jump to navigation

Michael Voris exposes the hypocrisy of “Catholic in good standing” May 31, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, self-serving, sickness, the return.

The Dolan-Cuomo “Catholic in good standing” imbroglio revealed a lot more than, I think, was intended.  It showed how the hierarchy uses the term “Catholic in good standing” to label what is acceptable Catholic behavior, and what is not.  So, apparently, being a radical marriage-destroying, baby-killing, contraception-distributing fornicator leaves one “in good standing,” while criticizing the hierarchy, or even revealing embarrasing truths, denies one that very critical label.  That is why the professional Catholic crowd – the Sheas, the EWTNers, the speaking circuit guild, etc., so rarely criticize the hierarchy – doing so would end their careers overnight.  And such is well known to all the members of the approved speakers guild.

I know the lack of “Catholic in good standing” credentials has caused Michael Voris headaches in the past. But it’s done little to prevent his apostolate from growing, and explosively. That is because the old school means of blocking criticism or keeping information bottled up has collapsed. The internet has made everyone a publisher, a broadcaster, and a source of information.  The old controls the bishops have over “approved media” like the Schismatic Reporter no longer work.  And that has caused no end of heartburn in chanceries around the country.

But I’ll go a bit farther than Michael.  There are definitely people who, to many in chanceries and at the USCCB, are most definitely NOT Catholics in good standing. Or, at least, they don’t receive the cherished letter that is the ticket to (sometimes lucrative) Catholic speaking engagements, diocesan endorsements, etc. etc. So while Sr. Joyce Rupp has that “approved letter,” even though she conveys little but soul-endangering (destroying?) new age claptrap, Michael Voris, by dint of his refusing to hide the manifest failures of the episcopate, does not.  Traddies in general also constitute a rather substantial block of people routinely denied that official approbation, because they question aspects of Vatican II or point out rather stridently the collapse in the Church since then.  These people almost never get to speak on Church property, they have to hold forth in secular conference halls, hotel meeting rooms, etc.

With regard to Michael Voris, there are many tales to tell, but they are his to tell, and not mine.  Let’s just say, he’s had sponsors, and lost them, because he wouldn’t play ball, and now he is basically persona non grata to the professional Catholic set in the US.  Have you ever wondered why Michael essentially never speaks on diocesan Church property in the US, but he does so overseas routinely?  Ever wonder why Michael spends sooo much time travelling overseas?  Well, this is why, he’s blackballed in the US, but the long arm of the USCCB does not yet reach to the Philippines, or European countries, etc.

It’s not just Michael. As he shows in the video, others who say uncomfortable things or who refuse to ignore the elephant in the room of Church collapse are treated similarly.



1. tg - May 31, 2013

Only Mother Angelica got away with criticizing church leaders. I was surprised to read on Catholic Spiritual Direction Dan Burke saying he had a problem with Father Barron because he quotes Thomas Merton a lot. I think a lot of people don’t do this because they think they are criticizing a priest. My Pieta Prayer book says Jesus told one of the saints not to criticize a priest even if they are wrong. Yet some of the saints did bring out the errors and heresites of priests and bishops.

tantamergo - May 31, 2013

In normal times, I would tend to agree. But the Church is facing a crisis like it has never seen in its history. We need to be careful and have charity (which, I may fail at), but the problems are so huge and endemic, and decades of just trusting the hierarchy to fix things has failed so badly, that the Church is in a state where desperate measures may be needed. Certainly, it is a judgment call. I talk about these kinds of things regularly in the confessional to try to insure that I’m not going too far or acting rashly.

2. tg - May 31, 2013

I agree. I find it hard to do with charity so I limit my comments on blogs. One priest did tell I didn’t commit a sin if I commented on what is public knowledge like about Mahoney. He said we’re entitled to our opinion. I just can’t help but think about how hard God is going to judge priests and bishops. So many don’t seem to worry about it since they cause scandal. If they have lost their faith, then they should leave the church. If we don’t believe the Gospels or the Bible, our faith is dead but there is probably a more sinister plot in mind. I do believe what Malachi Martin said about all this. That reminds me, I was going to order some of his books that aren’t so called “fiction” like Windswept House.

mortimer zilch - June 2, 2013

I don’t trust Malachi Martin’s opinions. I read “The Last Conclave” and he didn’t even mention the Cardinal’s name who got elected and became John-Paul I. Besides, Malachi Martin’s claim to be possessed by an ANGEL is pretty far fetched. He was living in New York City at the end of his life and I would like to get the details on his lifestyle there. Pretty far cry from sharing the papal apartments….I dunno about him, but am rather skeptical about his opinions, which I think is prudent.

3. Marguerite - June 1, 2013

” …others who say uncomfortable things or who refuse to ignore the elephant in the room of Church collapse are treated similarly….”

How true! Case in point, the precious Blood of Christ is being consumed by the EMs after Mass outside of the Sanctuary while the cacophony of babblers in Church is so loud bats would even go deaf. I respectfully asked if the Remains of the Lord’s Blood could be consumed during the Mass because of the indecorum afterwards and was told that this was the best way to go. “Okay”, was his dismissive ending.

mortimer zilch - June 2, 2013

what irks me no end is the decidedly “gay” character to most, many, if not all, of the club that runs the Sunday show: the ones characterized here as being dismissive and smug. This whole scene was spawned out of the seminaries. It really sickens me. And I try to control what I blog about it, but it is very difficult especially when the sex abuse crisis points to the same club, which has become so powerful and entrenched as to be a gay cabal within the Church.

4. skeinster - June 3, 2013

Shortly before I stopped reading him, Mark Shea took Voris to task about his recent association with Michael Jones. I’d have to look up the details, but if it were close and deliberate, to me that would be a large red flag. Thoughts?

Fwiw, my awful computer won’t play videos with ease, so I’m familiar with Mr. Voris only by hearsay.

tantamergo - June 3, 2013

It was one interview. A very poorly advised one. Michael had read some of Jones early stuff and thought he had a number of good thoughts. He wasn’t aware of the crazy later stuff, though he should have been. It was a scandalous interview, one that CMTV has buried. It’s no longer available, at least it wasn’t within a month or two of the event. That was the extent of the relationship, one interview.

It was sort of like my plan to interview Fr. Cekada on my radio show last fall. He has great information on how the prayers of the NO have been changed greatly for the negative, he’s about the only person who has really gone through and established how the Propers have been denuded of content like judgment, hell, damnation, the need for propitiation, etc. and who has put together a statistical analysis of how many were changed, what little of the old content remains, and the like. But interviewing him could have signalled support for sede vacantism, so after pressure, I cancelled it.

We can all make mistakes. I’ve gotten the impression Mark Shea is rather happy to find evidence that “proves” Michael is a raving anti-Semite traddy full of nothing but hate, and that Jones interview gave him exactly what he was looking for. But doing the interview was very ill-advised, and I said so at the time, privately. I had read some of Jones more recent stuff and knew how far around the bend he had gone.

skeinster - June 3, 2013

Thanks! That was somewhat the impression I got, but not really knowing anything about Mr. Voris, could not make a fair judgement.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: