From Vorisite to Barronite: Why I Left Church Militant

This is a very weird blog post for me. I never thought I would be the person to write something like this. After all, I've spent most of my five years being a faithful Catholic denouncing idiots who wrote these posts. I was a fervent daily watcher of Church Militant, and Michael Voris and others like him in Catholic news were my heroes. They were the revolutionaries who were going to save the Church from the jaws of the wolves in cardinal's clothing.

Through this influence, for four and a half of five years, I had an uncontrolled fiery passion for all things Catholic. I told people "the way it is," and if they didn't like it, take it up with God. For me, everything was black and white, Good Catholic vs. Bad Catholic. I believed the Body of Christ was 90% cancerous with modernist heretics and estrogen-filled men who wanted to dialogue with sin and falsehood, and it needed a good amputating so we could purify the Church.

In my mind, the Pope needed to excommunicate the vast majority of cardinals and bishops to save the Church from their evil teachings. Catholics both clerical and lay needed to be penalized and reformed. We needed to go back to mandatory kneeling and Eucharistic reception on the tongue, more Latin in Mass than the average Roman citizen could speak, and so much incense you couldn't see the person in front of you (I still wouldn't mind this one, mostly for the smell.)

I was an ardent defender of the Truth, and I viciously attacked anyone who dared question someone like my main hero, Michael Voris.

Four years of living my Catholic faith like that was dispelled in four months. And how did that happen? It's quite simple, really.

I worked at Church Militant.

It all started on a very exciting June day. I had gotten the call that I was one of the four men accepted into the one year internship at Church Militant known as the Pause Program. It was my dream come true: I was going to meet my hero and work under him. I prostrated on the ground in my room and thanked God sincerely for giving me such a gift.

I flew from home, a young 18 year old homeschool graduate afraid to live on his own, but still incredibly excited about what I was going to do. I landed in the airport, and I was greeted by Michael Voris and the three men I would be undertaking this year with. It was a surreal moment that will always stick in my mind.

It was decided that I would be a staff writer in news due to my skill at writing. I was very excited to write news, and I was very pleased to see my articles published. I was also pleased to see I was well liked, and had even been given the nickname "Smiles and Hugs" because I constantly smiled and frequently hugged people.

But unfortunately, two weeks in I was given an article that would start me on a life-changing course.

I was told to write an article on Cardinal Dolan and his Making All Things New pastoral initiative. In it, many dying parishes were being closed down to save the Archdiocese of New York money. I added several quotes from distraught and sad parishioners, as the angle was clearly to portray Cardinal Dolan as a bad person. However, I made a mistake in the writing of it: I added a quote from Dolan saying how sorry he was for having to close down the parishes, and that he felt for the parishioners who were losing their parish communities.

I was told by my editor that overall the article was good, but the quote was taken out. When I asked why, I was given a shocking answer: "It made him look good, and that's not what we want."

I stared for a moment in shock, nodded my head, and then walked away, disillusioned by what I had just heard.

It was at this moment that I began questioning all that I had done and believed in for four years. Two weeks into my dream, and I was having a crisis; not of faith, but of how to live that faith. Deep with thoughts of doubt and regret, I asked for my name to be taken off the article.

A week after this, I began questioning the purpose of releasing the information about clerical abuses (and supposed abuses) and bashing clergy for pastoral decisions in the first place. What was it accomplishing other than sowing deep-seated division in the Church? None of our articles to my knowledge had ever resulted in the punishment of a priest or bishop.

And why were we telling laypeople about these things in the first place? They didn't have the authority to take care of the issue. Why weren't we contacting bishops directly to inform them of things they are unaware of in their dioceses? Why was our immediate impulse to tell the whole world rather than to tell the people who could actually take care of the issue?

My head continued to swim with all these questions, and the more I questioned what we did, the less visibly loyal I became in the office. I began openly questioning why we were going to publish this or that information, and what good it would do, in the end. Needless to say, this was not appreciated.

After a little over two months of working there, my attitude and perspective had changed almost completely. I had come to believe that the public bashing (not to be confused with occasional respectful disagreement) of a cleric is immoral. I had become a regular viewer of Bishop Robert Barron (seen as nothing less than an enemy of the truth at Church Militant,) and I had decided that perhaps bishops and cardinals who weren't completely orthodox weren't terrible people after all. Despite theological issues, I believed they ultimately had good intentions. This was a breakthrough in my mindset which had been taught by Church Militant to believe these men were literally evil and intentionally trying to destroy the Church.

