Michael Voris comes out with his past sins....(Too much info)
What a revolting bit of nastiness from the Dimond Brothers. A few thoughts -- typing while listening...

1) There's that word again -- "sodomite" -- with no definition given, but which most people define as "anal sex." In other words, given the common understanding of that word, which they undoubtedly know (and are likely thinking of, since so many people seem to think that all homosexuals engage in anal sex), they are, in essence, accusing Mr. Voris of having engaged in anal sex, all without proof. And the thing is, even if he had, he's repented and it's over. So, so what?

2) They emphasize that he engaged in whatever style of homosexual acts "after Baptism." He was baptized as a baby, obviously left the Faith, and it was during the time he was away from the Church that he engaged in the sins he spoke of in his "confessional video." So why the emphasis on "after Baptism"?

3) The bit about homosexuality being "caused" by rejecting God":  um, no. They quote Romans 1. The relevant verses:

Quote:For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.  For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.  For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.  Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;  Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.  Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

These verses were hashed out here on the forum once before when some toxic trad actually accused homosexuals of being "delivered up" to their condition because of idolatry. It's pure, unmitigated silliness. It's psychologically inane. Most homosexuals know they're homosexual when they're very young, not rarely before they've reached the age of reason, for crying out loud. The psychological analysis of the genesis of homosexuality shows that there is typically a family dynamic, acting on genetically determined personality types, that acts pretty much as a "recipe" for the making of a homosexual. Idolatry has nothing to do with it. Obviously, if one is already a homosexual, being an idolator will do nothing to help that person overcome his inclinations, but to say that anyone who is a homosexual is an idolator is ridiculous.

But all of that is moot anyway given that Mr. Voris was away from the Church during the period of time he sinned in that manner. He was not a believing Catholic.

Then they go on about the number of years Mr. Voris spent engaging in those sins. Well, why wouldn't he if he was away from the Church and had nothing spiritual going on to stop him? Whether it's one year or 50, it doesn't matter. The point is that he sinned, he confessed his sins, he's been cleansed of them -- and certain people, apparently, don't think that's good enough.

Then they complain that Mr. Voris hasn't said that he is no longer a homosexual (that is, suffering from the disorder of being attracted to members of his own sex). Who cares if he is? He cannot help his inclination, and the inclination is not, not, NOT a sin. Whether one acts on those inclinations is where sin comes in, and Mr. Voris says he is "celibate." I grant that "celibate" actually means "not given to marriage," and that "sexually continent" would be the more accurate phrase, but the word "celibate" is commonly understood to be the equivalent of "sexually continent." So it seems as if they're hinting around that Mr. Voris isn't sexually continent now, and I find that accusation repulsive, absolutely slanderous and calumnious. They go back to those verses from Romans, quoted above, and infer that since he isn't sexually continent, he's an idolator! U-N-R-E-A-L!

I do agree with them about a video Mr. Voris put out, in which he characterized the homosexual's struggles with phrases such as (paraphrasing!) "beyond the ability of non-homosexuals to understand," "homosexuals are more intensely loved by God than others," "the homosexual must approach life from an entirely different aspect than others," that homosexuals are victim souls (really? All of them?), that the homosexual is a "treasure beyond compare," etc. I find that video beautiful in its spirit, in its outreach to those suffering from SSA, but over the top in terms of rhetoric.

Then they go on about the dates of his return to the Sacraments, implying that he received the Sacraments unworthily. They have no way of knowing that at all. They're treating conversion/reversion as a moment-in-time-after-which-the-convert/revert-sins-no-more. That's simply not the case.  They don't know whether Mr. Voris repented, resolved to sin no more, and then stumbled (as most of us do) -- or whether, as they seem to want to believe, he engaged in "sodomy" every night, went to church on Sundays without repentance, and received Communion. They have no idea what the situation was, but have no problem putting out there that he was being sacrilegious.  Further, even if he had been sacrilegious in his approach to Confession, that doesn't mean he didn't come to know better.

I do agree with their complaint about Mr. Voris being unwilling to (respectfully) criticize the Holy Father (and his willingness to criticize the SSPX in a manner I don't think is just), but that doesn't mean that the rest of what they're going about is true.

