Dec 4, 2023·edited Dec 4, 2023Liked by Steve Skojec
I don't know where you are in thinking about Catholic sexual teaching, but another part of this I think is just Catholics twisting themselves into pretzels to deny that some people are just really, actually gay and they just can't magic themselves out of that condition. I don't mean to say that Catholics need to agree with or encourage people to be actively homosexual, but I have seen multiple instances where Catholics wish so hard for people to be able to stop being gay or to become ex-gay or whatever, that they tout these stories of conversion or return that, from an outside perspective, are extremely fishy. I am coming from a comparatively conservative Catholic background and of the 6 (that I know of) people that I met from the same background (across high school and college) who turned out to be gay, only one is successfully living according to Church teaching. That's an 83% failure rate among well-catechized young adults on what is supposed to be a universal teaching. The others went through varying levels of self-flagellation and mental gymnastics to be ex-gay or openly gay but never in a relationship, and at varying points either left the faith wholesale or became 'cafeteria' Catholics- so that they could have relationships, hopes for any kind of family (it was that or be single forever or do religious life, where you are viewed as a liability if you are gay), etc. I don't endorse surrogacy or all that stuff but my point is just that, to be honest, I just haven't seen Church teaching on this issue work out for the majority of the people I know who are affected by this. Again, small sample size and I am only in my late 20s, but when I see people like Michael Voris, I think of young Catholics I have known who try super hard to deny their sexual orientation or be gay and find any kind of livable, exciting, fulfilling life within the Catholic Church - and that becomes a weird psychological alienation in itself that easily leads to a double life. This is not to say I have really any great pity for Voris, who i think capitalized on scandal and justly deserves the criticism he has received. Nor am I saying Church teaching is impossible, or that chastity is bad, but simply that I am reflecting on my own observation that somewhere along the line this particular teaching doesn't seem to be leading to much observable human flourishing. Like you can't both treat homosexuality as a radioactive disease and also expect gay Catholics to be super well adjusted. Again, all my opinion, and I welcome others' thoughts.
I think Catholic Sexual Ethics is probably the most rational and coherent version of sexual ethics there is.
I've got some philosophical quibbles with the way the Church absolutizes the telos of sex, and how that teleology is the thing driving the prohibition on contraception. I'm not sure the arguments hold up.
But I recognize the slippery slope here. If contraception is OK, then pretty much any non-physically-harmful consensual sexual act is OK, because we've taken the teleology that "sex ordered to procreation" off the table.
This is a position I came to after leaving, not before, just in case there are any lurkers hoping to gin up a "See?! He left because he was contracepting!" rumor. (Not that it's anyone's business, but even now, I have not made recourse to contraception in the waning years of our fertility, despite very much wanting to be done with the babies/toddlers phase of our lives after 20+ years. But I am also not strongly ideologically opposed, because it was predominately fidelity of the Church that held that position in place for me.)
All of that being said, I don't think the Church has compelling answers for Catholic homosexuals. While some claim they have been cured of SSA, I think the jury is still out on how much of homosexuality is nature vs. nurture, and whether anything can be done to correct for it in people who don't want to be gay. The political and social taboos on the topic make research of this kind pretty impossible, as well.
I think being gay and Catholic would be a uniquely soul-crushing experience. I can't imagine anyone being able to live that conflict successfully and without a lot of misery. I can't begin to claim to know what the answer is.
I think you have a good point here. As a more conservative Catholic myself, I've never felt that the Church had much of an answer or comfort for gay people. As I got older and met or worked with openly gay people, I worried that they would be punished for an attraction they didn't choose, or it seemed the cross they had to bear was heavier than straight people because at least we have an outlet in marriage. I know straight people struggle with sexual sin too, but it's not looked down on nearly as much as homosexual behavior. I dunno. Maybe the Church is too puritanical on sexuality but I don't know how they walk back 2,000 years of this teaching.
I don't think being gay is all one phenomena. I think about Jesus preaching on eunuchs--some are born that way, some are made that way by men, and some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. So Christ seems to say there's nature and nurture. (We can eliminate someone going gay for the sake of the kingdom, so the teaching doesn't exactly transfer to gay-ness.) I trust in God's mercy in general. People get really screwed up if they're abused as children (sexually or otherwise). I remember listening to a broadcast in which someone who was sexually abused as a child said words to the effect that the worst aspect of pedophilia is that it introduces the problem of desire in the child victim. Imagine then the guilt the child experiences remembering what happened, and also having been introduced to (possibly) inappropriate homosexual (or heterosexual) liasons and desiring them going forward! I've seen the effects of pedophilia up close and personal in two cases (a friend and a relative) and both people were completely screwed up sexually for life. They were both without a sexual moral compass and in some phases of their lives oversexualized and promiscuous or otherwise sexually inappropriate (like, worked in the sex industry).
So, if I were gay, what would I do? I'd try to be celebate. Yes, really glib, I know. But I think about how sexually calming the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit can really turn down the temptation to sin, especially sexual sin, I've found, but also addictions--look at all the people who give up addictions by leaning on a higher power (including sexual addictions). And then one does have to be really careful where one allows one's mind to wander or eyes to wander (i.e., avoid the "near occasions of sin"). Do not LOOK at things (pictures, people walking around, movies, etc). Yes, really, It sounds stupid and/or obvious, but I've read interviews with priests who speak of modesty of the eyes and find I practice that little strategy quite helpful after hearing of it. Just do not look. And not just as sexual stuff--do not look at anything that draws one's mind into sinful thoughts. Like what? Envy.
Sexual sin is the devil's best seller. I don't know how SERIOUS a sin it is--probably can be VERY SERIOUS (Epstein, Hugh Hefner, the Marquis-de-Sade, Casanova) or not-so-much (developing teenage boys, thank God I never went through male puberty! Geez!) I think it totally depends--Lewis sort of hints at having thrown up his hands in this department in "Mere Christianity" at certain points in his life. He says something to the effect he just trusted God when nothing worked to avoid certain sins (operating from fogged memory of reading Lewis on this topic).
I would tell people try to obey the Bible (and Catechism) to the greatest extent topic on this and other topics, but I also realize some people have been completely ruined by others or are severely prone to certain types of sin from birth (mentally damaged almost). So there's God mercy, which is unfathomable, and there's also Purgatory, which is perfectly "attuned" reform school ("custom") "to the rescue". We aren't supposed to AIM for Purgatory (because big chance of ending up in Hell), but when I "hit the wall" with certain faults (the "hardcore baked-on 'stuff' ") I just "give it to God" and trust that there is a way to lessen the problem if not in this life, the next. And then keep asking God "take this thorn from me" as St. Paul did and avoid the near occasion of sin.
Are there celebate gay people in my circle? Yes. I saw God pull someone very close to me out of it, and it was fairly brutal "take-down" (like, "no choice, no more gay for you.") Like what Voris is going through--do you think Voris will go celebate from here? Yes I do. I'm worried about Voris surviving the "scourging"--let's all pray for him. Everyone pray for him and all those at Church Militant. They are in a crucible, but Voris most of all.
This article is very accurate in its assessment of conservative Catholic circles: we get duped easily by "strong men." It got me thinking about all of the voices in the Catholic world that I used to hang on every word, every day for years. Keep in mind, I'm not saying these people or channels are evil or corrupt, but I've become much more weary of stuff like this. Here is a list of what seems like another lifetime to me: Church Militant, Sensus Fidelium, The Remnant, Taylor Marshall (your fave), Trad Cat Knight, Fatima Center, Dimond Brothers (sedevacantists, I know), Fr. Ripperger, E. Michael Jones, and What Catholics Believe with Fr. Jenkins I think was his name. I'm sure I've left some out, but you get the point. I had to walk away from that stuff, it was too fear based, too angry and negative. It had the same vibes of the fundamentalists Christians that used to (and still) badger me with blood moons and rapture talk. Enough is enough.
I like Anthony Stine of "Return to Tradition" and Eric Sammons of "Crisis Magazine", Timothy Flanders (1P5). E. Michael Jones I find a little confusing. I like some things he says, but not everything. I generally like Taylor Marshall, Tim Gordon and Archbishop Vigano, Chris Ferrara (sp?) of Fatima Center, Father Gerald Murray of EWTN and "The Catholic Thing" (with Robert Royal), Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, Kennedy Hall (Youtube).
I used to watch Stine a little now that you mention it, he had the Hilaire Belloc picture with sunglasses on I think. All these other names I'm familiar with except Robert Royal. At this point the only two guys I watch are Bishop Barron and Fr Joe Krupp and his Quantum Catechesis show. I get the biggest kick out of that guy! Informative, personable, and flat out hilarious. I highly recommend.
Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray have some social media something or other, but I catch them on EWTN's "The World Over" with Raymond Arroyo. Sometimes they appear together on Raymond's show, sometimes separately. They speak truth to power, but in a very diplomatic, measured tone.
Anthony Stine now appears in person on his youtube show and is really excellent on giving us a inside look at what is coming down on the Catholic world. He is also very measured in how he speaks.
Bishop Barron is a huge force for good. He hasn't been "hard core" enough for me until lately. He is speaking up against some of the Pope's latest moves (Burke and Strictland).
What the holy hell? The Pause Program??? Wake up people!!! When I learned of the Vatican residence for young boys serving the mass:
The St. Pius X Pre-seminary was founded by in 1956 by Pope Pius XII to house altar boys who serve Mass in St. Peter's and are thinking of becoming priests. They live in a building in the Vatican while attending schools outside its walls in Rome.
I thought wow, how naive are these families??? Do they even read the news??? The effects of sexual trauma are tremendous …and don’t even get me started in God’s role in all of this… it makes me sick, angry, and frankly glad I left. What is the obsession with sex… of bodily pleasure? I JUST DON’T GET IT. So disordered. Thank you, Steve… you nailed the three reasons. Devout conservative trad Catholics will continue to be victims until they wake up in the 21st century! Ughhh I’m just disgusted.
I feel like true depravity is always the marriage of sexuality and ideology. One one hand you have sexual desire the oldest, most primal and most base of human desires (arguably stronger than the survival instinct).
On the hand you have an ideology/religion operating at the level of abstraction. So the religious fundamentalist never develops a healthy balance between sexual desire and various ideas about the world. You see similar issues with the rise of "poly" throuples and their various branches, which is a kind of communist sexual cult. Its super easy to drop the proverbial mentos into the coke bottle and watch the fireworks when you mix the two.
Sanity will likely be found in the balance. Find a spouse, love them and have some fun in the sack.
Definitely a question worth pondering. To your 3 points (the dearth of leadership strikes me as especially relevant), I would just add a potential 4th, that being: Recent decades have seen so many false charges leveled against figures on the right, that a rush to delegitimize potential warning signs is practically ingrained into us at this point.
You mentioned Trump, who stands as a prime example of this. Amid legitimate concerns, we also got a host of fabricated ones, such that beleaguered conservatives begin to instinctively assume that leftist tactics must be behind any supposedly serious issues.
We’ve seen it in the Church, as alongside the legitimate sexual abuse scandals, a flood of frivolous lawsuits were also launched - several good priests defamed by those who smelled blood in the water following the Church’s big payouts.
It’s hard not to circle the wagons when arrows start flying, even if a few foes are liable to be included in the circle.
Interesting, Steve. You have significant insights from your previous work, and I remember the polemics between 1P5 and CM back in the day. I hopped on the Voris train early, way back in 2008 or 2009 when he started as "RealCatholictv." I was as naive about him as I was the Church. He stampeded out on the social media stage revealing the corruption in the Church. I thought, "Wow, this is great. It's nasty business, but someone must do it. Hurray for Michael; he has the courage to stand up to these evils!" I even sent one of his videos to my parish priest, saying, "Look at this! We need to address this!"
