St. Michael's Media Apologizes to Fr. de Laire
Update: On February 29, 2024, St. Michael's Media published on its Church Militant website a public apology to Father Georges de Laire J.C.L. The apology is on account of a story that had appeared on Church Militant back in January of 2019 about Fr. de Laire who is the Judicial Vicar of the Catholic Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, U.S.A. As a consequence of the publication of that article, the priest brought suit against Church Militant, Michael Voris, and others, including Marc Balestrieri, a canon lawyer who had been representing the members of the Feeneyite St. Benedict Center of Richmond, New Hampshire, in their canonical dispute with the Catholic Church.
In addition to issuing a public apology to the Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester, Church Militant accepted a judgment of $500,000 to be paid to Fr. de Laire.
A Questionable Sense of Judgment
Back in September of 2021, before Church Militant had agreed to a substantial judgment against itself, writer Mark Hayward reported that Brother Andre Marie appreciated the coverage of Fr. de Laire emanating from the Catholic media outlet. Specifically, Hayward wrote that, in an email to the Union Leader, the head of the St. Benedict Center said that the organization and its religious order "...are grateful to Church Militant for its fair and accurate coverage."
It is noteworthy that Andre's idea of "fair and accurate coverage" resulted in Church Militant deleting the article in question from its website, publicly apologizing to Fr. de Laire, and agreeing to pay a half million dollars to the priest. It makes one question if Andre's positive assessment of Church Militant's reporting was based more on the fact that the coverage utterly savaged the character and competence of the Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester (while simultaneously presenting the Feeneyites in a favorable light), than on an actual consideration of journalistic integrity.
With regard to Andre's remark, "...we are praying that justice will prevail," it must be remembered that the Feeneyites were not the only ones who prayed that justice prevail in the case. Congratulations to Fr. de Laire!
It is noteworthy that Andre's idea of "fair and accurate coverage" resulted in Church Militant deleting the article in question from its website, publicly apologizing to Fr. de Laire, and agreeing to pay a half million dollars to the priest. It makes one question if Andre's positive assessment of Church Militant's reporting was based more on the fact that the coverage utterly savaged the character and competence of the Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester (while simultaneously presenting the Feeneyites in a favorable light), than on an actual consideration of journalistic integrity.
With regard to Andre's remark, "...we are praying that justice will prevail," it must be remembered that the Feeneyites were not the only ones who prayed that justice prevail in the case. Congratulations to Fr. de Laire!
Screenshot of the top portion of an article ("NH priest's defamation case against website proceeds) by Mark Hayward that was originally published on September 5, 2021, by The New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire. Yahoo!news subsequently picked it up and republished it. Here, it is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
Screenshot of a short excerpt from the same article ("NH priest's defamation case against website proceeds") by Mark Hayward. It was originally published on September 5, 2021, by The New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire. Yahoo!news subsequently picked up it and republished it. Here, it is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
WHOOPS!
As the defamation suit against Church Militant progressed, it eventually became clear that the St. Benedict Center's own canon lawyer, Marc Balestrieri, had been heavily involved in the writing of the offensive article. At that point, even Brother Andre could grasp that the optics of the obvious conflict of interest were glaringly bad. No more appreciative remarks about "fair and accurate coverage" were forthcoming from the Feeneyites.
On the contrary, by the looks of it, panic seems to have set in, and the St. Benedict Center backpedaled just as quickly as it could. Through lawyer Michael Tierney, members of the SBC declared that Balestrieri had acted without their knowledge and consent.
The unfortunate thing, however, is that appearances are that the Feeneyites were more upset by who wrote the article than by the defamatory content of it. Before the involvement of their own canon lawyer had been revealed, Br. Andre was quite delighted with Church Militant's brand of journalism.
On the contrary, by the looks of it, panic seems to have set in, and the St. Benedict Center backpedaled just as quickly as it could. Through lawyer Michael Tierney, members of the SBC declared that Balestrieri had acted without their knowledge and consent.
The unfortunate thing, however, is that appearances are that the Feeneyites were more upset by who wrote the article than by the defamatory content of it. Before the involvement of their own canon lawyer had been revealed, Br. Andre was quite delighted with Church Militant's brand of journalism.
Screenshot of the top portion of an article ("Judge poised to add confidential source/author to priest's defamation suit") by Mark Hayward. It was originally published on June 7, 2022, by The New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire. Yahoo!news subsequently picked up it and republished it. Here, it is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
Screenshot of a short excerpt from the same article ("Judge poised to add confidential source/author to priest's defamation suit") by Mark Hayward. It was originally published on June 7, 2022, by The New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester, New Hampshire. Yahoo!news subsequently picked up it and republished it. Here, it is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
Perseverance
Content from facebook.com that is posted with the audience selector of PUBLIC is considered public information.
The period of time between January 17, 2019, when Church Militant first published the now infamous and defamatory story about Fr. Georges de Laire, and February 29, 2024, the day that St. Michael's Media published a public apology to the priest on the CM website, is more than five years in length. Undoubtedly, it must have been a grindingly difficult experience for the Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Manchester. In all likelihood, if others had faced the same circumstances, many of them would have folded long before having obtained justice.
Numerous prayers were offered for Fr. de Laire and his cause, and to the delight of many, the Judicial Vicar received a significant measure of satisfaction. Now, many prayers of thanksgiving are being offered for such an outstanding resolution to what had been a really ugly episode. Deo gratias.
Numerous prayers were offered for Fr. de Laire and his cause, and to the delight of many, the Judicial Vicar received a significant measure of satisfaction. Now, many prayers of thanksgiving are being offered for such an outstanding resolution to what had been a really ugly episode. Deo gratias.
Michael Voris Resigns
Update: On November 21, 2023, Church Militant/St. Michael's Media publicly announced that Michael Voris, founder and former CEO of the media outlet, was asked to resign. He did so. This is a significant development.
Michael Voris Sets a Low Bar for Journalism
We can do the innuendo.
We can dance and sing.
When it's said and done,
We haven't told you a thing.
~Don Henley
We can dance and sing.
When it's said and done,
We haven't told you a thing.
~Don Henley
January, 2019, was monumental for Br. Andre Marie Villarrubia and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Richmond, New Hampshire, USA. At that time, the members of the unrecognized religious community found themselves placed by the Catholic Diocese of Manchester under strict canonical prohibitions. These prohibitions took effect the seventh day of that month. They were imposed after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome declared in 2016 that the theological ideas, specifically those concerning extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, of the Feeneyites of New Hampshire are unacceptable, erroneous, and contrary to the teachings of the Church.
In response to this development, on January 17, 2019, Michael Voris’ media outfit Church Militant published what is apparently intended to pass as a news report about the situation. In his zeal to support the heterodox Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, Voris released an article that was outrageously untrue. It is noteworthy that not one journalist would sign his name to it. Instead, “credit” for the hatchet piece is given to Church Militant as a collective entity. It appears that no one at CM is willing to be publicly singled out as the author of such sewage. However, it can rightfully be said that Michael Voris is responsible for the article since he is the founder of Church Militant and the man in charge of operations.
Right out of the gate, Voris gets the story completely wrong. His grand piece of disinformation is called “NH Vicar Changes Dogma Into Heresy,” a title which in no way, shape, or form bears any resemblance to truth. The text which follows is just as bad as the title.
The lead off sentence declares, “In a disturbing turn of events, a chancery official of the diocese [sic] of Manchester, New Hampshire, has changed a solemnly defined dogma of the Faith into a heresy.” Actually, what is disturbing is that Michael Voris published such an enormous falsehood. Surely the man recalls that there is a commandment that forbids lying.
In his defense, it might be said that Voris is not intentionally resorting to telling falsehoods, but rather that it is a case of his simply being mistaken. Whether Voris is outright lying or merely exhibiting his incompetence for all to see, the fact remains that he is responsible for having disseminated blatant untruths. Clearly, he is in the wrong business.
The official to whom Voris refers is Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester. Fr. de Laire, along with the former Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, Mrs. Diane Murphy Quinlan, did co-sign the decree of precepts of prohibition that were applied to the Slaves of the St. Benedict Center, but that was only after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome judged the theology of the Feeneyites to be erroneous and contrary to the faith.
Church Militant tries to portray the prohibitions placed on the Feeneyites as being the secret work of Fr. de Laire who then stealthily unleashed them in the absence of his superior Bishop Libasci. CM writes, "Father Georges de Laire ...timed his actions to coincide with his bishop departing for Chicago to do penance for abusive priests. On Jan. 7, he struck." It is beyond ridiculous to portray the prohibitions as the work of a single man done without the knowledge of his own bishop. On January 9, 2019, the Diocese of Manchester even issued a formal media release which resulted in considerable publicity internationally. Loudly announcing to the world the change in status of the Slaves as well as the prohibitions placed on them is not what is done if it is desired to hide deeds from the boss. Furthermore, when Bishop Libasci returned home, he countermanded nothing that had been announced publicly. That Church Militant should even attempt to put such a spin on the story calls into question the sanity of the company management.
