Church Militant The Vortex Feed

TRANSCRIPT

Then, 2009 arrived, and Obama went to Notre Dame. That was the first of the gear shifting we underwent here. That revealed to us in stark terms that something was very wrong in the hierarchy. So we started out on that foray, adding to the already existing abundance of theological productions.

And so it was until the next major shift, 2016, when Hillary declared, on the campaign trail, that religious doctrines and teachings would have to change, in a speech before a radical feminist group. Then 2018 arrived and the revelations about Theodore McCarrick, and it became an all-out assault on the cover-up hierarchy, especially here in the United States.

For all of those years, developing what we have done here from the beginning (the massive theological content) and then adding all these other aspects on top of that, we were largely speaking out against heresy — all sorts of heresies. As you might imagine, that garnered no love from the hierarchy as they have been the recipient of much-needed criticism.

Now, in 2023, Church Militant has arrived at another such moment. Without sacrificing anything that has gone on before — the theology, politics, the investigations — it is now time to step forward and embrace the next aspect: the fight against schism. It will require, in certain ways, a different approach from how heresy is treated; but, nonetheless, they both lead innocent souls out of the Church.

The reign of Pope Francis has thrown gasoline onto the crisis, emboldening the heretics while at the same time giving ammunition to the schismatics to make outrageous claims about the Church Herself. A few come right out and deny the validity of the Second Vatican Council. Most, however, keep those cards close to their chest because they realize the danger of saying that overtly.

Others maintain Francis either never was pope or, at some point along the way, became a heretic and is no longer pope. And some actually say there hasn't been a real pope since Pope Pius XII. These last ones are called "sedevacantists," Latin for "the Chair is empty" — referring to the Throne of St. Peter.

In fact, largely out of public view is the vicious war that goes on between groups like the schismatic Society of Saint Pius X and the really schismatic groups of the sedevacantists. It is no exaggeration to say those two groups detest each other, with each accusing the other of all sorts of logical and philosophical errors.

And remember, schismatics ultimately deny the primacy of the current pope in one area or another just like Protestants do. So to sit back and watch the unholy war between sedes and SSPX is like watching a slugfest between Anglicans and Baptists — except the Prots are more charitable with each other.

Just like when Donald Trump got elected and his presence drew out all the players and revealed much of the cultural-political crisis, so, too, the election of Pope Francis had the same effect in the Church. So while many Catholics have been aware for a very long time about the heretics in the Church, now they are slowly coming to learn about the schismatics and their many varieties.

And just as Trump exposed the fake media in the secular realm, Church Militant is committed to exposing the fake Catholic media in the realm of supposedly faithful Catholics. There are major fissures beginning to open up, and souls are falling into these. And in many cases, the supposedly faithful Catholic internet types are leading the way.

They gloss over, for example, that since the SSPX schism became formal in 1988, three popes have declared it "schism." But that's not good enough for them. They simply ignore the popes or say they were wrong. Yo, dudes — that's called Protestantism. But what's worse is, they refuse to tell you that they believe the popes are wrong in their governing of the Church.

They give schismatics a platform for writing articles, being interviewed on their podcasts or shows or whatever and refuse to admit where they stand, which at the end of the day is, "The popes have it wrong;  we have it right." And what viewers and subscribers and followers of these personalities and internet sites need to realize is this: The editorial policies of what they cover (who they interview, what they talk about, what they publish) are all geared around psyching you up to believe the SSPX is legitimate.

It is not. Pope Benedict, who they lauded with crocodile tears when he died, declared the SSPX is not legitimate. But to give the appearance that they are united with the Church, they praised him in death even though they rejected his authority in life. So yes, Church Militant has discerned that just as other inflection points in the Church and culture demanded this apostolate respond for the good of souls, we are now at another inflection point: fighting schism.

The schismatics — because they have largely been out of view, like the gay clergy was until 2002 — have had what amounts to a free pass to undermine the Church and victimize innocent souls. Well, not here — schism, as we have been talking about all this week, is just as dangerous to the Faith as heresy; it's just not as sexy.

Faithful Catholics out there need to contact these various media outfits that purport to be Catholic while at the same time denying a council of the Church or the authority of the pope, and ask them to go on the record and declare openly, do they support schism in the Church (in whatever variety)? And don't let them tell you, "Well, it's unclear; it's a difficult problem ... blah blah."

No, it's not. Three popes in a row have declared it so. So the question to them is not "Do you think there is a schism?" Nope, there is a schism — ask the popes. The question is "Do you agree with the popes' authoritative declarations that the SSPX is in schism, yes or no?" It's that simple: "Do you agree with the popes or the schismatics?"

The faithful Catholics need to begin to view and listen to what's being reported by these outfits and individuals, with a much more jaundiced eye. So add schismatics to the list of investigations and programs and reports and discussions that you'll be hearing much more of on Church Militant. It's dishonest for any Catholic media to not come right out and say whether they support or reject papal authority — because that is what this is all about.

TRANSCRIPT

Catholic internet personalities and media types have a duty to bring you the entire story when relaying to you what's going on in the Church as well as the world as it relates to the Church. To cherry-pick data points and deliberately leave out other data points is dishonest. With the exception of straight-up lying, like CNN and others engage in, there is, essentially, little difference in that reporting philosophy.

