Monday, September 2, 2013

CMTV's Response to Dave Armstrong

Well, if you haven’t been following the little war being waged concerning MV’s Vortex episodes “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Protecting the Status Quo”… good for you! But it’s out there, and on-going, I guess. There seems to be a lot of failure to grasp MV's point that the mainstream Catholic media appears to have a vested interest in not making waves where the bishops are concerned.

Recently, there have been a couple of posts by Dave Armstrong at his blog – see them here and here – focusing on MV’s supposed “preoccupation” with salaries.

Here is a response to those posts written by Terry Carroll, Executive Producer of CMTV:


I think it beyond naive to think that Catholic Answers would get along just fine if they started to lay responsibility for the present crisis in the Church at the feet of the bishops. Do you really think there wouldn't be a severe impact if, say, they were asked to drop the name "Catholic" from their organization name? On what networks would Catholic Answers Live be broadcast? Is it inconsequential that their public personalities would no longer be allowed to speak on Church property, or appear as guests on Catholic TV and radio? Sure, "Answers" (or whatever name they would have to choose after losing the right to the name "Catholic") could still be a viable enterprise. They wouldn't go under completely. But they couldn't go on as they are.

Similar hypothetical scenarios could be suggested for Al Kresta, Drew Mariani and others, even you. Do you think you would still be invited to appear on Catholic radio or TV if you became known as a "bishop basher"? You don't think that would have any impact on your ability to sell books or present yourself in public as a Catholic apologist?

If all Catholic apologists restricted themselves to apologetics, there would be good reason to say that they would not suffer consequences from crossing the hierarchy. But they don't do that. It's almost impossible not to venture into the world of editorial commentary and my point is that, when they do that, they are "selectively incomplete."

There are examples of EWTN getting "smacked" by the bishops for saying or doing something "unapproved." They were barred from covering one of the bishops meetings. They were told to tell their radio stations NOT to say anything about the CCHD scandals three years ago. The recent unattractive chicanery of Bishop Kicanas canceling the contract with Judie Brown's husband is a glaring example of "power politics." Bishop Kicanas outright lied when he piously said that it would have been better for ALL and others to come to the bishops privately before going public with their findings about CRS: Michael Hichborn (ALL) had been meeting privately with the bishops, including Bishop Kicanas personally, for three years.

To paint the picture that the establishment Catholic media are independent of the status quo is laughable. Everyone wants to get along, keep seats at the tables of power, and maintain access. As Karl Keating opined within a review of a book by Charles Coulombe, "We often see people trim the truth when it comes to preserving their jobs -- an understandable human weakness. Normally one should let such things pass without comment" (citation available on request). Every day, Catholic news organization exercise editorial judgment about their news and commentary. "Preserving their jobs -- an understandable human weakness" is unavoidably at work there, as it is with everyone infected with the consequences of Original Sin.

I think you gave an EXCELLENT description of how the Church looks to those who have been exposed to the "dark side" of Catholic reality.[1] Why WOULD anyone want to join a Church like that? And that, even though you are attempting to make your point by appealing to what you think is an absurd example, IS the unfortunate reality "on the ground" that countless people experience. Maybe you haven't had to confront this yourself, but I, personally, have been faced with someone who is attracted to the Catholic Faith and I have to wonder where I can send them for RCIA because RCIA, in general, does such an awful job in parish settings that are themselves awful. How can I invite people to check out the Catholic Church knowing that they will immediately have their faith undermined if they join a typical Catholic parish?

You, and others, survey the devastation of Hiroshima and only notice the miraculously spared patches of green and declare a New Springtime or a New Pentecost. We are, indeed, living in a "Desolate City" (Anne Roche Muggeridge) in a "Devastated Vineyard" (Dietrich von Hildebrand). While an "apologetics of attraction" has much to recommend, by itself it is not adequate to be anything more than whisp of green within the surrounding devastation. If no one is "crying fire," then even the green shoots will be destroyed.

