’s “Resistance” clique. Yes, that’s the same Bishop Williamson who appears to have accepted, protected and promoted the now infamous Fr. Urrutigoity at Winona seminary. Now that’s definitely worth further investigation because it represents a possible real and present danger to children. Just shows how God brings good even from evil.
Well, that’s simply not true, “St Paul The Great” …
The very first publication to support our efforts was the American newspaper, The Wanderer, who reported that “a brand new zamisdat production” had been launched in Scotland. I can quote that off the top of my head because it featured in our earliest editions. Then, as editor, I was invited to attend not one, but two Fatima Center Conferences in Rome, where I met all the “big hitters” in the States (and elsewhere). Obviously, too, Michael Voris has heard of us – he rejected the opportunity to interview me and, if he believed I was so wrong at any level, including attending SSPX Masses, it was surely his duty to meet with me and tell me – on camera if he chose. I’d have relished the chance to correct him in person as much as he clearly was too nervous to take the opportunity to correct moi. Go figure, as the “big hitters” say over there in the US of A. 😀
Not that it matters, of course, whether or not the “big hitters” as you rather naively describe traditional publications in America, have heard of us, since the purpose of our apostolate is not to become famous in the States or anywhere else 😀 You missed that bit, I suspect, the bit that explains our aim which is a very simple one – to contribute to the restoration of the traditional Catholic Faith in Scotland (and of course, beyond), insofar as we are able to do so.
I wonder, though, why you think it matters whether or not the “big hitters” as you describe traditional publications in the States know about us or not? For the record, though, just to be clear, Church Militant can, by no stretch of the imagination, be classed as a “traditional” group. I won’t tell you how I classify them, but “traditional” is not the word which springs to mind.
As Athanasius has mentioned, there is a whole world beyond the United States of America. American Traditional Catholics would do well do broaden their perspectives, and you will discover that the Italians, the Spanish, the French, the British, the Germans… they all do things differently to the Americans, and all have something to offer. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops from four different nationalities: English, Swiss, Argentine, French … he didn’t want the Traditional movement to be too Francocentric. The traditional movement has now become too American. Let us have our own thing here in little Scotland. We’re a small community of Trads here, but our apostolate is just as legitimate, even if we aren’t as large and as wealthy as the ones you refer to.
I remember when Voris came to Scotland, and began his speech with an attack upon the NHS, which was meant to be taken as a joke. This was followed by an excruciatingly awkward silence in the audience. He had come to another country expecting us to share his American cultural and political outlook.
American Catholicism has a tinge of Puritanism, which is inevitable, the USA being historically a Protestant nation. I recommend that you befriend some Southern Europeans, because I feel that their cultures are closer to a more authentic Catholic world view. Catholicism is a universal religion afterall (Galatians 3:28) Have you ever heard of the heresy known as ‘Americanism’, condemned by Pope Pius (XII? or was it his predecessor?)
By the way, I am not having a bash at Americans… I think the American Traditional Catholic movement is one of the best and most vibrant in the world at the moment. I have some Catholic literature from America published before the council and I find it very impressive. I think the USA was great place to be Catholic in the first half of the 20th century, and some USA cities today have fantastic Traditional communities that are enviable. But try not to judge us by your high standards. We are doing our best.
I am interested in your statement that American Catholicism has a tinge of Puritanism. Could you elaborate on that?
(And I presume you mean traditional American Catholicism – Novus Ordo American Catholics are anything but Puritanical!)
Puritanism, by which I mean English Calvinism, led to the development of East Coast individualism. This has permeated the whole of the American collective psyche and consequently America is an individualist and capitalist society, and this has influenced the thinking of American Catholics.
Absolutely Novus Ordo liberal Catholics are puritan. SJWism/woke culture/identity politics.,, This is puritanism and has its roots in historical puritanism… Moralistic, sanctimonious. It even has it origin in the East Coast of America, the old ivy league universities, founded by puritans.
The Traditional Catholics are least puritan. By puritan I do not mean rigorist. No, I mean they are characterised by their moralism and individualism. The Novus Ordo liberal types are very moralist … they are always complaining how us Trads are mean and nasty and making a show about how compassionate and kind and nice they are. This is Puritan. Ned Flanders is an exceptionally spot on parody of an American Puritan.
