A CORRECTION to Michael Voris’ Slanderous Post re. Sacred Heart Seminary

Sacred Heart Major Seminary

Sacred Heart Major Seminary

Michael Voris is a controversial blogger who runs St. Michael’s Media and produces his popular video series The Vortex from his studios in Ferndale, Michigan.

This week, Voris leveled a scurrilous charge against Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary. In a blog and video released July 21, Voris implied that a number of the seminary’s students are homosexual, and that the faculty and administration are “gay-friendly” and fail to protect Catholic teaching.

In his 8½ minute video, Voris said:

A faculty member priest in Sacred Heart Seminary here in Detroit recently made an announcement to the entire seminary student collective — about 60 young men — that they need to be sure and wear their bathrobes coming out of the bathroom showers instead of just towels because a number of their brother seminarians are gay, and the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys.

If you have successfully picked your jaw up off the floor and are ready to ask if you heard that right — you did. Another faculty member told a class that the seminary accepts men with homosexual pasts.

Voris didn’t stop there—he attempted, too, to impair the seminary’s ability to raise needed funds. Holding a program from a recent fundraising dinner to benefit the seminary, he suggested that Catholics might withdraw their support. “A few weeks ago,” he said,

the seminary had a big fancy gala dinner which raised almost $900,000 for the seminary fund. This is the brochure. Church Militant even bought the center page advertisement as a means to express some support. I took quite a number of classes there a few years ago and was taught by some very good professors….

I wonder how many of the Catholics who bought ad space in here or one of the $250-a-plate dinners would now want their money back?”

THE THING IS, THAT’S NOT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

I obtained a copy of a redacted statement which was sent to seminary faculty, responding to Voris’ charges. According to the Sacred Heart Seminary administration,

Sacred Heart adheres absolutely to the Church’s teaching regarding those who experience SSA. Unfortunately, Voris did not check the story with the formator whose alleged comments he quoted. The formator did not use the term “gay,” but rather “same-sex attracted.” He asked men to wear bathrobes to the shower for the sake of decorum and charity. As an example of potential uncharity he said, “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA? Your lack of modesty would be uncharitable considering your neighbor’s needs.” The men understood this completely.

Who could be so naive as to think that among a group of sixty men, even devout men who are hoping to serve the Church as priests, none has faced the temptation toward homosexuality? There may be a seminarian who hasn’t even realized that he is homosexual, or who is hiding it.

However, the Seminary’s statement continues with a straightforward denial:

…the claim that there is a significant or even nominal presence of homosexuality at Sacred Heart Major Seminary is patently false.”

*     *     *     *     *

Voris is a frequent critic of the Catholic Church he professes to love. A common theme of his apostolate is that homosexuals have infiltrated the Church, even at the highest levels. His other concerns have ranged from opposition to those within the Church who believe that Catholics must confront global warming, to what he called a failure on the part of the Knights of Columbus leadership to discipline members who support abortion or same-sex marriage, among other issues.

Even the name of Voris’ organization hints at his negative attitude toward the Catholic Church in America: Originally called “Real Catholic TV,” the name was changed to “Church Militant” after the Archdiocese of Detroit required that he stop using the word “Catholic” in the corporate title. The Archdiocese explained that Canon 216 of the Code of Canon Law stipulates,

No undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’ without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”

* * * * *

I believe that Michael Voris sincerely believes he is helping to strengthen the Catholic faithful; but rather than approaching an issue with prayerful encouragement and gentle admonishment, Voris takes a sledgehammer to his perceived opponent. There is a potential for great damage when he confronts brothers in the Church like the proverbial bull in a china shop. There is no question that he is a man of faith; my prayer is that he might also be a man of discernment.

According to reports, Voris’ Catholic faith was inflamed after the 2003 death of his brother and the subsequent death of his mother the following year. The Detroit Free Press quoted Voris:

“Her dying really kind of started to wake me up,” Voris recalled. “You have to face mortality. And then the questions came pouring in: What is the meaning of life? Who are we as human beings? Is there life after death? Those are fundamental questions everyone has to look for.”

Voris’ renewed zeal for the Catholic Faith found expression in 2006, when he invested most of his retirement savings and his inheritance to establish St. Michael’s Media in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale, Michigan. His primary goal at the time was to clear up common misperceptions regarding Catholicism which were promulgated by the popular anti-Catholic novel The DaVinci Code.

Deeply committed to his perceived mission,Voris has never married, vowing celibacy and consecrating himself to the Virgin Mary. With no family responsibilities, Voris labors tirelessly as, in his words, an “aggressive global advocate for conservative Catholics…on a burning mission to save Catholicism and America” by trying to warn the public about what he sees as a decline of morality in society.

But in constantly criticizing the Church and haranguing its leaders, Voris fails to achieve the desired result–instead fostering division and dissatisfaction among his adherents, and frightening away potential converts who might experience his rancor and believe that his negativity is representative of Catholics in general.

* * * * *

The U.S. Bishops have not shirked their responsibility to protect the safety of children and adults by ensuring that our priests are committed to celibacy. In June 2007, Emilie Lemmons wrote an article entitled “Seminary Screening Early Step For Healthy Priesthood,” which can be found on the USCCB website. In the article, Lemmons explains the great care which has been taken since the sexual abuse scandal unfolded in 2002. The newest version of the Program of Priestly Formation, released by the U.S. bishops in 2006, governs seminary formation in the United States and incorporates stricter norms for screening applicants and more detail on formation in human sexuality. “Officials are quick to point out, however,” Lemmons wrote, 

…that such changes represent refinements to ongoing improvements, rather than dramatic policy shifts. In fact, the church has been working to strengthen seminary screening and formation for more than a decade.”

She explained the more stringent screening to identify potential problems among applicants for seminaries:

Msgr. Stephen Rossetti, a psychologist who heads the St. Luke Institute, a residential treatment center in Silver Spring, Md., for priests and religious with psychological problems, has seen a “modest increase in the amount of help” seminaries have requested since the early 2000s. The facility consults with seminaries on psychological formation issues and treats people for a variety of problems, including sexual abuse.”The notion that the church has done nothing until 2002 to deal with this problem is nonsense,” he said. “The fact is that the church has been working over the past 20 years improving its screening and formation.”

A trend noticed at the seminary level is that potential priesthood candidates are examined more thoroughly by diocesan vocations offices before they apply to the seminary.”The dioceses that send us candidates are doing a much better job of screening before they come to see us,” said Sulpician Father Gerald Brown, who became rector of St. Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, Calif., in 2004. It’s an extra level of scrutiny that wasn’t there a few years ago, he said. “In the past, a diocese might say, ‘We’re not sure about this guy, but let’s send him, and the seminary can screen him out.’ Now, they don’t send him if they’re not sure about it.”

…Initial research now suggests that homosexuality, while not a cause, can be associated with higher incidents of abuse, he said — although “most homosexuals do not molest minors.”In fact, the new edition of the Program of Priestly Formation requires seminaries to adhere to the Vatican’s November 2005 statement that practicing homosexuals or men with what it called “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” may not be admitted.

The November 2005 statement to which Lemmons refers was issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education under the direction of Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski,Prefect. The statement carries the descriptive (albeit unwieldy) title, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.”

In the Instruction, the Congregation differentiates between “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies, which are objectively disordered and which render a candidate unsuitable for ordination, and “transitory” tendencies, which may be present in adolescence but may not continue into adulthood. According to the Vatican statement:

…Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”

*     *     *     *     *

Sacred Heart Major Seminary is diligent in following these guidelines. Any suggestion that there exists at the seminary a culture that accepts or encourages the same sex lifestyle (or any other sexual lifestyle apart from chastity) is, very simply, false and does a disservice to the Archdiocese of Detroit, to Archbishop Allen Vigneron, to Sacred Heart Seminary, to the fine and faithful instructors and leaders at the seminary, and to the men themselves who are seeking to selflessly serve the Lord.

Image: By Andrew Jameson at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

  • Christine Niles

    Michael Voris is not a “blogger.” He has never blogged in his life. He doesn’t own a blog.

    He’s a journalist, who has spent more than 30 years in the business and has won four Emmies for his stellar work. The fact that right off the bat you mischaracterize him as a “blogger” indicates to the rest of us that perhaps you haven’t researched this well enough.

    I’m curious–did you attempt to reach out to Michael Voris for his response before posting this article–for the sake of journalistic integrity as well as Christian charity? Because your piece has inaccuracies that could’ve been easily cleared up had you picked up a phone and called him.

    The Detroit archdiocese’s response is inaccurate. Stay tuned for our response.

    • CW Betts

      He might not be a “blogger” but neiter is he a “journalist”–unless you consider sensationalist tripe worthy of TMZ actual journalism.

      • HornOrSilk

        TMZ is more honest, but Christine is one of the biggest pushers of Voris on the net, going wherever he is mentioned just to praise him. She is doing Voris no spiritual good, since the saints point out how prelest comes from it.

        • Christine Niles

          You can always tell when a person has no rational defense when he starts in on the irrelevant & specious personal attacks. Well done, HornOrSilk.

          • HornOrSilk

            So, you admit Voris has no rational defense, because most of his work is “irrelevant and specious personal attacks.” That’s what he constantly does. It’s always amusing when you respond with that kind of response, as you do, page after page, comment after comment, indicating you don’t get the irony of your position. And no, what I said is quite invaluable: prelest is a major concern, and it is quite evident here.

          • Christine Niles

            Prelest–defined as “illness of the soul in its personal relation to God, an illness that originates from vainglory, pride and demonic suggestion.”

            LOL

            Michael Voris is one of the few sane voices out there challenging the status quo.

            It’s the other way around, my friend.

          • HornOrSilk

            http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-is-spiritual-delusion

            Archpriest Basil Volskiy (village Polyarnye Zori, Murmansk region, Russia).

            – The signs that you start to fall into delusion are numerous. They include self-righteousness, a desire to have own way by all means, disobedience and self-conceit, unwillingness to listen and take advice from other people, neglect to the authorities, officials, dreaminess, tendency to visions, dreams, delight in own righteousness. A deluded person likes to take excessive feats upon himself, for example, he can read akathists and canons for several hours a day. Imitating the righteous people outwardly, he does not realize that they were strengthened by love, while he is driven by vainglory, by the desire to rise above the people. I remember how one grandmother in the cathedral told someone, “You should pray, but not overpray.” According to the remark of St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), enthusiasm for external deeds creates voluptuousness.

            We are all in delusion. Adam was contaminated by it when he accepted a lie for the truth, and since that time we cannot get rid of it, but there are extreme states. In the world it is not understood at all. For example, in the Soviet dictionary by Ozhegov, delusion (“prelest”) is a good word such as “beauty” – means attractiveness, while its original meaning is not even considered. In Dahl’s dictionary, the attitude to this word is more folk, the essence of “prelest” is revealed there – delusion, confusion, deception, temptation, seduction by the evil spirit. About a century separates the appearance of these two dictionaries but the difference is huge, the delusion, the lack of spiritual sobriety became something correct, up-to-date. In the Church, fortunately, there is at least an understanding that this is not the case. Another question is how to get rid of this disease. Here I am a bad adviser, a patient cannot help to a patient. A doctor is needed. And He comes, many times I have witnessed as the Lord helps, pulls people out of the deluded state.

            Neophytes are very prone to it. And I did not miss it, yet before ordination. Unfortunately, there were no people who would just tell me about it. But the Lord sent such grief that I was on the verge of death (I was dying, the blood pressure was 40×20) and through this I thought who I was, why would I have such a high opinion about myself. The Lord sent medicines, thank God! And He still sends, and when this will be over – I don’t know. But I will say that elderly people not less but more than neophytes are subjected to delusion. They no longer suffer from bodily passions and they take it for righteousness. They consider themselves to be very prayerful and good in fasting and it is especially difficult with those who have been in the Church for a long time and even spent the whole life at the Church. Here a person starts to think too much of himself. We should treat ourselves with caution.

            Hegumen John (Alexeev) – Valaam elder, who was the hegumen of our Tryphon-Pechenga Monastery for some time, said well about delusion. When he arrived there, he found a terrible scene: many monks suffered from severe conceit, thought themselves men of prayer and miracle workers. They believed they could walk on thin ice without falling under it, and many died at that. So Fr. John gave a very wise advice: “Do not trust yourself until you go to last home.” You cannot say better that that.

          • Ginnyfree

            Wow, I’m kinda stunned by the level of meanspiritedness with which they attack you young lady. You hang in there. Mary has her mantel over you. You go girl. Never give up. God bless. Ginnyfree.

      • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

        He’s not? Then why does he have FOUR EMMY AWARDS?

        • Layla

          Edie Falco has also won four Emmy Awards.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Pssst… cwbetts said Voris wasn’t a “journalist”, his FOUR EMMY AWARDS for his media work prove cwbetts wrong.
            The question wasn’t about “magisterial authority”. Voris is a Catholic, a well educated Catholic, and as such along with his extensive journalistic/media background he works to promote the Catholic faith and to expose the corruption inside the Church today. God has clearly given this man gifts and talents that he is putting to good work. God bless him! He’s doing a fine job.

            In Christ,

            Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

          • Layla

            Fair regarding the “journalist” point, which is why I edited before I saw your comment. Snark got the better of me. However, you say “fine job,” I say a scurrilous, harmful, and nasty one. Michael Voris has no interest in promoting the Catholic faith, only in promoting his personal brand of venom.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            I know from that statement that you have NEVER listened to a single Michael Voris Talk- these are not the Vortex shows, these are Talks promoting the Faith that he travels around the world teaching people and telling them not to leave the Church even in times of trouble and tribulation. He promotes the Faith better than most Catholics out there. Take a moment and listen to just ONE Talk Voris has done- they are on his website and Youtube.

            https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL91feG5gFxM84r9nKM_OrgPc8_LwjCIbT

            Once you’ve listened to one of those talks, then come back and tell me how “scurrilous, harmful and nasty” he is. Until then, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            In Christ,

            Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

          • Christine Niles

            Have you ever visited Church Militant’s website before making such uncharitable remarks?

            http://churchmilitant.com

            All our apostolate cares about is the salvation of souls. We work tirelessly and at great sacrifice to do this. I am truly sorry for your unkind words towards Michael & the rest of us at Church Militant.

          • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

            No. You and Voris tirelessly work to realize a ‘smaller, but purer’ Church.

            In the final analysis, you will be judged for the souls you’ve led to Christ versus those you’ve pushed from Christ.

            You are indeed a ‘so-called’ Catholic.

            Perhaps now you may understand your own words.

          • Christine Niles

            “You and Voris tirelessly work to realize a ‘smaller, but purer’ Church.”

            Are you channeling the spirit of Mark Shea?

            “You are indeed a ‘so-called’ Catholic.”

            God bless you, too.

          • Christine Niles

            Curious–why do you have an avatar of a Hindu god as your profile pic?

          • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

            It’s the Kinnari, and actually Thai, though with Hindu roots. It’s a celestial, mythological figure of the feminine form with attributes of beauty, poetry, and music.

            In my travels, I was often struck by the fervency of prayer of many Thai Buddhists and the influence of such figures that amplify their belief system and their will to do good.

            I chose this figure as an avatar for many reasons, though certainly not in spite of my Catholicism. In truth, I feel unworthy to depict any symbol or luminary within our Faith as an avatar.

            The Kinnari is no more a god for me than was my cocker spaniel, Oskie, that had been my avatar for Instagram.

          • garyo

            The problem in the church is there are sooo many people that are completely oblivious to what’s going on or simply don’t care. How is the priest scandal ever going to go away if we don’t wake up to the fact that the homosexual element in seminaries is still alive and well. Wishing it away or ignoring it isn’t going to solve the problem. There is so much dissent among the clergy an laity involving moral issues. You can see this so clearly and yet it seems no one cares. Thank you Michael for TRYING to wake us up. I’m afraid that it is way too late, though. Just look at Ireland for a preview of what’s coming. Michael genuinely cares and is sincere in his effort. I personally think VENOM is what’s needed.

        • KL

          I’ve seen this mentioned a lot, but I can’t actually find any reference to Voris’ Emmy awards except coming from Voris or his company. Could we be provided with some citation backing up the assertion? I performed a search on the official Emmy website’s archive ( http://www.emmys.com/awards/nominations/award-search ), which lists all nominees and winners going back to 1949, and looked for any mention of Voris’ name, but came up empty.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner
          • CS

            Ahem. That is a press release. By a media group probably in charge of promoting Voris. Not only that, but it asserts that Voris is an “Emmy-award-winning broadcaster”, but the *press release* does not mention what the Emmy was won for. This is not a citation. It is exactly what KL referred to: Voris’s camp saying it themselves, without backing it up.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            WHO CARES? This is ridiculous. You’re deliberately avoiding the actual topic. Answer this: Are you in favor of same sex marriage? Are you homosexual? Lesbian? “transgender.” Are you even Catholic? If so, are you fornicating? Shacking up? There is a huge sin in your life that is making you act like this on this thread.

          • CS

            Are you talking to me? If so — How ludicrous. I take issue with laughable citations. That does not justify a crazy inquisitor response.

          • Ginnyfree

            Yippie! Give the gal an EMMY! She noticed how all of the attention went from the obvious support lent to the homosexual agenda by the author of the above article to whether or not Michael Voris and Christina Niles are qualified to notice the foxes in the hen house! Geeze Loueeze! God bless. Ginnyfree,.

          • KL

            CS summed up all my thoughts in his/her reply. You’ve totally missed my point. What I’m asking for is some concrete data, not a press release written by/for Voris. 1) When were these Emmys won, and in what category? 2) Is there any record of these wins other than the say-so of Voris himself?

            Of course it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Even a bona-fide Emmy winner can be wrong about any number of things (that should be obvious). But I see this claim trotted out so often, with no citations whatsoever, that I can’t help but be curious about its provenance.

          • Christine Niles

            “But I see this claim trotted out so often, with no citations whatsoever, that I can’t help but be curious about its provenance.”

            I think this should be rephrased: “But I see this claim trotted out so often, with no citations whatsoever, that I can’t help but assume he’s lying.”

            That is, after all, the point of this repeated questioning, is it not? The uncharitable assumption on your part that Voris is lying?

            And what happens when we provide proof to you that he won these Emmies? Will you be satisfied? Or will you seek some other way to undermine his credibility in order to distract from the actual discussion here?

          • Guest

            I would absolutely be satisfied. But I’ve been looking out of curiosity for a good half hour now and the only documentation I’ve been able to find for the claim that Voris has won any Emmy awards, let alone four, is by Voris himself or derived from Voris’s CV. If you can in fact provide this proof, I beg you to do so.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner
          • KL

            Since you replied to two different comments of mine and I don’t wish to carry out to parallel conversation threads, I’ll respond to both comments here.

            1. There is no such thing as a “state Emmy.” There are regional chapters of the NATAS, which give out regional awards, but it is not accurate to call these “Emmys,” full stop, as that term refers (and is universally understood as such) to the awards distributed jointly by the national organizations of the NATAS, Television Academy, and IATAS at the annual Primetime Emmy Awards. Using that term to refer to regional awards is simply untrue and inaccurate. If Voris won awards from his regional chapter, the accurate way to refer to them would be the way that those regional chapters do, e.g. the “Michigan Emmy Award.” See, for reference, the manner in which the Michigan chapter of NATAS refers to their internal awards: http://natasmichigan.org/awards/emmy-awards/. To be accurate, Voris ought to refer to himself as a “Michigan Emmy-winning journalist” (or “Chicago/Midwest Emmy-winning journalist,” or whatever chapter it was awarded by), or perhaps “regional Emmy-winning journalist.”

            2. I don’t think there’s anything uncharitable about being suspicious of a repeated, unsubstantiated assertion, for which the only evidence is a single source — who himself benefits from that assertion. There’s no virtue involved in being gullible. That’s particularly the case when the contents of the assertion in question are a matter of public and very accessible record, but searching those records reveals no corroboration. And, if it’s true that the “Emmys” in question are actually regional chapter awards, as you state above, my suspicions were in fact accurate — because regional chapter Emmys are not the same as national Emmys and speaking of them in the same terms is in fact misleading, whether deliberate or not.

            3. The fact that, when I asked a simple, straightforward question that could be answered in a single sentence, you avoided it and refused to answer publicly — instead directing me to a private email exchange — is also odd and credibility-damaging. I wasn’t asking for documentation, or a picture of the statuettes, or anything that would be difficult to provide. Just the category of awards won, and when. No commentary needed. And I absolutely would have been satisfied with an actual answer. After all, this was an exceedingly easy inquiry to satisfy.

            I’ve taken no part in this larger discussion. I’ve expressed no judgment on Voris or Church Militant TV. I have no dog in this fight. As an external observer, I simply remarked upon something that struck me as odd and asked a straightforward question. In fact, this would have been a fantastic opportunity to make a convert! If you’d responded with an actual answer to my question, that would have been the end of it, Voris’s/CMTV’s reputation would be upheld, and an admirable character of transparency and honesty could have been established. Instead, you responded evasively and defensively, and I still don’t have a real answer. This does, in fact, undermine Voris’ credibility in my eyes (along with the misleading use of “Emmy” to refer to a NATAS regional chapter award) — not because of any preconceived notion, but due to your response.

            I will, however, email you and repeat my question. I genuinely do want to know.

          • Guest

            If you get an answer to your awards question, please share it here. I have the same questions.

          • KL

            I will! I just emailed the address provided and will update this thread to reflect any response (or lack thereof) I receive.

          • Christine Niles

            So, KL, the apostolate tells me they’ve e-mailed you answering your question.

            I thought you promised to update the thread here with our response.

            Will it be forthcoming?

          • KL

            Thank you, Christine, for drawing my attention to my email inbox. I’m in the Pacific time zone and as it’s Saturday, I have been spending a pleasant morning in the company of my spouse. This is the first time I’ve turned on an electronic device today.

            I do confirm that the apostolate sent me an email identical to the text you have included in several comments in this thread. I also acknowledge the thoroughness of the reply and the openness involved in sharing photographs of the awards. I’m sincerely grateful for the swift and comprehensive response, particularly outside of business hours (I was sincerely not expecting a reply until Monday, and would I not have faulted anyone had there been such a delay).

            I genuinely hope that the exchanges on this comment thread indicate to you the value of transparency. Many of us have our word questioned on many things, whether important or unimportant, and often for reasons or motivations that appear to us to be unfair. However, a direct and nonevasive response, which unequivocally demonstrates one’s truthfulness, is the most effective way to shut such questioning down immediately. Redirecting or casting aspersions on the questioner does nothing to establish credibility and instead intensifies suspicions. Fair or not, that’s human psychology. I hope that, if and when questions of this sort arise regarding Voris and his apostolate, the response is forthright and direct, as it has been this morning.

            You have clearly established that Voris was honored for his broadcast television work. However, I’m afraid I cannot let this piece go: It is still incorrect to refer to these awards as “Emmys.” They are clearly identified, on the statuettes and certificates, variously as “Detroit/MI Area Award,” “Michigan Area Award,” and “Michigan Television Academy Award.” The closest we get to “Emmy” is the one 1996 certificate, which is identified as a “Michigan EMMY Award” — and, for reasons that I’ve discussed at length, that’s not the same as what are referred to simply as “Emmy Awards.” Referring to Voris as “a four-time Emmy Award winner” is simply not true. Again, this is not a strike against him or his abilities as a journalist (those awards remain real honors); rather, it’s a matter of honesty and accuracy.

          • Christine Niles

            Pathetic.

            We offered you proof. Instead of apologizing for unjustly suspecting Michael, you excuse it away as “human psychology” (try that in the confesional next time you unjustly accuse someone of deception).

            Now you continue to claim he’s “dishonest” for failing to add a qualifier to the term Emmy.

            I will repeat what I said before:

            No one in the TV industry makes the distinctions you make. That’s because everyone in the TV industry understands that an Emmy is an Emmy is an Emmy, and the only reason one is designated regional vs. national is because of the geographical area in which the program is aired. It has nothing to do with the actual QUALITY or EXCELLENCE of the broadcast itself. All Emmys are awarded by the National Academy for Television Arts and Sciences and owned by them.

          • KL

            Hi Guest,

            As promised, I’m updating you! I received an email response to my inquiry which was identical to the detailed response Christine has posted elsewhere in this thread, including a link to a gallery of photos, which I note you have already seen.

            A gallery of photos is a welcome step in the right direction. However, they also support another one of my concerns, which is that a regional NATAS chapter award is not and cannot be identified in the same way as national Emmy Awards. Voris’s awards are clearly identified, on the statuettes and certificates, variously as “Detroit/MI Area Award,” “Michigan Area Award,” and “Michigan Television Academy Award.” The closest we get to “Emmy” is the one 1996 certificate, which is identified as a “Michigan EMMY Award.” But that’s still not a national Emmy, which is what is implied by the use of the unpredicated “Emmy” title in phrases like “Emmy Award-Winning Broadcaster Leads Catholic Media Company.”

            Two steps forward, one step back. Nevertheless, I feel this is a move in the right direction.

          • Christine Niles

            Nonsense, once again.

            No one in the TV industry makes the distinctions you make. That’s because everyone in the TV industry understands that an Emmy is an Emmy is an Emmy, and the only reason one is designated regional vs. national is because the program is aired either regionally or nationally. t has nothing to do with the actual QUALITY or EXCELLENCE of the broadcast itself. All Emmys are awarded by the National Academy for Television Arts and Sciences and owned by them.

            What a totally pointless distraction this all is.

          • Miguel Losada

            Your claim is utter nonsense. When a person claims to win an Emmy, the public assumes it is a national award.

          • Stephen Lowe

            the enlightened class has really shown their wisdom here…..attack anyone who may be interested if the church is providing seminarians in speedos for sexual predators. Or maybe even grooming predators to come to your parish to enlighten young boys. If this is happening there can be no other response that outrage.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Do you think that every single person who has SSA is a predator? Can you back that up with evidence?

          • Guest

            Thanks, KL. I appreciate your care in this matter.

          • asmondius

            Normally the case with an alter ego.

          • Miguel Losada

            I’d like to know if there were any competitors in the categories he won or if he won by default as the sole nominee. The fact that he doesn’t distinguish that the awards are local and not national is troubling. Rather deceitful. Misleading people by omitting all the facts.

          • asmondius

            Could it be that you have a romantic interest here?

          • Miguel Losada

            Romantic interest in whom? My statement is questioning the validity of Voris’s claim about his awards.

          • asmondius

            Why are you fixated on this person?

          • Miguel Losada

            I’m beginning to think you’re fixated on me…it’s a little creepy.

          • asmondius

            Answer the question.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Are you sexually attracted to Miguel Losada? You’re so fixated on him that I’m starting to wonder.

          • margaret1910

            For the love of God, just stop! How dare you accuse a fellow Catholic of same sex attraction? We do not know our brother’s sins, and it is not our way to conjecture? Please, just stop.

          • asmondius

            It was a question, not an accusation.

          • Ginnyfree

            The real question is this: is the little boy qualified to notice there are foxes in the hen house?

          • Christine Niles

            “I don’t think there’s anything uncharitable about being suspicious of a repeated, unsubstantiated assertion, for which the only evidence is a single source”

            I do–because you are assuming, without any evidence, that he’s lying. It’s guilty unless proven innocent. If you’re happy with that approach, that’s your choice. But it’s hardly charitable.

            And another possibility that you’ve failed to consider with regard to Michael’s repeated assertions that he’s won four Emmies: He repeats them because THEY’RE TRUE.

            How about that?

            And I’ll go one better: Not only has Michael won four Emmies for “Excellence in Broadcasting,” he’s been nominated 10 times for the same.

            “The fact that, when I asked a simple, straightforward question that could be answered in a single sentence, you avoided it and refused to answer publicly — instead directing me to a private email exchange — is also odd and credibility-damaging.”

            Nonsense. The only reason you see it as “odd and credibility-damaging” is because you have already presumed my guilt.

            I’ve been working for CM for a little over a year. I’ve never had any reason to question Michael’s credibility over his awards — or over anything, for that matter. His Emmys are sitting in his studio for all the world to see. You are even welcome to come visit our Detroit studios and see them for yourself, and perhaps even hold them in your doubting hands. You can see a photo of three of them here; the fourth is in his home:

            https://www.facebook.com/michael.voris.7/photos/pb.468639169885520.-2207520000.1437783549./665269983555770/?type=1&theater

            You can see the other photos in Voris’ studio on his Facebook page:

            https://www.facebook.com/michael.voris.7

            As to the specifics–dates, program names, etc.–I will query Voris and get those to you as soon as I hear from him.

            But let’s be honest: This post is about the archdiocese of Detroit and problems in its seminary. The conversation has turned now into past awards won by Michael Voris. It’s a red herring and a distraction from the real issue, which you seem to be avoiding.

            Oh, and as to your characterization of the regional Emmy awards, you’re wrong. An Emmy is an Emmy is an Emmy.

            There are state chapters of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences which hold their own Emmy award ceremonies for state broadcasts–and those awards are created, owned, and distributed by the NATAS. The only way to win a National Emmy is if your program is aired NATIONALLY. Thus the name “National.”

            That’s how it works. One is not less “legitimate” because it’s regional vs. national. The designation has nothing to do with legitimacy, but rather to do with where the program is broadcast.

            If anything’s clear to me here, it’s that NONE of Voris’ critics has any clue what he’s talking about, and they’re making themselves look awfully silly.

          • KL

            First: Thank you for sharing that picture. While those statuettes are not engraved and thus don’t themselves establish accuracy, it is the first piece of evidence supporting Voris’ claims that isn’t directly drawn from his written bio, so it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

            Now:

            1. No, again, it’s not uncharitable to find something odd about the claims involved. Not because they are repeated. As you note, of course they would be repeated if they were true. Rather, as I pointed out above, it’s the wider context that makes them inquiry-begging: the fact that, despite the repetition, no independent verification for the truth of the claims can be made.

            2. This issue is not a red herring or distraction. It’s relevant because Voris, Church Militant TV, and supporters on this thread (such as yourself and CT Catholic Corner) have made it relevant. When various commentators have claimed that Voris is not a journalist or lacks journalistic credibility, you and others have directly responded that his awards demonstrate that he is credible. “Emmy” is the first word in the title of the press release describing Voris’ establishment of a Catholic media company. He is leaning heavily upon the “four Emmy Awards” narrative in order to bolster his reputation and credibility. All well and good; such awards are certainly an accomplishment. However, since they were awarded twenty years ago, are regional rather than national, and after all are awarded by a thoroughly (one might say aggressively) secular organization, they provide perhaps less support to Voris’ claims than might be hoped.

            3. Sorry, you are wrong, which even a swift perusal of the official NATAS websites will confirm. Again, there are no “state chapters” of NATAS, though there are regional ones (which often bear the names of states — I suspect this is the root of your confusion). I explicitly noted that above. I also didn’t imply that they are less legitimate than the national Emmys; rather, I pointed out that they are different things, and equivocation between them is misleading. The awards distributed by the regional chapters are local and are distinct from the awards distributed by the national organizations. It is inaccurate to call an award given by the Michigan NATAS in recognition of local broadcast news work an “Emmy” without further predication. That title is reserved for national awards and is universally understood by NATAS and the public to refer to the national awards. The correct and accurate term would be “regional Emmy” or “Michigan Emmy.” In the same way, it would be inaccurate to refer to an auxiliary bishop of XYZ diocese as “the bishop of XYZ diocese.” Despite sharing part of the same title, omitting the modifying adjective results in a false description. The same is true of the distinction between “Emmy” and “Michigan/Suncoast/Northwest Emmy.”

          • Christine Niles

            “no independent verification for the truth of the claims can be made.”

            That’s because no one has ever asked–nor has anyone ever had any reason to ask–until now, I guess.

            Again, your description of the state chapters is inaccurate and shows lack of knowledge.

            It’s not called the NATAS regional chapter. It’s called the NATAS MICHIGAN chapter.

            Last I checked, that’s a state.

            In any case, state vs. regional is irrelevant.

            He won the awards. We’ll be happy to supply more photos. We even invite you to come to the studio to hold them and peruse them for yourself.

            And once you do so, you are free to issue a public apology for trying to undermine a good man’s credibility.

            And yes, it absolutely IS a red herring and a distraction. Not once in this entire thread have you uttered a single word of concern over what’s going on at the Detroit seminary–which is the main point of this entire post.

            Instead, you’ve focused your sights on attacking Voris.

            There are bigger problems in the Church than Michael Voris. But judging from comments here, you’d hardly know that. You’d think by these posts & comments that Voris is public enemy #1, while everything in seminary life & the priesthood is hunky dory, all roses, spotless, etc. Nope–no homosexual problems in seminary life or the priesthood. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

          • CS

            Ms Niles said somewhere else that they could show you pictures of his Emmys. That is supposedly a citation.

            Anyway, if he won Emmys they were for television producing. That doesn’t automatically qualify him as a journalist. Even so, the internet age has meant that anybody with a camera who tells stories about current events can call himself a journalist. This story is a perfect example of how little that even means. It’s scandalous gossip, with no effort to get at the truth, and I am praying that Voris doesn’t end up with the millstone around his neck.

          • Christine Niles

            They are state Emmy awards. Please write us at questions@churchmilitant.com and we’ll gladly provide the info.

            In any case, Voris’ awards are irrelevant to the wider question of what’s going on in the Detroit seminary. It’s a distraction from the larger point here.

          • Re Ja

            They are very relevant to YOUR credibility now. I can tell you have something to hide. Sad.

          • Christine Niles

            Huh? I have nothing to hide.

            What is it with all the insinuations here?

          • Re Ja

            Now I will point out your intellectual dishonesty as well. You reflect poorly on Michael Voris too since you are apparently his employee speaking in that capacity here.

          • Christine Niles

            Yes–and? How does that indicate intellectual dishonesty? I’ve never hidden the fact that I work for Voris. Most people know my name & face, as it’s aired on our station almost every day. So? How does that bar me from defending Voris from false accusations? Voris happens to be a friend, too, and it sickens me whenever I see unjust accusations leveled against him by people who would rather shoot the messenger than deal with the message–which is exactly what you’re doing here, Re Ja (is that even your real name?).

          • Re Ja

            Produce the information others requested on the ‘Emmys”. List out the details right here in the combox and you can redeem yourself from all my accusations.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            No one is required to produce anything for you, “Re Ja.” The only “redeemer” anyone needs is Jesus Christ. You’re just trolling, looking for a fight. I’d be willing to bet you have not seen Michael’s videos about this topic.

          • Christine Niles

            “Redeem” myself? I have nothing to be redeemed of; I have always spoken the truth. It is you who have unjustly presumed my & Voris’ guilt. It is you who have unjustly accused us. It is you who need to redeem yourself by apologizing once we’ve provided the proof.

            And what is your real name, anyway? Who are you? Or do you lack the courage to reveal yourself? Is it your habit to accuse others under the shadow of anonymity?

            Here’s the e-mail sent by the apostolate in response to someone’s queries on this matter:

            “In answer to your question, we’re directing you to 16 photos of awards won by Michael Voris, taken at the studio as well as at his home.

            They consist of Michael Voris’ Emmy awards, his 10 additional Emmy nominations, as well as his four Associated Press awards, and his Detroit Press Club Foundation award, won for excellence in journalism, investigative, producing and writing.

            Only three Emmy awards are shown because the fourth one broke off its pedestal years ago and Voris didn’t want to pay the $200 to replace it. But that one was won in 1995 for a crime series he produced. The plaque for the 1997 Emmy for his productionn Lawyers on Trial fell off, which is why it isn’t shown in the photos.

            All of his Emmies were won for Excellence in Broadcasting for pieces he produced:

            1991 Toxics Around Us

            1993 A Second Life

            1995 crime series

            1997 Lawyers on Trial

            Sorry we can’t direct you to any archives online. These were won during his time at WJBK-Channel 2, Detroit. We can make a call into the station to see if they have archives of their previous anchors’ awards. We can also make a call into the NATAS Michigan Chapter to request a link where we can find an archived list of previous award winners.

            https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1ANfLbw6L12MzduZVFKTzVrU3c&usp=sharing

            Please let us know if you have any further questions.

            Best wishes.”

          • PGMGN

            Secular awards still don’t supply for why you feel slighted and sickened by those who ‘falsely’ accuse your boss while you gleefully support falsely castigating others and insinuating all manner of grave mortal sin by branding them with names you have no authority to use.

          • Cassandra

            You don’t think it’s disingenuous to advertise them as Emmy awards on Church Militant without noting that they’re only state awards instead of national awards? Pumping the resume, much?

            Rather like claiming a Baccalaureate is “an ecclesiastical post-graduate degree”.

            Why not just be honest right up front about it?

          • asmondius

            Niles is not your Mommy – stomp your feet and take your irrelevant, puerile demands elsewhere.

          • Stephen Lowe

            Wow not only is this ugly and petty….it is extremely low minded and barren of any christian charity. This is the fruit of modernism. Welcome to the new age, kinda similar to the Enlightenment where guillotines were used to such a large degree.

          • Blue World

            Hey Clown Re Ja (is that a CLOWN AVATAR?), redeem yourself with an apology to Ms. Niles, she gave the info you requested! Ms. Niles is nice, but I am not so I will call you a CLOWN for the third time!

            All of his Emmies were won for Excellence in Broadcasting for pieces he produced:

            1991 Toxics Around Us

            1993 A Second Life

            1995 crime series

            1997 Lawyers on Trial

            “Sorry we can’t direct you to any archives online. These were won during his time at WJBK-Channel 2, Detroit. We can make a call into the station to see if they have archives of their previous anchors’ awards. We can also make a call into the NATAS Michigan Chapter to request a link where we can find an archived list of previous award winners.” – Christine Niles

            https://drive.google.com/folde

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Re Ja:

            You posted in part: “You reflect poorly on Michael Voris too since you are apparently his employee speaking in that capacity here.”

            And the author of this article is another professional Catholic. She makes her living in part off the Church. She is a fund raiser for the AOD. Her husband is employed by AOD.

            And Mr. Russell another Voris critic is also a professional Catholic. He too works full time for the Church.

            And you. Are you yet another professional Catholic? Is that why you post anonymously?

            You cannot witness to Christ from the Shadows.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            Which, I suppose, makes you an “UN-professional” Catholic?? I suppose I could accept that logic…. :-)

            Btw, I’m not a “Voris critic” and will *not* turn this into a debate over the man himself. Who cares whether it’s a guy named Voris making these insinuations or a guy named “Hubris”? Who cares? Stick to the substance and debate what’s being *said* regardless of who is saying it.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “I suppose, makes you an “UN-professional” Catholic??”

            And I think God that I am not another professional Catholic defending the evil of sexually perverse men in Catholic seminaries.

            and in part:

            “Who cares? Stick to the substance and debate what’s being *said* regardless of who is saying it.”

            I have not defended Mr. Voris. Instead I am attacking you, Mean Lizzie and Ms. Schiffer, professional Catholics all, who have shifted attention away from the evil of sexually perverse men being recruited into Catholic Seminaries again, to Mr. Voris.

            No more predatory priests. NEVER AGAIN. BE a man. Face the evil. Do not deny it.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Do you think that same-sex attraction = predator?

          • Richard W Comerford

            M. JoAnna Wahlund:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted:
            “Do you think that same-sex attraction = predator?”

            I have no idea what the bureaucrats mean by SSA or even gay. These are artificial constructs which divert our attention from sin, our upcoming deaths and eternity.

            However if I am tempted to rob banks it would be most imprudent to either offer me a job in a bank or for I to accept said job.

            In light of our Bishops allowing men into seminary who are tempted to lie with other men; and do so for over 50-years with incredibly disastrous consequences, one would think our Bishops would act with the greatest prudence on this matter.

            They are not and the paid professional Catholics, not surprisingly, rush to the Bishops’ defense.

            Saint Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) wrote:

            No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God.… Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys
            elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest, makes the person slothful, irascible, obstinate and obdurate, servile and soft and incapable of anything; furthermore, agitated by an insatiable craving for pleasure, the person
            follows not reason but frenzy.… They become blind and, when their thoughts should soar to high and great things, they are broken down and reduced to vile and useless and putrid things, which could never make
            them happy…. Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others. He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is “the greatest sin.”

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            If you do not know how the Church defines SSA, perhaps you should study up on that before making assertions.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply wherein you posted: “If you do not know how the Church defines SSA, perhaps you should study up on that before making assertions.”

            Are you claiming that the American Catholic Bishops did NOT enable gay predators to savage innocents for half a century- and then lie about their actions? I think the case history in Caesar’s courts would prove otherwise.

            Are you claiming that there is no difference between definition and meaning? Please note that I used the word “Mean” in my post and I did so for a reason.

            Do the Bishops MEAN that gay seminarians will sit down with gay shrinks and decide that the gay seminarians have no deeply rooted perversions and so can be ordained?

            That would please Caesar and in these days Caesar pays the Bishops’ bills.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            What I object to is your assertion that every single person who is SSA = a predator. What evidence do you have of this?

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply wherein you posted: “What I object to is your assertion that every single person who is SSA = a predator.”

            And where did I make THAT assertion?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Here:

            “I have not defended Mr. Voris. Instead I am attacking you, Mean Lizzie and Ms. Schiffer, professional Catholics all, who have shifted attention away from the evil of sexually perverse men being recruited into Catholic Seminaries again, to Mr. Voris.

            No more predatory priests. NEVER AGAIN. BE a man. Face the evil. Do not deny it.”

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply.

            Why would YOU think that a sexually perverse man is necessarily a predator. For a man to long to lie with another man, even if he does not succumb to the temptation, is a perverse and unnatural lust. It is a psychological illness. Why do the Bishops still insist, after all the damage to innocents by gay predators over 50-years,, on recruiting men who are psychologically ill into their seminaries?

            IIRC the CDC estimated that 2% of the population is gay. Yet 81% of the abuse cases that reached Caesar;s courts were gay priests, seminarians and deacons.

            If the Bishops stop recruiting effeminate men then the abuse rate falls by at least 81% – quite possibly more. The sympathy and caution should be with the innocent victims – not glamorized, politically correct effeminate men.

            NEVER AGAIN.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Um… I don’t think that a person with SSA is automatically a predator. That is your view and I’m asking you to back it up with evidence.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:

            Thank you for your reply:

            You posted in part: :
            “I don’t think that a person with SSA is automatically a predator.”

            Good. I am glad to hear that.

            and in part:

            “That is your view”

            No. It is not. Although I do not know what you mean by the term SSA.

            and in part:

            “I’m asking you to back it up with evidence.”

            Why? I do not know what you, the Bishops and the professional Catholics mean by SS?. It is a made up, nonsensical term. And of course I do not know why there is no concern on the bureaucracy’s part on protecting innocents from homosexual predators?

            Indeed the bureaucrats appeared obsessed with protecting rite of sodomy in the Catholic Church.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            “SSA” = same-sex attracted, those who have a sexual attraction to people of the same sex. Is this difficult for you to understand?

            I absolutely agree that children should be protected from predators in any context. However, you seem to be saying that anyone who has SSA (such as some young men in seminary) are predators. So I’m asking why you believe this (i.e., what evidence you have for it).

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:

            Thank you for your reply:

            You posted in part:””SSA” = same-sex attracted, those who have a sexual attraction to people of the same sex. Is this difficult for you to understand?

            Yes. Because it contradicts the catechism (2357)

            “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or
            between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

            The key word is “relations”

            and in part:

            “However, you seem to be saying that anyone who has SSA (such as some young men in seminary) are predators.”

            No. I am not. Men who are tempted to have sexual relations with other men have an objectively disordered, unnatural, abnormal, perverse inclination.

            Such men are now apparently enrolled in AOD Sacred Heart Seminary. Such men in the past were happily ordained by the AOD Archbishop and an unknown percentage gave in to temptation and went on to savage innocents.

            NEVER AGAIN will I trust a Catholic Bishop or priest with my family.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I don’t see a conflict in the two definitions. Some SSA-people act on their desires. Some do not. Those that have the temptation but do not act on it have a disordered inclination, but they are not sinning. Those who act on it are sinning.

            Do you think all people with SSA have the desire to “savage innocents”?

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:

            Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part:” I don’t see a conflict in the two definitions” The catechism includes the word “relations”. Your definition does not. Relations can mean physical or emotional. If a man does not have relations with another man, whether they be physical or emotional, then how can he be a homosexual. You are making a problem where none should exist.

            and in part:

            “Some SSA-people act on their desires. Some do not.”

            No you are quite wrong. Temptations can be fleeting. We cannot control temptations. If I am tempted to rob a bank that does not make me a bank robber. You are creating a problem where none exists.

            and in part

            “Those that have the temptation but do not act on it have a disordered inclination, but they are not sinning.”

            No you are quite, quite wrong again. Mere temptation does not mean a disordered inclination.

            and

            “Those who act on it are sinning.”

            Objectively speaking yes. These days with the glorification of sodomy and the refusal of priests and Bishops to preach on this matter subjective guilt is IMO questionalble and, as always best left between the soul and God.and

            “Do you think all people with SSA have the desire to “savage innocents”?”

            There is no such thing as “SSA people” There are only homosexuals who have relationships either physical and emotional. And indeed these relationships savage, if you will, the human dignity of all parties.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I’m confused, Richard. Sin is a disordered inclination. Are you denying the existence of sin? Are you denying that concupiscence exists?

            SSA is similar to alcholism. The desire to drink (the disordered inclination) may always be there for an alcoholic even if he or she never acts on it. Same with SSA.

          • Richard W Comerford

            t

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part:” Sin is a disordered inclination”

            CCC:

            “1849
            Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures
            human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

            and

            “Are you denying that concupiscence exists?”

            CCC:

            405: ” but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”

            Sin and concupiscence are two different things. Sin is a voluntary act of our will. Concupiscence is a weakness due to our fallen nature.

            and

            “SSA is similar to alcholism.”

            No. The Catholic Church does not use the phrase “SSA” to this matter.. Ifs corrupt bureaucrats certainly do. But not the Church itself. The Church uses the word ‘homosexuality:

            (2357):”Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”

            Again the key he key word is “relations” meaning a free act of the will – sodomy, gay pron, romance, effeminate behavior.

            Mere temptation does not a homosexual make.

            The Saints tell us that the Devil sends us temptations to include temptations we do not desire.

            You are creating a problem where none exists

            God Bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund
          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part:” Homosexual tendencies = SSA”

            Did you actually read the document? Did the document say that “Homosexual tendencies = SSA” Did the phrase ‘SSA’ even appear in the document? Or the phrase ‘same sex attraction” even appear in the document.

            You are creating problems that do not exist. Like the scribes and pharisees you are burdening us with useless rules and regulations.

            You are obsessed with SSA. What should bother you and every other Catholic is that during the 50 plus years gay priest scandal 9 out of 10 Catholics left the faith. And that exodus is not slowing down. Rather it is increasing.

            What we need now are masculine, virile candidates for the priesthood not effeminate men who cannot decide whether they are a boy or a girl.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Richard, please cite Church teaching stating that SSA =/= homosexual tendencies. Thanks.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part:” cite Church teaching stating that SSA =/= homosexual tendencies.”

            Cite a Church document that states that “SSA” even exists.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I already did.

            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

            What do you think “homosexual tendencies” are? They can’t be “homosexual acts” because “act” is not a synonym for “tendency.” See this portion of the document where the Church makes a disctinction:

            “From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

            Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

            Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].”

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part;

            “What do you think “homosexual tendencies” are?

            It is not what I think homosexual tendencies are; but what the Church thinks homosexual tendencies are. And the Church does not use the letters “SSI”.

            Church bureaucrats use the letters “SSI”. The same church bureaucrat who unleashed a half-century plague of predatory gay priests. seminarians and deacons on us – straight from their seminaries.

            You are playing at Scribe and Pharisees again. You are trying to impose new rules and regulations on us that neither Christ nor his Church want imposed.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            By “SSI” do you mean “SSA”?

            What does it matter if people use the phrase “homosexual tendencies” or “SSA” if they mean the exact same thing?

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part; “What does it matter if people use the phrase “homosexual tendencies” or “SSA” if they mean the exact same thing?”

            They do not mean the same thing.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            What evidence do you have that they do not mean the same thing?

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part; “What evidence do you have that they do not mean the same thing?”

            You. Did you not post that SSA is the same thing as alcoholism? Does the Church teach that? Has not the Church in a document you cited carefully defined homosexuality?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Richard, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I am your evidence that they don’t mean the same thing? They do mean the same thing, that’s what I’m saying.

            I also never said that SSA is the same thing as alcoholism. I said that they were both disordered inclinations.

            And yes, the Church defines homosexuality, and makes a careful distinction between homosexual acts (also called sodomy) and homosexual tendencies (also called SSA).

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You posted in part:

            “I am your evidence that they don’t mean the same thing?”

            Yes.

            and in part:

            “They do mean the same thing, that’s what I’m saying.”

            Exactly. What YOU are saying. YOU are not the Church.

            and in part:

            “I also never said that SSA is the same thing as alcoholism. I said that they were both disordered inclinations.”

            Again. This is what YOU say. Not what the Church teaches.

            and in part:

            “and makes a careful distinction between homosexual acts (also called sodomy) and homosexual tendencies (also called SSA).”

            No. It does not. It does not call homosexual tendencies SSA.

            You and the church bureaucrats are simply playing scribe and pharisee. You are making up rules, regulations and definitions which impose another burden upon the laity – what very few there are left of us.

            This game of semantics was done for half a century to provide cover for predatory gay priests, seminarians and deacons; and it destroyed the Church in America.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Okay, then please show me explicit church teaching which says that “homosexual tendencies may not be called same-sex attraction.”

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply:. You , claim it menas te hsame posted in part:

            “then please show me explicit church teaching which says that “homosexual tendencies may not be called same-sex attraction.”

            And that is exactly why the pews are empty; that is in the few parish churches that remain open.

            The universal church uses the term homosexuality and carefully defines it. You and the American Church bureaucrats use the term same-sex attraction, do not define it; and then go on to ignore the evil that is sodomy and has led to the destruction of so many innocents.

            When was the last time that your bishop or pastor preached upon the evil of homosexual acts? Probably never. Yet those same bishops and pastors babble on endlessly about SSA. They use SSA as an excuse to place homosexual men who support the gay culture in seminaries, parishes, schools and religious houses. They have effectively destroyed teh Church in America.

            I cannot bring the Faith back to the American Catholic Church; but NEVER AGAIN will I entrust my family to you or teh American Church bureaucrats – now paid by Caesar.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            In other words, no, you can’t.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply: You posted:

            “In other words, no, you can’t.”

            No. It means that you and Bill “my rank is Deacon” Russell have made up a new religious doctrine and are trying to impose it on the faithful. by bullying anyone who does not bow down and worship.

            However neither you nor Bill “my rank is Deacon” Russell have any teaching authority. Making up new religious doctrine worked 50-years ago when the faithful unwisely trusted their bishops, priests and professional Catholics

            But after a half century of predatory homosexual priests, seminarians and deacons produced by seminaries like Sacred Heart it simply will not wash..with the relative handful of faithful that are left. .

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Deacon is not a rank, Richard. Jim Russell is an ordained deacon. Do you need evidence?
            You are not a teaching authority, either. I am asking you to show me teaching from the church – who is the authority – to back up your claims. You cannot.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply: You posted:

            “Deacon is not a rank, Richard. Jim Russell is an ordained deacon. Do you need evidence?”

            Bill “my rank is deacon” Russell informed me that his “rank” was deacon. See this thread. I am just being a good peasant and acknowledging the rank of my Church overlords. I note however he does not identify himself as a deacon until he tries to intimidate someone.

            and

            “You are not a teaching authority, either”

            I did not claim to be. And, unlike yourself and Bill “my rank is deacon, Russell I am not putting forth new teachings like your SSA thing.

            and

            “I am asking you to show me teaching from the church

            I am quoting from the document you first linked to: Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
            with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
            in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

            .and

            “You cannot”

            Oh yes I can. Just did. And you might wish to look at the Catechism on this matter. The Church does not teach us regarding your SSA thing but it teaches us regarding homosexuality..

            As I said 50-years ago you and Bill “my rank is deacon” Russell might have bullied me into accepting your most un-Caholic teaching regarding this SSA thing. But after 50-years of our seminaries producing homosexual predators prudence demands that I trust you no longer.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I’ve already provided evidence. I can’t help it if you refuse to acknowledge it.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply: You posted:

            “I’ve already provided evidence.”

            No you have not. The Church does not teach nor does it define this SSA thing. That is a doctrine belonging to you and Bill “my rank is deacon, Russell.

            The faithful, what very few of us are left. are not only at liberty to ignore your doctrine but are obliged to ignore it.

            “I can’t help it if you refuse to acknowledge it.”

            I cannot even if I wanted to (and I certainly do not) acknowledge your personal religious doctrine.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Yes I have, Richard. It’s in the Catechism.

            2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

            sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex = same sex attraction.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply: You posted::

            “sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex = same sex attraction.”

            You make my point.

            Rome uses the word “homosexuality” followed by the words “exclusive” and “predominant” because mere temptation does not a homosexual make.

            Homosexuality does not mean same sex attraction.

            You and Bill “my rank is deacon, Russell are imposing additional burdens on the faithful. As did the scribes and Pharisees of the time of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

            A man in seminary may well be sexually attracted to another seminary but if said attraction is neither exclusive or predominant he is NOT a homosexual. He may, under certain conditions, continue in seminary – although I would not trust you or Bill “my rank is deacon, Russell or most of our Bishops to make that decision.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            You’re misinterpreting the catechism, Richard. It makes the distinction (as does the document I posted earlier) between homosexual “attraction” and homosexual acts (“relations”).

            2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

            sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex = same sex attraction.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:Thank you for your reply: You posted:

            “You’re misinterpreting the catechism, Richard.”

            No. I am not.

            “It makes the distinction (as does the document I posted earlier) betweenhomosexual “attraction” and homosexual acts (“relations”)”

            And? So what?

            “sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex = same sex attraction.”

            No. You are preaching your own religion again. That is NOT what the Church teaches. The church defines homosexuality. It does not define so called SSA.The Church teaches that being attracted to the same sex is not necessarily homosexuality.

            You are trying to burden us with your own rules and regulations as did the scribes and pharisees.

            Let me say this again a man may have a temptation to lie with another man; but that does not necessarily make him a homosexual nor bar him from seminary.

            NEVER AGAIN will I entrust my family to you people.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Ginnyfree

            Darling, he already quoted the Catechism. If you don’t already acknowledge it, that IS official Church teaching and it substantiates his assertions well. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Why are you addressing me as “darling”? That’s rather creepy.

            Um, *I* quoted the Catechism to show that *my* assertions were, in fact, substantiated. He did not.

          • Ginnyfree

            Gee, I guess that means you think I’m creepy. So be it! I’ve been called worse. I think a few folks in this discussion are actually gay supporters and they tend towards vicious remarks such as false accusations of creep towards those they disagree with. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I said that your actions were creepy, not you personally.

            I think that people who feel the need to lie to justify their positions fixate on insignificant details when their lies are exposed.

          • Ginnyfree

            Do you really expect to be corrected in such a matter officially? That is like saying I’ll fly in the car after you prove the wheels are really square! Nonsense. We don’t have to prove a thing to you. You are the one attempting to force normalization of deviant behaviors and all its rhetoric us.

          • Ginnyfree

            Jo Anna. Richard is right. You’re the one placing your terminology in the documents of the Vatican. You are the one claiming they mean SSA when they clearly don’t say that. Interpreting the documents for us is not going to work. Everyone here can actually read. Ginny free.

          • Ginnyfree

            Common sense silly girl. Natural law. Opposites attract. Magnetism.

          • Ginnyfree

            JoAnna, your link to the Vatican documents is nice and helpful but it fails to call homosexual acts or tendencies as you wish, namely “same sex attraction.” This is for good reason too. It presupposes and presumes that all persons are all attracted in some sexual way to others, and guess what? Some folks never are attracted to anyone and are 100% normal well adjusted folks. We call them Virgins and they do have a Holy Crown in Heaven awaiting them. Ever meet one? I have. Jesus was one. So was His Mother. Got a problem with that? God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Okay, I will again ask you what I asked Richard. Please provide me teaching from the Church that states it is wrong for Catholics to use “same-sex attraction” as a synonym for “homosexual tendencies” or “an attraction to the same sex.”

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            “It presupposes and presumes that all persons are all attracted in some sexual way to others”

            How, exactly, does it do that?

            Also, because someone is a virgin doesn’t mean they are never attracted. It means they do not act on their attractions. I was a virgin until my marriage and I can assure you that I was attracted to my husband prior to our marriage.

          • Ginnyfree

            Wrong. The “acting on it” is the last sin they commit. Lust begins in the heart and mind. The body does what the heart and mind direct. Sin begins in the mind. They can be full of filth yet never lay a hand on another person their entire lives long. They are still in a state of mortal sin. Jesus said a man who merely looks on another’s wife has already committed adultery in his heart. Wise up. Thinking about it can be just as sinful as actually doing it. A well-tamed pit bull is still a threat to others. You would like a pit bull holding his own leash, saying “I won’t bite anyone one. Let me watch your children. You can trust me.” Yeah. Howze that for an analogy Jo Anna? God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Attraction is not lust. If it was, then every single married heterosexual person would be committing sin every time they felt attraction toward their spouse.

            Attraction can LEAD to lust if it is obsessed over, but they are not synonyms.

            Richard has not been able to provide evidence, so maybe you can. What is your evidence for your assertion that every single person with SSA is a predator?

          • Ginnyfree

            JoAnna, I don’t need to prove to you anything so there is no need for me to produce evidence. You are the one who needs to support you assertions with accurate documentation. You tried a red herring, but it failed you. You tried claiming the Vatican itself used the term SSA in its document thinking we would actually read it. You created a synonymous comparison where there is none. It don’t work so well do it? God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Dave

            JoAnna, I will ratify, notorize and dignify that there is no explicit Church teaching that says that “homosexual tendencies may not be called same sex attractions.” There, the case is closed. Peace !! Dave Snyder

          • Ginnyfree

            PS. what divine powers do you have that make you capable of reading the hearts of men and women to see if they are only attracted and not lusting? How is it you can tell the difference? Are you an expert in this particular field of discerning men’s hearts? Yes, dear. Attraction can be lustful that is exactly what Jesus meant when He said it. If you are wondering where the line is, you’ve probably already crossed it. Only persons who are planning on marrying have any business at all in allowing themselves to feel attracted to anyone at all. That is how we live chastity in our Christian lives. You should know this. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Ginnyfree

            They ARE predators. I’ll say it. It is true. God thinks the sin of Sodom is an abomination. Those who attempt to normalize this behavior can only speak of and to others who would defy God on this matter. Natural law also supports this and in nature, homosexual acts get punished swiftly and definitively always. Mules kick for a reason. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Ginnyfree

            JoAnna, have you ever listened to one person who carries the pain of sexual predation? Have you every sat and listened to them tell you face to face what someone else’s sexual thrill seeking cost them? One soul lost is a cost too high for anyone who claims to be speaking for Christ. The ball you want bounced is too perverse. You actually want a head count on how low does it go before it is considered predatory sex! Find Sodom on a map. That will tell you what God really thinks of these predatory practices. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Neko

            Of course you are right, and the consensus of psychiatric professionals is that there is no connection between SSA and pederasty.

          • Blue World

            Here you go my dear,

            Read the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice Report. AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

            According to the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice:

            80% of the sexual abuses were same-sex sexual abuses upon young men (ages 13-18) in the 1950’s -1980’s.

            THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT COURTESY OF BLUE WORLD!

          • Blue World

            YOU BET!

            Read the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice Report. AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

            According to the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice:

            “Overall, 81% of victims were male [Same-Sex sexual abuses] and 19% female.”
            From the 1950’s – 2002 Report.

            Here is the PDF file baby (download and study it baby):

            http://www.usccb.org/issues-an

            THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT COURTESY OF BLUE WORLD!

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            That doesn’t prove that every single person in the world with SSA is also a predator.

          • Blue World

            No….but they got INTENSE Mental disorder issues so they should not be around kids and young people.

            Check out more Statistics because the CDC ain’t gonna lie to you sister!

            Here JoAnna my dear more fun statistics Just for you:

            FROM THE CENTERS FOR DISEASES CONTROL AND PREVENTION:

            “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.” – http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

            “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.” – http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            What about those with SSA who are celibate?

          • Blue World

            Great for them, but they still need help AND SHOULD NOT BE IN THE PRIESTHOOD!
            The Statistics are REVEALING isn’t it?

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Okay then.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:

            You posted in part:
            “That doesn’t prove that every single person in the world with SSA is also a predator.”

            Again Rome does not use the term “SSA”. It uses the term homosexual of which it states in the “Instruction” on this matter:

            ‘Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them asgrave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.’

            The American Catholic bishops recruited predatory homosexuals into their seminaries for half a century. The Bishops, successors to the Apostles< then allowed and empowered said homosexual predators to prey on the laity – effectively driving the laity out of the church except for a relative few.

            One would think that after shattering the faith of millions and paying out @ $1 billion the Bishops would go out of their way to recruit virtuous and virile masculine men into their seminaries.

            But we now find out they are still recruiting effeminate men.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Actually you’re wrong. As I already posted, the Church distinguishes between “homosexual tendencies” (SSA) and “homosexual acts.” The Church does not teach that every single person with homosexual tendencies is therefore a predator.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. JoAnna Wahlund:

            you posted in part:

            “Actually you’re wrong”.

            I am often wrong but not on this matter.

            and:

            “As I already posted, the Church distinguishes between “homosexual tendencies” (SSA) and “homosexual acts.”

            No. Not quite. In the “Instructions” the Church describes:

            1. “Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered”

            2. “the Church…cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise
            homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the
            so-called “gay culture”

            3.” Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with
            homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory
            problem…Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate”

            You insist on using language different from Rome which is imprecise and open to exploitation by our corrupt bishops.

            and

            “The Church does not teach that every single person with homosexual tendencies is therefore a predator.”

            The Church does not teach that ANYONE is a predator. You and Bill “my rank is deacon” Russell insist on using language different than Rome. After 50-years of homosexual clergy preying on innocents one would think that professional Catholics would be more careful.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford.

          • Vinson Parkhill

            Yes, and not all Moslems are terrorists.

          • Neko

            You read it, “baby.” The John Jay Report explicitly denies the connection between SSA and pederasty.

          • Ginnyfree

            Hello Jim. And what is being said? The author of the above article thinks Mr. Voris naive for thinking there aren’t any men in the seminary who aren’t tempted to homosexuality at some point in their lives. That means she thinks all men, including you Jim, at some point get tempted to this sin! Hello? Is that reality or only her reality? That is what she said and she cannot get that bell un-rung. She’s also clearly gay-friendly and has probably quite a few “charitable” ways of expressing this viewpoint all ready to be unpacked. Just ask her or give her the venue. It is that obvious. That IS what is being said by the author. God bless. Ginnyfree

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            They’re just harassing you, Christine and trying to upset you. I wouldn’t respond to ad hominem attacks.

          • Anna Maria

            Maybe we caught insinuationitis from watching too many Michael Voris vids, haha.

          • PGMGN

            What it is, Ms. Niles, is that you regularly engage in defaming without phone calling on your own show, you blackball discussion, and then you go all mother-lion and brag about Emmies because someone called your boss a blogger.

            You may want to ‘think’ of what you do to others when you call their life’s work schism and/or ascribe good will as belonging solely to yourselves while laying scurrilous intent at the feet of those who were there reporting long before you even heard of Michael Voris.

            You may not think you have anything to hide, but you are most assuredly hiding out from your own lack of journalistic integrity and Christian charity. That’s why folks are beginning to wonder what the heck is going on. A peppy, stay tuned for our response just doesn’t cut it.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            You’re just trolling and harrassing Christine Niles over little crap that has nothing to do with the topic. I’ve seen both of Michael’s videos about this topic, and I agree with his point of view. the professor who issued the long memo to the students about wearing bathrobes is concerned about the guys with homosexual tendencies and is advocating for charity for THEM, rather than telling the SSA seminarians to leave the seminary because their SSA attraction is going to interfere with their studies, will interfere with them becoming good priests AND…most importantly…SSA men are not supposed to be accepted into the seminary to begin with. (The professor had gotten some complaints from SSA men, which is why the original memo came out.) Instead of men being asked to wear bathrobes because they’re objects of lust for other men, they ought to send the other men packing.

          • Miguel Losada

            Christine Niles has an established history of trolling blogs and social media sites and harassing anyone who doesn’t sing praises for Voris. She appears to have an unhealthy attachment to him that prevents her from viewing him objectively. She reminds me of the Fr Corapi groupies.

          • asmondius

            Your comments resemble typical pro-homo character assassination methods.

          • margaret1910

            oh, please. Attack the argument, not the person! This applies to Miguel and asmondius.

          • asmondius

            As you just attacked us???

          • Miguel Losada

            LOL. Not at all. I’m a heterosexual, married to the same woman for 31 years. None of my comments support homosexual behavior. Why are you flitting about wagging your finger at me?

          • asmondius

            You should have said 60 years, it would have been more impressive.

          • Miguel Losada

            Why would that be more impressive? I’m not 60 years old so can’t have been married that long. Unlike Voris, I don’t exaggerate.

          • asmondius

            What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

          • Anna Maria

            Well, YOU brought it up, so why don’t you tell us?

          • Anna Maria

            Um, math is not your strong suit, is it…? LOL!

          • Anna Maria

            “Pro-homo character assassination methods”…? This is a thing? Really?

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            @miguellosada:disqus, your comments are nasty and, as far as I can see, untrue. Besides which, this blog is not about Christine Niles or anyone else who makes comments about the blog post. Have you no interest in the blog post? Are you only here to complain about the people who ARE discussing it?

          • Miguel Losada

            LOL. You called Re Ja a troll for disagreeing with Christine Niles and now you object to me stating a fact that has been pointed out by quite a few bloggers ….that Mrs. Niles is a frequent and vociferous presence in the combox of every blogger who posts a disagreement with Voris. To you, no doubt, everyone who doesn’t praise Voris is making nasty comments. I’ve commented on the topic of the blog. You obviously haven’t read all the comments.

          • PGMGN

            Just an aside, Silver, but Christine Nile’s taking umbrage at Mr. Voris being mislabeled a ‘blogger’ and chastening Patheos for not picking up the phone is flies in the face of the policy engaged in at ChurchMilitant.

            They engage in pulling back the onion layers and fighting for the truth while at the same time shamelessly calling others all manner of names that are mortal sins.

            That is why the just ‘pick up the phone’ and ‘how dare you call him a blogger’ comes off as ridiculous. I love ChurchMilitant, or rather I did before they adopted this ratings/marketshare methodology of castigating anyone but themselves when it comes to calling out abuses within the Church.

            It is rather odd.

          • Leticia

            Well Said.

          • Miguel Losada

            He should, perhaps clarify that they were local awards. His failure to do so leads people to believe that they were won at a national level. It’s a bit deceitful. Tell us, was there any competition in the categories he submitted his work or did he win by default because no one else entered the particular categories?

          • Christine Niles

            Nothing deceitful about it.

            But I realize this makes no difference to you & your lot, as your animus towards Voris makes you assume the worst about him–which is why I’m shaking the dust off my feet. I’ve had enough of trolls for one day.

          • Miguel Losada

            Are you not the original troll posting in this combox? You can’t see the deceit because you’re blinded by your unhealthy attraction to Voris. Take a look at yourself Mrs. Niles. Does your husband not feel a bit slighted and embarrassed by your zealous defense of Voris?

          • asmondius

            Tsk, tsk – juvenile personal attacks.

          • Miguel Losada

            You came to comment on a blog to disagree with the author and anyone else who agrees with her opinion. That makes you the troll. Shake the dust off your feet. You might want to shake off some of your arrogance and that chip on your shoulder while you’re at it.

          • Stephen Lowe

            I hope you go to confession before communion, that is if the parish you attend offers confession. You are an ugly individual with malice in your soul.

          • Miguel Losada

            According to Catholic teaching, we’re not to judge an individual’s soul but here you are telling me that I have malice in mine. See you in the confession line, my friend.

          • Stephen Lowe

            Oh brother, just pointed out that you are a sinner and we should be in a state of grace to receive the Sacred Body and Blood. The Confiteor helps….but Confession is the best remedy for what ails your soul. If only you would search for Truth as ardently you search for ‘gotcha moments’, we all would be better off. This one track mind of yours is small and petty. You could do better.

          • AmigoRed

            To defend Christine, she refers to trolls who criticize Michael Voris. Anybody who knows him well, knows he’s a softie, haha!

          • Blue World

            You must be a child typing this…..a very small child:

            “Tell us, was there any competition in the categories he submitted his work or did he win by default because no one else entered the particular categories?”

            THIS AIN’T NO TENNIS MATCH…(“Win by default”?) Loser please, YOU SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL CLOWN!

            You know what? They just don’t hand out awards to anyone who does a story…. grow up little boy!

          • Miguel Losada

            It isn’t uncommon for local media awards to be won by default. A work is submitted (nominated) for a particular category. If there is only one submission for that category, the submission wins the award by default.

          • PGMGN

            Indeed, Voris’s Emmy awards are irrelevant. I wonder then why you mentioned them, Ms. Niles.

            And while you stump for market share at ChurchMilitat, you may also want to engage in picking up phones and making calls before you contribute to the sin of calumny by falsely accusing those you would label “schismatics” without proper authority. The individuals you castigate have been at the business of pointing out the crisis in the Church and it’s root causes for far longer than your boss. That’s most assuredly part of the bigger picture here.

            And yet you dare question another’s journalistic integrity for calling your boss a blogger. No wonder you blackball folks on your ‘discussion’ forum.

          • Blue World

            Here you go my dear:

            All of his Emmies were won for Excellence in Broadcasting for pieces he produced:

            1991 Toxics Around Us

            1993 A Second Life

            1995 crime series

            1997 Lawyers on Trial

            “Sorry we can’t direct you to any archives online. These were won during his time at WJBK-Channel 2, Detroit. We can make a call into the station to see if they have archives of their previous anchors’ awards. We can also make a call into the NATAS Michigan Chapter to request a link where we can find an archived list of previous award winners.” – Christine Niles

            https://drive.google.com/folde

        • Guest

          When and for what? The most detail I can find says they were for “production,” but a search of the Television Academy list of Emmy winners has turned up nothing.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Why don’t you write to Church Militant and ask him if you’re so curious?

          • Guest

            I asked you because you made the claim. Have you anything to back it up, or not? Do you always get angry when people call you out for blowing smoke?

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            I gave you one source, you didn’t like it. Wiki is another. That is two sources that I nicely gave you because you seemed too incompetent to do a simple search yourself. If you want specifics you’ll need to ask the guy himself. I never asked him specifics because I don’t really care what he got the Emmy’s for, its just great that he has them. I am most interested in the truly wonderful work he does for God and Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. He’s spot on and that drives the demons and their minions crazy. :)

          • KL

            Are…you…the first source? Because I don’t see another one in your comments, unless I’m missing something. And the Wikipedia article’s citation for this claim is a now-broken link to a bio on the defunct RealCatholicTV website. Even if the link had been live, that doesn’t solve the problem I and Guest have been asking about: that the only source for the claim that Michael Voris has won four Emmys is Michael Voris himself. We’re asking for any sort of external corroboration.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            I am wondering why Micahel’s detractors have gone off on this tangent and are quibbling about the comment that he has some awards. This article is not about Michael Voris’ awards. How off-topic can you get?

          • Guest

            When a person makes a claim in order to support a point, it becomes relevant. Look at who said “Emmy” first in this thread – it wasn’t a detractor.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            It wasn’t mentioned to support any relevant point to the discussion. It was a side comment that happened to be mentioned, for what reason I do not know, but perhaps to give background on Michael Voris. People who do not use their names in discussions, but instead come in as “guests” ALWAYS seem to get hung up in insignificant details that are a good ways away from the entire topic. I don’t know why they do that, “Guest,” but perhaps you can enlighten us.

          • Guest

            So someone made a claim that she couldn’t substantiate, but I’m the one with the problem. Right…

            You’d think such a crack journalism outfit as Voris runs would understand that people sometimes investigate claims, and be ready to defuse them easily – as could have been done here. As I said earlier, you can’t mention your awards in every bio and press release and then turn around and claim they aren’t important. You have to choose one.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            I made no claim I couldn’t substantiate. I don’t work for Michael Voris. I’ve never even met the man. I did not have anything to do with his bio or his press release and I don’t have to “choose one” or choose anything because it has nothing to do with me. You really are off the beam, “Guest,” or is it Jim Beam? I wrote my reaction to this woman’s blog. Why don’t you write YOUR OWN reaction to her blog instead of lurking around and attacking people who do? Get your ego needs met somewhere else. I’m not playing this game with you any more.

