Church Militant The Vortex Feed

TRANSCRIPT

Nancy Pelosi has been in Congress 35 years and, for a good portion of that time, she has been the "queen" of Capitol Hill, either as House minority leader for the Party of Death or the actual speaker of the U.S. House, as she is now.

During her reign, abortion-related votes have come up multiple times, and never once has she not been a safe vote for child murder. Her latest archbishop in San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, has been there for 10 years — which is to say, when he arrived, Nancy had already been on a quarter-century killing spree.

So late last week, he finally issued a decree that the sacrilege of her being given and receiving Holy Communion was going to stop, as canon law 915 makes clear as crystal should happen. So, on this narrow score, good for Abp. Cordileone. And on this narrow score is where the praise stops.

He will, of course, have very nasty things said about him. California's politicians and the Marxist media editorial boards are demanding he now be removed by Pope Francis, yada, yada.

But he has received public support for his action from some of his brother bishops, although, as of Monday this week, it was less than two dozen sitting ordinaries, leaving more than 150 still silent.

So, on what looks like the eve of Roe being overturned by the Supreme Court, at last a single archbishop does what should have been done by him 10 years ago and by three archbishops a quarter-century before that and done across the country by hundreds of bishops continually, and now we are celebrating.

This scene, good in and of itself, certainly, only goes to show the atrocious state of affairs in the Church these days. In the Catholic social media world, many are singing the praises of the archbishop — again good in and of itself for his decree.

But what is being overlooked is the length of time it took this to happen, the massive lack of support among other bishops (evidenced by their silence), the constant, ongoing practice of sacrilegious Holy Communion being given to child killers all over the country and the failure on the part of the national conference of bishops to do anything for the past 50 years about this horrendous crime.

Archbishop Cordileone's action only looks good in isolation, and, even then, in isolation from his own foot-dragging for the past decade. It serves to highlight, by comparison, the sorry condition of the males in miters across the country. When they gathered in Baltimore last November, they refused to take up the issue with regard to Biden, an even more glaring example.

Despite all kinds of reports from the press that Biden was going to be declared unfit for reception of Holy Communion, that was never on the bishops' agenda, ever. That was made blindingly clear by Fort Wayne–South Bend bishop Kevin Rhoades in the run-up to the meeting. He said flat out it was not on the agenda.

That, of course, didn't stop or even slow down the Marxist media, in their bloodlust support for abortion, from reporting about the imaginary news.

But again, it was never going to happen, as was made clear after the meeting by comments from Texas bishop Daniel Flores, quoted by The Washington Post:

"We saw initially a moment of different ideas of what the document should be about. Is it mostly about political responsibility? A Eucharistic revival? A teaching document? The document tried to nuance that," said Bp. Daniel Flores, of Brownsville, Texas. "It's not a one-size-fits-all. It's not adjudicated by popular opinion. We have to be patient, and patient with one another. I think the bishops wanted to speak with patience with one another."

"Patience" over sacrilege is more than misplaced patience; its scandal.

Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., has made clear that Biden is free to commit sacrilege whenever he wants, and Gregory will support him — actually, defend him. The same is true of Biden's newly appointed bishop, William Koenig, in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, who deftly sidestepped questions about the scandal.

New York's Cdl. Timothy Dolan, a number of years back, made clear in an interview that his view is the question should be left to individual bishops, which, of course, makes no sense at all. Sacrilege is not determined by a declaration of a local bishop, one way or the other, but by the very action itself.

That, of course, explains why Dolan said he would not have denied Holy Communion to Biden back during the campaign when Fr. Robert Morey of Florence, South Carolina, did just that. Dolan infamously noted, regarding the story, "If only saints could receive Holy Communion, we wouldn't have anybody at Mass, including myself."

Much larger questions loom over all this, occasioned by Cordileone's correct action, but perhaps the most pressing question is, Do the bishops themselves believe the teaching on the Eucharist, and if they do (because it's not clear at all that at least some of them do), why don't their actions comport with Church teaching on the subject?