However, even before Francis, I had stopped listening. Something felt wrong with their message, their organization, and online persona. Over the years, I felt that they were becoming singularly obsessed with the gay agenda. I was not able to put my finger on it, but something seemed out of sync. CM did not feel right intuitively, even though they had occasionally put out some pretty solid Catholic material. I'm sorry for everyone involved, especially those victimized.
Steve, this was one of the best things you've written. I liked the article so much I re-subscribed. First of all, I am not over the shock of Michael Voris's fall. I would have said "not going to happen." He is an incredibly gifted (and holy, but with a tragic flaw) man who obviously had some rough things happen in his growing up. I am very concerned about him and all the staff at Church Militant, including the 8 or 9 who were "escorted out" and seem to be led by Dave Gordon. The "Unjust Militant" crowd seem to feel that there should be no possibility of a re-emergence by Voris back in "CM." I find this topic (is there redemption or possibility of re-institution after a fall of this magnitude) particularly perplexing. So I'm still pondering that issue--I see what Dave Gordon is saying, but I also believe in redemption and renewal and forgiveness. This is what the entire RCC was facing and is still facing with sexually active priests. Can they STOP and be re-habilitated? If there are minors involved, I'd say that priest needs to leave and find another way to serve God. But to the best of my knowledge, there WEREN'T minors in MV case.
So, it doesn't involve minors. But can the level of hypocrisy and damage and scandal be so great one has to withdraw from the public eye? Well, the closest case I can think of is Father John Corapi, who, according to Jesse Romero, who knows someone in S.O.L.T, is returned to the fold and is silent and leading a monk-like existence, and intends never to make another public statement. Is that right for Voris? Ah, again, MV isn't clergy. So, I am just giving this whole thing to God. I find advising MV at this point above my pay grade (cannot figure it out!), but God can figure it out, and I'm sure He has a plan for MV that is for his greatest and highest good. I am praying hard for both MV, the remaining staff of CM, and for those who left CM ("Unjust Militant") and for Christine Niles.
The whole episode is a tragedy. No matter what he did, however, I'll always have a soft-spot in my heart for Voris. He had a show on his site called "The One True Faith" that was outstanding. It taught me more about the Faith than anything I learned in Catholic school.
I'm just saying not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Tertullian was a Church Father who started out awesome but ended up crazy. He's not a saint, but his writings during his "good" period are still good. Origen was also a Church Father who had great contributions... and also castrated himself. That was bad.
I'm not saying that Michael Voris is Tertullian or Origen, I'm just saying that when he's "good," he is really good. I pray that he can get there again.
"3) Many human beings lose all capacity for discernment when encountering someone online. They lose the kind of sense they get when dealing with someone face to face."
This is about the only thing I would disagree with. Why? Because I know too many people who have told me how difficult face to face discernment has been for them. Look too, at the Somers CT cult: no online encounters there, it was prior to 1986. Yes, online connections don't help this, but it is really an age-old problem.
This is a fair point. But I do think it's easier for most people to pick up on a person's microexpressions, tone, the way they carry themselves, even the energy they give off, in person.
Which is not to say that most people are good at judging character. I actually think it's a somewhat rare skill. Or maybe it's more of an ability. (It's also true that predators tend to be extremely charismatic, which works on most people.)
I have a pretty uncanny ability to judge character very rapidly, even from afar. I can't say it's something I consciously cultivated, so I'm not sure where it came from. I just started noticing that it rarely steers me wrong, so I listen. I had it with Bergoglio. I had it with Voris. First time someone sent me a Voris video, probably at least a decade ago, I couldn't get through it. He grated on my nerves and I instantly disliked him. Over time, I was forced to pay attention to him more because of the work I did, but even then I would have to read transcripts of his videos because his entire manner of presentation was a strong irritant to me.
I couldn't have told you that it would come to this. That was a thesis I developed later through observation. But I could absolutely have told you I didn't trust him, and didn't understand his appeal.