Even in the legal world, there is a requirement that if the police or prosecutors come across information that weakens their case and is favorable to the defense, they have a legal obligation to hand that information over to the defense. The point is to arrive at the truth, and nowhere should that be more applicable than in so-called media circles in the Catholic world.

But too often we find straight-up commentary as well as commentary thinly disguised as news showing reckless disregard for the truth. This is especially true in what is not relayed to you. Catholic media and internet personalities quite often will support a certain person or cause and align themselves with it without sufficient vetting or research.

It's a kind of populist reporting that really isn't reporting at all, at least not in any professional sense. The recent Frank Pavone story is a classic example. Big-name conservative Catholic outfits and individuals trampled all over each other championing his cause, jumping on the bandwagon, pounding their chests as defenders of yet another "good and holy" priest.

Whether they did this as just a knee-jerk reaction, uncritically going along with it — or more calculatingly, saw it as a chance to push a narrative that makes them look good by association — we don't know. What we do know is that either of those avenues displays a woeful lack of regard for their supporters. And as it turns out, with the revelations emerging after Pavone's laicization, those outfits now have egg on their faces (and deserve to).

That's what happens when you either unthinkingly or calculatingly rush to push a cause and report only some cherry-picked information. That underlying philosophy, which is the order of the day in many Catholic media circles, undercuts their credibility. And it raises all sorts of questions about other celebrity priests or causes whose bandwagons these same internet personalities and media outfits support and push. You, the viewers, are beginning more and more to ask questions, to examine what you are being told is the story.

We know because we are seeing the "great awakening," the red-pilling now beginning regarding "reporting" in the Catholic world. We are now getting more emails and comments, not to mention having private discussions with others who are beginning to see this. For example, to give a spin on unapproved apparitions — in some cases, debunked apparitions or highly questionable apparitions or so-called mystics — and treat these like they are facts, is dishonest or completely uninformed.

It's an insult to viewers to bring so-called experts on the air and speak about these types of things as though they are simply true, without asking tough questions. But — and this is what Catholic viewers, thankfully, are beginning to awaken to — there is a desire on the part of some in Catholic media to avoid tough questions around causes or people they support because they have tied their entire enterprise to these stories:

The list of baseless claims goes on and on. And any interview, any daily news that can be seized upon that helps push their narrative is, immediately, "news." Are the alleged apparitions, for example, at Garabandal worth an honest story? Maybe, but not without also presenting everything questionable about them.

Church history is riddled with phony apparitions and mystics, and to weave these events into a narrative only serves to confuse viewers and readers, as well as so muddying the waters that the storyline eventually takes on a life of its own — as if it were true. One of the favorite yarns spread by cherry-picking media types is that the schismatic group, the Society of Saint Pius X, is pretty much cool and a viable option for Catholics fed up with the modernist crisis in the Church.

Notice how part of that narrative line is true: There is a modernist crisis in the Church and many Catholics are fed up with it. But that truth is then taken and run with as though the schismatic SSPX is a viable option or response to the crisis — it isn't.

A number of years ago, Cdl. Burke, the leading canonist on the planet and perhaps in the history of the world — hat tip, Your Eminence — was asked point blank, "Is the SSPX in schism?" Here was his answer: "Yes. Absolutely, without a doubt." I know that firsthand because I was the person who asked that question. Sidebar — he has since later publicly confirmed that the SSPX is in schism, so I'm not revealing information from a private conversation (because that information is no longer private).

For someone at the level of Cdl. Burke to openly state that seems like it should be a major story for the Catholic internet-personality industry to report on — yet not a peep. It's completely avoided, sidestepped and buried. If they were to report on that, they would begin to unravel their own narrative and, frankly, impact their bottom line.

One notable internet personality, in fact, just a few days ago went directly against Cdl. Burke and declared the SSPX is in full communion with Rome. Now, how could that sort of claim be made in the face of Burke — again, the leading canonist on the planet — saying quite succinctly that the SSPX is, in fact, in schism?

Either the talking heads simply don't know their stuff, which means you have to ask yourself why you're listening to them (because how much more are they popping off about what they don't know?), or they are deliberately avoiding the truth in their commentaries and story treatment, which is even more serious.

The SSPX is in schism. Pope John Paul officially declared it so in 1988, when Abp. Marcel Lefebvre broke away from the Church by illicitly consecrating four bishops, in express disobedience to Pope John Paul, who ordered him not to. Here are his words and declaration immediately following Lefebvre's actions (his words, not Church Militant's):

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience — which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act.

A bishop disobeying the pope and consecrating his own bishop is the textbook definition of a schism. Lefebvre was and remains excommunicated. This is virtually never mentioned by the SSPX-supporting Catholic media who keep their warm embrace of this schism largely out of public view.

They should be straight-up questioned — to publicly go on the record and state whether they support the SSPX or not. What is their editorial position? Not whether SSPX is in schism, but what is their editorial position on it? Church Militant has — our editorial position is quite clear. The popes have declared they are in schism and since Peter has said so, there is no more debate — case closed.

Then along comes Pope Benedict, who had a very soft spot for the SSPX because of his love for the Traditional Latin Mass that they offer. He bent over backwards for years, doing everything he could do to bring them back into communion. His efforts failed. The SSPX wanted nothing to do with being reunited to Rome.

In the end, for the good of the Church, Benedict was forced to rule:

"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. ... In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

For those of you keeping score of papal condemnations of the schismatic society, that's two. Again, none of this is ever presented to you (the viewer or listener) by multiple Catholic media types who simply choose to avoid all this. Why they choose to avoid it — we'll leave that to you to decide.

