Falling short with facts: Michael Voris of Church Militant
Last summer, on Thursday, August 30, 2018, Church Militant, operated by the histrionic Michael Voris, flooded the email inboxes of its followers with the breathless announcement that it was airing a "Breaking News Exclusive: Wuerl Bombshell." A sober-looking Voris soon stood in front of a camera and announced:
"Church Militant has learned from reliable sources that Pope Francis has directed Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., be spirited out of the United States before Wuerl could possibly be arrested by U.S. federal authorities."
Well, as we all now know, Wuerl never went anywhere. Nobody "spirited" anybody. And Voris also insisted – again citing his impeccable "sources" – that Wuerl had "gone underground" and into complete hiding. This too was bogus. In fact, not only was Wuerl not hiding, he was presiding at a televised Sunday Mass less than 72 hours after Voris' so-called "bombshell."
The entire report was a complete crock. Yet to this day, Voris says, "We stand by our reporting."
Voris loses his chips on Viganò
Voris has consistently demonstrated problems with his facts when it comes to attacking Cardinal Wuerl, often accusing Wuerl of "lying." In a crazy commentary last week, Voris claimed:
"It's been one year since Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò let loose the stunning revelations about the corruption and cover-up and how Pope Francis and Wuerl long knew of [Cardinal Theodore] McCarrick's abuse."
Archbishop Carlo Viganò
Yet less than a week after his explosive "testimony," Viganò was already walking back his most alarming claims. And, of course, the media hardly took note of this.
Rather than claiming that Benedict had issued "canonical sanctions" that everyone was aware of, Viganò was now claiming that the "sanctions" against McCarrick were "private," with Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register adding that Benedict merely instructed McCarrick to keep a "low profile." There was "no formal decree, just a private request," according to Pentin's sources. This was a far cry from Viganò's original claims that received worldwide attention just days earlier.
Viganò's credibility also took a huge hit when a video later surfaced showing McCarrick making numerous public appearances after 2009 – including with fellow cardinals and Pope Benedict himself – casting further doubt on Vigano's original claims that Benedict himself had been ordered McCarrick to retire to a private life.
The same video also showed Viganò himself showering praise upon McCarrick at a 2012 event honoring McCarrick, saying that McCarrick was "very much loved from us all." His words were hardly those of someone who had claimed to know McCarrick to be a corrupter of the Church.
In the end, Viganò's claims were clearly erroneous, but for Michael Voris, the original report from Viganò was all he ever needed to brand Wuerl as "lying."
The truth about lying
Did Michael Voris lie when he delivered his bogus report last summer that Wuerl was being "spirited" out of the country by the Vatican to avoid prosecution? Well, accusing someone of lying is a serious charge, as you are claiming that person is deliberately deceiving.
Here is what not lying:
- airing erroneous information that you believe to be true;
- not remembering events, meetings, conversations, letters, phone calls, and/or emails from years ago;
- simply getting facts wrong without such an intention.
Under these criteria, no, Voris did not lie last summer when he issued his report. We should give Voris the benefit of the doubt that he did not deliberately air a completely false story. Voris was simply the recipient of bogus information, and his facts were flat-out wrong. He did not "lie" in the strict sense.
If only, in the midst of his amped-up attacks on the hierarchy, Voris would give others that same benefit of the doubt.
This piece is bizarre and could be labeled a phony attack on Michael Voris. Where have they been for the past year? Vigano's statements have only been confirmed since then. It is also now clear that Wuerl has lied, boldy so, about what he knew about mccarrick, for example, a fact that even secular news outlets have pointed out. Yet why the focus on attacking Voris? There's something fishy here- this outlet or the author would seem to have some connection with Wuerl. Or is the real aim to discount Voris in regard to the revelations about Walter Rossi, whom Wuerl has known about.
Please read the entire post. Vigano’s statements have not been “confirmed.”
In fact, contrary to what is often repeated, they have been refuted.
Was McCarrick issued “canonical sanctions” and ordered to a private life of prayer and penance, as Viganò explicitly claimed in his “testimony”?
The clear answer is, No.
We have also done this site long enough to know that people resort to name calling (“bizarre”) when they don’t have facts to back anything up.
"We have also done this site long enough to know that people resort to name calling ("bizarre") when they don't have facts to back anything up."
I originally ignored this statement, but now would like to say that every Media Report article is packed full of nasty remarks and disparaging pictures and cartoons of their enemies, with no regard to even attacking victims of your Church of Pedophiles. Let's practice what we preach!
In a Taoist story, after helping a farmer for many years, an old horse decided to ran away. Upon hearing the news, the farmer’s neighbors came to visit, and immediately commented: "Such bad luck".
"We'll see," the farmer replied.
The next morning the farmer woke to the sight of the horse returned, along with three other wild horses.
"How great”, the neighbors exclaimed.
"We'll see," replied the old man.
The following day, the farmer’s son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.
"We'll see," answered the farmer.
The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Because of his broken leg, the farmer’s son was spared. The neighbors, once again, congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.
"We'll see" said the farmer.