Jeremy Corbyn is puritan. His passion in life was his allotment and collecting photographs of drain covers! He is also an evangelical vegan. Its puritanism. The divide in England between Puritans (aka roundhead/parliamentarians, urban mercantile), and Royalists (high church. Recusant, rural) still exists today … Remainers (liberal metropolitan elite) and Leavers (provincial England)
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
— Max Weber
See my comment to Editor at the bottom. I suspect that they still remember what happened the last time they came here to explain themselves, and have no stomach for another round of pins being stuck in their balloon. Not to mention the fact that Editor has already pointed out what a phony this Voris character is, pretending not to have his internet equipment with him!
“St. Paul the Great/Church Triumphant/Ecclesia Militia/St. Marcel Initiative” apparently is suffering from schizophrenia and has skipped his medication.
That said, apparently this malicious individual has forgotten that when Editor posted my correspondence here with Church Militant money man and SSPX-hater Terry Carroll for discussion, several years ago, Mr. Carroll arrived within 24 hours to justify himself – and ended up making even more of a fool of himself, much like the above multi-named malicious individual is doing.
So much for the claim that the American big hitters pay no attention to Catholic Truth Scotland. And even if it were true, who cares?
OK, humility prevents you from saying it but… YOU are the biggest of the “big hitters” in the USA and we are proud that you
know about usjoin us in promoting the Faith 😀
PS – well spotted about the troll taking on so many different identities, all with precisely the same personality. I know there’s a name for it, but it escapes me at the moment. Happens to us “elderly” women… 😀
Well, thank you for those kind words, but as they say in American baseball, my on-base percentage is rather low…and, I must admit, until one of my Flying Buttress readers referred you to me in 2008, and vice-versa, I’d never heard of Catholic Truth either. Then again, I was just a babe-in-the-woods traditionalist writing satire from my wind-bitten cell, with no history in the trenches. In fact, I didn’t even know the population of Glasgow…
BTW, the malady you’re looking for is called “Multiple Personality Disorder,” or “Dissociative Personality Disorder.” Actually, I’m wondering if I am afflicted with same, since I have, at last count, 3 different blogger identities. I wonder if each identity could have its own gender?
The difference is, though, that you don’t use your three different identities on the same thread or even the same blog! Priceless!
I’ve just remembered something, too, about the “big hitters” of which our
numptydear friend inadvertently reminded me.
As well as meeting those involved in the traditional publications in Rome, at Father Gruner’s Fatima Conferences, my Great Nephews met them during the Chartres Pilgrimage, was it last year? Year before? Can’t recall…
One of my nephews told me, awestruck, that when he introduced himself to Michael Matt (Editor of The Remnant) saying “you might know my aunt – Name….” Michael replied yes, referencing Catholic Truth, saying, yes, he’s met this (favourite, of course) aunt 😀 Even went on to enquire after me? Shucks! WOW!
So, my head is getting bigger and bigger as I think of the big hitters who know me, so to speak… I must watch, though, I don’t want to become conceited…
So uh, should I replace my avatar with this?
I take it that’s an image of Victor Borge you have as your avatar? He was a funny guy and a great pianist.
Yes, and he was indeed a great pianist. The last one, as far as I know, to be able to play in the “grand manner,” which disappeared, except for him, around the middle of the 20th century.
I think your current avatar is so YOU that I am inclined to say, no, don’t replace it. Then, on the other hand, a change is as good as a rest, as they say and [before we lose our freedom permanently] it has to be your choice. Put it this way – I recognise the perplexity expressed by the gentleman below…
RCAVictor may be the biggest of the big hitters but I’ve written in the past, as you know, for two slightly smaller “big hitters”, namely the Angelus and the Remnant. I can assure you they know all about Catholic Truth, although I’m not sure they’d agree with me stepping back for a while to write here for no pay. Now I’m flattering myself, as I’ll doubtless find out the next time I submit something to the Angelus or the Remnant!
I enjoyed the story your great nephews related about meeting Michael Matt, I’m sure he’d have been well impressed with those two lads, probably wondering how they could possibly be related to your esteemed, though elderly, self (kidding!).
Anyway, Michael Matt does a fantastic job over at the Remnant and I really must get back in touch soon, unless you bribe me with lots of zeros. He, like you and other good Catholic editors, are what the world needs right now, not scandal mongers and sleaze peddlers like Voris.
