Skip to main content

Hypocrisy: Why Does Voris want to "Expell... Liar" Bp. Fellary for Sex-abuse Cover-up & not Francis for the Very Same Thing?

Michael Voris' Church Militant in a months in the making investigation of some of the leadership of the Society of St. Puis X (SSPX) for its sex abuse cover-ups appears to show strong evidence that Bishop Bernard Fellay was involved in multiple cover-ups.

If the SSPX leaders and Fellay are guilty they should be exposed, expelled, excommunicated and send to prison.

Now, I am waiting for Voris to do a months in the making investigation of Francis and his inner circle leadership's sex-abuse cover-ups. And I'm not talking about phony Church Militant puff pieces such as "Mother Alleges Sex Abuse Cover-Up Under Cdl. Bergoglio" that cover-up as much as they expose Francis' "constant protection" of the clerical gay mafia in Argentina.

Why hasn't Church Militant send a reporter or even called the Argentinian Wanderer to expose Francis?

The Catholic Argentinian website the Wanderer on October 23, 2014 posted "Unmasking Bergoglio":

 "Bergoglio always had the 'gay agenda' among his plans... It is a question of asking the Buenoairean clergy about the constant protection that he lavished on many homosexual priests."

Every now and then Voris will mildly say "abusive homosexual bishop like Zanchetta, Piñeda or Maccarone, or a predator priest like Grassi, Inzoli or Corradi... escape criticism from the Pope [Francis]," but never will he say Francis and his inner circle leadership must be exposed, expelled, excommunicated and send to prison if guilty:

"If you are an abusive homosexual bishop like Zanchetta, Piñeda or Maccarone, or a predator priest like Grassi, Inzoli or Corradi, might you feel betrayed if a fellow cleric whom you knew shared your homosexual orientation came out with a statement condemning those who engage in homosexual behavior? Why does a cardinal like Francesco Coccopalmerio, whom multiple sources confirm attended a "drug-fueled homosexual party" in the Vatican, escape criticism from the Pope, who personally made the apartment available to Coccopalmerio's secretary, Msgr. Luigi Capozzi?"

However, Church Militant can call Bishop Bernard Fellay a "big liar" who "needs to be expelled" for sex-abuse cover-up.

Why can't Voris, and his collaborators such as Tim Gordon, Patrick Coffin and Steve Skojec call Francis a "big liar" who "needs to be expelled"?

Don't Voris and his collaborators really care about the victims and are they pedo-protectors when it comes to Francis cover-up victims?

Why don't Francis conservatives and Francis traditionalists support pedo exposure and removal of Francis?

If Francis and his Vatican leadership are guilty they should be exposed, expelled, excommunicated and send to prison.

Is the expose by Church Militant and Christine Niles only about getting rid of corrupt leaders in the SSPX or might there be another agenda?

 On April 22, in the Niles' Twitter thread, the apparent friend of Church Militant, Damian Thompson, gave away their seeming long time hidden agenda. Thompson wrote:

"Hard to see how the SSPX can survive this."

Moreover, it seems a strange coincidence that Voris as well as most of the conservative Catholic and Francis traditionalist media are promoting or sitting on the fence about the coronavirus hysteria narrative with only the traditionalist Catholic media friendly to SSPX opposing the leftist Francis narrative.

It also seems a coincidence that the only Catholics in the United States doing the most for the restoration of Masses are targeted at the exact time that they are the only ones opposing Francis and his Catholic media friends in the Mass bannings.

If Voris is not a hypocrite then he needs to start a months in the making investigation of Francis and his collaborators for their sex abuse scandals and cover-ups.

 He might even do a expose of Church Militant, Opus Dei as well as Francis' Vatican and their cover-up of the evidence that the coronavirus hysteria is, as lawyer and journalist Chris Ferrera said, a "monumental fraud."

After Church Militant does its expose of Francis and his collaborators then I will be waiting for one of Voris' Twitter friends to say:

"Hard to see how Francis and the Catholic Church can survive this."

That appears to be the difference between traditionalists and Francis conservatives like Voris and his Francis traditionalist collaborators. We want Francis and his inner circle to be "expelled" from the Church for the restoration of the Church. They appear to want to destroy the traditionalist SSPX and not restore it.

If Voris and his Francis traditionalists collaborators are successful in destroying the traditionalists in SSPX, will their next target be all the other non-Francis traditionalists who is don't belong to SSPX?

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.



Comments

Francis traditionalists...

Has a phony ring to it.
Aqua said…
I find it hard to believe anyone gives much credence to anything CM “reports”. I have found them interesting at times, in a National Enquirer kind of way. I have never thought of them as a substantial, legitimate news organization.

So, on one side you have CM and some crackerjack reporter named Christine Niles with the most devastating charges you can possibly bring against a Catholic apostolate: systemic sex crimes against the weak and innocent, aided and abetted by the power structure of the apostolate itself who use Sacred Tradition and ancient Liturgy as a cover to increase their chances at remaining hidden in their debauchery. I describe them in a word - campy..

