Sunday, August 8, 2010

Karl Keating banned Michael Voris?

As a fan of both of these men, I was sorry to read about this.


There is real pressure on media apostolates from Bishops and Cardinals who have been trying to hold onto the good old days when they could parade Mother Angelica into the public square and make her apologize for criticizing Cardinal Roger Mahony.

Amchurch has been sending shots like this across our bows for an entire generation as they've executed an internal schism.

Bishops won't be friends with people who do it and those who need or want the friendship of Bishops more than want to get the truth out so that the Vatican will step into the situations and intercede for us, they are going along with the game. I'm really surprised to see Karl is among them.

Boston, which has been ground zero, has a lot more in store for our country through the use of the National Roundtable from B.C. They have started the threats to de-fund parishes and schools who do not go along with the agenda.

With the advent of the internet, the Amchurch Bishops feel their fiefdom is threatened and are stepping up the pressure to ban, criticize, malign, persecute the people shining a light on the schism and corruption.

When people don't have the stamina and gifts to reveal the state of affairs and corruption, they need to at least turn their heads from the donnybrook and keep quiet. Shunning people who do it isn't going to stop us anymore. Those days are gonzo.


Jerry said...

KK has always been an enemy of traditionalists, so this is no surprise. Back in the 90's, he and the Wanderer would assassinate anyone who strayed from the camp, the most notable example being Gerry Matatics. (Sad, but GM, a decade later, did leave the Church. That doesn't excuse KK's behavior, though.) The blog you link to also mentions that CatholicCulture is shunning Voris. Again, this is no surprise, for Jeff Mirus and Phil Lawler are opposed to traditionalism. Phil hails from Opus Dei, a newChurch cult that I had a terrible run-in with back in '93.

The bottom line is their defense of the false ideology that "the pope can do no wrong." They'll even rewrite history to save face. The most notable example of this was when Pope John Paul II allowed girl altar boys. If there was one abuse that the Wanderer heaped scorn on, it was that. But after the approval: silence. Rome had spoken, and the issue disappeared. Lawler did this recently, too. Phil has done an excellent job reporting on the malfeasance of bishops in the perv scandals. This included Bp. Levada. When Pope Benedict brought Levada to Rome, Phil was dumbfounded, almost stammering in his final editorial about Levada. Now the whole thing has disappeared from

This is a warning to all Voris types who dare to stray from the camp: you will be shunned, you will lose all advertising, and we will do what we can to end your career.

Carol McKinley said...

What? Catholic Culture too?

Ugh. I don't get around enough.

With all the Mass destruction here in Massachusetts, I'm really surprised Phil and Jeff have a problem with people who checked out to get some homilies that intertwine the Catechism and a Sanctuary where everyone is focusing on communication between our souls and God.

What do you mean 'strayed from the camp'? TLM is inside the camp.

Even the Pope doesn't think the Pope can do no wrong! Further, he recently said that the sin inside of the Church was frightening.

I love the Pope. I loved, adored and miss JPII. Some of the things they did and do, not so much. Love them anyway - like people we are lucky enough to have that love us even when we flub and flounder and make mistakes.

We have turned the corner on the cult culture that pressures us not to expose error and corruption and shuns us if we shout the corruption from the rooftops. In the last year, I have seen enormous growth in numbers and support and other ministries who are taking up the call to drive the snakes out of our own camp.

I don't think the shunning games are going to have any efficacy anymore.

Jerry said...

Phil is a great pro-lifer, and he would support everything you do in opposition to the archdiocese.

Some perspective: The 90's played out the conflict between the SSPX and conservatives, and those in the middle were not allowed a home camp. SSPX'ers held that priests didn't need permission to offer the traditional Mass, and the conservatives held that, if the pope says we go to the new Mass with girl altar boys, then that's what we must do. The sticky point, of course, was the episcopal consecrations of Abp. Lefebvre. Certainly, that act was unconscionable, a defiance of the pope that could never be defended. Hence, the middle-grounders, who agreed with the SSPX on everything but the consecrations, were forced to choose a camp. The Wanderer & This Rock took it upon themselves to police the conservative camp. And they chose to vilify middle-grounders who wouldn't go along.

