The Hate Speech of Michael Voris and Church Militant

Notice: in order to argue against the hate speech used by Michael Voris and Church Militant, I am unfortunately forced to put that rhetoric on my site, so that readers can know exactly what is being said and why it is wrong.

1. A Recent Example of Hate Rhetoric

22 January 2019
Video and Article
Title: “The Vortex — Gay Is ANTI-Life”
Subtitle: “They’ll even kill to commit sodomy.”
video at YouTube
video and article at Church Militant

The video and article are commentary by Michael Voris on a news story about two gay men, legally married, who had a child using IVF and a woman as surrogate. They spoke briefly to the parish, at the request of one of the parish priests, and the parish was welcoming to them. But Voris’ response is a diatribe of hateful language and malicious remarks — not a theological treatise on magisterial doctrine.

Excerpts from the video, with time code, showing hate rhetoric:
0:35
“a never before heard of right to sodomite marriage”
1:35
“the accompanying child abuse that occurs when a child is “born” of a sodomite pairing”
2:43
“two clerical clowns who run the parish”
3:00
“whatever wild-eyed modernist who wants to ramble on about gay this or that, immigration, or trans this or that”
3:57
“the gay, anti-life crowd”
4:02
“these two sodomites posing as actual Catholics”
4:44
“the rent-a-womb surrogate”
4:54
“This is malevolent. Are the two homo “dads” going to tell little Cohen that in order for him to come into existence, they had to kill off some brothers and sisters of him, because since all they can do is sodomize each other, they had to resort to science?”
5:16
“all they cared about was trying to make their sodomy look normal”

Analysis: As a believing and practicing Catholic, I hold the teachings of the Church that the homosexual orientation is a disorder, that homosexual acts are gravely immoral, and that same-sex marriage is not a valid natural or sacramental marriage. I also oppose IVF because it is a type of artificial procreation and especially because many human embryos are destroyed in the process of bringing one embryo to completed development and birth.

However, the Church does not use hateful rhetoric or denigrating language in teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And Jesus himself did not speak in that manner. He himself said: “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. And pray for those who persecute and slander you.” (Mt 5:44). That teaching is incompatible with hateful language toward anyone, even if they do not share our religious beliefs or our convictions on ethics.

Did Jesus insult the Canaanite woman, as some commentators claim? No, he did not.

Has any Saint given the example of using hateful language? No, not at all. Do Church documents on homosexuality use the type of denigrating gay slurs used by Michael Voris? Never at any time. So he cannot justify his hateful language by means of doctrine.

Calling gay persons “sodomites” and “homo” is a type of slur which expresses contempt. It is not theological language, and it is not compatible with Christian charity.

Then, because Voris disagrees with the action of the priests of this parish, in permitting two gay men to speak to the parishioners, he insults them: “two clerical clowns who run the parish”. Using denigrating language against someone, because you disagree, is uncharitable. And when it is directed at Catholic priests, who are in good standing in their diocese and not accused of any crime, it is all the more sinful.

Voris refers to “the accompanying child abuse that occurs when a child is “born” of a sodomite pairing”. The term “sodomite” is hate language. The claim that a child is being abused merely by being in a family with two fathers is malicious rhetoric. Actual child abuse is a very grave crime. Two men raising a child with love and compassion, despite their disagreements with Catholic teaching, is not child abuse. What a hateful thing to say! And this claim is not accompanies by any theological argument or sociological data. It is empty rhetoric. And I say this as someone who believes Church teaching on all these issues.

Voris calls these two men “sodomites posing as actual Catholics”. The men chose to have their child baptized in the Catholic Church, which is a good act for which they should be praised. Yet Voris ignores this virtuous deed. The men may well be practicing Catholics, despite their same-sex marriage and presumed objectively immoral acts.

Voris commits the grave sins of teaching heresy, harassing a Bishop, scandalizing the faithful with his example of hate speech, and denigrating priests, Bishops, and Popes who disagree with his view. Yet Voris considers himself to be a Catholic, despite those sins. So why can’t those men be considered Catholics, even if their acts are contrary to Catholic moral teachings? Perhaps they have a sincere but mistaken conscience. But if those two men cannot possibly be “actual Catholics” because of their objective mortal sins, then neither can Michael Voris. For sins against religion are more serious than any other type of sin.

