Church Militant Guilty of Blackmail?editor
For those of you who may be wondering, we didn’t cover the scandal surrounding the arrest of Father James Jackson FSSP when the story broke because, I’m afraid, I took the instant “not another one” attitude and decided to let it go. Not because Fr Jackson belongs to one of the traditional priestly societies, but because, well, as I say, my first reaction was, what do we have here but just one more unsavoury clergy scandal. What, I thought, is the point?
Now, I’m not so sure. Click here to watch Restoring The Faith (RTF) commenting at the time of Father Jackson’s arrest, to see what you think…
It’s no secret that I’m no fan of Church Militant – I wouldn’t trust that lot to tell me the time of day if I bumped into them in London right under Big Ben. So, I’m horrified, but hardly surprised, at their treatment of the gentleman speaking in the above video, on behalf of RTF (I can’t find his name).
It’s clear from one of Michael Voris’ tweets quoted by RTF that Voris has a very low opinion of the Traditional Latin Mass (to put it mildly), which explains a lot, in my humble opinion. It seems unthinkable, though, that he would not want to accord Fr Jackson (and anyone else accused of a serious crime) the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Or, are priests accused of sexual crimes to be the one exception to that rule? Correction: are priests who belong to traditional societies to be the one exception to that rule?
Church Militant seems to have sunk very low in this case, to threaten a layman’s livelihood and medical insurance for doing nothing more than trying to help a priest who may have been falsely accused of a grave crime, for simply seeking after the truth – but why?