So while the impetus to praise Cordileone may be strong — not so fast. Thirty-five years is a long time to have dithered around with this whole matter, 10 of those years on his watch. And, even now, there is still no consensus on the part of bishops to actually follow canon law in hundreds of other cases around the nation.

True, Biden and Pelosi are certainly the poster children for this whole thing, but they are hardly the only examples. On both state and federal levels, there are scores, if not hundreds, of other examples of this same evil, where bishops simply look the other way.

And a final question: With the dwindling number of believing Catholics being more and more evident, is it finally reckoning time for the U.S. hierarchy?

After decades of ignoring this evil, can it be that a smaller-yet-more-vocal-and-critical denouncement of their inactions is finally reaching their ears?

It is a question. Why now after so long of doing nothing? That question matters because the answer has predictive value in the coming months and years in the Church in the United States.

TRANSCRIPT

When I was a little kid, I wanted to be in the movies. Well, not really, but for the purposes of this Vortex, let's roll with that. 

So when I dreamed of a career on the silver screen when I was 10, I never could have imagined that, one day, I'd have the honor of being in a Martin Scorsese film.

But here I am, a half-century later, playing the part of the villain.

The movie is Building a Bridge, and, yep, Martin Scorsese is the producer. The flick is all about the "journey" of the long-suffering Fr. James Martin crusading for love and acceptance of sodomites in the Church. And, of course, any good movie needs a villain as well as a hero, and that's where we come in — black hat and all.

The movie debuted in 2021 at the "prestigious" Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan and went on sale for home viewing earlier this month.

Here's the trailer.

Sure, you want to be close to Jesus, Father. Sure, that's why you're doing all this.

And, by the way, back when Martin exploded so flamboyantly onto the ecclesiastical stage, the question was put to him, "Fr. Martin, are you homosexual?" Eventually, he responded by saying his Jesuit superiors have ordered him not to talk about his orientation.

That's a little weird, but OK.

The nearly hour-long movie is really little else than a propaganda piece trumpeting sodomy in the Church, with the "unique" angle that a priest is leading the charge. Of course, given the current state of affairs, there's nothing unique about a pro-gay priest.

Scorsese, you will recall, also directed the blasphemous 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ, which we won't get into because of its filth. Let's just say, Mother Angelica's review was direct, calling the movie "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world." 

But back to Jimmy Martin and his bridge to Hell construction: Church Militant should consider itself blessed to be cast as the villain in a pro-sodomy film. In fact, we do.

My father, God rest his soul, used to say to me, "Michael, when you die and go before Our Lord, make sure you have the right list of enemies with you." If Fr. James Martin and Martin Scorsese are on that list, which they are, then I have some hope of salvation.

Let's be very clear here — very clear. Anyone, especially a priest, who promotes intrinsic evil is on his way to damnation, and, in the case of a priest, he takes many souls with him. Church teaching is very clear: Homosexual acts are contrary to nature, the natural moral law and, as such, are always evil.

Martin cannot sidestep this, no matter how hard he tries.

So, what Martin does is simply ignore the teaching and twist it around by quoting Scripture out of context, deliberately so. Jesus didn't eat with prostitutes and tax collectors because He wanted to be inclusive and tolerant and accepting. He ate with them because He loved them enough to call them out of their sin to change their lives and live for Him.

Martin knows this, all of it, and yet continues deceiving his audiences — souls that have a right to the truth, even if they don't like it. Martin is obligated by Almighty God to tell these souls the truth and help them live it.

But since Martin is gay himself — and if you aren't, Father, deny it — he seeks damnation for them because, you know, misery loves company.

The movie is based on Martin's book Building a Bridge and, in the video promoting his book, he spews out so many errors and deceptions, it's almost impossible to catalog them all, or count them.

The first 23 seconds are five questions that deliberately obscure the truth, so they are actually lies disguised as questions. From there, it just spirals downward, conflating terms and phrases to obscure the truth.