Thank you for those kind words. And you have my permission (gulp) to write for the Angelus and/or Remnant again… occasionally! Don’t forget your roots… Scotland needs you as much as it doesn’t need Nicola Sturgeon 😀
My nephews were also delighted to meet Cardinal Burke on that Chartres pilgrimage. They served his Mass. And then, next year, they met him again and to their delight, he remembered them. I reminded them that I’d told them it would come in useful, eventually, being related to me 😀
It’s a special honour to serve Mass for a Cardinal, even more so to be remembered by him. And here was I thinking I held the honour title by being invited into the Vatican Palace by the late Bishop Canisius van Lierde, complete with Swiss Guard escort. What a saintly man he was, a real Catholic bishop, properly attired and wearing the Amethyst ring which he immediately held out upon greeting for me to kneel and kiss. I’ll never forget his kindness, the bishop who administered the last rites to Pius XII.
Well, not to outdo you or anything like that, but I came across a photograph of myself only yesterday, taken inside (drum roll) Cardinal Ratzinger’s office – taken by my partner in crime, Ellen, when we managed to wangle our way into the Vatican, duping the Swiss Guards – long story, on which I’ll be dining out for years, if, that is, there’s anywhere in which to dine out. When they closed the restaurants and cafes they forgot about people like me who can’t cook 😀
And on that note of suspense, I will … express my jealous goodnight (you, recall, were invited into the Vatican, we had to effectively break in 😀 AND we have the photos to prove it! )
Can’t think of a restaurant that might be open any time soon, so you may have to tell the story over a free tin of hot beans fresh from a gas camper stove in a remote place with no spies to grass us up for breaking the rules, not to mention wind!
Editor and Athanasius,
I once represented a very famous pagan, married to an even more famous pagan, at an auction in Louisville, Kentucky. Does that count for anything?
It really depends on just how famous the pagans were. Think of it as two top pagans per average Catholic on the scoring scale and you’ll get an idea of the bar.
Sigh, guess I’ll have to eat some worms. How many worms does a big hitter like me have to eat?
If what you suspect is true then we’re not talking schizophrenia here, we’re talikng possible possession, especially when malice is the driving force.
I agree, and it is made more severe by this malicious individual having learned to use VPN software so he can keep changing IP addresses and avoid detection by Editor. Whoever he is, he will only destroy himself if he keeps on this hellish course. He should be ashamed of himself, and certainly not approach the Communion rail until he has confessed what he is doing.
Surely there must be some way to detect and bypass VPN use? (If you know of a way, don’t post it, just email Editor! That is, if she can figure out how to unbuckle her seat belt to get out of her car and check her email ..)
Not to worry – the rubbish goes into the rubbish bin and I don’t give it another thought. Idiot with too much time on his hands, as the woman said to her husband when he threw the alarm clock at her…
VPN stands for Virtual Private Network, I don’t think it was ever meant to be used for Vile Pernicious Nonsense. Ultimately though, Editor can simply bin the garbage and publish only what is conducive to truth and edification. No point having VPN if every location leads to the cyber bin!
If Fr Urrutigoity tried to become a diocesan priest in Scranton and then in Argentina and Paraguay, does he celebrate the New Mass?
It looked like it in the video clip of him distributing Communion in the midst of a crowd – very typical novus ordo …
He sounds like a very troubled man. This habit of not being settled and moving from place to place and group to group is symptomatic of an unbalanced character. I have seen it myself in a former friend who on several occasions attempted to enter various seminaries/houses of formation. He also had deep-seated homosexual tendencies. He eventually went to seminary for several years, and left (or most likely expelled). He had at various times during his life been involved with the SSPX, regularised Traditional groups, and the Novus Ordo. Within the duration of any given conversation with him he would switch between expressing rigorist sentiments and progressive sentiments. He didn’t seem to have a clue who he was or what he believed. He had a duplicitous nature and had failed to integrate the different aspects of his personality. He would vacillate between the two persona of the good little boy and the rebellious deviant. These types of men are attracted to priesthood, presumably because they think they will stability there, but they ultimately never find stability there.
I think the Church needs to offer better pastoral care for these kinds of people, and seminary reactors need to be better at spotting them.
One of the reasons I would never enter seminary, among others, is that I do not ever again want to encounter these individuals. They can be a real pain.