Then there is the latest: Pope Francis, who, likewise, just last year, also called the schismatic society "schismatic." He said this with regard to the previous goodwill gestures offered to the SSPX by both John Paul and Benedict. Their actions were "motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."

Again, for those keeping score, every pope since the illicit consecrations done in 1988 has condemned the society's actions, using the word schism. But our point here is not to revisit these "couldn't-be-more-clear" pronouncements but to present to you, Catholic faithful, how you are being deceived by popular Catholic personalities and groups who do not tell you all this.

They are not saying all this to you out of either (1) ignorance (which is a little hard to swallow) or (2) even worse, deception, which is always willful and intended, as opposed to just ignorance or a mistake. People who present themselves as knowledgeable — yet either are not or, worse, actually deceive you — are not to be trusted, no matter how much you may like them or even how right they may be on other points.

And it is not uncharitable to say this. In fact, in the media world, calling out fake news is a responsibility. How many of you listening to this cheered Donald Trump when he called out CNN as fake news? Yet in the Catholic world, somehow that is forbidden or not nice or mean? Fake is fake, no matter what is being reported — or, in most cases, not being reported.

Most people, because they are so busy with their day-to-day lives, don't have the time and often the expertise to explore all these things critically. They just tune in to personalities they like and ascribe what is sometimes an unwarranted trust and simply believe them.

Whether it's about unapproved apparitions or UFOs or famous cardinals being secretly murdered or groups being officially declared as schismatics as somehow being in full communion with Rome — it's all fake news. Why would a faithful Catholic accept so accurately and quickly the truth of fake news in the secular world, but turn such a blind eye to it happening in the Catholic world? That question needs exploring.

TRANSCRIPT

When Our Blessed Lord made Simon Bar-Jonah the head of the Apostles, He did so by saying, "And to you I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 16:19) Notice: keys — plural — more than one key. That reality is expressed on the Vatican's flag, which has two keys. One key represents the pope's spiritual authority; the other represents his temporal authority.

And moreover, they intersect each other to show that (sometimes) both these jurisdictions overlap. The one key, the spiritual one, represents the teaching authority. And when it is challenged or attempted to be taken, that is heresy — denying a teaching or teachings of the Church. The other key, the temporal authority one, is violated when someone denies or ignores the temporal authority the pope exercises over the Church — that is schism.

The point is, there is more than just one way to challenge the Church: either through Her teachings or Her authority. Today, both things are happening. Some challenge the teachings; others are challenging the authority. Some are engaging in heresy, others in schism. There's more than one side of the Barque of St. Peter a Catholic can fall from. 

Schism is just as much of a threat to the life of a faithful Catholic as heresy. And they both damage the Church, sometimes severely. Just look at the schism with Eastern Orthodoxy 1,000 years ago and the effects of the Protestant heresy 500 years ago. This is why both heresy and schism need to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible — because once they gain traction, they tend to spin out of control. And once that happens, there's no real coming back, as history shows us.

The point that both heretics and schismatics seem to miss is this: It's not the teachings that need to be believed in or the Faith itself; it's the Church — the Church's divine charter, Her mission — ultimately, Her authority. The teachings proceed from all that, so it is the Church that must be believed in, not the teachings or the Faith per se. The teachings flow from the Church, not the other way around. 

The authority of the Church does not come from the teachings. Her authority comes directly from Christ, Who transmits that authority to the pope and the hierarchy. To the extent that a pope or members of the hierarchy may abuse that authority, they don't lose their position or office — particularly the pope.

No man or council or Catholic social media types have authority over the pope, only Jesus Himself. It's His Church — period. After his betrayal of Our Lord, Peter lost his headship over the Apostles. But notice, it was not the other Apostles who did it. Nor was it Mary Magdalene or even Our Blessed Mother, who any faithful Catholic would consider that if anyone could do it, the sinless Virgin Mary could. Nope — it was Jesus alone.

This is why, at the seashore, Jesus says, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He abandoned the name and title "Peter" that He had bestowed on him at Caesarea Philippi when He had handed him the keys and referred to him three times as Simon, Son of John — his "pre-authority" name.

Our Lord needed to exact from Peter a profession of his faith and love, in the presence of the other Apostles, before restoring him to his authority as their leader. But it was Jesus Himself Who did that. No one else had the authority to unseat him nor restore him. No man (and certainly not a mere layman) has the authority and should not even raise these kinds of doubts in people's minds.

We believe that, or we don't. And if we do — or at least, claim to — we don't get to deny one key or the other. It is insufficient to point out heresy while you yourself are propagating schism. There are two keys — two.

Michael Voris and Brad Eli break down half a century of child killing in the United States of America and where the Culture of Death stands today. 

TRANSCRIPT

Last month, during a commercial break for CBS' 60 Minutes weekly Sunday program, Ronald Reagan Jr. (yes, son of former President Ronald Reagan) was featured in an ad promoting atheism and mocking religion, specifically Christianity and the teaching about Hell.

Aside from some rather obvious points, like, for example, that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (whom the commercial was for) must be rolling in the bucks, an ad on 60 Minutes costs millions. The ad was controversial enough that some local stations refused to air it — but most did.

But laying all the "earthly" stuff aside, let's jump to the theological and philosophical. Atheism must define itself in the negative — as in, "We believe in not God." Well, then, what precisely, in a positive sense, do you believe? "Not God" has to be the answer.

