The policy of covering for the SSPX on sexual abuse appears to be a policy of the leadership of LifeSiteNews. Personal relationships may account for part of this policy. There is also the consideration that the SSPX exploits its leverage with Catholics who feel that its existence is indispensable as a tool to protect the Traditional Latin Mass in the rest of the Church, or who want them to be available as a shelter of last resort.
Really? Is there any proof for any of this? SSPX has a “policy” (read “evil conspiracy” with a maniacal laugh)? Nope, no evidence. SSPX “exploits its leverage with Catholics?” Nope, no evidence. This is CM’s game for trying to discredit the SSPX and now LifeSiteNews.
Note the words used: “appears to be…may account for.” It's pure speculation. Let's replace the words I highlighted with these. "The policy of covering for Opus Dei and their secret activities appears to be the policy of the the leadership of Church Militant. Personal relationships with Opus Dei members like Marc Brammer and Terry Carroll among others may account for part of this policy. There is also the consideration that Opus Dei exploits its leverage with Catholics who feel that its existence is indispensable as a tool to save the Church and lead to putting an Opus Dei pope on the chair of Peter.
The next speculation refers to SSPX "control" over their followers and "financial considerations" that may play a role in the villainous behavior of the SSPX:
It would not be surprising if financial considerations play a role as well. The control over its followers that enables the SSPX to get them to keep silent about sexual abuse, and to attack the victims when they make their abuse public, also enables it to extract large sums of money from these followers without giving an account of where all the money goes. This enables it to exert influence over conservative and traditional Catholic organizations, whose financial basis is often precarious.
Wow! Lots to unpack here. Again, it’s pure speculation to manipulate the reader into seeing the SSPX as a "cult" (a word CM frequently uses in describing the SSPX) that exploits their followers hiding their finances and using them to "exert influence."
Any proof?
NADA!
What's humorous about this, if one can find any humor in CM's malicious behavior, is that one of the most secret societies in the Church is Opus Dei. My daughter attended an Opus Dei school for several years. When we left, I commented to a friend that "they want all your time and all your money." And if you want to find a group that deals in secrecy and pressure exerted on their followers, Opus Dei is definitely your group. But don’t expect CM to uncover their abuse. Read their recent article on the exploitation of workers by OD and note how CM bends over backwards to let OD spokesmen explain and excuse their exploitation. No big guns aimed at OD. But hey! They can claim that they “investigated” OD. Clever, if dishonest, strategy! Dishonesty seems to be the “policy” at CM among their leadership.
So let's look at the beginning of CM as St. Michael's Media and Real Catholic TV.
The saga begins in 2006 when Michael Voris formed his company, St. Michael's Media. In 2008 Real Catholic TV premiered in Ferndale, MI, a city known for its homosexual presence.
...air that filthy laundry!!
ReplyDeleteNiles fancies CM as "driving the narrative" and what's happening is Mr. Toad's Wild Ride straight on to the frosted wig circus. Where lies and falsehoods are relied upon to trap abused sheep and expose said sheep to further abuse. (For the good of their souls, naturally.)
Opus Dei thugs? Try self-deluded power trippers, plain and simple.
Texas Fanboi's $$$$$ owns Voris and Niles. Fanboi controls the narrative with his neo-modernist Opus Dei hatred of the SSPX. Voris and Niles are brainwashed Opus Dei toadies. They are owned people. Fanboi's $$$$ bought them. Kinda like journalistic prostitution isn't it?
ReplyDeleteBoth Voris and Niles are sexually compromised, so I find it hypocritical of them to be attacking the SSPX for sexual impropriety. Voris, with his history of homosexuality, and Niles with her separation from her husband because she claims her marriage isn't 'canonical'. I suspect part of the reason why they attack the SSPX is they're projecting their own unresolved sexual frustrations and hang-ups on to the SSPX.
ReplyDeleteForget journalism -- CM is straight out prostitution and selling one's mother for profit and the perception of power. It's a sick show that really tanked when Voris got the new "studio" and began his required SSPX Summer Hit Pieces.
ReplyDeleteCM's shrill, look at me aren't I holy tone should be a dead giveaway. Sadly, abused people are angry and frightened and looking to be understood. But giving oneself over to a carnival barker won't save a soul from anything. Except perhaps the ability to think, discern, and behave in a Christian manner while canvassing "Christian" ethics.