I don't know where you are in thinking about Catholic sexual teaching, but another part of this I think is just Catholics twisting themselves into pretzels to deny that some people are just really, actually gay and they just can't magic themselves out of that condition. I don't mean to say that Catholics need to agree with or encourage people to be actively homosexual, but I have seen multiple instances where Catholics wish so hard for people to be able to stop being gay or to become ex-gay or whatever, that they tout these stories of conversion or return that, from an outside perspective, are extremely fishy. I am coming from a comparatively conservative Catholic background and of the 6 (that I know of) people that I met from the same background (across high school and college) who turned out to be gay, only one is successfully living according to Church teaching. That's an 83% failure rate among well-catechized young adults on what is supposed to be a universal teaching. The others went through varying levels of self-flagellation and mental gymnastics to be ex-gay or openly gay but never in a relationship, and at varying points either left the faith wholesale or became 'cafeteria' Catholics- so that they could have relationships, hopes for any kind of family (it was that or be single forever or do religious life, where you are viewed as a liability if you are gay), etc. I don't endorse surrogacy or all that stuff but my point is just that, to be honest, I just haven't seen Church teaching on this issue work out for the majority of the people I know who are affected by this. Again, small sample size and I am only in my late 20s, but when I see people like Michael Voris, I think of young Catholics I have known who try super hard to deny their sexual orientation or be gay and find any kind of livable, exciting, fulfilling life within the Catholic Church - and that becomes a weird psychological alienation in itself that easily leads to a double life. This is not to say I have really any great pity for Voris, who i think capitalized on scandal and justly deserves the criticism he has received. Nor am I saying Church teaching is impossible, or that chastity is bad, but simply that I am reflecting on my own observation that somewhere along the line this particular teaching doesn't seem to be leading to much observable human flourishing. Like you can't both treat homosexuality as a radioactive disease and also expect gay Catholics to be super well adjusted. Again, all my opinion, and I welcome others' thoughts.
I think Catholic Sexual Ethics is probably the most rational and coherent version of sexual ethics there is.
I've got some philosophical quibbles with the way the Church absolutizes the telos of sex, and how that teleology is the thing driving the prohibition on contraception. I'm not sure the arguments hold up.
But I recognize the slippery slope here. If contraception is OK, then pretty much any non-physically-harmful consensual sexual act is OK, because we've taken the teleology that "sex ordered to procreation" off the table.
This is a position I came to after leaving, not before, just in case there are any lurkers hoping to gin up a "See?! He left because he was contracepting!" rumor. (Not that it's anyone's business, but even now, I have not made recourse to contraception in the waning years of our fertility, despite very much wanting to be done with the babies/toddlers phase of our lives after 20+ years. But I am also not strongly ideologically opposed, because it was predominately fidelity of the Church that held that position in place for me.)
All of that being said, I don't think the Church has compelling answers for Catholic homosexuals. While some claim they have been cured of SSA, I think the jury is still out on how much of homosexuality is nature vs. nurture, and whether anything can be done to correct for it in people who don't want to be gay. The political and social taboos on the topic make research of this kind pretty impossible, as well.
I think being gay and Catholic would be a uniquely soul-crushing experience. I can't imagine anyone being able to live that conflict successfully and without a lot of misery. I can't begin to claim to know what the answer is.
I think I agree with you on all points here- so not much to add. Thanks for the reply.
I think you have a good point here. As a more conservative Catholic myself, I've never felt that the Church had much of an answer or comfort for gay people. As I got older and met or worked with openly gay people, I worried that they would be punished for an attraction they didn't choose, or it seemed the cross they had to bear was heavier than straight people because at least we have an outlet in marriage. I know straight people struggle with sexual sin too, but it's not looked down on nearly as much as homosexual behavior. I dunno. Maybe the Church is too puritanical on sexuality but I don't know how they walk back 2,000 years of this teaching.