          • Christine Niles

            Could you please just go away already, Guest with no name, and stop harassing commenters here?

          • Re Ja

            And you are making a big deal about ‘names’ to distract from legitimate criticism of your conduct on this thread. I’m glad you finally posted the requested info but your lack of graciousness and tendency to bully others as your “harrassers” is still unfortunate and is a poor reflection on your employer.

            And this is completely separate from anything to do with what is going on at the seminary. I have no opinion on that because I have no info other than what I’ve read here. I have no idea who is correct. I’m not picking on you because I disagree with Michael Voris. This is all about you.

          • Christine Niles

            I couldn’t care less what you think about me, O nameless one.

          • Re Ja

            Yeah, I know. It kinda sums up the problem for your ‘apostolate’.

          • Ginnyfree

            Do you realize how it looks to an outsider? You are attacking persons who are criticizing homosexuality in the seminary and the sad consequences that face the men in said seminary who are really there because God called them to the Priesthood. That places you on the wrong side. It is that black and white an issue. You are attacking someone who dares to speak up in DEFENSE of men called to the Priesthood of Christ! That doesn’t not bode well for you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Miguel Losada

            LOL. You were first in the combox to castigate the author and you won’t tolerate anyone disagreeing with you? How arrogant you are!

          • Stephen Lowe

            Yeah that is productive….and thought out. What are you two years old?

          • Miguel Losada

            And your reply is productive and thought out? What profound statement will you grace us with next? More negative assumptions about the parishes people attend? LOL

          • Christine Niles

            It’s a red herring & a distraction from the main issue.

            It’s always shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

            Same tune, every time.

          • Miguel Losada

            Mrs Niles took issue with the fact that the author called Voris a blogger and it developed from there with Voris’s fan girl claiming he’s a journalist who won Emmys. Go back and read the thread. It’s relevant.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            Why do you people insist on talking about commenters instead of talking about the blog itself? It is nuts. You bring NOTHING to the table. My comments about the blog stand “as is.” I’m done here.

          • Miguel Losada

            “you people”? Were you not the one making a big deal over the commenters using “Guest” or pseudonyms? Mrs Niles started the discussion about Voris’s classification re blogger vs journalist and people questioned his claim that he has 4 Emmys. Comboxes often contain side discussions.

          • Guest

            You seemed to care about them when you thought they helped your argument. You even shouted about them twice in ALL CAPS. Left unsaid is how an award for television production is evidence that a person is a journalist.

          • Christine Niles

            “Do you always get angry when people call you out for blowing smoke?”

            Ah. So we’re “blowing smoke” for our factual claims about Michael’s awards.

            Careful–you’re showing your bias, “Guest” with no name.

          • Guest

            I regret that phrase. It was premature and I was wrong to use it at the time. However, your continued evasion after representing yourself as an official Voris spokesperson (you say to “write us” at a ChurchMilitant email address) really caused me to start thinking it might be appropriate in the end. Every response you make in which you do not settle the matter definitively only discredits your group. Think about that next time before you engage the public as a representative of your employer.

            I started this asking question in good faith and giving Voris the benefit of the doubt. I see you posted a picture of the awards below. That’s a good start. You were losing him the benefit of the doubt very quickly before. All you had to do was say something like “I don’t know the details, but here’s what I do know.” Maybe Mr. Voris is interested in the fact that his claim to “four Emmy awards” is so difficult to independently verify that it makes him look like a liar. He should certainly be interested to know that atheist sites seize on that difficulty in order to discredit him. That’s not good, because whatever he says, good or ill, he represents the Church to the world. A man interested in influencing people should be interested in not looking like a resume inflator to those people. This is basic PR.

            My name is irrelevant, so I do not provide it.

          • Christine Niles

            Enough, “Guest.” Right off the bat you assumed Michael was lying, so don’t blame your lack of charity on me. Take some responsibility for your bad behavior.

            In any case, you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to reveal your identity–so perhaps *you* are the one with something to hide.

            This is what I got from the apostolate with regard to info about Voris’ awards. I paste the e-mail in full below.

            After you read it, “Guest” with no name, you can publicly apologize here for trying to undermine Michael Voris’ credibility:

            “Dear …

            In answer to your question, we’re directing you to 16 photos of awards won by Michael Voris, taken at the studio as well as at his home.

            They consist of Michael Voris’ Emmy awards, his 10 additional Emmy nominations, as well as his four Associated Press awards, and his Detroit Press Club Foundation award, won for excellence in journalism, investigative, producing and writing.

            Only three Emmy awards are shown because the fourth one broke off its pedestal years ago and Voris didn’t want to pay the $200 to replace it. But that one was won in 1995 for a crime series he produced. The plaque for the 1997 Emmy for his productionn Lawyers on Trial fell off, which is why it isn’t shown in the photos.

            All of his Emmies were won for Excellence in Broadcasting for pieces he produced:

            1991 Toxics Around Us

            1993 A Second Life

            1995 crime series

            1997 Lawyers on Trial

            Sorry we can’t direct you to any archives online. These were won during his time at WJBK-Channel 2, Detroit. We can make a call into the station to see if they have archives of their previous anchors’ awards. We can also make a call into the NATAS Michigan Chapter to request confirmation or a place where we can find an archived list of previous award winners.

            https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1ANfLbw6L12MzduZVFKTzVrU3c&usp=sharing

            Please let us know if you have any further questions.”

            ***
            But I repeat: All of this is nothing but a huge distraction from the main issue, which is about problems at the Detroit seminary and with the archdiocese in general–and also within the wider Church.

            The Church is in crisis, the house is burning down, souls are being dragged to Hell through poor leadership–yet people are focusing on Michael Voris’ Emmy awards.

          • Guest

            Thank you. Was that so hard?

            And note well: I never accused anyone of anything. I said it was quite suspicious that when a question arose about the awards Voris claimed to have, nobody was offering a clear and substantial answer to it – and it was. It makes no sense to evade such a question as belligerently as you did. I still don’t know why it happened, but at least now we can eliminate deception from the motives.

            You might do well to forward a copy over to the folks at RationalWiki, whom I’m sure you’d like to see put in their place even more than you would me.

            And FYI: If you think the awards aren’t important, then stop waving them around in all your press releases and discourage supporters like Julie from bringing them up. This was started entirely by Voris supporters, and you had the power to end it at any time.

          • Christine Niles

            “It makes no sense to evade such a question as belligerently as you did.”

            LOL

            Right. I never evaded.

            I won’t hold my breath for your apology.

          • Re Ja

            yes, you came off as evasive and more than one person has told you that. How many people left the thread with that impresssion and won’t be back to see that you finally came up with the information? As an employee you should be much more concerned about the negative perceptions you create and respond appropriately to legitimate questions. If you worked for me, we’d definitely be having a discussion on Monday about your judgment and future role in the org.

          • Christine Niles

            Since you lack the courage to show your face & reveal your identity, that “discussion” would be a little difficult.

          • Stephen Lowe

            Wow…judgemental aren’t we?

          • Stephen Lowe

            You are a person with issues of trust.

          • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

            Dear “Guest” whose name is irrelevant so you don’t provide it: Your comments are irrelevant.

          • Guest

            Doesn’t seem like it, judging from the response to them.

          • Stephen Lowe

            Mark Shea is that you?

          • Christine Niles

            Write us at questions@churchmilitant.com & we’ll be glad to provide you with the info.

          • Guest

            There is absolutely no reason to e-mail you. If the claim is true, then it’s public information that you, as a representative of the apostolate, should be readily able, if not eager, to provide. What specific awards has Michael Voris won, and when? If you can provide a link to an independent verification of these awards, so much the better. But let’s start with the specifics.

          • ttc

            Put the other oar in the water son.

            The seminary has issued a memo describing potential sexual predatory practices of their priests if our men don’t cover themselves from head to toe. And you are quibbling about the invalidity of this concern because the whistleblower has an award in journalism?

            Are you the chancery lawyer?

          • Guest

            Nonsense. It’s not a predatory practice to be tempted. It’s not even a sin. It is an act of courtesy and goodwill to help protect a brother from temptation.

            I didn’t bring up the Emmy awards – a Voris supporter did. Somehow not a single Voris supporter here understands that my question should be incredibly simple to answer, so your collective inability to answer it should be an occasion for humility on you part, not arrogance.

          • ttc

            You are reducing the incredulous spiritual misfeasance and gross stupidity of the archdiocese to some kind of public personality battle where people take sides. I am talking about the announcment from the archdiocese that reads like this:

            Memo from Seminary Staff:

            Gentlemen, we are ordaining same sex attracted men with active sexual histories who will lust after somebody and will potentially act upon it if they see male skin. We have placed sexual predators in the building who are unable to control their libido. It is your responsibility to make sure they don’t fondle somebody after seeing the skin on your legs. Please make sure you cover yourselves from head to toe.

          • ttc

            The inherent implication of ordaining men who the archdiocese knows has uncontrollable libido issues when seeing male skin is – this problem will eventually be coming to a parish near you. If you can drag yourself away from defending the indeensible on the computer, perhaps you can help the archdiocese put warning signs on telephone polls in your community for men to cover up their skin.

          • Guest

            Being tempted to lust is indefensible? Do you not get out all that often, or are you just entirely asexual and don’t have to deal with lust at all?

          • asmondius

            Being tempted to lust for men in an all-male environment is problematic. It’s akin to a male attending a nunnery.

          • Ginnyfree

            Guest, why is it so foreign to your thinking that some folks actually never think about sex at all? There really are such people. I propose a brave new reality for you: virginity for the sake of the kingdom and Jesus as the Primary model for such behavior along with His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many are called and if persons like you were allowed near enough to actually try and scrutinize their thoughts, you’d be amazed that the Holy Spirit actually DOES PRESERVE THE INNOCENCE OF YOUTH AND AGED ALIKE! You are totally blind. But considering that you’d never believe it if you met someone so called, it is for the better. Wow. You poor soul. You are to be pitied as are all those like you who think all innocence in the flesh is gone among men and women alike. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Ginnyfree

            Yessiree Bubba. That’s exactly what they expect to be “charity” Bingo! Give this guy and EMMY too! God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Stephen Lowe

            If he gets tempted by men in casual attire, wait til he gets to your parish where I am sure there will be men and boys in shorts….and so it goes.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Wearing nothing but a towel = casual attire? Do you often see people in naught but towels at Mass? If so, please tell me which parish you attend so I can avoid it.

          • Ginnyfree

            Guess what Guest? In Biblical terms, a homosexual is NOT brother to me. Who is brother and sister to me? He or she who keeps the Commandments. If I am in the gym, and I do go to a gym regularly, and some gal happens to get a cheap thrill watching me change into my workout gear from afar, I consider it very predatory and if I catch her at it, I may react in a less than cordial manner. She leers at her own risk if you catch my meaning. I do not consider her a sister to me in a Christian sense not by a long shot. I do not feel bound to her on that level. I do however know how not to discriminate and what exactly are my societal obligations in that regard. I do not need to lend her my towel if she asks for it because she feels “tempted” and wants to see if I’m interested. Hello?!!?!? Should a memo be passed around all us gals who use the locker room there that out of “courtesy” towards the gays among us, we should avoid changing in to our gym shorts in the open and should use the shower stalls for all changes of clothing? That’s about what some wants to call “charity” It is anything BUT charity. Reality check please. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Miguel Losada

            I have serious doubts about his claim to have won Emmys. If he won them, they were probably at a local level where he submitted his own work for nomination and may well have had little or no competition in the category. If he won the Emmys by default because his was the only submission in the category, he’s being deceitful in touting the awards as some sort of verification that he’s an accomplished journalist.

          • Ginnyfree

            The young man is very qualified to notice the foxes in the hen house.

          • Ginnyfree

            Hello Guest. The little boy is abundantly qualified to notice there are foxes in the hen house.

        • CW Betts

          Emmy awards are for entertainment, not journalistic integrity

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            You clearly know nothing about Emmy Awards. Emmy Awards for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism are just as real as awards to “entertainment”. See here: http://emmyonline.com/newsemmy

          • Christine Niles

            CW Betts wrote: “Emmy awards are for entertainment, not journalistic integrity”

            –which shows just how little you know about Emmys.

            There are different categories for Emmy awards.

            One of those categories offered by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is “News & Documentary,” wherein NATAS “promotes journalistic excellence by awarding the coveted Emmy to the very best news reports and documentary films.”

            http://emmyonline.com/newsemmy

        • Miguel Losada

          It would be interesting to know if the Emmy awards were national or local. If local, it could well be that Voris submitted his work in a category and there were no competitors so he won by default. He and his staunch supporter Mrs. Niles (or is it Miss?) are quick to point out his Emmys but there is no evidence I could find to verify that he won Emmys, or if he did, that they were won in true competition against a significant number of other journalists. If you can provide a link (other than one parroting Voris’s own promotional profile), I’d be grateful. I’d also be interested in viewing the actual work that won the Emmys.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Go ask Voris yourself and stop asking other people to do all the work for you.

          • Miguel Losada

            Voris’s employee is here to defend him. Surely she can answer since she seems to know him so intimately. And may I inquire as to your age? You seem quite immature in your responses.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Then stop asking me and ask her. My age has nothing to do with the fact that I will defend people against lies and not allow bullies to bully me, if that is ‘immature’ in your eyes so be it, your opinion of me means less than nothing.

          • Miguel Losada

            LOL. You were the one who so LOUDLY proclaimed that Voris has 4 Emmy awards (which we now know is an exaggeration). I was merely responding that it would be nice to have the proof. I assumed you could back up your assertion. Obviously, my assumption was wrong.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            What “exaggeration”? Christine Niles posted the information on the Emmy’s about four times. Aren’t you paying attention?

          • Miguel Losada

            You didn’t read all the comments. Only one award is an Emmy and it’s a “Michigan Emmy”. When one claims to have an Emmy award, it is assumed that one is speaking of the national Emmy awards that are prestigious. Voris is being dishonest and deceitful. He should merely state that he’s won some journalism awards and not promote a bio that gives the public the impression that he has multiple national awards.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            An Emmy is an Emmy and he’s got 4 of them. No deceit there at all. You just don’t like him for some odd reason and you’re looking for anything to attack him with. You’re shameful, absolutely shameful.

          • Miguel Losada

            Saying you have 4 Emmys when you only have 1 local Emmy is deceitful. Has nothing to do with liking or not liking him. He needs to hold himself to the same high standards he holds everyone else to or he loses credibility. There’s nothing shameful about expecting a man running a Catholic website to be up front and honest in his bio. For some reason you’re vehemently defending him even though the photo “proof” Christine Niles provided clearly shows that he doesn’t have 4 Emmys. An Emmy is a prestigious award and I have no doubt that those who win national Emmys would take issue with your ignorant comment that “an Emmy is an Emmy”.

      • Godfrey Buillon

        Really??? We’re doing AD Hominems now?

    • Jim Russell

      Quoth Michael Voris: ****Men studying for the priesthood who are tempted by such sights should not be in seminary. ****

      Except that’s *not* what the Church teaches.

      Kathy’s quote above makes this clear–seminaries *can* work with young men dealing with *transitory* issues arising from affective immaturity.
      So, Voris’s whole exercise is devolving into an example of the kind of “unjust discrimination” that we Catholics are taught to *avoid* when it comes to persons with SSA. What a shame.

      It would be sort of like telling a man preparing for *marriage* that he ought not get married if he continues being “tempted” by other women. Temptations come and go and must be dealt with *properly* to be sure, but they aren’t the deal-breaker Voris is suggesting.

      • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

        You’re 100% wrong.

        From the Vatican: Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].
        In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

        Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

        Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

        • Jim Russell

          Nope–here’s me being 100 percent right (at least the document is), in the paragraph you omitted:

          “Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Adolescence are not yet priests. And these people must “CLEARLY OVERCOME” their tendencies BEFORE they can even consider entering.

          • Jim Russell

            Read more carefully. “Clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the *diaconate*.” So, how much time elapses between entry *into* the seminary and the usual ordination year for deacons? It’s not saying “adolescents”–it’s saying “adolescence not yet superseded.”

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            The point is “CLEARLY OVERCOME” homosexual tendencies- that is NOT happening. We have ACTIVE homosexual priests and men in seminary who STILL have homosexual “tendencies”. They have NOT “CLEARLY OVERCOME” these tendencies for years before entering the seminary. They are entering these seminaries WHILE still having homosexual attraction- and that is NOT ALLOWED according to the Church.

          • Jim Russell

            Isn’t there typically *more* than “three years” from the time a seminarian enters the seminary and the time of diaconal ordination?

          • Christine Niles

            If the temptation of homosexual impurity is so bad that the seminary has to conduct a house meeting telling all the straight guys to start wearing bathrobes out of the shower–then I’d say those tendencies are pretty deep-seated.

            The right response here would have been for the seminary–as soon as it received complaints from the SSA men about the bath towel attire–to take the SSA guys aside, sit down, and have a very serious discussion with them as to whether the seminary is the right place for them.

            Especially in light of the MASSIVE damage done to the Church by homosexual priestly scandals–which are ongoing (the longtime Vice President of the Catholic Leadership Institute just came out as gay, admitting he had been gay for his entire 25 years as a priest & used his position of influence over clergy to push for gay reforms; the original Detroit seminary was a hothouse of homosexual activity, garnering the nickname “Hothouse” precisely for this reason–a number of the homosexual seminarians went on to be homosexually active priests; several of them died from AIDS, etc., etc. I could go on and on, but you get my drift).

            In light of all this untold destruction and damage, why on earth would anyone be defending the seminary’s conduct here? How is that charitable? How is that even sane?

          • Jim Russell

            Because the seminary is *right*, and Voris is *wrong* on this issue. Voris needs to correct *his* inaccuracies. Primarily the claim that he and you *both* make that you are somehow in a better position to judge whether the admonition about “bathrobes” arises from issues pertaining to *deep-seated* SSA or *transitory* SSA.

            Rather, *charity* would dictate that both you and Voris admit you don’t have sufficient evidence to back your claim and have actually accomplished a form of rash judgment that has really nothing to do with journalistic integrity.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner
          • Blesski

            The degree is irrelevant. Voris’s claimis that the:

            “there are men in the seminary for whom the sight of other men half-dressed (which is a normal, everyday occurrence in a dormitory-like setting) could be a temptation to impurity, or at least impure thoughts.

            Men studying for the priesthood who are tempted by such sights should not be in seminary.

            As Fr. John Hardon often said — and many others have repeated because they understand the common sense reality — the most dangerous place for a man with homosexual tendencies is a seminary. We used this as nothing more than just one example as a springboard to discuss the much larger issue of how homosexuality is practically catered to by many leaders in the Church

            Which is exactly what our culture is doing:
            Tell women not to dress provocatively so they don’t get raped. When the responsiblity is on the man.

            Tell the men in the semininar to wear bathrobes so they don’t tempt the others–When it is the responsiblity of the other students with temptation.

            http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsame-sex-attracted-seminarians

          • moody Gail

            Uh, none of the normal men I know and have asked, by the time they were in their 20’s and well before that, EVER had to be worried about their reactions to men in towels. Any one excited at that age is clearly homosexual. End of story.
            If you still look at men in towels with lust, you’re gay and you don’t belong in the seminary.

          • Dave

            Moody, you are making WAY TO MUCH SENCE to be on this discussion!

          • Christine Niles

            Sorry, Jim, but you are missing the forest for the trees. And you, not we, are wrong.

            In addition to having reliable inside sources who have confirmed *everything* Voris has reported, we’ve also received multiple messages from priests who agree with Church Militant 100% that the seminary is playing a dangerous game, and that this particular official’s admonition about bathrobes was, at the very least, utterly imprudent.

            To defend the seminary here is, quite frankly, naïve. I recommend you read about the spiritual history of the Detroit archdiocese and the rampant problems in the previous seminary.

            http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-church-in-detroit-paving-the-way-for-evil

            Anyone who thinks the seminary responded rightly here is failing to take into account the bigger picture.

            To split hairs over deep-seated vs. transitory homosexual attraction is to miss the point, which is that if there are men who are SO tempted to impurity over perfectly normal male behavior (like wearing a bath towel out of the shower), SO bothered that they actually have to make a trip to the seminary’s main office and voice their complaints–then there is a serious problem–and that problem doesn’t lie with the other seminarians.

            Those SSA men need to be seriously examined to see whether they belong in the seminary. Clearly, if perfectly normal male behavior has to be altered because some men are THAT tempted to impurity and lust over seeing their chests, then they should NOT be there.

            How exactly will they deal with basketball games, where the men play shirtless and are wearing shorts shorter than bath towels? Will the seminarians also have to cover themselves up there as well, so as not to offend or tempt the SSA men to lust? And what other perfectly normal male behavior will the seminarians have to alter for the sake of a few SSA men who are SO TEMPTED that they can’t handle–again–perfectly normal male behavior?

            The real issue here is: Why isn’t the Detroit archdiocese doing a better job of screening these men, before they go on to ordination? Why are the other men in the seminary being castigated for perfectly NORMAL male behavior, while the SSA guys get coddled?

            THAT’S the issue here–not all this other stuff.

          • Jim Russell

            No–the amazingly absurd “issue” here is that a seminary told its seminarians to use bathrobes and not merely bath-towels. So much attention because a seminary is asking its seminarians to place a slightly higher value on *modesty*. But, because the hypothetical example given involves *SSA*, we’ve got to go through these public contortions of fact and fiction instead of merely praising the seminary for a valuable instruction on the value of modesty at all times, including to and from the shower….

          • Christine Niles

            Did you read anything I said, Deacon Jim? This has to do with MUCH MORE than bath towels.

          • Jim Russell

            I understand that “MUCH MORE” is being projected *onto* the bathtowels….

            I just don’t find it “imprudent” to help guys with modesty….

          • John Flaherty

            I think you’ve leveled a grossly intellectually dishonest argument, Jim. If the seminary wished to encourage modesty amongst the young men, they could do so quite easily with a broader discussion about appropriate dress and cover in many different circumstances.
            That the seminary merely tries to provoke the men to wear bathrobes does not demonstrate a concern about modesty to me. It indicates instead that they do not wish to address a serious problem.

          • Jim Russell

            Nothing intellectually dishonest at all, John–the “On the Use of Bathrobes in Seminary Showers” debacle is worthy of derision.

            The “serious problem” is being *projected* upon this event.

            Do you believe it’s a pretty good idea for seminarians to wear bathrobes to and from showers? Yes/No?

            Do you believe it helps to enhance modesty and would therefore serve as a charitable choice if someone with SSA might encounter the seminarian to/from the showers? Yes/No?

          • John Flaherty

            “Do you believe it’s a pretty good idea for seminarians to wear bathrobes to and from showers? Yes/No?”

            No, not in this case.
            Were this a secular school with varying values and a likely co-ed dormitory, I would say yes. We are not. We’re talking about a dormitory consisting of young, Catholic men. In such a case, a bath towel should be quite adequate.

            “Do you believe it helps to enhance modesty and would therefore serve as a charitable choice if someone with SSA might encounter the seminarian to/from the showers? Yes/No?”

            Again, no. Not in this case.
            Seminaries, when “working with” young men who suffer same sex attractions, need to help these young men prepare to function properly as priests in environments wherein they may be tempted. If the seminary staff feels that some men cannot handle such concerns effectively, the staff needs to be charitable enough to both the young man AND the faithful at large to discharge the young man from priestly formation.
            Let’s not forget that much of the sex abuse that has surfaced in the last decades came about because seminaries did not address same sex attractions properly.

            Voris, in these exposes, has reminded everyone that a priest will not have the luxury of dictating that others dress differently after leaving the seminary. Whatever temptations there may be for him, he will need to address those problems mostly himself.

            In this case, the seminary does not appear to be willing to admit to this fact of life.

          • Ginnyfree

            John you’re good up to a point: “Seminaries, when “working with” young men who suffer same sex attractions, need to help these young men prepare to function properly as priests in environments wherein they may be tempted. If the seminary staff feels that some men cannot handle such concerns effectively, the staff needs to be charitable enough to both the young man AND the faithful at large to discharge the young man from priestly formation.Let’s not forget that much of the sex abuse that has surfaced in the last decades came about because seminaries did not address same sex attractions properly.”

            There is no room in the inn for men who are SSA in any way shape or form. They are NOT qualified to become Priests PERIOD. It isn’t the job of the seminary to “work” with them to somehow train these types to deal with folks in a healthy way. Read the Vatican document again s-l-o-w-l-y. If a man is found to be among the other men in seminary to have any tendency towards homosexuality, he has to be dismissed. THAT is what the document is stating. If a young man is confused about this and I do mean confused, not border line homosexual, then he is to be helped. It DOES NOT MEAN that it is the job of those at the seminary to help him some how transition FROM homosexual TO hetrosexual so he can be ordained to the diaconate. The Vatican is NOT saying the place for homosexuals that have been somehow successfully “helped” is the diaconate! This is also a distortion of what is said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • John Flaherty

            Easy there, Ginny. I’m not trying to argue for a man’s right to be a seminarian. If anything, I’m trying to be diplomatic when saying that a young man who demonstrates homosexual inclinations likely needs to be shown the door. I am hard pressed to explain how any young man might “deal with” temptations of this nature, but many don’t wish to hear or offer that news that starkly.

          • John Flaherty

            Hmm. I had replied earlier, but it doesn’t appear to be present, so here goes again:

            “Do you believe it’s a pretty good idea for seminarians to wear bathrobes to and from showers? Yes/No?”

            No, it’s not that great a need. We’re dealing with Catholic men in a dormitory, not mixed genders at a secular school. We don’t require people to use bathrobes in athletic locker rooms; we have no need to require bathrobes in dorms either.

            “Do you believe it helps to enhance modesty and would therefore serve as a
            charitable choice if someone with SSA might encounter the seminarian
            to/from the showers? Yes/No?”

            No, I don’t think so.
            As Ms. Niles observed already, young men who would suffer same-sex temptations in a seminary need to be guided toward redirecting their energies. If doing so does not succeed, such young men need to be directed toward serving God in ways besides the priesthood.
            We do not do anyone a charitable act if we allow them to carry on as though their demons could not create problems for them at some time in the future.

          • Godfrey Buillon

            Mr. Russel, wouldn’t you find it disconcerting if that request was made in a men’s locker room in a football team or similar? Modesty is the issue? Wow! When we were in HS, we walked around the men’s locker room with a waist towel with no hang-ups, why because we were all men doing what was usual. We weren’t walking around in our birthday suits. No one ever dreamed of telling us to wear bath robes… cheez. If there is someone with SSA in the seminary, I think they should be made to think three times before continuing because the temptation for a priest is ten times worse than a seminarian who is under the eyes of a rector!

          • Ginnyfree

            Jim, does the loincloth on the Crucifix resemble in anyway a bath towel? I’m just sayin’…………………………think we should cover them all with modesty cloths in our parishes out of charity for our homosexual “brothers?” God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • germanman

            uh, i happen to know that they DO know the answer to that question because of what their internal research revealed.

          • asmondius

            Splitting hairs about ‘transitory’ and ‘deep-seated’ is one reason the abuse of adolescent boys was perpetuated for decades. How many predators were ‘treated’ for homosexual lust?

          • Ginnyfree

            Jim, anyone with eyes in their head is qualified to see a fox in a hen house. Those wolves in sheep’s clothing who pretend foxes belong in hen houses don’t belong in seminary either. God bless. Ginnyfree

          • Barbara Bertsch

            Thank You Christine…I so agree. Those opposing are all upset because of what Michael uncovers. I worked in the St. Paul/ Mpls Diocese for over 10 years and saw and heard so many terrible things that hurt my faith deeply. I am very thankful for Michael….someone must do this!

          • Emme

            Do we know that SSA seminarians actually complained about the bath towels? The complaints could not have come from seminarians that were uncomfortable with the perceived immodesty?

            I am a married woman. I’ve been with my husband for almost 20 years. I avoid communal dressing rooms, locker rooms etc. I am not comfortable with that level of undress even in a same gender scenario.

            I do so for modesty.

            The seminary has stated there is no homosexual presence there.

          • Miguel Losada

            That’s the question. Voris made the statement that the seminarians were told to wear bathrobes “because a number of their brother seminarians are gay”. This appears to be a projection on Voris’s part. Perhaps he was told this by his anonymous source (Voris’s heavy reliance on anonymous sources tends to undermine his credibility). Apparently, Voris didn’t call the seminary to ask for facts before broadcasting his damaging report. It could be that seminarians complained about some walking about in towels whose bodies are rather taxing on the eyes. I’d rather see men dressed in bathrobes instead of towels. I think the seminary official used a poor example by bringing up SSA but the whole incident has been blown out of proportion by Voris, IMO. Is his anonymous source one seminarian who is no longer at the seminary, as the official’s email claimed? If so, when did he leave the seminary and why? Is he just a disgruntled ex-seminarian out for revenge. Voris’s fan girls can claim he’s a journalist but he employs a style and tactics that smack of tabloid journalism.

          • asmondius

            yah, adult males really cast an aesthetic eye upon the bodies of other males.

          • joanw

            This is a fantastic comment, and it’s a shame it is buried amongst all the mud slinging that has nothing to do with the story.
            Perhaps the seminary is aiming to teach the seminarians modesty. Sure, guys CAN go around in just bath towels, but this is a seminary, not a NFL locker room, and perhaps they’re aiming to teach these men the virtue of modesty.

          • Miguel Losada

            That’s the question. Voris made the statement that the seminarians were told to wear bathrobes “because a number of their brother seminarians are gay”. This appears to be a projection on Voris’s part. Perhaps he was told this by his anonymous source (Voris’s heavy reliance on anonymous sources tends to undermine his credibility). Apparently, Voris didn’t call the seminary to ask for facts before broadcasting his damaging report. It could be that seminarians complained about some walking about in towels whose bodies are rather taxing on the eyes. I’d rather see men dressed in bathrobes instead of towels. I think the seminary official used a poor example by bringing up SSA but the whole incident has been blown out of proportion by Voris, IMO. Is his anonymous source one seminarian who is no longer at the seminary, as the official’s email claimed? If so, when did he leave the seminary and why? Is he just a disgruntled ex-seminarian out for revenge. Voris’s fan girls can claim he’s a journalist but he employs a style and tactics that smack of tabloid journalism.

          • Ginnyfree

            Perfect Christina! Don’t change a word! God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Again, it doesn’t matter if its 20 or 30 years- they are supposed to have “CLEARLY OVERCOME” their homosexual tendencies for years BEFORE entering- that is NOT happening. “CLEARLY OVERCOME” is the key here.

          • Jim Russell

            No, it *does* matter. Because you are incorrect in your claim about needing to have “clearly overcome” *before* entering seminary. That’s *not* what the document says. At all.

            It says “at least three years” before *ordination* to the diaconate. This leaves room for the possibility that a young man dealing with transitory SSA *could* be admitted to the seminary with the understanding that he’s got to get that issue resolved at least three years prior to his diaconal ordination year.

          • Athelstane

            Doesn’t “Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders: (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961)”, promulgated by Pope John XXIII, still remain good law? Relevant passage: “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

          • Ken Huffman

            This is from his holiness saint pope John Paul II, and was also enforced by his blessed successor and aid. That any canonical Seminary of the Church would even make this request among the seminarians betrays their knowledge of SSA individuals in their midst…..thus also admitting to the known admittance of SSA seminarians for holy orders in defiance of this papal decree and rule. A rule that has not been revised or lifted.

            The Article in no way refutes the Vortex, but actually affirms it’s validity and then seeks to put the Vortex on trail. The REDACTED statement does indeed prove what the Vortex states in street parlance. There is no need to protect the SSA sensibilities of SSA seminarians if their were in fact none there and none who asked for the Seminary’s assistance in maintaining such decorum that would not lead a SSA to stumble in mind, will, passions and in actions. Such requests in fact betray the facts the Vortex reported on. SSA individuals are barred from Holy Orders…..PERIOD. No SSA seminarians at the Seminary cannot be true as the official request on their behalf would have been necessary.

            Mr. Lagosa seems to have an issue with logical and critical thought…..Based upon the posts I have read, he may have a case of cognitive dissonance on this issue…..he clouds it with Red Herrings and other Logical Fallacies. The Article is Defensive in nature and does establish the case for the Vortex…….and then it seeks to use PC tactics to dismiss the Individual who spoke out publically on this issue. Nice. If the author has a horse in this race I can see why her approach is intellectually dishonest and has a facade of charity.

            Christ and His Apostles were never PC and sometimes one needs to make a whip out of cords to clean up the Family House.

          • moody Gail

            Yeah, and that’s likely huh, given the number of gay directors, priests and bishops around to coddle them. Good luck getting the “issue” resolved. Ha- that is laughable.
            I guess you didn’t understand the larger point here. Homosexual priests are all over the country and they don’t think they are disordered at all. So why would they try to stifle a seminarian’s gay impulses? Oh yeah, they wouldn’t.

          • Ginnyfree

            Yeah! Moody gets it! I took the notice to the seminarians as it was written as a warning to the straights that the gays among them were protected by the author of the notice to them and felt it was his way of intimidating them into silence should they notice the gays looking at them. Really. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • germanman

            Which would mean that at the end of the first year, he would have to have this all resolved. So he goes in in september and by may everything’s okay. The three years issue is EXACTLY the point. That means the clock starts counting at first year, and by the end of the first year – because in three more years, he’s looking at the deaconate – this tendency must be gone.

          • Ginnyfree

            I’m repeating myself but here goes: A young man fearing he may be gay because he has never felt attraction for any girls is what is meant. Not a young man transitioning from gay to straight as is hoped by those distorting what is said in the Vatican document in question. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Ginnyfree

            A young man fearing he may be gay because he has never felt attraction for any girls is what is meant. Not a young man transitioning from gay to straight as is hoped by those distorting what is said in the Vatican document in question. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • germanman

            AND if a man has entered major seminary, and is tempted to lustful thoughts at the site of of a towel clad fellow seminarian – then if he is beyond his first year theology, he should be removed because he is within three years of the deaconate and is still suffering from SSA. It AINT transitory anymore. What r you not understanding?

          • Ginnyfree

            Oh how I wish your comments weren’t five days ago! Jim, I pretty much just explained what is truly meant by a young man with transitional issues actually is. It isn’t as you infer, a young man transitioning from homosexual to heterosexual via counseling at the seminary. And even if you could produce an actual example of such a young man being sadly taken advantage of (as the book Good Bye Good Men provides) it still doesn’t make that okay or acceptable as a practice. Nor is the Vatican’s document saying any such thing. You’re reading into it something that isn’t there. Oh well. Any man can call a cat a dog if he wants, but that will never make the cat bark. They still meow. God bless. Ginnyfree.

        • https://disqus.com/home/channel/militantbymichaelvorisbookdiscussion MrRightWingDave

          Boom! Nailed it!

      • germanman

        A man has a right to marry. No man has a right to be a priest.

        • asmondius

          Marriage, like the priesthood, is something one cannot do on their own.

      • Godfrey Buillon

        Are you sure the formators are really up to speed with this? Isn’t this why the clergy sex-abuse scandal happened in the first place, because formators were keen to “work with young men” about this? Gosh it’s like ground hog day.

      • asmondius

        Would it make sense for a man preparing for marriage to live in a convent or a sorority house? Your equating homosexuality to heterosexuality is not what the Church teaches.

      • Ginnyfree

        Oh dear Jim. You read into the Church’s teaching something that 1) isn’t there 2) is a distortion of what actually is and 3) misrepresents the teenaged mistake that is mentioned. A young man who feels no attraction towards young women who is actually called to the Priesthood who hasn’t considered that yet, may see in his non-attraction for the opposite sex, something to be alarmed at. He is happily mistaken, but he doesn’t know that until he seeks counsel from someone else and speaks up about his fears. He is mistaken and it gets written off as teenaged transition. It doesn’t mean he has a homosexual tendency from which he has transitioned. He is simply a boy who expected to like girls when he grew older and is alarmed because this phase of development for most human males is absent from his mind. This lack is what scares him so he seeks help to clarify it. That is what is meant by the Church , not as you see it, young men somehow transitioning FROM homosexual to heterosexual under the guidance of those men at the seminary who you suppose “work” with such young men. The seminary is no place for homosexuals to get cleared or cured of their disorder and it is a gross misrepresentation of the Priesthood to infer it is or that the Priest and teachers there serve this purpose. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

      Well said Christine! Can’t wait for Church Militant’s response. 😉
      God bless you and all the folks at Church Militant, you are doing God’s work and He will bless you for it.