My demeanor changed at this point as well. Through the direction of a good and holy priest, I had come to believe that in the life of the Christian, it is spiritually healthier and in fact more effective in evangelization to have a general attitude of gentleness and serenity, especially towards those who disagree with you. "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar," he reminded me, using Saint Francis de Sales as an example, and I took his instruction to heart.

It wasn't long before my questioning and changed outlook on life and the Church was noticed by Michael. Word had gotten to him that I was openly questioning our methods, and at times even asked not to do certain assignments which I could not do in good conscience. All of this came to a head in early October.

I had been assigned to do what we called Synod Profiles: videos of background information on the "bad guys" of the Synod on the Family, as my coworkers termed them, that would become videos exposing their vile heterodox agenda. I was given eight names, and I began writing them with an uneasy and conflicted conscience. Through the counsel of the priest I mentioned before, I had decided not to openly disobey, but rather to give balanced backgrounds on these bishops, reporting the good as well as the bad.

After completing and sending them in, it became apparent that my work was less than satisfactory. One friend mocked my policy of fairness and said my Profiles could be broken down into this (somewhat paraphrased) synopsis: "This Bishop believes this incorrect thing and did this bad thing, and his favorite color is purple and he loves bunnies."

After turning them in, I was informed I was going to be given more Profiles to do. I was distraught. I had been unable to sleep well for the entire month I had been writing those transcripts due to stress of constant inner moral conflict, and I wanted out. I pulled Michael aside and begged him to let me off of the project. He accepted my request, but took note of how I said I couldn't continue doing them "in good conscience." After pressing me on the issue, he learned that I had developed a belief that perhaps what the apostolate did wasn't good for the Church.

Thinking nothing of it and reveling in my conscience's emancipation from the project, I went about the rest of the week very happily. However, the following week, I was suddenly visited by Michael and pulled from my work to speak with him in his office.

At this point I had forgotten about the Profiles already, and I walked in without concern or worry, not knowing why he wanted to speak with me. Michael sat down with me very casually, and began to probe me in my discernment. He asked me why I thought God was calling me towards the priesthood. After answering, he told me the reason he asked is because I was displaying a lack of understanding of the Church crisis, and that he was greatly concerned for my possible priesthood as a consequence.

He began to tell me stories and gave me future scenarios of my life wherein my bishop punishes me unjustly for following Church teaching, questioning what I would do in this or that scenario. He told me it had been reported to him that I had developed a reputation in my office for being a, quote, "Church of Nice Apologist," and that I needed to cease watching all Bishop Barron videos immediately.

To me, what was most distressing was when he said, "Miles, you're a sweet and gentle guy, but you need to change your personality and become aggressive for the sake of the Church."

Greatly distressed, after the meeting ended one hour later I retreated to the library I sometimes organized in the afternoons, and I talked to my friends about what had happened. Disillusioned more than ever, my uncertainties about what we and other Catholic news sites did had become very much solidified.

Three weeks later in mid October I came back home to see my family, and in that weekend, after months of prayer and discernment, I decided I had to follow my conscience and cut my internship early. I returned to work, deciding in my mind that I would leave in mid December.

When I returned, I experienced some uncertainty in my resolve to leave. Despite my issues, I was still liked, and consequently the thought of leaving was very difficult on me.

That is, until a Vortex I will never forget was released.

At the time, I had admittedly stopped watching the Vortex due to my issues with it (despite it being company policy for all employees to watch it daily.) But I was intrigued when one of my best friends walked into the media room and asked us if we had watched that morning's episode. None of us had, and we all huddled around a computer and watched it together.

The video, released just before the Synod had ended, was titled Benedict's Fingerprints. Not knowing what to expect, I watched in shock and disbelief as the video unfolded. If you don't believe what I'm about to say, I recommend you watch the video for yourself.

In the video, Michael blatantly accuses Father Benedict (as he has asked to be called) of faking his illness to escape the papacy. "He resigned because of health reasons, but going on three years later, his health seems just fine. Contrast that with John Paul, who actually had a health issue," Michael says (emphasis mine.) That is the one time in my life where my jaw genuinely dropped in disbelief.

Immediately in my mind I began refuting this. Disregarding that far from his health being "just fine" Benedict can no longer walk without a walker and someone at his side, of course his health is doing better -- he no longer has the stress of daily life as Pope to wear his health down. Retiring from work to relieve stress and thus live longer is the purpose of retirement.

Michael went on to insinuate that Father Benedict was possibly forced off the Chair, and though he doesn't say this (or believe this,) that logically concludes Father Benedict might still be Pope Benedict, meaning Pope Francis is in fact Antipope Francis, as it is defined teaching that a valid Pope cannot be forced off the Chair of Peter.

Michael blasted Father Benedict further, saying he elevated these figures messing up the Synod and then abandoned us to these wolves. "In an era where fatherhood is so disgraced, Pope Benedict is the one who will be remembered as abandoning his children in the hour of their greatest need." Perhaps most grievously, Michael says Benedict's abdication "may even rise to the level of immoral."

In the course of that 11 minute video, my every objection to the work that we did had become deeply entrenched. I couldn't believe my eyes: the lay hero of my post-conversion life had just used every weapon I previously defended to defame one of my favorite Popes.

This, for me, was the final nail in the coffin. The unfounded accusations in the video were enough for me to permanently space myself ideologically from the apostolate. I no longer wanted anything to do with it, and I couldn't leave quickly enough.

My resolve solidified, I planned to tell Michael that I was going to leave in mid December. A week before Thanksgiving, it so happened that my father began having heart issues, and I consequently left earlier than planned in order to help him.

I have now been gone from Church Militant for three weeks, and though I miss my friends, I am glad and relieved to be gone. But I am also incredibly grateful for the time I spent there. I was made, very directly, to figure out where I stand, and to understand my personality in ways I never had before. When put to the fire, the false personality that had been grafted onto my untempered youthful zeal by Church Militant's instruction to be aggressive had been burned away, and I learned I am in fact, as Michael put it, a "sweet and gentle guy." My personality is one that prefers dialogue and convincing others not through aggressive debate, but respectful discourse and gentleness.

Now that I've been gone, I've had some time to think more about why these experiences disturbed my conscience. I've asked myself why Michael made that Vortex in the first place. What good did he possibly think would come of it? I have come to realize the effect of all the negative Church news websites: They feed off of controversy in the Church. They have literally made businesses out of bashing the clergy, and when no controversy can be found, they simply invent it to cause intrigue, even going so far as to accuse a holy and faithful man of faking illness to abandon us.

This quote from Archbishop Chaput explains more concisely what I mean:

    "...Church Militant ha[s] proven once again that they are not interested in presenting information in any useful way... The sole desire of... Church Militant is to create division, confusion, and conflict within the Church. Actions of that nature run contrary to Christian tradition."

That, for me, underscores my rejection to news sites like Church Militant: Not only do they often give out grave information unnecessarily, but they do so without precedent in the Church. Where, in the history of the Church, can you find Saints who acted in the way that they do?

Whenever a Saint corrected someone, it was usually done privately, especially if it concerned a clergymen or religious. The Saint was also typically someone who had the authority to change the offending behaviors or beliefs, which news sites do not have. When they did object to things publicly (as sometimes happened,) it was after having tried correcting the offender privately (as Jesus himself instructs in Matt. 18:15,) and it was with due respect and charity. News sites like Church Militant, when they give accurate and true stories, give them out to people who have absolutely no power whatsoever to solve the issue, rather than contacting that person for clarification or, if guilt is proven, their superior. Church Militant breeds division and contempt in the Church, freely and liberally labeling the large majority of laypeople and clergy liberals and heretics, whom the faithful few must band together and battle against at every opportunity.

I have no ill will towards Michael and all those who work under him or support him. I love him and his employees dearly, and I truly am sorry things ended the way they did. Though I have outlined my disagreements with him, I do not desire anyone to bash him or think badly of him, especially as a result of this blog post. That contradicts the very reason why I felt compelled in my conscience to leave his apostolate in the first place. We are no better if we counter his bashing of clergy by bashing him.

Michael is a good person who, in my opinion, is simply exhibiting what happens when you make a business out of starting controversy in the Church, no matter his doubtless good intentions.

