Browse By

Bring me your rejected, your outcast, your deleted and blocked…

I think we’ve all had pretty much enough of the quislings and Vichys and their desperation, don’t you?

New What’s Up With Francis-Church policy:

Rejected posts and comments correcting the stupid crap of the papologists – the Akins, the Armstrongs (sorry Dave, I know we’re pals now), the Sheas, the Coffins, the Zeds – may come here and get an airing. Consider me a haven. A safe space, as the kids call it now. If you responded to something idiotic, dangerous, wrong, insane, contradictory, heretical or just plain stupid and got deleted, blocked or otherwise cast out, send me the comment in one of our WUWFC commboxes, together with the thing you’re responding to, and perhaps a link, and we’ll see about making it a post of its own.

Maybe at the end of the month, your own personal contribution to the Great Papologist Brushoff will be included as an official square in a new WUWFC papologist-excuse bingo card!

I’ll start.

Here’s one from Oakes Spalding, the author of Mahound’s Paradise blog, in response to Fr. Zed’s rather desperate assertion that the contraception comment on the plane was “meaningless.”

Zed scolds: Next, and this is important, I remind everyone that the Roman Pontiff doesn’t teach doctrine on faith and morals through off-hand comments to journalists ON AN AIRPLANE RIDE! So, relax about the contraception comment. It was meaningless.

Oakes responds: “It’s not meaningless and it’s not funny. Pope Francis is doing great damage to the Church. Indeed, he’s currently doing more damage to the Church than any man now alive.

Cowardice is still cowardice, Fr. Z, even when it wears a facade of charity. And at a certain point, silence or obfuscation equals collaboration. Please think about this whether you delete this comment or not. God is watching, and His is the only opinion you should care about.”


Another friend – who actually holds advanced degrees in papal stuff from Pontifical Universities – adds the helpful factual information about how ex-cathedra statements work: “In point of fact, a Pope *could* teach infallibly on an airplane, in a press conference, or anywhere else for that matter. Whether or not a statement is infallible (or Magisterial, for that matter), is determined by the type of statement, not by where it is pronounced.

“And, as many people have pointed out, the problem with the Pope’s statements is not whether or not they are authoritative or Magisterial (much less infallible). The problem is that he is making confusing statements that are misleading millions of people, and he refuses to correct or clarify those statements.

And while we’re on this point… the neo-cons for YEARS have been trying to argue, with regard to JP2 and B16, that Papal Teaching is incredibly important — meaningful, if you will — even if it is not ex cathedra. Now anything shy of an infallible definition is ‘meaningless?’

This is not how the papacy works.

Yes, we must discern different kinds of papal statements, and distinguish various levels of authoritative teaching. But the Pope, precisely because he is the Visible Head of the Church on earth, because he is the supreme teacher of the faithful, charged with ‘feeding the sheep,’ has a duty in prudence and charity to speak the truth, and preach the Gospel in a way that will lead the faithful to Christ, and will not lead them astray.”


New Papologist Bingo Square: “He doesn’t make ex-cathedra statements from airplane interviews, you stupid, scaremongering Trad!”

[All bingo squares are going to be understood to include the sufffix, which from now on, we will probably abbreviate to “yssmt”.]


30 thoughts on “Bring me your rejected, your outcast, your deleted and blocked…”

  1. Hilary White says:

    The worker is worthy of his hire…

  2. Hilary White says:

    Dave, still talking about Dave, huh? And aaaaaalll the way back here.

    Try reading the stuff that isn’t about you. Maybe you’ll make some more interesting contributions.

  3. Dave Armstrong says:

    You’re still welcome to comment on my pages, Hilary, whether you block me here or not. 🙂

  4. Dave Armstrong says:

    Yes, because it had nothing whatever to do with pride. I was correcting the record, in light of the Remnant mockery. I have made it very clear in my Discussion Policy that radical reactionary *trolling* and *preaching* is not allowed on my blog; nor is pope-bashing or Vatican II-bashing, or Novus Ordo-bashing (the three distinctives and hallmarks of the reactionary).

    I made an exception for Hilary, and even made a new dialogue with our exchanges on my blog and Facebook page. At least she has some wits and intelligence, and I personally like her, despite our HUGE disagreements.

    Now, Hilary may delete my comments here. Maybe she has a policy against allowing “norvusordoists” from commenting on her page. That’s perfectly fine if she does: she would have her policy, and I have mine in my domain.

  5. Dave Armstrong says:

    I couldn’t have made up a better example of the mentality of the radical Catholic reactionary. This is absolutely classic: one for the ages. Thanks!

  6. Dave Armstrong says:

    My royalties were, of course, brought up simply in reply to The Remnant’s idiotic article, claiming that no one reads my stuff at all. So I pointed out the simple fact (in similar words) that I have contracts for nine books, with four different publishers, and the fact that I make my living primarily off of these royalties. I’m an author. This would be very difficult to do, if no one is reading my stuff at all.

    I don’t make much, but I pay my bills, have no debts except my mortgage, have good credit, and don’t even use credit cards. That ain’t bad for being the sole provider for a family of six. But mock away. If that’s all you got in your “arsenal” against me, then you obviously ain’t got MUCH! Even Hilary, despite her insults of some of my work as “stupid crap” above, conceded that at least some of what I do is useful to the reading public (particularly Protestants).

  7. Dave Armstrong says:

    Yes to the tune of 94 cents an hour (the average of what I receive from Patheos in a month).

    If that is devotion to filthy lucre, I’d like to see YOU work at a job for money like that.

  8. Tom Healey says:

    Hi Evangeline, thanks for your fairness. Agreed, your impatient Irish temperment comes through, loud and clear. I recognize it from personal experience, myself, my father, his father… My prayerlife, and the graces that flow from it, have done wonders for my inherited Irish impatience.

    I love CM, and I appreciate that you don’t ignore all the great good they do, even though you are vehemently opposed to MV’s “silence” regarding his holiness Pope Francis. And I support CM’s policy, for reasons I explained in my other comments.

    It has not been easy for me to make peace with Francis. However, I can say that the more I learn about what he says and does, begins to make sense. The most puzzling thing about him is why he continues to make off the cuff statements that cause so much confusion snd outrage among faithful Catholics. I still don’t have an answer. May God bless you and keep you always.

  9. Tom Healey says:

    I read your short comment several times to see if you’re sincere or snide. Your choice of some words you use – …”gave you the go ahead”, “to engage your critical thinking skills” are inaccurate. But your tone is, I believe, sincere, even though you come across as half-hearted. MV does not give me the go ahead to think critically, which my comments show. Rather he educated me. He gave me the heart, the guts, of the internal corruption in the church since Vat11. Before, I mostly had head knowledge, which is obviously good. I mean, Catholicism is in my bones and my soul, so I have great respect for the church’s intellectual achievements. So both are necessary. The head and the heart. And as I pointed out two days ago, I owe Michael and his wonderful crew a great debt of thanks. So, anyway, thank you and God bless.

  10. Evangeline10 says:

    A perfectly valid way of looking at this, perfectly valid and reasonable and no doubt more pious than my impatient irish temperament can muster up. I admit, these men are trying my patience and it is sometimes too much to bear, when I see how they are causing so much damage. When I think about young boys and men being corrupted because of the weakness of these men, it is almost beyond enduring.

  11. Evengeline10 says:

    Whoa. I agree with your heat about this entirely, but you just chewed the rear-end off the wrong entity. I totally agree with your sentiments about CM. I don’t get it, and the only conclusion I can reach is that big donors don’t want to hear PF get criticized. I dunno, maybe that’s a cynical view of CM, and I too, love what they do! Who else is taking on these horrible Cardinals, Bishops, priests, etc. Nobody really. CM is, but for the life of me their completely silly policy on PF is absurd to me. I was a subscriber, but was blocked, and that ended it. I can’t subscribe to the requirement we leave PF out of this, because that is ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. And it’s crazy making, because we are talking about the feet when it’s the head that is the problem. But let’s pretend. I stopped supporting CM for that reason. The Catholic League has sold out as far as I can tell. The relationship with Cardinal Dolan after what happened with the NYC St. Patrick’s Parade…it doesn’t sit right. EWTN. Same deal. I love EWTN and owe them a huge debt of gratitude. They educated me in the authentic faith, and how can I ever repay them? But they’re on board with this pope, and he is an outrage, a scandal, and more. I know it. My husband knows it, clearly many people know it, but few SAY it. We have waited DECADES for homosexuality to be taken on by our pastors and the church. But…we waited in vain. Now we see nothing but lavender going all the way up the chain, and we again thank CM for that. They confirmed what we suspected and we must thank them for that. We have a church chock-a-block full of homosexuals and enablers. We’ve had how many young boys and men sexually molested and the faith watered down and nobody takes them on. And guess what, it doesn’t appear anybody is going to. And we are going to have to figure out what to do with that. The Cardinals are likely to just pick another pope in the same vein, because unless they are waiting for the post-synod encyclical to give them some real meat to fight over, they mostly seem exceedingly weak, with some notable exceptions. But there does not appear, appear, to be enough of them. Everybody on board the Francis train! woowoooo!

  12. PGMGN says:

    Looks like MV at CM gave you the go ahead to engage your critical thinking skills and the fullness of Catholic teaching. God bless!

  13. Tom Healey says:

    Thanks for at least attempting to give me a reasoned response. Even though you fall short of the goal. I’m giving you a B+ for trying. Even though your defense of Jack leaves a lot to be desired. In fact you should be ashamed of yourself. His comment was vile. Period. Even to say that the things he said were an “ad hominem” attack is an understatement.

    My self-justification, as you put it, does pass the acid test. For the simple reason that my concern is the person of Pope Francis, not just what he says and does since his soul is at stake. Not something I take lightly and neither should you. So his motives, desires, drives are ABSOLUTELY crucial, not just for the sake of his soul, but in order to find the truth or falsehood of much of his pontificate.

    It’s easy to do what you do because it has to do with wounded human nature. Everybody has opinions about everything under the sun. And I recognize the temperment of yourself, Hillary, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrera, Vox Cantoris, et al. Outspoken, demanding, the “take action” type of Catholics. All good in their place. The downside is a superficial understanding that is afraid to go deep. Hence your self-justification which compells you to dismiss my desire to know more about Francis’ interior life. And I’m sure you’ll have more of the same when you read this. Deep thought is needed. But you are tempted by the outward behaviour almost exclusively and give in to alarmism. And before you go off the deep end, I too am alarmed over many things he says and does.

    You’re very good at giving analogies to show how wrong I and CM are. But they only satisfy Catholics like yourself who want easy answers. And of course the need to justify your attitudes is going full speed.

    As for Voris’ silence regarding PF and his justifiable criticism of so many other bishops, there’s a very good reason for that. Which goes right over your head. He does not want to be responsible for souls making stupid decisions, for which he Michael will have to answer for. Does that mean that the point you made is wrong? NO. You’re not wrong. We all have free will. Some or many will reject the church no matter what Michael Voris says or does not say about Pope Francis. Michael is taking care of his own soul. The only soul he has full responsibily for is his own. And given that he is a man of deep prayer, mindful of his own sinfulness, he has God given HUMILITY. You should try it. PRAY FOR HUMILITY. Given that Pope Francis has not rejected any church doctrine, and the Church of Nice bishops have, that makes perfect sense. It’s like taking personal responsibility. You should try it.

    I’ve said this many times, and no doubt you will ignore my words, that many times, the statements Francis makes, when seen in perspective, are very different from the first impression which usually comes from media distortions.

    But he also says things that I still don’t see any truth in. The most recent being his statement that Paul V1 approved of contraception for nuns in Africa, and according to Janet Smith, Paul did approve it. And she explains why Paul was right in approving contraception for those nuns. But she also stated very clearly that contraception is not licit for women to take to avoid pregnancy and avoid giving birth to deformed babies. I got this last night off the internet. I don’t remember the title, but if you google Janet Smith and contraception, you’ll find it. She is a devout Catholic, highly respected professor and expert on this subject. She makes a very tight argument, which shows that Pope Francis is wrong about this solution for Mexican women. If indeed Francis was not speaking loosely in general conversation, which he should not do, in any case.