For example, the Church has an obligation to welcome LGBT people. Again, more obfuscation — commingling friendly sounding words like "welcome" with objective states of mortal sin. The Church is under absolutely zero obligation to welcome sin and evil. In fact, it's under an obligation to speak against sin and expel it from the Temple.

Sinners are welcome, of course, but with the obligation on their part of being remorseful for their sins and repenting of them. And that's not just true of active homosexuals; it's also true of every sinner or every kind of sin.

But again, Martin skips over that part, as well as many others, because to reveal the whole truth would explode his agenda of getting the unsuspecting and horribly formed to accept sodomy as cool and fun and a "gift."

Martin is a devil. Period. He has no love of truth, and, like his father, Satan, his mouth is a wide-open grave and all honey his speech.

A couple years back, Church Militant ran into Martin in Rome the day before the Pachamama summit began. We've never divulged the details of the conversation with him there in the Borga, steps away from the Vatican's St. Anne's gate. We promised him we would not as a condition of his remaining and talking with me. That said, allow us to characterize it as Fr. Martin not being able to get away with his crap to my face like he does in the film.

Scorsese even goes so far, and Martin allows it, to have his elderly mother appear in the film and disparage me for not liking her son. And yeah, we're serious.

Being cast as the villain opposite Martin is actually a badge of honor, and Church Militant is happy to don the black hat. In the homo-dominated hierarchy today, even the color of the hat you wear doesn't mean what it used to.

TRANSCRIPT

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

It's kind of funny that so many bishops hate Church Militant — even notables in the Vatican can't stand us.

But, in a sense, the joke's on them. Church Militant is an unintended creation of them, specifically, their refusal to do their job. Do they really think that Catholics who love the Church are going to sit by while they lie, steal, abuse, cover up and so forth — all while refusing to say the truth of the glory of Catholic teaching?

They refuse to say the truth, which deprives souls of the truth who want the truth. Sorry, bishops, but you don't get to do that, miter or no miter.

Every faithful Catholic has an obligation to speak the truth of the Faith, of Jesus Christ; and whatever happens, happens. However, in a climate of widespread ecclesiastical corruption, that obligation is increased significantly.

Bishops have forsworn their sacred obligation, and done so in a most cowardly, self-absorbed fashion. So now, the baton of truth-telling is handed to the laity, which is a lesson the bishops should learn from.

It's really not that difficult to say the truth, and when you proclaim the truth, people react. Most do not like the truth, which is what makes the bishops such cowards in being afraid of negative responses. But some do respond favorably when they hear truth, and, like a flower turning toward the light, open up to it.

A couple of weeks ago, Church Militant interviewed a local Michigan woman running to be a state representative. Her name is Jacky Eubanks, and she believes and embraces everything the Church teaches. Because we spoke about truth and Church teaching in the arena of politics, some on the Left lost their minds.

A video from a dude who calls himself "Texas Paul" on the Meidas Touch website got close to 100,000 views in about 24 hours. It also got more than 4,000 comments.

But them's "small potatoes" compared to the Lincoln Project's brief video, which has going on half a million views in the same time frame. It also has thousands of comments.

On top of that, a tweet posted last week from the account Left of Center MI has been retweeted over 2,000 times and has 1.1 million views.

The Left is in an uproar, or, more precisely, the haters of truth are in an uproar. But, then again, they are always in an uproar.

It's safe to say this one clip has brought the truth to more people about contraception than the U.S. bishops have in the past 50 years.

So by the time this Vortex airs, almost 2 million people will have viewed the truth and thousands will have attacked it.

And on top of that, this interview also made international news. "Banning Abortions Is Just the Start — Next, the U.S. Right Want to Outlaw Contraception": That's a headline from The Guardian yesterday. Here's the subtitle: "Jacky Eubanks Wants to Be a Michigan Senator — and to Ban Contraception. And She's Not the Only One."