I see no reason why after such disagreement, even if it is over something as important as the good and well-being of the Body of Christ, we cannot be civil or even (dare I say it) friends with our ideological opponents. I have written this blog post not to create a stir or dislike towards Voris, but to explain why through my experience at Church Militant I have concluded Catholic news sites such as his are harmful to the Body of Christ, and harmful to the spiritual lives of those who run them.

In our zeal and the politicization of the modern Church, I am afraid we have become so deeply entrenched as ideological enemies that we have forgotten the dignity of the human person and the love towards another which Christ commands of us. This results in bashing clergy whose actions and/or beliefs we disagree with, and this results in treating each other like enemies. I want that trend to stop, as it inflicts harm to the Church. I want to warn against following groups like Church Militant, but equally against vilifying them. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we must love and respect them, and recognize their dignity.

After all: If we can't even recognize the dignity of those inside of the Church and give them proper respect -- be they clergy or layperson -- how are we to realistically hope to have the same for those outside of it?

Common Questions For Catholics

    The reason I’m writing this is that I often get asked questions upon people learning that I am Catholic. This entry is simply to answer some of the questions some of you may have so you don’t have to ask out loud. I would Like to thank the Cellulites for contributing the majority of these questions.

“Is there a reason there's so many rules?”

Yes. It's a pretty basic reason too. The only thing separating the Catholic Church from many other religions, such as the orthodox or protestants, is our basic beliefs. Often times the only way to show our beliefs is by living them. The rules are set in place as a means of letting us know what is and isn’t within the beliefs of the Church. If it helps don’t look at them as rules so much as guidelines to help you be the best Catholic you can be.

    “How often do people actually go to confession? Is it supposed to be every week or just whenever you do something bad?”

Well, you can honestly go as often as you would like. I think the requirement is once a year but it is best to go as often as you can. It all honestly varies on your religious life and schedule. I suggest going at least once a week. Most priests usually offer confession on Sundays before masses.

   

    “Does the Church not allow/recognize divorces between members?”

No. The only way a divorce is recognized, per se, is if it is annulled. An annulment is an official statement by the church that a marriage was never valid. There are several things that can make a marriage invalid. The main reason for annulments that I’ve seen have been consensual issues. One or both members didn’t fully want to get married but went with it anyway. They didn’t outwardly express their discontent at the notion of the marriage. This is also heavily abused within the United States and is a major reason why we “hand out annulments like candy.” If you would like a full list of things that make a marriage invalid check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can’t give you a paragraph number at the moment but I will update later with one.

    “Where do you believe God came from? At some point in time, there must have been NOTHING, right? No universe, Galaxy, nothing. Where did this come from?”

Actually, we believe that he has always existed. God doesn’t exist within time. Time is something that can be molded and formed. It always flows forward but it can be easily changed with the right forces. What’s to say that something can’t exist outside of time? God could easily exist outside of our dimensions, outside our limits of time and space. God is infinite.

    “Why do you have to believe in a higher power to make yourself feel better?”

I don’t. I believe in a higher power because I do. My self-worth and dignity are enough to make myself feel better. When I’m feeling especially down I have friends that I know will always cheer me up.

“ How do you feel about the concept of evolution and it's contradictions to much of what's told about in Genesis.”

The church stands that not all of the bible is to be taken literally. The people that take the bible literally are called fundamentalists and it's a really good way to get yourself excommunicated. The holy father Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II called fundamentalism a disease of the church. On that, the church doesn't believe the book of Genesis is literal. It's pretty impossible to create a world in 7 short days. Science has very clearly proven this. The book of Genesis was also written approximately 400 years before Christ was born. That's a few billion after the beginning of the world. It's also a time when science wasn't very developed so the writers had no way of knowing whether or not that actually happened. Instead the church states that Genesis is an explanation of how humans got their souls. My view is that it explains the evolutionary jump. The point where humans went from scavengers to hunters and farmers. When they started using tools. I believe that is when they were given souls. My idea is a generally accepted idea in much of the better educated portions of the church. (It's not mine technically, I didn't come up with it). But based on this view evolution and religion go hand in hand.

    “Do you believe Jesus is God?”

Yes. Jesus is God. God incarnate hence the incarnation.

The word made flesh.