Although this story was intended for a different moral, it also illustrates the importance of not rushing to conclusions, especially when not all details are known. There are enough people out in the world who speak prematurely and without complete knowledge, ending up looking foolish. Catholics in general, and those who are active in the Media especially, should always be cautious and measured in their commentaries (Proverbs 15:28 and 10:19).
As the old adage goes, “Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something”.
My last comment, "You even make bad mistakes misspelling simple words after criticising me." And right on cue, you start your next comment "In a Taoist story, after helping a farmer for many years, an old horse decided to 'ran' away." You think the word might be 'run'?
Could you now stop criticising others until you clean up your own house. Or even better, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5
This Bible verse can also well apply to all your blaming of the Media and anyone else you can blame for the disgusting crimes of your Church hierarchy and all their bishops lies and cover-ups. Try convincing everyone now how I use inappropriate or "unnecessary Bible quoting tirades", you deceiver and accuser.
Your Church's horrific crimes, especially those harming innocent children, aren't something you should tell cute little stories or analogies about, or is their malfeasance just some little joke to you?
P.S. How well your "old adage" fits you, "…fools because they have to say something", even when you know it's false and just another of your many lies. Keep up the good work! Master Manipulator.
Dan,
Thank you very much for your fraternal correction and the usual uplifting tone of your commentary.
I see that you’ve added another self-assigned title to the litany. Master Manipulator applies quite appropriately. Although, I wouldn’t really say “master”, as your puerile attempts at manipulating the arguments of the posts always fall short and are inexorably shattered.
Have a blessed day, Brother Dan.
"And the angels … He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh [pedophilia?], are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." – Jude NKJV
Is Voris to blame? Is the Media to blame? Are anti-catholics at fault? Witch-hunters? Bigots? No, the very perverts who committed sexual immorality and sought after the strange flesh of innocent children and those who covered for them and hid their indiscretions are to take full blame, and will be treated accordingly, maybe not in this life but for all eternity! Quit blaming those who are here to weed out the truth and get to the bottom, the very dregs of your Church's evilness.
Dan,
“Is Voris to blame? Is the Media to blame? Are anti-catholics at fault? Witch-hunters? Bigots?” = as already explained, there are two different issues at play here:
1) the sinful and illegal behavior of few (very few) Catholic Priests and Bishops; as you correctly point out, they are responsible for their own actions, and will be judged by God accordingly, the same way everyone (you, me, Mr. Voris) will be. In the meantime, the ones who have been arrested and convicted by the legal system will also receive their earthly punishment. Hence, nobody else is to blame for their behavior. Eve was tempted by the serpent, and Adam convinced by Eve, but ultimately, they are responsible for their actions.
2) The changes (I would say, more aptly, corruption) in social values, and the biased way the Catholic Church is singled out when it comes to these awful sins; in this case, the Media is absolutely to blame. The majority is an unknowingly accomplice; few are fully committed to the ruin of as many souls as possible. If you are as old as you claim to be, you must have witnessed the (subtle at first, out in the open recently) push for the homosexual agenda, abortion and divorce that permeates every Media channel. Just 11 years ago, your State voted against same-sex marriages, only to see their decision overruled by a judge. Does this justify the sins and crimes committed by few Catholics? By any means, no. Did it make them easier, and possibly pushed some who were already inclined? Perhaps; I believe so, at least.
“Quit blaming those who are here to weed out the truth and get to the bottom, the very dregs of your Church's evilness” = interestingly choice of words: Media and truth together. It’s a little bit like bitumen and apple pie. But, if that’s your taste, who am I to judge?
Have a blessed day, Brother Dan.
This is precisely where we have our problems, LLC. In many of your comments you continually insist on loading on excuses or minimalizing the severity of your Church's sins and crimes.
LLC states, "1) the sinful and illegal behavior of few (very few) Catholic Priests and Bishops" - This is so far from the truth, for we know of thousands of perpetrators and yet the Church has done all in its powers to prevent full lists of Priest and Bishop malfeasants from coming to light. Unless court ordered, they have done much to conceal and hide the truth when speaking of the systemic filth among their hierarchy.
2) a) And now here come all the excuses – The "Catholic Church is singled out when it comes to these awful sins" – Well if they have been singled out, of which I don't agree, it's only because they are the biggest violators of sexual crimes against innocent children. And the fact that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg due to it's conniving and gag orders further proves that the exposure of their filth is well deserved.
b) You think you can cite the social norms of society for driving Priests and Bishops into pedophilia and perversions. Are you kidding? You say, "By any means, no." Then turn around and question, "Did it make it easier and possibly pushed some who were already inclined? Perhaps; I believe so, at least." Really? These were supposedly religious men, living pure and chaste lives, molesting little boys and yet unaware how disgusting and perverted were their actions? Please?!? And leaders of the Church didn't understand the severity of these sins and thought these criminals were worthy of forgiveness and could be relocated among children? Are you catholics deaf, dumb and blind?
c) So now that it's a huge mess, let's place blame on everyone else, victims, the Media and especially anti-catholics singling out your so holy and poor Church of pervs. "Media and truth together." You and your Church has no right to point your fingers at anyone, seeing what big liars and deceivers you've turned out to be.