And a quick message to other Catholics running for office: You should have the same unapologetic zeal that Jacky does.

Now for the bishops: Not that we care or certainly excuse their cowardice, but this is what happens when you say the truth or challenge the established narrative, which excuses evil.

For example, wildly popular conservative pundit Mark Dice, with almost 2 million subscribers, earlier this week highlighted a recent interview Church Militant conducted with Matt Schlapp on the question of homosexuality. In less than a day, over a hundred thousand views and 4,000 comments.

And this is the very thing the bishops seem to never grasp, the cowardly wimps. When you say the truth, some people will respond to it and change their lives. For their sake, the truth must be told.

For its own sake as well — but for its saving, life-transforming power, it must be not just told, but announced everywhere, loudly and clearly. As St. Paul said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel."

Here's a reminder to those bishops who keep the gospel from people: When the Holy Spirit inspires the authors to use the word "woe," it never ends well.

Tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. The alternative is, don't tell the truth, and fall into Hell.

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris is interviewed by Dr. Michael Robillard. Dr. Robillard is an American philosopher, Army veteran, Roman Catholic and host of The Patriot Philosopher podcast. 

Interview was recorded on May 17, 2022. 

TRANSCRIPT

The curious case of Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill is still shrouded in mystery.

Almost a year ago, you may recall, Burill, the general secretary of the U.S. bishop conference, abruptly resigned following media reports that he was an active participant on a gay-sex phone app called "Grindr."

The reports quickly earned him the name "Msgr. Grindr" and created a public relations crisis with the homosexual-friendly U.S. bishop conference.

Bear in mind, the nation's bishops, as a body, warmly embrace homosexuality; they just don't like getting caught doing so, especially when it's discovered one of their own is so active.

But nonetheless, that's where we are. So, in the fallout from the scandal, the bishops spun up their legal teams and produced the usual statements of blather about mercy and love and understanding and guilt or innocence and fairness and all that — hoping to produce sufficient smoke and deflection to kick the can down the road, hoping everyone forgets, which most usually do.

They squirrel these types of men away, quickly getting them out of the limelight, and, then, once the dust has settled, quietly place them back in ministry.

We want to play a segment of our call to the diocese of La Crosse asking his whereabouts, progress on the nearly year-old investigation and just overall what's going on. 

We called and told the switchboard receptionist we had questions about the status of Msgr. Burrill and were transferred to a person we were told was handling that. When we were connected to a lady by the name of Debbie, we got stonewalled.

Notice, the diocese denies it's a matter of public concern, but it was the diocese that made it a matter of public concern when it released this statement back in July last year, pointing to the problem with Msgr. Grindr, mentioned in the U.S. bishop conference's public statement about him and the media reports.

Notice also that she kicked it upstairs, saying she didn't have the authority to talk about it — fair enough. But then she quickly added that those who do have the authority just aren't going to talk about it. Ever.

So it's not really a question of who has the authority; it's actually a matter of they refuse to come clean about all this. The claim that this isn't a matter of public concern is absurd on its face.

Recall that Burrill, who worked at the USCCB (which is funded by money from the faithful), lived in USCCB housing funded by the faithful and traveled around on trips all over the country on USCCB business (paid for by the faithful) and used a USCCB phone paid for by the faithful with the gay-sex app on it. How in tarnation does that qualify as not public?

It's kind of the definition of public.

But Bp. William Callahan of the diocese never seems to be available to answer these questions.

So as to the investigation:

He presumably is also in receipt of money originating from the faithful — again — a public matter.

How much is he making? Who's paying for his food, his housing, his insurance? Does he have a phone? Who's paying for it? Is his phone activity being monitored?

But most importantly, does he deny the charges — the entire substance? And, deny or admit, why won't the bishop and his cronies reveal his answer?

That they pretend — or worse, believe — you don't have a right to know any of this because it's not public. That tells you everything you need to know.

Nothing has changed in the Church hierarchy and these chancery staffers when it comes to cleaning things up. If anything, it's gotten worse.