I don't think being gay is all one phenomena. I think about Jesus preaching on eunuchs--some are born that way, some are made that way by men, and some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. So Christ seems to say there's nature and nurture. (We can eliminate someone going gay for the sake of the kingdom, so the teaching doesn't exactly transfer to gay-ness.) I trust in God's mercy in general. People get really screwed up if they're abused as children (sexually or otherwise). I remember listening to a broadcast in which someone who was sexually abused as a child said words to the effect that the worst aspect of pedophilia is that it introduces the problem of desire in the child victim. Imagine then the guilt the child experiences remembering what happened, and also having been introduced to (possibly) inappropriate homosexual (or heterosexual) liasons and desiring them going forward! I've seen the effects of pedophilia up close and personal in two cases (a friend and a relative) and both people were completely screwed up sexually for life. They were both without a sexual moral compass and in some phases of their lives oversexualized and promiscuous or otherwise sexually inappropriate (like, worked in the sex industry).
So, if I were gay, what would I do? I'd try to be celebate. Yes, really glib, I know. But I think about how sexually calming the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit can really turn down the temptation to sin, especially sexual sin, I've found, but also addictions--look at all the people who give up addictions by leaning on a higher power (including sexual addictions). And then one does have to be really careful where one allows one's mind to wander or eyes to wander (i.e., avoid the "near occasions of sin"). Do not LOOK at things (pictures, people walking around, movies, etc). Yes, really, It sounds stupid and/or obvious, but I've read interviews with priests who speak of modesty of the eyes and find I practice that little strategy quite helpful after hearing of it. Just do not look. And not just as sexual stuff--do not look at anything that draws one's mind into sinful thoughts. Like what? Envy.
Sexual sin is the devil's best seller. I don't know how SERIOUS a sin it is--probably can be VERY SERIOUS (Epstein, Hugh Hefner, the Marquis-de-Sade, Casanova) or not-so-much (developing teenage boys, thank God I never went through male puberty! Geez!) I think it totally depends--Lewis sort of hints at having thrown up his hands in this department in "Mere Christianity" at certain points in his life. He says something to the effect he just trusted God when nothing worked to avoid certain sins (operating from fogged memory of reading Lewis on this topic).
I would tell people try to obey the Bible (and Catechism) to the greatest extent topic on this and other topics, but I also realize some people have been completely ruined by others or are severely prone to certain types of sin from birth (mentally damaged almost). So there's God mercy, which is unfathomable, and there's also Purgatory, which is perfectly "attuned" reform school ("custom") "to the rescue". We aren't supposed to AIM for Purgatory (because big chance of ending up in Hell), but when I "hit the wall" with certain faults (the "hardcore baked-on 'stuff' ") I just "give it to God" and trust that there is a way to lessen the problem if not in this life, the next. And then keep asking God "take this thorn from me" as St. Paul did and avoid the near occasion of sin.
Are there celebate gay people in my circle? Yes. I saw God pull someone very close to me out of it, and it was fairly brutal "take-down" (like, "no choice, no more gay for you.") Like what Voris is going through--do you think Voris will go celebate from here? Yes I do. I'm worried about Voris surviving the "scourging"--let's all pray for him. Everyone pray for him and all those at Church Militant. They are in a crucible, but Voris most of all.
This article is very accurate in its assessment of conservative Catholic circles: we get duped easily by "strong men." It got me thinking about all of the voices in the Catholic world that I used to hang on every word, every day for years. Keep in mind, I'm not saying these people or channels are evil or corrupt, but I've become much more weary of stuff like this. Here is a list of what seems like another lifetime to me: Church Militant, Sensus Fidelium, The Remnant, Taylor Marshall (your fave), Trad Cat Knight, Fatima Center, Dimond Brothers (sedevacantists, I know), Fr. Ripperger, E. Michael Jones, and What Catholics Believe with Fr. Jenkins I think was his name. I'm sure I've left some out, but you get the point. I had to walk away from that stuff, it was too fear based, too angry and negative. It had the same vibes of the fundamentalists Christians that used to (and still) badger me with blood moons and rapture talk. Enough is enough.