      In Christ,

      Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

      • Christine Niles

        Church Militant’s response. The question is: Will Ms. Schiffer correct her inaccuracies?

        http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsame-sex-attracted-seminarians

        • Jim Russell

          Which inaccuracies?

          • Christine Niles

            Watch the Vortex. He explains clearly. Thanks.

          • Jim Russell

            Saw no reference to the category “Schiffer’s inaccuracies” in the Vortex transcript. Can you be more specific?

          • Christine Niles

            Schiffer reports the inaccuracies of the Detroit archdiocese. That is what Michael is addressing in this Vortex. You can easily find it in the transcript.

          • Jim Russell

            The only “inaccuracies” I see in the latest transcript belong neither to Ms. Schiffer or the Detroit archdiocese–they belong to Mr. Voris. That’s why I’ll continue to ask for specifics….

          • Christine Niles

            Here’s what the archdiocese said:

            “the claim that there is a significant or even nominal presence of homosexuality at Sacred Heart Major Seminary is patently false.”

            Problem is, Voris never said that.

            He specifically addressed this in his Vortex. Please re-read the transcript if you wish.

            Schiffer also repeats the same tired old falsehoods about the name “Catholic” and our apostolate–and yes, they are falsehoods. I don’t blame her necessarily; she’s just parroting what the archdiocese has fed her.

          • Jim Russell

            Interesting, Christine Niles–in your very comments on this post–*you* have made the claim that the “presence of homosexuality” is an *ongoing* issue in Detroit. Maybe the Archdiocese’s response has *you* in mind, not Voris. Do you and Voris actually *disagree* on this point? I thought you also say above that Voris is the only one courageous and frank enough to speak out on this. So *is* he speaking out on this, or not?

            [Christine Niles:]****If anyone knows anything about the history of the Detroit archdiocese,they would know that homosexuality within the seminary & priesthood has been a longtime, deeply entrenched problem there–a problem that continues to this day, and that priests have expressed concern over.****

          • Christine Niles

            (1) My comment above was referring to homosexual problems within the priesthood today, not the seminary. Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.

            (2) The archdiocese was responding to what Michael said in his July 20th Vortex, which nowhere claimed what the archdiocese says he claimed. So the archdiocese was inaccurate.

            My question to you is: Why do you continue to insist on your position, which you have already admitted is uninformed? You yourself admitted you don’t know about “the situation on the ground” here.

            We do. We’re right here in Detroit. Michael Voris got his STB from Sacred Heart Major Seminary; he knows a number of the faculty there, along with seminarians, who have communicated with him. We know what we’re talking about.

            Yet you and your friends step in–knowing nothing whatsoever about what’s going on–and presume to give an informed opinion, when it’s anything but. Instead, the critics here sound like they’re fueled more by personal dislike of Voris than any sincere or rational arguments.

            You may be well-intentioned, but you are doing more harm than good by defending the seminary here.

            So unless you want to parse my language further and try to undermine my words or Voris’, to which I’ll feel the need to respond, I’m done arguing about this with you, Deacon.

          • kathyschiffer

            Stepping in here just for a moment, Christine. I am a native Detroiter. I have been to the seminary frequently, and have many friends there. My husband earned the Master’s of Pastoral Administration there. So if Deacon Jim is an “outsider” who understands nothing, then I assume you will take MY word for it?

          • Christine Niles

            Michael Voris earned his STB at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. He also has friends there, and he’s had numerous dealings with the archdiocese, from without and within, and continues to do so. He knows the situation on the ground better than anyone here, and THIS particular situation concerning this formator better than anyone here. No offense.

            I’m sure you’re well-intentioned, Ms. Schiffer, but you don’t have all the facts. You are going on partial truths being fed to you by the archdiocese.

            I would like to invite you to visit our studios in Ferndale & meet with Michael personally, and he’d be more than happy to sit down and talk with you. You are in Detroit; it should be a short trip.

            God bless.

          • PGMGN

            “…I’m sure you’re well-intentioned, Ms. Schiffer, but you don’t have all the facts. You are going on partial truths being fed to you by the archdiocese.”

            You feed those who post on ChurchMilitant half truths and then blackball discussion about your unsubstantiated false claims, Ms. Niles. You presume to call others sinful and calumniate them and then, after the fact, you think to say, “Stay tuned for our explanation this summer.”

            Well, calling someone an adulterer or a thief without proof would be wrong, Ms. Niles. Wouldn’t you think? Especially if you are attempting intentionally to sully another’s reputation – men/women of good will. Providing the so-called details of how you feel yourselves righteous in doing so after the fact is just that, after the fact and, since summer is winding down, a little late.

            Perhaps you should spend a little more time examining the policies in place at CMTV and not getting wowwed by getting to know folks personally. Many people are very nice. But we’re all sinners. But doing evil and/or promoting division so that good may result is not good. Especially when those to whom you have now decided to do evil were once ‘on your show’ ‘good friends’ and ‘really nice people once you get to know them.’

            You’re not the only one, Ms. Niles, who takes umbrage with the wholesale smearing of another’s name. God willing, you’ll look to it before CMTV’s quest to be top banana spoils the whole bunch that is only working to expose and end this crisis to the benefit of souls.

          • Jim Russell

            So, Christine, although you initially included “seminary” in your comment, that was unintentional. Fine. Then that would mean that we must *agree* that the *seminary* should *not* be construed to be included in this conversation, as you are *not* levelling a charge against the seminary.

            And yet, in the same comment immediately above, you spend a lot of energy trying to *justify* that you and Mr. Voris are all-kindsa “knowledgable” about the *seminary* and what goes on there now and in the past.

            Sooo, if this is really *not* about the seminary, then why do you and Mr. Voris continue to make reference to the seminary in making your presumably broader point about homosexuality-in-the-priesthood-today-but-not-the-seminary??

          • Christine Niles

            Parsing words, and utterly missing the wider point.

            Again.

          • germanman

            for starters – Voris was not made to change the name of realcatholictv. That is a lie spread by the Archdiocese for years now.

            Quite simply – all Shiffer needs to do is call Voris at the studio and ask to see the paperwork.

            Now – the ball is her court. She has been told directly that what she is saying is inaccurate and because it paints him in a bad light – is therefore uncharitable.

            So, its up to her to inquire and check the facts – or to take down her post. It is demonstrably wrong and Voris has the proof and I have seen it.

            So lets see who’s interested in charity now.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            He… actually doesn’t. Maybe Voris is not aware that lying is a sin?

          • Christine Niles

            And perhaps you yourself are not aware that slander is a sin?

            Please tell me exactly where Michael Voris is “lying.”

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Perhaps you shouldn’t accuse anyone of slander given you obviously don’t know what it is? Try looking it up.

          • Jasper

            Ah, the Mark Shea groupie has arrived.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Mark Shea has accused me of wanting to kill his grandchildren. Would you like to see evidence?

    • KL

      Hi Christine! I have a quick question. When did Michael Voris win his Emmys, and in what category? I would like to check out his Emmy-winning works, but haven’t been able to find any specific reference to what those are. I checked the Television Academy’s official Emmy winner archive, but cannot bring up any results for Voris’s name. Your help would be much appreciated!

      • asmondius

        When did Michael Voris win his Emmys…buzz, click…..When did Michael Voris win his Emmys…buzz, click….When did Michael Voris win his Emmys……

        • Giacomo

          HA!!!

          Thanks for a much needed lol. God bless…

          • asmondius

            You’re very welcome, glad you found it humorous.

      • Ginnyfree

        The little boy is qualified to see the foxes in the hen house.

    • ttc

      I don’t care if he is a blogger, a journalist, a fisherman or a plumber. We are talking about common sense here. They are warning heterosexual men that they’ve admitted candidates to the priesthood who are lusting after their bodies. The potential dangers of these candidates in our parishes is released in a memo from the seminary. Are they serious?

      • Christine Niles

        Exactly.

      • Ginnyfree

        Yeah! Horray! You get it! They are in danger there. Nothing has changed. And the woman who wrote the article above supports the agenda that keeps them there in the first place. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    • http://theorant.com Billy Kangas
    • Ken

      If he’s such a great “journalist” why didn’t he pick up the phone and ask the Seminary if what he was about to report was correct and ask them for a response? A responsible journalist always gets both sides of the story before commenting. He is constantly doing this. He goes on the air and makes comments that are constantly inaccurate or haven’t been researched. Bearing false witness is a sin.

    • Anna Maria

      He’s a video blogger, or “vlogger”, as some people call it. But, yeah, he’s basically a blogger. Or, as we call them in the actual industry, an unpaid freelancer.

    • PGMGN

      You make a good point, Ms. Niles. Perhaps, for the sake of journalistic integrity, you and Mr. Voris should attempt to set the bar and practice what you preach in reaching out to other organizations that, when it is convenient, you handle in an appropriate way only to castigate as “reactionary” and “schismatic” for no apparent reason other than a change in funding sources. And all without the simple phone call to clear things up. (Perhaps you should think of the precedence you set.)

      While you tout Mr. Voris’s four emmies as proof of his stellar work, you regularly step out of the bounds of common courtesy at ChurchMilitant and what you yourself have outlined as journalistic integrity by assuming an authority in judging others. You slander others without a care for reaching out and/or having the facts to back you up.

      Unlike Patheos, ChurchMilitant blackballs any who call you out for this odd disconnect on your discussion forums. Your supposed declarations won’t withstand scrutiny or honest debate. That, Ms. Niles, is neither professional nor charitable. It is, however, highly manipulative and speaks of one seeking their own path covered in zeal. That can often be dangerous.

      I do not, however, doubt Mr. Voris’s desire to do good. I would, however, caution him not to undo the good he has done by overreaching himself. Your covering for him in this area is also no help to him in the long run. Misstatements have a way of catching up with a body. Even if you impose a blackout on ChurchMilitant discussion boards. For the very means which Mr. Voris employs to reach the folks is open to all. And unless you plan on hiring individuals to do what you just did above, you won’t be able to keep a cap on the inconsistency.

      What would be refreshing would be an open apology on ChurchMilitant for misleading Catholics, much like the taped apology Mr. Voris made for intimating any criticism of the Holy Father at the time of the October Synod. Consistency, Ms. Niles. For the character of a man and an agency is best judged not by how they apologize for offending superiors, but for how they offend and mistreat peers and subordinates, thinking nothing of smearing and calumniating, casting aspersions on the character of others who have been fighting the good fight far longer than he.

      That’s the broadcast I’m waiting to see.

    • Leticia

      God Bless you Christine Niles and Michael as well. We recently started following Church Militant on FB and my family and I appreciate his dedication to our Lord Jesus Christ. May God keep blessing his show that has helped shed light on those who are blind with darkness.

  • JohnnyVoxx

    The ugly truth about the Satanic-Masonic infiltration of the Church is coming to light. Perhaps consider reading “Goodbye Good Men,” or “The Rite of Sodomy” and you can be a little more charitable to Michael Voris, who clearly loves the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, and believes it to be true. The wickedness of high ranking Catholic prelates and their minions can only be demonic. Voris has been restrained. There will be others soon who speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the occupied Church (unless a chastisement or judgment comes first), and Voris will have paved the way.

    • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

      Well said! Voris is doing a wonderful job exposing the rot inside the Catholic Church that we all love. We all want to see the Church cleaned of the rot inside Her from corrupt clergy and the gay lobby pushing their filth on the innocent. Voris loves the Church, there is no question about that from anyone who listens to him.

      In Christ,

      Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

    • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

      Is it charitable for Michael Voris to bear false witness against the people at Sacred Heart Seminary?

      • germanman

        How did he bear false witness when the priest in question confirmed the report by saying he DID in fact tell the men to put on bathrobes because of SSA seminarians.

        • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund
          • Christine Niles

            That takes me to Jim Russell’s comments–which were roundly answered and refuted by me.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Answered, yes; refuted, no. Deacon Russell rebutted your accusations. Perhaps you should read his comments again.

          • Christine Niles

            No, thanks. He rebutted nothing.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Actually he did, including pointing out a paragraph that you neglected to include (which effectively negates your entire point – hence why you did not include it). He clearly show that you were intentionally misinterpreting church documents.

          • Christine Niles

            Which paragraph exactly? What are you even talking about?

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            …try actually reading his responses.

          • Christine Niles

            Yeah, and try cutting out the snark. It reflects poorly on you. It’s worthy of a 12-year-old with attitude–not a grown adult woman.

            Deacon Russell has written multiple responses, Joanna. Copy & paste the paragraph you are referring to that I allegedly failed to include that proves I am “intentionally misinterpreting church documents.” Don’t wave me off with a pithy one-line answer telling me to go read this, that or the other.

            If you can’t make the arguments yourself, then you lack confidence in your position–which only proves to me that you have no clue what you’re talking about.

            Go back to writing for your nice Catholic blog. This is all way above your head.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            What snark?

            And which Catholic blog would you prefer I return to? I write for three.
            If you are too lazy to read over the arguments already presented, then that is your business. I won’t do your work for you if you are content to remain ignorant.
            Your condescension is not becoming of Catholic charity. Perhaps you should mind the proverb re: glass houses.

          • Christine Niles

            The snark present in all of your responses. As to condescension, speak for yourself. Not to mention your clear hostility and animus towards Voris & me.

            I’m asking you to give me the exact paragraph you are referring to. I want to make sure it’s the correct one, as Deacon Jim has posted multiple lengthy responses. It’s a reasonable request. You should be able to answer it easily.

            Yet you refuse. Again.

            The fact that you refuse to make the case for yourself, shows me you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you’re in way over your head. This is not about me “doing my homework”–this is about you doing YOURS.

            If you can’t do yours, and all you have to offer are brief comments of no substance, then do me a favor and bow out of this discussion & stop wasting my time with your scurrilous, unfounded accusations. I have better things to do, and I’m sure you do as well–like writing for your three blogs.

            Have a great day.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            No snark at all. You seem to be inferring tone onto my comments that simply isn’t there.
            Deacon Russell has gone over the matter throughly. If you are too lazy to read his comments, that is not my problem.
            I have no animus against anyone. I consider Voris to be a brother in Christ. But I wish he’d stop making bearing false witness against his neighbor, as evidenced by the OP.

          • Christine Niles

            Still waiting.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund
          • Christine Niles

            Just so there’s no confusion, the link you posted takes me to this comment by Deacon Russell, which I paste in full here:
            ______________________________________
            “Quoth Michael Voris: ****Men studying for the priesthood who are tempted by such sights should not be in seminary. ****

            Except that’s *not* what the Church teaches.

            Kathy’s quote above makes this clear–seminaries *can* work with young men dealing with *transitory* issues arising from affective immaturity.

            So, Voris’s whole exercise is devolving into an example of the kind of “unjust discrimination” that we Catholics are taught to *avoid* when it comes to persons with SSA. What a shame.

            It would be sort of like telling a man preparing for *marriage* that he ought not get married if he continues being “tempted” by other women. Temptations come and go and must be dealt with *properly* to be sure, but they aren’t the deal-breaker Voris is suggesting.

            _______________________________________________
            First, Deacon Russell’s analogy is inaccurate. He writes:

            “It would be sort of like telling a man preparing for *marriage* that he ought not get married if he continues being “tempted” by other women.”

            No. It would be like telling a man preparing for marriage that he ought not live in a house full of beautiful women who emerge half-naked from a shower, and that he needs to remove himself from that situation immediately, for the good of his soul–especially if that man will enter a career where he is often surrounded by beautiful women in close quarters (who may even share living quarters with him).

            Anyone who can’t see the dangers of a same-sex-attracted man in a seminary full of men, who’s discerning entering a career where he may likely have to live in the same quarters as other men is either shockingly naive or willfully blind.

            I also responded to Deacon Russell’s comments elsewhere:

            “In addition to having reliable inside sources who have confirmed *everything* Voris has reported, we’ve also received multiple messages from priests who agree with Church Militant 100% that the seminary is playing a dangerous game, and that this particular official’s admonition about bathrobes was, at the very least, utterly imprudent.”

            I also wrote:

            “You are splitting hairs, and your response doesn’t apply in this particular case.

            If the temptation of homosexual impurity is so bad that the seminary has to conduct a house meeting telling all the straight guys to start wearing bathrobes out of the shower–then I’d say those tendencies are pretty deep-seated.

            The right response here would have been for the seminary–as soon as it received complaints from the SSA men about the bath towel attire–to take the SSA guys aside, sit down, and have a very serious discussion with them as to whether the seminary is the right place for them.

            Especially in light of the MASSIVE damage done to the Church by homosexual priestly scandals–which are ongoing (the longtime Vice President of the Catholic Leadership Institute just came out as gay, admitting he had been gay for his entire 25 years as a priest & used his position of influence over clergy to push for gay reforms; the original Detroit seminary was a hothouse of homosexual activity, garnering the nickname “Hothouse” precisely for this reason–a number of the homosexual seminarians went on to be homosexually active priests; several of them died from AIDS, etc., etc. I could go on and on, but you get my drift).

            In light of all this untold destruction and damage, why on earth would anyone be defending the seminary’s conduct here? How is that charitable? How is that even sane?”

            I also wrote:

            “Here’s the problem, Deacon. You seem to want to take a more lackadaisical approach to SSA, and show not the slightest bit of concern that, in a seminary environment where men are exhibiting perfectly normal male behavior, there are several seminarians tempted enough to lust that they must make that temptation known to the formator–who then must go to the trouble of rounding up ALL the seminarians and making a speech at a house meeting admonishing the non-SSA men that they need to alter their perfectly normal male behavior to accommodate SSA men.

            And no alarm bells go off for you.

            Nothing to see here, folks.

            Sure, we’ve had decades of priestly sex abuse scandals that blew up in the Church’s face a few years ago & cost us billions in settlements, not to mention devastated lives & loss of souls & loss of credibility for the Church.

            The John Jay report showed 81% of the sex abuse cases involved homosexuals abusing teenaged boys–not pedophilia per se, but ephebophilia, a common practice within the homosexual subculture.

            But according to you, nothing to be concerned about.

            The Vice President of the Catholic Leadership Institute, who trained hundreds of bishops and priests across the nation, just came out as gay–and admitted to having been gay for all 25 years of his priesthood. He’s now no longer a priest & is living an openly gay lifestyle, and admits to having used his position to influence bishops to change their approach to the LGBT community.

            But no concerns from you about SSA men in the seminary?

            And from Michael Rose’s Goodbye Good Men, on the Detroit seminary St. John’s Provincial:

            “Several Detroit-area priests recalled the widespread homosexual promiscuity during the 1980s at St. John’s Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, Michigan. They described their seminary as a “veritable hothouse” for the gay subculture. Said one of the priests: “Everyone there knew what was going on. There were visits at night as gay seminarians cruised from room to room.” Little effort was made to hide either the sexual orientation or the homosexual activity of the seminarians at St. John’s, and, he added, “it was not uncommon to see seminarians acting out in a fairly public setting.”

            The priest recited a long list of active homosexuals who were ordained: Some of the priests are now vocal gay activists, and others have left the priesthood to take up a full-time gay lifestyle in the San Francisco area. At least two are known to have died from AIDS. Others have been placed on administrative leave after charges of sexual abuse of minors. All of the offending priests, my informant said, were known to be active homosexuals during their seminary years.”

            One could go on and on and on and on and on.

            Anyone who knows this history and understands these problems–yet isn’t in the least concerned that the formator is acting imprudently–well, that’s a level of naïveté I don’t understand.”

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Yes, thank you for demonstrating that you are incorrect, as Deacon Jim’s subsequent comments make very clear.

          • Christine Niles

            Which subsequent comments? There are dozens.

            And on which point am I incorrect? I made many points.

            Please enlighten.

            Or are we just going to go in circles again with you evading the question while repeatedly telling me I’m wrong, or “lazy,” or “ignorant,” or “unwilling to do my homework,” and other very uncharitable things, as you’ve said before?

          • Christine Niles

            Incorrect on which point? I made multiple points.

            And which subsequent comments? Deacon Russell made dozens.

            Let’s not go in circles again over this, please. Enlighten me as to exactly which point was wrong.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            All of your points are incorrect, and all of Deacon Russell’s comments prove that.

          • Miguel Losada

            Christine, it’s amazing that you accuse someone else of snark yet can’t see that your remarks are dripping with condescension. You have established a reputation of being a bully when it comes to defending Voris. You have the power to delete comments in the CM combox but you don’t have that power here and it clearly frustrates you. Look how much time you’ve spent over the past few years defending Voris on the internet. Your over the top defensiveness isn’t very becoming in a married woman…unless you’re married to Voris. Even then, Voris should have the sense to tell you to knock it off. Or does he pay you to flit about the internet insulting all those who dare to disagree with him? Your behavior with regard to Voris is very odd indeed.

          • Christine Niles

            What a horrible remark.

            Ms. Schiffer, I ask you to delete this remark, as it makes vile insinuations about me and Michael Voris, and is a personal attack on my integrity and his.

          • Miguel Losada

            It’s honest feedback. Do you really not have a clue how you appear?

          • kathyschiffer

            Christine, I have deleted the personal attack by Mr. Losada, and I remind all the commenters here that this is a Catholic blog. Some–no, many–of the comments here have been so negative. Are we forgetting that God loves all of us, even those with whom you may personally disagree?

            Please refrain from personal attacks and confine your discussion to issues, or the combox will be closed completely.

          • Christine Niles

            “Your condescension is not becoming of Catholic charity.”

            So says the lady who’s been condescending, snarky and hostile all throughout this discussion–not to mention unjustly accusing both me & Voris of “slander.” Speak for yourself.

            This is not about me doing my homework. It’s about you doing YOURS.

            It’s very simple. Provide the exact paragraph you’re referring to. Deacon Russell has written multiple, lengthy comments. I want to make sure I’m responding to the correct one. Since you raised the point, then finish it.

            It’s a simple request, with a simple answer.

            Make your case. Stop waving me off to go look at what someone else wrote.

            Make the case yourself.

            If you can’t, then might I kindly suggest you bow out of this conversation and go back to writing for your three blogs and stop wasting my time with your scurrilous, unfounded accusations? I can’t take someone like you seriously.

            Thanks.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I’ve not been any of those things. Perhaps the fact that you have acted so is causing you to view my comments through a similar lens?

          • Christine Niles

            There are none so blind as those who will not see.

            Still waiting for your substantive argument.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Oh, I absolutely agree. Once again, glass houses…

          • Christine Niles

            My dear JoAnna, could you please stop being obscure and tell me exactly which paragraph of which comment you are referring to, and which one I left out? Your responses are terribly confusing. I have no idea what you’re even referring to. Thanks.

          • Christine Niles

            You know what–nevermind. I’ve just realized that no matter what I say, no matter how articulately I make my point, you will not be satisfied. Why? Because your responses are based on personal animus and not on logic. Nothing I say will make any difference, nor will it change your mind. You’re already convinced that Michael Voris is a scoundrel, and you probably think the same about me. Oh well. Your choice.

            I’m going to go enjoy my weekend and the rest of my night. Best wishes, and have a nice life.

      • Ginnyfree

        JoAnna, the witness is not false. There are gays in the seminary and they complained loudly enough about how tired they were of fighting temptations when the straights came out of the showers in only their bath towels that a policy change needed to be made to FAVOR THE GAYS! No, am I too bearing false witness? God bless. Ginnyfree.

        • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

          “There are gays in the seminary and they complained loudly enough about how tired they were of fighting temptations when the straights came out of the showers in only their bath towels…”

          Hm, oddly enough, the article says the exact opposite.

          According to the Sacred Heart Seminary administration,

          “Sacred Heart adheres absolutely to the Church’s teaching regarding those who experience SSA. Unfortunately, Voris did not check the story with the formator whose alleged comments he quoted. The formator did not use the term “gay,” but rather “same-sex attracted.” He asked men to wear bathrobes to the shower for the sake of decorum and charity. As an example of potential uncharity he said, “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA? Your lack of modesty would be uncharitable considering your neighbor’s needs.” The men understood this completely.”

          No seminarians complained about fighting temptations. Why are you lying, Ginnyfree?

      • Ginnyfree

        JoAnna he speaks the truth. You keep libeling people. You should do a little research yourself. God bless. Ginnyfree.

        • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

          How have I libeled Voris? Kathy documented in her article how he did not tell the truth.

          • Ginnyfree

            JoAnna, repeating that he lied. And you think if you repeat it enough, people will believe you. Why do you feel so compelled to “prove” others are lying? God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Kathy documented his falsehoods in her article. Why do you refuse to believe your own eyes?

    • kmk1916

      Kathy’s piece was well-written , maybe worth a re-read?

  • Blesski

    The fact is that if there are men in the seminary that have homosexual tendencies, they do NOT belong there.

    Here is Mike’s follow up post:
    http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsame-sex-attracted-seminarians

    See this post’s comments for proper reporting and law regaring homosexual men in the seminaries:
    http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsame-sex-attracted-seminarians

    • Jim Russell

      Except that’s not what the Church teaches.

      The Church makes an important distinction between “transitory” and “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies. Transitory SSA resulting from affective immaturity can be treated and overcome.

      • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

        Once more you are WRONG. You clearly don’t read Church documents about this.

        From the Vatican [pay close attention to 9 and 10]:
        Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

        In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

        Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

        Link; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

        • Jim Russell

          So, again, I repeat:

          “Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            And again, they have NOT “clearly overcome” their homosexual tendencies as we can see in report after report about gay clergy.

          • Jim Russell

            Then focus on *that* problem rather than trying to link it to the formational directive on “bathrobes” in Detroit….

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            We need to focus on ALL the evil inside the Church. That should be OBVIOUS to all Catholics.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Uh… who are you talking about, here? Who is “they”? Why do you presume to judge the heart, mind, and soul of every seminarian in existence? I thought that was God’s responsibility, not yours.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Clearly I am someone who knows the Bible better than you.
            1 Cor. 5:12 look it up.
            I am not judging anyone’s soul- just their actions-which we are called to do.
            The “they” are those in the Church who look the other way to allow or promote more gay clergy in the Church. Even the pope admits to there being a “gay lobby”- its no secret and its deeply embedded in the Church.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Um, I wrote this article so I’m well aware on what we can and cannot judge, thanks. http://www.catholicstand.com/yes-catholics-can-judge/

            However, you cross the line when you judge the hearts and minds of these seminarians, instead of their actions (which you have no knowledge of and have not personally witnessed).

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Wrong again. I have neither named nor judged a single person. The issue is not about an INDIVIDUAL whom COULD be judged, but rather PRACTICES and going-on’s in a seminary that are being judged. You are confused by the differences.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            “And again, they have NOT “clearly overcome” their homosexual tendencies as we can see in report after report about gay clergy.”

            You’re clearly talking about people, here, not practices.

          • moody Gail

            I judge actions. I continue to judge actions. I don’t care what the motivation. The action is wrong and the person must be stopped. Their hearts and minds are, as you say,not my concern. If they have one single action tending towards homosexual activity- out. Get out. Being around men will never help them. Maybe they can enter a convent where their will be no temptations.
            We don’t need disordered priests of any kind. Not disordered by ambition, vanity, power seeking, curiosity, nor sexual. Stop pandering to disorder. Demand more not less from priests.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Um… all sin is disordered. You’re basically saying that you want sinless priests. That isn’t going to happen.

          • asmondius

            Some sins hurt innocents, some don’t.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Which doesn’t negate the fact that all sin is disordered. And sin hurts everyone, innocent or not.

          • asmondius

            Are you saying that mortal sin and venial sin are equal?

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            No, of course not.

          • asmondius

            Thanks for clarifying. For a moment I thought you were saying that the gravity of a sin is irrelevant.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Absolutely not.

          • kmk1916

            That’s a great article, JoAnna!

          • Miguel Losada

            It appears that you’re lacking in humility.

          • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

            Because I give back what others toss at me? I am no ones doormat and I will not be bullied- especially by fools.

          • Ginnyfree

            Oh JoAnna who thinks she alone can tell the difference between attraction and lust for everyone! Tossed pot calling a kettle black. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            No, Ginnyfree, I simply don’t presume to judge because only God can do that.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            You are a Deacon? You work full time for the Church? And you admit that America’s Catholic Bishops are again recruiting sexually perverse men into the Seminaries? This time under the tag “transitory”?

            You just do not get it. NO. MORE. PREDATORS.

            Never again.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            And you should stick to what the Church *actually* teaches on SSA. You mock the Magisterium when you choose words like “sexually perverse men” and “PREDATORS” to describe men who merely *experience*–and do not *will*–same-sex attraction.

            Quit mocking the teaching authority of the Bride of Christ.

          • asmondius

            Are you stating that homosexuality is simply a passing fancy?

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Professional Deacon Russell:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “You mock the Magisterium when you choose words like “sexually perverse men” and “PREDATORS” .”

            So all those raped boys and abused young men were NOT preyed upon by gay priests (and Deacons) who had been ordained in our Seminaries to include the AOD Seminary Sacred Heart?

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • asmondius

            Explain how this is determined.

      • Ginnyfree

        Jim you have placed words in the mouth of folks at the Vatican that aren’t there. They aren’t saying what you see, namely that they help young men transition FROM homosexual TO heterosexual while in seminary. This is wrong. It is a gross distortion of ANY seminary to say such things. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

    Michael Voris is a “blogger”?? Hahahaha… try again.

  • Christine Niles
    • Jim Russell

      Except he’s wrong on the key point….

      • Christine Niles

        You are splitting hairs, and your response doesn’t apply in this particular case. I repost my response below:

        If the temptation of homosexual impurity is so bad that the seminary has to conduct a house meeting telling all the straight guys to start wearing bathrobes out of the shower–then I’d say those tendencies are pretty deep-seated.

        The right response here would have been for the seminary–as soon as it received complaints from the SSA men about the bath towel attire–to take the SSA guys aside, sit down, and have a very serious discussion with them as to whether the seminary is the right place for them.

        Especially in light of the MASSIVE damage done to the Church by homosexual priestly scandals–which are ongoing (the longtime Vice President of the Catholic Leadership Institute just came out as gay, admitting he had been gay for his entire 25 years as a priest & used his position of influence over clergy to push for gay reforms; the original Detroit seminary was a hothouse of homosexual activity, garnering the nickname “Hothouse” precisely for this reason–a number of the homosexual seminarians went on to be homosexually active priests; several of them died from AIDS, etc., etc. I could go on and on, but you get my drift).

        In light of all this untold destruction and damage, why on earth would anyone be defending the seminary’s conduct here? How is that charitable? How is that even sane?

        • Jim Russell

          I’m doing my job, Christine, rather than splitting hairs: I’m reporting what the Church teaches. Voris has it wrong because he’s not leaving room for the possibility of a seminarian with *transitory* SSA entering formation–but this possibility is clearly foreseen in the appropriate magisterial documents.

          • Christine Niles

            You mean well, Jim, but you are missing the point. Reposting my response:

            In addition to having reliable inside sources who have confirmed *everything* Voris has reported, we’ve also received multiple messages from priests who agree with Church Militant 100% that the seminary is playing a dangerous game, and that this particular official’s admonition about bathrobes was, at the very least, utterly imprudent.

            To defend the seminary here is, quite frankly, naïve. I recommend you read about the spiritual history of the Detroit archdiocese and the rampant problems in the previous seminary.

            http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-church-in-detroit-paving-the-way-for-evil

            Anyone who thinks the seminary responded rightly here is failing to take into account the bigger picture.

            To split hairs over deep-seated vs. transitory homosexual attraction is to miss the point, which is that if there are men who are SO tempted to impurity over perfectly normal male behavior (like wearing a bath towel out of the shower), SO bothered that they actually have to make a trip to the seminary’s main office and voice their complaints–then there is a serious problem–and that problem doesn’t lie with the other seminarians.

            Those SSA men need to be seriously examined to see whether they belong in the seminary. Clearly, if perfectly normal male behavior has to be altered because some men are THAT tempted to impurity and lust over seeing their chests, then they should NOT be there.

            How exactly will they deal with basketball games, where the men play shirtless and are wearing shorts shorter than bath towels? Will the seminarians also have to cover themselves up there as well, so as not to offend or tempt the SSA men to lust? And what other perfectly normal male behavior will the seminarians have to alter for the sake of a few SSA men who are SO TEMPTED that they can’t handle–again–perfectly normal male behavior?

            The real issue here is: Why isn’t the Detroit archdiocese doing a better job of screening these men, before they go on to ordination? Why are the other men in the seminary being castigated for perfectly NORMAL male behavior, while the SSA guys get coddled?

            THAT’S the issue here–not all this other stuff.

          • Jim Russell

            The issue is that we should be accepting the Church’s discipline on this, and *not* trying to sensationalize this. To take the seminary formator’s *hypothetical* example of a seminarian with SSA as problematic is to *miss* the truth that such a scenario is understood to be possible even within the framework of the Church’s rejection of permitting any seminarians with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

          • Christine Niles

            No one is sensationalizing anything.

            ChurchMilitant.com was personally contacted by people present at this seminary official’s admonition about the bath robes. They were deeply troubled not only by this official’s admonition but by the general culture being fostered there. If anyone knows anything about the history of the Detroit archdiocese, they would know that homosexuality within the seminary & priesthood has been a longtime, deeply entrenched problem there.

            There’s nothing sensationalist about this. It must be brought to light for the sake of changing the status quo. It can’t remain “business as usual” there anymore.

            And quite frankly, Voris is the only with the courage & frankness to do this.

          • Jim Russell

            You might want to go back and read the flow of those first two sentences. All of this over *bathrobes*, but no “sensationalizing”….

            By the way, if Mr. Voris wants “dialogue” on this as his recent post suggests, have him drop me a line. I’d like to hear an explanation of how *affirming* the importance of modesty somehow counts *against* a seminary merely because the hypothetical example offered involved SSA.

          • Christine Niles

            The only reason you would write this off as being about nothing more than bathrobes indicates you know very little about the actual situation on the ground.

            We are here in Detroit. We know many of these people. We DO know the situation on the ground.

            The people WITHIN the seminary who contacted us–as well as multiple clergy outside the seminary–aren’t so quick to write this off as you’ve been.

          • Jim Russell

            Have we ever discussed what I know about the “situation on the ground”? Probably not. From my vantage point, though, I see a path through all the evidence that does *not* require me to accept at face value that anything happened in this episode other than seminarians being instructed to be more modest. The existing “evidence” brought to bear by Mr. Voris doesn’t infallibly add up to anything more than that. For him to move from an abstraction (a seminarian with an unspecified experience of same-sex attraction perhaps *benefitting* from *not* being tempted) to a positive assertion that someone fitting such a description must indeed be present there (and that this is somehow indicative of a continuation of a past problem) is wrong.

          • Jim Russell

            ****If anyone knows anything about the history of the Detroit archdiocese,they would know that homosexuality within the seminary & priesthood has been a longtime, deeply entrenched problem there–a problem that continues to this day, and that priests have expressed concern over.****

            You claim here that this problem “continues to this day”–really? Evidence, please? Does Mr. Voris conclude this as well? You’re making a *specific* charge here about the Detroit seminary….

          • Christine Niles

            No, I’m making a specific charge about the archdiocese. It is public knowledge that this archdiocese once had the longest-running, diocesan-approved Dignity gay Masses in the nation–until Jay McNally reported on the scandal and it became a source of embarrassment to the archdiocese, which then promptly forbade Dignity to use diocesan property. At the time, Dignity publicly acknowledged (with no objection or refutation from the archdiocese) that it had support from the archdiocese, and diocesan officials even attended such gay Masses, which were presided over by a rotating crop of more than 20 diocesan priests.

            Dignity Masses continue unabated within the archdiocese, held at a local Catholic college hosted by a group of nuns. Abp Vigneron has done nothing to stop them.

            We are also personally aware of gay priests within the archdiocese, although we aren’t at liberty to reveal their names.

            None of this should come as a surprise to any Catholic who has his finger even barely on the pulse of the Church today. This sort of problem exists in numerous dioceses. We know–we get the e-mails, and we’re in touch with loads of clergy & seminarians.

          • Jim Russell

            Interesting. What would you recommend the Archbishop do about the Dignity Masses that has not yet been done? Repeat the admonition against them? What else?