TRANSCRIPT

The curious case of Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill is still shrouded in mystery.

Almost a year ago, you may recall, Burill, the general secretary of the U.S. bishop conference, abruptly resigned following media reports that he was an active participant on a gay-sex phone app called "Grindr."

The reports quickly earned him the name "Msgr. Grindr" and created a public relations crisis with the homosexual-friendly U.S. bishop conference.

Bear in mind, the nation's bishops, as a body, warmly embrace homosexuality; they just don't like getting caught doing so, especially when it's discovered one of their own is so active.

But nonetheless, that's where we are. So, in the fallout from the scandal, the bishops spun up their legal teams and produced the usual statements of blather about mercy and love and understanding and guilt or innocence and fairness and all that — hoping to produce sufficient smoke and deflection to kick the can down the road, hoping everyone forgets, which most usually do.

They squirrel these types of men away, quickly getting them out of the limelight, and, then, once the dust has settled, quietly place them back in ministry.

We want to play a segment of our call to the diocese of La Crosse asking his whereabouts, progress on the nearly year-old investigation and just overall what's going on. 

We called and told the switchboard receptionist we had questions about the status of Msgr. Burrill and were transferred to a person we were told was handling that. When we were connected to a lady by the name of Debbie, we got stonewalled.

Notice, the diocese denies it's a matter of public concern, but it was the diocese that made it a matter of public concern when it released this statement back in July last year, pointing to the problem with Msgr. Grindr, mentioned in the U.S. bishop conference's public statement about him and the media reports.

Notice also that she kicked it upstairs, saying she didn't have the authority to talk about it — fair enough. But then she quickly added that those who do have the authority just aren't going to talk about it. Ever.

So it's not really a question of who has the authority; it's actually a matter of they refuse to come clean about all this. The claim that this isn't a matter of public concern is absurd on its face.

Recall that Burrill, who worked at the USCCB (which is funded by money from the faithful), lived in USCCB housing funded by the faithful and traveled around on trips all over the country on USCCB business (paid for by the faithful) and used a USCCB phone paid for by the faithful with the gay-sex app on it. How in tarnation does that qualify as not public?

It's kind of the definition of public.

But Bp. William Callahan of the diocese never seems to be available to answer these questions.

So as to the investigation:

He presumably is also in receipt of money originating from the faithful — again — a public matter.

How much is he making? Who's paying for his food, his housing, his insurance? Does he have a phone? Who's paying for it? Is his phone activity being monitored?

But most importantly, does he deny the charges — the entire substance? And, deny or admit, why won't the bishop and his cronies reveal his answer?

That they pretend — or worse, believe — you don't have a right to know any of this because it's not public. That tells you everything you need to know.

Nothing has changed in the Church hierarchy and these chancery staffers when it comes to cleaning things up. If anything, it's gotten worse.

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris is interviewed by Dr. Michael Robillard. Dr. Robillard is an American philosopher, Army veteran, Roman Catholic and host of The Patriot Philosopher podcast. 

Interview was recorded on May 17, 2022. 

TRANSCRIPT

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

It's kind of funny that so many bishops hate Church Militant — even notables in the Vatican can't stand us.

But, in a sense, the joke's on them. Church Militant is an unintended creation of them, specifically, their refusal to do their job. Do they really think that Catholics who love the Church are going to sit by while they lie, steal, abuse, cover up and so forth — all while refusing to say the truth of the glory of Catholic teaching?

They refuse to say the truth, which deprives souls of the truth who want the truth. Sorry, bishops, but you don't get to do that, miter or no miter.

Every faithful Catholic has an obligation to speak the truth of the Faith, of Jesus Christ; and whatever happens, happens. However, in a climate of widespread ecclesiastical corruption, that obligation is increased significantly.

Bishops have forsworn their sacred obligation, and done so in a most cowardly, self-absorbed fashion. So now, the baton of truth-telling is handed to the laity, which is a lesson the bishops should learn from.