Those among them who do not quite understand that their entire approach is based on a negative might endeavor to play word games and attempt to make what sound like positive assertions — but in the end, they really aren't.

For example, to say "I believe in science" is pretty darn lame. Science, as the average layman understands it, merely makes observations about how the physical, material world operates, nothing more.

Add two molecules of hydrogen to one molecule of oxygen and you get water — H2O. Brilliant. But it is woefully lacking, completely insufficient in explaining why that happens. Science explains that things happen; it can never explain why.

It can give an answer through empirical observation that this or that happens, and that's where the line is drawn. It has no answer to the "why." That a thing happens can be explained by material forces. Add fire to paper; it reduces to ash. Water a plant; it grows.

The cavemen were making these sorts of empirical observations, for goodness' sake. All that's been added is our technology's enhanced ability to look deeper into things physically (in the material order). We, today, are not a bit closer to understanding how the universe works (the underlying forces and principles at work) than those cavemen were.

The ultimate reason is because the "how" of something points to an intelligence, while the "that" points to method. That there is a painted image on a canvas can be observed easily enough. How it got there demands much more of an explanation — an application of reason, a moving beyond what is simply observable.

The atheist says that there is an image and insists, over and against all reason, that how it got there was not by the hand of an artist: "Not sure how, but I know it was not produced by an artist." The atheist gets all wrapped up in talking about the science of something. For example, continuing with the artwork example, he correctly observes that the pigments work together — they transition so seamlessly from one to the other, blah blah — without ever acknowledging that how this happened is through the mind and will of the artist.

They do the exact same thing with the material universe, acknowledging the form without ever conceding the substance — the "how" it all came to be — and moreover, how it all remains in existence and, most importantly, in order.

Then they grab a few random phrases from Scripture and/or distortions from Protestantism and attack that straw man, which never properly captures the essence of Christianity, especially Catholicism. Little by little, they advance their seemingly rational case in public until the scales have tipped — which is where we are today.

Most people don't believe in God. They either flat-out reject belief in a divine being (the position of the atheist) or, more subtly, pay lip service to a belief that has almost no bearing on their day-to-day life. They are practical atheists, meaning they practice their lives as though there is no God.

That's why Ronald Reagan Jr. can spend millions on an ad on one of the most watched shows in America and say he's not afraid of Hell because there is no God. Even if large portions of society might intellectually disagree with the "there-is-no-God" part of that, most agree that there either is no Hell or most people don't go there, and, certainly, they are not going there.

So one way or another, the mission of atheism is advanced. Is America an atheistic country? Not exactly. But it moves along as though there is no God. Atheism is on the march, even if it hasn't quite captured all the ground it wants yet — yet. And where is the Church in response to this? And by Church, we mean you.

TRANSCRIPT

When Democrats in the U.S. House banded together and voted to deny life-saving measures to babies who survived abortion, much was revealed. New York's Jerry Nadler said it would be an awful thing to transport such a baby to a hospital because he might die on the way — seriously. But something else was revealed as well: the total silence of multiple U.S. bishops in all this.

Biden and Pelosi, because of their high profiles, have gotten all the press, but 64 — count them, 64 — "Catholic" Democrats in the U.S. House voted in favor of killing babies who survived abortion. Church Militant did a little research here and looked into the overlap between those Democrats' congressional districts and their home dioceses — meaning, who are the bishops of these Democrats?

What we found was this: More than 40 U.S. bishops are the local bishops for those 64 Democrats. Some of the bishops (for example, José Gomez of Los Angeles) have multiple congressmen in their archdioceses, which is, of course, to be expected because the size of the archdiocese overlaps with various congressional districts. Nonetheless, by Church Militant's count, 46 U.S. bishops are the local ordinaries for these 64 supposedly Catholic congressmen, and we can nowhere locate a single one of these bishops calling out and condemning by name their local congressmen for their vote.

If 64 Catholic congressmen had voted to direct taxpayer dollars to the Ku Klux Klan, would the bishops have said nothing? If 64 Catholic congressmen had voted to fund gas chambers in their home districts, would the bishops have said nothing? If 64 Catholic congressmen had voted to deny housing to their constituents based on the color of their skin, would the bishops have said nothing? If 64 Catholic congressmen had voted to open up a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case against the Church for sex abuse cover-up and create a federal law to toss them in jail for their participation, would the bishops have said nothing?

Yet here we have 64 "Catholic" congressmen voting to kill (or let die) children outside the womb who survived abortion, and yet they say nothing to them or about their direct vote. These are their congressmen — souls they are directly responsible to and for. And yet these bishops say not a word. The bishops are complicit in not only abortion but also now infanticide.

They won't shut their mouths about illegal immigration — supporting it because they reap hundreds of millions each year from the federal government in helping to destroy the nation's borders — but on a question literally of life and death of a baby outside the womb, not a word. Without any further commentary, Church Militant presents to you the list of bishops complicit in infanticide — meaning they have at least one "Catholic" U.S. congressman in their diocese who voted for this monstrous evil and have said nothing about it:

As far as Church Militant can determine, not one of these bishops offered a public rebuke or condemnation of the "Catholic" congressmen in their dioceses for their support of infanticide. It simply cannot be that difficult to issue a public statement condemning child killing and then announcing that their respective congressmen are to be denied Holy Communion.