On the other side, you have the SSPX, who stand alone in fidelity to God as the entire Vatican II New Order Catholic Church implodes upon itself in *actual* systemic debauchery, widespread unbelief, idol worship and the overturning of our Sacred patrimony top to bottom. New Order Church is closed up tight as a drum. SSPX is unchanged, offering God to all who attend. SSPX, alone, can boast of seeing the impending apostasy; alone holding firm to Sacred Tradition. In a word - Solid.

I remain open to being persuaded of these charges. But I have seen SSPX up close, personal, and CM is not the ones to persuade me these holy, faithful missionaries of Tradition are deceptive evil personified. Nope, not CM and the Michael Voris show.

Fred Martinez said…
I agree there might be a better way of putting it, but what can you call Skojec?

Trad Inc. doesn't work for me.

I think for the time being Francis Trad Skojec is more descriptive than Trad Inc Skojec.

If someone can come up with something better. I'm open to it.

If you're a member of Skojec's dwindling fan club I can understand why you don't like Francis traditionalist Skojec.

BrotherBeowulf said…
St Benedict's Thistle is right--"Francis Trad" precisely captures who Skyjack,Westen, Matt and Ferrara are. It captures their phoniness perfectly. Thanks for the term Fred.

You could call them "Francis Catholics" I suppose, but that's one thing Francis ain't.

Particularly disappointing is attorney Ferrara, who apparently has decided to betray his former friend and colleague Fr. Gruner.

Let's see what Fr. Gruner says about who the true pope is!

https://fromrome.info/2020/05/24/the-time-to-return-en-masse-to-ancient-roman-rite-has-come/#comments .

Oddly, the SSPX is also fully on board with Francis Antipope. And Antipope Francis likes them too--maybe because with leadership like Fellay, Wenger, Waillez and Schmidberger running cover for childmolesting rapists like convicted pedophile Fr. Abbet and creepy pederast Fr. Angles, well they are easily blackmailable.

And that's a hallmark of Antipope Francis's merry court.
BrotherBeowulf said…
Direct Fr. Gruner video link below, from months before he died, in which Fr. Gruner declares that Pope Benedict never renounced the Papacy, and confesses that he commemorates Pope Benedict at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and further, wherein Fr. Gruner confesses that Pope Benedict is the one true and only pope.

This video is worth 6 and a half minutes of your time. Despite one mistaken, in claiming that Pope Benedict in his Declaratio of February 11, 2013, specifically said “I do not resign the munus,” it is an excellent video that really puts to flight and to shame all Trad Inc. partisans who deny the true pope for the pot of Bergoglian poisoned porridge.

https://vimeo.com/228833627

God bless the valiant Fr. Gruner. May he rest in peace.

Aqua said…
Brother B: In reference to “ the SSPX is also fully on board with Francis Antipope“.

Before joining the local SSPX missionary chapel, I interviewed with the Priest to inform him of my Catholic views on this topic, prior to presenting myself for Communion. His response is relevant to your valid concern.

He told me that Sacred Tradition transcends questions about the current Pope. There have been questions in the past and they do not change our responsibility to follow a Tradition as it has been delivered to us. He accepts a variety of views about the Pope, including Sedevecantists. The Papacy is essential to the Church. We must accept the Office in order to be Catholic. Consensus about the current occupant, as important as it may be, is not essential to be Catholic. Disagreements, can and have occurred.

I would consider SSPX to be “fully on board with Antipope Francis” when they place a Pachamama on the High Altar and teach that FrancisMercy ®️ demands admittance of sodomites and adulterers to Holy Communion.

Their approach to the Papacy conflict is the same as mine. I accept the situation is what it is. I acknowledge Bergóglio has been placed on the Seat of Peter. Good Catholics can disagree on what that means (because much of it remains hidden and obscure). He cannot change a punctuation (“jot or tittle”) of Scripture, Dogma or Tradition. Good Catholics can NOT disagree in THAT.

FWIW.
Fred Martinez said…
Br.Beowolf,


How's about Francis ain't Catholic Skojec?
Dad29 said…
come up with something better

Trad-ish?
BrotherBeowulf said…
Antipope bootlicker? -Ish?
Fred Martinez said…
Trad-ish Skojec?
Fred Martinez said…
Antipope bootlickerish Skojec?
Aaron Aukema said…
I think Francis-trad works, because Skojec was all in a tivvy about the Corona-hoax, and supported shutting down the sacraments, like his anti-pope did. Like Bergoglio and his use of Catholicism for his own ends, it appears that's what Skojec uses Tradition for...
Fred Martinez said…
Corona-hoax Skojec?
Unknown said…
Scorona Hojec?
Fred Martinez said…
My friend invented "Karens of Bergoglianism" and Skojec is the king of the "Karens of Bergoglianism" so how's about:

Karen Skojec?
Debbie said…
Invite to Voris and Nile: how about going to daily Mass and praying for the SSPX? For lots of options, you can come to St. Joseph's Shrine run by ICKSP (a short 6 miles south of Assumption Grotto) with M-F Masses at 8, noon and 7 pm. Sat at 9 am followed by Novena to Our Lady of Perpetual Help and Sun Masses at 7, 9, 11 and 1.

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul