Michael Voris Again Smears an Innocent Catholic

When we think of menaces to the Church or obvious dissenters, who should we think of? Pelosi? Sebelius? Islamic murderers of Christians? Apostate theologians who say Jesus was eaten by wild dogs? Crony capitalists destroying families with unjust wages?

Of course not! No the huge threat we face are the best evangelists of our generation. So Michael Voris sets about the task of ginning up a mob against none other than Fr. Robert Barron as a heretic for his views on hell, just as he recently set about ginning up a mob about those equally dangerous people Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Al Kresta their ilk–again providing evidence that Reactionaries are, at bottom, most frightened of evangelists.

Here is what Fr. Barron actually has to say. You will note that what he has to say is basically identical to what Pope Benedict has to say in Spe Salvi. It is, as it is with Benedict, a speculation, not a forecast or a doctrine. Voris, to his credit cannot bring himself to declare Benedict “wrong” but does not hesitate to bring up Barron on heresy charges for his audience. The problem is, Barron is guilty of no heresy, has said nothing “wrong” and is perfectly within the pale of orthodox speculation. No. Really:

Now those, such as Ralph Martin who speculate that few will be saved are also (obviously) also within the pale of orthodoxy and share their opinion with not a few Fathers and theologians. But at the end of the day, that’s all you have: two schools of opinion–both of which are allowed by the Church.

But Voris is certain that somehow Benedict’s and Barron’s speculation is not *really* allowed by the Church and so set about portraying his opinion, not merely as “different but within the pale of orthodoxy” but as “wrong”:

The problem is, as we discuss here at some length, Barron is not “wrong” in his speculations just as Benedict is not wrong. They (and numerous other Catholics) are guilty of no dissent against Church teaching whatsoever. Yet Voris attacks all who share Barron’s opinion as guilty of precisely this.

Reader Joe Grabowski comments:

I would critique and refine Barron’s presentation of this matter in some regards, to be sure – and I am personally a champion of the theory that we can hope that all men may be saved. But it is one alternative of two equally allowable theological positions in an open question, and neither side can claim a slam-dunk victory in this matter because it is simply not definitely settled at this point.

And that’s what makes Voris’s presentation here (par for the course for him) malicious, unfair, ham-fisted, offensive, insulting, and stupid.

The exasperating thing about Voris’ consistent method is that he targets, not heretics or enemies of the Faith, but innocent people, disobedient to no precept of Holy Church, and dissenting from no doctrine of Holy Church, and then maliciously smears them with the suggestion (and in this case the flat declaration), that they are believing, living (and in Barron’s case) teaching error. Whether it’s Barron (as here), or Keating, Akin, Kresta et al (for the “sin” of making a living), or people who receive communion in the hand (who are somehow associated with Priscillianist heresy) or people who happen to like “Amazing Grace” (Protestantism!), Voris’ method is not to defend the Church from heresy, but to accuse innocents of heresy and sic his audience on them. It’s sinful and it should stop.

And before somebody says something stupid like “Why aren’t you taking this to Michael Voris directly?”, remember two things.

1.  I did, when he launched exactly this malicious attack at the Argument of the Month Club and I told him to his face that Fr. Robert Barron is not the enemy and this sort of fratricidal nonsense is purely destructive.

2. Lemme ask you, Gentle Reader, if you are wringing you hands over a public response to a public attack on an innocent man, have you gone to Michael Voris and asked him if he took this smear to Fr. Barron before recklessly launching this video today or whether he took his smears of Keating, Akin, Kresta et al to them to verify that there was, in fact, anything wrong with their personal incomes before broadcasting them to the universe with the suggestion that they are money-grubbing whores and gutless cowards in the pay of the Church of Nice?

This stuff is poison and needs to stop.

  • Mark

    I think Mr. Voris has it right. You
    see, the Church teaches from Scripture and Tradition and only comments by her
    authority over either as necessary in some historical context. That this
    question about the human presence in hell hasn’t been precisely clarified in
    dogma does not mean that there is no doctrine to be preserved by the Church–as
    it turns out, in both Scripture and Tradition. For example, before the dogma on
    Purgatory was defined, the doctrine on purgatory existed and was properly
    understood and validly taught in catechesis and used in correction of those who
    had mistaken opinions. The same for the Marian dogmas, sacramental dogmas, etc.
    All such beliefs pre-existed their formal definitions. We cannot say someone is
    a heretic until there is a dogma, but we can accuse people of error and false
    teaching and demand correction because they don’t correspond to the doctrine.
    Likewise for this current question. There are orthodox and unorthodox answers
    to the question of human presence in hell, to be judged by whether they
    correspond to the (I claim) valid and existing doctrine.

    Now, I haven’t read what Benedict
    XVI said, but if he says anything similar to what Fr. Barron is saying, then he
    too is wrong and we have to call him on it. This, also, let me explain. I know
    where they are coming from. They are theologians of the first rank, but as the
    devil uses one’s strengths against the person (like jujutsu) they are focused
    on such a narrow technicality of something “not being defined in
    dogma” that they end up ignoring the whole weight of contrary evidence.
    They are just following an intellectual thrill at evaluating a most likely
    false but not yet declared false concept. In short, it is the difference
    between speculative theology (the suggestion that maybe all humans avoid hell),
    vs. normative theology (the doctrine that there is a hell and people have and
    do and will continue to go there).

    Consider what the Church recommends
    for this situation, in DONUM VERITATIS — INSTRUCTION ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION OF THE THEOLOGIAN.
    I quote:

    “28. The preceding considerations
    have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have
    serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him well founded, in
    accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching. [--like our question on hell--]
    Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the
    fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion
    that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would
    the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because
    conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for
    deciding the truth of a doctrine.

    30. In cases like these, the
    theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the
    responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public
    opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and
    renders servite to the truth.”

    Now, I ask you, considered plainly,
    is there any weight to arguments that God’s love is so great or his power so
    immense that somehow he finds a way to save all humans from going to hell? It
    is wishful thinking. Whether or not true, it is a wish and only a wish, hence “wishful
    thinking,” hence, “speculative theology.” Contrast this with the words of our Lord
    in the Gospels, which explicitly address the question of whether God’s will
    that all be saved in fact results in all being saved. Clearly many human
    persons go to hell. Many formulations and statements by popes and councils and
    saints could also be offered. This is the doctrine of the Church despite the
    fact that it hasn’t been elevated to the level of dogma.

    Mr. Voris is correct in his criticism that some theologians are presenting to the publicspeculative opinions without
    grounding while ignoring the normative teaching of the Church, which is well
    established in Scripture and Tradition. Such dissonant voices as Fr. Barron’s harm the evangelization they wish to support. Mr. Voris has a confrontational style, but I think it is justifiable in most cases.

    • anon

      If Christ has declared there is a hell and who will go there, that is the real end of the story. And since he has declared this, we should fear it. Father Barron and others like him enjoy pontificating on the matter without respecting the word of God. The subtext is always ‘Well, we really don’t think he really means hell, per se.’ But he did exactly mean hell!

      We should be in the confessional as often as necessary. Repent! This is what Father Barron should be saying. Repent, and then go on to enjoy your life knowing you spared of hell!

      • chezami

        You should attempt the difficult task of knowing something about what Fr. Barron said before joining the herd of inquisitors who are all stupidly certain he denies the existence of hell. Stop letting demagogues with webcams do your thinking for you.

        • FaithfulCatholic

          Anon has chosen one way of thought, you have chosen another. While neither is perfect, clearly …

          Anon has chosen the better part.

      • Stephanie

        IF what Fr. Barron means is that all souls alive right now are able to be saved, then yes I’d agree. What is the point of evangelizing if all the souls are doomed? We have to have hope of the reversion of the West back to Christianity and the conversion of the East to Christianity. But will most people actually end up in Heaven? Probably not. There is too much pride and sin in the world, and most people would rather live their way than God’s way. You can show someone all the evidence in the world, but if his heart is hard and his mind closed to God, he will still not see the Truth.

        Yes, go to Confession, just be careful. Confession is not a free pass to sin as much as you want as long as you go back there eventually. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.”

    • Deacon Jerry

      Perhaps he is not a heretic… But scripture says: Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. (Hebrews 13:9 NAB).

  • Anonymous

    Michael Voris cannot be trusted on pontificating on matters of faith. The man has a Bachelor’s Degree in Sacred Theology, has written nothing scholarly and has not been reviewed by fellow theologians. END OF STORY.

    • Jess Cartwright

      Perhaps you could share with us the Alma Mater that adorns Jesus’ college T-shirt. You sound like Pontius Pilot!
      Now you may close your “story book”, apply named.