It seems easy enough to accept hundreds of millions for the destruction of the border in the name of "justice." Meanwhile, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski continues to be dragged from abortion chambers, arrested and jailed for his work on behalf of the victims of abortion. For one thing or another, many U.S. bishops should be behind bars as well.

TRANSCRIPT

Since Pope Benedict died less than a month ago, four books (count them — one, two, three, four) have appeared pointing to massive problems in Rome, concentrating on Francis' papacy but by no means limited to that. One book is from the deceased Cdl. George Pell; another is from Cdl. Gerhard Müller; another is from Benedict's personal secretary, Abp. Georg Gänswein, and, of course, the latest bombshell by Pope Benedict himself, published posthumously.

It is Benedict's book that bears the most scrutiny and examination because of the breadth of what it covers: namely, the vast crisis in the Church — not just the Francis pontificate. This is the angle Church Militant has taken for the last 10 years; that, despite the acceleration of the crisis that has occurred under Francis, it is beyond naive to pin this on him. This pontificate is the end result (the consequence) of decades of corruption in the hierarchy. This is what Benedict's book is about.

Benedict (who, remember, was the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a quarter of a century under Pope John Paul) outlines multiple evils and failures, including what he calls "gay clubs" in seminaries — especially seminaries here in the United States. One of those he was pointing to was right here in the archdiocese of Detroit: St. John's Seminary in Plymouth, where, for years, seminarians were shown gay porn by the rector, who went on to become a bishop in Saginaw.

The "secret," such as it was, was never that much of a secret among the clergy. Huge numbers of bishops knew all this. Heck, they were participants in it. Some of these priests went on to rape altar boys, as the bishops covered it all up. United States seminaries may have led the way due to collapsing morals in the culture — which are due to collapsing morals in the Church — but America was not the only locus of this.

Three years ago, a French author, Frédéric Martel, published his own bombshell book, In the Closet of the Vatican, in which he outed various members of the curia. His tome caused an international stir as the Vatican and multiple prelates pushed back, denying and "sort of denying" the charges in the book.

Church Militant, of course, was leading the charge in reporting all this more than a decade ago and was roundly lambasted for it by the hierarchy. All the while, they knew what we were reporting was true. When virtually no other media outlet in the Catholic world had either the journalistic experience to dig and ask the right, uncomfortable questions or had not the desire — so as not to upset that brood of vipers commonly called the hierarchy — we did.

We did multiple Vortex episodes from Rome, going back to 2010 and 2011, pointing out all this filth. We were mocked and ridiculed and called all kinds of names. But the truth is the truth, and we stuck to what we knew. Little by little, the secular media caught up, and literally dozens of articles started showing up, like this extremely lengthy one from Vanity Fair in 2013. And still, the Catholic media world ignored it all, even covering for the bishops 10 years after the fact came out about the root cause of the clerical sex abuse crisis. They even still lie to you about that. Again, despising Church Militant and lying about us every step of the way.

When the dam broke with McCarrick in 2018, all bets were off. What had been hidden, covered up and lied about for decades was now completely exposed. Yet still, the bishops continued with their lies and deflections — with deflections becoming the order of the day. The "professional Catholics," as Benedict referred to them, did as much damage control as they could. For the most part, they stopped denying what was now out in the open for all to see and hear.

They simply looked the other way, put up smoke screens and created diversions. They played the legal system like a fiddle and paid out billions of your money from their "Catholic" mutual insurance company (and others) in hush money, buying victims' silence. They fought tooth and nail to deny them justice by lobbying against so-called look-back laws that extended the time for filing civil suits.

Then, in order to shut down the cases that emerged by the thousands from states passing the look-back laws, they started filing for bankruptcy — approaching three dozen dioceses now, and counting. It wasn't because they had no money. It was to kill the lawsuits dead in their tracks and prevent any further discovery by attorneys in the cases. The bishops, it seems, weren't able to shred every document that exposed their rot.

Here in Detroit, Allen Vigneron, with the help of his attorneys at Bodman Law, just started a whole new company called Mooney Real Estate Holdings and took every single asset the archdiocese had and shifted them into that phony shell company so victims could not get to them. Church Militant broke that story and Vigneron sent out his lying communications director Ned McGrath to spin it as, "The Vatican said dioceses should do this." Yes — 107 years earlier they said so.

The seminaries are gay, the chanceries are gay-friendly and the bishops are gay and gay-friendly because they are all the product of the sexual revolution (from when they were in seminary in the 1960s and '70s). Couldn't get accepted into seminary if you weren't. Couldn't get ordained if you weren't, and certainly could not get your miter unless you were, or would, at the very least, just shut up about it.

We need about 10 (or so) more years for all these gay bishops to die or leave office. And then hope and pray that whatever's left of the Church (if anything will be) is able to reconstitute and, essentially, start from scratch. They will deserve no honors in death — only prayers. These men destroyed the Church during their tenures — robbed tens of millions of their faith — and still strut around like unattractive prom queens.

They set the stage for generations of seminarians (even down to today) to be malformed in the Faith. And if you still don't want to believe Church Militant, then read what amounts to the memoirs of a dead pope. God rest his soul. There are four books, but only one really matters.

TRANSCRIPT

Fake news — it's the bane of the culture right now and was first called out by Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. It has obviously since become a staple of the American lexicon. Of course, since Trump took that label from the Marxist media and turned it around on them, those same media types have developed a new label, much more formal sounding: "misinformation."

