Is Church Militant covering up for Rebecca Carroll?

Update: Christine Niles is crowing on her Twitter page:

Christine Niles

@ChristineNiles1

·

Jul 27

For the record, I've never heard of Rebecca Mavie Carroll. I confirmed she has never counseled Hannah, and she has never met or spoken with Jassy. The entire thesis of this piece crumbled in a matter of minutes - through simple fact checking.

I laughed when I saw this. I think Susan scored a hit which is why we got the threat. The thesis of the piece didn't "crumble" at all. As for Niles "fact checking" .... anyone who's seen her stories is familiar with how she uses half-truths to twist and spin. What makes her the filter for these three women? Is she their lawyer? Would they swear to these things in a deposition under oath? More to come. 

Below is the Post that replaced Susan's original post. Christine Niles may be crowing a little too soon. 

The replacement post:

I've taken Susan's article down (at least temporarily) while I study her documentation. I also changed the title slightly. The article alleged that Rebecca Carroll is the counselor of Jassy Jacas and Hannah Merz who accused Fr. Pierre Duverger of nothing criminal, but say he was "grooming" them.

Why did I remove the article? Let me explain.

I received a letter earlier today from Christine Niles threatening a lawsuit for defamation if Susan's article wasn't removed "within 24 hours." Niles claims that most of what Susan wrote is "objectively false."

First, a digression. This isn't the first time I've been threatened with a lawsuit. Several incensed individuals went after me for things I've written in the Les Femmes newsletter over the years and I once received a letter from the March of Dimes similar to Niles' letter which also threatened a lawsuit. Additionally, some fellow rescuers and I were sued by an abortion business. Nothing came of any of these threats and we never paid a cent to the abortionist. Niles assures me, however, that:

We demand that this blog post be removed in its entirety within 24 hours. If you fail to do so, you and Ms. Matthiesen will be hearing from our attorney.

And unlike Fr. Pierre Duverger's threats to take legal action against Church Militant, ours are not empty threats.

Wow! This little two-bit blog run by two nobodies (I consider us "gnats for the Lord") apparently touched a sore spot at CM's media empire. 

I always consider these types of threats the action of bullies. I've told the bullies in the past that I'd look forward to discovery. In civil lawsuits, depositions are wide open for questions. It would certainly be interesting to examine CM's financial dealings and relations with Opus Dei, Marc Brammer, and Terry Carroll not to mention the allegations of Jacas and Merz.

Having said that, however, if the article proves to be "objectively false" in large part, I will permanently remove it and apologize. If it's partly rash judgment and partly true, I'll ask Susan to amend it. 

I consider myself responsible for the content of the blog. Although I seldom read Susan's articles before she posts and almost never censor anything she writes, I take responsibility. I don't want to engage in the same type of slander practiced by CM. At this point, however, I'm not convinced that Susan can't back up what she wrote. I will be going over her data with her.

Now, a few comments about Niles' letter. 

1. Niles claims she "never heard of Rebecca Mavie Carroll" and that Carroll has never heard of Jacas and Jacas has never heard of Carroll. (There's no denial about Hannah Merz knowing Carroll.) I will take Niles' denial at face value and presume it's true, unlike Niles herself who uses denials to prove the guilt of her targets. 

That's what she did to Fr. James McLucas, one of CM's alleged predator priests. Despite the fact that Fr. McLucas "vehemently" denied all the charges of sex abuse by his accuser, Niles claimed he only denied having sex with her as a minor. That simply wasn't true! Matt Gaspers did a remarkable job of exposing CM's dishonesty in that particular case. Interestingly, CM used Fr. McLucas to launch one more attack on the SSPX despite the fact that Fr. McLucas is not an SSPX priest. CM claimed the SSPX was "sheltering a sexual predator." The title of the article was posed as a question, but they clearly spun the article so the reader would conclude that the answer was yes. As Gaspers wrote:

Those who read the article and have followed the ensuing social media debate know that the headline was a rhetorical question, since it is obvious that both the author and Church Militant presume guilt on the part of Fr. McLucas, despite a lack of hard evidence (accusations ≠ evidence) and the absence of a guilty verdict from either a diocese or court of law (settlements ≠ admission/finding of guilt). (Both the author and CM also clearly harbor a strong bias against the SSPX, which could be the real motivation behind their efforts – more on this later.) 

2. Niles accuses Susan of "defamatory statements." In view of CM's policy of defaming an ever-expanding group, that accusation is a bit ironic. They've labeled a number of Catholic media groups "frauds" and "spiritual pornographers" and call anyone who supports the SSPX a "pedophile enabler" and member of a "cult." But that apparently is not slander or defamation in their book. Different strokes for different folks and different rules as well.

3. Niles says Terry Carroll isn't a "sugar daddy" for CM as Susan alleged, and that he hasn't contributed to their organization in years. Maybe he ran out of money. The Detroit Free Press carried an article in 2017 with this information describing Carroll's relationship with CM. He was definitely star struck:

[Carroll] was paying for a $10-per-month subscription to Church Militant through Paypal, then at some point there was a problem with the payment system. He called Church Militant to resolve the issue, and he said he indicated it was "almost embarrassing" paying as little as he did per month, Carroll said. A short time later, he received a phone call from Voris.

"It was like getting a call from Paul McCartney," Carroll said. "It was like getting a call from a famous person. I was tongue-tied. It was like a teenager talking to somebody he admired."

They arranged for Carroll to increase his payments, and he became a volunteer, helping answer e-mails from viewers. Through the years, his contributions have reached about $300,000, the most anyone has sent, Voris said.

Carroll said the amount was about 20%-30% of what he and his wife, retired IT professionals, had saved for retirement. They gave $200,000 to help Church Militant with a building purchase — and, in a gift separate from the nonprofit, they paid $30,000-$40,000 to help one of Voris' employees with credit card debt. They also sent $10,000 to an Australian woman they'd never met, who frequently commented on the website and needed help.

 Sure sounds like a "sugar daddy" to me. $300K? That's not pocket change!

At any rate, I have complied with Niles' 24-hour deadline. Now I'm going to bed.