Erroneously, CM reports that the prohibitions are part of an undated text. Actually, there is a date on the prohibitions. It's just not at the very top of the page. Rather, it is found more towards the middle section of the first page, and it officially declares that the prohibitions take effect 7 January, 2019. Since the document does indeed have a date, Church Militant should not report that it doesn't.
SentinalSource.com reporter Paul Cuno-Booth says in a story dated January 9, 2019, that Fr. de Laire engaged in dialogue with Villarrubia “to see if we could arrive at a situation that would lead Andre to get his community on board.” Andre was expected to “Accept what Rome has taught, and we’ll work with him. But he has acted otherwise.” According to Cuno-Booth, de Laire said that diocesan officials finally had enough.
Church Militant reports on the communication between de Laire and Villarrubia by asking, “What did the vicar of Manchester do?” Church Militant then answers by saying, “Apart from officially notifying them in writing and publicly, res inaudita (‘a thing unheard of’) that ‘affirmations of faith using the Athanasian Creed...are invalid,’ and that the Professions of Faith employing the Athanasian Creed that were signed by the members of their community in 2009 are ‘null and void,’ the vicar warned that by remaining steadfast in their adherence to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulus Salus, they have ‘persisted in their obstinacy,’ explicitly referencing canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law.”
Church Militant further declares, “In layman’s terms, the vicar of Manchester has publicly accused them of being obstinate heretics by publicly spreading their belief in the official teaching of the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.” CM concludes with the breathtaking accusation, “The vicar has changed dogma into heresy.”
CM is right to inquire about what Fr. de Laire did. Asking questions is part of the job of reporters. However, news outlets have a critical responsibility to provide truthful answers. It is here that Church Militant fails magnificently.
Let’s begin with the lesser problems. Notice that CM is unclear when it reports about res inaudita, “a thing unheard of.” What, exactly, is unheard of? Is it that de Laire notified the Feeneyites in writing or that he did it publicly? Is it that the vicar notified them that affirmations of faith using the Athanasian Creed are invalid? Is it that de Laire rejected the Feeneyites professions of faith signed in 2009? It is anybody’s guess because the reporting is muddy.
Next, CM levels a spectacularly grave but totally unsupported accusation against de Laire. Church Militant says that the judical vicar warned the Feeneyites against adherence to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, a dogma of the Church. As evidence, CM offers nothing whatsoever. No letter or other written document from de Laire is presented to readers to inspect. To top off everything, Church Militant trumpets to readers, “ The vicar has changed dogma into heresy.” Again, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a fantastic assertion.
On the other hand, the Diocese of Manchester publicly released multiple documents and statements which, taken together, strongly suggest that Church Militant simply manufactured its charge against de Laire. For example, on its official website, the Diocese of Manchester posted a link to a letter dated October 20, 2016, from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to Br. Andre Marie. In this letter, Under-Secretary Monsignor Giacomo Morandi says to the prior of the St. Benedict Center, “As the Congregation stated in our April 15 letter to you, which the Congregation also shared with Bishop Libasci, the principle Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus must be interpreted according to the official doctrine of the Church...”
Additionally, the Diocese of Manchester carries an explanation on its website about the status of the New Hampshire Feeneyites, and this clearly says, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, in April of 2016 and again in October 2016, declared unacceptable, therefore erroneous and contrary to Church teachings, the manner with which the Saint Benedict Center and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of May interpret the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation.)"
It is clear, at least to those of good will and sufficient intellect, that the problem with the New Hampshire Feeneyites is their false interpretation of EENS. The members of this unrecognized community say that they are preaching Church dogma, but the Church has decided that they are not.
Through Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, Bishop Libasci and the Catholic Church speak to the faithful as well as to the Feeneyites. Church Militant is figuratively shooting the messenger because the media outlet does not like the message. In doing so, CM gets personal.
Church Militant writes, “De Laire is said by current work colleagues to be emotionally unstable...” Among those people who are alleged to have denigrated Fr. de Laire, how many of them actually used the words “emotionally unstable” to describe the judicial vicar? Is it rather a case of Church Militant itself choosing those words for the purpose of throwing red meat to Feeneyite partisans and to inflame weary Catholics who have had their fill of the many problems and scandals that are presently plaguing the Church?
If Church Militant could actually find at least two colleagues of Fr. de Laire willing to say that the judicial vicar is “emotionally unstable,” the next question to be asked is what qualifies them to make such statements? Are they certified as mental health providers or as experts in the field? Or are these co-workers just engaging in ordinary, spiteful, office politics? Even the saints had enemies, including among their confreres, willing to make malicious statements about them. Church Militant is gossipmongering instead of reporting. This is objectively sinful and not worthy of an organization that presents itself as being Catholic.
Next on Church Militant’s petty laundry list is the claim that “Fr. de Laire is said to be desperate to repair his image and save his chances at being promoted as bishop or an official of the Roman Curia.” This tidbit of information from CM does nothing more than indicate that there are those who dislike the judicial vicar and are willing to talk trash about him behind his back. Church Militant is encouraging such small people because the media organization doesn't want to miss an opportunity to disparage Fr. de Laire. In reality, no one truly knows what is going on in Fr. de Laire's mind. Church Militant just wants readers to think that the organization does. As for Fr. de Laire's image, it appears that it is poor only among the Feeneyites of New Hampshire, their partisans, and Church Militant.
Then comes the assertion that “...in recent years, at least three complaints against de Laire have been filed with the Holy See and made known to Libasci.” Complaints are commonplace. They are so frequent, it would be unusual if any member of the hierarchy could end his career without ever being the subject of any. CM is acting as though three complaints against de Laire are somehow indicative that something is seriously wrong. If complaints alone were truly such an indicator, then Church Militant would be out of business. Michael Voris is himself the object of a veritable tidal wave of complaints because of his shoddy reporting, and some of these complaints have made it to the Holy See and various bishops.
CM goes on to say that taken together, the complaints “...allege corruption, abuse of office, grave violations of the law, and incompetence as a canonist.” When taken together, the complaints against Michael Voris and Church Militant allege almost precisely the same things. The only significant difference is that of Voris’ journalistic, as opposed to canonical, incompetence.
Continuing the personal attacks on Fr. de Laire, CM goes on to make the allegation that the Roman Curia has nicknamed the judicial vicar “a troublemaker.” If there is any kind of truth to that claim, and that is a big if, Michael Voris is not the person to report it. He has countless of his own unflattering nicknames that he has earned on account of his low standards of conduct.
The next charge leveled by Church Militant against de Laire is that he is sending out work that the judicial vicar should be doing himself, all at great expense to the diocese. If there is any truth to this unsupported claim, then it is the responsibility of Bishop Libasci to manage the situation. To date, Fr. de Laire remains the Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, so it appears as though Bishop Libasci deems his subordinate to be useful.
Not willing to stop with the ad hominem, Church Militant/Michael Voris reports that Fr. Georges de Laire “...is said by priests and laity who currently work with him in the diocese to be a vindictive and manipulative clericalist...” That is an intensely subjective statement. What, precisely, are the objective parameters that indicate that a person is vindictive and manipulative? Naturally, Church Militant can't offer any because such assessments are highly subjective and vary from person to person. CM chose to focus its attention on those mean-minded colleagues of Fr. de Laire who were willing to share their venomous thoughts with a media outlet that then proceeded to circulate them for public consumption. Church Militant provided people with a way to make their vices reach further.
The final, figurative hand grenade that Church Militant lobs at Fr. de Laire concerns the priest’s personal possessions. CM charges that the judicial vicar “...now frequently resides at an estate located near Manchester that he recently purchased, currently valued at $1.5 million: an exclusive 4,000-square-foot, four-bedroom residence with 600 feet of waterfront, waterfalls and a koi pond.” There is much to say about this complaint.
The first thing to note is that such information has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the St. Benedict Center and its relationship with the Diocese of Manchester and the larger, universal Church. The kind of house the judicial vicar might own or have access to is irrelevant. However, the lack of relevancy clearly does not matter to Voris because he finds that sharing information about Fr. de Laire’s alleged property is useful to stir up envious and judgmental sentiments among readers. Just take a look at the spiteful condemnations of de Laire posted by readers in the comment section following the article on the Church Militant website. Just in case Voris cannot convince people that Fr. de Laire is unjustly persecuting the Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center, then his back-up plan is to turn on-lookers against the judicial vicar simply by stirring up their covetousness. As long as CM can get people to condemn the priest, then Michael Voris is content. That is not Catholic journalism. That is sin.
In response to this development, on January 17, 2019, Michael Voris’ media outfit Church Militant published what is apparently intended to pass as a news report about the situation. In his zeal to support the heterodox Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, Voris released an article that was outrageously untrue. It is noteworthy that not one journalist would sign his name to it. Instead, “credit” for the hatchet piece is given to Church Militant as a collective entity. It appears that no one at CM is willing to be publicly singled out as the author of such sewage. However, it can rightfully be said that Michael Voris is responsible for the article since he is the founder of Church Militant and the man in charge of operations.