It's really not that difficult to say the truth, and when you proclaim the truth, people react. Most do not like the truth, which is what makes the bishops such cowards in being afraid of negative responses. But some do respond favorably when they hear truth, and, like a flower turning toward the light, open up to it.

A couple of weeks ago, Church Militant interviewed a local Michigan woman running to be a state representative. Her name is Jacky Eubanks, and she believes and embraces everything the Church teaches. Because we spoke about truth and Church teaching in the arena of politics, some on the Left lost their minds.

A video from a dude who calls himself "Texas Paul" on the Meidas Touch website got close to 100,000 views in about 24 hours. It also got more than 4,000 comments.

But them's "small potatoes" compared to the Lincoln Project's brief video, which has going on half a million views in the same time frame. It also has thousands of comments.

On top of that, a tweet posted last week from the account Left of Center MI has been retweeted over 2,000 times and has 1.1 million views.

The Left is in an uproar, or, more precisely, the haters of truth are in an uproar. But, then again, they are always in an uproar.

It's safe to say this one clip has brought the truth to more people about contraception than the U.S. bishops have in the past 50 years.

So by the time this Vortex airs, almost 2 million people will have viewed the truth and thousands will have attacked it.

And on top of that, this interview also made international news. "Banning Abortions Is Just the Start — Next, the U.S. Right Want to Outlaw Contraception": That's a headline from The Guardian yesterday. Here's the subtitle: "Jacky Eubanks Wants to Be a Michigan Senator — and to Ban Contraception. And She's Not the Only One."

And a quick message to other Catholics running for office: You should have the same unapologetic zeal that Jacky does.

Now for the bishops: Not that we care or certainly excuse their cowardice, but this is what happens when you say the truth or challenge the established narrative, which excuses evil.

For example, wildly popular conservative pundit Mark Dice, with almost 2 million subscribers, earlier this week highlighted a recent interview Church Militant conducted with Matt Schlapp on the question of homosexuality. In less than a day, over a hundred thousand views and 4,000 comments.

And this is the very thing the bishops seem to never grasp, the cowardly wimps. When you say the truth, some people will respond to it and change their lives. For their sake, the truth must be told.

For its own sake as well — but for its saving, life-transforming power, it must be not just told, but announced everywhere, loudly and clearly. As St. Paul said, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel."

Here's a reminder to those bishops who keep the gospel from people: When the Holy Spirit inspires the authors to use the word "woe," it never ends well.

Tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. The alternative is, don't tell the truth, and fall into Hell.

TRANSCRIPT

When I was a little kid, I wanted to be in the movies. Well, not really, but for the purposes of this Vortex, let's roll with that. 

So when I dreamed of a career on the silver screen when I was 10, I never could have imagined that, one day, I'd have the honor of being in a Martin Scorsese film.

But here I am, a half-century later, playing the part of the villain.

The movie is Building a Bridge, and, yep, Martin Scorsese is the producer. The flick is all about the "journey" of the long-suffering Fr. James Martin crusading for love and acceptance of sodomites in the Church. And, of course, any good movie needs a villain as well as a hero, and that's where we come in — black hat and all.

The movie debuted in 2021 at the "prestigious" Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan and went on sale for home viewing earlier this month.

Here's the trailer.

Sure, you want to be close to Jesus, Father. Sure, that's why you're doing all this.

And, by the way, back when Martin exploded so flamboyantly onto the ecclesiastical stage, the question was put to him, "Fr. Martin, are you homosexual?" Eventually, he responded by saying his Jesuit superiors have ordered him not to talk about his orientation.

That's a little weird, but OK.

The nearly hour-long movie is really little else than a propaganda piece trumpeting sodomy in the Church, with the "unique" angle that a priest is leading the charge. Of course, given the current state of affairs, there's nothing unique about a pro-gay priest.

Scorsese, you will recall, also directed the blasphemous 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ, which we won't get into because of its filth. Let's just say, Mother Angelica's review was direct, calling the movie "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world." 