It is ridiculous to claim that all Michael and your despised "bad trads" do is call attention to the fire. The growing numbers of traditional Catholic communities are themselves an answer. The "fix" is to be more traditional. That has ALWAYS been the way, throughout the history of the Church! But most Catholics today aren't even aware that they are in a house that is on fire and burning down and that their shepherds are letting it burn (if not setting the actual fire). That Michael Voris' apostolate continues to grow in the face of the vindictive obstacles thrown in his path is proof that there is a need to hear what he is saying by a significant number of Catholics. For them, he is the voice of their agony and frustration and desire for "heroic Catholicism." They feel heard and understood. He gives them hope. You may not be able to understand that but we could paper your walls with emails thanking him for bringing them back or into the Catholic Church.

I know. There's no accounting for taste, right?

And, as an aside, I'm very disappointed that you decided against engaging me as a human being instead of a representative of an ideology which you consider dangerous to the Church. You would have been surprised how constructive and pleasant it would have been to talk to me, or even engage me in private email. You would still have been free to post anything you wanted. I don't do Facebook and Twitter and, in truth, Michael Voris doesn't either. Even his personal Facebook page is maintained by someone on the staff, although he does respond to personal messages. You will never find him in anyone's combox or FB discussion. But you will find him at the studio when he is in town. And I've never known him to turn down anyone for a visit. I guess dealing with people as people just isn't your thing.

[1] Armstrong asks if we can imagine Chris Ferrara as a street evangelist saying:
"Hey folks, come and join the Catholic Church! It's self-destructing, at death's door; 95% of our bishops are fundamentally compromised; so are most of our apologists, even the orthodox ones who tell the truth (kow-towing to all the modernist bishops); our popes are spineless wimps who encourage pagans to pray, as if that was equivalent to Christian prayer, and who think Allah and Yahweh are identical. Everything is hopeless and dismal in our ranks; vocations are declining drastically, Mass attendance is a shell of what it used to be; 2% of our people even believe all that the Church teaches anymore, it's spiritually dead, everything is in terrible shape. But come and join the Catholic Church because we're the fullness of truth!"


  1. As to the substance of the article above; there's nowhere to go with that. We simply don't think things are as grim and hopeless in the Church as you guys do. That's a standard "trad" vs "regular old Catholic" argument that we're not gonna resolve, so you can have the last word.

    Insofar as this dealt with the actual argument in my paper at all, it dealt with the second of my two arguments. The first (completely separate and distinct) argument) was about whether it is the domain and purview of apologists to get into all these issues in the first place.

    I said no, it ain't. That would easily explain why Catholic Answers and the others (and myself) don't deal with those issues by and large. That is my sincere opinion on it. But you guys insist on thinking that it is because of some fundamental compromise of integrity.

    Again, what can I say? I think it is a most unfair and unjust accusation (at the least). I know most of these people. They're my friends. I know myself very well, too, and my own motivations (and I certainly make less money per hour for the work I put out than any professional apologist out there, so you can't nail me regarding making big bucks!).

    If Michael Voris is simply gonna say this same sort of thing if we meet, there's nowhere to go with that; we'll have to agree to disagree on THIS issue of how bad it is in the Church.

    But it may still be possible to convince him that airing these sorts of disagreements publicly helps no one, is unseemly, and scandalous, even if you guys remain convinced that your perspective is the truth.

    But beyond that, I think it'd be good to just meet and talk as human beings and fellow orthodox Catholics. He could see I'm not a beast or an "enemy" (most people -- who MEET me -- seem to think I am a nice and soft-spoken guy) and I already don't have anything against him personally.

    I don't "hate" anyone (as several MV supporters have said to me on my FB page). All that is good. It's always good to meet in person and get an idea of what a person is about.

    1. I think it would be outstanding for you guys to meet up. I bet you would agree with most on the website if you aren't a subscriber already to view. Very good material in it. In person is much better then blog write ups, facebook comments, etc etc it brings the humanity back in the game whereas tone is not used in comboxes, etc. Shoot I would love to watch the hour long show interview he does weekly. I'm a Chris Ferrara fan as well. Lots of solid info in his talks on Keep the Faith & his books are filled with facts & citations.

  2. I think that one aspect of all of this is to call some attention to the issue of how a Catholic non-profit should operate with respect to remuneration for individuals working for the entity. I think 6-figure incomes- if this income is coming directly from the donations is too much- but if it is the result of speaking engagements and book sales- no problem there. This aspect hasn't been adequately reported. Certainly pulling down 250K on donor monies is not in keeping with commonsense. When we contribute to an apostolate or Catholic non-profit it should be with the same sense as donating to a charity- when you choose to work for a charity I think you have to give up thinking that you deserve to earn a salary on par with private, for-profit entities.