I like Anthony Stine of "Return to Tradition" and Eric Sammons of "Crisis Magazine", Timothy Flanders (1P5). E. Michael Jones I find a little confusing. I like some things he says, but not everything. I generally like Taylor Marshall, Tim Gordon and Archbishop Vigano, Chris Ferrara (sp?) of Fatima Center, Father Gerald Murray of EWTN and "The Catholic Thing" (with Robert Royal), Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, Kennedy Hall (Youtube).
I used to watch Stine a little now that you mention it, he had the Hilaire Belloc picture with sunglasses on I think. All these other names I'm familiar with except Robert Royal. At this point the only two guys I watch are Bishop Barron and Fr Joe Krupp and his Quantum Catechesis show. I get the biggest kick out of that guy! Informative, personable, and flat out hilarious. I highly recommend.
Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray have some social media something or other, but I catch them on EWTN's "The World Over" with Raymond Arroyo. Sometimes they appear together on Raymond's show, sometimes separately. They speak truth to power, but in a very diplomatic, measured tone.
Anthony Stine now appears in person on his youtube show and is really excellent on giving us a inside look at what is coming down on the Catholic world. He is also very measured in how he speaks.
Bishop Barron is a huge force for good. He hasn't been "hard core" enough for me until lately. He is speaking up against some of the Pope's latest moves (Burke and Strictland).
Great reporting, I think your 3 points on why Catholics keep falling for con men is spot on
What the holy hell? The Pause Program??? Wake up people!!! When I learned of the Vatican residence for young boys serving the mass:
The St. Pius X Pre-seminary was founded by in 1956 by Pope Pius XII to house altar boys who serve Mass in St. Peter's and are thinking of becoming priests. They live in a building in the Vatican while attending schools outside its walls in Rome.
I thought wow, how naive are these families??? Do they even read the news??? The effects of sexual trauma are tremendous …and don’t even get me started in God’s role in all of this… it makes me sick, angry, and frankly glad I left. What is the obsession with sex… of bodily pleasure? I JUST DON’T GET IT. So disordered. Thank you, Steve… you nailed the three reasons. Devout conservative trad Catholics will continue to be victims until they wake up in the 21st century! Ughhh I’m just disgusted.
I feel like true depravity is always the marriage of sexuality and ideology. One one hand you have sexual desire the oldest, most primal and most base of human desires (arguably stronger than the survival instinct).
On the hand you have an ideology/religion operating at the level of abstraction. So the religious fundamentalist never develops a healthy balance between sexual desire and various ideas about the world. You see similar issues with the rise of "poly" throuples and their various branches, which is a kind of communist sexual cult. Its super easy to drop the proverbial mentos into the coke bottle and watch the fireworks when you mix the two.
Sanity will likely be found in the balance. Find a spouse, love them and have some fun in the sack.
Definitely a question worth pondering. To your 3 points (the dearth of leadership strikes me as especially relevant), I would just add a potential 4th, that being: Recent decades have seen so many false charges leveled against figures on the right, that a rush to delegitimize potential warning signs is practically ingrained into us at this point.
You mentioned Trump, who stands as a prime example of this. Amid legitimate concerns, we also got a host of fabricated ones, such that beleaguered conservatives begin to instinctively assume that leftist tactics must be behind any supposedly serious issues.
We’ve seen it in the Church, as alongside the legitimate sexual abuse scandals, a flood of frivolous lawsuits were also launched - several good priests defamed by those who smelled blood in the water following the Church’s big payouts.
It’s hard not to circle the wagons when arrows start flying, even if a few foes are liable to be included in the circle.
Interesting, Steve. You have significant insights from your previous work, and I remember the polemics between 1P5 and CM back in the day. I hopped on the Voris train early, way back in 2008 or 2009 when he started as "RealCatholictv." I was as naive about him as I was the Church. He stampeded out on the social media stage revealing the corruption in the Church. I thought, "Wow, this is great. It's nasty business, but someone must do it. Hurray for Michael; he has the courage to stand up to these evils!" I even sent one of his videos to my parish priest, saying, "Look at this! We need to address this!"