    These Catholic websites you follow, the Remnant, being the worst offender, breed arrogance and the ridiculous attitude that the rest of us are supposed to tag along, just because you say so. Really!! I get the impression that some are drunk on their own rhetoric, Matt, Ferrera, White, come to mind. Get it through your thick skull that you don’t have a monoply on concern over Pope Francis. And if you took the time, which you should. To look beyond your self righteous noses, you might wake up. One of my concerns about Francis, going back two years, was why he was making these statements, AT ALL, considering the massive fallout that came afterwards. I’m still praying and looking for an answer. And I’m convinced, I speak for CM as well.

    You guys take yourselves too damned seriously, and maybe a good sincere confession is in order.

    And, please, please, do not respond if it’s just going to be more of the same shallow, self-justifying crap. Because my patience is wearing thin.

  14. Tom Healey says:

    Well, thank goodness, I haven’t lost my touch for “how to make friends and influence people.” There’s a whole lot of self-justification going on with you five guys who graciously responded to my comment. I wish I could say I’m “preaching to the choir”, but no, me thinks it’s more like a “brick wall”. I realize it’s my devout Catholic upbringing that obliges me to say this, but the intellect trumps passion. Period. The right ordering of knowledge and feelings is, unlike Protestants. that reason must come first. Then, once we know the truth, our passions should come into play. And me being 200% Irish means that passion comes into play very easily.

    And lest you think, that I presume to speak from some lofty height, let me say that I don’t think that. I have my own struggles with Pope Francis, to this day. I usually have a negative reaction to most of his statements which I recently mentioned on my favourite Catholic video and talk blog. I get angry. I fret. Sometimes he seems hopeless. And I tell myself that even if some things he proposes are wrong and stupid, he is still the pope, and the Holy Spirit promises to protect the church on faith and morals. ONLY. But because I AM Catholic, I know that emotionalism is cheap Protestant self indulgence. And I’m not saying it’s easy. It takes lots of prayer and attempts to understand this man. And sometimes I buy into media distortions. At least temporarily. It is not without significance that once background is provided for Francis’ outrageous statements, many take on a different meaning. Like Carol Ann, a regular in the CM combox, asked, can anyone name one doctrine that the pope has changed!! I know, you have an answer for that too.

    I don’t know how to say this in a few words. But I’ll try. It’s the greatness of our Catholic faith that inspires me. That the church “thinks in centuries”. That she has gone through many turbulent times, in her 2000 year history. That the recent Vat. Council was not the first, and won’t be the last, barring Christ’s Second and last coming. The Teaching Church will triumph, with or without Pope Francis. In the meantime I have a responsibility to do the best I can to understand Francis’ interior life of motive, belief and drive. So I must resist rushing to rash judgement “where angels fear to tread.”

    I welcome a response from you, hopefully a reasonable one. God bless.

  15. Paul54 says:


  16. JohnCalla says:

    He doesn’t have any problem trying to drum up scandal about the SSPX, though. I don’t think he and his organization are very credible after all that has been going on over the past year.

    I will say though that the biggest scandal in the Church today is that Pope Francis just says whatever he wants willy-nilly re: the Faith and nobody wants to publicly correct him. When there is no public correction from good Catholics, the weaker Catholics and non-Catholics are more apt to accept the pope’s heresy as some kind of authoritative position of Church teaching. So no, I don’t think Voris is doing the world any favors in this regard.

  17. GL29 says:

    Speaking the truth does not lead people astray.

  18. Jack says:

    Tom Healy, stop waving your freaking finger and scolding. So Catholics questioning this pope are the ones that are causing more scandal and “tipping shakey Catholics over the edge”? Are you fucking insane? We’re told not to worry about what the pope says on an airplane, but a comment in a combox is going to drive people from the Church?
    And stop with the “prayerfully understand” crap, too. You don’t try to “prayerfully understand” evil. You condemn it, loudly, and from the rooftops. Take your faggoty “rush to judgement” shit somewhere else you fucking coward. I’m sick of gay priests, fag-hiding bishops, and heretic popes, and most of all, flying monkeys like you who try to defend them. Enough!
    I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

  19. fxr2 says:

    I thought we all were wounded by original sin. What trap am I in? The fact is Michael Voris does excellent work as far as it goes. How in the world he can discuss the current situation in the Church with out mentioning the at best confusing Pontiff is beyond my understanding. How can Voris demonize the new Archbishop of Chicago with out mentioning who appointed him and sent him to the Synod on the Family. Are these unrelated topics? Church Militant is doing their part in limiting the scandal? Sure just like everyone, I mean everyone, the Church, the police, the media, all ignored the Pedophile Priest Scandal.