Misinformation became the watchword for the wave of censorship that followed on social media accounts everywhere. Had it not been for Elon Musk's Twitter purchase, that would likely still rule the day across the board. That said, misinformation has become a problem and it is not limited to the secular realm. There is a wave of Catholic misinformation flooding social media almost daily. And for Catholics with a microphone or a platform, this borders on the unforgivable sin.

Any Catholic claiming to be faithful and speaking routinely to an audience has a duty before Almighty God to tell the truth fully to the best of his ability — period. Making an honest mistake is one thing, although even those should be far apart and few in between — and then acknowledged when they happen. But the stream of clickbait headlines and show names and talking points — just to get eyeballs — is beneath the dignity of someone who calls himself or herself "Catholic," especially in faithful, orthodox circles.

Over the past few weeks, the off-the-wall claims and discussions and pure, unsupported conjecture have been alarming:  

The list of crazy goes on and on. There are many reasons why this is wrong and unethical, even immoral in some cases.

First, for quite some time now, the line has been blurred between actual news — meaning factual, verifiable information — and the "commentary" that inevitably follows in its wake. It's not enough for Catholic social media and internet personalities to simply grab some headline and then recklessly wax on about it, especially if it's just for clickbait. Since the line is so blurred, people who are listening oftentimes do not make the distinction between nutty commentary supported by nothing more than thoughts swirling around in a host's head and the actual data point — the piece of accurate information.

It's irresponsible because it's not truthful. Case in point: When Church Militant's good friend and actual journalist George Neumeyer died last week, Catholic social media "experts" raced to their webcams and microphones to say he had been murdered in Africa exposing child sex trafficking. They incorrectly and carelessly pointed to a tweet George had put out about the possibility of him being murdered because of the bad stuff he was finding out about "here" (his word).

What they didn't bother to check, which took about 30 seconds, was the date of the tweet was Dec. 23 — three days before he landed in Africa. The "here" he was talking about was the United States, not Africa. Here's the huge problem with the blending of news and commentary: On various websites and Catholic podcasts, the personalities bringing you the news don't actually have any real training in news or journalism.

This is not an industry or field for those who are either not accomplished or being trained by those who are not. Verifying information can oftentimes be an arduous task — grueling even, at times. You have to cover every base and ask multiple questions: who, what, where, when, why, how, how much, to what extent? Very often, the answers to those questions bring up more questions that need further digging and vetting.

You may "go with your gut" sometimes while vetting a story, but you don't get to do that while reporting a story. And since journalism and news should always (at least for Catholics) point to the truth, it is unseemly to just turn on the camera and say whatever comes into your head without checking the facts first and even double-checking.

Those who have an audience have a moral obligation to inform them, not entertain them and tickle their fancy, especially while collecting money or emails from them. Catholic media personalities have an obligation, ultimately, to lead people to the truth — to strengthen them spiritually for spiritual combat. Likewise, there is a duty to warn people of dangers to the Faith — their faith — not try to capitalize on the news of the day by sensationalizing it.

To inform and warn, to guide and caution listeners, readers or viewers is our utmost responsibility. And along these same lines, there is a further obligation to investigate stories or information that may pose a threat to people's faith or their proper understanding of it. We'd like to share some examples of this with you that Church Militant is currently vetting. If we were not relatively certain that the information is correct, we would not be telling you, but, given the sources for these stories, we feel safe speaking in general terms — for now, at least.

One story is, we have very reliable sources that a certain archbishop, with no mandate from the Church and no diocese, is secretly ordaining men to the priesthood. This is absolutely forbidden in the Church, but he appears to be doing it anyway. In another example, a different bishop, also with no diocese, is "reordaining" men to the priesthood because he and they believe that the ordination they received was invalid because it was not done in the Old Latin Rite. Of course, no one can be "reordained," just like you cannot be "rebaptized."

Now, as responsible journalists, any Catholic media–type should be exposing these stories and discussing them and explaining to people every last detail and impact of the consequences of this stuff. It's all motivated by a wrongheaded belief that the Church is no longer the Church, and therefore "emergency measures" must be employed to save the Church.

First, you don't save the Church by denying Her or the efficacy of Her sacraments. Neither do you simply reject the proper authority — even if those who have that authority abuse it. They will answer to God for their abuse. Many great saints became saints because of their submission to the abuse of proper authority even in the hands of wicked men.

In another example of how to correctly handle a story in a truthful journalistic manner, the case of Frank Pavone is a stellar example. Church Militant was made aware of the charges that have since become public within a very short time of us reporting the story of him being laicized. We neither praised nor slammed Pavone in the wake of the Vatican's removal of him from public ministry.

We raised questions about the process — about the reports from Catholic establishment media and so forth. Many of you know: I have known Frank Pavone for almost 40 years, going back to our overlapping time in seminary in New York in the mid-1980s. So when I heard these charges, I was stunned. We investigated, checked around, called multiple sources, had extensive conversations and so forth.

Meanwhile, other Catholic personalities were automatically siding with him and singing his praises and damning the Church for the actions taken against him. That's irresponsible, and it happens because of this unthinking, uncritical knee-jerk reaction on the part of various Catholic internet-types that is not professional and certainly not Catholic — to immediately jump to conclusions without first checking things out.

