"Limiting God", Michael Voris

[lauermar]

Come back Fr. Corapi all is forgiven.

Are there any repentant sodomites in scripture or repentant sodomites who were canonized, beatified or mentioned in dispatches?

I've not heard of any.  Strange really, since there seem to be a lot of sodomites in the Church.

I cannot prove that St. Pope Paul VI was practicing gay. I have read written testimony from witnesses who worked in the Vatican claim he had visits during the night to his private chambers of a handsome young Italian actor he kept company with. This may or may not be true.

[Greg]

Whether he was a homo or not, Paul VI was definitely not a saint.

He wrecked the Church.

I am pretty sure that in 2000 years there is not a single sodomite who reformed and became a real saint.

St. Augustine was a fornicator, but a heterosexual one.

[Greg]

I'll be upfront. Like Voris, I once engaged in homosexual activity and converted. My priest knows this, several of my trad friends know this, and their attitude is that my past is left to God's mercy and I am their brother in Christ. I am actively involved in my SSPX parish, I help to teach the catechism class and run a youth group, and I do not think that your attitude is in keeping with Catholic teaching.

I don't know you, but I seriously question the wisdom of letting a sexual deviant instruct and lead children.

Wait until you have children, and they go to trad camps and schools run by virtuous and holy reformed homosexuals.  Christ have mercy.

I must have missed the part where Voris runs trad camps for kids.

Are you joking? I can't tell.  Cole is a self confessed homosexual, but also self-cofessed holy and virtuous.  He says he teaches catechism to children and runs a youth ministry for SSPX. See, there I go again, but pay careful attention:  Cole doesn't work for Voris.  Don't take my word for it, read Cole's posts.

He confessed to having same sex attraction and reforming his life. That is quite different than being a practicing homosexual.

I don't remember Cole saying anything other than that he had amended his life. Did he ever call himself holy? You stated that he did. Please provide the quote.

The sort of person who brings up someone's past sins as a sort of juxtaposition to their current level of holiness is someone who cannot see past Mary Magdalene having been a prostitute or St. Augustine having been a fornicator.

Are you without sin? What are you doing casting stones at posters here? Why are not simply happy that a sinner has converted?

How did that not casting stones thing work out?

Voris proved to be a unrepentant sodomite and destroyed his own media outlet after blowing 10s of millions in investor cash and foolish widows donations.

[Greg]

Well, all I can say is I can't understand it at all.

Back in the 1980s my views were dead centre in the SSPX.  There is absolutely no way that someone with a 15 year history of sodomy would have been accepted as any sort of moral commentator representing the Trad world.  "Private apostolate" or otherwise.

Today you nearly all appear to be cool with it.

I find it very difficult to back a position that remarried Catholics can't receive communion and instead have to either go without the sacraments for decades or give up companionship of the opposite sex, whilst a person can shag and sodomise anything with a pulse for 15 years, during pretty much all of the years that a person really wants to have sex and then revert and not only be a Catholic in good standing but put themselves up as a moral teacher and commentator and pundit.

It seems highly inconsistent and highly unjust.

People following their natural inclinations to marry and have children are punished, whilst people following their perverse inclinations have the slate wiped clean.

Believe it or not I do share your disquiet.

I don't particularly like Voris's website nor do I particularly like his website's editorial line on many issues concerning the Church and the Papacy.

I too have concerns about his disclosure and the timing of his disclosure.

However it seems to me that the core of our Catholic belief is guaged by how we respond to our fellow sinners, Greg.

If a person is sincerely penitent and has genuinely changed their ways, we are required as Catholics to embrace that person.
No matter how heinous the sins they have committed, if they have renounced that sin, if they have turned around their life, we must give them the benefit of doubt. We must give them the benefit of all doubt, in fact.

The difficult part for Catholics - and I speak from personal experience - is to genuinely forgive those who have corrected their ways.

We all have this judgemental aspect to our character. And even when every fibre of our being tells us that the sinner has reformed, our heart still likes to be judgemental "have they really changed their ways?" "How could someone who has led a thoroughly debauched life, change their ways now" In fact, sometimes this jedgmentality will say "if they were ever Catholic, how could they do what they did in the first place"
Those reactions are entirely human and understandable.

This is where faith and trust really come in to play - to allow forgiveness.
We have got to accept that the sinners heart can be converted no matter how heinous the sin.
And we hope that our heart can be converted to allow the penitent and reformed sinner a second chance.
This is the test of our faith for every single Catholic, I believe.

My disquiet ended up being 100% correct.

[Greg]

At least when he interviewed Randy Engel on her book Rite of Sodomy (in the days when he seemed more clearly Traditional and not a hachet man for certain Neo Cons), he had personal expertise.

Yes, Dellery, the Archdiocese should state their side, but if Mr Voris is correct, all that they planned was a drip, drip of information.

I will say Alice, he seems repentant now, but I'm no great reader of people. The proof of the pudding etc, will be what Mr Voris says from here on.

I can see how Greg was disturbed how a nephew shared a boat (The Voris/Fr Z cruise conference thingy) with a man who spent 15 years as a bugger.

I think Mr Voris is repentant. A sodomist can repent. If they are repentant, they cannot be denied the chance to live anew.

What do you think now, 8 years on?

[Greg]

Imagine if one of the workers in the vineyard turned up at 2pm and started pontificating at you the best way to pick grapes and asked for union contributions.  He spent the money some gullible workers gave him, self-promoting himself, floating around on the pond in a pink rowing boat, and suggesting which foreman was trustworthy and which one you should be obedient to.  At six o'clock in the evening he tried to get the pay docked of some of the workers and foreman who had been there working from 8am, because they hadn't adapted their working methods to his suggestions.

Then at 7:30pm he revealed that from 11am to 2pm he had been shoving grapes up his butt and had urinated in the wine-press.  But he was "very sorry" and really "heartsick" about it.

Come 8pm how would you feel about such a worker?

To paraphrase Moe from the Simpsons, "Well that would explain the drop off in sales for the wine." 

However , the analogy doesn't hold because Voris is analogically one of the 11th hour workers who isn't in the field while the others are working.  If LeFebvre was there from the morning and worked all day, and Voris was up to no good, it was outside of the Vineyard.  The fact that he repented of what he did while outside of the Vineyard doesn't poison the good he does during the 11th hour. 

And Christ Himself puts it as a matter between Himself and the 11th hour worker.  For the grumbler that has been there all day, he says essentially, "What business is it of yours that I'm generous to others? You worked your day and got your pay as we agreed.  Go away and mind your own business. What's between him and me is not your concern. Don't try to blame me for your evil because I've done good." 

Gerard, care to tell me how the analogy does not work now?

[Gerard]

Gerard, care to tell me how the analogy does not work now?

(Funny, how I decided to check this site today.  I'm not very consistent with it anymore.)

I don't see anything particularly different. 

We're at the 20th anniversary of the Passion of the Christ. 

It's still a more than worthwhile movie,  Peter Kreeft actually calls it a sacramental. 

Mel Gibson has had some real ups an downs since 2004. Many of which have put his soul at risk and given him children that are spiritually behind the eight ball right out of the gate. 

I'm sure we all hope and pray for Mel to get his soul in order before it's too late, if he hasn't already. 

Voris undoubtedly did some good. His unnatural temptations have obviously been too much for him at various times. 

My personal arguments with him were on his theological errors.  Now that his personal demons have

been exposed, he obviously needs prayer in the hopes that he'll secure his soul as well. 

Because Gibson and Voris both fell from grace doesn't change that the matter is ultimately between our Lord and themselves. We can, all of us offer unsolicited advice on how they should proceed to get back into the state of grace, but we tend to give the advice we want for us and not what will resonate with them. The benefit of that is we don't have the responsibility of being priests where there is a greater responsibility for being in a position of authority. 

You can either pray in the hopes that it's a temporary fall like we all experience or you can try to pre-empt God and pronounce judgment.  Good luck with the latter.

The older I get, the less shocked and appalled I become about the behavior of others. Instead, I'm not surprised but more in a state of pity and fear for their future and I'm always stunned and surprised at the mercy and grace that our Lord provides at the most unlikely times, in the most unlikely ways with the most unlikely people by my reckoning. 

[Greg]

Does Mel Gibson have a media channel where he teaches and preaches and publicly represents Catholicism including singling our bishops for being too conservative or not conservative enough?

How can you measure the good Voris did?

Sorry Gerard your analogy does not hold. Mel Gibson as scandalous as his behaviour is cannot be compared to Michael Voris because Gibson has not tried to do what Voris did.

But were Mel Gibson to repent and go back to his wife and family I would not think that between now and the end of his natural life he should make any sort of public prescriptions on Catholicism.

[Greg]

Because Gibson and Voris both fell from grace doesn't change that the matter is ultimately between our Lord and themselves. We can, all of us offer unsolicited advice on how they should proceed to get back into the state of grace, but we tend to give the advice we want for us and not what will resonate with them. The benefit of that is we don't have the responsibility of being priests where there is a greater responsibility for being in a position of authority.

A dodge.

If Voris cannot and should not be restricted from a public teaching position for 20+ years of sodomy then there is no reason a convicted paedophile should be either.  Anyone who claims to be repentant can have a go at being a spokesperson for the Catholic Church.  There's no sin that disqualifies them and no number of times they can fall, claim to be repentant and return to their position of public influence and collecting donations as a catholic in good standing.

In which case what have we got against Pope Francis.  Yes, he is an apostate every day, but at night how can we not know he repents, confesses his sins and falls back into a state of modernism and apostasy the next day?

Your world view is ridiculous Gerard.

[Gerard]

Does Mel Gibson have a media channel where he teaches and preaches and publicly represents Catholicism including singling our bishops for being too conservative or not conservative enough?

No. Mel Gibson engaged in a much different venture. Don't try to narrow the focus so much that you get to ignore the similarity. That's akin to people equating LeFebvre and Padre Pio  blaming LeFebvre for not being docile and not resisting persecution like Padre Pio as if a cloistered monk has the same mission as a bishop. 

Gibson fell and Voris fell. Different ends of the spectrum of the same vice. 

How can you measure the good Voris did?

Voris was the only voice in the Vatican press pool that called out the language of "homosexuals bringing their gifts to the Church" You seem to forget that Voris was a lay person with the ability to reach outside of the traditionalist echo chamber and bring some fight to the apostasy in the Church and the anti-Catholicism of the age. None of the Neo-Catholics at the time would dare do what they are all doing nowadays.   

He had that "One True Faith" video series, which was very good.  Took on the accusations against Pius XII in a very accessible way, eventually championed the TLM and pointed out the problems that arose from Vatican II. 

You can guess the measure of the good by the number of people that are disappointed in his fall and are praying for him. 

Sorry Gerard your analogy does not hold. Mel Gibson as scandalous as his behaviour is cannot be compared to Michael Voris because Gibson has not tried to do what Voris did.

Gibson messed up his marriage, which was probably induced as a consequence of his making the Passion, using the weaknesses he had long before he made the Passion. I personally think someone probably slipped him a mickey of some sort to set him off. But it could also have been solely the Devil. 

Voris fell from chastity, probably as a consequence of his work, he was first "outed" by homosexuals who hated his work.  And Voris also fell as a result of his vices and weaknesses from before his venue ever appeared. 

The analogy holds. Voris' sin is unnatural. Gibson's sin was actually sacrilegious because of the sacramental nature of the marriage.

But were Mel Gibson to repent and go back to his wife and family I would not think that between now and the end of his natural life he should make any sort of public prescriptions on Catholicism.

That's fine for you to think that, but what's particularly Catholic about that position instead of Calvinist Puritanism with a hint of Novationism and a twist of Quietism thrown in for good measure? 

You don't think Gibson was a perfect husband before he made the Passion do you?  Do you think he should have simply repented and never made the Passion?  Should the Passion of the Christ be banned and all physical copies destroyed?  All because Gibson wasn't perfect at the get go and has fallen into sin in this life?