            Do you and Mr. Voris intend to give adequate and fair coverage to the upcoming conference in Detroit on August 10 (link below), an utterly faithful conference on SSA that would *not* be possible were it not for the Archbishop himself, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and numerous *seminary* faculty devoting a great deal of thankless time and energy, cooperating with the Courage apostolate? The *same* people–including the Archbishop–whom you and Mr. Voris have cast as somehow unresponsive to this issue have done the faithful a *great* service via this conference.

            http://couragerc.org/michigan-conference-2015/

          • John Flaherty

            “What would you recommend the Archbishop do about the Dignity Masses that has not yet been done?”

            If the Archbishop, as the shepherd of his Archdiocese, believes that Dignity masses pose a grave enough threat to the souls of his sheep, he certainly has the authority–perhaps even the responsibility–to take more rigorous action. Removing ministerial faculties from obstinate priests who offer these Masses, issuing direction that those who host or participate in such masses suffer excommunication, those sorts of things.
            Certainly we hope that such measures would not be needed, but we aren’t dealing with simple matters of adolescent rebellion here. Serious problems have serious consequences.

          • Jim Russell

            And it remains a matter of prudential judgment whether the things you mention would be the best course, or not. The Archbishop has to make that decision, before God. He *has* protected the faithful using his authority by forbidding Dignity’s presence on Archdiocesan property. The problem is that no one thus far is presenting the *full* picture of what the Archbishop–and others–are doing in Detroit for the sake of the faithful regarding these issues. I’m still waiting for someone other than me to remind folks that many very *good* things are happening in Detroit regarding the issue of same-sex attraction.

          • John Flaherty

            If the Archbishop must make such decisions before God, so too do the faithful. They must decide whether to make his various efforts happen by financial support or volunteer effort. Or not. Much of that will depend on whether the faithful believe their assigned shepherd will act as a serious Apostle of Christ. If you’re still waiting for people to admit to the full picture, perhaps they don’t agree about the character of that full picture.

            Far too many bishops and priests have used this notion of “prudential judgement” as a method of obfuscation and negligence. Such an approach has consequences, as the the faithful probably have the notion that the Archdiocese intends an endless–fruitless–dialogue. I wouldn’t blame them; I’ve seen far too much of that myself in at least two different dioceses, including where I live now.

            If people aren’t eager to see widespread “extreme” measures taken, neither are they eager to see the Church appear to fall on Her knees when Her shepherds insistently refuse to act with strong enough medicine.

          • asmondius

            Such as….?

          • Christine Niles

            “And it remains a matter of prudential judgment whether the things you mention would be the best course, or not.”

            Are you joking?

            It’s the longest-running Dignity Mass in the nation, going on more than 40 years.

            How long do we need to wait for the good archbishop to continue discerning the most prudential path–all the while, souls are being led astary while these blasphemous Masses continue week after week after blessed week?

            These Dignity Masses happened on diocesan property–with full archdiocesan approval–for 22 years, in spite of multiple complaints from the faithful–until Catholic World Report blew the lid off the scandal in 1996 and brought embarrassment to Cdl Maida. After that, the Masses ended RIGHT quick.

            Maybe that’s what it takes to get bishops to act–public reporting of the scandal, focusing national attention on the problems, making it such a headache and embarrassment for the bishop that he FINALLY has to act.

            There really is NO excuse for Abp Vigneron here. None.

          • Ginnyfree

            OH you go girl!! Great stuff. Thanks be to God for your bravery and vigilance! God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Christine Niles

            We have always strongly supported the Courage apostolate, and we receive plenty of messages of support from members of the Courage apostolate. And yes, we’ve been discussing for a while now coverage of the upcoming Courage conference, which we think is a terrific thing and are pleased the archdiocese is sponsoring.

            That doesn’t give Abp Vigneron a pass for doing practically nothing about the continuing gay Masses going on in the archdiocese.

            No priest can offer Mass if he doesn’t have faculties from the bishop. Abp Vigneron could very easily shut down those Masses. He has the authority. He’s just not exercising it.

          • Ginnyfree

            Bravo! Some Truth with a little bite to it! God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • paperboyian

            Who the hell said it was hypothetical?

          • Jim Russell

            Um, yeah, that would be the guy that actually *said* what was said to the seminarians:

            ****The formator did not use the term “gay,” but rather “same-sex attracted.” He asked men to wear bathrobes to the shower for the sake of decorum and charity. As an example of potential uncharity he said, “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA? Your lack of modesty would be uncharitable considering your neighbor’s needs.” The men understood this completely.*****

            The words “What if” make clear that the example is intentionally hypothetical…

          • Christine Niles

            “The men understood this completely.”

            Another one of the formator’s inaccuracies. The men did NOT understand this completely. How do we know that? Because some of those very same men reached out & complained to us that they were disturbed by the formator’s admonition.

            The formator simply assumed they all “understood this completely” because no one raised any objections at the time. He’s wrong.

            Not to mention the fact that this formator very uncharitably threw a former seminarian under the bus by accusing HIM (inaccurately) of being the source of the leak. Again, the formator was wrong on this score; he picked out the wrong guy, uncharitably assumed it was him, accused & denigrated him in front of the entire faculty.

            How anyone can defend this sort of behavior is beyond me.

          • Jim Russell

            Poor argument. You’re effectively asserting that, yes, the guys who were so “disturbed” by this and who are your *sources* didn’t “understand completely” what the formator was trying to convey. Is that what you mean to assert?

          • Christine Niles

            They comprehended, but it was not “understood,” as in accepted.

          • Jim Russell

            And what precisely didn’t the seminarians understand about what they comprehended? Did they, out of respect for the formator in question, ask for any clarification about what they didn’t understand?

          • Christine Niles

            Again, parsing words.

            This is useless.

            Have a good day, Deacon Jim. If you want to write Michael Voris, do so at questions@churchmilitant.com.

            God bless.

          • Jim Russell

            Actually, I was asking *sincerely* what they did not understand and how they responded to that. Because you have said you know the situation on the ground and I don’t. So my question is not a parsing of words–it’s a request for information–information at the very heart of your claims. Namely, what was so disturbing to the seminarian “sources” that they responded not by following up with the formator but by reaching *outside* the seminary to inform others about this?

            I will say that I’m grateful that we could engage this issue without being uncivil or uncharitable. But I am sorry that so many important elements here are being left unaddressed. God bless you, too.

          • Christine Niles

            I’ve addressed every single point you have made, and have tried to do so thoroughly and accurately, so let’s not mischaracterize my responses.

            In response to your sincere question, I will offer a sincere answer:

            The reason these people within the seminary reached out to us rather than raised their concerns with this formator is because the formator occupies a powerful position in the seminary, with the power to determine whether or not the seminarian stays or goes. These people were concerned about retaliation.

            They reached out to us because they are concerned about the culture being fostered at the seminary–one that coddles those who struggle with SSA and fails to take the dangers of this disposition in the seminary seriously, while focusing the blame on the rest o the male seminary population for exhibiting normal male behavior.

          • Jim Russell

            The primary problem I see with this description is that it suggests something for which there appears to be *zero* evidence–namely, that there actually *are* seminarians there who are supposedly known by *other* seminarians to be dealing with SSA. The “source” seminarian(s) seems to bristle at the “coddling” you describe, suggesting they’ve made up their minds that some of their fellow students *are* same-sex attracted. And, instead of following their formators’ charitable counsel, they go *public* with their inferences???

            Wow–now, to me, *that’s* an amazing example of affective immaturity on the part of the *sources*. ..

          • Christine Niles

            Can you actually be serious?

            Do you not understand the concept of retaliation? Especially in seminaries? Do you really think this doesn’t exist?

            For you to turn around and call our source(s) “immature” for fear of the very real possibility of being kicked out for expressing their concerns is beneath you.

            As to the formator, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he castigates Michael Voris for implying there’s a homosexual presence in the seminary, and then he ends with the admonition that it would be “naïve” to think in a group of 60 men there would NOT be a homosexual presence among them!

          • Ginnyfree

            Jim, it is obvious to me that one, you aren’t on the correct side of the issue and you are fishing to find out who told so you can see to it they get hurt. My instincts say not to give you the name of even one jay walker in my township! Hello!!!?!? God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Ginnyfree

            So far, only Jim.

          • Ginnyfree

            Jim there is nothing hypothetical about it. The gays at the seminary complained loudly enough to have a memo sent to all including the straights. That is what really happened. While we are here discussing this, there are men in that place and other places as well who are preparing to be Ordained and they aren’t secure in their persons because the fox guarding the hen house let in the wolves in sheep’s clothing and I’m beginning to think your own fluffy white coat may actually be what’s left after the little lamb was slain. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell
            Re: :”transitory* SSA entering formation”

            You have an admittedly sexually perverse man in the Seminary but you allow him to stay because you hope he is going to stop being sexually perverse? Am I getting that right? And you are a Deacon are you not? Work full time for the Catholic Church do you not?

            You just do not get it. We are fed up with our sons being molested by the products of your seminaries. You are still enabling and protecting predators now under the :”transitory* SSA entering formation” moniker.

            Never again.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            It’s both appalling and disturbing that you seem incapable of maintaining the necessary distinctions between the categories “sexually perverse” and “same-sex attraction.” Someone who merely experiences a same-sex attraction has experienced an objectively disordered inclination. This does NOT make that person a “sexually perverse man.”

            THIS is what the Church teaches–not the obtuse imprecision you embrace above.

          • Christine Niles

            Here’s the problem, Deacon. You seem to want to take a more lackadaisical approach to SSA, and show not the slightest bit of concern that, in a seminary environment where men are exhibiting perfectly normal male behavior, there are several seminarians tempted enough to lust that they must make that temptation known to the formator–who then must go to the trouble of rounding up ALL the seminarians and making a speech at a house meeting admonishing the non-SSA men that they need to alter their perfectly normal male behavior to accommodate SSA men.

            And no alarm bells go off for you.

            Nothing to see here, folks.

            Sure, we’ve had decades of priestly sex abuse scandals that blew up in the Church’s face a few years ago & cost us billions in settlements, not to mention devastated lives & loss of souls & loss of credibility for the Church.

            The John Jay report showed 81% of the sex abuse cases involved homosexuals abusing teenaged boys–not pedophilia per se, but ephebophilia, a common practice within the homosexual subculture.

            But according to you, nothing to be concerned about.

            The Vice President of the Catholic Leadership Institute, who trained hundreds of bishops and priests across the nation, just came out as gay–and admitted to having been gay for all 25 years of his priesthood. He’s now no longer a priest & is living an openly gay lifestyle, and admits to having used his position to influence bishops to change their approach to the LGBT community.

            But no concerns from you about SSA men in the seminary?

            And from Michael Rose’s Goodbye Good Men, on the Detroit seminary St. John’s Provincial:

            “Several Detroit-area priests recalled the widespread homosexual promiscuity during the 1980s at St. John’s Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, Michigan. They described their seminary as a “veritable hothouse” for the gay subculture. Said one of the priests: “Everyone there knew what was going on. There were visits at night as gay seminarians cruised from room to room.” Little effort was made to hide either the sexual orientation or the homosexual activity of the seminarians at St. John’s, and, he added, “it was not uncommon to see seminarians acting out in a fairly public setting.”

            The priest recited a long list of active homosexuals who were ordained: Some of the priests are now vocal gay activists, and others have left the priesthood to take up a full-time gay lifestyle in the San Francisco area. At least two are known to have died from AIDS. Others have been placed on administrative leave after charges of sexual abuse of minors. All of the offending priests, my informant said, were known to be active homosexuals during their seminary years.”

            One could go on and on and on and on and on.

            Anyone who knows this history and understands these problems–yet isn’t in the least concerned that the formator is acting imprudently–well, that’s a level of naïveté I don’t understand.

          • Jim Russell

            You know better, Christine. You know better than to accuse me of thinking there’s “nothing to be concerned about” regarding these issues. My track record does speak for itself.

            But I have an *obligation* to what the Church actually *says* as opposed to how Mr. Voris chooses to characterize what the Church tells us. My allegiance is to the Church, not Mr. Voris. So, if he falls off the rails on something, as he’s done here, my obligation is to stand fast with the truth.

            Mr. Voris has voiced *disagreement* with the Magisterium by saying “Men studying for the priesthood who are tempted by such sights should not be in seminary.”

            We can talk all day about the *genuine* issues pertaining to homosexuality in the Church, but I’m not going to stand by watching while well-intended efforts at a seminary that’s diligently turning the corner are disparaged via Mr. Voris’ rash judgment.

            And I’ll be more than glad to continue this conversation with him directly, in response to his request for “dialogue.”

          • Ginnyfree

            Oh my goodness! Could you be any wronger Jim? You state: “Mr. Voris has voiced *disagreement* with the Magisterium by saying “Men studying for the priesthood who are tempted by such sights should not be in seminary.” This is in fact what the Church teaches – men with SSA have no place in the Priesthood and since the seminary is the usual and ordinary means by which they obtain the training necessary prior to Ordination, they have no place in the seminary either. You are laughably wrong. The Church teaches the opposite of our spin Jim. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Professional Deacon Russell:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “It’s both appalling and disturbing that you seem incapable of
            maintaining the necessary distinctions between the categories “sexually
            perverse” and “same-sex attraction.”.”

            If only St. Thomas Aquinas was as smart as you. HE wrote:

            “Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his
            specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we
            can say that every sin is a sin against man’s nature, because it is
            against man’s right reason….

            “Secondly, man sins against
            nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his
            animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order,
            the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From
            this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to
            conception is opposed to man’s animal nature.”

            and in part:

            “This does NOT make that person a “sexually perverse man.”

            and your smarter than St Catherine of Siena who wrote:

            “But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this
            mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility
            of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason,
            when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these
            wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing
            that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the
            light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and
            misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me,
            who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so
            much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five
            cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to
            endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the
            devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil
            displeases them because they like anything good, but because their
            nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to
            loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin”

            It is just amazing how smart you are.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • asmondius

            Catholics are no longer willing to risk their sons so that pundits can espouse concepts such as ‘transitory SSA’.

  • Christine Niles
  • Lookingup73

    He is typical of many irrational, militant Catholics of the day, in the vein of cordileone, the catholic league’s donohue, public catholic blog, etc.

    • Christine Niles

      “in the vein of cordileone”

      Voris would be honored to be included in the same group as that valiant archbishop battling homosexualist corruption in the SF archdiocese. God bless Abp. Cordileone.

      • Lookingup73

        Sounds good, if you don’t see the similarities……pathetic.

      • Barry

        Wading through all of these posts has made me realize that the Church is in worse shape than I ever believed. Eighty percent of us skip Mass on Sundays, but we’ll focus on Emmy’s and utter nonsense rather than deal with a Church in freefall and the reasons behind the collapse… one that not only continues unabated but is picking up speed. The Church quickly surrendered on contraception and abortion; now the front-line is homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Voris is one of the few speaking up, and as we can see here today, he’s being hammered for it from people inside the Church. It will only get worse with the next Family Synod this October. For the first time I will be praying for Michael Voris and all the people at Church Militant, daily.

        • Christine Niles

          Thank you sincerely for your prayers.

  • Steve Kellmeyer

    It is impossible to commit slander against an organization. Slander is an offense against PERSONS. Sacred Heart Seminary is not a person.

    • Jim Russell

      Seminaries are juridic persons.

      • Richard W Comerford

        Mr. Jim Russell:

        You posted in part: “Seminaries are juridic persons”

        A juridic person is not a Son Of Adam. It is not made in the image and likeness of God. Christ did not suffer His terrible Passion and Death to save said soul.

        A Juridic person is a legal fiction created by the church bureaucracy for its own administrative convenience.

        The sin of slander cannot be committed against a nonexistent person.

        Are you Deacon James Russell? If so, you should know this. Thank you.

        God bless

        Richard W Comerford

        • Jim Russell

          Arguing over who or what has been “slandered” is pretty useless. If you insist that a human person *must* be the target, then consider the fact that the seminary formator in question has been treated slanderously.

          • Christine Niles

            No, he hasn’t. Yet you keep repeating your assertions. Michael Voris reported–accurately–what the formator said.

            We have the full e-mail response from the formator–the complete text. You do not. The formator confirms what Michael reported (except for his quibble about “gay” vs. “same-sex attracted,” which is a distinction without a difference). The formator INACCURATELY represents what Voris said–and those inaccuracies are posted on this blog, and repeated by you.

            I am disappointed, Deacon Jim. You’ve written articulately against the New Homophiles and the danger they represent–yet here, you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the problem of SSA in the seminary, minimizing it, writing it off, claiming it doesn’t exist & isn’t a concern–in spite of the terrible, scandalous history of this archdiocese & its former seminary, and even in spite of concerns expressed by faculty and seminarians THEMSELVES who have been in touch with us.

            Again, your opinion on this situation is uninformed. You’ve admitted it’s uninformed. So why are you still here? And why are you still talking about this?

          • Jim Russell

            You need to re-read what I wrote–I said you and I had never discussed what I knew or did not know about the seminary in Detroit. That’s not an admission of being “uninformed.”

            As to turning a blind eye? Of course not. But here you go again, moments after *denying* in another comment that you and Voris are saying anything about conditions in the *seminary*, you return *precisely* to the seminary as the “locus” of your concern (“the problem of SSA in the seminary”).

            So, which is it? You try to portray the *Archdiocese* as getting it wrong because you’re really not talking about the *seminary*, yet you keep talking about the seminary. That’s double-speak.

          • Christine Niles

            Deacon–Can you please deal with the actual substance of this discussion, rather than continually turning it back on Voris or me & parsing our language? Quite frankly, THIS IS NOT ABOUT VORIS OR ABOUT ME. So stop making it about Voris or about me.

            YES, this is about the seminary.

            YES, this is about concerns about SSA seminarians.

            YES, this is about the imprudence of the formator, who doesn’t seem to be doing his job.

            Your casual, relaxed, naïve attitude towards all this is disturbing.

          • Jim Russell

            We agree–of course it’s not about you or Mr. Voris personally. Nor is what I say above. What I say above is about what you have *said*, not about who you are. Yes, I’m parsing your language because I assume you wish to assert a *consistent* position. But you don’t seem to do so when you say in one place this is about the *seminary* and in another that it’s not (and that Mr. Voris never said it was and the Archdiocese is wrong to say he did).

            So, what you’re asserting as your position is confusing, isn’t it? E.g, if it *is* “about the seminary,” then please stop saying the Archdiocese is somehow wrong to deny the claims being made about the seminary.

          • Christine Niles

            Read the July 20th transcript for yourself. He never said what the archdiocese claims he said.

          • Jim Russell

            In revisiting the July 20 transcript, here is the first paragraph:

            ****A faculty member priest in Sacred Heart Seminary here in Detroit recently made an announcement to the entire seminary student collective — about 60 young men — that they need to be sure and wear their bathrobes coming out of the bathroom showers instead of just towels because a number of their brother seminarians are gay, and the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys.*****

            Which is of course a *false* account, isn’t it? There was no assertion by the “faculty member priest” that “a number of their brother seminarians are gay” or that “the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys.”

            NEVER happened that way, right? And yet he clearly says “After checking it out — it’s true.” So, yeah, well, it’s true, except for the parts that *aren’t* true….

            To which the *seminary* (not the Archdiocese) responds: “…the claim that there is a significant or even nominal presence of homosexuality at Sacred Heart Major Seminary is patently false.”

            And that’s a *totally* fair response to the *claim* Voris makes by suggesting that the person being quoted said that “a number of their brother seminarians are gay.”
            In this context “a number of” can either be construed as a greater or lesser number, and that’s precisely what the seminary is responding to.

            He also said:

            ****Another faculty member told a class that the seminary accepts men with homosexual pasts.****

            This is *permitted* by the Church.

          • Christine Niles

            Deacon Russell,

            You wrote: “Which is of course a *false* account, isn’t it? There was no assertion by the “faculty member priest” that “a number of their brother seminarians are gay” or that “the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys.””

            No, it was not a false account. One–Michael was accurately reporting what our source(s) told us, and two, it’s the formator’s word against our source(s). You’ve chosen to believe this formator; we believe this formator is backpedaling in order to do damage control.

            Your next question is probably: Why didn’t Michael Voris reach out to this formator to verify our source(s)’ claim? Very simple: The apostolate has been shunned by the archdiocese, and Abp. Vigneron has repeatedly ignored Michael Voris’ requests to meet with him personally. The archdiocese also continues to spread lies about the apostolate concerning our previous name “RealCatholicTV.com”–so Voris hardly thought this formator would have any interest in speaking with him.

            And it turns out Voris’ hunch was correct–because after a private invitation to this formator to be interviewed on our show tomorrow, he has heard nothing back. Silence–as is usually the case with the AoD in our regard.

            So people can either take the formator’s words for it, or our source(s)’ words for it. No one here was actually present at the house meeting, so maybe we’ll never know. But considering the horrific track record of this archdiocese (whose former seminary was nicknamed “The Hothouse” for its rampant gay sex, and whose Morality course regularly aired homosexual porn as part of the course, and whose professor authored a textbook encouraging confessors to stop regarding same-sex acts and bestiality as a mortal sin), we’ll trust our source(s).

            And it’s really disingenuous for this formator to deny any homosexual population in the seminary, while turning around and castigating Michael that “it would be naïve to think in a group of 60 seminarians that there aren’t some who have SSA.”

            The formator himself admits from his own mouth that men with SSA exist in the seminary–after all, it would be “naïve” to think otherwise!

            I think this will likely be my last word on this.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            Thank you for your reply. You are an ordained Deacon are you not? You work for the Church full time do you not?

            You posted in part: “Arguing over who or what has been “slandered” is pretty useless.”

            You are quite wrong. Slander is a violation of the 5th Commandment. It can be a serious sin. We have an obligation to defend the good name of our neighbor.

            And in part:

            “If you insist that a human person *must* be the target”

            It is not I that so insists but Rome. A juridic person is an entirely fictional created for administrative convenience; A fictional person cannot be sinned against. If I call a rock “Dumb” I have not hurt it feelings.

            and in part:

            “then consider the fact that the seminary formator in question has been treated slanderously.”

            Really? Then what is his name? Mr. Voris did not give it. Instead Mr. Voris invited the Priest in question to come onto his show and discuss the matter. THAT is not slander. Quite the opposite.

            The real problem here is you good Deacon. Sacred Heart Seminary and the AOD in general (See Bishop Gumbleton) have been promoting the terrible sin of sodomy for decades. The results can be seen in broken lives, broken families, empty churches.

            Now I find out from you, good Deacon, that the Seminaries are again recruiting and training sexually perverse men under the guise that their perversion is a transitory psychological problem.

            Looking at the devastation caused in my own extended family and community by perverse, predatory priests I will never trust a professional Catholic again to include the authoress of this article, Mean Lizzie and you, good Deacon.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            Trust the Church, Richard–and do not mock Her.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            Thank you for your reply. You are an ordained Deacon are you not? You work for the Church full time do you not? You posted in part:

            “Trust the Church”

            I do not trust you and the other professional Catholics who are trying to make excuses for sexual perversion in Sacred Heart Seminary. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

            and in part:

            “and do not mock Her”

            What? You think you and the other professional Catholics are the Church? You are not the Church. NEVER will I trust your like again with my family.

            May God protect us from you.

            Richard W Comerford

  • kmk1916

    I’m going to go to the seminary’s website and donate to them right now. We have five sons and don’t let them wander around the house without some decorum,AND sometimes we have to remind them, even the college-aged ones. The seminary Isn’t a military barracks, maybe the guys just needed that reminder. Didn’t sound like an invitation to continue a pink palace. None of us were there and none of us knows the entire situation.

    All over the country, we have excellent seminarians now. They’re being screened very carefully, if only to avoid future lawsuits, right?

    What next, microphones in the seminary’s confessionals? Sheesh.

    • moody Gail

      The question is, do you care if your sons enter a seminary that has a number of homosexual candidates or directors? If not, that says a lot.
      In protecting my sons, I would err on the side of caution and keep them away from the seminaries that are rumored to be gay sanctuaries.
      And just who is doing the screening? Gay directors? Then fox guarding the hen house.

      • kmk1916

        Are you saying without a doubt that there are homosexual candidates/directors at this particular seminary? Now, in 2015? That is a very serious charge, before the Lord.

        There’s a seminary in our Archdiocese that WAS one of the rumored gay sanctuaries. The priests that are studying NOW, are being ordained NOW, from this seminary — they are excellent. In fact, if (Lord willing) one of our sons were to go through the discernment process in our Archdiocese and he were asked to go to this particular seminary instead of one of the other 2 that our Archdiocese currently sends seminarians to, then, guess what? He would in obedience say yes, because IT ISN’T 50, or 30, or even 20 years ago.

        Of course, with God’s grace and despite our own failings as parents, my husband and I are emphasizing the virtues of prudence and savvy as we encourage them to discern their vocations.

        • John Flaherty

          “Are you saying without a doubt that there are homosexual
          candidates/directors at this particular seminary? Now, in 2015? That is a
          very serious charge, before the Lord.”

          ..Yet one of the e-mails from the seminary staff explicitly stated that we’d be naive to assume that we could not find even one same-sex attracted man out of the fifty in attendance. It does not appear that anyone has begun seeking to root out homosexuality, but neither do they appear to insist that no homosexual tendencies could be present.

          If it’s a serious charge to declare that there is definitely at least one gay man present in the seminary, it is equally serious to insist that the seminary has taken a great approach to addressing modesty. Discussions about that do not typically center around bathrobes and towels.

          • kmk1916

            I was addressing moody Gail and the implication that particular seminaries are gay sanctuaries. Perhaps in the past that was true. From what I have read and seen with my own eyes over the past 15 years, all of the seminaries have begun to “root out homosexuality,” whatever that means. Of course we would teach our sons to be prudent and have their eyes wide open.

            “neither do they appear to insist that no homosexual tendencies could be present.” What does that mean? There are accusations here that in this day and age, there is a gay culture in some seminaries. I say, prove it. I have no doubt that there are all sorts of serious struggles involving principalities, powers, etc. (you know, from St Paul) within the entire process of vocational discernment, but the light has been shining brightly for the past several years, and those “on the inside” who are determined to positively reform what needs to be reformed are gaining a firm foothold.

            How are wild accusations and suppositions from laypersons who perhaps have never set foot in the door of a seminary, have never met a current vocations director, and don’t know and support seminarians NOW possibly help in the general scheme of things? Where;s the prayer and fasting? Where’s the encouragement of vocations amongst our own sons? Go take a tour of your local seminary. Pray with the young men at vespers on a SUnday evening –ask if you can. Meet the people. Ask the vocations director to come speak to your parish. Get to know him and his staff.

          • John Flaherty

            “I say, prove it.”
            “From what I have read and seen with my own eyes over the past 15 years, all of the seminaries have begun to ‘root out homosexuality,'”
            “…those ‘on the inside’ who are determined to positively reform what needs to be reformed are gaining a firm foothold.”

            When a senior staffer warns his students about modesty, yet ultimately admits to being worried about an un-named person being tempted by VERY normal behavior amongst young men, I think that should raise a red flag with most reasonable people. Such concern should not be a problem if people have the intentions that we should normally expect.
            As well, if the “good guys” have only established a firm foothold in 15 years, that likely indicates a serious problem under the surface. Firm footholds suggest that the “good guys” are not in immediate danger of being forced out for the time being. They do not suggest that we’ve turned the tide, nor even come within sight of doing so. If anything, this implies that we still have serious institutional problems that need attention.

            As to visiting the local seminary, that’s a nice suggestion. Sadly, our nearest (minor) seminary sits three hour’s drive distant from even the nearest point in the Archdiocese. Of the major seminaries, those I’ve heard about are two or three states away, one is half a continent. Becoming acquainted with the rector and his staff won’t happen in any practical sense. Then again, visiting the FSSP seminary would not be a help unless we intended making arrangements with that Order for training our seminarians. I don’t think that’s likely soon.

          • kmk1916

            My opinion about the past 15 years doesn’t count for much,
            Praise the Lord! ; ) I can’t remember when the visitations of the seminaries occurred, but that was one of the catalysts. I’m no expert, for sure. What I personally see under the surface and overarching the earth is the Holy Spirit working in a powerful way. In my limited experience, I have met seminarians from all over who are rock solid, and if they aren’t, they don’t become priests. There will always be problems in our human institutions, and seminaries are ground zero in so much spiritual warfare,right? ( convents and monasteries, too.) Prayer and fasting, for more laborers to the harvest.

            Our family is blessed to be within 2 hoursof 2 major seminaries, and each of our older sons have so far attended at least 2-3 vocational events sponsored by the Archdiocese. We have an on fire for the Lord, prayerful, active vocations office. I would venture to say that it was not as much 20-30 years ago, perhaps. We are in a large parish so have been blessed many meetings,, relationships, dealings,and working relationships with many clergy and seminarians. Whatever abberant craziness that was or may have happened 50 or perhaps even20-25 years ago isn’t happening now, although, humans being human, we know of one situation wherein a priest was rightfully removed,and of course this is my limited experience.

            And I am keenly hyper alert to keeping predators out of the priesthood. My family and I were stationed overseas in the’80’s and the priest was a predator, and did some totally evil things to children, including one of my friends, for probably 20 years.

            I re-read the article. I was Kathy who wrote this:

            “Who could be so naive as to think that among a group of sixty men, even devout men who are hoping to serve the Church as priests, none has faced the temptation toward homosexuality? There may be a seminarian who hasn’t even realized that he is homosexual, or who is hiding it.”

            That wasn’t in the official statement. It might be good for all of us to re-read the entire post. The seminary isn’t a barracks . My sons shouldn’t walk around the house in their skivvies even with their sisters gone. Maybe it’s just common courtesy they were aiming for. Again, sheesh.

          • John Flaherty

            “The seminary isn’t a barracks”

            Not the whole seminary, no. However, the dormitory of a seminary is very alike to a barracks. Or rather, it really should be. Co-ed dormitories do not improve relations between the sexes.

            “My sons shouldn’t walk around the house in their skivvies even with their sisters gone.”

            A seminary dormitory is not like your house. Unless someone can prove that allowing a group of young men to lounge about in bath towels somehow impedes their spiritual formation, I don’t see a problem. I don’t recommend it as a habit, but neither should it create undue problems.
            But I don’t have the impression that such a problem has arisen. All they seem to be doing is…walking to a shower and back in a bath towel.

            How on earth anyone can derive a near occasion from sin from THAT is beyond me!

            Again, if a young man would discover by this fashion that he DOES have some degree of same sex attraction, um, that problem will not be solved by having everyone wearing bathrobes. If anything, such would tend to suppress the urge, causing it to bare itself later, when it’s even LESS possible to address it well.

            I’m suddenly reminded too of how young men have frequently enjoyed basketball, soccer, or other activities together. Easiest way to separate the teams is “shirts and skins”.

            If you’re looking for common courtesy, I think you need to redefine your search.

          • Emme

            We live, sadly, in a time where modesty is not a concept that is understood very well, especially by the young.

            A seminary isn’t a barracks. It isn’t wrong for the seminary to expect a higher level of modesty to be displayed by seminarians/ future priests?

            One day these young men will be ordained priests who will interact with other people in and outside of church. Should “Father Smith” participate in a game of basketball on the “Skins” team?. Do we really want priests to not know that not only could this be an occasion of sin for someone, but that the priest could put himself in the position of being falsely accused?

            I have a friend who taught in a secular private high school. The policy of the school was that a teacher was never to be alone in a closed room with a student.

            The policy was for protection of the students, but also for protection of the teachers to avoid false accusations.

          • John Flaherty

            “A seminary isn’t a barracks. It isn’t wrong for the seminary to expect a higher level of modesty to be displayed by seminarians/ future priests?”

            Honestly, this reminds of the madness about how men MUST grab differing colors of jerseys for even the most impromptu of sporing events because failing in doing so would “discriminate” against a woman who might happen along and wish to join in. These concerns have nothing to do with modesty or genuine concerns about near occasions of sin. They have everything to do with politically-correct bullying!

            If we can’t understand that a seminary dormitory–private living quarters–has much in common with a military barracks, and should be treated as such, we don’t have a problem with modesty.

            “The policy was for protection of the students, but also for protection of the teachers to avoid false accusations.”

            Indeed. I heard similar reasoning for various rules put in place by the BSA and the local Archdiocese. I suspect they’ll have much the same impact: People will grow weary of the incessant bull; they’ll take they’re energies elsewhere.

            No matter how I look at this, I don’t believe the seminary has handled this well. If same-sex attracted men cannot handle themselves without wearing bathrobes, they likely cannot handle themselves with bathrobes either. Then again, if seminary staff fear that young priests will struggle with secular society due to “modesty” concerns with bath towels, they certainly need to say as much. If they don’t, they aren’t dealing with the real problem.

            Failure to address the real problem has been the primary cause for devolving into this mess in the first place.

          • asmondius

            ‘There are accusations here that in this day and age, there is a gay culture in some seminaries. I say, prove it. ‘
            .
            That manner of thinking is what resulted in tens of thousands of victims.

      • kmk1916

        One more thing: in this day and age with the discernment process, by the time a young man is admitted, he AND the parents have plenty of time get to know other seminarians, priests, directors, etc. –at least in our diocese.

        Also, your “gay directors” shot is simply vile. Please go out and actually meet some vocations directors and seminarians.

      • mitch64

        Why, are your sons gay and you are worried that they will be tempted..because if they are straight, there is no worry. Gayness doesn’t float through the air and infect someone. If a man is old enough to be in a seminary then he should be old enough to A)if he is straight and being hit on, put a stop to it, and B) if he is gay and not able to control himself with seeing another man in a towel, grow up deal with it, or leave the seminary, burn some wild oats and then grow up.

    • asmondius

      So we go back to the 1950’s and hope that all is well?

      • kmk1916

        Nope, I’m firmly in 2015. Fasting and prayer and awareness, and equipping our kids to discern , and not overreacting to second hand reports which are being backpedaled. Watching the Holy Spirit clean house. Recognizing that the process will never be 100 percent effective, because humans. That’s where I am.

        You accused me of having the attitude that led to the scandal in the first place. That’s pretty crazy, since you don’t know me or my life at all, but that’s ok. Have you left the Faith over this? If so, that is truly a shame, I really mean it. There have been some faith shaking experiences in my life, I refuse to let the evil done by others win.

        • asmondius

          Let me understand – you are advocating that we do absolutely nothing different in the seminaries and just trust in the Holy Spirit that only good men will be ordained. And we’ll also ask kids to protect themselves (discern they are being molested???), as if they are little adults. Is this correct?

          • kmk1916

            One more time: the climate HAS been changing over the past 2 decades in the seminaries. What the heck about kids, I’m talking about ADULTS entering the seminary. By the time my sons are 10-21 years old, I’m pretty sure they can figure out if they are being groomed or molested. If they can’t, then shame on me as a parent for not clueing them in beginning as early as possible. For vocations events for high schoolers (like days for touring the seminary, Quo Vadis weekends ) the vocations directors are darn sure to have proper boundaries and chaperones, etc.

            We are talking about entering the seminary, right? They don’t allow children to become discerning seminarians, right? Not sure where you are coming from. Maybe the 1970’s?

          • kmk1916

            I tried responding to this earlier, I guess it didn’t go through.

            ADULTS discern in the seminary. I’m not talking about children in the seminary, I’m talking about clueing our children in so that, at the age of 18, the absolute earliest they could possible join a seminary, that they would know whether they were being groomed or molested or whatever. If my adult children don’t know that by the time they head out on their own, shame on me as a parent. Those discussions begin early in my house, having had a priest abuser in my overseas community back in the ’80’s. What the heck are you talking about? There are events for high school aged young men in most dioceses these days, days or maybe a weekend camp such as Quo Vadis, and they are well-chaperoned, with proper boundaries in place.I’m not sure where you are coming from. No one is talking about allowing children to figure things out. It’s 2015.

            The seminaries are already doing things differently. There will always be problems and battles. As I have written, it’s not the 1970’s. I’m certainly not living in the ’50’s, don’t want to. Just not going by second hand information that is being gently backpedaled, as per the original post.

    • joanw

      Thank you! We don’t know the whole situation, and we don’t know if the men simply needed a reminder to act with more decorum. I know that modesty means different things for women and men, but just because men can walk around with barely any clothes on doesn’t mean they should.
      A friend of mine is in the convent and they would never walk from the bathroom to their cells with only a towel. Yet no one is up in arms about a homosexual-infested convent. It’s just decorum and modesty!!