You're right that their influence is not as great today. They're still suffering the setbacks from the Pope's freeing the old Mass, saying it was never abrogated, and receiving the SSPX bishops into the Church with nary an apology on their part. (Pope Benedict may regret not requiring some act of fealty, but that is another subject.) This thing with Voris is probably just an knee-jerk reaction. It's hard to change, hard to let go.

What we have to learn from all this is how to handle the final chapter of AmChurch. Do we keep going to Cardinal Sean's parishes and sending him money? Or do we find other means, e.g., finding priests who will offer Mass reverently, even to the point of setting up chapels and providing their subsistence? Do we curb our tongues, or shout it from the housetops?

Carol McKinley said...

Phil is a great prolifer. He has such a grip on what is going on I thiught for sure he was a traddie. I just assumed it.

I had a feeling it was about sspx. Thanks for the explanation. Since it is all behind us now, I figure it is moot. I am surprised that Phil is shunning Voris.

I think you are right on about the diagnosis. It's the what is our role in the final chapter of Amchurch ---which is a false Church. Do we let a generation of unchatechized children get sucked into the vacuum?

Michael Voris is a hero to those of us who answe that question. NO! And, we are growing by the day.

Anonymous said...

Catholic Culture's Site Reviews are Jeff Mirus's work. Phil Lawler's is Catholic World News.

Anonymous said...

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. You in good company Carol!

Anonymous said...

Jerry, as usual, you are correct!

Mother Angelica should have blown up the network (as she once threatened to do) rather than let the bishops get hold of it.

As for that bastion of propaganda, Catholic Answers, they have done and are doing more harm than good. You wrote that:

"The bottom line is their defense of the false ideology that 'the pope can do no wrong.' They'll even rewrite history to save face."

These people are absolutely dangerous. They are breeding an entire generation or two with this mentality, and it will play right into the hands of the enemy. In fact, I am convinced that that is their job.


Carol McKinley said...

I am bummed about Catholic Answers.

Jerry said...

Re Bishop Levada: click here for more details, including some of Lawler's fine reporting.

Jerry said...

Breaking news: the CA ban is lifted. It seems that the problem was that "the level of charity in the threads had fallen below acceptable standards."

Hee hee. That's Carol's problem, too -- at least according to the USCCB! As Carol has insufficient respect for bishops who mutilate the faith, Voris has insufficient respect for bishops who mutilated the Mass.

Carol McKinley said...

Let us face it. How many donors' complaints it took to lift the ban?

People are complicated and fascinating.

At one point in time, my work crossed with some self-appointed arbiters of charity on the internet.

I had stood by and helped the individual in charge of the gig for several years as he was going through a crucible over an incident in his past that was causing him some trouble. Spent hours on the phone and in person letting him vent, sometimes a dozen times a day. For years. I contacted very big and important people in Christendom who were throwing him under the bus and won their support back for him. (Heck, I even called Karl Keating who graciously accepted the invitation to switch gears and be charitable to the guy) I helped him write when he couldn't. Funny thing though, I started to notice a couple of years had gone by during which time if I brought anything up that I wanted support and help with, it was time for him to get off the phone promising he would call me back when he had time. Days would go by and I would note him chit-chatting with people in com boxes and reporting he was went to the movies or golfing - etc. I'd call several times to bring up whatever I needed support or help with and soon as the hellos were over, he would start talking about something he needed help or support with. When we would talk through his problem it would be, you guessed it, time for him to run. Considering my efforts charity in action, I trudged on.


Carol McKinley said...

Anyhoo, the folks running their internet site started to feature the National Catholic Reporter tripe and were banning people who were responding by saying things like unrepentant sin leads to Gehanna and the like. You are making a judgment you see. They even put up sophomoric warnings in their comments section about not judging the state of someones soul (and yet their authors do nothing but profess their own judgments). Unwittingly, they alienated several very well respected priests, lay people and Bishops who were posting under anonymous names. Several of them contacted me because they knew I was friendly with the owner of the gig. When I tried to tell them, they told me I was just "bitter", my communications would go into the spam folder and other works of "charity" I am unfamiliar with.

Once, I even tried to get call back from my 'friend' when my own daughter was in the hospital. For days it never came. I watched and he engaged in charitable chit chat on his blog and in the comments section but did not have the time to call me back until a week later when the crisis had thankfully subsided.

Charity involves forgiveness, right? I trudged on for another year or two.