    • John Paul Doyle

      Did venerable jacinta marto of fatima write any books ? Does her opinion on hell mean nothing? End of story.

    • FaithfulCatholic

      Mr. Voris is 98% dead on when talking about matters of the Faith. He only gets into trouble when he starts leaning towards the Rad Trad crowd, as when he invites E. Michael Jones for an interview. I pray he stays away from the Mad Trads …

      • Stephanie

        I haven’t found anything he’s said so far to be against the faith. The complaints people have had were about his “lack of charity”. But is it really “charitable” to pretend that all religions are equal? To pretend that divorce and remarriage without an annulment is anything less than what Jesus said it is: adultery? To pretend that nobody is in danger of hell because only Hitler, if anyone, actually goes there, even though Our Lord Himself said many souls will go there?

    • Deacon Jerry

      Sounds like a theological nincompoop!

      • FaithfulCatholic

        “Sounds like”? Seriously?

        If you do not have extensive experience with Mr. Voris’s material (as I do), then you shouldn’t be commenting on him.

        • Deacon Jerry

          Extensive experience with Mr. Voris’s material???
          When one is in High School, one generally finds little fulfillment with grammar school books! Why would I read or watch his material (other than to pick apart his hateful rhetoric)?

          Voris has an S.T.B. No matter how impressed he may be with those initials behind his name, they are none-the-less, an undergrad degree.

          I do hold a Masters in Catholic Theology, thus I stand by my prior statement, and feel empowered by my education to do so; Voris remains a theological nincompoop!

          • FaithfulCatholic

            “I do hold a Masters in Catholic Theology”??? The importance relegated to the amount of training one has in the Faith always remains secondary to their obedience of the Magisterium of the Church. I thought you would have already known that? That said, I already know where Mr. Voris dedication is directed, it is yours that I am not so sure about. Love of Christ through obedience to His Church’s Magisterium is what is important, not a piece of paper someone flashes around in the air. Becoming boastful as did the Pharisees is not a very good sign, using the word “nincompoop” … an even worse one.

            • Deacon Jerry

              You said’ “I shouldn’t be commenting on Voris’s material.” Stating my education, was not and act boastfulness, but rather, me validating that I feel at a educational level, that I can comment on the Voris material.

              Now, from me stating my educational level to refute your statement, YOU have somehow JUDGED me to be BOASTFUL? That is what we call being judgmental, end of discussion!

              • FaithfulCatholic

                “BOASTFUL” Yes, your knee jerk response to Mr. Voris S.T.B. being “I have a Masters degree” was obviously inclined towards that end. I realize it must be difficult to admit it, but that changes nothing.

                Forgetting that fact for a moment, can you possibly get back on track towards serving the Faithful (of which the word “diaconate” was derived) and start defending the Teachings of Holy Mother Church instead instead of attacking those people who are already doing that?

                With ordination (if you really are a deacon) comes greater responsibility towards that end, not a lesser one.

                • Richard Long

                  Thank you Deacon Jerry. I believe, to borrow from a military term, you have been DRAWING FIRE from this evil clown.

                  Poke him a little, and he has called you, outside of Church teaching, not pastoral, boastful, not exercising your office as a deacon correctly, and a lair – implying you are not a deacon.

                  This guy is a hate filled guy, who only wants to condemn others who do not fall into his narrow vision of Catholicism. This is that same hatred that Michael Voris spews constantly.

                  Michael Voris and his minions = Cult of Hatred!

                  • Deacon Jerry

                    :-)

                • chezami

                  You seem to imagine you have the ability to read souls. You don’t. Stop it.

                • Stephanie

                  STB is a graduate-level degree.

            • Deacon Jerry

              You know, I hear so many using the words “Magisterium” or “Magistarial Teaching” in their dialogue regarding Voris. He simply is not a spokesperson for the Magisterium at any level. He could, I suppose become ordained, or perhaps, as a layperson, obtain a mandatum from his bishop.

              A mandatum is fundamentally and decree of acknowledgment by Church authority (his bishop) that a Catholic theological educator is a teacher within the full communion of the Catholic Church. Now this could easily clear so many issues. So why does he simply not do this?

              • FaithfulCatholic

                A deacon should already know that religious can/do teach heresy. So being at a certain teaching “level” within the Church (up to but not including the Pope) means nothing in that regard.

                Would you have people follow the ramblings of Luther because he was a Catholic priest? The false teachings of the Arian bishops merely because they were bishops?

                The Catechism clearly explains what the Church Teaches, and anyone who’s followed Mr. Voris for any length of time (this apparently excludes you) already knows he is 98% dead on with what he says. As to you, thus far I’ve seen nothing of your obedience to the Magisterium, instead, just a lot of criticism of others who already are.

                • Deacon Jerry

                  I’m boastful and disobedient to the magistarium? Great and thank you! I would have never had known, had you not have been so generous of assessing this for me. May God continue to bless you.

                  You must have missed the essence of my last sentence…

                  End of discussion means that- End of discussion!

                  You may have the last if you wish, but remember…. end of discussion!

                • Richard Long

                  Michael Voris and his minions = Cult of Hatred!

          • Stephanie

            The Bachelor of Sacred Theology (Latin: Sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureus; abbreviated S.T.B.) is a graduate-level academic degree in theology. Michael Voris has the first of three graduate-level degrees in theology.

    • Stephanie

      It’s called “Bachelor of Sacred Theology” but it’s a graduate-level degree.

      • Deacon Jerry

        To my original point, a person with only an S.T.B., has not yet developed the theological repertoire to make the claims this man does. I am not impressed with the initials S.T.B behind ANYBODY’S name. I would be impressed with a S.T.D. as this puts one “at the top of their game.”

        Myself, I never included my academic “initials” behind my name; humility I suppose.

        • Richard Long

          Still the same…

          Michael Voris and his minions = Cult of Hatred!

        • Paul Morphy

          St.Paul never included his academic initials behind his name either.

  • Jenn

    what I don’t like about Michael Voris is the fact that he basically throws all of us who are divorced and remarried into hell….Jesus never said that those who are divorced and remarried are condemned to hell….but there are morons like Michael Voris and people on other Catholic sites who will scare you to death about this…when I got divorced I went to confession and was forgiven of that sin and even told that someday I might find someone else…well…I have…that was back in 1994 and that marriage only lasted 8 months…I guess I should also mention that it wasn’t long after the divorce that my ex-husband got remarried…which tells me that he was not even faithful to me…so basically while I was being the housewife he was out with his friends fooling around….I am now remarried in 2012 and am finally with someone who truly loves me…we have been married for over a year now and I have never been happier…so if any of you morons want to start something over this then go for it…but I warn you…I will not be scared anymore about being condemned to hell…I love God with my whole heart and nothing is going to change my heart…

    • FaithfulCatholic

      Jenn, Catholics who divorce are required to get an annulment before remarrying. If you are still Catholic, then go to your Diocesan Tribunal and get things straightened out. Also, forget about what “your heart” makes you think as that is based mostly on emotion and can be extremely deceptive as it pertains to Truth.

      • Deacon Jerry

        Jenn… This poison who calls himself Michael Voris is not any authority on the Catholic Faith, nor is anyone willing to condemn you! They are NOT the voice of Jesus I hear in the gospel!

        In the words of Pope Francis, “who am I to condemn ?” If the pope doesn’t pass judgment on others, who cares about Michael Voris, his minions, or others who are willing to condemn you? These are nothing more than little people, with major issues! – May God bring them healing and forgiveness!

        More importantly, may God bless you and continue to bring you happiness! May you continue to seek Christ and find him in his fullness, and may the same Jesus guide you and your daily life.

        Deacon Jerry

        • FaithfulCatholic

          Are you a Catholic deacon or a protestant deacon?

          Because a Catholic deacon would’ve been aware of the Teachings of Holy Mother Church regarding divorce/remarriage and would be using pastoral care to bring people back into full communion with God.

          It seems a quick refresher is in need here:

          Catechism of the Catholic Church
          2384 Divorce is
          a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the
          contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other
          till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which
          sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is
          recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the
          remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent
          adultery:

          • Deacon Jerry

            See how easy it is to provoke the tenor of condemnation?

            I did not condemn Jenn, nor did I presume her marriage to be valid or invalid.

            I believe I wrote, may God bring her happiness and Jesus be a guiding factor in her life. Is this too a sin??? Sounds like the first steps of pastoral care to me!

            You presumed that I’m ok with an invalid marriage. You also presumed as well my statements are uncaring and not pastoral. Presumption requires a lot of opinion, and opinion is so often wrong! Perhaps you missed the point, as you seem to have been blinded by opinion; “Jesus guide you and your daily life”, maybe back into a sacramental state of grace.

            So how is it being pastoral to condemn or admonish in public anyhow? This is only something I would speak with a couple in private about.

            • FaithfulCatholic

              See how easy it is to provoke confusion when your statements remain ambiguous? You have a woman who claims she has been divorced and remarried and feels “condemned into hell”, yet you think against all forms of logic and reason that this has nothing to do with her re-marrying outside the Church.

              See now, how being shy of addressing issues that someone brought up in a public venue causes division in the Church.

          • chezami

            By what occult art do you know Jenn has not gotten an annulment? I saw nothing about it either way in her note. Yet you speak to her with the assumption she did not and then presume to set her straight. Why not do the charitable (and unVorislike) thing and not assume the worst but instead ask her if she obtained an anullment?

            • FaithfulCatholic

              It is called using common sense. Catholics who remarry without having received an annulment constitutes an invalid marriage according to the Church, not one who hasn’t. So there could be no incrimination towards an individual who who has done the former, and not the latter. Do you understand now?

              • chezami

                You don’t know that she received no annullment. You just assume it. So instead of acting as judge, jury and executioner (the very thing that has hurt your sister in Christ) why not try finding out the facts instead of assuming you already know them.

  • FaithfulCatholic

    What I find horribly sad about some of the replies here (whether they be from lay people, deacons, or whomever) is the gross distortion with which they represent/understand the actual tenets of the Catholic Faith.

    It’s been 20 years since I’ve returned to Holy Mother Church…

    20 years of shock and dismay at the complete lack of solid Catechesis being taught, 20 years battling left wing pro gay/pro aborting “catholics”, 20 years battling right wing Radical Traditionalists, the result of all this spiritual deceit being:

    - the mass closings of parishes worldwide
    - many of the churches that remain open being half empty
    - catholic politicians making a public mockery of the Faith
    - “catholic” universities/institutions/parochial schools teaching formal heresy
    - the gay sub culture infiltrating our seminaries/priesthood
    - fem nazi nuns who’d rather follow Gloria Allred than the Church Fathers

    Etc. etc.

    Whatever errors these people attempt to disseminate, they are all viciously struck down by the statistics. Regardless, they remain oblivious to it all. I do not engage in endless discussions with the spiritually obstinate, I just inform and move on, wiping the dust from my feet.

    “For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world …”

    • chezami

      How does practicing two acts of soul-reading on two strangers constitute addressing any of the problems you have mentioned here?

      • Deacon Jerry

        Hmmm…

    • Deacon Jerry

      So if the Church is it… why did you leave?

    • Richard Long

      You are certainly are a member of the CULT MICHAEL VORIS, a cult founded on condemnation of others!

      Go ahead, get out your divining rods, or your tarot cards, your oracle stone, or whatever it is you use, enter into your state of clairvoyance and read my soul as well. Boy ‘oh boy, I can’t wait.

  • Pilgrimike

    Fr. Barron’s reasonable hope that all people be saved from hell is very ignorant or dismissive of the Fatima visions of hell (July 13, 1917) and subsequent revelations by Sr. Lucia.

    Reference: Francis Johnston, Fatima, The Great Sign (Rockford, IL:Tan Publishers, Inc., 1980) p. 36.

    The following is a rare interview with Sister Lucia [the Fatima visionary who died in 2005], by Father Lombardi. It was recorded in the Vatican weekly “Osservatore della Domenica” February 7, 1954.

    Fr. Lombardi: “Tell me, is the ‘Better World Movement’ a response of the Church to the words spoken to Our Lady?”

    Lucia: “Father, there is certainly a great need for this renewal. If it is not done, and taking into account the present development of humanity, only a limited number of the human race will be saved.”

    Fr. Lombardi: “Do you really believe that many will go to Hell? I hope that God will save the greater part of humanity.” [He had just written a book entitled: Salvation for Those Without Faith]

    Lucia: “Father, many will be lost.”

    Fr. Lombardi: “It is true that the world is full of evil, but there is always a hope of
    salvation.”

    Lucia: “No Father, many will be lost.”

    Father Lombardi remembered that Lucia had seen Hell and added: “Her words disturbed me. I returned to Italy with that grave warning impressed on my heart.”