Then they go on with their sedevacantist selves, exhibiting an attitude that anyone who doesn't think as they do about sedevacantism is, at the very least wrong, but much more than that if they have an apostolate. In the latter case, they're bad-willed, ungodly heretics. Of course.

Then they go on about Simon Rafe and some game of some sort he came up with. Simon isn't Michael. Michael isn't responsible for what Simon does -- or did -- in his spare time. I have no fondness for Mr. Rafe at all (a long story I don't want to get into other than to say he has been extremely rude to and arrogant toward me), but can differentiate between Rafe and Voris. It's pretty easy, really. One has no hair; the other has a haircut a lot of people seem not to like.

I haven't read CMTV's stuff about Amoris Laetitia, so can't comment other than to say that if their interpretation of that "stuff" is on a par with their interpretation of pretty much everything else concerning the "Voris Confessional Video," then t'heck with it.

Then they accuse him of "heresy." But to the Dimond Brothers, "heresy" includes not being a sedevacantist. That means that, by their definition, we Fishies are "heretics." They keep flashing a Vatican document, focusing on, highlighting the line that says, "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked." But it hasn't been revoked; it's been fulfilled. The Jews broke their covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but God fulfilled it as was prophesied all throughout the Old Testament. Practitioners of post-Temple Judaism are both our enemies and "dear." Romans 11:28 tells us "As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers."

After talking about that, they characterize Voris as being "dishonest, bad-willed, and wicked," and, later on, as "an instrument of Satan."  By calling him "dishonest," they're saying that they know Voris thinks one thing but says another. That's mind-reading where I come from. Same with "bad-willed." They know what Voris wills, what his motivations are. Incredible.

Then they go on about how his supporters still support him "even though" he "only" came out with the information he did because he was about to be exposed. But how much do you want to bet that the Dimond Brothers would say, as some of the "toxic-trad" types do, that homosexuals should just shut up, that for a person to reveal he's homosexual is to "identify with a sin," that the entire phenomenon is just too "unsavory" or what not to even be spoken of publicly unless it's to go on about it in ways that are littered with words like "sodomy," "sods," "perverts," and so forth? I don't know the Dimond Brothers's take on homosexuals being honest about their lives (does anyone else here know?), but I'd put money on the probability that I'm right about all that.

Finally, they go on, as "TrueCharity" did, about how, to certain minds, it's "problematic" that a person who'd sinned by committing The Bad Sins, as opposed to The Good Ones that the toxic trads engage in, could be called by God to spread the Gospel and have an apostolate. The examples of SS Paul and Augustine go right over their heads, it seems.

And by their standards, I shouldn't have an apostolate either, given that I had a horribly misspent youth and early-mid adulthood. But you know what? T'heck with them. FishEaters brings souls to Christ, to His Church, and to Tradition, and it's inspired so many priestly vocations that it's almost surreal. FishEaters does a heckuva lot more to save souls than a thousand "TrueCharitys," that, I promise.

And here's another point:  there seems to be some expectation on the part of some that anyone who has an apostolate must be a perfect Catholic. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. First, there is no such animal, and second, what does a person's private life have, necessarily, to do with his ability to teach? What if a person didn't believe in the Faith at all, but for whatever reason were attracted to it and wanted to teach it, thinking it merely a force for good, and pledged to never misinterpret Church teaching, to truly teach what the Church actually teaches? What if that person were good at if -- brilliant at it? What if that person's work brought a million souls to Christ, inspired the founding of new religious orders, were read by key politicians who went on to change their minds about abortion or gay "marriage," etc."? Should that person not use his gifts for teaching because he, himself, isn't a good Catholic -- or even a Catholic at all? Doesn't the expectation that anyone with an apostolate should be "perfect" just feed into the "cult of personality" that those same toxic trads who are going on about Mr. Voris now lament when it comes to people like Mark Shea?

I dunno... Sometimes it seems to me that that sub-set of trads, the toxic ones, don't really care about souls at all, being more interested in having a social club in which pointing fingers is the main activity.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Michael Voris comes out with his past sins....(Too much info) - by VoxClamantis - 05-02-2016, 04:56 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)