As his daughter neared college age, he had some concerns about getting a story about him off of the internet so that her roommates and other people would not have to bear a crown of thorns for his actions.

Sympathetic to this, I contacted the editor of the well known journal of Catholic dissent and appealed to her. She agreed to pull the story down.

At the exact same time, back at my 'friend's' apostolate, some poor slob (let's call him Joe) posted something trying to explain that to prolifers, a death of a child through an abortion is as egregious as a death in a car bombing. Dead is dead. Joe was accused of 'threatening' death against another commenter and was banned by the editor.

Joe was very upset and contacted me. Again, because it was well known that I was a 'friend' of the owner. I went to the site to try to point out the injustice and... I was banned!

I contacted my 'friend' to discuss his own editors' use of the word 'charity' as a weapon of power that is hurting people (not to mention his own apostolate).

Literally hours after getting my 'friend's' story about a past indiscretion taken down from the internet so that his own daughter could enjoy peace of mind at school - my 'friend' told me he would not "get involved". Not for Joe and not for me and he hung up the phone.

I am not making this up.

I finally came to the conclusion, the kind of charity they talk about living is simply over this woman's head. Must be some kind of angelic form I have not yet reached and it was time for me to mosey on down the road.

When these people talk about charity, when their own family calls saying they need help with a flat tire or a sick daughter or an injustice, they don't have time. They're busy folk. Important busy folk.

Everyone has their own definition of "charity". Sometimes, it's the charity seen in hell.

Anonymous said...

"Sometimes, it's the charity seen in hell."

Brilliant, Carol.

I, too, have been on the receiving end of their brand of "charity".


Jerry said...

Tsk, tsk. And now you have the nerve to complain about it. You obviously need charity 101. I'm sure Fr. Hehir could help.

You should realize that you're missing out on so much. If you just had charity, you could actually get things done. You could be on the board of MCFL! You could be in the archdiocese's education department! Of course, you might have to numb your conscience on occasion. But hey, it's all for the good, right?

Anonymous said...

Good heavens, where did that "trcc" come from after my name? I wonder if it has anything to do with charity??????

Veronica sans the "trcc"

Carol McKinley said...

Veronica, I was trying to crack that code and couldn't! I thought perhaps you were typing from your i-phone or droid. Those teeny weeny buttons and an ego that won't admit it's time for bifocals.

Don't worry though - readers here are onto it. :O)

Sorry to hear you've come across similar conduct from the arbiters of charity.

Maybe there's some wisdom in ignoring your family and friends and alienating and banning your base so you can give with the National Catholic Reporter and Vox Nova crowd a soap box to talk about what they think. Professionally speaking, I just don't get what their gripe is about the USCCB and the DNC.

Heh. Good luck to them. God Bless them.


I wasn't complaining about it as much as I was...Gee, I don't exactly know why I brought it up. I guess to say everyone best be on our toes because even those of us who are doing good work and acting in good faith can be hijacked by our pride.

Don't you worry your pretty little head though. I have plenty of readers and friends slapping me around to keep me on my toes. Thank God. Feel free to take a few swings if I start to act like I'm all that, will you?

And, there aren't enough crack pipes in Massachusetts to numb my brain to the point where I could sit on a committee for the Archdiocese. If you see me heading that way, get me an emergency flight to Fr. Grochel's right away.

Jerry said...

I do worry my pretty little head about you! Crack pipes and whatnot, too, LOL! But I'd never wish Fr. Groeschel on you, on Fr. DiLorenzo, or on anyone.

If there were two men whose necks I would wring with my bare hands, it would be Groeschel and Rembert Weakland. These two so-called Catholics confirmed my father in his Lutheran heresy and left him to die in it. I grew up in the Milwaukee archdiocese. Sometime in the 80's, queer Rembert visited my dad's Lutheran hellhole to give a little sermon saying, among other things, that Catholics could go to communion there. (My only joy in this event was my Catholic mom's retort to dad's "pastor" when she attended their Christmas concert. The guy told my mom what Rembert said, and mom replied, "I don't care what Weakland says.")

If that weren't enough, though, dad and mom would watch EWTN, and dad just loved Fr. G. It didn't take much investigation to see why. Fr. G was -- and is -- a syncretist, just like my dad. In matters of religion, they both take the "I'm OK, you're OK" position. Fr G. was always talking about his Protestant friends and Jewish friends, and made sure they were comfortable in their own confessions.