  3. What else can you say Dave, your association with the bishops who support you only give credence to the growing concern within the church of the bishops complicity with one another on the apostasy now visible to all who have eyes and ears except those who are beholding to the bishops our Blessed Mother spoke about in her apparition at Fatima and which was mentioned in the final and 3rd secret which was played done by Rome. Admit to the hypocrisy that is going on with the bishops here especially in the United Sates and to the churches they helped empty. Time is running out stand in fear as our Blessed Mother said that the "Blood which once feel on Calvary should now fall revengefully upon your heads and those that you hold dearest in this life" (La Salette).
    Fr. Andrew Proulx, OSB

  4. For me, this one sentence from the Voris camp sums up a lot of the problems in Michael's approach to the Church and the problems she faces:

    "If no one is "crying fire," then even the green shoots will be destroyed."

    So does this mean that Christ has is no longer one with His Church, or that Christ will condemn His Church to destruction if Michael Voris doesn't keep doing what he's doing currently?

    This statement reeks of sin against hope, and of a community in despair that has forgotten the promise of their Saviour never to abandon His Bride, the Church - it also speaks of a community that now believes itself, and its efforts to be the primary thing which will bring salvation to the Church.

    Claiming that you have a growing following as proof of your authenticity is a serious logical fallacy. Corapi, Maciel and Euteneuer all had large followings too. Having a lot of loyal followers is NO proof of authenticity or holiness, and it is certainly no protection against error.

    1. Heyyyy Brendan.A bit naughty putting Michael in the same camp as the 3 other priests that you mention, don't ya think? Ahhh, you were trying to make a point which would be...duh. Sorry, got me there. So how is The Church (remember, there's only one) in good ol NZ? Im sure our worldwide/Catholic sistas an brothas wouldn't mind an update. Say, has the new evangelisation kicked in as yet, are the locals returning in droves back to Momma, are the bishops pounding the streets defending life and the family, like, publicly? Or is it the same ol same ol. You know, the institutional collapse that is being spoken about?
      As for hope or lack of it. Im not sure where you got this outlandish (I know, big word) claim from that the 'Voris camp' lacks 'oodles' of hope. Surely you went to Michael's talks when he popped over to NZ? Surely B? Ok, you did not. HOPEFULLY Michael will return sometime soon. See, "we" still live in hope ay.
      p.s. Whilst "we" read the Remnant, "we" don't consider ourselves as The Remnant.
      Cheers m8

    2. Brendan, dear brother-in-christ, regarding your statement about the "sin against hope" have you forgotten what Our Lord said about the condition of the world at his second coming.....namely that..."when The Son of Man returns, will be find faith on earth?" There is no question that Our Lord is aware of the situation here below and if I may say, is surely saddened by the state of His Church. But should we act surprised? Most certainly not, Our Lady warned us about the present state in the third secret of Fatima, which of course has been suppressed by Cardinal Bertone and (the words of Our Lady) what Christopher Ferrara rightly calls the "Vatican party-line" against the disclosure of the full third secret. I highly suggest you and all the Catholic Answers staff and Apologetics team read Antonio Socci's book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima" immediately followed by Ferrara's scholarly written book "The Secret Still Hidden". Here Is another topic that is conspicuously and deliberately avoided by the Catholic Mainstream like cancer. Why would All Kresta or Catholic Answers, or even Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN's Sunday family show not invite Mr. Ferrara on to the show to openly and honestly discuss this topic. I believe the greater Catholic public would be impressed by the facts in evidence of the case and the guide of opinion would turn to pressure the Vatican to finally fulfill the wishes of Our Lady (and eventually God himself) to come clean about the whole truth regarding the entire Message of Fatima, especially the Third Secret.

  5. Why don't you just delete Armstrong's comments? He does it on his blog

  6. Brendan, Terry didn't say that a growing following is proof of authenticity; he said it was proof that it was meeting a need.

    Tom Ryan, I allowed Armstrong's comment because it was explicitly addressing what was posted here, and it seemed reasonable to allow him a rebuttal of sorts.