    Please pray for me, I need it. Pray for the Chuch and her leaders including Pope Francis.

  20. What.Ever. says:

    So we need to try to understand why eugenics is okay? If by “understand” you mean swallow vile anti-Catholic garbage and pretend all is well over and over and over again, then, yeah, I guess.

  21. Tom Healey says:

    Passion is no substitute for facts, and if you were not wounded by Original Sin, you would know that. Better still, you would not fall into this trap you’re in. Thus, you make stupid accusations based on your blind assumptions. Voris and crew are well aware of Pope Francis and the statements he makes that leave Catholics puzzled and worried. Their concern is to not cause more scandal and tip shaky Catholics over the edge. ChurchMilitant.Com is my favourite Catholic blog. Why? Because I love the truth, which is Christ and His church, and that’s where I go to get it. FYI, I too worry and fret over Francis. And that’s the easy part. The hard part is to try to prayerfully understand this man and why he says the things he says. Rushing to rash judgement is another nasty fruit of OS, and is to be repented of. God bless.

  22. GL29 says:

    My favorite is when he calls John Allen fair minded and ubiquitous. A known leftist agitator is now termed fair minded.

    He has a great gig going and the credulous play along.

  23. Barbara says:

    And why does said travelling priest, more than slightly over-padded, take pictures of all the beautiful food he eats on these trips?

  24. fxr2 says:

    Voris is clearly the worst. He completely ignores the elephant in the room, and then asks for subscriptions. Apparently it is his ‘strategy’. It seems to have worked well with the Catholic League.

  25. JohnCalla says:

    I really get infuriated by this idea that we needn’t worry because this or that heretical statement was not pronounced infallibly. The entire point is not to make an infallible declaration but to injure the souls of the common people. Your average person has no idea what ex-cathedra means and how to discern papal statements re: infallibility. All they know is that the pope guy said X and it’s being trumpeted by every media outlet and there are no other Church leaders (bishops / priests) in disagreement, so it must be acceptable.

  26. Barbara says:

    Good comment, but I disagree slightly. They have not run away. They have changed the tune. There is a concerted effort to make something new out of Ole’ Ma Church.

    And it IS easy. Holding on to Tradition in the face of the rush of progress would be hard, but to get on board with a new tune to sing is easy.

    One little comment on Mr. Armstrong and his royalties. When Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion sold a million copies this was touted as just so wonderful and proof that there was this vast thirst for the truth, finally given in this NYT best-seller. Another little known fact was that the book “A Purpose Driven Life” (sorry can’t remember author) which taught something completely different sold 28 MILLION copies.

    So Mr. Armstrong enjoy your little triumphs while you can.

  27. Vox Cantoris says:

    Every time one clicks on the man in the funny hat and glasses’ web page one puts money in his pocket.

  28. GL29 says:

    Hey you listed all the professional Catholics who make their living off donations. They are like the talk radio “conservatives” who have a following of non thinking zombies. My favorite is when the commenters in the boxes of these guys say things like: “well said, Jimmy” or “right again”. They have fans who gobble up their propaganda. BTW, how does a priest have no assignment and take trips far and wide on a constant basis?

  29. Stephen Lowe says:

    The article where Dave extolled his success re royalties I commented simply….’Pride goeth before the fall.’ and this was blocked.

  30. Evangeline10 says:

    Yes indeed, this is a growing problem. The sidewalks have been rolled up, and happy smiles put out. No need to worry, nothing to see here, move along. EWTN has gotten on board, clearly, they’ve purchased trombones and are marching. Much talk of PF and the Jubilee, Missionaries of Mercy, and they are now praying EWTN prayers for “social justice”, which I don’t ever recall hearing before. No criticisms now. Mother Angelica would never allow this.
    We’ve long hoped that we would see a public and rousing defense from faithful Cardinals and Bishops, and there are notable men who are defending our faith, but let’s face it, it’s pretty much crickets if not outright support, and now we find the ones we have counted on in the temporal world to console us are MIA.
    I am positive it can’t be easy to be them, but like Peter, they’ve run away.

Comments are closed.