Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Vortex and Mic'd Up: Silent No More

Update: Go here for my report on the Mic'd Up show.

More commentary later...I hope! Please watch: 

See the full script here; here are the first few paragraphs (sorry for the poor formatting; I hope to correct it later):

The Vortex episodes we aired last Thursday and Friday which generated a lot of heated
debate and so forth about the role of the Catholic Establishment Media are gonna be the
subject of tonight’s Mic’d Up program .. which airs LIVE at 8pm EST. See the attached
link and tune in and even call in LIVE.

What’s the issue here? It’s really rather simple. The Church is in a deep crisis – if not the
worst crisis she has ever experienced. There is a worldwide apostasy going on evidenced
by actions and beliefs of both clergy and laity. That’s bad enough.

BUT .. and here is the crux of the problem AND the issue which we have raised - Why
does the mainstream Catholic Media never say anything about these issues of
unfaithfulness in the Church AND the resultant spiritual damage? NEVER!

They treat the sins in the Church .. what Pope Benedict spoke of as filth .. as just kind of
business as usual. So, with such magnitude of problems facing us – causing mass
defections from the Faith, the shuttering of thousands of parishes, the selling off prime
property .. an over the cliff rate of conversions and on and on .. why is this stuff never

talked about.
These tactics and the damage they have done .. the offenses they have made against the
virtues of both justice and charity is THE topic tonight on Mic’d Up! This will be a very
revealing show .. not exactly a tell all .. but certainly a “tell a lot”.


  1. Though I repeat myself yet again, even Mr Voris doesn't realize that the buck stops at the Vatican. When the Monarch isn't ruling, his ministers and underlings go about doing their own thing. It's good that Mr Voris is talking about the failings of the underlings and the ministers; not so good that he doesn't take notice of the Monarch.

  2. Can't wait.

    You're so brilliant, Michael!

    God bless.


  3. Aged Parent:

    You are right. The buck always stops at the top. Why would you think anyone wouldn't know that?

    Just because Michael doesn't talk about that doesn't mean he isn't aware of it. What do you think can be done? Convene another conclave to depose the present Pope and install a new one? Exactly what would be accomplished by encouraging people to lose faith in the Pope? Does the Pope have any superiors to whom we could appeal for redress of grievances? To speak as you do is to INVITE a sedevacantist attitude, which is the ultimate outcome of questioning and criticizing the Pope. Michael isn't going to do that. But that doesn't mean he's not aware that "the buck stops here."

    When you criticize priests and bishops, there is at least the POSSIBILITY that their superiors can take action. It's discouraging, of course, when those superiors don't do anything, but discouragement is not the same as loss of hope, to which criticism of the Pope can lead.

    This is a conscious, considered prudential judgment on Michael's part, with which I agree. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ but all, starting with Peter, are/were human beings. Especially today, with the Internet, the Pope just has to cough in the wrong place and everyone around the world can know about it in seconds. It is inevitable, given this reality, that there will be many more "unguarded" words and actions of the Pope that, in former times, would have remained unknown and undiscussed.

    The Holy Spirit protects the Pope (and the Church) from formal embrace of error in matters of faith and morals. The scope of that infallibility was carefully circumscribed at Vatican I. The Holy Spirit does not protect the Pope (and the Church) from the consequences of human frailty infected by Original Sin.

    Michael only reports on matters that will give people hope. That might sound strange given his reputation for stirring the pot so often. But exposing lies and falsehoods gives one the hope that, when problems are recognized, something can be done about them. But if you attack and cause people to give up on the Pope, where's the hope in that? The SSPX? Is the answer to today's crisis to join a group that pledges loyalty and obedience to the Pope except when they disagree with him?

    So, no, Michael Voris will not, EVER, attack the Pope but, yes, he is as aware as anyone about all aspects of the current crisis in the Church.

    1. Terry:

      Thank you for your thoughtful response.

      Your remarks are typical, and by saying that I mean no disrespect. What is, I'm afraid, going on here is that far too many Catholics have forgotten the very simple fact that we can still criticize (respectfully) our Pontiff while still remaining loyal Catholics. Those who believe that a Pope should never be criticized, no matter what outrageous thing they may say or do, are indulging in what has long been termed "papolatry". When we familiarize ourselves with the many writings of the Fathers, the Doctors and the great Saints of the Church we find that criticism of papal misbehavior or poor judgment are legion. Are we then to dismiss the Fathers of the Church as sedevacantists?