But back to Jimmy Martin and his bridge to Hell construction: Church Militant should consider itself blessed to be cast as the villain in a pro-sodomy film. In fact, we do.

My father, God rest his soul, used to say to me, "Michael, when you die and go before Our Lord, make sure you have the right list of enemies with you." If Fr. James Martin and Martin Scorsese are on that list, which they are, then I have some hope of salvation.

Let's be very clear here — very clear. Anyone, especially a priest, who promotes intrinsic evil is on his way to damnation, and, in the case of a priest, he takes many souls with him. Church teaching is very clear: Homosexual acts are contrary to nature, the natural moral law and, as such, are always evil.

Martin cannot sidestep this, no matter how hard he tries.

So, what Martin does is simply ignore the teaching and twist it around by quoting Scripture out of context, deliberately so. Jesus didn't eat with prostitutes and tax collectors because He wanted to be inclusive and tolerant and accepting. He ate with them because He loved them enough to call them out of their sin to change their lives and live for Him.

Martin knows this, all of it, and yet continues deceiving his audiences — souls that have a right to the truth, even if they don't like it. Martin is obligated by Almighty God to tell these souls the truth and help them live it.

But since Martin is gay himself — and if you aren't, Father, deny it — he seeks damnation for them because, you know, misery loves company.

The movie is based on Martin's book Building a Bridge and, in the video promoting his book, he spews out so many errors and deceptions, it's almost impossible to catalog them all, or count them.

The first 23 seconds are five questions that deliberately obscure the truth, so they are actually lies disguised as questions. From there, it just spirals downward, conflating terms and phrases to obscure the truth.

For example, the Church has an obligation to welcome LGBT people. Again, more obfuscation — commingling friendly sounding words like "welcome" with objective states of mortal sin. The Church is under absolutely zero obligation to welcome sin and evil. In fact, it's under an obligation to speak against sin and expel it from the Temple.

Sinners are welcome, of course, but with the obligation on their part of being remorseful for their sins and repenting of them. And that's not just true of active homosexuals; it's also true of every sinner or every kind of sin.

But again, Martin skips over that part, as well as many others, because to reveal the whole truth would explode his agenda of getting the unsuspecting and horribly formed to accept sodomy as cool and fun and a "gift."

Martin is a devil. Period. He has no love of truth, and, like his father, Satan, his mouth is a wide-open grave and all honey his speech.

A couple years back, Church Militant ran into Martin in Rome the day before the Pachamama summit began. We've never divulged the details of the conversation with him there in the Borga, steps away from the Vatican's St. Anne's gate. We promised him we would not as a condition of his remaining and talking with me. That said, allow us to characterize it as Fr. Martin not being able to get away with his crap to my face like he does in the film.

Scorsese even goes so far, and Martin allows it, to have his elderly mother appear in the film and disparage me for not liking her son. And yeah, we're serious.

Being cast as the villain opposite Martin is actually a badge of honor, and Church Militant is happy to don the black hat. In the homo-dominated hierarchy today, even the color of the hat you wear doesn't mean what it used to.

TRANSCRIPT

Nancy Pelosi has been in Congress 35 years and, for a good portion of that time, she has been the "queen" of Capitol Hill, either as House minority leader for the Party of Death or the actual speaker of the U.S. House, as she is now.

During her reign, abortion-related votes have come up multiple times, and never once has she not been a safe vote for child murder. Her latest archbishop in San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, has been there for 10 years — which is to say, when he arrived, Nancy had already been on a quarter-century killing spree.

So late last week, he finally issued a decree that the sacrilege of her being given and receiving Holy Communion was going to stop, as canon law 915 makes clear as crystal should happen. So, on this narrow score, good for Abp. Cordileone. And on this narrow score is where the praise stops.

He will, of course, have very nasty things said about him. California's politicians and the Marxist media editorial boards are demanding he now be removed by Pope Francis, yada, yada.

