Should Good Catholics Read Far-Right Catholic Blogs? [Of Course Not!]

Should Good Catholics Read Far-Right Catholic Blogs? [Of Course Not!]

Hat-tip to Canon212: [The author is a] “DECLARATIONIST NOMINALIST.”


[This is why the National neo-Catholic Register dumped Patrick Archbold (whom The Remnant picked up); this why some others there are hanging by a thread]

by John Paul Shimek

Last weekend, Ines San Martin of Crux reported that Pope Francis “has vowed in a new interview that he won’t be slowed down by resistance from ‘ultra-conservatives’ in the Church who ‘say no to everything,’ insisting, ‘I’m going ahead without looking over my shoulder.’”

Good Catholics everywhere cheered the words of the Holy Father, the Successor of St. Peter.
You see, they readily understood that a handful of far-right ideologues do not get to determine the course of Christ’s Church. It doesn’t matter if those ideologues represent semi-schismatic enclaves or write popular blogs. Christ the Lord has empowered the Church’s Magisterium in communion with the Successor of St. Peter to lead the People of God. Not them.

Nonetheless, sometimes it can be instructive to read these far-right ideologues. Doing so, reveals some things worth noting about the signs of the times; and, taking stock of those things, helps us to perform better the work of the New Evangelization.

Just what do these blogs reveal?

At first brush, it would seem that there has been a shift in the tectonic plates. At the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis, only a small minority of ‘radical traditionalists’ teetering on the edge of schism opposed the man ‘from the ends of the earth.’ Middle-of-the-road ‘conservative Catholic’ types withheld judgment about him, biding their time as he got to know his new flock. Since then, the climate has changed and the sands have shifted.

As a variety of far-right or ultra-conservative Catholic writers make clear, now the ‘in thing’ among their number seems to be to ‘distrust and vilify’ the Pope, not to ‘trust and verify’ him. Thus, far-right Catholic writers get their Catholic ‘street cred’ by maligning the Pope as a chief plotter against the faith.
hat this is their modus operandi becomes clear after a moment’s inspection of the kind of blogs where they tend to gather on-line. They never seek to read the pontificate of Pope Francis through the lens of charity. Their first instinct is to punch first.

Thus, they eschew charity and ecclesial union, preferring division and animosity. That does not bespeak a Catholic ethos.

This surfaces a second point: The far-right has radicalized. A small number of blogs have sent a direct signal to no doubt well-meaning ‘conservative Catholics’ that it is now open season on Francis. In effect, these blogs have allowed themselves to become little more than sleeper cells of ‘ultra-conservative Catholic’ ideologues, sounding the alarm to arise and take up arms in a bitter civil war where victories are won only by way of resisting the Pope.

Scripture tells us that we will know Christians by their fruits. Yet so often the fruit of reading the blogs of far-right and ultra-conservatives Catholics is anger, not peace, sadness, not joy, and ecclesial division, not unity in Christ’s Spirit. Aren’t these the marks of the Evil One? Certainly, they’re not the traits of spiritually mature Catholics.

Thirdly, all this effectively means their program of radicalization is carried out in an extra-ecclesial context. On the frontlines of this new battle for the soul of Catholicism, self-appointed gate-keepers of Catholic orthodoxy fill the ether in concerted attempts to marginalize the voice of the Church’s duly appointed pastors. Lacking episcopal consecration and any claim to Apostolic succession, they constitute among themselves a sort of ‘parallel magisterium’ that determines for itself the prerogatives of the Pope, the content of authentic Catholic teaching, and the future direction of the Church’s pastoral ministry.

None of that is Catholic. But it might well be deeply Congregationalist.

Of course, they carry on their war against the ‘Francis Revolution’ while claiming to launch their missives from the secure tactical ground of established Magisterial teaching. But, ironically, they balk if you point out that they lack the credentials, rank, and profile to command their territory.