  7. Brendan
    The problem is that when there is a fire someone needs to shout the warning. Most "Catholic" media refuses to do that and it is for the reason MV mentions. Cross a Bishop even through constructive criticism and see where it gets you. I know where it has gotten some including Dr. Jay and, trust me, it ain't pretty. There is absolute truth in the quote you cited from the "Voris camp". The "green shoots" I liken to new Catholics. When they become aware of the dishonesty and disingenuous behavior of some clerics, including Bishops, their new found faith is in jeopardy. Far better for them to understand, through MV's approach, that there is another and better side to the Church in this country.

    Jerry Boyd

  8. "We simply don't think things are as grim and hopeless in the Church as you guys do."

    A few stats for you to ponder: A recent national survey showed that only 27% of Catholics in America consider themselves "strong Catholics" (a new low); only HALF that number state they actually attend Mass.

    A 1992 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. That number has surely increased since then.

    Catholics are contracepting, aborting, cohabiting, and divorcing & remarrying at the same rate as (or higher than) non-Catholics. Catholics also support gay marriage in greater numbers than their protestant counterparts.

    If you haven't read Dr. Ralph Martin's paper on the sacramental crisis in the Church today, you should see the statistics. We talk about a so-called renewal in the Church--but the numbers don't bear that out:

    Are you aware of the drastic drop in numbers of religious orders since the 1960s? In some cases it's as high as 90%; the average is 50-75%.

    But there's no crisis?

    I tried to post this at your blog, but you deleted my comments. I know Jay won't delete them, so here goes: I find it hypocritical to the extreme that you will expend enormous amounts of time and energy attacking a fellow Catholic like Michael Voris or people you call "RadCath Reactionaries" for their so-called harm to the Church while utterly ignoring the massive harm caused by weak, negligent, and liberal bishops, who are doing unquestionably greater destruction to the Faith than Michael Voris could ever accomplish, whose actions are scandalizing the faithful and leading souls astray. As an apologist, you work to defend the Faith against error--which is how you justify your repeated attacks on Voris. But the public errors of the bishops, which cause greater harm to the Faith and endanger souls, are somehow off limits?

    In what universe does that make any sense?

    In any case, Voris's Vortex never even mentioned your name; you were not even part of the discussion about professional Catholics. I doubt he even had you in mind. And it was never about incomes anyway, as he made clear in his follow-up Vortex.

  9. I don't even know who Dave Armstrong is, although the name sounds familiar, but I am left wondering on what planet he resides. I entered the Church in 2002 because of Her teachings and IN SPITE of the examples I saw all around me. I tried to believe that my own bishop meant well, but he worked diligently to disabuse me of that error in judgment. If Dave Armstrong (or anyone else) thinks anything- let alone everything- is just peachy, then I need no more evidence simply to never read or listen to another word he has to say.


  10. Mr. Armstrong,

    Jesus asked if he would find faith on the earth when he returns. If he returned today, what would he find in today's Catholics? You tell me, Mr. Armstrong. Everything isn't fine in the Church today when so many Catholics don't even adhere to their own Church's teachings or even believe the Holy Eucharist is God or conduct themselves appropriately at Holy Mass (since God is still among us, after all), etc. I could go on and on. If an atheist walked into a Catholic parish today, would he even be convinced of what we believe? Things are grim, but not hopeless. It's never hopeless. God is still in charge of His Church and it will be through His intervention that we get out of this horrible crisis, which will then usher in the purified Church. The Church will be purified, soon rather than later, I pray.

    In the meantime, the young people of today, the traditional young people (of which I am one), who cling to the faith of our forefathers will keep fighting the fight for truth, come what may.

    God bless you.


  11. Just two points:
    1) To say things are terrible, or to name the things that are terrible is simply to state facts. Stating facts is not a sin against hope. Quite the contrary. Stating facts is an act of charity. It is a lapse in logic, or a misunderstanding of the virtue of hope, to say otherwise.

    2) Anyone who deletes comments they don't agree with is a coward. Either engage them or let them stand. In my years as a blogger, I've deleted perhaps three comments (besides the spam that tries to sell you watches, of course), if that many, and all two or three were deleted for language that consisted of NOTHING but curse words.