What a concept.
It's my understanding that Terry Carrol -- the none sugar daddy sugar daddy -- attended the Irving, TX parish where Fr. Fox FSSP was mandated by his then bishop to trash the SSPX from the pulpit. (Under threat of the FSSP being booted out of said diocese.) Well, orders were followed and subsequently those at that parish -- Taylor Marshall at the time -- were brainwashed about the position of the SSPX.
That was during the Fischer More College fiasco wherein the bishop banned the TLM because the school allowed an SSPX priest to offer mass. OMG!!! It was deigned a danger to souls.
That bishop, I believe, was since exposed to be some sadistic individual who was subsequently removed. My goodness. Why am I not surprised.
Anyway, air that laundry. Nothing like the burning light of the sun to tackle all those nasty stains and grays.
There will always be problems with organizations, you have to deal with them. The real ? is; Was there a sexual problem? Appears there was and then what was done about it? This has been a problem since before the Jesus came, remember St. Damien and his book written 1000 years ago on the same issues.
ReplyDeleteDear Tim. Since there get go there have been major problems with the SSPX, beginning with Mons Lefebvre but it is too long to rehash here.
ReplyDeleteThe long and short of it is all schisms fall and the SSPX is never coming home.
It is of Tradition that the sine qua non of Catholicism is union with Bishop and Pope - nom matter how bad they are
But it will be interesting to follow Mary Ann here; she is as sharp woman
An SSPX priest has TWICE come to our house, and hour and 1/2 from the STAS seminary, heard our confessions, blessed our house and given us communion. I have jokingly called him Father Clouseau for his 'doing' Peter Sellers. He laughed, has a good sense of humor, thinks Mr. Sellers the funniest man! Imagine. A Frenchman with a sense of humor, especially about and Englishman making fun of the French language. Fr. also seems a good, holy, and cheerful and friendly priest. When, in 27 years Catholic did a priest ever offer to come to my house? Never!
ReplyDeleteDuring the first months of the China virus, SSPX kept mass alive (even the early parking lot masses) for us when fake dioceses cowed to their commie government masters. I felt (was) abandoned by my thriving, growing trad mass parrish under FSSP and beholden under threat of removal by the previous, now likely in hell bishop. And also the new fake bishop who is happy to commune fake catholic Kaine and other "catholic" demoncrat politicians. This is the same that threatened us mostly old Rosary prayers with arrest, outside his fake chancery a few years ago.
I enjoy Voris's Vortex and evening news. I have litle time to watch endless videos but am glad they are out there as a lifeline, as is LifeSite news and other faithful Catholic outlets like yours. The internecine squabble saddens me, but I know it is because all of you are sinners. Me too!
In Steubenville I joined several, at least one very famous, professors as Opus Dei Evenings of Recollection. I recall the negative comments about them. OD was founded by a now saint. I would have continued, perhaps deepened, my involvement were they closer.
lifeSite once dumped me as a commenter without explanation.
I could pick on any and all Catholic organizations.
And, where IS Father James Haley?
And who DID kill Vince Foster?
And Trump is still president,
Biden the puppet for the demons behind him,
and Right Now Hitlery would make a 'better' president.
God Love You,
Mike Smith, from behind enemy lines...
A number of years ago I was a Cooperator member of OD and had become interested the outspoken Michael Voris Catholic mission of speaking truth to the Catholic hierarchy. I asked the Regional Director of OD if Michael Voris was a good source of Catholic information He said yes, so I called Michael Voris himself as I thought I might make a financial contribution. In the course of the conversation I asked Michael Voris directly if he was a member of Opus Dei. Silence followed. I interpreted that to indicate he was in fact a member of OD.
ReplyDeleteABS, I appreciate your comments here but the SSPX is not “in schism.” It’s strange times when a truly schismatic group like the German bishops embrace outright heresy and repudiate multiple doctrines of the Church but are allowed to pretend to be in union, but the SSPX who embrace the doctrines of the Church but repudiate deviant novelties are called schismatic.
ReplyDeleteAs Ann Barnhardt might say, once a diabolical narcissist always a diabolical narcissist.
ReplyDeleteI have watched Voris a couple of times but cannot any more. To me he is a frightening black widow ego masquerading as a human being, and a "clear and present danger" to any faithful Catholic who who is drawn into his web.
Please, Mary Ann, steer clear of him as you would a demon: do exorcise him from your thoughts and blog.
John Belmont
Mary Ann Kreitzer: In reference to your calm, reasonable response to the charge SSPX is in “schism”, I think it would be helpful to refer you (perhaps your readers) to an excellent article written by Fr. David Nix (Padre Pregrino blog).
ReplyDeleteTrue Obedience vs False Obedience:
https://padreperegrino.org/2021/08/obed/
The charge of schism against Arbp LeFebvre, and his SSPX Society with him, is based on disobedience to a direct order from the Pope to not consecrate additional Society Bishops. In addition it is based on SSPX Society refusal to accept (as ordered) Vatican II and all its subsequent Constitutions in their entirety, down to the last punctuation mark. He (they) refused to do this, to comply with this order, judging compliance with the order(s) to be *False Obedience*.
He, and his Society after him, was and is very careful to obey (in *true obedience*) all orders judged to be legal and legitimate in accord with the Church’s Sacred Magisterium. But in these days of widespread apostasy within the Church, they are cautious and careful to protect their duty to conduct their affairs in True Obedience, not False.
The common error committed by the vast majority (vast, as in 99%, surely) of Catholics is to consider obedience, Catholic duty, to merely do whatever they are told by their superior in the Hierarchy. This is the error of FSSP, which is why they are in awful conflict with SSPX. The precedent assumptions of each Order on this topic are not compatible - ripe for conflict. “Uniting The Clans” must deal with this source of disunity before hope of alliance in Christ and His Sacred Magisterium is remotely possible. An excellent discussion on the disunity between opposing sides of orthodoxy, caused by this discord over *precedent assumptions of OBEDIENCE* (True and False) is contained in this article from the Society :
https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-principles-sspx-vs-fssp-3062
And the misunderstanding about True Obedience is why, of course, ABS repeats the charge of schism against the Society of St. Pius X. They failed to obey their order from the Pope to disband their Society. They failed to obey their order from the Hierarchy and the Pope to accept heresy within Magisterial doctrine and within our Sacred Liturgy. That refusal is judged to be heretical.
My definition of heresy is different than ABS, and all those who he represents. Heresy is “…restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure... The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is *the deposit of the faith*, the *sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition* as proposed to our belief by the Church. The *believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church*; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. (New Advent)
“The sun total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition”. And so - SSPX demands (in accord with True Obedience) that Papal, Hierarchical and Council pronouncements be in accord with Scripture and Tradition. References and Footnotes please.
Coda: The New Advent definition of heresy, above, is simply a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church. And St, Thomas rightly puts the focus where it belongs - on Scripture and Tradition, every particle of it in grand union with itself and with its Author Jesus Christ our Lord.
ReplyDeleteThank you Aqua, per usual, for your comments and the SSPX vs FSSP link. It was very helpful. In footnote 5 of the piece there was a link to the sspx's stance on sedevacantism but the page 'can not be found'. I thought it interesting as I read somewhere in a comments section of a blog that Abp. Lefebvre supposedly entertained sedevacantism. Given the state of the Church, it seemed plausible to me, who could blame him? And who here hasn't at least thought about it?
DeleteMary, Queen of Heaven; pray for us.
Don’t forget Voris and Niles have embraced Milo Yianopolis.
ReplyDeletereally sick and tired of CM attacking the SSPX and the wonderful priests in the Order. They are a great group of men and I have grown spiritually since joining one of their priory's. The CM attacks are unsubstantiated and innuendo made to look like fact. it is abhorrent and they should be stopped
ReplyDeleteDear Mary Ann. If the SSPX priests are not in union with Bishops created by the Pope then they are schismatic.
ReplyDeleteTrent denounced these types of SSPX Vagus Bishops and the argument of the SSPX that the Church supplies is rendered nugatory by the fact that Catholic Bishops already existed in those areas long before Mons Lefebvre created his schism.