But he has received public support for his action from some of his brother bishops, although, as of Monday this week, it was less than two dozen sitting ordinaries, leaving more than 150 still silent.

So, on what looks like the eve of Roe being overturned by the Supreme Court, at last a single archbishop does what should have been done by him 10 years ago and by three archbishops a quarter-century before that and done across the country by hundreds of bishops continually, and now we are celebrating.

This scene, good in and of itself, certainly, only goes to show the atrocious state of affairs in the Church these days. In the Catholic social media world, many are singing the praises of the archbishop — again good in and of itself for his decree.

But what is being overlooked is the length of time it took this to happen, the massive lack of support among other bishops (evidenced by their silence), the constant, ongoing practice of sacrilegious Holy Communion being given to child killers all over the country and the failure on the part of the national conference of bishops to do anything for the past 50 years about this horrendous crime.

Archbishop Cordileone's action only looks good in isolation, and, even then, in isolation from his own foot-dragging for the past decade. It serves to highlight, by comparison, the sorry condition of the males in miters across the country. When they gathered in Baltimore last November, they refused to take up the issue with regard to Biden, an even more glaring example.

Despite all kinds of reports from the press that Biden was going to be declared unfit for reception of Holy Communion, that was never on the bishops' agenda, ever. That was made blindingly clear by Fort Wayne–South Bend bishop Kevin Rhoades in the run-up to the meeting. He said flat out it was not on the agenda.

That, of course, didn't stop or even slow down the Marxist media, in their bloodlust support for abortion, from reporting about the imaginary news.

But again, it was never going to happen, as was made clear after the meeting by comments from Texas bishop Daniel Flores, quoted by The Washington Post:

"We saw initially a moment of different ideas of what the document should be about. Is it mostly about political responsibility? A Eucharistic revival? A teaching document? The document tried to nuance that," said Bp. Daniel Flores, of Brownsville, Texas. "It's not a one-size-fits-all. It's not adjudicated by popular opinion. We have to be patient, and patient with one another. I think the bishops wanted to speak with patience with one another."

"Patience" over sacrilege is more than misplaced patience; its scandal.

Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., has made clear that Biden is free to commit sacrilege whenever he wants, and Gregory will support him — actually, defend him. The same is true of Biden's newly appointed bishop, William Koenig, in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, who deftly sidestepped questions about the scandal.

New York's Cdl. Timothy Dolan, a number of years back, made clear in an interview that his view is the question should be left to individual bishops, which, of course, makes no sense at all. Sacrilege is not determined by a declaration of a local bishop, one way or the other, but by the very action itself.

That, of course, explains why Dolan said he would not have denied Holy Communion to Biden back during the campaign when Fr. Robert Morey of Florence, South Carolina, did just that. Dolan infamously noted, regarding the story, "If only saints could receive Holy Communion, we wouldn't have anybody at Mass, including myself."

Much larger questions loom over all this, occasioned by Cordileone's correct action, but perhaps the most pressing question is, Do the bishops themselves believe the teaching on the Eucharist, and if they do (because it's not clear at all that at least some of them do), why don't their actions comport with Church teaching on the subject?

So while the impetus to praise Cordileone may be strong — not so fast. Thirty-five years is a long time to have dithered around with this whole matter, 10 of those years on his watch. And, even now, there is still no consensus on the part of bishops to actually follow canon law in hundreds of other cases around the nation.

True, Biden and Pelosi are certainly the poster children for this whole thing, but they are hardly the only examples. On both state and federal levels, there are scores, if not hundreds, of other examples of this same evil, where bishops simply look the other way.

And a final question: With the dwindling number of believing Catholics being more and more evident, is it finally reckoning time for the U.S. hierarchy?

After decades of ignoring this evil, can it be that a smaller-yet-more-vocal-and-critical denouncement of their inactions is finally reaching their ears?

It is a question. Why now after so long of doing nothing? That question matters because the answer has predictive value in the coming months and years in the Church in the United States.