By the way, Keating (let's not forget KK, the original subject of your post) is another universalist like Fr. G and Rembert the limp. In fact, in long past discussions on this very subject, KK confirmed that the only folks in danger of losing salvation are Catholics like me who believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. You see, I'm the least charitable of all men, worse than even you, Carol. And more, I can't claim ignorance, for I have basked in the radiance of the great KK. Yes, I'm the worst of men, in his book.

Carol McKinley said...

I'm sorru about your Dad. This is where the rubber of God's mercy hits the road - when a priest has led souls astray. It doesn't take a theological Einstein to understand what Christ meant when He was standing before Pilate saying it was the person with the accountability was the one who handed Me over to you. I never heard Fr. G say anything I thought was scandalous but his recent collaborations with Cardinal Sean are most disturbing. If killing children for money and lying about it isn't enough to dissassociate yourself with anything tbhat would give him credibility, what is?

Somewhere there is a room in Hell loaded with people telling themselves and others how nice and charitable they are 24/7 expeiencing flashbacks of how many souls fell into the traps. Wouldn't it be the Divine Comedy to fall into some other trap and be sentenced there?

Anonymous said...

Jerry, you're my kind of Catholic!

A priest out here told my then Lutheran husband, when he mentioned to the priest that he'd like to convert, that there was no need for him to.

They are all over. The only folks in danger of the everlasting fire of Hell are Traditionals; the more "extreme" they are, the lower down in Hell they'll be.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Karl Keating November 25, 2010
President, Catholic Answers
2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon, Ca 92020

Dear Mr. Keating:
I have been active on your forum for approximately 1 year, since the death of my daughter-in-law following childbirth. While attending a memorial mass for her a month after her sudden death, I was trouble by the homily and while trying to research the church’s position on the matter, found your forum. Since then the forum has been valuable to me in finding like minded Catholics as I struggle with various issues.
I was recently viewing a topic concerning “money lenders and landlords” and noted two posts that were blatantly anti-Semitic. I flagged those posts. Within seconds, I was banned from the forum. I repeatedly asked Mr. Robert Bay and Eric Hilbert to please double check, in that it appeared to me that I was inadvertedly banned along with the authors of the bigoted posts. After getting no response for 4 days, I reluctantly “reported moderator abuse”.
I received several responses from admin that I was not banned. Finally I was told to delete all my cookies. On the fourth or fifth note to the admin, I copied the message that I was banned. I was then advised to be patient, that the matter would be referred to Mr. Hilbert. Four days later, I asked if there had been any progress and was permanently locked out for not following the admin’s direction to be patient.
The original moderator (Hilbert) and the admin’s actions were unprofessional, sloppy, uncharitable, and inconsistent with the actions of a lay apostolate sponsored by the Diocese of San Diego. Your organization’s mission statement is commendable; however the execution of forum moderation has become a trite power trip on the part of some of the moderators. (I do not include Mr. Bay, as in the past he has been very helpful explaining various forum rules to me.)
I appreciate the moderators have a tough job, and that it must be tedious to try to enforce the same rules over and over. Perhaps some deserve some needed leave of absence or are overworked and could be helped with additional moderators. On the other hand, banning or infractioning a poster with no warning, and then no explanation, and even (on the part of Mr. Hilbert…) bragging that he will NOT explain anything he does because it takes time away from moderating causes enormous stress and anxiety on posters such as myself. I have had more satisfying discussions with my insurance company and the department of motor vehicles.
I had over 500 posts without a cited infraction when this occurred. I was in the middle of trying to find information on drug rehabilitation facilities for my 26 year old son, whom I must kick out of the house soon, when the final permanent lockout occurred.
I hope this letter is taken in the spirit intended, that as the founder of this excellent organization you consider feedback from a former user as you evaluate the impact of moderator actions towards meeting Catholic Answers’ goals. Surely increasing the stress level or creating a reason for struggling Catholics to abandon official or sanctioned Church ministries would not be among those goals.

Very truly yours,

Mark A Brumbaugh
6315 Graff Net Court
Spring, Texas 77379

Susan Maneck said...

Has anyone tried bringing the problems associated with Catholic Answers to the attention of the Diocese of San Diego?