Now, it is an historical fact that Mons Lefebvre did sign a protocol with Rome which promised him a bishop and even named the date but he regned on the deal saying he could not trust Rome - but he could trust the when he signed the deal a short time earlier?
The poor man was boxed-in by his own rhetoric and creation of his petit ecclesia for the powerful in the petit ecclesia he created told him they'd walk if he kept his word and followed through with the protocol.
Now, one can advance all manner of arguments but the plain and simple truth is he did not keep his promise and he reneged on the deal he had signed.
Saints do not do that.
Now, this is a bit down the rabbit hole but facts are facts.
ABS will lurk because he respects you and your intelligence and he will not return to the history but ABS has a very long hx (first begun at Free Republic) hashing and rehashing the history of The SSPX which is a concretised schism that is Neo-Orthodox.
Each Council trails in its wake schisms; the First Vatican Council sparked the Old Catholics and Vatican Two sparked The SSPX and neither is coming home corporately.
Thanks Mary Ann
Actually Rome reneged on the archbishop. They agreed to let him ordain a bishop and the wouldn’t let him schedule it. I trust Bishop Schneider’s opinion on this .
ReplyDeletei don't disagree
ReplyDeleteABS,
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX is NOT in schism. You don't know what you're talking about, but rather merely parroting what you've heard.
It seems embarrassingly obvious to say, but here goes anyway...a group of Catholic priests that answers directly to the Pope who has granted them faculties is not "in schism".
ReplyDeleteFor further reflection on the authority of a Pope, I refer to Pope Pius IX's response to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Issued because questions immediately arose with the issuing of Pastor Aeternus {Dogma of Infallibility}, and the German Chancellor, who was of course an opponent of the Church, was one who put forth a forceful denunciation of it. The German Bishops issued a response to him clarifying what for many ever since have been questions about what it all meant. What is most important is that Pope Pius IX responded in full and complete agreement with the Bishops in a Magesterial document that greatly aids in our assessment of the way he intended Pastor Aeternus to be received. This from not just some bishop or theologian, but the very Pope who presided over the production of Pastor Aeternus. As such it is a rejection of some of the sharpest forms of ultramontanism which we see even today.
Some takeaways....
Pope Pius IX:
"...the application of the term 'absolute monarch' to the pope in reference to ecclesiastical affairs is not correct because he is subject to divine laws and is bound by the directives given by Christ for his Church. The pope cannot change the constitution given to the Church by her divine founder, as an earthly ruler can change the constitution of a State. In all essential points the constitution of the Church is based on divine directives, and therefore it is not subject to human arbitrariness. "
"...it is certainly not the Catholic Church that has embraced the immoral and despotic principle that the command of a superior frees one unconditionally from all personal responsibility"...
"As the Vatican Council has expressed the idea in clear and precise words and as the nature of the matter requires, infallibility is a characteristic of the papacy that refers exclusively to the supreme Magesterium of the pope; it is coextensive with the area of the infallible Magesterium of the Church in general, and it is restricted to the contents of Holy Scripture and tradition and also to the dogmas previously defined by the teaching authority of the Church."
Document:
"Responses of the Circular Letter of Chancellor Bismarck on the Interpretation of the Constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council", January-March 1875. Citation found in Denzinger-Hünermann 3112-3117.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote Lefebvre on May 30, 1988, clearly stating the Holy See's position as follows:
ReplyDeleteConcerning the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles fixed in point II/2 of the Protocol which you accepted. This Commission is an organism of the Holy See in the service of the [SSPX] and the diverse instances which will have to be handled to establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the fears which you have expressed are groundless, since the choice of members will be done by the Holy Father himself... Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you on his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the [SSPX] as a bishop (in the sense of point II/5.2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15
It was Lefebvre who reneged on the agreement even after he was promised a Bishop on the specific date of August 15.
In one more-or-less throwaway sentence, it's mentioned that Jones has an anti-trad bias. He does. In the last month or so, he's on BitChute deriding those who are unhappy with Traditiones Custodes and states that their position undermines the unity of the Church--echoing Pp. Francis.
ReplyDeleteFor a historian like Jones, that's an embarrassing declaration. What are we then to make of such as the Norbertines, who have their own Rite? The Ambrosian Rite practitioners? Are they also undermining unity?