Even if a bishop is a horrible man — corrupt as hell — it doesn't automatically mean that every single action he takes or decision he makes is wrong. A bad man can sometimes be right, just as a good man can sometimes be wrong. But the "Catholic QAnon" crowd, as someone has dubbed them, doesn't care about facts. They care more about a narrative, like a child who can't get the wrong jigsaw puzzle piece to fit, so he just smashes it in place, saying to himself, "close enough."

People with an audience who present themselves as Catholic don't get to act like this and engage in CNN-type tactics. The world of Catholic misinformation should not exist, and yet it does. So, unfortunately, the warning needs to be extended to faithful Catholics as well: Don't automatically accept uncritically whatever you're being told by Catholic media personalities and websites presenting themselves as faithful. It's not news if it's not accurate and complete, often requiring professional treatment and vetting.

And the commentary is worthless if it's based on that fake news, no matter how tantalizing and "clickbaity" it may be to think Biden has Black Masses in the White House basement. Faithful Catholics already get enough grief from Marxists and evil people in the world. For literally the love of God and souls, don't give them ammunition to use against us. We Catholics have a much higher standard and need to live up to it.

TRANSCRIPT

As confusion in the Church mounts and piles up and proliferates and multiplies, one major reason is because there are never any real consequences for those who add to the confusion. For decades now, Rome has refused to denounce all of this in any meaningful way.

Sure, every now and then something is declared bad or not to be done or whatever, but then there is virtually no enforcement, and that's when something is actually even said — few words, even fewer actions. And it doesn't matter if we're talking about heresy or schism; Rome actually does very little.

James Martin is given just as much of a wide berth as the schismatic SSPX. At least the SSPX has been declared in schism and/or lacking any canonical standing by the last three popes. Martin, on the other hand, gets virtually no verbal condemnation.

But neither Martin nor the schismatics ever actually get disciplined; nothing ever happens to them. In short, they never feel the consequences of their assaults against the Church. And make no mistake here — they are assaults. Assaults of a different kind, sure, but assaults nonetheless.

There are, after all, two keys: one for teaching, the other for jurisdiction. Martin attacks one key,  schismatics the other. And this lack of actual discipline stretches back quite a number of decades. Homosexuality in the seminaries was condemned by then-Cdl. Ratzinger, but nothing was ever really done about it.

Not being punished is not an endorsement, a blessing of the Church. It's just yet another example of the woeful administration by the hierarchy of bringing discipline to the most errant sons of the Church. Somewhere, a few generations ago, Rome lost practically all taste for discipline, and the result has been chaos.

Ratzinger would not banish Hans Küng. John Paul would not expel sex-abusing bishops. Francis has said privately he wants the confusion, which is pretty obvious at this point. Phony apparitions are allowed to proliferate even when a string of local bishops have condemned them.

Movements that can be described as many things — just not Catholic — have been allowed to spring up and even flourish in the Church. Books that are anti-Catholic can be published by Catholic press. Politicians can receive Holy Communion after casting a vote to kill children. In fact, you can literally get away with murder and never have to fear being punished or disciplined.

All of this is to say, if you hear a schismatic, for example, saying, "Pope Francis let our priests hear confessions and perform marriages," it means nothing. The very same people who embrace Francis for those things, turn around a moment later and claim he's not the real pope — or that he's a heretic. Which is it, guys? Does he have the authority to do what he does for you, or is he not really the pope? You can't have it both ways.

Likewise, James Martin, just like the SSPX on the principle of disobedience, will promote gay everything at the exact same time Francis is granting an interview to the Associated Press saying homosexual activity is a sin. Which is it, Jimmy? You post pictures of yourself all over social media saying the pope supports you, just like the SSPX posts that they have the Pope's support as well. But in the end, which is it?

It seems every schismatic and heretic in the Church these days can claim some kind of "cover" or approval by Rome and then make hay of it on social media. Rome really needs to get a handle on this situation and do it fast. It's alright for a father, even the Holy Father, to lower the boom on a disobedient son. Drop the hammer, Your Holiness — on both sides. Things have been allowed to go on for way too long — again, on both sides.

TRANSCRIPT

Following up on last week's Vortex — when we talked about misinformation routinely being pumped out by Catholic social media types — it's time to dig a little deeper. One of the routine pieces of misinformation being bandied about is that Jorge Bergoglio is not really the pope. And let's hasten to say this right up front, so everyone is clear: The denial or heavy suggestion that Francis is not the pope is actually part of a larger agenda that is not specifically stated by many of these folks.

Many notable Catholic internet types want to drive people out of the Church and into the arms of the schismatic Society of Saint Pius X and the even more extreme sedevacantist group Society of Saint Pius V. Behind the scenes — meaning they won't come right out and tell you — they are in league with the schism. They will deny it's a schism, or they will say "it's complicated" or "it's not clear" or "there's not really a way to know."

First, those are lies told by them. Behind the scenes, they have cast their lot with schismatics. They just won't come out and tell you because maintaining the illusion of being neutral provides them with a cover to keep advancing this agenda. Make no mistake, they are all on board with the schism — 100% — and they need to have the "you know what" to come out and say it.

Pope John Paul called the SSPX "schismatic" when they broke away from the Church in 1988. Pope Benedict said their problems are "doctrinal," and they have no canonical standing and exercise no "legitimate ministries." Pope Francis, in the accompanying letter to his motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, specifically called the SSPX "the schismatic movement of Msgr. Lefebvre."