Cherry-picking the bishops to whom they adhere, and dividing the Church into political parties, they profess a libertarian ecclesiology that selectively adheres to the Church’s authority when it serves their spiritual preferences. Thus, far-right Catholic agitators entirely side-step serious theological questions about the nature of Catholic tradition, the definition of heresy, the extent of the Church’s canon law, the balance between doctrine and pastoral practice, the prerogatives of the pope, the meaningfulness of ecclesial communion, and the need for continental and lay consultation, opting instead for simplistic political drama.

Instead, they deal in innuendos, slander, and calumny. Those are their trademarks, not respect for the hierarchy of the Church and reverence for the truth.

And so, the fourth point: With their radicalization and de-ecclesialization comes their de-rationalization. They eschew the heavy-lifting of theology in preference for the sensationalism of political theater that finds no place for the common dialogue of parrhesia. Against any kind of synodality characterized by mutual listening, the discernment of spirits, or pastoral accompaniment, they opt for something Pope Francis has termed ‘declarationist nominalism’ – a form of political resistance theater to the ‘culture of encounter’ by way of a monologue in the form of one-dimensional pious platitudes.

When Pope Francis calls for a synodal Church that leaves no one outside the warm embrace of mercy, they envision a new Siege of Masada. They take on the guise of militants, perceiving themselves as the last defenders of Catholicism. Yet their war cries and battle slogans leave them sounding like un-catechized Catholics in great danger of slipping into Protestant forms of thinking.

Let us pray for them even as we continue to pray for His Holiness Pope Francis as he pursues the course the Holy Spirit reveals to him.

Get AQ Email Updates

10 comments on “Should Good Catholics Read Far-Right Catholic Blogs? [Of Course Not!]

  1. Or, we could ask: “should good Catholics read neo-Catholic rags and blogs like the National Catholic Register? (Of course not!)

  2. LOL! Schism, cherry-picking, uncharitable, etc. This is The Wanderer 40 years ago.

    Instead, they deal in innuendos, slander, and calumny. Those are their trademarks, not respect for the hierarchy of the Church and reverence for the truth.

    Nothing like whipping a straw man and claiming “reverence for the truth.”

  3. [ChurchMilitant also has the same attitude, as evidenced by its reply to a comment posted to one of its items about the latest Faith-Based Initiative (FBI) on the collapse of the Church in Canada (available only to “premium subscribers,” to which I will not subscribe or sign up for the 15-day free trial; I am banned from making comments on CM because of a previous critical comment)]

    Comment by Will Branson:

    Like I said, if you build it, they will come. But all we’ve gotten from Rome since 2013 is 2 encyclicals, 1 of which was Utopian, 2 apostolic exhortations and 100 in-flight airplane interviews that seem to undo, or at least undermine, 2,000 years of teaching on the sanctity of marriage. It especially contradicts and/or calls into question the multiple condemnations of liberation theology issued by John Paul and Benedict.

    John Paul spent 7 years presciently writing and speaking in his weekly addresses about the sanctity and permanence of marriage (Theology of the Body, Communio Personarum, Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor etc). Now we have a pope (and his likely gay-definitely $exually weird ghostwriter Fernandez ) telling us the great majority [non-redacted quote] of Catholic marriages are invalid, and that cohabitation can be a source of grace and fidelity. I realize they’re “just” airplane interviews but a weekly diet of this stuff, when the situation requires exactly the opposite, is having a cumulatively destructive effect – just as surely as if those remarks were in an official Vatican document. Well, actually, they are in Amoris Laetitae. Practically speaking, few marginal Catholics will bother reading encyclicals or apostolic exhortations, but I’m sure their ears perk up when they hear his latest quotes on Fox and CNN.

    Reply from Church_Militant_Moderator:

    I suspect you are consciously pushing the envelope here, and in another post earlier.

    We prefer, and believe it to be more faithfully Catholic, NOT to encourage or provide occasions for these kinds of observations and the kinds of “Yes, me too!” responses they can be expected to generate.

    The faith of faithful Catholics is not shaken or disturbed by the numerous face plant, head scratching, even embarrassing utterances of Pope Francis. It’s the faith of unfaithful Catholics, or the non-faith of non-Catholics, that is left unmoved or moved in unfortunate directions. And they aren’t visiting our site or reading your (and others’) comments of disappointment and discouragement over Pope Francis. The faith of faithful Catholics, i.e. those who visit our and other Catholic sites, needs encouragement of the kind that doesn’t come from being reminded of what they aready know (we, and they, really do know the score) but are wise enough to know that constant complaining about what they can do nothing about is a destructive strategy and, really, quite immature.

    To be a faithful Catholic under a Pope so often understood by so many (not just the secular media) as not Catholic is a real challenge. But that is our challenge or, as another poster put it, “if Pope Francis is your cross, then carry it!”

    This forum is not a group therapy session where we can non-productively air our problems and get lots of sympathy from other suffering members of the group. You are well aware of the toxic sewers that other allegedly Catholic sites have become. They have become so (or been so for decades) because they have each succumbed to the Catholic version of Protestant private judgment and interpretation of authoritative teaching. Complaining about the Pope’s real (and sometimes imagined or exaggerated) non-Catholicism is something worthy of pub crawlers in search of a life, not truly faithful Catholics. None of us need to be told when to cringe. We need help absorbing and assimilating what is good, help with responding to those uninspired by Pope Francis to take the Faith seriously, help defending the unity of the Church against those who would divide Her (and some of those profess to be faithful Catholics), help staying strong and faithful under a Pope who doesn’t often appear to value our voices, etc.

    You know all this. You have a gift for clear articulation. You are a warrior for the Faith and Church founded by Our Lord. Use those gifts to help faithful Catholics stay strong in difficult times. Don’t fall for the cheap and easy attention grabbing rhetoric of people who complain about the weather and weather forecasters.

    There are an embarrassing number of people who used to post here quite regularly who now are regular contributors in the sewers elsewhere. They have lost the Faith they presume to be defending. I’m really surprised you don’t “get” the harm caused by this and your other recent post. It discourages those with weak or no faith, and contributes nothing to those with faith already sufficiently strong to know what to take seriously and what not.

    We already “get it”. Our challenge is echoed by Cardinals like Burke, and Mueller, and Pell, and Sarah, who are noteworthy in their restraint and loyalty to the the difficult Vicar of Christ whom they serve.

    Please stop posting what is not helpful and not necessary, particularly here. If you want to do the AA thing or group therapy elsewhere, go for it. But I think you are better than that and have demonstrated that countless times.

    We “get it”. So do most others who post here. We won’t try to defend the indefensible, but we would rather ignore what is not helpful than complain about it endlessly. Be part of giving Pope Francis both the benefit of the doubt and maybe even a better interpretation of his words than he might give them himself. We don’t need more complaining at the local watering hole by those who think complaining is the new way to be Catholic. Be a Saint under a difficult Pope. Don’t provide excuses for ignoring that call.

    • Don’t … just, like, don’t go there. LOL!

    • Well, yet again, it would seem that CM has judged itself to be morally superior, and, as expected – a Saint.

      Surprisingly, the means used to reach that facade of sanctity has come at the cost of ridiculing reality and anyone who dares point it out. What’s that about having it all while lacking charity?

      Sorry, CM, but your lack of charity toward other Catholics who, despite what you believe about yourself, are the self-same actions that would dismiss your case for holiness. One doesn’t label other Catholics as needing an AA group or any of the endless slurs you have purported against the flock.

      Christ didn’t abrade the flock with name calling. He did that to the Pharisees. He did that with those who pretend that they see, the same who exalted themselves and “their” position.

      But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. That said, following CM’s logic, they should just shut down their operation and grant the benefit of the doubt to all prelates. Their entire organization is bent on complaining, whining, and stirring up trouble for those they are judging without a license.

      Taken to its sum game, CM is Sedevecantist. For if the Pope is off limits for criticism then the Church is a body with no one in the See of Peter. So they report on a sewer with no one at the helm to guide us out. Or is it that they fancy Michael Voris to be said leader who is acting in place of the Pope? Judging, castigating, ruling, etc.

      • [ChurchMilitant still has the same intransigent attitude toward the Society of Saint Pius X, as evidenced in CM’s recent report on the Society’s (or rather, Bishop Fellay’s) statement that “the group isn’t seeking primarily to reunite with the Catholic Church” without giving the reason why Bishop Fellay said that (which was the substance of His Excellency’s statement (see comment below). CM closed off comments before any could be made!]

        SSPX Superior Isn’t Primarily Seeking Reunion With Catholic Church

        by Bradley Eli, M.Div., Ma.Th. • July 5, 2016

        Rome still demands that SSPX accept Vatican II as read in light of Tradition

        VATICAN – The leader of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is saying the group isn’t seeking primarily to reunite with the Catholic Church.

        Bishop Bernard Fellay spoke on behalf of the SSPX in a recent communique. “The Society of Saint Pius X … does not seek primarily a canonical recognition,” he said.

        In May, SSPX superior Fellay told the Register that Rome was giving the Society everything it needed for reconciliation with the Church. This statement was made in light of a meeting held between Fellay and Pope Francis in April. The purpose of that meeting was to end the separation of the SSPX from Rome.

        It was rumored that the Vatican would no longer require the SSPX to accept the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council as part of the Church’s teaching magisterium. But this stipulation was gainsaid in May by Vatican’s doctrinal chief, Cdl. Gerhard Müller. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that if one “wants to be fully Catholic, one must recognize the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.”

        Pope Francis seemingly confirmed this position in May when speaking to the French publication LaCroix. Asked about granting the SSPX some status in the Church, the Pope responded, “That would be a possible solution, but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value.”

        In the same interview, the Holy Father summed up his April meeting with the SSPX. “I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.”

        Canon Law, including code 751, says a Catholic breaks communion with the Catholic Church by heresy with regard to Her teaching authority or by schism with regard to Her ruling authority.

        In the same communique by Bp. Fellay to fellow SSPX superiors, he speaks of “the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it.”

        What this alleged “state of necessity” entails is a situation where, the SSPX alleges, truth and grace have failed universally in the Church from the Pope on down. The SSPX claims Vatican II is full of doctrinal errors, and these errors are being universally perpetuated from all the popes and the Magisterium since then till now. This leads them to proclaim a “state of necessity” that frees them from the dictates of canon law and the unity it prescribes.

        Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter in March 2009 explaining the SSPX’s separation is doctrinal in nature and not merely canonical or legal.

        The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. … In order to make this clear once again: Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. … In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei — the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope — to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.

        • Dissecting the SSPX communiqué

          Louie Verrecchio
          July 5, 2016

          You’re not going to believe this…

          The latest public statement made by the Society of St. Pius X – a communiqué issued at the conclusion of their recent four day meeting of the major superiors – is garnering criticism from the resisters.

          In other news, Francis just issued his “universal prayer intention” for July and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus Christ.

          Seriously, if Bishop Bernard Fellay quoted a portion of the Bible verbatim, some of these folks would find a reason to accuse him of impropriety.

          The communiqué is concise enough to publish here in its fullness:

          The purpose of the Society of Saint Pius X is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration.

          1. In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.

          2. The Society of Saint Pius X, in the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work. It has only one desire: faithfully to bring the light of the bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.

          3. The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

          4. The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety. In this way he will hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we earnestly desire as we approach the centennial of the apparitions in Fatima.

          In less than 300 words, this statement seems to sum matters up about as well as anyone could have possibly expected – it articulates the Society’s purpose; the necessity of denouncing errors, even those of the pope; calling attention to humanism’s usurpation of divine worship; the Social Kingship of Christ; the need for prayer and penance…

          There’s not much here to criticize.

          Unless, of course, one’s default position with respect to the SSPX is to complain and accuse; like a certain Fr. Girouard (don’t feel bad, I never heard of him until now either), a “resisting” priest whose letter of response crossed my Facebook page whining that the “communiqué doesn’t reveal any practical resolution.”


          Apparently, Father didn’t pay very close attention.

          As the communiqué suggests, the resolution to the present crisis isn’t going to be the fruit of some clever strategy formulated on the part of mere men. Rather, it will only be realized at such time as the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary occurs – the requirements of which were given by Our Lady at Fatima, and the hastening of which is addressed in the communiqué.

          As for more “practical” matters, the communiqué has plenty to offer. (See list above.)

          And then there’s the resisters’ favorite topic; the matter of the Society’s canonical recognition…

          How many more ways does Bishop Fellay have to say it?

          “The Society does not seek primarily a canonical recognition.”

          “If we’re put in a choice between keeping the faith or making their compromise, it’s clear: I’m not going to compromise.”

          Can we please put to rest all of the calumnies claiming that Bishop Fellay is interested in negotiating the terms of a surrender at the cost of tradition?

          Now let’s talk about what the communiqué does not say.

          Some commentators are suggesting that the Society has stated that it will reject any and all offers of canonical regularization unless it comes from “a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition.” (See communiqué item #3.)

          Father Z, for instance, wrote, “This sounds as if they won’t agree to any kind of unity until this or a future Pope behaves in the way they determine is acceptable. Peter must conform to their expectations.”

          No, the communiqué simply says that “a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition” is going to be necessary in order “to restore all things in Christ.”

          It also says that the Society will use “the means that Divine Providence gives to it” to spread “the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

          As I read it, this statement does not preclude the possibility that these “means” just might include a unilateral action on the part of Rome granting canonical recognition.

          The question has been asked (and it is a fair one) how the highly suspect validity of the conclave that gifted the Church with the human wrecking ball known as Francesco factors into the matter.

          As I’ve written in the past, in order to maintain a proper perspective, it’s important to recognize that “canonical recognition” does not directly speak of a given group’s relationship with the pope (much less an alleged pope); rather, it speaks of its relationship with the Church, aka Eternal Rome.

          In the present case, canonical recognition amounts to formal acknowledgement of that which is already objectively true – the SSPX is entirely Catholic.

          As the communiqué suggests, the Society is due this canonical recognition by right as a matter of justice. Whether or not that acknowledgement ever comes, however, the fact remains – the SSPX is entirely Catholic.

          The reason this recognition matters so much is that souls are at stake.

          The faithful deserve to know the objective truth about the Society’s relationship with the Church; so they may have no reservations about receiving the spiritual aid that the SSPX administers unto their salvation.

          If canonical regularization without compromise should come from some action prompted by the blasphemous Argentinian heretic in white, so be it.

          But, he’s a blasphemous heretic!

          You bet he is, but think of it this way:

          If a tornado is heading for your house, does it really matter whether that crucial bit of information reaches you and your loved ones via a state-of-the-art HD TV or a beat up old AM radio that barely functions?

          No, of course not. What matters is that the information is made known so you can save yours and your family’s lives.

          In the present case, what matters is that the Catholicity of the SSPX be made widely known so souls can seek refuge therein in order to save their eternal lives.

          (NOTE: The risks and rewards of canonical recognition have been discussed at length elsewhere on the blog. I don’t wish to rehash them in their entirety. At present, we are discussing the impact Benedict’s whimsical designs for the Petrine Office, and Francis highly questionable validity, may have on the matter.)

          It is my belief that the Society will accept that recognition; even if it comes from a Pope who does not concretely favor a return to tradition, provided, of course, that adequate measures are put in place for its protection moving forward.

          It is also my belief that the Society should accept such recognition.

          Again, at the end of the day, all that this would mean is that the objective truth of the Society’s Catholicity is being formally acknowledged and made more widely known.