    I know a lot of websites that delete or refuse to post comments that are contrary to their site's PC drivel. All such action does is create an echo chamber.

  12. But there's no crisis?

    When did I ever say that? You seem to be thriving on distorting my opinions lately. I have fully agreed with what my mentor Fr. Hardon thought, for 23 years now, since I became a Catholic: modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.

    That said, I don't believe it is as bad as you guys think.

    Got that?

    I delete comments when people start becoming absurd and claiming that I "hate" people, etc. I don't hate anyone. That's Christianity 0101.

    1. I never said you "hate" anyone. Talk about "distorting opinions."

  13. while utterly ignoring the massive harm caused by weak, negligent, and liberal bishops

    You're sure of that, huh? I guess that's why I have an entire web page about modernism:

    And half a book devoted to it. Modernism is opposed by teaching the truth, and orthodox teaching.

    I also have a page about scandals in the Church, including lots of links dealing with the sex scandal:

    So where do you get off saying I am supposedly "utterly ignoring things" when that is not the case at all? Clearly you didn't even look over my website to see what I have written about. But my writings do mostly lie in other areas. And there is nothing wrong with that. I was put here on this earth to share Catholic truth and defend it.

  14. I am a revert, I came back in 2004 along with my husband. Our RCIA was so weak and full of half truths, it is only by the Holy Spirit that we came back and stayed. It also took a lot of navigating towards the actual teachings to find Catholicism and also by the help of our good priest whom later got kicked out of that parish soon after because he was too conservative, and never allowed to come back. The classmates we had in RCIA they ALL left the Church. I have seen with my own eyes good priests barred from our diocese because they spoke out about abuses and the crisis at parishes, they were invited and flown in only to be called extremists and fanatics by diocesan workers, never to be allowed back, all because our Bishop gave them that power. I have seen well known apologists coming from out of town not allowed to speak last minute, because they were considered too controversial by our Social Justice loving diocese.

    It is quite upsetting to see this going on, I have followed it and I am deeply disturbed. This is a scandal about scandals!! I encourage you all to come to my diocese, if you believe what Voris says is not true. It openly promotes the most shameful of things, to say our bishop is a modernist is an understatement. I attend the Novus Ordo mass and I have not left my parish but it is becoming harder and harder to withstand the liberal mind set of some of the priests including our bishop. I live in Southern California, and it is as it is said on the Vortex, trapped and exposed, and that makes for many uncomfortable people. Michael is not allowed to speak on our Church grounds. Either you agree with my bishop and all that he does, or you are not in a diocese such as mine, and therefore cannot relate to the sadness I see all over. You better believe that you have CA, EWTN, and friends scared out of their minds that they too will be stripped of their positions and jobs if they too exposed the truth, so it is best to keep quiet and ignore the blatant crisis at hand. Our Blessed Mother has wept at approved apparitions regarding these things and yet there are still cynics that believe that small green patches are wide pastures of spring time.

  15. Mr. Armstrong strains at gnats while swallowing camels.

    He does not, indeed cannot, dispute the facts regarding the crisis within the Church. His issues seem to be:

    1) Are apologists morally obligated to speak truth regarding difficult issues within the Church that involve bishops, etc? (He believes not.)
    2) Is the crisis within the Church as serious as Michael Voris and the "radtrads" think; or, is it not as bad as they think? (He believes the latter.)
    3) Is Michael Voris wrong to speak out about other public, professional Catholics who self-censor criticism of the bishops in order to maintain position and/or paychecks? (He believes Michael Voris is wrong.)

    And while he is opining on such 'weighty' matters, the startling and scandalous facts of the crisis within the Church have not changed.

    As an apologist, one would think Mr. Armstrong would understand that bringing light to an issue would illumine the truth, and thus assist one in thinking and acting rightly.

    Mr. Voris is one of the scandalously few public Catholics who is willing to speak the truth without filtering it through how the bishops will react. There is abundant evidence that the public airing of the pastoral deficiencies of the bishops has driven good people from the public sphere because of political pressure.

    Methinks Mr. Armstrong, on behalf of his friends in the business, doth protest too much.

