You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign up for only one day for the low cost of $1.99. Click the button below.
A brief personal story to kick things off, if we may.
When Church Militant was in Baltimore last November, where backroom deals between the city and the bishops forced us to have to sue — and win — simply to exercise our First Amendment rights, we had the occasion to talk with a bishop I have known personally for a number of years. I asked him point blank, "Your Excellency, straight up, what exactly is the bishops' problem with Church Militant?" He said, "Honestly? No soft-selling?" I said, "Straight up." He said, "It's because you're divisive; you create division."
Now, for the record, we hear that charge leveled against us all the time by bureaucratic bishops and their sycophants, so it's not like we were appalled. In fact, my only thought was, "Here we go again with the same old deflection." That led to us having a brief discussion on the question of being "divisive." I said, "Your Excellency, how can any of you call us divisive for simply shining a light on the division you all have created by coddling homosexuals within your own ranks, the destruction of the liturgy and so forth?" We don't create it; we just talk about it, while you guys sweep it under the rug.
He said — in a way that actually surprised me — "How do you know all the gay stuff you guys report on is true? Where's the proof?" That is actually a hysterical, uninformed question (or one meant to completely deflect from what he already knew), implying we have no idea of what we report on, don't check the facts (nor double check them) and all that kind of thing.
So I proposed to him that once we get back to Detroit, let me go through our archives — thousands of such stories about the sodomite culture in the clergy — and send him one. I then offered to meet with him and any other bishops at a private location without anyone else knowing, totally off the record, to have a frank discussion about all of this.
They could ask whatever they wanted, and I would be happy to answer because, frankly, we know a heck of a lot more than what we say publicly. The only reason we don't broadcast everything is that some of the info we have is so limited in regards to who actually knows it, that if we said it out loud, bishops could easily figure out the source and retaliate against them.
Strange business this is, exposing the vast corruption in the Church while having to protect good men in the Church from being exposed. I never really faced these problems in my secular news career, at least not like this. But then again, our sources were seldom from a man who was under obedience and could be completely screwed over for the rest of his natural life by a vindictive homosexual "queen" wearing a miter. So we returned to Detroit; I filled the staff in on the discussion and asked them, "Which story have we done that you would consider would give the bishop the proof he said he needed about gay clergy?"
Quick aside — I don't believe for one minute the bishops, any bishop, is unaware of this filth, but I told him I would provide it, so I did. Through a mutual acquaintance, we sent him our report on the Church's own internal investigation on the South American gay-seminarian pipeline, a story that Church Militant broke, and the entire Catholic establishment media was absolutely crickets on — not a peep.
Another quick aside — the Catholic establishment media, such as it is, is completely revolting and disgusting, and if they don’t think they will have to answer to Almighty God when they die for their complicity and cooperation in the spiritual victimization of souls they participate in by covering up for and enabling gay bishops and priests, then they have another thought coming.
So how did it all end? We sent the video file through a mutual friend, so we knew he received it. We have no idea if he actually watched it; we never heard a peep from the bishop. If we revealed who he was — recently celebrated for his "bravery" — you’d be shocked. That was back in November.
This is how this crowd operates; they are disingenuous as hell — great actors, schemers and plotters, always ready to condemn those who are on to their game. But to the rest of the sleeping Catholic laity, they get to present themselves as the bishop who must be followed and obeyed, never questioned. And when caught red-handed, he can offer some crying-in-his-soup apology and then go straight back to his ways.
This is precisely why nothing ever changes in the Church of modernism, the Church of Nice, because for a myriad of reasons and rationalizations, the will to change is nonexistent. As circumstances would have it, we bumped into this bishop somewhat recently and exchanged greetings, albeit very briefly. He saw me for an instant, acknowledged me when I said "hello," and then, like a bolt of lightning, tipped his head and scurried away faster than a chariot ride to Heaven. The lesson here — even the ones you think are good, often are not. Just because they are better than Cupich or Tobin or McElroy doesn't mean jack. That’s a pretty low bar.
They are cowards who will not deal with the carnage in the Church in a straightforward manner because they know the personal cost they will have to pay. And like other "leaders" who are morally bankrupt or corrupt, they deflect from their own willful failures and refuse to consider the evidence — more specifically proof — that they themselves have asked for.
It’s a game to these men, not faith. Some of them are truly evil and wicked. Others are cowards, but none of them care enough about souls to do anything serious about it. The "good" ones have a cohort about them, usually wealthy enablers or lay Catholics high up in the Church establishment, who praise them and ignore their misdeeds so as to keep the laity peacefully asleep.
So as a brief mental exercise, knowing all this, which you would not know if Church Militant hadn't revealed it to you, answer the question: Who are the real "dividers"? And in case you are curious about exactly what report we sent to him, we've attached a link down below to Special Report: Episcopal Sodomy. No wonder he either didn't watch it or refused to acknowledge it — coward. Weak men are the bane of the Church and Western civilization.