Have a blessed day, Brother LLC.
Dan,
“This is precisely where we have our problems” = I disagree. You have problems (clearly). I don’t.
Your trite arguments have been addressed and debunked many a time, but repetita iuvant, so here we go again:
“…loading on excuses or minimalizing the severity of your Church's sins and crimes” = factually incorrect (i.e., it’s a lie).
“This is so far from the truth, for we know of thousands of perpetrators” = As said in this blog countless times, one case of abuse is one too many. In regard to the absolute number, it is true that the accusations against Catholics amount to the thousands; nevertheless, the following must be kept in mind: a) accusations do not always translate to an actual guilt verdict, as this blog has repeatedly demonstrated; b) there is a high degree of recidivism amongst pedophiles/sexual predators, hence many cases can be attributes to the same individuals (which in itself is another issue altogether); c) while the absolute number may appear (and it is) high, when compared to the number of ordained priests in the same time interval, it is clear than only a small percentage have actually committed these criminal acts, hence my characterization of the guilty parts as few. Apparently, your majoring in math has been for naught.
“the Church has done all in its powers to prevent full lists of Priest and Bishop malfeasants from coming to light” = as a general statement, this is factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the many Parishes where Priests have been immediately and publicly removed from their place following accusations, sometimes prematurely. In the distant past, some parishes (again, few) have been slow in responding to these issues, and have therefore paid a hefty price.
“it's only because they are the biggest violators of sexual crimes against innocent children” = first of all, what is a “violator of sexual crime”? Perhaps you meant “perpetrator”. Second, this is laughably and factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the countless (but still only sporadically reported by the Media) investigations of sex abuses in schools (public and private alike), sport teams and religious organizations, including yours, or by categories (family members, teachers, doctors, coaches, therapists). A simple Internet search returns hundreds of statistics on this matter. No matter. As the old adage goes, “There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand”. And you clearly don’t.
“Really?” = yes. A simple analogy will demonstrate. If you are inclined to alcoholism, does working in an environment that promotes drinking as harmless, and indeed as a personal right, increase or decrease the chances of you actually getting drunk?
“yet unaware how disgusting and perverted were their actions” = irrelevant to the discussion, and an unfunded statement. Can you please cite who, among the guilty ones, ever said that they were unaware of the gravity of their actions? Such a statement would qualify them as psychopaths, and dangerous regardless of their affiliation.
“And leaders of the Church didn't understand the severity of these sins and thought these criminals were worthy of forgiveness and could be relocated among children?” = while it is true that, at least initially, some in the Church hierarchy sought alternative paths to address these issues, including relocation and therapy, it is also true that a) this was the prevalent recommendation of experts at that time, b) you can’t in retrospective judge past events in the light of current knowledge and, c) the Church has then learned to recognize and address these issues in a timely matter, as demonstrated by the almost non-existent new cases since the new processes have been established. Can you say the same for all the other organizations were these issues are still happening, unreported, like in your church?
“You and your Church has [sic...] no right to point your fingers at anyone” = when it comes to take responsibility for these issues, the Church is not pointing fingers at anyone, nor am I. This doesn’t mean that the Church shouldn’t point out harmful social changes and their initiators. By the way, I love your choice of words, “social norms”. Perhaps, in your church this is the norm.
“Have a blessed day” = thanks by to God, I always do.
Now, do you have anything relevant to add about this post, or more in general about the general call to prudence and caution when addressing these issues, especially in a public venue?
If not, tot ziens, broer Dan.
I prefer to waste my time only with your first three sentences, for the rest is only more bullshit excuses and minimalizing, as usual, piled as high as the horses bridle. That covered your third sentence.
LLC says, "You have problems (clearly). I don't." You, your lying priests, bishops and Church have no problems according to you. LOL. Could you please return your head to the sand, Ostrich.
P.S. Allow me to add one more tidbit. You once again correct my "has [sic...]", but fail to correctly state the simple, "thanks by [sic...] to God". Well done again, hypocrite! Tot ziens, broer. You nazi krauts are so annoying.
Dan,
“I prefer to waste my time…” = I prefer not to waste time at all with you, but you can’t always get what you want… (thanks, brothers Mick and Keith)
“…minimalizing…” = I always strive for minimalistic posts, but often your logorrheic rants require lengthy answers, for example to explain the difference between minimize and minimalize
“…with your first three sentences” = you actually address (so-to-speak, as there’s nothing intelligent in your response) only the first and third sentences. Bummer, I was curious about the second…
As for your tidbit, maybe someday you’ll learn the difference between a typo and a grammar (or grammer, as you seem to prefer) error. Regardless, an error is an error, so thank you again for your fraternal and uplifting correction. Now, since you didn’t address coherently and appropriately a single point in my post, Tot in de pruimentijd, broer Dan.
LLC, You make these false claims that my "arguments have been addressed and debunked many a time". I'm thrilled that you think your twisted catholic excuses, denials, lies and poor Bible translations means you've "addressed and debunked" anything I've quoted or stated. I think you've taken over Publiar's position as a "Legend in Your Own Mind". "Deceiving others while being themselves deceived." Well done!