          Indeed, an argument can be made that acceptance of a “papal” act unilaterally recognizing the Society, even without any compromise on its part, might in some way lend legitimacy to the alleged pontificate of Francis (about which I have made my own thoughts clear).

          I don’t dismiss these concerns. I think they are entirely valid.

          That said, let’s be clear:

          The confusion that exists in our day with respect to the present state of the Petrine ministry has nothing to do with the Society’s canonical status; something it is owed by right as a matter of justice.

          Perpetuating the injustice toward the SSPX wherein the objective truth about its relationship with Eternal Rome (the Church) is left unacknowledged will do absolutely nothing to remove the confusion that exists concerning the papacy.

          Furthermore, if the SSPX was to reject unilateral canonical recognition because the pope (or alleged pope) is a scoundrel, it would only serve to further deprive souls of the aid needed to attain to Heaven.

          Look, I get it… There are many moving parts that are contributing to the present ecclesial crisis, thus giving rise to confusion and disagreement.

          It seems to me that the task of discerning what is best in any situation is always made easier when we recall that the mission that was given to the Church by Our Lord involves the salvation of souls.

          That’s the crux of the matter.

          Forget all the “what ifs…” No matter what may come in the future, it is clear that the SSPX has a duty to respond by continuing to defend the true Faith; just as it has from its inception.

          In the present case, one need only ask what impact the canonical regularization of the SSPX will have on the salvation of souls; will it be positive or negative?

          I’ve stated my opinion. What’s yours? [N.B. Unlike ChurchMilitant, Louie welcomes comments on his posts]

  4. Feel free to pile on…


    JUL 06, 2016 by HILARY WHITE

    Having a bit of fun over on Twitter…

    At least one thing is accomplished by this kind of mendacious hit-piece (as opposed to the truthful kind you get from us). It is demonstrating my theory that Francis is having a positive effect on the discourse. No one can now deny that the false distinction between “conservatives” and “liberals” in the novusordo Church is and always has been meaningless.

    Hilary White tweets:

    So, does the Register share Shimek’s eagerness to see faithful Catholics “driven” out of the Church?


  5. Captain Kirk: Mister Spock! Judgmental ultra-conservatives and well-meaning middle-of-the-road ‘conservative Catholic’ types picking up on their reactionary dog whistles to give Pope Francis a hard time with pharisaical criticism….analyze using your usual superior Vulcan logic!

    Spock: Fascinating, Captain. Perhaps there is a possible remedy for this.
    Everyone should hug an ultra-conservative in their life who may be suffering from excessive rigidity and a hardened heart. In this way they could be shown that they are loved and accepted. When they no longer feel marginalized and threatened, their ability to love and forgive will be strengthened. Just reach out and hug as many as you can.

    Lieutenant Sulu: That’s an excellent idea, Captain!

    Captain Kirk: Spock!!!

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: Of course, priests have to be cautious about unwanted touching.

    Captain Kirk: How did you come up with this idea, Mister Spock?

    Spock: Our study group has been reading Erich Fromm. The Art of Loving.
    We have also been focusing on Third Force psychology and late-twentieth-century encounter group therapies.

    Reverend Neuhaus: That’s my opening. Forgive me for interrupting again as aggressive and pushy professional Protestant converts sometimes do, but I would like to say something here about the Naked Public Square in modernity and Professor Charles Taylor’s secularization theories….

  6. [Too hot for the Neo-Catholic Register to handle]

    Posted by Tancred on 7/6/16:

    NCRegister Removes Blog Post After Progressivist Staff Blogger Attacks Faithful Catholic

    Edit: this was later removed by the Dredgister, probably after hundreds of people complained about a leftist-progressivist, promoter of aberrounions, John Paul Shimek, attacking faithful Catholics on their blog.

    [The text at the Neo-Catholic Register link for that article]

    Editors’ note: This post has been removed. The original text was posted without authorization and bypassed any editorial review. The blog did not reflect the Register’s editorial views.

Leave a Reply