  • Winefred

    I very seldom watch anything produced by Voris because I find his style rather abrasive, and I also become weary of anyone who is relentlessly negative. However, those instalments that I have watched have never contained a single statement that I thought was inaccurate or unfair — which, I suppose, is what makes it too depressing to watch very often. I was delighted to see how positive he could be after the loyal Bishops attending the preliminary Synod on the Family stood up and called a halt to its corruption — he was not triumphal or full of schadenfreude, but justifiably and visibly happy and relieved that a disaster had, for the moment, been averted. I saw the headline attached to the piece on Sacred Heart, and was suspicious that there was more to the story than meets the eye. He does seem to have gotten ahead of himself this time. As for the subject at hand, I don’t see the rector’s admonition to necessarily be a sign that they are aware of homosexual presence within the current students. It seems to me that any sense of modesty, especially within communal living situations, has long since disappeared in our society. Everything we do seems to have a way of being hyper-sexualized, and locker-room behavior (which has always been notoriously raunchy) prevails in all sorts of situations. It may never involve a hint of homosexual attraction, but it can still be an occasion of needlessly heightened sensuality, of the towel-snapping, genital-comparing sort. Once upon a time, decent men kept their eyes and their personal remarks to themselves when they dressed or washed together, a proper demeanor which was once enforced in the school gym, and maintained in voluntary situations (probably only broken down if they joined the military — my father was a pretty innocent guy, whose ears went into shock in the Coast Guard of the 1940’s). That gentlemanly restraint is out the window. And girls have become just as indecent, flaunting their sexuality among themselves. With or without any suspicion of SSA among the seminarians, the directive to maintain conscious modesty seems perfectly reasonable. I’m surprised that Voris didn’t consider this before hitting DEFCON 1.

  • Emme

    Hears ago I went to study in Rome and stayed at convent. One of the rules was to wear robes going to and from the shower. I thought I was being modest.

    Women have a different level of modesty, I must assume. Do we even know what modesty anymore?

    A previous poster said a seminary isn’t an army barracks.

    • Emme

      Years ago. Not hears.

    • asmondius

      Yes, they do.

  • barbieahayes

    Fellow Catholics, please let’s be civil and charitable. We can disagree and debate without becoming hostile. I don’t believe either Kathy or Michael are purposely trying to thwart Catholic teachings or malign institutions. They are both striving, as we are, to be faithful. Do you remember what the Church used to teach about the inner hierarchy which God gave us to interact with our world? First our intellect, then our will and finally our emotions (in that order). I was taught to never make decisions based on emotions. And a well-formed intellect must enlighten the will. The will has been explained to me as being like a muscle; it’s weak unless it’s exercised frequently. Restraint and charity are what the Catechism teaches and what our will can achieve.

    • asmondius

      Charity does not require Truth to be silent.

      • barbieahayes

        My request was for us to be charitable, not to cloak the truth. The Catechism tells us to be charitable when speaking about someone publicly. The Catechism never tells us to lie. We can be truthful with and about each other and remain charitable. Our Catholic faith is a both/and religion. Truth and charity must coexist; one without the other is like the noisy gong. We don’t help each other when we devolve into insults.

        • Giacomo

          Amen.

          “Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation.” (2 Tim 2:14-15)

          This is maybe the third time I’ve come across the name Voris. Insomnia is why I read these comments. I learned a bit about Emmys but now must sleep. God bless all.

        • asmondius

          ‘Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality.’

          – BENEDICT XVI

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Michael Voris is the Donald Trump of the Catholic media: scurrilious, a demagogue, and a blow hard.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Manny:

      You posted in part: “Michael Voris is the Donald Trump of the Catholic media”

      He may or may not be. But the question here I think is whether the AOD of Detroit is again training sexually perverse men for the Catholic priesthood who will continue to prey upon innocents?

      There is also a secondary question. Is Ms. Kathy Schiffer, the authoress, of this article being fair, independent and transparent? Sacred Heart Seminary is owned by AOD. The lady in question is a find raiser for AOD. Her husband is II believe employed by AOD.

      It seems (and I hope I am wrong) that money, not the salvation of souls, is the motivation for her article.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        So you’re claiming that Kathy is writing this for personal financial gain? What’s more credible Kathy being devious or Michael Voris being a demagogue? Clearly Michael Voris is a demagogue. I have never seen Kathy be anything but an upstanding person. You owe her an apology.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Manny:

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

          “So you’re claiming that Kathy is writing this for personal financial gain?”

          I made no such claim. Instead I will say now that Ms. Schiffer, a professional Catholic, has betrayed Christ and his people by not first establishing whether or not Sacred Heart Seminary has recruited sexually perverse men. And now we find out from Deacon Russell that this evil practice is now allowed again in Catholic Seminaries under the guise of transitory perversion.

          and in part:

          “What’s more credible Kathy being devious or Michael Voris being a demagogue?”

          I care not about deviousness nor demagoguery. I care about perverse predatory priests trained in American Seminaries preying upon innocents. NEVER AGAIN.

          and in part:

          “Clearly Michael Voris is a demagogue.”

          I care not whether he is. I care about protecting my family from predatory priests and the professional Catholics who protect them – like you.

          and in part:

          “I have never seen Kathy be anything but an upstanding person.”

          Good. You know her? Then please pass on my absolute disgust with her defense of perversion in Sacred Heart Seminary.

          and in part:

          “You owe her an apology.”

          I refuse. And I condemn she, Mean Lizzie and anonymous professional Catholics such as yourself for allowing perversion to creep back into Catholic Seminaries under the guise of a transitory psychological illness.

          Stop making excuses for evil.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            Richard–stop mocking the teaching authority of the Bride of Jesus Christ.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “Richard–stop mocking the teaching authority of the Bride of Jesus Christ.”

            Now you, Deacon Russell – professional Catholic, think that you are the ” Bride of Jesus Christ.”?

            You are defending an intrinsic evil. The homosexual act is a serious immorality. Men who lust for other men cannot be placed in Seminary. And this is why the AOD is closing up shop. One Bishop after another has either tolerated this evil or encouraged it.

            Never again will I trust my family to the likes of you. Change your ways. Turn to Christ.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            Trust the Church, Richard. And for the love of God, literally, *learn* what she really teaches so that you stop spreading confusion.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Jim Russell:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “Trust the Church, Richard.”

            I will not trust you, nor Mean Lizzie, nor Ms. Schiffer. My family and community have been preyed upon by too many perverse priests products of the seminaries you are now defending.

            and in part:

            “*learn* what she really teaches so that you stop spreading confusion.”

            The Church teaches that it is wrong when a man lusts for another man and that for a man who lusts so he must remove himself from any temptation.

            “In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
            were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts
            with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their” Romans 1:27
            error.”

            Neither you, nor Mean Lizzie, nor Ms. Schiffer are the Church. Stop whining.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            No–the Church teaches that the *experience* of same-sex attraction is a disordered inclination. When a person, in his *will*, says “yes” to this inclination, that is a *choice* to lust. But you are *conflating* the experience of the *temptation* to say “yes” with actually *saying* yes. And you are therefore misrepresenting the Church’s teaching and spreading confusion.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Professional Catholic Jim Russell:

            “Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:”

            “No–the Church teaches that the *experience* of same-sex attraction is a disordered inclination.”

            Yes. And after 50-years of professional Catholics covering up for gay predatory priests you scribes and pharisees are allowing perverse men back into the Seminaries. NEVER AGAIN.

            and in part:

            “When a person, in his *will*, says “yes” to this inclination, that is a *choice* to lust.”

            And you professional Catholics are placing men like this into Seminary, ordaining them and then putting them into our children’s lives – again.

            “But you are *conflating* the experience of the *temptation* to say “yes” with actually *saying* yes.”

            A man who is sexually attracted to another man is not normal and he cannot be placed into close proximity with other men for the good of souls and the safety of innocents.

            and in part:

            “And you are therefore misrepresenting the Church’s teaching and spreading confusion.”

            The Church’s teachings on this matter are clear: for a man to lie with another man is a serious or mortal sin and a man who is tempted to do so cannot be trusted in Seminary or around other young men or boys.

            You and the Bishops are sacrificing the innocence of our children on the bonfires of your vanities.

            No more predatory priests.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            This is a lie: ***A man who is sexually attracted to another man is not normal and he cannot be placed into close proximity with other men for the good of souls and the safety of innocents.****

            The Church has never taught what you say above. Quit confusing the faithful. Feel free to have the last word. Your unfaithful comments speak for themselves.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Professional Catholic Jim Russell:

            “Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:”

            “This is a lie”

            Let me spell this out. For a man to be sexually attracted to another man is unnatural and perverse. Such a man cannot be trusted around young men and boys under any circumstances.

            and in part:

            “The Church has never taught what you say above.”

            Tertullian disagrees with you: ‘”But all the other frenzies of passions–impious both toward the bodies
            and toward the sexes–beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from
            the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not
            sins, but monstrosities”

            You and your fellow professional Catholics have savaged three generations of innocents with your predatory priests, and then you ask why the pews are empty?

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            I’m not going to argue.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Manny:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “I’m not going to argue.”

            Promise?

            I, for my part, will argue for the innocents abused by predatory gay priests, produced by our Seminaries and protected by our Bishops.

            No one else is.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Just because I’m not going to argue doesn’t mean I agree with you. I don’t.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Manny:Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Just because I’m not going to argue doesn’t mean I agree with you. I don’t.”

            Of course you do not. Sodomy has replaced abortion as the high sacrament of American. Everyone things it cool. And you are one of the cool kids – right?

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            You were civil until now. Now you’ve become obnoxious. Buzz off.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Manny:Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “You were civil until now. Now you’ve become obnoxious. Buzz off.”

            In a word no. From a human point of view the Catholic Church has been all but destroyed in America because the Bishops enabled gay priests, seminarians, deacons and lay workers to prey on innocents; and then our Successors to the Apostles lied about it;and as a result paid out about $1-billion in awards, fees, judgements and damages.

            And now we find out that our Bishops are still enabling perverse men by allowing them into Seminary under the guise of transitory SSI. This no doubt pleases Caesar.

            And you and I must make a choice: do we follow Caesar or Christ?

            Choose. Your eternity and mine hang in the balance.

            God bless

            Richard w COmerford

          • grateful1

            Your tone and tenor make your “God bless” ring hollow, Mr. Comerford. Your “I condemn she” (“SHE”? really?) rant is a case in point.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr anonymous grateful1:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “Your tone and tenor make your “God bless” ring hollow,”

            Then I imagine that you find that the Gospels’ tone ring hollow also? Remember what the Gospel said about the corruption of innocents?: “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin” Luke 17:2

            Millions of Catholic lives have been shattered by sexual predators bred in Seminaries like Sacred Heart. It has from a worldly point of view all but destroyed the Catholic Church in America. And what do you and Ms. Schiffer worry about: tone?

            and in part:

            “Your “I condemn she” (“SHE”? really?) rant is a case in point.”

            I posted in full: ‘And I condemn she, Mean Lizzie and anonymous professional Catholics
            such as yourself for allowing perversion to creep back into Catholic
            Seminaries under the guise of a transitory psychological illness.”

            Most assuredly I condemn. The news here is not bathrobes in Sacred Heart Seminary; but that the American Bishops are still allowing sexually perverse men into their seminaries – and the professional Catholics are defending this evil.

            NEVER AGAIN will I entrust the likes of you and Ms. Schiffer with my family.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

  • piercedheart

    My biggest regret is clicking on this shameful piece of blogging and putting even ONE PENNY in Ms Schiffer’s pocket. If anyone is not aware – every time you click on a Patheos article, the author gets paid. So using a Voris post ALWAYS makes these Patheos folks a LOT of money. I always find that very interesting.

    • MeanLizzie

      This comment is hilarious. No one at Patheos is making a lot of money; many make nothing or next to nothing and of those who do, it wouldn’t be considered “a LOT” by any measure. But this is part of the old “professional Catholic” slander which suggests that Catholic bloggers have no business earning money to help pay the bills or feed the kids and keep the house warm. It’s also rather uncharitable to suggest that Ms. Schiffer, who loves Christ Jesus and his church as much as Mr. Voris, proceeds from mercenary motive. She is struggling to get by, just like everyone else, and is no more mercenary than Mr. Voris, which is to say: not at all. I’m sure he still draws a modest salary to be able to live, yes? It’s perfectly fine to disagree with someone but when you throw in an ugly suggestion of greed, you only indict your own lack of charity.

      • Richard W Comerford

        Ms. MeanLizzie:

        You miss the point. Pope Benedict called people like you and Ms.
        Schiffer “professional Catholics” because you make your living off the Church – no matter how much money you may or may not take in. Pope Benedict cited 3 John which calls into question how folks like professional Catholics can be trusted. For half a century professional Catholics had remained silent while predatory Bishops, priests and religious visited horrors on the Catholic laity.

        Clean you own house first. Ensure there are no more perverse men in the AOD Seminary then you can fight in public with Mr. Voris to your heart’s content.

        No more excuses.

        Thank you.

        God bless

        Richard W Comerford

        • Miguel Losada

          Mr Voris would also fall into the category of “professional Catholic”.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr Miguel Losada:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “Mr Voris would also fall into the category of “professional Catholic”.

            The term “professional Catholic” cam e from Pope Benedict who wrote:

            “The bureaucracy is spent and tired,It is sad that there are what you might call professional Catholics who
            make a living on their Catholicism, but in whom the spring of faith flows only faintly, in a few scattered drops.”

            Mr. Voris for all his faults both real and imagined does not have to worry that his ‘spring of faith flows only faintly, in a few scattered drops.’ Quite teh opposite.

            OTH the professional Catholic bureaucrats who make their living from the Church bureaucracy in whole or part are sad worldings who first wish to appease the culture and then the and government. After all Caesar (according to the Economist) provides an estimated 85% of the Church’s budget in America – and Caesar is very much pro-culture of death and LGBT.

            No. Mr. Voris is more of a Catholic gadfly.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Miguel Losada

            So you’re saying that Ms Shiffer and ‘MeanLizzie’ have only a faintly flowing spring of faith? How would you know that? Seems a bit arrogant to judge their faith and, unless you know Voris very well on a personal level, it would be difficult to know for certain that he’s not motivated by income.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Miguel Losada:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “So you’re saying that Ms Shiffer and ‘MeanLizzie’ have only a faintly flowing spring of faith?”

            Did I say that? Let me see. Nope. I did not say that. SOrry.

            and in part:

            “Seems a bit arrogant to judge their faith”

            Did I judge the two aforementioned professional Catholics? Let me see. Nope. I did not. Sorry.

            and in part:

            “unless you know Voris very well on a personal level, it would be difficult to know for certain that he’s not motivated by income.”

            Mr. Voris has gone on record stating that he makes @ 40K a year. And he is not paid by the Church bureaucracy. No conflict of interest.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

            Richad W Come

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

    No, slander is verbal defamation. Since we are not verbally conversing, there is no possible way I could have committed slander.
    Kathy has detailed Mr. Voris’ lies already. Try reading her article.

    • Christine Niles

      That’s the legal definition of slander. The Catholic definition makes no such distinctions, verbal or written. It is the deliberate blackening of another’s reputation by claiming something false–which you have done, based on your personal animosity towards him and little more.

      And no, Kathy Schiffer has not detailed any of Voris’ so-called lies.

      I asked you a simple question, and twice you have failed to answer.

      I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to give me a response–because you know very well you don’t have one.

      I suggest, Ms. Wahlund, that if you consider yourself at all a serious or devout Catholic, that you take care not to slander your brother in Christ based on someone else’s inaccuracies. It is neither charitable nor just–nor Catholic.

      • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

        Christine you are ‘casting pearls…’ when the blind don’t want to see you can’t open their eyes to the truth. Shake the dust off your feet, and keep doing the good work you are doing at Church Militant.
        God bless.

      • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

        The Catechism does not make that distinction. I trust the Catechism over you.

        Here is my answer: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2015/07/a-correction-to-michael-voris-slanderous-post-re-sacred-heart-seminary/#comment-2154761493

        • Christine Niles

          You’re right–the Catechism does NOT make the distinction between verbal vs. written slander.

          That proves my point. Thanks!

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            It also doesn’t say that the legal definitions of slander vs libel are incorrect. Perhaps you aren’t educated about the difference, but others are. In this context, you seem to be referring to the legal definitions (since you are attacking my comments in a public venue and seem worried Voris’ reputation will be harmed as a result).

          • Christine Niles

            “Perhaps you aren’t educated about the difference, but others are.”

            Thanks for proving my point about the snark.

            “(since you are attacking my comments in a public venue and seem worried Voris’ reputation will be harmed as a result).”

            You were the first to attack Voris publicly; I responded. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

            And nonsense; I have no worries about Voris’ rep. He’s right in all this. You’re wrong. Simple.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            If you think stating facts = “snark,” then I don’t think we’re going to have a productive conversation, because you are going to interpret everything I say as snark.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Actually, Voris was the first to attack; Kathy responded to his attack.

          • PGMGN

            …then perhaps the slander happening so regularly on CMTV hit pieces about Traditional Catholic societies they haven’t bothered to reach out to for clarification should stop, Ms. Niles.

            Your point is proved, but do you heed it in your own practice? That’s a serious question to ponder. Not only for you, but for those you indoctrinate with lies and falsehoods for the ‘greater’ good.

      • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

        “I suggest, Ms. Wahlund, that if you consider yourself at all a serious or devout Catholic, that you take care not to slander your brother in Christ based on someone else’s inaccuracies. It is neither charitable nor just–nor Catholic.”

        I suggest you take your own advice and quit slandering the men at Sacred Heart Seminary.

        • Christine Niles

          LOL

          Is that slander as in “verbal defamation” or slander as in “blackening of another’s reputation by claiming something false”? Since you’ve been so meticulous about distinguishing between the two?

          That was meant to be a joke. This is all getting really silly.

          Have a great weekend.

        • NDaniels

          Those men at Sacred Heart who desire to witness to Christ, and have been called to the Priesthood deserve to be treated with the upmost respect. Those who desire to cause chaos and confusion, have no place in the Priesthood.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Agreed. But it is not right to judge the heart and mind of someone struggling with SSA, or any other disordered inclination, and assume they are there to cause chaos or confusion. If their actions bear that out that is one thing, but I have seen no evidence of that.

      • Jasper

        Fyi, Joanna Wahland is apologist for the terrible Mark Shea

  • germanman

    Kathy – you are reporting severe in accuracies in your blog – inaccuracies that if left to stand once you have been told so, become uncharitable.

    You repeat in your blog a story about the name CATHOLIC that is a wholesale lie by officials at the archdiocese.

    I know his for a fact because i have seen the papaerwork in question with my own eyes.

    What you are reporting is absolutely NOT accurate. Call Voris at his stuio and ask to see the papers like I saw them. he will be happy to share them with you.

    Ball’s in your court. Let it stand and its a severe lack of charity and disregard for the truth.

    God bless you

  • Richard W Comerford

    Kathy Schiffer:

    For half a century the Seminary for the Archdiocese of Detroit, like the other seminaries in the USA, recruited, protected and ordained sexually perverse men who went on to prey upon boys, teenagers and young men. The American Bishops then protected these gay priests and in too many cases promoted them. Further lay Catholics who worked for the Church remained silent and were complicit in the cover up. And the result was that huge numbers of Catholics fell away from the faith – witness the parish closing in the AOD.

    One would think that you and the AOD would be especially sensitive to the horrors that homosexual priests visited upon young men and boys for the past 50-years or so. One would also think that you and the AOD would be especially diligent to ensure that only masculine, virile and chaste young men enter the seminary. Instead you engage in another public kerfuffle with Mr. Voris.

    First kindly ensure that there are in fact no effeminate men in the AOD Seminary. Perhaps you could also ask AOD retired Auxiliary Thomas Gumbleton to stop promoting homosexuality? He has been doing so since 1968 – almost 50-years now. which just happens to be the length of the crisis.

    Then you can in good conscience resume your public fight with Mr. Voris et al.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • John Flaherty

    Wow! If you can’t understand the difficulty, I’ll spell it out: If some of the young men experience same-sex attractions, requiring all the young men to wear bathrobes will NOT solve the problem. Same-sex attracted persons will experience temptations regardless of the apparel worn by the person.

    Voris aimed to point out how such a policy intends to refuse to address same-sex attractions, thus “quietly” enabling a potential gay culture.

    If you want to call this or other concerns “divisive”, I might note that your perspective does not appear to be aimed at genuinely uniting anyone. Far from it!

  • Jim M.

    Desperate denial, the problem is rampant but instead of confronting it as Michael
    Voris does we keep getting the same old crisis management schtick from people who should know better by now.

  • Godfrey Buillon

    Far from being perfect, I think Voris is only one of a handful of Catholic journalists who isn’t afraid to call out the lax hierarchy if and when they need to be reminded. He also praises when praises are in order. Strong language, yes indeed but hasn’t the niceties and kid-glove treatment found to be wanting already? Wake up AMERICA

  • ttc

    What kind of a cocommammy story is this?

    If there are SSA priests who will pounce on heterosexual men in towels, this is the immature psychosexual development that makes them an inappropriate candidate for the priesthood. They are going to see men in shorts. Should we post warnings on telephone poles when they get assigned to a parish?”

    This is an outrageous response to a legitimate concern about a seminary warning of sexual predatory practices of their priests if men don’t cover themselves from head to toe. Do you realize the implications of this dire warning?

  • Ron Turner

    “Who could be so naive as to think that among a group of sixty men, even devout men who are hoping to serve the Church as priests, none has faced the temptation toward homosexuality? ”

    LOL

    • asmondius

      And here we’ve been told they were born that way……

  • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

    I have seen both of Michael Voris’s videos on this topic, and as far as I can see, he has not engaged in any slander whatsoever. He reported what happened. He received his information from more than one source. He received copies of the memo sent out by the professor asking men to wear bathrobes for the sake of charity because, for instance, it could be an occasion for sin on the part of SSA men when they see half naked men exiting the showers. Evidently, there had been complaints.

    The focus of the professor was completely backward, and Michael Voris pointed it out. Instead of worrying about the sexual feelings of SSA men seeing partially dressed men coming from the bathroom, he SHOULD have been worried about the heterosexual men who most CERTAINLY would be highly uncomfortable if they were to catch one of their fellow seminarians cruising them as they exited the showers. Michael has also asked the professor in question to come to the show in a Mic’d Up episode and discuss it.

    Mentioning the death of Michael’s mother and brother and craftily insinuating that his devotion to the faith is unbalanced because of some emotional or mental reaction to it is a shockingly low blow and the most blatant abuse of armchair psychology I have ever heard. This ad hominem attack of such a highly personal and sensitive nature is a nasty bit of business on the part of this writer, and she really ought to be ashamed of herself for including it in this blog. Her obvious dislike of Michael Voris, and thus her lack of neutrality, has seriously compromised her journalistic ethics, if she has ever had any.

    Speaking from a personal point of view, I am a convert and I am shocked at the number of SSA priests I’ve had to defriend on Facebook because they are pushing the gay agenda and coming out in favor of Gay priests,gay activities, gay marriage. Father James Martin recently posted an alarming blog post regarding a fellow priest who came out of the closet. Father Martin applauded his courage in coming out, when he should have quietly, personally, encouraged him to leave the priesthood instead.

    Michael is right when he makes the point that homosexual priests have deluged the priesthood. By now, it is a well known fact, reported on by numerous sources. Many of these homosexual priests admit to spending years attempting to change the church’s doctrine on homosexuality. Recently, a priest (Dickinson?) resigned the priesthood after coming out and not getting the support he hoped for. He admitted that for 25 years he had tried to change the church from the inside out.

    We can’t afford to have these leeches sucking the life from The Church, making their living from her, while at the same time trying to dismantle the faith from within.

    Homosexual activity is gravely disordered. The Bible clearly states in the New Testament that unrepentant homosexuals (among other immoral categories) will not go to heaven. The old testament calls it an abomination, among other scathing comments.

    The Vatican has always maintained that homosexual priests are inappropriate candidates for priesthood. All the popes of recent memory have reiterated the same thing, and Pope Benedict tightened the restrictions in 2005. He had also made the comment to the effect that the Catholic Church must eliminate the homosexuals from the priesthood.

    It isn’t the new priests that are the most problematic because YES, the guidelines are stricter now, but if their homosexual superiors remain in office, there is little that the younger heterosexual priests can do to rein in the tendency of these older homosexual priests to misdirect those in his care with an inappropriate attitude toward sexual morality.

    Michael’s point of view is completely in line with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. He did not say anything untrue about the memo in question. There was no slander. The title of this blog is a lie.

    • anotherlook

      • paperboyian

        I couldn’t care less if a guy is naked coming out of the shower, I’m not turned on. I’m not gay. Men who are attracted should not be in the seminary.

      • http://www.diaryofanaccidentalhermit.blogspot.com/ Silver Parnell

        I find it telling that people who use anonymous, obscuring, nom-de-plumes such as “anotherlook” instead of their own names ALWAYS impugn the character and denigrate the intelligence of other people on conversation threads instead of addressing the article that is being discussed. “anotherlook” is a prime example of this, putting me into the box of an “average listener,” discounting my points because (being so average), I have been “taken in” by someone more talented, i.e., more intelligent, and, especially, focusing on a minor point. As usual, ‘anotherlook,’ like all the other anonymous posters, has not availed himself of all the underlying material. In addition, Assuming that my comments about and my knowledge of this topic is derived solely from this blog or from Michael’s two videos about this issue is just another condescending effort to become one-up against an artificially created foe (me) in a skirmish on the sidelines that avoids the battlefield where the real action is. This blog is not about me. I suggest that “anotherlook” take another look at the actual material and address it.

    • Ginnyfree

      Bravo! Give the gal an EMMY! Go team! Very well said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Yankeegator

    God Bless Mr. Voris!!! Keep shining the light on the cockroaches that are hiding within The Church…

  • squishee

    Observing the negative responses which the Vortex has engendered, Michael has clearly hit the Vagus nerve. Good job! Keep on hammering.

  • Jasper

    Christine, I wouldn’t waste your time here in Mark Shea land.

    • Miguel Losada

      She does spend a great deal of time defending her sainted Voris all over the internet, doesn’t she? Seems to have an unhealthy attachment to the fellow. I only hope she worships Christ more than she worships Voris.

  • ttc

    The seminary has announced they are ordaining SSA men with active sexual pasts who are unable to control their libido when they see male flesh. It will eventually be coming to a parish near you where there are no tools to hide the eye candy. The revelation demonstrates gross negligence and is indefensible.

    Further, I invite you to visit the website of the seminary:

    http://www.shms.edu/content/current-students

    They are attracted ‘students’ with athletic, commuter lounge facilities, grub and technology. There is zero on this page that would attract a man looking for support and tools that will support the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It is obviously run by horses backsides and is a situation in need of intervention.

    • kathyschiffer

      TTC, SHAME ON YOU! I clicked on that link to the Seminary website. I found many pages dealing with curriculum, mission, identity, faculty, academics, discernment, library and more. The mission of SHMS is:

      Sacred Heart Major Seminary primarily forms priests according to the Heart of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, and further, prepares priests, deacons and lay ecclesial ministers, equipping them for the work of ministry in the New Evangelization.

      There is one page–ONE PAGE!–which includes the ordinary details like the meal plan and facilities. You, like Voris, have by your omissions greatly distorted the truth about that great seminary.

      • ttc

        shame on YOU. It is the most listless, lifeless website of a ‘seminary’ I have ever come across. I further share the following link of the photo of their student body which explains the memo from the staff more than anything said on the subject:

        http://www.shms.edu/content/about-sacred-heart-major-seminary

        Goodby GoodMen.

        • Miguel Losada

          how does that photo explain the memo? good grief! are you claiming we can judge people by the way they look? spell it out for us.

      • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Julie @ CT Catholic Corner

        Schiffer to ttc: “You, like Voris, have by your omissions greatly distorted the truth about that great seminary.”

        What are you talking about? HOW and when did Voris distort any truth? Why do you say such things? It is not the truth.

  • AugustineThomas

    Might as well be safe though and donate your money to an FSSP seminary where you know the priests will be properly formed and free from Novus Ordo heresy.

    • ttc

      Brother, you have no idea what you’re missing. Here’s another lifeless link from the ‘seminary’ which says it admits a diverse student body, including women. The link needs no explanation and fully explains what is going down that place, including the infamous memo.

      http://www.shms.edu/content/about-sacred-heart-major-seminary

      • kathyschiffer

        TTC: The seminary offers programs for pastoral ministers, teachers, others involved in parish work. When my husband was engaged in diaconal studies, I would have been welcomed (had my schedule permit) to study alongside him. Those are not ordained positions. You seem to infer that SHMS favors ordaining women–which is a preposterous supposition. Again, I suggest that you step back from the ledge.

    • Dan13

      If you want to give money to the FSSP or go to Latin Masses in the extraordinary form, that’s fine. Especially if you find the EF better for you spiritually–which I assume you do. And, personally, I kind of like the “low Mass.” It is a nice change-of-pace from the often over-the-top singing at my parish.

      But you shouldn’t call the ordinary form heresy.

      Anyway, I think it might be time for Mrs. Schiffer to shut down comments in this thread.

      • AugustineThomas

        Right. Anytime someone starts getting honest about the huge majority of what goes on at Novus Ordo parishes, it’s time to shut down the discussion!
        The point is that the misconceptions about the Novus Ordo constantly lead to heresy and there is absolutely no reason to celebrate an inferior form of the Mass, even if valid, when we have the superior version readily available.

  • Dave

    Generally I agree with the Voris message if not the style. He is a zealot for his cause and zealots frequently exaggerate or embellish their facts to assist the cause they so fervently believe. I think this is what happened here.

    This being said, what is being lost in this discussion is the incredible amount of concern the rector of the seminary seems to have for his seminarians with SSA. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. If the shower exposes them, so be it. Good bye, We will pray for you. This may sound callus but it is folks THE RULE of Your Roman Catholic Church.

    • Jim Russell

      Except it’s not.

  • Harry Flynn

    How accurate was Voris’ reporting of the words of the formator?

    Perhaps I am parsing and straining words here, but I see a slight difference in the reporting.

    In the above post, Mrs. Schiffer quotes Michael Voris as having stated the following:

    “A faculty member priest in Sacred Heart Seminary here in Detroit recently made an announcement to the entire seminary student collective — about 60 young men — that they need to be sure and wear their bathrobes coming out of the bathroom showers instead of just towels because a number of their brother seminarians are gay, and the guys in towels are occasions of sin for the gay guys.”

    If Mrs. Schiffer is providing a direct quote, then what we have is Voris using the verb “to be” in the present active indicative. “they are gay.”

    However, in Voris’ response from a follow-up Vortex episode, he says:

    “We correctly reported that a priest on staff told seminarians not to go in and out of the bathroom showers in towels because it posed a potential occasion of sin for other seminarians who may have same-sex attraction. They should wear their bathrobes instead. In other words, there are men in the seminary for whom the sight of other men half-dressed (which is a normal, everyday occurrence in a dormitory-like setting) could be a temptation to impurity, or at least impure thoughts.”
    (http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsame-sex-attracted-seminarians)

    Here Voris speaks in the subjunctive. “may have” and “could be.”

    The switch from the indicative to the subjunctive provides a talking point because it is about what the formator in question actually stated. If said formator said that there ARE guys in SHS with SSA, then that’s a problem. If the formator said there MAY BE guys in SHS with SSA, that’s a slightly different story.

    Moreover, it seems to me that either way, there is a problem with the reporting of the actual words of the formator. Voris would have to account for this difference in reporting.

    Of course one could appeal to the lowest common denominator of the story, but that does not get at the point discussed above, namely:

    How accurate was Voris’ reporting of the words of the formator?

    • Miguel Losada

      He ran with a second hand report before verifying both sides of the story. In the second video, he backpedaled in a way that he hoped no one would notice.

      • Harry Flynn

        I wouldn’t be surprised.

  • Michael Boyle

    Voris and his fellow travelers are loathsome, to be sure. But I think Schiffer is trying to shoot the messenger here. If Voris’s core claim is that Sacred Heart Seminary has seminarians who are gay, then that is almost certainly true, just as it is true in every other seminary in the United States, and in the world. And has been true as long as there have been seminaries

    This incident brings into clear relief that 2005 Instruction from the Vatican was ill-conceived, because the underlying goal–0% gay seminarians/priests–is impossible. Now, I personally think it is also an unjust and purposeless goal, but as a threshold matter it is impossible. There is no magic wand that allows anyone to detect gayness in another person to successfully screen–particularly when your screening subject knows that being identified as having “deep seated homosexual tendencies” means being kicked out. Moreover, if one had such an accurate device, you would end up with half-empty seminaries (or, at least, half full as compared to their current state). And half empty faculty rosters as well. The Vatican’s directives are like trying to implement a policy of excluding all seminarians who will eventually get cancer–you can’t tell who should be excluded, and if you could you wouldn’t have a functioning seminary class.

    Voris is right to view the idea that Sacred Heart has “successfully” implemented the Vatican’s Instruction as laughable (as is the distinction between “deep seated” and “transitory” sexual orientation). Voris is wrong to suggest, or even think, that it could be any other way. The ludicrous way the Catholic Church insists in thinking about and talking about LGBT issues is the real problem here.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Michael Boyle:

      I liked your post. But there is one part I take exception to wherein you wrote: “The ludicrous way the Catholic Church insists in thinking about and talking about LGBT issues is the real problem here.”

      God does not create a soul LGBT or non-LGBT. These are false, made up words to provide a title to equally false artificial constructs which demean our humanity. We are made by God into his image and likeness. We possess immortal souls which Christ has redeemed at a terrible price. This world we live in is transitory. Our home is in heaven.

      We all suffer from temptations. The way to deal temptations is by prayer, fasting and the avoidance of near occasions of sin. No group of sinners has unique issues, or privileges or is a community.

      A man who is tempted to lie with another man has to avoid being in close contact with men, teenagers and boys otherwise he imperils his immortal soul.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Michael Boyle

        You have well summed up the way in which the Catholic Church thinks and talks about LGBT (or whatever term one wants to use) issues. I believe that these positions are ludicrous, inconsistent with the core message of Christ, and will one day be viewed with the same shame that we now view the Crusades and the Church’s persecution of the Jews.

        I have found that restating these positions in a forum like this are unproductive. Let’s both agree to stay on topic, and not hijack this thread.

        • Richard W Comerford

          and in part:

          Mr. Michael Boyle:

          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

          “the same shame that we now view the Crusades”

          When I was young, back in the Dark Ages, I came into contact with Eastern Christians who thought the problem with the Crusades was that it over 4-centuies for the Crusaders to come to their aid.

          and in part:

          “the Church’s persecution of the Jews.”

          Rome, as the mystical body of Christ, has never persecuted the Jews. Indeed the history of the Church is filled with Popes, Bishops and laymen coming, quite rightly, to the aid of persecuted Jews. Rome has always been the refuge for the Jews.

          and in part:

          “I have found that restating these positions in a forum like this are unproductive.”

          LGBT issues are indeed the question here. Does Sacred Heart Seminary contain gay seminarians? If so Should gay men be ordained into the priesthood? Can gay priests be trusted with young men and boys?

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • Michael Boyle

            I am violating my own request not to hijack this thread, but have to reply on two points.

            First, the notion that “Rome has always been a refuge for Jews” is utterly and completely false. To take only one example, here’s what the Council of Florence, 19th session (Sept. 7, 1434) says:

            “Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public.”

            Those provisions are basically identical to the Nuremberg laws passed by the Nazis. These provisions are immoral, anti-Christian, and properly a source of shame for Catholics, as Vatican II properly recognized.

            Second, your implication that gay men are somehow more inclined to molest children is unsupported by any reputable scientific analysis. In fact, it makes clear the connection between the current posture on LGBT people and the former posture on Jews–the idea that gay men are child molesters is no different from the claim that Jews kill Christian babies during Passover. It is pure scapegoating.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Michael Boyle:

            1. Council of Florence: IIRC this Council was a rival to the Council of Basel which declared the acts of Florence null and void. There were at this time 2-Popes and 2-Councils. Neither Pope published the Bull of the Florence Council under his authority. I also note that there are no instructions in the Florence Council’s Bull to kill, wound or imprison Jews. If you are looking to prove that Rome hates Jews this, I think, is not the document youseek.

            2. Gay men: You posted: “Second, your implication that gay men are somehow more inclined to
            molest children is unsupported by any reputable scientific analysis.” Did I write that or did I post: ‘Can gay priests be trusted with young men and boys?’