Right out of the gate, Voris gets the story completely wrong. His grand piece of disinformation is called “NH Vicar Changes Dogma Into Heresy,” a title which in no way, shape, or form bears any resemblance to truth. The text which follows is just as bad as the title.
The lead off sentence declares, “In a disturbing turn of events, a chancery official of the diocese [sic] of Manchester, New Hampshire, has changed a solemnly defined dogma of the Faith into a heresy.” Actually, what is disturbing is that Michael Voris published such an enormous falsehood. Surely the man recalls that there is a commandment that forbids lying.
In his defense, it might be said that Voris is not intentionally resorting to telling falsehoods, but rather that it is a case of his simply being mistaken. Whether Voris is outright lying or merely exhibiting his incompetence for all to see, the fact remains that he is responsible for having disseminated blatant untruths. Clearly, he is in the wrong business.
The official to whom Voris refers is Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester. Fr. de Laire, along with the former Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, Mrs. Diane Murphy Quinlan, did co-sign the decree of precepts of prohibition that were applied to the Slaves of the St. Benedict Center, but that was only after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome judged the theology of the Feeneyites to be erroneous and contrary to the faith.
Church Militant tries to portray the prohibitions placed on the Feeneyites as being the secret work of Fr. de Laire who then stealthily unleashed them in the absence of his superior Bishop Libasci. CM writes, "Father Georges de Laire ...timed his actions to coincide with his bishop departing for Chicago to do penance for abusive priests. On Jan. 7, he struck." It is beyond ridiculous to portray the prohibitions as the work of a single man done without the knowledge of his own bishop. On January 9, 2019, the Diocese of Manchester even issued a formal media release which resulted in considerable publicity internationally. Loudly announcing to the world the change in status of the Slaves as well as the prohibitions placed on them is not what is done if it is desired to hide deeds from the boss. Furthermore, when Bishop Libasci returned home, he countermanded nothing that had been announced publicly. That Church Militant should even attempt to put such a spin on the story calls into question the sanity of the company management.
Erroneously, CM reports that the prohibitions are part of an undated text. Actually, there is a date on the prohibitions. It's just not at the very top of the page. Rather, it is found more towards the middle section of the first page, and it officially declares that the prohibitions take effect 7 January, 2019. Since the document does indeed have a date, Church Militant should not report that it doesn't.
SentinalSource.com reporter Paul Cuno-Booth says in a story dated January 9, 2019, that Fr. de Laire engaged in dialogue with Villarrubia “to see if we could arrive at a situation that would lead Andre to get his community on board.” Andre was expected to “Accept what Rome has taught, and we’ll work with him. But he has acted otherwise.” According to Cuno-Booth, de Laire said that diocesan officials finally had enough.
Church Militant reports on the communication between de Laire and Villarrubia by asking, “What did the vicar of Manchester do?” Church Militant then answers by saying, “Apart from officially notifying them in writing and publicly, res inaudita (‘a thing unheard of’) that ‘affirmations of faith using the Athanasian Creed...are invalid,’ and that the Professions of Faith employing the Athanasian Creed that were signed by the members of their community in 2009 are ‘null and void,’ the vicar warned that by remaining steadfast in their adherence to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulus Salus, they have ‘persisted in their obstinacy,’ explicitly referencing canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law.”
Church Militant further declares, “In layman’s terms, the vicar of Manchester has publicly accused them of being obstinate heretics by publicly spreading their belief in the official teaching of the Church that outside the Church there is no salvation.” CM concludes with the breathtaking accusation, “The vicar has changed dogma into heresy.”
CM is right to inquire about what Fr. de Laire did. Asking questions is part of the job of reporters. However, news outlets have a critical responsibility to provide truthful answers. It is here that Church Militant fails magnificently.
Let’s begin with the lesser problems. Notice that CM is unclear when it reports about res inaudita, “a thing unheard of.” What, exactly, is unheard of? Is it that de Laire notified the Feeneyites in writing or that he did it publicly? Is it that the vicar notified them that affirmations of faith using the Athanasian Creed are invalid? Is it that de Laire rejected the Feeneyites professions of faith signed in 2009? It is anybody’s guess because the reporting is muddy.
Next, CM levels a spectacularly grave but totally unsupported accusation against de Laire. Church Militant says that the judical vicar warned the Feeneyites against adherence to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, a dogma of the Church. As evidence, CM offers nothing whatsoever. No letter or other written document from de Laire is presented to readers to inspect. To top off everything, Church Militant trumpets to readers, “ The vicar has changed dogma into heresy.” Again, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a fantastic assertion.