  16. Actually Mr. Armstrong, your public commentary about people on your blog with whom you disagree does border on hatred. Having experienced first hand, I can attest to this. That my brother, is Christianity 101.

    Vox Cantoris

  17. You believe what you like, "Vox." God sees all. He knows my heart; He knows what my true opinions are, and He knows yours. It's a given these days, I guess, that folks find it impossible to conceive of honest disagreements without supposed "hatred" etc.

    Good grief, if I "hated" everyone whose opinions I critique as an apologist (in my 2500 posts and 40 books: lots of material!), I'd be the most despicable, hateful man in the history of the world (because we apologists criticize lots of stuff!). But the truth of the matter is that I don't hate anyone. Zero, zip, nada. What I hate is falsehood and evil.

    I'm sure we can agree on that.

    God bless all here. I'll have to appeal back to my two recent papers about Michael Voris, and others in the past, compiled on my "Radical Catholic Reactionaries" web page. I decided, however, to take down the one that delved into incomes (one that was linked above). I'll leave it to Mr. Voris to write about those things. My critique doesn't depend on that in the first place.

    Overtures are being made to talk to Michael Voris one-on-one, to see if something constructive can be accomplished; build a few bridges.

    Thanks, Jay, for allowing my comments to be published here.

    1. Mr. Armstrong,
      You--with disturbing glee and delight--spread the speculative slander that Michael Voris's Vortex episode was fueled by a sordid desire for revenge because Catholic Answers supposedly failed to hire him in 2009.

      This is utterly false, and anyone who knows Michael Voris personally can vouch for his integrity. For you to spread this calumny as eagerly as you have (and it was very low for Karl Keating to have leaked the information in order to insinuate this) was beneath the dignity of any man who would call himself Christian.

      You even publicly, on your facebook page (before you blocked me) implied that Michael Voris spread lies about Karl Keating's so-called adopted children.

      Does this conduct sit well with you? Is this in keeping with charity and justice? If so, you don't know the least thing about Christianity 101.

      I for one hope you meet with Michael Voris in person--and apologize for your behavior toward a man who has never said a single bad word about you.

  18. Sir, you (and your friend with his "minion" ministry; did a whole post attacking me which was entirely unjustified. You used my blog name and my actual name which you were asked to remove and that took more than one request! I can tell you for a fact Mr. Armstrong, your work has had a negative affect on certain others who have picked up this sarcasm and magnified it using your work to justify their own public slander. It is not health and it needs to stop. It is one thing to criticize broad policies and public scandal by bishops and "professional" Catholics in the chanceries and education, it is quite another to take on your brothers and sisters without any justification.

    You have very little credibility to speak such things against Voris or anyone else and hiding behind Father Hardon as your mentor is really a little extreme.

    The name-calling has to stop and it needs to stop now.

    It is not from Christ and frankly when you did what you did to me, all I could smell was sulfur!

  19. Mr. Armstrong. Would you care to explain why my comment which I originally posted on Monday, 09-02-13 at about 3 a.m. was deleted? Someone advised me to repost it again and take a screen shot. which I did. I'm not sure if my comment is still there, but I will post it here to prove that there is no cussing or other inappropriate language in it. Here it is:
    "Oh wow. CA just sunk to a new low. Two words: NO CLASS! When will you finally get it. It's about reporting the WHOLE truth. The difference in the salaries of Voris and you (CA) just shows how much more exposure you have by not rubbing the "right" people the wrong way, like Voris does when he tells everyone what is REALLY going on. CA is avoiding that subject altogether and is still able to speak on all Church properties (sell books, dvd's, etc.) and hold on to the word "Catholic" in their name. That simple."

  20. "You even publicly, on your facebook page (before you blocked me) implied that Michael Voris spread lies about Karl Keating's so-called adopted children."

    Are you constitutionally unable to get your facts right about me? That had nothing to do with Voris. It was about Bill Strom (a Facebook friend of mine, so this is no "enemy"), who stated that Karl had adopted children (and couldn't tell us where this myth originated). We had a good laugh over that (and esp. Karl's deadpan reply), but I later removed the post out of charity.

    So now you come around with your claptrap. It's obvious why I blocked you. You're manifestly unable to engage in civil, rational conversation if I'm anywhere closer than a football field in distance from you.