Voris does not reserve his hate and malice only for gay persons. At the 3:00 minute mark, he denigrates liberals by calling them “wild-eyed modernists”.
3:00
“whatever wild-eyed modernist who wants to ramble on about gay this or that, immigration, or trans this or that”

Voris also uses denigrating language against the woman who was the surrogate for the child’s development, calling her:
4:44
“the rent-a-womb surrogate”

3:57
“the gay, anti-life crowd”
Voris calls the crowd of Catholic parishioners “gay” and “anti-life”. Apparently, he is calling them “gay” as an insult, since they are not mainly homosexual persons. They are said to be a gay crowd because they welcomed the two gay men.

Then he also assumes that the parishioners who welcomed the two men must be anti-life. Voris considers homosexuality to be anti-life because same-sex relationships cannot procreate. But of course some gay persons are pro-life. Celibate priests don’t procreate, but they are still pro-life (or should be). A heterosexual couple who are sterile due to infertility or old age cannot procreate, but that doesn’t make them anti-life. So the title of the video “Gay Is ANTI-Life” is not true.

Then there is the subtitle of the video: “They’ll even kill to commit sodomy.” There’s no justification for this accusation. No one is dying as a result of the sexual acts of these men, and killing is not a means to those acts. The following passage from the video might shed light on that bizarre claim:

4:54
“This is malevolent. Are the two homo “dads” going to tell little Cohen that in order for him to come into existence, they had to kill off some brothers and sisters of him, because since all they can do is sodomize each other, they had to resort to science?”
5:16
“all they cared about was trying to make their sodomy look normal”

So, calling the men “homo dads” is hate rhetoric; it is a gay slur. But the killing off of the child’s brothers and sisters is a criticism of IVF, which does involve destroying human embryos. However, instead of making a theological or moral argument against IVF, Voris tries to connect the very real evil of killing prenatal human life with homosexuality. But the connection is nonsense. Many heterosexual couples use IVF, unfortunately. It is not primarily used by same-sex couples. And many gay couples adopt, or they do not have children. So gay sex does not lead to IVF.

On the other hand, some Catholic husbands and wives use abortifacient contraception, so that they can have sex without the consequence of children. And this decision does result in the deaths of prenatals, so that they can have sex. So this criticism of the two gay men actually applies much more fittingly to a vast number of heterosexual Catholic couples, not to most same-sex couples.

As a believing and practicing Catholic, I unequivocally condemn the hateful rhetoric and malicious insults used by Michael Voris against any who disagree with him, against any whose actions are contrary to his own doctrinal and moral code.

2. Examples Across Many Articles

First, we have an example of the targeted harassment of a gay employee of Catholic Relief Services:

The title of the article is: “CRS: Catholic Relief Sodomite”
The article changes the “S” in the acronym for Catholic Relief Services to “Sodomite” because the Vice­ President of Overseas Finance is openly gay and living in a same-sex marriage. His marriage is termed “sodomite marriage” in the article. The article’s by-line is simply “Church Militant”.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/crs-catholic-relief-sodomite

Michael Voris uses the term “homo” very frequently alone or in various compound words which he invents to insult whatever person or idea his dislikes. Examples:
“this cancer of homo-heresy”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-homo-arianism

“pro-homo communist-minded clerics all swimming in the same cesspool”
“the original homo-commie agents”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-homo-communist-clerical-cesspool

Articles by Church Militant staff have also imitated this use of a gay slur by Voris, for example:

One article quotes others using terms like:
“homolobby” “homo-ideology” “homoheresy”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/head-of-popes-gang-of-eight-admits-existence-of-gay-lobby-in-vatican

In another article, the Church Militant staff himself uses terms like:
“a type of homo-mafia”
“to uncover the homolobby”
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/homosexuals-formators-beget-homosexual-priests

Then in an older article from 2016, Voris uses the term:
“the homofascist movement” repeatedly
He also uses the term “sodomite marriage” dozens of times across many articles and videos. Michael Voris calls gay persons “homo” and “sodomites” many times. This is hate speech. It is not justified by any theological position. A Catholic can oppose same-sex marriage and any type of non-marital sex without such slurs and insults.

Objectionable Material

These articles, filled with hate speech, are promoted on Twitter. The accompanying videos, which often follow the articles word-for-word, appear on YouTube. But those social media sites do not take down these articles, tweets, and videos, for some unknown reason. I have filed reports with Twitter and YouTube, to no avail. Maybe Voris has supporters among the staff there.