On the other hand, the Diocese of Manchester publicly released multiple documents and statements which, taken together, strongly suggest that Church Militant simply manufactured its charge against de Laire. For example, on its official website, the Diocese of Manchester posted a link to a letter dated October 20, 2016, from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to Br. Andre Marie. In this letter, Under-Secretary Monsignor Giacomo Morandi says to the prior of the St. Benedict Center, “As the Congregation stated in our April 15 letter to you, which the Congregation also shared with Bishop Libasci, the principle Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus must be interpreted according to the official doctrine of the Church...”
Additionally, the Diocese of Manchester carries an explanation on its website about the status of the New Hampshire Feeneyites, and this clearly says, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, in April of 2016 and again in October 2016, declared unacceptable, therefore erroneous and contrary to Church teachings, the manner with which the Saint Benedict Center and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of May interpret the principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation.)"
It is clear, at least to those of good will and sufficient intellect, that the problem with the New Hampshire Feeneyites is their false interpretation of EENS. The members of this unrecognized community say that they are preaching Church dogma, but the Church has decided that they are not.
Through Fr. Georges de Laire, the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, Bishop Libasci and the Catholic Church speak to the faithful as well as to the Feeneyites. Church Militant is figuratively shooting the messenger because the media outlet does not like the message. In doing so, CM gets personal.
Church Militant writes, “De Laire is said by current work colleagues to be emotionally unstable...” Among those people who are alleged to have denigrated Fr. de Laire, how many of them actually used the words “emotionally unstable” to describe the judicial vicar? Is it rather a case of Church Militant itself choosing those words for the purpose of throwing red meat to Feeneyite partisans and to inflame weary Catholics who have had their fill of the many problems and scandals that are presently plaguing the Church?
If Church Militant could actually find at least two colleagues of Fr. de Laire willing to say that the judicial vicar is “emotionally unstable,” the next question to be asked is what qualifies them to make such statements? Are they certified as mental health providers or as experts in the field? Or are these co-workers just engaging in ordinary, spiteful, office politics? Even the saints had enemies, including among their confreres, willing to make malicious statements about them. Church Militant is gossipmongering instead of reporting. This is objectively sinful and not worthy of an organization that presents itself as being Catholic.
Next on Church Militant’s petty laundry list is the claim that “Fr. de Laire is said to be desperate to repair his image and save his chances at being promoted as bishop or an official of the Roman Curia.” This tidbit of information from CM does nothing more than indicate that there are those who dislike the judicial vicar and are willing to talk trash about him behind his back. Church Militant is encouraging such small people because the media organization doesn't want to miss an opportunity to disparage Fr. de Laire. In reality, no one truly knows what is going on in Fr. de Laire's mind. Church Militant just wants readers to think that the organization does. As for Fr. de Laire's image, it appears that it is poor only among the Feeneyites of New Hampshire, their partisans, and Church Militant.
Then comes the assertion that “...in recent years, at least three complaints against de Laire have been filed with the Holy See and made known to Libasci.” Complaints are commonplace. They are so frequent, it would be unusual if any member of the hierarchy could end his career without ever being the subject of any. CM is acting as though three complaints against de Laire are somehow indicative that something is seriously wrong. If complaints alone were truly such an indicator, then Church Militant would be out of business. Michael Voris is himself the object of a veritable tidal wave of complaints because of his shoddy reporting, and some of these complaints have made it to the Holy See and various bishops.
CM goes on to say that taken together, the complaints “...allege corruption, abuse of office, grave violations of the law, and incompetence as a canonist.” When taken together, the complaints against Michael Voris and Church Militant allege almost precisely the same things. The only significant difference is that of Voris’ journalistic, as opposed to canonical, incompetence.
Continuing the personal attacks on Fr. de Laire, CM goes on to make the allegation that the Roman Curia has nicknamed the judicial vicar “a troublemaker.” If there is any kind of truth to that claim, and that is a big if, Michael Voris is not the person to report it. He has countless of his own unflattering nicknames that he has earned on account of his low standards of conduct.
The next charge leveled by Church Militant against de Laire is that he is sending out work that the judicial vicar should be doing himself, all at great expense to the diocese. If there is any truth to this unsupported claim, then it is the responsibility of Bishop Libasci to manage the situation. To date, Fr. de Laire remains the Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, so it appears as though Bishop Libasci deems his subordinate to be useful.