  21. I've only ever engaged in civil, rational discourse with you. The original post poked fun at Bill Strom, but in the comments, you named Voris as a potential source of that falsehood. I saw his name with my own eyes.

    That is a fact.

    I am glad to see you came to your senses and that you removed your post out of charity.

    Now if only you would do the same with Karl Keating's false insinuation that Voris is motivated by a secret desire for revenge against Catholic Answers. Anyone here who knows Voris knows how utterly preposterous and slanderous that is. Yet you have no qualms trumpeting it about all over the internet.

    Do not come here lecturing the rest of us about Christian charity and "rational conversation" when you cannot grasp what a grave sin against justice and charity such behavior constitutes.

    1. Catholic Catechism 2477:

      Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

      - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
      - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

      2479. Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

  22. This whole thing sort of reminds me of when the lefty republicans criticize the Tea party. Do the problem in the Church really stem from the Traditionalists whom point out the ills in the Church? Are they wrong? Has the Church not lurched toward secularism and unorthodoxy? Has this lurch not caused a massive falling away of Catholics from the faith? Is it wrong to ask the bishops what are they going to do about it?

  23. Hi Jay
    As we notice, these 'establishment types' are not only a US phenomenon. Yes, we got em in New Zealand too.Wanna know why NZ is still known as the 'Holland of the Pacific'? This Brendan guy posts on his blog the same ol same ol nonsense that has been time and time again refuted. Of course, he rehashes this stuff (none original as far as I can tell)on the basis that local Catholics are well, sheep.His modus operandi is stale though. To my mind,this gentleman wants to move into 'mainstream apologetics'; to diversify from his pro-life (very effective I believe)work. So what better (and obvious) place to start than attack Michael.Thus, by attempting to discredit Michael, it's now a case of "I'm the man". As Michael is scheduled to return here next year, he probably thought that it's best to deter those who may have an interest in attending. Pretty cheap shot though!

    You can also see his take on the 'dancing bishops' at WYD. Unsurprising that hey' "the sky didn't cave in".As you will notice, he again uses CMtv's video.

  24. Mzala - yes, I saw that post. It's just the standard party line. We really could use a breath of fresh air...and honesty.

  25. So, Dave Armstrong is going to meet with Michael Voris next Tuesday. Well, I'll hope for the best, but to be honest, given DA's bad behavior so far, and his statements in these comboxes, I believe, short of an unexpected turnaround, that he's going to that meeting to confront MV, not to try to understand what Mike is actually trying to do.

  26. Yikes! Look at all I've missed. And thank goodness.

    How singularly unedifying. I saw recently that Jimmy Akin was justifying some of Pope Francis' more.......unusual.........actions by stating that Popes define Tradition as they go along. Anything a Pope does is, by definition, in accord with Tradition. I don't even know where to begin with something like that - it's circular reasoning, first of all, and secondly, his rebuttal to more egregious examples posed as hypotheticals was constantly "well he surely won't do THAT!"

    It was a perfect demonstration of the attitude described at wrenching length in The Great Facade.

    Now, DA says, "what an ugly picture of the Church Christopher Ferrara, et. al., paint. Who would want to join that?" So, here's my question back to Dave - once you've got that convert in the Church, and they start looking around and wondering "why is this so different from what Saint Augustine said, or what the Council of Trent say, or even Vatican II says? Why is the Mass so incredibly lame? Why don't the priests preach? Why is everybody so cold and dead in the Faith?" What does Dave Armstrong say to that person, the dozens of persons I've had pose such questions to me, which all in essence ask - why doesn't the Church sound and act like the Church I was led to believe I was joining?

    And how many more souls would be in the Church if the crisis did not exist? How many souls have fallen away because they were spiritually starved in the Catholic Church? I can think of dozens off the top of my head. Will pretending there is no crisis make it go away? Will ignoring the crisis, and the spiritual death it means for so many souls, make things better?

    Who is honest? Who genuinely cares for souls and their eternal destination? How many converts to the Faith fall away because the reality does not match the expectation? Why are traditional parishes experiencing more explosive growth than just about any other sector of the Church? Why does someone who comes to a different conclusion about how to address these issues have to be destroyed?

    Just a few questions that came to mind in perusing the charming tete a tete above.


Please be courteous and concise.