However, even before Francis, I had stopped listening. Something felt wrong with their message, their organization, and online persona. Over the years, I felt that they were becoming singularly obsessed with the gay agenda. I was not able to put my finger on it, but something seemed out of sync. CM did not feel right intuitively, even though they had occasionally put out some pretty solid Catholic material. I'm sorry for everyone involved, especially those victimized.
Steve, this was one of the best things you've written. I liked the article so much I re-subscribed. First of all, I am not over the shock of Michael Voris's fall. I would have said "not going to happen." He is an incredibly gifted (and holy, but with a tragic flaw) man who obviously had some rough things happen in his growing up. I am very concerned about him and all the staff at Church Militant, including the 8 or 9 who were "escorted out" and seem to be led by Dave Gordon. The "Unjust Militant" crowd seem to feel that there should be no possibility of a re-emergence by Voris back in "CM." I find this topic (is there redemption or possibility of re-institution after a fall of this magnitude) particularly perplexing. So I'm still pondering that issue--I see what Dave Gordon is saying, but I also believe in redemption and renewal and forgiveness. This is what the entire RCC was facing and is still facing with sexually active priests. Can they STOP and be re-habilitated? If there are minors involved, I'd say that priest needs to leave and find another way to serve God. But to the best of my knowledge, there WEREN'T minors in MV case.
So, it doesn't involve minors. But can the level of hypocrisy and damage and scandal be so great one has to withdraw from the public eye? Well, the closest case I can think of is Father John Corapi, who, according to Jesse Romero, who knows someone in S.O.L.T, is returned to the fold and is silent and leading a monk-like existence, and intends never to make another public statement. Is that right for Voris? Ah, again, MV isn't clergy. So, I am just giving this whole thing to God. I find advising MV at this point above my pay grade (cannot figure it out!), but God can figure it out, and I'm sure He has a plan for MV that is for his greatest and highest good. I am praying hard for both MV, the remaining staff of CM, and for those who left CM ("Unjust Militant") and for Christine Niles.
The whole episode is a tragedy. No matter what he did, however, I'll always have a soft-spot in my heart for Voris. He had a show on his site called "The One True Faith" that was outstanding. It taught me more about the Faith than anything I learned in Catholic school.
I'm just saying not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Tertullian was a Church Father who started out awesome but ended up crazy. He's not a saint, but his writings during his "good" period are still good. Origen was also a Church Father who had great contributions... and also castrated himself. That was bad.
I'm not saying that Michael Voris is Tertullian or Origen, I'm just saying that when he's "good," he is really good. I pray that he can get there again.
"3) Many human beings lose all capacity for discernment when encountering someone online. They lose the kind of sense they get when dealing with someone face to face."
This is about the only thing I would disagree with. Why? Because I know too many people who have told me how difficult face to face discernment has been for them. Look too, at the Somers CT cult: no online encounters there, it was prior to 1986. Yes, online connections don't help this, but it is really an age-old problem.
This is a fair point. But I do think it's easier for most people to pick up on a person's microexpressions, tone, the way they carry themselves, even the energy they give off, in person.
Which is not to say that most people are good at judging character. I actually think it's a somewhat rare skill. Or maybe it's more of an ability. (It's also true that predators tend to be extremely charismatic, which works on most people.)
I have a pretty uncanny ability to judge character very rapidly, even from afar. I can't say it's something I consciously cultivated, so I'm not sure where it came from. I just started noticing that it rarely steers me wrong, so I listen. I had it with Bergoglio. I had it with Voris. First time someone sent me a Voris video, probably at least a decade ago, I couldn't get through it. He grated on my nerves and I instantly disliked him. Over time, I was forced to pay attention to him more because of the work I did, but even then I would have to read transcripts of his videos because his entire manner of presentation was a strong irritant to me.
I couldn't have told you that it would come to this. That was a thesis I developed later through observation. But I could absolutely have told you I didn't trust him, and didn't understand his appeal.