[Gerard]

Because Gibson and Voris both fell from grace doesn't change that the matter is ultimately between our Lord and themselves. We can, all of us offer unsolicited advice on how they should proceed to get back into the state of grace, but we tend to give the advice we want for us and not what will resonate with them. The benefit of that is we don't have the responsibility of being priests where there is a greater responsibility for being in a position of authority.

A dodge.

Not at all.

If Voris cannot and should not be restricted from a public teaching position for 20+ years of sodomy then there is no reason a convicted paedophile should be either.

Why 20 years?  That comes out of nowhere. How many years for adultery? How long for honestly held but erroneous and heretical positions? Lying? Theft? Self-abuse? Where is "Absolom's Chart of Accountability" for us to refer to? 

Would you seriously be suddenly comfortable if Voris was a successful Youtube personality with an apostalote that came out four years ago and he was suddenly "outed" by homosexuals complaining about his stance against homosexuality?  Would it be okay with you if he said, "I haven't sodomized in 20 years." Would the answer be, "oh...Okay as long as it was 20 years." 
More likely, you would doubt his honesty. 

Anyone who claims to be repentant can have a go at being a spokesperson for the Catholic Church.

What's the alternative? Nobody who has ever sinned is allowed to correct errors or complain about heterodoxy or engage in the Spiritual Works of Mercy?  Who in the Church isn't a penitent who also falls back into sin? 

There's no sin that disqualifies them and no number of times they can fall, claim to be repentant and return to their position of public influence and collecting donations as a catholic in good standing.

Okay, you either want irredeemable sins or you have a specific number of times you think a fall can happen.  What are the parameters? 

In which case what have we got against Pope Francis.  Yes, he is an apostate every day, but at night how can we not know he repents, confesses his sins and falls back into a state of modernism and apostasy the next day?

Well, what do you want? Francis to repent or go to Hell for your gloating purposes? You have limited power over other people at best.  To what end are your prayers directed? 

Your world view is ridiculous Gerard.

No. The fact is, I'm right. You haven't made any sense yet.

So far,you just make emotional pleas based on your selective disgust over sins with ad hoc solutions that have no bearing on reality. 

You complain that your least favored sins don't have as severe a punishment in this life as you want. 

[Greg]

Gerard is another apologist for the sodomites.

Seems to be a heck of a lot of it on Trad Catholic forums.  Why is that?

[Gerard]

Gerard is another apologist for the sodomites.

Seems to be a heck of a lot of it on Trad Catholic forums.  Why is that?

No.  More likely you're just a closeted queer overcompensating for your unnatural urges mixed with shame and self-disgust. 

You obviously can't make a real counter argument, so you give a gaslighting answer accusing me of being an apologist for sodomites. 

That, in an of itself is a feminine form of counterattack. Not withstanding the utter stupidity of
the premise.

Then, all of the cartoonish, "tough guy" talk about what should be done no matter how impractical or irrational fits in perfectly with you creating your own mask. 

How old were you, when you were molested Greg?

[Greg]

Strange isn't it that despite all the accurate predictions of Voris being a closeted and hypocritical sodomite and exploding his "apostolate" and being sued by priests for slander and liable, there are Traditional Catholics who still jump to his defence.

Weird.  I don't understand what motivates such perversity.

It reminds me of the Covid thing where people try to deny what they said at the time and shoot the messenger who was right.

[Gerard]

Strange isn't it that despite all the accurate predictions of Voris being a closeted and hypocritical sodomite and exploding his "apostolate" and being sued by priests for slander and liable, there are Traditional Catholics who still jump to his defence.

Weird.  I don't understand what motivates such perversity.

It reminds me of the Covid thing where people try to deny what they said at the time and shoot the messenger who was right.

That's a pitiable and transparent attempt at gaslighting.   

People are not so stupid that they do not see that you are Straw Manning the argument because that's easier to do than actually engage in it.

When it comes to argumentation, you and Voris have all the same character defects and employ the same low brow tactics.