The reason why Fr. Urrutigoity moved around so much was to stay one step ahead of law enforcement. He was on the FBI’s wanted list when he fled the States for South America, which explains that particular move.
Fortunately, there are very few like this getting near Traditional seminaries today, though not so sure about Modernist ones. There are ways of spotting them and there are procedures in place for dealing with them, so I wouldn’t worry too much on that score, though in terms of the overall priesthood they never really amounted to a huge number.
What you say about your former friend is not something better pastoral care can address. The guy sounds to me like he had a psychiatric problem, though it could have been a conscience issue affecting his mental state. People like him can be dangerous, though, given their instability and this constant shuffling around different seminaries, Traditional and/or Novus Ordo. It could be an indication that they’re really after young men and hope to get at them in seminary while acting all pious.
These days they are still admitting unsuitable candidates to modernist seminaries. I knew one. I also know suitable candidates who lost their vocation in modernist seminaries.
That’s because the majority of Modernist seminaries are houses of naturalism, not supernaturalism, which I suppose explains why a great many of them have closed down.
Am really surprised but most certainly not shocked at Michael Voris . Surprised as in surely if he has any integrity, which is now very much in doubt, he would know that there are enough Non Catholic out there trying to put the Boot in without someone supposedly of our own doing the same.
I do really hope and pray that Michael Matt does not take the bait and start a War of Words with whom i actually believe is a very Nasty and Narcissistic person . As someone much higher said
” By your Fruits you shall know them ” It seems Mr Voris has a lot of rotten apples in his cupboard .
An excellent letter from Athanasius, hopefully that will put Voris’ gas at a peep.
The question at the end – asking if Voris is really helping victims/pursuing justice, or simply muckraking – clarifies well the context of Church Militant’s attacks on the Society.
The tone and tactic employed by Church Militant, are very clearly based on that used by the secular media on its attacks on the mainstream Church on this same matter.
I had the misfortune to be sent a link to recent CM articles today- In addition to perverts, it now seems the SSPX are fascists also.
Again we see CM copying the secular press which alternates between stories of paedophiles and nazis, in its attacks on the mainstream Church.
What is also notable is that there is nothing new / recent in the CM articles but a rehash of old empty
news. I am reminded of Athanasius’s letter questioning the presence of any positive motive in these articles, compared to just gossip for certain kinds of people.
CM must be sailing close to the wind as regards defamation. I was quite shocked by claims it makes regarding individual priests and the SSPX and associated lay people more generally.
Yes I’m very sad that Michael Voris has dropped so low. I have family in the USA and used to like keeping up with Church events over there. I was even considering becoming a Premium customer before he started this awful attack on the SSPX. I nearly fainted at the graphic details as my oldest was in the room. There’s never a justification for impure talk. I well remember a good teacher telling our class to never go into impure details in the confessional, adding that the priest was a firstly a man and subject to temptation like us all.
I’ve just been watching the latest Voris video about the SSPX – it is openly calling Bishop Fellay a liar, even in the title, and claiming to have parents of victims speaking out, except the parents are not actually speaking out, there is a caption at the foot of the screen every time adults (who I presume are the parents mentioned) are shown but who knows what they are saying, it’s not clear, or even which boys they are parents of.
I saw it on YouTube on my own TV using a firestick but I can’t find it now on YouTube on my computer to post it, which is odd.
Michael Voris portrays the SSPX in a terrible way, making out they claim to be the “saviour” of the Church and he keeps on referring to them as being outside the Church. He is a nasty piece of work.
He’s actually calling for Bishop Fellay to be expelled from the Society, saying he covered up abuse. On the surface, it looks bad for the Bishop but Voris speaks so fast and is so full of hatred for the SSPX anyway, that I’m not sure what to make of his claims.
I’d be interested to know what others think.
I found a video about this now – I’m saying “a video” because although it’s the same content, it’s not Voris who is fronting it, like the original video I saw, but Christine Niles. It’s not a nice video, quite upsetting, but I think it is necessary to post it here for the record.
I found this one which is fronted by Voris so I presume this is the one you mean, but I wonder why they have made two different videos on the same subject?
I meant to say that the content of these videos is very disturbing. Voris’s blatant hatred of the SSPX shines through, he just cannot hide it and that makes him less credible.
For example, why doesn’t he tell the Swiss authorities about the priest he says is roaming around, having evaded a prison term?