    • chezami

      You do realize, don’t you, that all he did was repeat the speculations of Pope Benedict?

      • Pilgrimike

        Perhaps – I have to look up what Pope Benedict said exactly, but espousing this “hope” appears reckless to me. All he did was , from a position of scholarly authority, communicate that hell is theoretically possible but that most of us should be saved. In Western culture, where sin is no longer called a sin anymore, we need more danger signs, more warning bells, more shouts, “you are going the wrong way!” Not out of “arrogant judging” but loving reproachments and concern. Reminds me how recently, there was a massive pileup on a local interstate when the speed limits were prematurely lifted despite the icy conditions. “Don’t concern yourselves – you should all be fine!” Fortunately everyone lived and nobody faced their eternal judgement in that case.

        • chezami

          No. He didn’t do any of that. Until you actually know what you are talking about, and what Pope Benedict and Barron actually said, why not stop popping off about how ignorant they are, since it is clearly you who have no idea who or what you are blithely condemning.

          • Pilgrimike

            Peace, Chezami. I listened to what the good Fr. Barron said before I popped off, and have since read the quote from Spe Salvi, 45-47. Though I assure you my criticism was not meant as a condemnation of two most excellent men, nor was it performed blithely, I regret the harsh connotations of the word “ignorant” – Please substitute it for “unaware” (which I doubt for both Fr. Barron and most certainly not for Pope Benedict), though Fr. Barron is more likley “dismissive” of the alarm bells rang at Fatima (re: Fatima prayer appended to rosaries), or by St. Teresa of Avila, or the warnings of Akita, etc. As for Spe Salvi, the Pope’s comment sounds like a supposition — not necessarily a statement of his belief, and needs clarification from the holy father. I am critical not of Fr. Barron’s optimism (I wish I had it!) but that it wasn’t coupled with an urgent concern for this culture which cares less and less about sin and its deadly consequences.

      • ChGPe

        Only if you mis-understand what Pope Benedict said in Spe Salvi. He never said that we could have a reasonable hope that hell is empty or nearly empty.

        Here’s a summary of what he really said: In this life there are a very small number of people who are so very evil that heaven is nearly an impossibility for them. On the other hand, there are also a very small number of people who are so virtuous that anything but heaven is unimaginable for them. Outside of those two groups, the remainder of those still living fall somewhere in between. Each individual person in this remainder is neither so far down the path to hell nor so far up the path to heaven that they couldn’t come to either as their final destination. They could each reasonably have a chance of salvation, but they could each reasonably wind up in hell also.

        THAT’s what Pope Benedict was saying in Spe Salvi. This is a far cry from what Fr. Barron is saying. Fr. Barron’s views on this subject are nearly impossible to square up with what our Lord says each time that he mentions hell in the Gospels. Christ certainly never said anything to lead us to believe that we could have a “reasonable hope” that hell is empty.

        We’re certainly free to have a hope that hell is empty, but there is nothing reasonable about it.

    • Guest

      I’ve always found the Fatima ‘prophecies’ highly suspect.

    • FranktheMc

      I always considered Fatima to be more about UFOs than the BVM.

    • solerso

      You are speculating. Your special witnesses do not change that fact. In fact, thats why they call your kind of argument “special pleading”

  • Thomas DiMattia

    It’s time the Vatican considers this person no longer a catholic. . .if what is written here is true.

    • CradleRevert

      Voris or Fr. Barron?

  • FranktheMc

    For the record, Voris often talks about the illegitimacy of the Orthodox Churches, which indicates to me a reckless ignorance of Church history and theology.

  • solerso

    Hear Hear !!!! . Vorris is an ignorant, dishonest, two faced dissembling smear artist pushing the agenda of his money grubbing, war maongering masters

  • Tfrenn

    I like Voris for the simple reason he comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.

    • chezami

      Actually, he frequently afflicts the innocent and he reliably tells his audience exactly what they want to hear about themselves.

      • Tfrenn

        Has Fr. Barron ever
        said anything that would upset anyone including enemies of the Church like Christopher Hitchins? No. He’s so nice.

        • chezami

          One of these days, Voris fans will figure out that being unjustly accusatory is not the same thing as speaking truth to power. They may even figure out that the Fr. Barron is not the problem the Church faces and stop bayonetting our own troops. How about, instead of attacking Barron, you do something constructive?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X