      There is another problem at play here: the confusion over the issue of papal infallibility. I find it somewhat ironically amusing that both papolaters and sedevacantists share the same error: they believe the Pope is impeccable. In other words, they confuse infallibility with impeccability. This is, by far, the single most common misconception bewildering modern-day Catholics - especially those Catholics who neglect to read the writings of our greatest Catholic historians and theologians. The papolaters, when they see the Pope doing something incredibly wrong, will simply shrug it off and say, "well, if the Pope said it it must be OK" (like "altar girls", "Communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers, syncretist meetings like Assisi, etc., etc.). They think he is impeccable. On the other hand the sedevacantists, who also think the Pope is impeccable, when they see the Pope doing something stupid of flat out wrong say, "Well, if he did that then he can't be the Pope". Do you see what I mean, Terry, by pointing out that these two opposing temperaments share the same error?

      When the Holy Father commits acts that border on, say, sacrilege (see "Assisi 1", for example) we Catholics are permitted to point out our shock and disgust over such things. We don't say he is not the Pope for doing these terrible things; instead, we pray for him. Indeed, why else does one pray for the Pope?

      Let us not forget some of the poor judgments of our very first Pope, either. They are listed clearly in Scripture to remind us that a Pope can do wrong. As the late, great Hamish Fraser once said, "The first official act of the Pope and his college of Cardinals was to abandon Christ on Good Friday." A lesson to humble all of us, I would say.

      If Mr Voris does not want to say anything bad about the man on top who is not doing the job of governance that he is supposed to be doing that is his decision. But I would very respectfully recommend to him, had I the opportunity, to begin to read the history of our Popes. That history will show him Popes that were great Saints, that were good Popes, that were average Popes, that were mediocre Popes and that were downright villains. Again, a lesson to humble all of us.

      It is not necessary to throw terms like "sedevacantist" at those of us who wish to point out these things. And I would add that a Pollyanna attitude toward the papacy does not offer hope but, to the contrary I'm afraid, breeds confusion. We Catholics have to face up to a catastrophic situation that we as members of the One, True Church are now in, and facing up to it does not mean hiding the poor and unhelpful words and decisions made by our recent Popes, most of whom, tragically, are infected with a disease known as Modernism, and a disease that Saint Pius X tried (alas, in vain) to eradicate from the Church.

      I thank you for sharing your opinion with me. It is certainly an opinion, though one I do not share. But the first thing we Catholics need to do is to start to be Catholic in the very truest and fullest sense of that term.

    2. I agree with Terry, and fully support Michael's prudent course of action in refraining from public criticism of the Holy Father. I'm not sure what it would accomplish. Michael is already fully aware of the imperfection of previous popes, and he is certainly not practicing "papolatry." It's a prudent judgment because it would accomplish very little--and it would also lead towards greater disrespect and defiance towards the Holy Father, which is nothing he or his apostolate would want to encourage.

    3. I totally agree with you, Aged parent. I spent months thinking and praying over these issues.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Indirectly Michael, and others of us, who criticize Bishops are being critical of the Pope. Leadership in the Church is deplorable. It is the rare Bishop who does not equate good leadership with popularity and having been in leadership positions since 1972 I know for a fact they are not the same. It does appear that this Pope is not the humble man some describe him as being. He seems to relish the limelight of popularity. Good leaders do not have either the time or stomach for that. Good leaders identify problems (the homosexual mafia in the curia would be one), develop solutions, implement them regardless of the fallout, and follow through.

    Quite frankly while some Popes during my lifetime have been holy men and good spiritual examples I cannot think of many (make that any) that were good leaders in terms of running the "business" of the Church. Leaders are responsible for the actions of their subordinates and far too many subordinates (Bishops in particular) have failed to do the jobs entrusted to them---and there have been no consequences. For those that argue that there may have been consequences imposed in private my answer is this. When the errors have been public and a source of scandal the consequence needs to be public as well to offset said scandal.

    The "curriculum" in our seminaries probably needs a lot of tweaking...but it clearly needs a couple of good courses in leadership and management. Then, in a couple of generations, we might see some improvement. Unless and until Bishops understand what obedience to authority means and unless and until the Pope insists on obedience to his authority not much will change for the better


Please be courteous and concise.