That's three popes in a row. So if you have a problem with the schismatic SSPX being called "schismatic," take it up with the popes, not Church Militant. And further, you will never hear these social media "Catholic" outfits ever repeat these declarations of schism by the popes. That would completely derail their "it's-not-very-clear" strategy. 

Three popes in a row — that's pretty darn clear unless you are being deliberately deceptive with your audience, particularly if there is a financial advantage in being so. The strategy of either flat-out denying Francis is pope or strongly suggesting it (hinting around at it or what have you) is the front for destabilizing people's faith in the Church and raising a doubt.

Once that seed of doubt is planted, then chatter can begin about the legitimacy of "alternatives" to where "the true Church" actually is. The true Church is where She has always been: under the jurisdiction and authority of the pope, even if he is a bad one. History identifies roughly two dozen more popes who have been horrible, bad popes.

Some of that history is captured in a 1950 book titled Pageant of the Popes, by John Farrow. It details the rotten pontificates of the most dastardly men to ever occupy the Throne of St. Peter. Some will argue the book needs updating. Fair enough; that discussion can certainly be had. But no matter how bad Francis is at "poping," it does not make him not the pope, nor does it allow Catholics to leave the Church and join a schism and, most importantly, nor does it allow Catholic internet people — profiting from the confusion that they help foster — to use their websites and platforms to weaken people's faith.

Saint Paul explicitly admonishes people to be extremely careful and patient in dealing with those whose faith is new or weak. The constant hammering on Pope Francis and pointing to the questionable comments, interviews, confusion and all that would have a place with these outfits if it was solely being said to reinforce people's faith. But that's not the case anymore.

It's being used to weaken people's faith, so that they will consider joining a schism — a schism, remember, declared by three successive popes, which they completely gloss over. It's also the reason, when the news broke almost three years ago about the massive leadership-run cover-up of sex abuse in the SSPX, none of these outfits or personalities breathed a word about it — and some actually went on record denying it.

Multiple proofs later, they just ignore it. As to weakening people's faith, how much more weakening could you engage in than to plant sufficient doubt in a person's mind about the legitimacy of Pope Francis than to have a priest walk away from his vows and end his priesthood? Yet that is exactly what has happened at least once.

One Catholic podcaster — who it is, is not that important because so many of them are all beating this same drum — planted sufficient doubt in one priest's mind that he left. Here is the comment directed straight to the internet personality; spoken, it would appear, in support of this podcaster's efforts: "A young priest I know who consumes your content religiously for few years now, at the end of his year of leave of absence has decided to call it quits. He credits it to you opening his eyes to pope Francis. Pray for him."

In another instance, a podcaster actually published an internet poll asking people if they think Bergoglio is actually the pope. Less than half the respondents said yes. A majority were either not sure or said no. This is exactly what these Catholic internet websites and personalities want you to conclude. Because that way, it makes the schismatic SSPX look more attractive, more legitimate — or so the plan goes, anyway.

It is likely the case — although I don't want to pass judgment — but it is likely the case that this all began innocently enough with these folks being disturbed by the constant confusion that is the hallmark of this papacy. On all those scores, check — they are spot on. Rome is in woeful shape right now. The Church, in some way, looks like a dumpster fire with no relief in sight.

Heck, long before these guys started standing in front of their webcams saying these things, it was Church Militant alone pointing to all of it. But unlike them, we never made a hard turn to suggest that going into schism was an acceptable remedy — they do, directly or indirectly. And they are being intellectually dishonest with their viewers and supporters to not just come right out and say, "We think the SSPX is the place to be." Just come out and say it, guys. Be honest instead of squirrely.

They collect loads of money from the pro-SSPX crowd, but they also have the support of many people who do not realize their duplicity. So for them, appearing to sit on the fence and allowing supporters to read between the lines is a good business model. But that's just it — behind the scenes, they don't sit on the fence at all. They are totally down with the schism, whether their motive is ideological or financial or a mix of both.

A large piece of the strategy that drives people into schism is to constantly bash Francis and, without actually saying it directly, maintain he's not the pope. Some will say he's not the pope because Benedict was blackmailed into resigning and therefore was still the real pope. Benedict denied all that nonsense. Others will say Benedict did resign, but the conclave to elect Bergoglio was rigged. So while Benedict was no longer the pope, Francis is not either.

And still others will take the tack that Benedict actually resigned and the conclave was valid, but since Francis got elected, he has become a heretic and, therefore, now is no longer pope. It doesn't matter which of those three roads a person travels down. They each arrive at the same destination: "Francis is not the pope."

Once that seed is planted, the way is paved to now say, "Well then, the Church is no longer the Church and it really resides over here" — in what three popes have said is a schismatic movement. Viewers and supporters must understand how they are being played here. There is an agenda behind the narrative that Francis is not the pope. Don't fall for it.

Not a single cardinal in that conclave that elected him has said the election was invalid, nor that he is no longer the pope. Are there problems? Sure — massive problems, a reign of confusion — without a doubt. But Francis is the pope and the Church is the Church and schism is never the answer to a crisis.

Every heretic and every schismatic in the past 2,000 years thought they were justified and correct in their decision to either form a new church or break away and claim the crisis transferred the authority of the Church to them. It did not. No matter how bad he is, Francis is the pope. And, as he and his predecessors said, the SSPX is in schism. We just wish and pray Francis would stop giving the schismatics and their internet talking heads so much ammunition.