I take issue with many of the ideas Voris and Church Militant present, as these ideas are often distortions of Catholic doctrine, unsound theology, overly-simplistic dogmatized opinion, and sometimes outright heresy. But whether I agree or not with the theological position, hate-speech and malicious rhetoric have no place in theology, nor in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
* My books of theology
* My translation of the Bible (the CPDV)
* Please consider supporting my work

Gallery | This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Hate Speech of Michael Voris and Church Militant

  1. franciscofigueroa1 says:

    The following are excerpts from the Encyclical Miranda Prorsus by Pope Pius XII:

    “There is no question here of the true liberty of which We have spoken above, but rather of an uncontrolled freedom, which disregards all precautions, of communicating with others anything at all, even though it be contrary to sound morals and can result in serious danger to souls.”

    “To be at the service of the truth demands not only that all refrain from error, from lies, from deceit of all kinds, but also that they shun everything that can encourage a manner of living and acting which is false, imperfect, or harmful to another party.”

    “Moreover, these new arts should not only serve the truth, but also the perfecting of human life and morals.”

    “News of any event, even if nothing but the bare fact is related, has yet an aspect of its own which concerns morality in some way. “This aspect, affecting human morals, must never be neglected; for news of any kind provokes a mental judgment and influences the will. The news-reader who worthily fulfills his task, should crush no one by his words, but try rather to understand and explain as best he can, the disasters reported and the crimes committed. To explain is not necessarily to excuse; but it is to suggest the beginning of a remedy, and consequently, to perform a task at once positive and constructive”.

  2. Grindall says:

    I intend to buy your new book and any other that you deem to write that’s under 300 pages. I will agree its a shame that Voris took this route. He must have heard your rebuke, since today he is toned way down. However even the UN says every child deserves their natural parents. To intentionally deprive any child of its own mother or father so they can be acquired by an infertile couple (gay or not) is indeed a form of child abuse and distorts any other so-called “love.” Ask the children of sperm donors how they feel about that. I guess the UN hasn’t yet revised their rule to fit the modern era.

    So after all that, to parade this in front of a congregation as an admirable replacement for a genuine family is beyond tragic. If it is a step forward for the couple to baptize the child, who is a child of God, there is still no need for applause. Applause represents the new “gay privilege” which is not afforded to any other child’s baptism, in an attempt to normalize all things gay in the church.

    • Ron Conte says:

      I agree that these two men should not have spoken at Mass, should not be receiving Communion, should not have used IVF, and should not be allowed to adopt. I still think that using inflammatory language that is viewed as hate speech, regardless of the intention, is counterproductive to spreading the Gospel and is contrary to love of neighbor.

  3. Grindall says:

    Hate speech… seems like it’s starting to refer to any claim of objective morality, regardless of the tone. I could be wrong.

    • Ron Conte says:

      No, it’s not hate speech to object to grave sins. It’s not necessary to call the priests “clerical clowns”, or to speak in denigrating terms about persons who are committing objective mortal sins. Jesus treated the Samaritan woman and the woman caught in adultery well. We do not have a right to speak in abusive terms of persons who sin gravely.

  4. Grindall says:

    For clarity, I meant that today, regardless of whether the terms are inflammatory, you will notice any defense of morals whatsoever is called hate speech by those pushing immorality. Such as in California, you can no longer offer professional counseling for gays who want to change. It was made illegal because it’s deemed hateful, even if a gay person actually wants it. So that charity is now “hate.”

  5. Grindall says:

    Ron, these changes are happening so fast anymore that I can barely keep up. Lately, certain male to female transgenders are winning at female sports competitions, and the losers who say it’s unfair are being called “hateful.”

  6. Shane Hogan says:

    I have little to add here, Ron. I think you are 100% correct in your criticism of Michael Voris regarding his tone and rhetoric. So I just want to lend.my support to all you have written here.
    But, just in case Michael Voriis or anyone at Church Militant is reading this, I also want to thank them for all they do in the service of truth. I have found many of their contributions over the years to be eye-opening, profound and hugely courageous. To all at Church Militant: If you can receive and apply Ron’s criticism here with humility, your ministry will be enriched and become even more powerful.

  7. Guest says:

    My understanding is that CM consists of some highly educated people who advise Michael Voris, some theologians and a JD, who have made several errors. When Voris appeals to people’s emotions, it is often a problem as he is “damaged goods.” He appears to have never recovered from a bad experience with a priest in his youth. [redacted] On the other hand, CM would do so much better if they had a less tainted spokesperson. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Comments are closed.