Nicky / MM,
Thank your for this update and videos.
I will view later as I need to be elsewhere (in the house!) right now!
Nicky & Margaret Mary
I think most reasonable people know by now that Michael Voris is not a man seeking Catholic justice, he’s a dirt digger who enjoys publishing clerical sleaze stories, not a healthy pastime for man with a personal history like his. His hatred of the SSPX is very well known, as is his penchant for telling lies himself, such as the whopper that no one had paid attention to his reports when this blog clearly published a response and challenged him to justify his actions in the light of Catholic justice and charity.
Overall though, other Catholics have paid little or no attention because they know what Voris is and have chosen to ignore him. I suggest that’s what the rest of us do henceforth, just ignore him. Filth mongers thrive on publicity, let’s not give him any more.
Thanks for that – reflecting my own instincts about the video…I’ve only watched the one posted by Margaret Mary – not had time to watch the one Nicky posted, but, as you say, the sheer hatred spewing out from Voris leaves him bereft of all credibility.
I have now emailed Michael Voris to remind him that we have been discussing his video reports about the SSPX – I sent him the link to this thread and asked him to correct his erroneous claim that not one “traditional” Catholic site has acknowledged / reported his claims.
Steve Skojec from the One Peter Five (Traditional Catholic blog and vlog) mentioned SSPX accusations in video.
Any chance you could post a link to that video?
In the hope that you don’t tell me to get lost, allow me to say “thank you”!
The link. The relevant discussion begins at 1:10:44
Thank you – that was worth watching. Steve Skoje was very fair, which is notable since he wasn’t always pro-SSPX (I think – he was, at one point, very careful) and of course, great that he mentioned William Wallace! I wonder who said that to him?!
Several honest Catholic commentators of a traditional inclination, such as Steve Skojek, Taylor Marshall, and even Fr Z[!], have become accommodating of the SSPX position (i.e. the Catholic position) to various degrees.
Voris is rigid, inflexible. Whereas truth seekers change their minds. And what is the psychological genesis of his bitterness and anger?
Fr Paul Nicholson, Voris’ friend and collaborator, was similarly hateful towards the FSSPX. Frothing at the mouth, nearly almost literally so.
You should start a ‘Book’ with good odds on whether or not he will reply. I’ll take good odds against, if you feel like losing some cash!
Given that he’s not even replying to the SSPX emails, the only book I’m opening is my latest thriller… 😀
Athanasius & Editor,
I came across this series of articles closely analyzing (and demolishing) the claims of this “Jassy Jacas”: https://questionsforcm.wordpress.com/2020/04/27/an-email-exchange/
Caveat: some foul language, which certainly doesn’t help matters, but it exposes what utter sensationalist fraud is involved here.
I’ve just skimmed this (I could only see one piece of bad language and nothing dire) – it looks very good, at points hilarious
(“especially specialize”! ) but I don’t think, at a quick skim, that’s he’s covered the video about Bishop Fellay.
Will read it properly later. Many thanks for posting it.
I think it’s a 3-part series, but I got confused (which almost never happens…) because the parts kept repeating…repeating…repeating….
I did a kind of track back on her through Facebook and found her to be extremely worldly, not a single Catholic or pious post on her account. The only mention of religion is where she talks about her SSPX experience, saying she THINKS it may have been inappropriate. She’s the one who, apart from kicking off the Voris filth, informed the Kansas City branch of the FBI that started investigations. Nobody really knows who she is or what her background is.
I was a little intrigued by this woman’s last name, which, depending on how you pronounce it, is pretty close to
I actually thought her surname was the bad language to which you referred originally! Then I saw B/S and, thought that was two examples of bad language so when I got to the part where her name was clearly her name, I laughed and realised I’d made an actual misteak. Seldom happens but on this occasion, bingo for mine enemies, it happened 😀
Voris exudes a visceral rancour, which is not an attractive trait in an adult man. He’s bitter about something. Someone’s hurt him and he can’t let go, or refuses to let it go. A holier person would by now have learned to forgive those who have wounded him. He needs to give up this YouTube enterprise of his, because it’s an occasion of sin; of egotism, vanity, and pride. Nobody likes a person with a chip on their shoulder. They’re a drain on the spirit. He doesn’t have the disposition of serenity of a true Christian. He needs to follow the example of Saint Philip Neri, which is to not take himself too seriously, and to learn to laugh, chiefly at himself. (He has a kind of fake laugh, but it’s not genuine, and a touch unnerving.) This man knows not joy.
I’ve just seen your post – late in the day! But it’s very thoughtful: to “not know joy” really does show…
I came in, however, to post this dispiriting report on the SSPX situation
Let’s pray that these allegations really are groundless or, at worst, minimal (not any excuse, of course) and that – whatever the truth – there is no cover-up.
Gosh, I hope there’s no danger of a cover-up.
I don’t think there’s anything unusual in advice not to speak to police without a lawyer present when allegations are made, but I presume Catholic World Report wouldn’t be drawing attention to it if that was all there was to it. I sincerely hope there’s nothing sinister going on. I’ve heard so many good reports about Kansas SSPX school etc. that it would be a heartbreak if these allegations turned out to be true. That would be bad enough, but it there was any attempt to cover up the truth, my faith in the Society would be gone for good. I could take the fact that there is a bad apple or two since this abuse is a disease in the Church right now, but not cover up by superiors. That makes them every bit as bad as the bishops who have done the same thing in the dioceses around the world. There’s no defence for that.
Likewise, I would be devastated. If I didn’t have the SSPX, I would have nowhere else to go. The Eastern Catholic churches are compromised, as are the Ecclesia Dei and diocesan/indult Latin Mass groups. So, the society is now all we have.
The SSPX response referred to in the linked article is really the standard response anyone would expect from a religious group accused of such crimes. Look at the way Cardinal Pell was railroaded by the Australian authorities for openly assisting them in their enquiries.
The law is adversarial, which is why the police caution people that anything they say may be used in evidence. They used to say “may be used in evidence against you”, but have since modified the line to read simply “may be used in evidence”. Maybe the dropping of the last two words is to encourged accused people to say something that could be turned against them later.
Everyone accused of serious crime, especially these kinds of heinous crimes, has a right to legal representation when questioned by the police and should always be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers, especially when the reported crimes are historical. Hence, Fr. Gardiner has done nothing wrong in merely reminding those who may be questioned, whether involved or not, to say nothing without a lawyer present. It’s basic justice and judicial proceedure that reports such as this are tring to portray as covering up. Of course we know that when it comes to the Church and the clergy all normal and accepted methods go out the window, including the presumption of innocence.
I only hope these allegations in the long run prove groundless. From what I have read so far I see no smoking gun, just he said, she said, I said. That’s not to say that the allegations are outright lies, it just means that there is no solid evidence either way. I’m sure the relevant investigative authorities will look deeply into it before deciding if there is in fact any substance to the claims being made.
It would be tragic indeed if any of these allegations proved to be true but it would not diminish my overall trust in the SSPX priests as regards morality and child safety. We have to keep this in context reminding ourselves that a few priests at most are being accused from a priestly fraternity number around 500. Should that few prove guilty then it merely shows that no institution is safe from infiltration by these predators, including secular institutions and even families.
The following line from my comment above “It’s basic justice and judicial proceedure that reports such as this are tring to portray as covering up” should read This is basic justice and judicial proceedure which reports such as the linked article are trying to portray as covering up..
A combination of keyboard trouble and downright incompetence neccesitated the clarification!
Fidelis, Miles Immaculatae, Athanasius,
Yes, I’m aware that it is routine and right for a lawyer to be present when being questioned by the police in any kind of investigation. I’m far from confident in police impartiality and they wouldn’t question me abut the theft of a pin without Perry Mason being in the room, centre-stage.
My only concern was that somehow one of the victims seems to have discovered that the superior had emailed everyone likely to be contacted by the police to remind them of this right – that made me wonder if there was some truth in the report’s suggestion of a possible cover-up. However, I’m never sure of Catholic World Report (whereas I’m 100% sure of Church Militant!)
Let’s hope and pray for a satisfactory end to this potential scandal.
Editor et. al.,
I haven’t followed this case, which I assumed whas just another Voris/ChristineNiles smear campaign paid for by Terry Carroll, but just wanted to emphasize the important of having a lawyer present.
That is exactly how the FBI caught General Flynn in a “perjury trap”: they asked him to come in for some informal questioning and told him he didn’t even need a lawyer present. And rest, as they say, is sordid history….
Comments are closed.