Not willing to stop with the ad hominem, Church Militant/Michael Voris reports that Fr. Georges de Laire “...is said by priests and laity who currently work with him in the diocese to be a vindictive and manipulative clericalist...” That is an intensely subjective statement. What, precisely, are the objective parameters that indicate that a person is vindictive and manipulative? Naturally, Church Militant can't offer any because such assessments are highly subjective and vary from person to person. CM chose to focus its attention on those mean-minded colleagues of Fr. de Laire who were willing to share their venomous thoughts with a media outlet that then proceeded to circulate them for public consumption. Church Militant provided people with a way to make their vices reach further.
The final, figurative hand grenade that Church Militant lobs at Fr. de Laire concerns the priest’s personal possessions. CM charges that the judicial vicar “...now frequently resides at an estate located near Manchester that he recently purchased, currently valued at $1.5 million: an exclusive 4,000-square-foot, four-bedroom residence with 600 feet of waterfront, waterfalls and a koi pond.” There is much to say about this complaint.
The first thing to note is that such information has absolutely nothing to do with the status of the St. Benedict Center and its relationship with the Diocese of Manchester and the larger, universal Church. The kind of house the judicial vicar might own or have access to is irrelevant. However, the lack of relevancy clearly does not matter to Voris because he finds that sharing information about Fr. de Laire’s alleged property is useful to stir up envious and judgmental sentiments among readers. Just take a look at the spiteful condemnations of de Laire posted by readers in the comment section following the article on the Church Militant website. Just in case Voris cannot convince people that Fr. de Laire is unjustly persecuting the Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center, then his back-up plan is to turn on-lookers against the judicial vicar simply by stirring up their covetousness. As long as CM can get people to condemn the priest, then Michael Voris is content. That is not Catholic journalism. That is sin.
April 12, 2019 - Chuch Militant's The Vortex with Michael Voris, S.T.B. released the first of several videos that promote the heretical St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, U.S.A. All of the videos have significant problems. Have a look.
VortexVideo: Attacking the Good Guys
In this video, Attacking the Good Guys Who are Fighting Back, Michael Voris gives air time to an individual identified in the transcript as being C.J. Doyle. The video transcript says that "CJ Doyle has no official connection to the center or the community..."
Michael Voris does not explain or define what it means to be officially connected to the center or the community, but a quick Google search reveals that C.J. Doyle is closely enough associated with the St. Benedict Center that he has his own page on their website. He is a contributing author. This, that is to say having his own page on the SBC website because he is a contributing writer for the group, is evidence that Mr. Doyle is not an outside observer or an impartial third party. Mr. Doyle has a vested interest in defending the Feeneyites because he is one of them. This is information that Voris fails to include in his report, and the omission highlights the poor quality of the investigative journalism that resulted in the production of this video.
Michael Voris does not explain or define what it means to be officially connected to the center or the community, but a quick Google search reveals that C.J. Doyle is closely enough associated with the St. Benedict Center that he has his own page on their website. He is a contributing author. This, that is to say having his own page on the SBC website because he is a contributing writer for the group, is evidence that Mr. Doyle is not an outside observer or an impartial third party. Mr. Doyle has a vested interest in defending the Feeneyites because he is one of them. This is information that Voris fails to include in his report, and the omission highlights the poor quality of the investigative journalism that resulted in the production of this video.
In the video, Mr. Doyle makes the assertion, "And by the way, this is one of the few Catholic communities and few Catholic religious orders that have been completely untainted by any charge of sexual abuse or that kind of misconduct." Such a declaration is patently false. First, in August of 2017, written and notarized charges of sexual harassment were made against one of the priests of the St. Benedict Center, Fr. Rudolf Grega, and were submitted to two bishops in two, separate dioceses. His Excellency Peter Libasci was one of the two bishops. Then, in September of 2017, written and notarized charges of attempting to cover-up sexual misconduct were made against Br. Andre Marie, prior of the St. Benedict Center, and submitted to Bishop Libasci. In October and November of 2018, written and notarized complaints concerning sexual misconduct and cover-up were made against both Fr. Rudolf Grega and Br. Andre Marie to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mr. Doyle has been contacted by electronic mail and informed of his significant misstatements.
Church Militant was contacted via electronic means back in 2018 and informed of the sexual misconduct of Fr. Grega and the attempt at a cover-up by Br. Andre Marie. Specifically, the web address of Br. Andre's #MeToo Moment was provided to CM. It cannot honestly be claimed that no one bothered to inform Michael Voris' media conglomerate of the sexual misconduct associated with the Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center.