    "If Jesus is God how can he be the son of God?" 
As the Trinity we believe that there are is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We call him the son of God because He specifically said he was the son of God. Now he called him the son of God because 1. It was easier for us to understand and 2 because the son is being that of his father, in this case, Jesus being that of his father is by his very nature God. Just as because I am of my father Michael, I am Henry Michaelson. But because I come from a family, I am Henry Cain. By nature Jesus is God because he is of the Father.

    “What are your opinions on transubstantiation.”

Considering that is one of the key elements of our faith, I wholeheartedly believe in it.Transubstantiation is possible under the idea that God is able to do anything. But to me its more of an illusionist, who makes it seem like its bread and wine where in all actuality its Christ's body and blood

    “Can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?"
Logical fallacy of circular argument. Basically the idea behind this is to trap the arguer into a circular argument. This is no different than the "can God create something so heavy so that he Himself cannot lift?" 

    “How do you feel about the similarities between Christianity and Islam?”

Muhammad based Islam on a handful of religions. Christianity and Judaism being two of the main components. He liked many of the ideas of the "prophet" Jesus and used a lot of his ideas when establishing Judaism. 

    “How do you feel about the use of religions like Christianity and Islam being used to control and govern men throughout history?”

Humans are human and many will attain power in any way they can.-Henry
I feel that human use religion to disguise their greed for glory lower and money, religion itself isn't meant to be controlling, but that those who desire power will use ideas from the religion to justify their cause. -Anthony

These are just some general questions and if anyone else has any more feel free to ask and I’ll update the blog post.

    Thanks!

Catholicism meaning to Anthony

Alright. Hello friends, I am Anthony, I  am of Polish heritage, and with me on this blog are Henry and Miles (pronounced me-les). Anyway we have decided to open up this blog with the question of "what does Catholicism mean to us." Each one of us will make our own post, and I will give you mine right now.

So I am a 6th generation, Catholic-Polish-American. My last name being Hamersky is a name of, from the research I have done, nobility, and as many if not all of you know, nobility in Europe had a love for their religion and swore to protect it. Now the Poles, like many other kingdoms and empires, had knights. But the Poles took it one step further and had the Polish Winged Hussars, and if you know history you know they were some really tough guys. Anyway, the Poles, especially the nobility, knew how much the Church played in society, but also how much they loved it. The nobles, or "szlachta," took one of many oaths which include the basics of protect the Church (Catholic Church), family, and the nation. These were three very important things, back in medieval and empirical times, but equally in modern day.

The Poles have recently had brilliant luck in the Papacy and in the post modern society, with the fall of communism and the success of Karol Wojtyla (Karl-Vo-ty-wa) or as the ignorant know him, John Paul II. Both of these had major impact on Communistic society of Poland and Russia.

My apologies, I'm getting off topic and heading into history.

Anyway. Catholicism to me is basically my life source, I know through High School the only thing that kept me going my sophomore and junior year was Catholicism. Not only that but it's there for me when no one else is, and I love that. I can tell you as well that it was my first love. I've thought about being a priest, but instead have taken the path of a Catholic University in Kansas. As a cradle Catholic I have always had Catholicism in my life, but now as I've grown smarter, and more logical, I have done extensive research into Catholicism, and along with Henry and Miles, my best friends, I have done much to expand my knowledge in that specific subject.

For my final idea, I want to share with you a philosophical thought: "Everything that is believed has truth behind it, whether the truth be true, corrupted, twisted, or lacking somewhere is a different subject." this is something I've thought about, and I can tell you, if you truly are a Philosopher, or "Lover of Wisdom," is it not prudent and logical to look into and try to understand the religion that blatantly states "We have the fullness of truth"?

Many of you might think of the Catholic church as being arrogant and stuck up, but as renowned Philosopher Peter Kreeft asked, "Is it arrogant to admit the truth?" It isn't arrogant, we are just admitting the truth; it's only arrogant if we are wrong. Which if you believe in the bible and Gospel, it specifically states in the book of Matthew "Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church."

Anyway, that's another story, but as I am a Philosopher, I have searched for truth, and with that I have found much truth to be found in the Catholic Faith. And in conclusion (because I'm sure y'all (yes, I'm a Kansan) are tired of this) I am here to dialogue, not argue. If you wish to argue, by all means go to Henry, but if you wish to discuss things in an orderly and adult-like manner, I am open to ideas. And if you have any questions, you can find my email on my account details, so goodnight, good luck, and I hope to hear from you.


Your fellow believer,

Anthony Hamersky