            @ 80% of the cases in the Great Scandal involved Gay Priests and male teenagers. (See the John Jay Study). I do not know how much more scientific you can get than that? Men who are tempted to lie with other men should not be further tempted by being in close proximity to young innocents who cannot defend themselves.

            Avoiding such temptation is just a matter of common sense.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • asmondius

            Ho hum – yes, we all know that LGBT people in America are in exactly the same predicament as Jews under the Nazis or blacks under slavery.
            .
            The fact is that the great majority of known abuse victims in the American Church were adolescent boys and their abusers were men. That is homosexual activity.

        • asmondius

          Was wondering when the homosexual proponent would show up.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. asmondius:

            You posted in part: “Was wondering when the homosexual proponent would show up.”

            I grew up in institutions. We lived in terror of gay priests, gay religious and gay lay workers. But the issue is not really gay seminarians or bathrobes. Rather it is fidelity to Christ. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15.

            God forbids men to lie with men under pain of eternal damnation. If we love Christ we will not put men who are tempted to lie with other men in seminary or alone them to be alone with our teenagers and boys.

            It is that simple. And our Bishops and professional Catholics just do not get it.

            NEVER AGAIN!

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • asmondius

            Amen!

  • Robin Warchol

    Thanks Kathy, I appreciate your work and research. I also think your analysis of Voris is fair and balanced and had a little bit of compassion in understand some of the major losses that may be at the root of it all. He demonstrates the problem of going overboard in one’s zeal and the inbalance that it can bring.

  • Dave

    Both JP II and Ben XVI have clearly written that homosexuals are not to be admitted or retained in seminaries. This was the result of the commission that examined us seminaries in the 1990’s as a result of the molestation scandle. This was not anbiguous it was quite clear. They closed some real nasty seminaries as a result of this commission due to to blatant gay activism. This is all factual.

    • Jim Russell

      What you say holds for those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. A young man with *transitory* SSA, however, has the *possibility* of admission to seminary as long as the difficulty with the SSA is overcome at least three years prior to ordination to the diaconate….

      • Richard W Comerford

        Mr Professional Catholic Russell:

        You posted in part: “What you say holds for those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

        You mean like the thousands of gay priests who preyed on us during the last 50-years shattering teh faith and lives of millions?

        and in part:” A young man with *transitory* SSA”

        and just how do you good Deacon determine that a man who is tempted to lie with another man is so tempted only for your transitory period?

        and in part: “as long as the difficulty with the SSA is overcome at least three years prior to ordination to the diaconate”

        Great. How about if the “difficulty returns when he is with young boys?

        NEVER AGAIN will I entrust my family to the likes of you. Turn away from Caesar and back to Christ.

        God bless

        Richard W Comerford

        • Jim Russell

          It’s really a shame that you come across as so deeply confused on this issue. Here is what the Church *really* teaches us regarding our treatment of people dealing with SSA:

          2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

          2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr Professional Catholic Russell:

            Thank you for your reply. You posted in part:

            “It’s really a shame that you come across as so deeply confused on this issue.”

            It is even more of a shame that St. Augustine is more deeply confused on this issue than I. He wrote:

            “Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held
            guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature
            of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.”

            Poor St Augustine. He is not as wise as you and the other professional Catholics. He did not know that in 21st Century America morality would change. That our holy Bishops would consider it virtuous to recruit men into seminary who felt a temptation to lie with other men, Then to ordain said men. Then pay $1 Billion to Caesar after said perverts preyed upon innocent boys, teenagers young men. And the wreck that became the Catholic faithful due to the glorification of an intrinsic evil matters not at all to you. Tens of millions have left the Church.

            However for my part despite our holy Bishops I say that I will NEVER AGAIN trust my family to the likes of you.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Jim Russell

            I’ve let the juvenile ad hominem “Mr Professional Catholic Russell” pass without comment, till now. If you wish to actually *communicate* charitably, you may either address me by my name, Jim, or by my rank, Deacon. Your pick. If you merely wish to *rant*, by all means, continue as you have been doing.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr Professional Deacon Russell:

            Thank you for your reply. You posted in part: “I’ve let the juvenile ad hominem “Mr Professional Catholic Russell”.”

            You work full time for the church – yes? You make your living off the Church – yes? You are a professional Deacon – yes?

            and in part:

            “you may either address me by my name, Jim, or by my rank, Deacon”

            NOW you finally admit, after numerous inquiries, that you are a Deacon? And Deacon is a RANK? I did not know that. Do we humble peasants have to salute?

            and in regards to your obsession with sodomy let us see what St Gregory the Great wrote:

            “Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh,
            and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites,burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench,
            should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire.”

            and this is what you good professional Catholics advocate for Catholic seminarians who will then go on to prey upon innocents.

            NEVER AGAIN!

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

  • margaret1910

    Michael Voris clearly said in the first video, that “gay seminarians” were the point of the formator. “A faculty member priest in Sacred Heart Seminary here in Detroit
    recently made an announcement to the entire seminary student collective —
    about 60 young men — that they need to be sure and wear their bathrobes
    coming out of the bathroom showers instead of just towels because a
    number of their brother seminarians are gay, and the guys in towels are
    occasions of sin for the gay guys.” I do not see how this can be misconstrued?

    • Miguel Losada

      Yes. And that’s the crux of the matter that neither Voris nor his devoted employee, Mrs Niles will address. He made a statement that gives the impression that there are “a number” (certainly more than 2 or 3?) of gay seminarians. He didn’t check with the seminary to validate what his anonymous sources told him. Yet, he and Mrs. Niles dance around that fact that his statement was wrong and should be retracted.

      • margaret1910

        Yes, Michael was wrong. Period. full stop. He accused the formator of doing something to help out “gay” seminarians. He was wrong in what he said. I totally agree that seminarians who have “deep seated” homosexual tendencies do NOT belong in seminary. Not because they are not good folks, but because it is an additional burden that they are not called on to bear.

  • margaret1910

    Michael Voris clearly says that there are “gay guys” in formation, no?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Margaret:

      You posted in part: ” Michael Voris clearly says that there are “gay guys” in formation, no?”

      And apparently there are. As we learned in this thread from Deacon Russell the Bishops still allow men who are tempted to lie with other man into American seminaries under the guise of a transitory psychological period.

      And of course the millions of lives that were ruined over the past 50-years by gay priests are conveniently forgotten.

      NEVER AGAIN

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • margaret1910

        I have no idea richard, what happened to your child, or you.

        i

        • Richard W Comerford

          Margaret:
          Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: “I have no idea richard, what happened to your child, or you.”

          There are now several thousand cases on record settled with judgements against the Catholic authorities wherein gay priests, seminarians, religious and lay workers sexually assaulted innocents over a 50-year period. (BTW this has cost the Church so far about $1 billion). and no one seems to care. WE find that the Bishops still are admitting sexually perverse men to Seminaries under the guise that their perversion is only transitory.

          And what does Ms. Schiffer and the other professional Catholics want to talk about: Bathrobes? They just do not get it.

          NEVER AGAIN.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • margaret1910

            Dear Richard, I know that the sexual abuse mainly happened to boys, and, I think by homosexual priests. But, most SSA or homosexual priests did NOT abuse. And girls were also abused, albeit in fewer numbers.

            Most heterosexual priests also did NOT abuse. We must be careful not to tar a group due to the actions of some. Now, the Bishops who moved the abusers around..they are called to a higher standard and should be prosecuted. Both by secular authorities and by the Church.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. margaret1910:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

            “I know that the sexual abuse mainly happened to boys, and, I think by homosexual priests.”

            The John Jay College of Criminal Justice did an in depth study of this matter. @ 81% of the cases were adult men (Priests, deacons lay employees) preying on male teenagers. The adult men may be called homosexuals, sodomites or any other word but they are tempted adn give in to unnatural desires.

            “But, most SSA or homosexual priests did NOT abuse.”

            And you know this how? If a Seminarian has unnatural relations with another seminarian is not this abuse of the human dignity of each?

            and in part:

            “And girls were also abused, albeit in fewer numbers.”

            About 19% of the remaining cases concerned incompetent adult males, adult females and children.

            and:

            “Most heterosexual priests also did NOT abuse.”

            I hope not; but when was the last time that you heard a sermon from your parish priest or Bishop regarding modesty or chastity or the evil of porn?

            and:

            “We must be careful not to tar a group due to the actions of some.”

            Men who lust to lie with other men are perverse or unnatural in their inclinations. It is most unwise and unjust to all concerned to place such men in intimate situations with other men and boys.

            and:

            “Now, the Bishops who moved the abusers around..they are called to a
            higher standard and should be prosecuted. Both by secular authorities
            and by the Church.”

            One thing we can be sure of is that those Bishops who enabled abusers will not be prosecuted.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • margaret1910

            Is clear that Most priests did not abuse just from basic statistics. I hope that those Bishops will be prosecuted. If not, then..I hope we learn who they are, at least.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. margaret1910:

            Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:”Is clear that Most priests did not abuse just from basic statistics.”

            One priest is one too many. But how did this go on for more than 50-years without anyone in the Church bureaucracy, to include the professional Catholics, blowing the whistle on this evil?

            and in part:

            I hope that those Bishops will be prosecuted. If not, then..I hope we learn who they are, at least.”

            IMO we will have to wait for Divine justice.

            May God have mercy on us all.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

  • Jules Maher

    I personally admire people who are straightforward, even people who burn with passion for their faith. There is a tone in the Church where only people who “get along to get along” are accepted. People who are political in their approach survive, people who are upfront and pushed to the margins. Passion and forthrightness are discouraged. Now, if a person is passionate and forthright but does not speak with truth, it is right to admonish the untruth of which they speak. But they should be criticised for the untruth, not for their passion and forthrightness. Should someone who is passionate be encouraged to be less passionate? I don’t believe so. I believe that their passion is their primary gift to the faith. I don’t believe that Jesus was a political maneuverer. Any reading of the Bible that I have done was that he spoke with direct Truth. He even rebuked Peter with the words “Get behind me Satan!”. Would we admonish Jesus for these words today? Saying that He was being uncharitable?

  • margaret1910

    do you, hausman?

    • Jules Maher

      Sorry, could you elaborate on the question? There are many comments in here and I am not sure what your are referring. If you are referring to whether I admire people who are straightforward and passionate, the answer is definitely yes. When it comes to disagreements, I much prefer this than someone who is pleasant to you to your face but then manoeuvres to undermine you behind the scenes. This kind of subterfuge has happened to me on a number of occasions within the Church. I think that Jesus admired honesty in his disciples. See his reaction to Nathanael when he said “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?”. Jesus said of him “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” I think a pure heart can be corrected more easily of its error than a deceitful heart. If you are asking if I am really thanking the author in advance for doing something about the semi-pornographic images that accompany her blog on Patheos, than yes I genuinely do thank her for being consistent in her stand on occasioning sin and charitable to me in taking what responsibility she can for sexual content in her blog space. It would help to convince me of her position that a person should take active responsibility in addressing the temptations of others. I think that sexually suggestive images on a Catholic blog page are a much more serious issue than a chance sighting of a fellow student in a towel. A chance sighting of a man in a towel is not meant to be sexually suggestive, but the images to which I refer are crafted to be sexually attractive and lure the reader to click on them. It is a baited lure.
      If I haven’t addressed your question, please reply.

    • Jules Maher

      Hausmann margaret1910 • 2 minutes ago

      Sorry, could you elaborate on the question? There are many comments in here and I am not sure what your are referring. If you are referring to whether I admire people who are straightforward and passionate, the answer is definitely yes. When it comes to disagreements, I much prefer this than someone who is pleasant to you to your face but then manoeuvres to undermine you behind the scenes. This kind of subterfuge has happened to me on a number of occasions within the Church. I think that Jesus admired honesty in his disciples. See his reaction to Nathanael when he said “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?”. Jesus said of him “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” I think a pure heart can be corrected more easily of its error than a deceitful heart.

  • margaret1910

    My A2 chose Judaism. Her choice. and nothing about her pro life views.

  • NDaniels

    http://fatima.org/perspectives/sv/perspective756.asp

    As the veil is being lifted, The Great Apostasy is being exposed.

  • NDaniels

    http://www.sjvcenter.org/assets/uploads/pages/Seminary_Journal_Spring_2010.pdf

    See page 11

    No doubt, a muddled message is being sent in regards to same-sex sexual acts, which do not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person. Any act, including any sexual act, that does not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, is not and can never be, an act of Love. Our call to Holiness, has always been a call to overcome our disordered inclinations, whatever they may be, and become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy. The Sacrifice of The Cross, Is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy, The Blessed Trinity, “For God so Loved us, that He sent His Only Son…”

  • BTP

    American seminaries have done what, exactly, to deserve the benefit of the doubt? Isn’t it more true to say that the history we have been through with formation in the last decades we should presume seminaries are not doing their job? And including commentary from St. Luke’s in Maryland is rich, given the history of that institution in the U.S. scandal.

    Voris may tend to assume the worst form the hierarchy. But when has the hierarchy given anyone reason to expect something except the worst? Seminaries should be in the business of making sure nothing even looks amiss, because _everything_ has been amiss.

  • Dave

    Jim, You are correct on admission of those with “tendencies” but not “deep seeded. I have chosen to use direct dialog to make a point here. I know what the CCC says on gays. I have many gay friend that I love dearly including some priests. This string is about Voris message on Seminaries; and I make the point, like Kathy, that I think he went too far this time. But Voris point is well taken — the Church is catering too much to the sensitivities to the gay community. Let us be frank here Jim. The gay community deliberatly infiltrated the seminaries in United States in the late 60’s thru the 80’s. In some of the worse seminaries hetroxual seminarians were not welcome and many of them left causing the priest shortage of the 70’s. I am in my 70’s and know several men who left for this reason and told me of gay sex in the dorms. THIS IS FACTUAL JIM. One of my friends was shuned for trying to say the rosary in Camarillo Seminary in California Another for asking for Eucharistic Adoration. Many of these gay seminarians are now priests and some are Bishops Jim. Now, we have the current gay movement deliberatly trying to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Voris is desperatly trying to defend your Church from this attach. Who else is defending it Jim? Who is Mr. Voris worse enemy? Many of those same Bishops Jim. I love my gay frinds just like my Lord told me to do. But, I will not look away while my Church is under severe and serious attach by the gay community. It just riles me up a bit. Peace my friend.

  • Dave

    Richard, let us go back even farther. When “the Angels” from Abraham were to be forcably taken by the men of Sodom at Lots home. To sodomize an angel of God iIS truly an abomination! Watch some of our own Bishops ask us to accept sodomy as just a Choice” in the upcoming Synod on the Family because the lines have been drawn and there is no going back for some on the left.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Dave:

      Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part: ” Watch some of our own Bishops ask us to accept sodomy as just a Choice” in the upcoming Synod on the Family”

      I hope not. However Christ is risen. He has triumphed over death. The victory is won. All we have to do now is save our souls.

      We may indeed be surround and dominated by cowardly and corrupt Bishops and professional Catholics who wish to raise the act of sodomy to the status of a Sacrament; but Christ has promised us teh grace to prevail.

      Our trust is in Christ. – not the bureaucracy

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • gary westgeest

    Wait a minute, here. Have the U.S., Ireland, Australia, and other countries been devastated by multiple accounts of priests who have preyed on young male teenagers? Yeah, I think so, and with incredibly damaging results to the prestige of the Church, and the trust of people of good will. Mr. Voris has been calling out these fellas and their protectors. I recall the news conference just last year when Voris stood up and in response to the “relatio” of the Synod of the Family bluntly asked Archbishop Bruno Forte just what was positive about the homosexual lifestyle. Forte fumbled for an answer.
    No. No. We need these kinds of guys asking their hard, inconvenient questions. Either that or prepare to be ruled by the Cardinal Kaspers of the world. And have the Cardinal Roger Mahoneys of the world move predator priests from parish to parish and stiff anyone who asks inconvenient questions. Be grateful you’ve got a few hard nosed Catholic journalists who no longer take it lying down. Just look at the shambles of many parishes down there which are still staffed by lukewarm priests and run by feminist ideologues. And those parishes are emptying. Fast.

  • Dave

    Richard, as the good Deacon has show both of us the CCC tells us to love the sinner , but hate the sin. As Eve learned the hard way, Satan loves to deceive us with Half-Truths! And, our Bishops are using the half truth of our duty to love our gay brothers and sisters to the point where they have made their sexuality an eqality issue rather than a moral one. THIS is SATAN at his best — using the “goodness of eqality” to blind God’s Bishops to thier role to protect the flock from the evil of immorality.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Dave:

      Thank you for your reply. This is not a new evil. The Church experienced it prior to and during the Reformation.

      Saint Peter Canisius (1521-1597) wrote:

      “As the Sacred Scripture says, the Sodomites were wicked and exceedingly
      sinful. Saint Peter and Saint Paul condemn this nefarious and depraved
      sin. In fact, the Scripture denounces this enormous indecency thus: ‘The
      scandal of Sodomites and Gomorrhans has multiplied and their sins have
      become grave beyond measure.’ So the angels said to just Lot, who
      totally abhorred the depravity of the Sodomites: ‘Let us leave this
      city….’ Holy Scripture does not fail to mention the causes that led
      the Sodomites, and can also lead others, to this most grievous sin. In
      fact, in Ezechiel we read: ‘Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom:
      pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of
      her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and
      the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me;
      and I took them away as thou hast seen’ (Ezech. 16: 49-50). Those
      unashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this never
      sufficiently execrated depravity.”

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • JuanOskar JayMaynes

    I love haw the article says Voris is “frightening away potential converts”. The bishops have done a wonderful job at frightening converts for 50 years. 😀 Peace amigos…….JO

  • Dave

    Richard and deacon Russell, let us not forget what Kathy wrote about. She complained of Voris Slandering the Seminary. In retrospect, he may have gone too far. But, as you and I agree and the Deacon seems not to see our point, Voris objection to the sensitivity given to gay seminarians is what caused the ruckus in the first place. You and I recall the horror the homosexuals did within the seminaries in the 70’s and 80’s. I will assume deacon Russell is not aware. I personally have little tolerance for gays in the hierarchy of the Church because the gay movement means to destroy our beloved Church. How people cannot see this is beyond me. I suggest Deacon Russell read the book “Goobye Good Men” to learn of what we speak. Meanwhile, peace to all!

    • Jim Russell

      Hi, Dave–I am actually quite aware of the unfortunate history to which you refer. But my point in this combox was to address a more focused matter–namely, the fact that the recent situation in the Detroit seminary does *not* need to be construed as to be at all directly associated with this unfortunate history. All of the existing evidence thus far suggests that Mr. Voris both erroneously and unjustly characterized what was happening. He seems to have taken advantage of the event for his own purposes, which is a shame.

      • Christine Niles

        “He seems to have taken advantage of the event for his own purposes, which is a shame.”

        I’m not sure what you mean by this, Deacon Russell, but it is uncharitable to assume bad motives on his part.

        Having spoken with Voris on this matter, I can say with absolute certainty that the ONLY thing that motivated him here is the sincere concern for souls–the souls of any SSA seminarians who may exist there, as well as the souls of the rest of the seminary population.

        • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

          No Christine.

          Voris appears only interested in advancing the spurious notion of homosexuals as ‘intrinsically disordered’ who hold no capacity for a priestly vocation.

          Surely you know either orientation is subject to lust. Neither holds a monopoly on virtue. A vow of chastity is a vow of chastity (kind of like Emmys, you know).

          Further, if same-sex-attracted seminarians are to recuse themselves (or otherwise be expelled) from seminary, it’s only fitting opposite-sex-attracted seminarians do likewise in parishes with women.

          • Christine Niles

            The Catholic Catechism teaches that same-sex attraction is objectively disordered, while same-sex acts are “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered.”

            The APA always held homosexuality to be a mental ilness–until the gay lobby pressured the APA to remove that designation in 1974. The move had zero to do with new evidence (there was none) and everything to do with political pressure.

            But the truth lies in the Catechism’s honest and factual description. SSA is objectively disordered, and same-sex acts are intrinsically disordered and acts of grave depravity.

            You have a problem with that, take it up with the Magisterium.

          • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

            The Church’s understanding of orientation is no less impaired and incomplete than was its understanding and teachings of the cosmos (vis-à-vis geocentrism).

            Interestingly, such a criticism of the Magisterium is not too far removed from those challenges leveled against Laudato si’–granted though, it’s but ‘merely’ an encyclical (I certainly didn’t see Voris going off on those ‘rebellious’ souls).

            The genetic basis for orientation is increasingly evident. Further, the anthropological value of persons with same-sex-attraction has been demonstrably proven to contribute to group survival.

            I’d be only too delighted to provide specific, peer-reviewed research that underpins this assertion.

          • Christine Niles

            [This comment was originally made in response to someone’s claim that the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is wrong; it seems that commenter has now been deleted.]

            Wrong. Where the Church touches on matters of faith or morals, She speaks with absolute authority (as in the morality of same-sex acts), and Catholics are under the obligation to obey.

            Where She moves outside her ken to speak on matters over which She does not have authority or expertise (e.g., the science & politics behind global warming or the position of the earth), She is not infallible.

            There are different levels of magisterial authority depending on what the Church talks about. Faith & morals: Her authority is absolute. Science & economics: That’s not Her area of expertise, and Her words should be given deference, but are not morally binding, and Catholics of good will may debate these points.

            Catholics may NOT debate the intrinsically disordered nature of same-sex acts. It has always been a grave sin, and always will be. To say otherwise would be the height of lack of charity.

          • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

            Interesting.

            Is orientation not a matter of science?

          • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

            Though, in truth, what’s more interesting is the fervor of some in flagging such questions/comments in place of addressing them.

            I suppose employing the ‘flag option’ is far easier than substantive rebuttal.

            Oh well.

          • Scott Pauline

            Yes, I think the causes of SSA tend to be psychological wounds and trauma, but note, there is a ton of female hormones in women who use abc in chemical form, and these exaggerated hormones are excreted into the environment, they are wrecking havoc on fish and stuff, mutations, and then the water is ingested, which could cause elevated female hormones in baby boys or even men, and that can lead to SSA. Not at all condoning the acts, which are gravely immoral, but we can see how some guys are born effeminate cuz of the sins of women and men using chemical abc, much like drug addicted and alcholic parents bring chemically dependent children into the world.

            Again, not at all excusing the behavior, which can lead to damnation, but to at least show we need to come alongside them as brothers and sisters, fathers, and mothers, daughters and sons, to help them live chaste.

        • PGMGN

          It is uncharitable on your part and that of ChurchMilitant TV to malign others who have been exposing such a crisis in the Church for far longer. Shall we call you promoters of spiritual pornography, Ms. Niles? Or perhaps schismatic as you seem to be seeking to establish your own authority without papal mandate or even the grace of ordination.

          Having experienced the black balling of those who disagree with your style of journalistic integrity on your blog, I can only say that if in fact are regularly discussing matters with Mr. Voris that it is ChurchMilitant’s policy to neither pick up the phone to clarify matters prior to publication and/or doing the charitable thing and giving the benefit of the doubt before matters are wholly explored or declared by the lawful authority.

          IOW: ‘Your’ absolute certainty is compromised by your own policies. So when you speak about looking to the protection of souls you may want to spread that to how you conduct business for your blatant calumniation of others leads to unnecessary division and outright sin within the faithful Catholic Community that could and should work together to bring end end to this crisis should God will it.

  • Jules Maher

    Dear Kathy Shiffer,
    When I clicked on your blog I got “Offers and Articles From the Web” like “The 9 most beautiful women in Sports” showing a picture of a wet woman’s upper torso with a tight fitting sports swimsuit coupled with a picture of her from behind and below showing her bottom with her tight fitting swimsuit that exposes most of her buttocks.
    In the spirit of your blog, can you please do something about these sexualised pictures as they really could be occasions for me to sin also. I really think that you should be aware that posting your articles on a website that allows such pictures to be displayed can tempt people into sin.
    Thankyou in advance for your charity to a fellow Catholic.

    • kathyschiffer

      I’m sorry for your experience, and I thank you for letting me know. Patheos’ ad managers try to block such offensive ads from running–but occasionally, one slips through. They are incredibly responsive, and will block the ad as soon as I let them know. (That’ll probably mean tomorrow, since it’s so late and I’m just seeing this.)

      • Jules Maher

        Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Just to let you know, the ad is still there today.

        • kathyschiffer

          Oh dear, and I did report it. Any chance you could send me a screenshot? That helps the tech team identify the problem. (And to their credit, they got socked with IT problems last night and solved all of them!)

          • Jules Maher

            Sure, How do I send it to you? I can’t see a way to direct message you and I can’t see an email address. The messages that come from you to my email address are from a generic Disqus email address.

          • kathyschiffer

            You can send to me at kathy@seasonsofgrace.net.

          • Jules Maher

            I have sent a screenshot to your email. The image is still showing up btw.

          • Jules Maher

            Okay, I’m back here on the 3rd day and the image of the semi-naked woman (an occasion for me to sin) is still showing up on this page. This whole situation has been enlightening to me as to the issues between you and Michael Voris. Kathy, I’m not taking any side, but just telling you what I see. While you have endeavoured to do something about this situation (which I very much appreciate) you have simply delegated the role within the existing system to someone else – the ad managers. They have not (yet) taken any action. However, it seems to me that within the seminary, the instructor was asking the seminarians to take PERSONAL responsibility for the issue of being seen in a state of undress. The system didn’t take responsibility. And what Michael Voris is doing is looking at the system as a whole and saying that it is the system that is broken, so individual actions will be of little consequence. It is just like your individual action to notify the ad managers, who then failed to take the ad out of the system. Yes you took responsibility for what you could (within the system) but that didn’t lead to a desired outcome because the system is not designed to always prevent me from seeing these images. I also saw an ad from a betting agency and if I was a problem gambler (which I am not) I may have been tempted to click on that ad as well. Similarly, there will be many chance encounters within a seminary for a man with SSA that provide an occasion for sin. There are many situations I have to avoid because I am intimately aware of where the temptations can lead.
            When someone is criticising the “system” we have to be careful not to shoot them down unduly. Have we learned nothing from the Bible about what happened to prophets and finally our Lord Jesus, who called all to repent? Prophets speak out to a people of a certain time to point out what they cannot see from within the “system”. These prophets are rejected and killed (or slandered) by people who want to stop the message from being broadcast. This is because the message challenges the “system” and people who are comforted and sustained by the “system” don’t like that. What distinguishes a true prophet from a false prophet is the TRUTH. Regarding Michael Voris, the only argument that I can see to invalidate the truth of what he has said is the distinction between the words “gay” and “same-sex attracted”. But this is a false distinction. Ask Melinda Selmys who also blogs on here. I am sure she has stated in the past that gay people see the term “same-sex attracted” as a Christian or anti-gay definition which is loaded with hidden meaning, making it unhelpful in discourse with wider society. The colloquial term is “gay” and most people understand what this means. I simply can’t condemn Michael Voris for his use of the word “gay”.
            So my warning to you is, be extremely careful that you are not shooting down a true prophet of our times, who can reveal to us things that we need to hear within a system that is obviously in a very bad way.

  • Ed of Ct.

    Mr Voris points out the problems of the faith. The homosexual infestation of the faith=clergy has led to a Billion Dollars in Payouts in California alone under late Brom homosexual accused predator bishop In Sd 270 million, 600 million by Mahoney etc. in LA and Stockton bankrupt diocese and millions in Sf by Quinn and Niedemeyer. etc. Not to mention bishops like Dolan, O’Malley, Weurl -USA and in , Europe, Kasper, Nichols, Bonny KASPER Koch and Martin -d of Europe who have No Clue what any of the Faith and morals sexual and otherwise are.

    • Ed of Ct.

      Woike O’Conner and O;Brien in Europe meant before Nichols in previous post

  • Cindy

    Kathy Schiffer says :

    “The thing is, that’s not exactly what happened.”

    Okay, so after reading that, I’m expecting Kathy Schiffer, (who unless I’m mistaken, was not at the seminary to hear/read/know, exactly what happened), to provide evidence of EXACTLY WHAT happened, to validate this whole piece AGAINST Mr. Voris. After all, when you write something PUBLICLY saying another person is WRONG about what they stated, you will do so with PROOF and/or EVIDENCE, FACTS.

    But interestingly, she NEVER ONCE provides evidence of EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. That is necessary because she is telling everyone who reads this, that Mr. Voris is dishonest and/or wrong.

    What she provides is the RESPONSE of the seminary to Mr. Voris’ Vortex episode. THAT is NOT “EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED”.

    To be fair, if Kathy Schiffer had said “Mr. Voris ALLEGES ….. on his Vortex episode” , that WOULD be fair, honest, transparent and accurate.

    However, she would also HAVE to say, the Seminary also ALLEGES ……..

    You see, unless she has first hand sources, proof, facts, then she can’t just jump into this and DECLARE Mr. Voris lied. She can ONLY say both parties ALLEGE, which is quite different. For people who just have it in for others, these details are unimportant but for people who care about the truth and not rashly judging a situation they really have no real knowledge of, then these are VERY important.

  • Amfortas

    Who could be so naive as to think that “There may be a seminarian who hasn’t even realized that he is homosexual” ?

    • TI

      No honest person.

  • MurphsLaw

    Our Bishop was overjoyed- and publicly proclaimed it – with the SCOTUS Legalized Gay marriage ruling. And in his past, he was a Rector of a Seminary with an “SSA” (really? It’s come to this?) issue during his tenure- and which still exists to this day…….it’s getting harder and harder to lie to myself, but I know deep down Satan’s tools of homosexuality- internally and externally- will do increasingly more damage to the Church as the modernists take over. Losing the tax exemption will be the proverbial straw.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Murphoslaw:

      You posted in part:

      “Losing the tax exemption will be the proverbial straw.”

      I think it would do the Church good. But I doubt it. Our Bishops, God help them, are now more Ministers of Sate than Shepherds of Christ’s flock. According to “The Economist” the Bishops get about 85% of their budget from Caesar and about 15% from the parishes. They spend only about 6% on the parishes in return. The Economist also claims that the American Church employs directly or indirectly 1 – 3 million folks. (The State supported Catholic Church in Germany employs reportedly 1.3 million.)

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

  • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

    Michael Voris is anathema to the Body of Christ.

    As to those “lies and falsehoods [that] are trapped and exposed,” they all emanate from under that ridiculous rug.

  • Dave

    Cindy, This is Ms. Schiffers site. She can say pretty much what she wants. I personally agree with Mr. Voris on most things but he went too far on this piece and Kathy is right that he needs to appologize for his exageration. To do so would not take away from his point and he could keep his credibility. I do not agree with Ms. Schiffers that Voris action are Slanderous as he can substantiate his point even if it was exagerated. The real issue is of couse why SSA is even being addressed in seminaries in the first place after all that has happened in the 70’s and 80’s. I thank Kathy for her site and watch it every day. Peace

  • baffledlife

    Instead of immature back and forth stupid insults why don’ t you address the issue. I happen to agree with Voris on the SSA issue, we need to eliminate it in its entirety from the Church, it is too corrosive. We must get back to bringing souls to God, that is the only reason for the Church to exist, Not social justice, not climate change, not global initiatives. Souls to heaven through correct teaching, the Sacraments, and lives of grace are what is commanded.

    • kathyschiffer

      Dear Baffled: Homosexual activity (not SSA) is indeed a sin. So we must banish sinners from the Church? Then let’s line up the liars, the prideful, the adulterers, those who grow angry with their children, and the gossips and toss them out, too. (You do remember that Pope Francis has called the Church a “field hospital for sinners”?)

      • Richard W Comerford

        Ms. kathyschiffer:

        You posted in part:

        “So we must banish sinners from the Church?”

        No. The Bishops must decide whether they will continue to recruit effeminate men into Seminary. They did so for half a century resulting in the virtual destruction of the American Catholic Church. Million of lives were shattered when gay priests, seminarians, deacons and laymen preyed upon innocents.

        The fact that this matter is even still being debated shows the gulf that exists between the Bishops, their paid bureaucrats and the laity – what few of us are left.

        Christ will judge the successors to His Apostles. I, for one, will not trust them until I see martyrs in their ranks for Christ.

        NEVER AGAIN.

        God bless

        Richard W COmerford

      • mrc628

        Kathy, I think you’re being naive. No one is suggesting we banish sinners from the Church. After all, we are *all* sinners. But the fact remains that the homosexual priesthood has all but destroyed the Church. And if you think that it’s no longer a problem, you’re sadly mistaken. No, homosexuals shouldn’t be banished from the Church….but they should be banished from the seminaries. And it should be preached regularly that acting on one’s same-sex attraction is a mortal sin. Christ preached more about sin and hell than anything else. This is not the Church of Nice…this is the Catholic Church…and it’s about time we started acting like it. People convert to Catholicism because they want the truth. Most come from Protestant traditions that tell them truth is subjective. If they come into the Church only to find more of the same clap-trap, they’ll leave and I don’t blame them. It’s already happening more than people realize. Btw, Pope Francis was not being original with his “field hospital” statement. The Orthodox have been calling the Church a hospital for sinners for centuries.

      • baffledlife

        Kathy, SSA from the seminaries and the priesthood. You wouldn’t accept any one whose struggle with their psychological problems overarched their chosen profession. A drug addict, a scrupulous religious, a masochist, they are not optimal choices for religious life but they are more harmful to themselves than others. Not so with SSAs. They can infect others and their environment. They really must go from the religious life. We welcome them into the Church and will support them in their struggle for we are all sinners. To be clear: all homosexuals are SSA, a very few do not act on it. Those we call celibate, same as all other unmarried people. The Church is a field hospital for sinners, not the Priesthood.

        • Giacomo

          Thank you. I don’t understand why they don’t understand. But then I, and others I’ve known, know what it means to fend off (a matter of understatement) the unwanted advances of aggressive, predatory types. It is, as TI said, a pathology. It makes one uncomfortable to even speak of, just as it does to see numerous Catholics defending and making excuses for men who shouldn’t be in seminary. There would be a few more priests today if there had been better screening in the past. To the argumentative, I speak from experience. God bless all.

      • TI

        That is red herring. Deep seated homosexuality is pathologic. It is not simply a matter of sin.

        • baffledlife

          Thanks ti, why are people so afraid of being called unkind or bigoted? Isn’t Truth considered a treasure?

          • TI

            We are infected with this ideology of false equality. To see that unequals must be treated unequally is rejected as wrong. Of course, it is a matter of justice. Deep seated homosexual desires are an impediment to ordination as the Vatican has said.

      • Ginnyfree

        Hello Kathy. No one is inferring that these men should leave the Church. The Church is saying that they have no place in the Priesthood. The Church is correct. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Dave

    The horse has been beat Jim. And everyones points have been made. Go in peace and continue with your ministry. Dave from San Juan Cap.

  • proudmomoffive

    “What if unknowingly one of your brothers suffered from SSA? Your lack of modesty would be uncharitable considering your neighbor’s needs.” This is directly from the official memo coming from the faculty priest in question. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SEMINARIAN WITH SSA IN THE SEMINARY PERIOD. The mere fact that the priest said that shows how low have seminaries fallen. One single seminarian with SSA can potentially wreack havoc in the Seminary and the diocese at large, now imagine if more are present. The point was also made in the Vortex about the nonsense to ask other seminarians to accomodate for someone with SSA, instead of making sure NO seminarian with SSA is in the seminary. Totally absurd. Unfortunatelly we know some friends who have gone to seminaries here in the States and have walked out of there horrified at what goes on inside the seminary’s walls. Again, nobody seems to address THE BIG WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. Why should there be even one seminarian with SSA in a seminary? IT SHOULDN’T and the Bishop and rector should make every effort to make sure of that. THE FIRST STATEMENT OF MY COMMENT IN PROOF ENOUGH THE DETROIT SEMINARY DOES NOT FOLLOW CHURCH GUIDELINES OR CHURCH TEACHING. PERIOD.

  • johnnysc

    frightening away potential converts who might experience his rancor and believe that his negativity is representative of Catholics in general.

    I think it’s the actual behavior of ‘catholic’ politicians and clergy who publicly go against the teachings of Jesus and support homosexual ‘marriage’ that is frightening away converts.

  • Michigander

    Thank you, Patheos editors. I am a cradle Catholic with divergent views than, come to learn, this vicious group, seemingly obsessed with ‘the sins of others’. (Good movie title?) No wonder this Christine Niles had my mild comments immediately blocked.. Are they so insecure, so paranoid, as to be incapable of rational inquiry?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Michigander:

      You may not have noticed but the AOD Sacred Heart Seminary unleashed a plague of predatory gay priests, seminarians and deacons on us for a period of about 50-years. During that same time period the AOD suffered a loss of about 9 out of 10 practicing Catholics. It is a mere shell of its former self. All of this for the glorification of sodomy and its enshrinement as the high sacrament of American culture.

      No doubt the AOD will survive for some time with federal funding (I understand that about 85% of the Church’s funding now comes from the government.) But whether it can survive as a Roman Catholic archdiocese remains to be seen.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford.

    • Christine Niles

      What comments? I have no power to block you here.

      As to the ChurchMilitant site, I don’t moderate under the “Church Militant moderator” name. I post there under my own name, and don’t remember ever blocking you, nor do I know who you are.

      But I can say this: If your so-called “divergent views” on our site reject the teaching authority of the Church and promote heterodoxy, then you bet we will delete you immediately and without apology. We will not allow dissenters to use our website as a platform to promote error.

      • http://twitter.com/LWAYNECAMP LWC

        LOL

        Right.

        Particularly so when honest, legitimate questions arise that are a tad uncomfortable to address (let alone defend beyond self-righteous, sanctimonious aphorism).

        I know all too well.

        Echo chambers are a bit cacophonous (and hardly intrepid), don’t you think?

        Pharisees. All of you.

      • PGMGN

        What comments? Good grief, Ms. Niles, is this journalistic integrity? Or rather is it playing innocent and covering one’s bases and one’s backside? So glad you have no self righteous policy to hide behind here on Patheos.

        If you are so close to Mr. Voris as to be his mouthpiece here, you surely are aware of the hard-line policy imposed – right after a change in funding from a certain benevolent benefactor who just happens to now be on the production staff of ChurchMilitant – for increasing market share and blacking out any and all ‘competition’ when it comes to exposing lies and falsehoods promoted at CMTV.

        That smacks of the secular media aggression that would lead to 4 Emmies – that is scooping others and or clambering to be ‘the’ source. It also smacks of being bought. Not simply demurring to the Church’s teaching authority. Anyone who can string concepts together logically understands that you are undermining the teaching authority’s prestige with every episode of your program – why? – because the ‘teaching authority’ of bishops etc is grossly eroded and compromised. That is why you gleefully pronouncing judgments on others who have been helping Catholics to keep the Faith for decades wreaks of more clambering for Emmies and market share. Whatever it is, it smells bad and the educated are noticing.

        What you can say, Ms. Niles, is that if forum discussion ventures into the area of Church Militant calumniating others as proliferates of spiritual pornography for doing nothing more than exposing the crisis in the Church and goes even further by branding other traditional groups as being in schism when they are not, you promote establishing yourselves as the authority. That is neither Catholic nor proof of integrity. Quite the opposite.

        That is why you ‘say’ you will not use your website as a platform to promote error, but have no qualms about doing precisely that as you divide faithful Catholics by way of shaming, ridicule, falsehoods, branding others as being in mortal sin, all-the-while doing precisely what you are doing yourself. Shame on you. And shame on ChurchMilitant. They were doing so well, but getting greedy and/or growing a fat head has led them down the path of hypocrisy. Too bad.

        • Christine Niles

          You’ve been following me around responding to multiple comments of mine. This will be my first and last response to you.

          First–I recommend that you not mindlessly buy into all the online rumormongering about Voris. Most of it’s false.

          Second–You’re mad that Voris called the SSPX schismatic. Too bad. They are.

          Pope St. John Paul II explicitly referred to Abp Lefebvre’s “schismatic” sect, and Pope Benedict made clear in his 2009 motu proprio that:

          (1) The SSPX has no canonical status
          (2) The SSPX exercises no legitimate ministry in the Church
          (3) The SSPX has no jurisdiction
          (4) All SSPX clergy are suspended a divinis, which means they are forbidden to offer the sacraments publicly under pain of mortal sin–yet they daily defy the Holy See by doing just this, and thus are in mortal sin

          That is textbook schism.

          It matters not what various bishops have said about the SSPX. The pope’s words trump all–and at least two popes have made clear the SSPX is schismatic. Common sense not clouded by an agenda also makes that clear.

          • PGMGN

            Ms. Niles:

            Textbook – your infatuation with Michael Voris. Nothing inappropriate, mind, but a pretty syrupy case of hero worship.

            It’s very apparent that you’re:

            1) Hurt, when you perceive him to be hurt.
            2) Defensive, when you see others question his methods.
            3) Off putting, when challenged on your own shortcomings.
            4) Mindlessly blinded to your own arrogance when it comes to offending others of goodwill. Including accusing fellow news outlets of offering ecclesiastical porn. That’s sinful. Not to mention completely off the boards considering the content of CMTV offerings.

            And no, I’m not speaking of just the SSPX despite your very assertive shout down, complete with the ‘too bad’ and ‘they are’. (You must have been a real winner on the playground at school.) But Voris spreads his condemnation around to all those he perceives to be competition – at least he does now since getting his latest financial backer. (…remember you said that ‘most’ of what I might hear isn’t true. Interesting qualifier.) Again, those who used to be friends when interviews were necessary for the show are now cast as baddies. That’s when the blackout at CMTV started on your forums.

            As for recommendations, I suggest you do look to the Popes for the final word. Try to understand what that final word will look like. Clarity in an official proclamation. That is something other news agencies that have been in the business far longer than Voris – and I’m talking the business of defending the Catholic Faith – understand and report clearly. There is no official pronouncement of schism regarding the SSPX, Ms. Niles. That’s why there is debate on the issue. No clear pronouncement has been made.

            Either way, your style is bombastic and recklessly divisive. It doesn’t matter what Bishops may have told you behind the scenes, Ms. Niles, or Father Paul Nicholson. What matters is a formal declaration of schism. Otherwise Rome, in her official capacity, has not spoken.

            Common sense not clouded by an agenda is precisely what leads others to view Voris’s actions rather odd of late. What is it that has taken the place of his common sense? What agenda has clouded his previously clear view?

            You don’t like that I’ve said as much. Too bad. It’s true. You don’t like that others are calling out your boss. Too bad. That happens in the grownup world where folks cannot blackball the comments of those they cannot answer with the weight of authority.

            And if you don’t like challenging commentary, you may want to engage in journalistic integrity and true Christian charity before accusing others of not doing so. Otherwise, folks are going to comment. This isn’t CMTV.

          • PGMGN

            …and one last thing, Ms. Niles, whether you choose to respond or not. I used to be a great defender/promoter of RealCatholic TV. I used to go out on a limb and try to get folks to work together despite the obvious divisions of FSSP, ICK, SSPX, or diocesan divisions.

            But your policy of unfairly attacking those who should be your closest allies has made the possibility of working together for the good impossible. Your misguided policy burned whatever bridges of union and giving others a fair hearing that were being forged. Especially when your attacks and pronouncements came on the heels of the lawful authority in Voris’s diocese demanding he not use the name Catholic. That in itself, by your standard, would discount CMTV as being held as any authority in speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church.

            That doesn’t make me mad as you seem to think. It does, however, make me sad. But each must play his or her role, I suppose, and you are just playing your part. For if the Pope’s word trumps ‘all’ then you should close your shop and yield to his word with regard to the appointments he makes and those he chooses to raise to positions of influence and authority. By your own simplistic ideology you shut down the rationale behind the whole of Voris’ operation. That too is sad

    • PGMGN

      When I called ChurchMilitant out for their hypocrisy in accusing others of being spiritual pornographers and declaring others to be schismatic without any lawful authority whatsoever, I was blackballed, too. But not after a good shaming and other such nonsense by their indoctrinated moderators.

      If the truth at CMTV is to acquiesce to the ‘lawful’ authority, one would expect consistency. They, however, prefer to promote rejecting lawful authority when it countermands the Faith (which I applaud) but then go and castigate others for doing precisely the same thing. Any discussion and/or commentary on the odd double-principle they apply is quickly stemmed by moderators who seem to be working off shame and blame cards that rely on ridicule and empty rhetoric whenever their hypocrisy is exposed…. or their presumed ‘authority’ in declaring schism (which is accusing other of grave mortal sin).

      To pretend that one is defending the Pope while presenting the Church as being without one for nobody is held accountable or the misbehavior/heterodoxy of priests/bishops/cardinals, is to speak out both sides of one’s mouth. CMTV seems to say they are covering the nakedness of Noah, a very noble sounding premise, while acting for all intents and purposes as if they are Sedevecantists and believe the chair to be empty. The Holy Father is not naked, he is dead or incompetent or holds no position in the Church whatever. That is not acing as a true son who would seek the guidance of his father and or spur his father to action by laying issues at his feet, that is the action of one who wishes to accuse others falsely without ‘picking up a phone’ or without looking to the lawful authority.

      One does not support a CEO by decrying the utter mess at the company and the rampant abuse of the exec staff on a daily basis and then calumniate those who say, there’s something wrong with the CEO. For one party is being honest about the situation in its entirety, the other, not so. Just selling tickets to watch the mess while pretending nobody is at the helm.

      Thank you, Michigander, for your comment. The blackout at CMTV has done nothing but make me sad, but Ms. Nile’s commentary across the blogosphere is even sadder as she only calls attention to the decline of what had promised to be a great apostolate. But needing money and having to please certain people can do that to a person…. much like has happened throughout the Church. I just wish the job she’s doing could be done without the uppity tone of ‘you bet’ and the ‘personal’ assurance that they’re all about supporting the teaching authority.

      God bless

  • jesusloveshismum

    Mike is as as a voice crying in the wilderness,calling out the religious and temporal authorities of today, who have embraced the spirit of the world, and seem to be going against church teaching, he is bringing to light the many scandalous things that have gone on in the past,and continues to do so today-things that in the past which were hushed up,and allowed to continue which brought about tremendous damage,to Catholic people and the institution of the church carry on this great work, Michael and God bless your ministry!

  • Ruth Lapeyre

    My understanding is that Mike Voris did not contact the seminary for their side of the story before he made these accusations.

  • Graytown

    Kathy,

    I think we have reached the moment in Church history where the use of a sledgehammer is necessary.
    As my Grandmother used to say – ” sometimes you just have to hit people in the head with a shovel ” . That time is now.
    As far as scaring away new converts – You are mistaken.
    Souls are craving the Truth. They want it straight between the eyes and they want it BOLDLY proclaimed.
    We need another thousand Voris’s.
    Lord knows the subtle approach has failed miserably.

    Mark Redman

  • Ginnyfree

    Voris fan here. Just wanted to get few words in. The author of this piece obviously isn’t a Voris fan. I know that by now no one is probably ever going to see what I write, but write it I will anyway. The author wrote this: “Who could be so naive as to think that among a group of sixty men, even devout men who are hoping to serve the Church as priests, none has faced the temptation toward homosexuality? There may be a seminarian who hasn’t even realized that he is homosexual, or who is hiding it.” To this I’d like to say that if Cathy isn’t aware of it, which she should be, the origin of all Vocations to the Priesthood is Christ. He knows all hearts. He also knows those who are SSA/homosexuals aren’t capable of the Priesthood. He simply wouldn’t call a man who is so inclined. He also doesn’t call women either. Not all persons who knock on the doors of the seminary are actually called by Christ. Some are actually deluded or confused or seeking a job with a secure living or are living out a childhood fantasy, etc. There are many reasons why some men feel called to the Priesthood. The weeding process that all Seminaries are supposed to go thru is to discern those who are authentically called by Christ to serve Him as Priests and see to it they fulfill this calling by preparing them as best they can. There should be NO homosexual males in ANY seminary. NONE. God does not call the un-qualified. To get this basic fact wrong is to miss out on understanding the very nature of the Priesthood. It is a divine calling and the Person calling is Christ Himself. He knows who He calls and some He has called from even before they were born! Yes, there really are predestinate souls among those men. So dear Cathy, as for your hope that some of these men who you imagine are in seminary discerning may even discover their hidden homosexuality while there, give it up. Christ has NEVER called a man to bear His Divine likeness as the High Priest He is who is inclined to act out this way, EVER. He will never do this either. Those men who think they are called and have this problem are seriously deluded. So are the women who for other reasons think they too get called by Christ to imitate Him is His Priesthood. Cathy, go read your Catechism some more and learn, cause if you understood the Priesthood, you wouldn’t have any problem with Mr. Voris exposing the scandals that still haunt us to this day. It will be a long time before the halls of our seminaries are safe havens for the men God calls to follow Him as Priests and male Religious. If the author wishes to support these men, she should be agreeing with Mr. Voris and others who are actually working to make a change. That would be the better side of this issue to be found on on Judgement Day. Oh well. I’ve said enough. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • baffledlife

    OK, haven’t we beat this dead horse into ground chuck? Kathy, you chose the wrong nag ( to beat the horse thing a little more ). The vox populi have spoken, there is no hiding the fact that the seminaries are chuck (sorry) full of SSAs of various degrees and the folks are fed up with them. Pretending we don’t know who they are , is not a game we want to play anymore. Get them out of the seminaries, out of the religious orders, and out of the priesthood.

  • Mike Plant

    Is it Church teaching that seminarians can have SSA but need to be rid of it 3 years before ordination?

    • baffledlife

      Yes, there’s a limit followed by time out in the penalty box ( confessional ). Up until then you are in a SSA disneyworld, have fun.

    • GaryLockhart

      Church teaching is that homosexuals are not to be ordained. Too bad many Bishops either ignore or flatly reject said teaching.

      Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders

      (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961)

      30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives

      Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those
      who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty,
      since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would
      constitute serious dangers.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Mike Plant:

      The relevant Church document can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

      Rome does not use the term SSA. It uses the term homosexuality. It defines homosexuality as deep rooted or a support of the gay culture.

      A mere homosexual temptation does not a homosexual make.

      Rome also allows, under certain conditions, for a seminarian who does not have a deep seated homosexuality or is a supporter of teh gay college to continue in Seminary; but he must be free of homosexuality 30-yeasr before he is ordained, I believe, ta deacon. .

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Ginnyfree

        Hello Richard. I really don’t read into those documents a 3 year therapeutic process whereby homosexuals are cured so as to be fit for Ordination. I think the fuzzy zone they are talking about is in young men who haven’t even really given their sexuality much thought and not, as is hoped by those with an agenda to promote, that they are somehow “transitional” in their actual sexual preference. It is very clear that no one with homosexual tendencies or behaviors can be Ordained. That the document makes abundantly clear. If this is so, why do some see a vagueness when it comes to these supposedly undecided youths? Is it to remain hopeful that a few more gays will push their way into the seminaries and use a misinterpretation of said documents to further their aims? It is a sickening hope especially when it comes from Catholics. No, the documents nor the Vatican nor the Church teaches that some variation of degree of mental defect is an acceptable level of variation in qualification for the Sacrament of Ordination. Like I’ve said before God is the Author of the Call. He doesn’t call those who aren’t qualified. That means all gays, all women and all others who simply aren’t qualified. Bottom line stuff. Really. God bless. Ginnyfree

        • Richard W Comerford

          Ms. Ginnyfree:

          Thank you for your reply. The bottom line, as you say, is you are right. But the key paragraph in question reads:

          “Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three
          years before ordination to the diaconate.” – 4 NOV 05 Congregation for Education.

          50-years ago before our Bishops enabled and empowered homosexual predators to prey upon innocent Catholic Laity this instruction may have worked, providing the candidate in question was surrounded by virile men of faith. Now our Catholic clergy are, by and large, effeminate.

          Further our Bishops have a history of defying Rome on matters of sexual morality – see Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae.

          I fear that our effeminate Bishops will just use these instructions to pack our seminaries with more homosexual predators.

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • Ginnyfree

            Hello Richard. Here is another thing you may want to review regarding same: “It turns out that a “transitory problem” includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued “Concerning” and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of “transitory problems,” he said: “For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency…. These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage…. These acts…do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders” (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo). ” Simply put, a kid getting drunk at a party and doing stupid teenager tricks that only those who’ve been there done that understand, is NOT an impediment to Ordination.

            It is a grave disservice to others to misuse the Vatican’s own documents to further any homosexual agenda. It harms the morals and understanding of those honestly seeking answers and shouldn’t be done. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. Ginnyfree:

            Thank you for your reply.

            I believe that a common sense reading of Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski’s comment regarding the instruction are three:

            1. His comment contradicts a clear reading of paragraph 4 of Section 2 of said Instruction. (“cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality”).

            2. A candidate for the seminary does not get so drunk at a party the the engages in homosexual acts.

            3. In light of the huge number of predatory clergy produced by, among other, Sacred Heart Seminary who went on to prey upon innocents one would think that the good Cardinal would recommend chaste, manly virile candidates who do not get involved in drunken, effeminate, homosexual orgies.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerfort

          • Ginnyfree

            One other thing that occurs to me is that this explanation may be for those who being in the seminary have been violated and/or sexually harassed and think themselves no longer worthy of the call they have received. It seems a needed consolation for a most delicate matter. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. Ginnyfree:

            Thank you for your reply.

            Yes you are right. But I am afraid that are corrupt Bishops would use such a “loophole of mercy” in order to introduce more homosexual predators into the ranks of the clergy.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

          • Ginnyfree

            Sadly Richard, you are also correct. They will ignore this as well as many other directives from the Holy See and we, the faithful with pay again for their disobedience and betrayal. Nothing new there. However, to say that the Holy See gave permission or some how advised their interpretation of their directives regarding the issue is a misrepresentation of actual Church teaching and can do real harm to the faithful. Need I mention this alternative teaching method called In The Spirit Of V2 to make my point? Deacon Jim pulled this trick out of his bad and did try to say the the Vatican documents allowed for a certain type of homosexual to be ordained after 3 years of “work in with” those at the seminary. The documents said they shouldn’t even be there at the seminary if they are homosexual. Hello?!??!? Distortion familiarus. In The Spirit Of V2 kinda thing. I noticed it and said something. Deacon Jim isn’t the only one who has told us what the Vatican says about stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Ms. Ginnyfree:
            Re: Cardinal Walter Kasper

            “Last month, Cardinal Walter Kasper just flatly stated that there were ambiguities deliberately inserted into Vatican II documents,leaving them subject to a multitude of interpretations, and as we all know, those interpretations which were collected under the misleading title, “Spirit of Vatican II,” have been used to dismantle much of the Church, and build up in its place a Church overrun by modernism.” See: http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2013/06/shock-admission-cardinal-kasper-in.html

            Curiously Cardinal Levebre made much the same claim.

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

  • Mike Plant

    What has the Bishop said about all this?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. Mike Plant:

      Detroit Archbishop Allen Henry Vigneron has remained silent so far on this issue. He is also the former rector of the AOD Sacred Heart Seminary. He may be too busy closing parishes to comment.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Mike Plant

        As goes the Church so goes the world.

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. Plant:

          Thank you for your reply. You posted: As goes the Church so goes the world.

          You know, when I first read your reply it did not quite make sense. Now after a second look – its brilliant!

          God bless

          Richard W Comerford

          • Mike Plant

            Thank you Richard. I am just repeating what has been taught to me by others. On earth as it is in heaven. Thanks be to God.

      • Mike Plant

        “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even
        as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
        -St. Ignatius of Antioch

  • Ginnyfree

    Hello JoAnna. You know there is no “Official Catholic Dictionary of Terms,” so why show your immaturity and condescension is asking either myself of Richard to produce “proof” that there is? I should remind you that one of the persons you feel a need to take to task over this article is the father of a victim of sexual abuse by a Priest. What does that say about you as a person? It doesn’t look good for you darling if you attack him verbally so as to appear sympathetic towards persons with SSA. Not at all. But perhaps you’d like others to see you a certain way. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Ginnyfree

    Fair enough John. I was getting a bit rankled by several persons interpreting into the Vatican document in question a mandate that the job of the seminary is to some how counsel and “work with” confused youth who have homosexual tendencies and turn them into men worthy of ordination by their therapeutic process somehow!!!!!!! That is a complete distortion of what was actually said. I wonder why they see it that way. The document states clearly that homosexuals are NOT to be Ordained. Since they cannot be Ordained, why even have them in the Seminary? I know from a few course in basic psychology that some illnesses drive people to seek the places where they can act out on their compulsions and the seminary and the priesthood are actually one such place. These persons can be very convincing to those in charge of such places so as to fly under their radar, but once discovered, they must be dismissed. Some here think they deserve a fair chance or some sort to prove themselves “worthy” of Ordination. This simply isn’t so. Much of this discussion would be moot if those participating had a thorough understanding of the Priesthood of Christ. It is He who calls and He who a Priest is to follow. All Priests are a reflection of Him. Understanding this simple truth makes this discussion nonsensical. God bless. GInnyfree.

  • John Fisher

    The priest in charge of formation should have said the seminarians need to be modest. I assume they have closed shower cubicles with doors that allow the seminarians to get undressed and into the shower with privacy? This approach is traditional. There was NO need for him to mention homosexual attractions SSA. Voris is correct when he warns about those who support gay ideology or SSA entering the seminary.
    “Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” That means not feel SSA.

  • Lisa Ann Homic

    I am quite sure what the pubic gets from Michael Voris is a more fervent prayer life asking God for help in the seminaries. We need help in the church leadership. Sin wants to win and we need God so much.

  • Ginnyfree

    Hello JoAnna. So as well as thinking I’m a bit creepy you’d like to add liar. And this is done kinda semi publically. Get your dictionary out and look up the word libel then stop yourself from typing any more insults. You still haven’t responded as to the why you attacked a man who is the father of a young man who was sexually assaulted by a priest and suffered tremendously. You attacked this man, a victim’s father for being rightly outraged at the favoring of homosexuals in the seminary. You miss the whole point and join in the author of the above articles attacks on Mr. Voris for being brave enough to expose these very real crimes against our men. There should be no reason for the memo in the first place. The memo’s author is stating that charity and modestly in dress must be maintained BECAUSE there are men there who are aroused by other men. The Church has said they shouldn’t be there and some from this very place have come forward to say that if they spoke up about this type of sexual harassment, and make no doubt about it, it is sexual harassment, they’d face consequences and that could mean only one thing – to become a Priest of God they have to tolerate the intolerable until Ordination. They are being blackmailed into silence and you, JoAnna want to align yourself with those who are doing these things. Keep calling me a liar. Keep calling me a creep. Call me anything you want to. What God thinks of me is all that matters. And He loves me very much. God bless. I hope you wake up. Ginnyfree.

  • Elleblue Jones

    I used to watch Michael’s videos and then I found evidence that he did not always have all the facts. I am also nervous around angry people. Michael is angry, a lot. I pray for him along with all other journalists who love the Church.

    • Richard W Comerford

      Ms Elleblue Jones
      Re:” Michael is angry, a lot.”

      So was Our Lord and Savior…a lot:

      “It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone
      tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to
      stumble”. – Luke 17-2

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

    • Christine Niles

      “Michael is angry, a lot.”

      LOL. I used to think that about him, too, back when the only thing I knew about him was the Vortex. But if you were to meet him in person, you’d know the opposite is the case. He’s one of the most cheerful and gracious people you will ever meet.

      If all you’re familiar with is the Vortex, you might also familiarize yourself with his retreats and talks, which are often inspiring and uplifting:

      http://www.churchmilitant.tv/talks/

      God bless.

      • PGMGN

        Inspiring and uplifting until he inserts the word schismatic and/or reactionary etc into the regular hit pieces he engages in to promote ‘his’ retreats, talks, etc.

      • Scott Pauline

        I have noticed that too on other programs like mic’d up and the church history thing. He has a great sense of humor and is dynamic, he lightens up and things. It’d be great to hang with him and turn up some good classic rock! 😀

  • baffledlife

    I think it would be helpful if everyone took off the rose colored glasses and really took a good look at what is happening in our Church. Then we can step back and say “I trust in my Lord, Jesus Christ”. There is a major problem concerning homosexuals in the Church. There is a problem with Socialism and Communism among the clergy and religious in the Church. There is a problem with “one worlders” or “globalists” in the Church. Since all of this is taught and advocated in Catholic universities we should not be surprised. But our only goal is to follow Jesus and get ourselves to heaven, follow the breadcrumbs: commandments, scripture, rosary, confession. Oh and His words, ” get baptised and repent”. He laid it all out for you. He knows you can’t solve this, that’s his job, He is the Divine Judge. So get back to your job: get yourself to heaven. He’ll take care of the rest.

    • Ginnyfree

      Bravo Baffled! Sounds like you ain’t so baffled. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Chris

    Thank you Church Militant and staff for speaking the truth. If this corrupt seminary has nothing to hid, why didn’t they accept Michaels invitation to his show on Mic’d Up concerning this topic?

    • Mike Plant

      I bet Jesus would have accepted the invitation. When you have the truth then why stay silent when someone asks a reasonable question?

  • Blue World

    Read the Jon Jay College of Criminal Justice Report, AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE, LIBERALS!

    “Overall, 81% of victims were male [Same-Sex sexual abuses] and 19% female.”
    From the 1950’s – 2002 Report.

    Here is the PDF file (download and study it baby, because liberals need to get educated):

    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

    THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT COURTESY OF BLUE WORLD!

    • Blue World

      ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT …COURTESY OF BLUE WORLD (Just for the Liberals)!

      FROM THE CENTERS FOR DISEASES CONTROL AND PREVENTION:

      “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.” -http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/m…

      “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, YET are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.” -http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/m…

  • Richard W Comerford

    Re: Pilgrimage for All

    I hope to make a pilgrimage to Our Lady of LaSalette next week. During which I will remember the intentions of all who participated in this thread as well as the victims (and their families) who were preyed upon by Catholic Bishops, priests, seminarians, deacons and religious in America during the last half century.

    May God have mercy on us all.

    Richard W Comerford

  • Ginnyfree

    Thank you very much Richard. I too will pray for your healing. May Mary the Mother of God shower you with her maternal love and guide your every step to lead you ever closer to her Divine Son, Jesus. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Ginnyfree

    Actually JoAnna, Mr. Voris put much effort into defending his apostolate and his reputation that got attacked by the author of the article and ALL of the statements she made were credibly refuted. If you’d like to you can go to Church Militant and actually watch his latest Mic’d Up. In it you will see him taking the time to defend the FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM. He begins the video by displaying three little statues that are his Emmy Awards in journalism which was also called a lie by a few folks here. He addresses some of your insults and accusations in that Mic’d Up. I don’t expect you’ll actually watch it though because it will prove you wrong and you don’t seem the type to really care about getting to the truth. You simply want a particular version to be endorsed and subsequently accepted as truth by the faithful. Spin doctoring I think it is called. Or maybe damage control. But the Truth actually is a Person and He is offended directly by lies. The memo about the bath robes vs. bath towels is history as is the reason behind the memo: a homosexual presence in the seminary capable of moving the Formator and others to action of a protective nature. Now, call me a liar for saying so. It suits you. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    • Miguel Losada

      He didn’t address the fact that the awards he won were local, not national, as his bio would lead one to believe. That’s the issue and he completely avoided it.

      • Ginnyfree

        Hello Miguel. No, how many and the type of Emmy’s Mr Voris has is NOT the issue. The actual issue is the protection and favoring of homosexuals in the seminary in the name of charity and the various reactions to this practice. Mr. Voris only exposed this to public scrutiny. He is the barer of sad tidings. For this, the author of the above article decided to attack his character. She starts out calling Mr. Voris a “blogger.” False. Do have anything to say about that false statement? Of course not because you’d prefer to quibble over the type of Emmy’s in journalism Mr. Voris has. Please, Miguel, trot out your credentials please so we all can take pot shots at them. This is not the issue. There is a large number of foxes in our hen houses. They are continuing to ravage the hens. Until their number is known, we cannot hope to remove them all. How I wish Benedict XVI was still yanking them. His work still needs doing until all the men at the seminaries in our entire country are actually SAFE again from sexual predation and can focus on the actual reason one goes to seminary: to prepare for the Priesthood of Christ. God bless. Ginnyfree.

        • Miguel Losada

          The Vortex is accurately described as a video blog or “vlog”. Someone pointed that out in the comments. You contradict yourself when you say on one hand that the real issue is homosexuals in seminary and then object to something so minor in the author’s article as her characterization of Voris as a blogger. It was Voris’s fans who brought up the Emmy’s. Some of us questioned the veracity of the claim. Credibility is the underlying issue here. The credibility and accuracy of Voris’s reporting is essentially what Shiffer’s article questions. Expecting a Catholic who makes a living in Catholic media to be truthful isn’t unreasonable. It would be more truthful for Voris to state that he’s won numerous local awards for his media work. I’m sure he knows that to state the partial truth that he’s an “Emmy award winning journalist”, promotes the image that he’s more accomplished in the field of journalism than he actually is. Sensationalistic reporting based largely on speculation and anonymous sources isn’t a good way to root the foxes out of the hen house. The seminary that Voris maligns is probably turning out good priests. Now, because Voris has chosen to run with a story that he admits wasn’t verified by contacting the seminary first (he claims he knew they wouldn’t call him back so he didn’t even try to contact them), the seminary must spend time undoing any damage Voris may have done. How many people shared the Vortex episode? How many people listened to it and decided not to donate to any seminaries because of Voris’s negativity in reporting hearsay? As Catholics, we must hold ourselves to higher standards and be careful that we’re actually building up our Church and uniting Catholics.

          • Richard W Comerford

            Mr. Miguel Losada:

            You posted in part:

            “The seminary that Voris maligns is probably turning out good priests.”

            As evidenced by case law the AOD Sacred Heart Seminary has a history of accepting homosexual candidates, ordaining them and the standing silent while the predatory priests went on to abuse innocents.

            and in part:

            “the seminary must spend time undoing any damage Voris may have done”

            “All the seminary has to do is to publicly state that it is neither accepting homosexuals nor ordaining them to the priesthood.

            and in part:

            “How many people listened to it and decided not to donate to any seminaries because of Voris’s negativity in reporting hearsay?”

            After 50-years of Catholic seminaries, to include AOD Sacred Heart seminary, turning out predatory homosexual priests, why should any follower of Jesus Christ donate to any seminary unless its Bishops publicly states that he is not accepting homosexuals to the seminary?

            and in part:

            “As Catholics, we must hold ourselves to higher standards and be careful that we’re actually building up our Church and uniting Catholics.”

            No more homosexual priests.

            NEVER AGAIN

            God bless

            Richard W Comerford

      • fishpig65

        Who cares. You got a problem with Mr Voris take it up with him. Badgering a women over this none sense is quite frankly chicken shot. Get it? I’m your huckleberry.

        • Miguel Losada

          I’m not badgering anyone. I’m engaging in a discussion. I’m being civil. Frankly, I don’t get the point of your post.

          • fishpig65

            Re read the article then. You seem to be distracted by legitimizing awards, stick to the topic. Chickenshot.

          • Miguel Losada

            What’s your point? You’re taking meaningless potshots at me but you don’t even have the courage to use your real name. You’re like a kid hiding behind the fence in the schoolyard, calling people names. LOL.

          • fishpig65

            I am indeed. How do you like it Nancy?

          • fishpig65

            again, you/’re off topic. reread the article, reread your comments, then Deal with it pot stirrer.

          • fishpig65

            Again you’re distracted, and off topic. Re Read Mr. Voris’ story, Reread the article, Reread all of your comments. You have the market cornered on potshots.

  • fishpig65

    If ssa disqualifies you as a seminarian, according to Church teaching it makes one unsuitable for ordination. Sacred heart says it “diligently screens” for SSA..

    WHY THEN THE LETTER?

    • Richard W Comerford

      Mr. fishpig65:

      You posted in part:

      “If ssa disqualifies you as a seminarian, according to Churching it makes one unsuitable for ordination.”

      The professional Catholics use the term “SSA”. Rome uses the term “homosexuality” and defines it thus:

      “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the
      Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
      believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly
      respecting the persons in question[9],
      cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise
      homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the
      so-called “gay culture”[10]. ” See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

      A young, immature seminarian may have temptations but temptations do not a homosexual make.

      God bless

      Richard W Comerford

      • Ginnyfree

        I love the third qualifier: OR SUPPORT THE SO-CALLED “GAY CULTURE”. I can unfortunately call to mind several men who have attained the rank of Cardinal in my country who wouldn’t qualify even for entrance into the seminary if this last had been adhered to. You don’t even have to be gay to NOT qualify, you simply have to be supportive of the gay culture. If our seminaries got up to 100% is this we’d have a recognizable difference in our Church within 10 years. If they weeded out every person who thinks homosexuality is a supportable lifestyle and that the Church should disguise this support as ministry to accommodate their needs pastorally, then there would be a large number of persons missing in all areas of the administration of parishes, diocesan offices, colleges, social services, hospitals, seminaries etc. There has been a sizeable infiltration of our Church by those who support such abominations and have grown so comfortable in their ministrations that challenging them creates controversy. They simply have no fear of the Lord at all and view the Church as what they built and seem to think this vision is a better, stronger more inclusive Church. Look at what Cordileone is going thru as an example. He shouldn’t be. Not by a long shot. Yeah. See what I mean? God bless. Ginnyfree.

      • fishpig65

        Again, then why the letter?

        • Richard W Comerford

          Mr. fihpig65:

          Sorry. Which letter again?

          Thank you

          Richard W Comerford

          • fishpig65

            Typical.

      • fishpig65

        Thank you for the definition and comment. I am not a “profession catholic”. I’m an average joe who’s tired of Some of my One , holy, apostolic Church leaders, turning a blind eye, or even approving of heresy.
        Placating to one’s FEELINGS saves the soul of no one. So let me say this as plainly as I can..
        You’re either Catholic or your not,

    • Ginnyfree

      Exactly. I’d say so those in the seminary who are part of the gay culture would feel supported by their Formator. Charity tells the gays that if they are so inflamed by seeing other men in their bath towels after their showers that they need help, then yes they need help but not the kind the seminary can give and ask them to leave in say like 48 hours. The BIG disconnect I see in all this is the complete failure of the Administration to see this as a safety issue and it is basically that. These men who are genuinely called by Christ to be His Holy Priests should be safe in their persons while being trained and this includes safe in sexual ways. Why is this very basic HUMAN RIGHT totally ignored? Hello? These seminarians have a right to be secure in their persons FROM men who may see them as sexual objects. It is insane that not many even see this issue. Our next generation of Priests aren’t safe from sexual predation while in our seminaries. That’s what happened to our seminaries. Read the book Good Bye Good Men and then you’ll understand just some of the Cross these men bare while preparing to do nothing other then follow Him. Sorry for the rants but it is an issue that really bothers me. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  • Leticia

    The LGBT is well aware of what needs to happen. They have claimed that
    they will make everyone accept them as normal. There is no such “Gay
    Catholic”. That is a false word that is used among the youth to justify
    their sexual desires. The fact that these people have to label
    themselves as “GAY” has a lot to do with the change they are expecting. We are Catholic and nothing else. That is why we go to confession and listen to the word of God. Stop making excuses for yourselves people. Our Lord died on the Cross for US! He resurrected to show us the way, and yet here we are still accepting a disorder in the Church. We will see the change come soon if we don’t speak. SSA shouldn’t even be an issue if you are seeking the Lord in Good Will. Being proud of the word Gay say it all……it is being proud of sin.

  • Mark Copp

    Copy and paste this Vanity Fair article, which gives an excellent historical perspective:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/12/gay-clergy-catholic-church-vatican

  • Josephine Harkay

    It is true that Michael Voris is concentrating on the ills of the Catholic Church of today, and not on its virtues; just like a physician would write about his ill patients and how he attempts to treat them; and not about those who are perfectly healthy and only come for an annual checkup. Diocesan weeklies usually don’t write about negative happenings in the religious life within the confines of the diocese or about heterodox clerics or religious. E.g. it was CM that told of the “marriage” of P. Hornbeck II, homosexual chairman of the theology department at Fordham University run by the Jesuits, and his former male lover P. A. Berquist. The University congratulated them! – Let us be grateful for such eye-openers.

  • Vinson Parkhill

    You accuse him of “haranguing”. Perhaps the subjects of these “harangues” need it.

    He does not support niceness. Neither do I. I would say he is relentless in his pursuit of the truth. As am I.

    Anything else leads to perdition.

  • Sam2001

    Sorry the truth hurts. I have known of more than a few young men that “had” a vocation to the priesthood, until attending. More than one of them LEFT the Catholic Church, our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox Church were happy to receive them.