In 99% of cases, it would appear as though Voris's confrontational approach seems to serve him well. In the 1% however, it appears as though Mr. Voris has absolutely no concept of what he truly believes and how he came to believe. This 1% mostly revolves around Pope Francis.
None moreso than this week when they released a *BREAKING* Video entitled 'Pope harming the Church' before deleting it and then releasing an apology video in which Voris rambled on as if he'd got drunk and egged the Sistine Chapel like a thief in the night.
A lot of people, traditionalists included, roundly agreed with Voris in the prudence he practises regarding judging Francis, especially in the period so soon after he had ascended to the Papacy. Where many people disagree, however, is in the line that he has taken subsequently, viewing critics of the Pope as unkind and dangerous to those who may buy into said criticisms and hence end up sliding into sedevacantism.
|'I can't standz confrontationan' We believe ya Mike|
There are a couple of things to need to be said on this:
1) Voris himself is no genteel critic of others, when he has something to say he does so with absolute certainty and rarely pauses to make apology for it. His critical style is often brash, populist and confrontational. Why then, is this excusable for every single individual in who has been ordained apart from the Pope? Apparently Voris's attacks on others are entirely legitimate but those who criticise the actions of Francis are to be discouraged for the same reasons that we discourage people from visiting sedevacantist and pornography web sites: they are potential occasions of sin.
The repeated derogatory references to a 'Church of Nice' with, as we are told its 'effeminate' leaders is a surely far more pressing occasion of sin given the number of priests and lay people saddled with the term?
2) Their very extreme position on this matter, naming and shaming bloggers who they once considered colleagues, reveals an indirect admission that the Pope is indeed harming the Church and it is indeed better to just ignore it. While Voris has appealed to the example of Our Lady in standing by the Pope, the comparison is nonsense given that Popes are mere men and that their misdeeds and bad examples can filter through the Church.
3) His statement on spiritual pornography is hypocritical at best. This is the man after all who got all excited last time that he was in Rome also, ' A scandal almost beyond imagination is about to crash over the Vatican here. It involves a homosexual prostitution ring with with young teenage males and ten to twenty clergy and we've heard four bishops could be involved too AND! also the recruiter has reportedly stolen consecrated hosts and sold them to Satanists'.
|The guys in the pawn shop weren't sure they could make a profit on Mike's story|
In short, Voris has become a traditional branch of the 'Church of Nice' he so deeply resents. He cannot say straight what he believes and his approach to this has been so badly botched that it has driven many away from his apostolate. If he believes very strongly in refraining from criticising the Holy Father, then that is admirable. However, if he believes in it then he just do it. Not run back and forth between positions. Conversion and saving souls are serious business. Michael should not waste all the good that he has done and continues to do on contradicting himself and making holier than thou criticisms of others. One such as this 'The sad reputation of “traditional Catholics” as angry dissidents from virtually everything in the Church today is as well deserved as the reputations of those rightly described as modernists.' Michael is by the looks of it, too much of an extrovert and has perhaps been desensitised to matters of the media from his years working there to be able to pause and put into context the effects of some of the things that he says. He should take a breather, relax and have an objective think about how effective his words can be when refuses to take sides in all matters of Papal involvement.