As it turns out, a few days following the release of the Vortex video Attacking the Good Guys, Church Militant itself inadvertently proved that Mr. Doyle was wrong to assert that the St. Benedict Center is "one of the few Catholic communities and few Catholic religious orders that have been completely untainted by any charge of sexual abuse or that kind of misconduct." On April 16, 2019, another Vortex video was published. This one is called We Want to Save Souls. In the comment section following this video, a reader posts the internet link to Brother Andre's #MeToo Moment and demands an explanation from Br. Andre and Church Militant concerning the manner in which the prior of the SBC treated "a female whistleblower."
In response, the moderator for Church Militant posts comments purported to be from Br. Andre. In his remarks, the prior of the SBC admits that he received accusations against Fr. Grega. Andre also admits that he himself was accused of witness tampering and seeking to protect a sexual predator. Although the prior denies the accusations and even lies about the circumstances concerning those accusations, it is clear that charges of a sexual nature HAVE BEEN MADE against a member of the St. Benedict Center and the former chaplain who had served that community.
In response, the moderator for Church Militant posts comments purported to be from Br. Andre. In his remarks, the prior of the SBC admits that he received accusations against Fr. Grega. Andre also admits that he himself was accused of witness tampering and seeking to protect a sexual predator. Although the prior denies the accusations and even lies about the circumstances concerning those accusations, it is clear that charges of a sexual nature HAVE BEEN MADE against a member of the St. Benedict Center and the former chaplain who had served that community.
Screenshot of the comment section from the Vortex (April, 2019) published by ChurchMilitant.com. It is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
UPDATE: As of Friday, July 30, 2021, the remarks from Br. Andre Marie on the Church Militant website are amended as follows:
Screenshot of the comment section from the Vortex (April, 2019) published by ChurchMilitant.com. It is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
While Mr. Doyle whitewashed the record of the St. Benedict Center concerning sexual misconduct, he emphasized the Diocese of Manchester's problems with it. It goes without saying that sexual abuse in the Church is a horrific thing, and it must be combatted. However, the problem must not be exploited by anyone, including Mr. Doyle, Michael Voris, and the members of the St. Benedict Center, to score PR points with the public. That is precisely what Mr. Doyle did in this video, and Michael Voris did not edit it out.
Mr. Doyle says, "The diocese of Manchester is a relatively small diocese, but it is one of the more troubled Catholic jurisdictions in the United States. More than 60 priests and religious order brothers have been credibly accused of sexual abuse." Later, just in case any viewers may have missed that point the first time he made it, he emphasizes, "This is one of the more really problematic diocese in the United States."
Doyle does not support his claims by offering abuse statistics from other dioceses across the country, and Voris doesn't ask for any. Viewers are presumably expected to accept Doyle's accusations at face value.
The next question that logically arises from Doyle's comments is just how much of the abuse problem in the Diocese of Manchester is the fault of the current ordinary, Bishop Peter A. Libasci? Doyle never actually accuses Bishop Libasci of being responsible for it. Doyle never accuses Libasci for covering it up. Doyle never actually mentions Libasci's name at all during the interview.
What Doyle does do is to emphasize the problem and then let viewers make a mental connection between it and the bishop. Voris goes along with the ploy by saying, "The diocese of Manchester launching these kinds of attacks is bringing an unwelcome spotlight on the diocese and its unpleasant history, something which likely doesn't sit well with the bishop, Peter Libasci."
This is innuendo and casts a shadowy, psychological pall over the bishop in the minds of viewers even though no one in the Vortex video actually accuses Libasci of anything. That is exactly the point of those comments. They are intended to foment suspicion against the bishop in the minds of viewers, while the Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center are presented as innocent victims. This sort of journalism lacks integrity and is what the public can usually expect from entities like CNN and MSNBC.
Doyle does not support his claims by offering abuse statistics from other dioceses across the country, and Voris doesn't ask for any. Viewers are presumably expected to accept Doyle's accusations at face value.
The next question that logically arises from Doyle's comments is just how much of the abuse problem in the Diocese of Manchester is the fault of the current ordinary, Bishop Peter A. Libasci? Doyle never actually accuses Bishop Libasci of being responsible for it. Doyle never accuses Libasci for covering it up. Doyle never actually mentions Libasci's name at all during the interview.
What Doyle does do is to emphasize the problem and then let viewers make a mental connection between it and the bishop. Voris goes along with the ploy by saying, "The diocese of Manchester launching these kinds of attacks is bringing an unwelcome spotlight on the diocese and its unpleasant history, something which likely doesn't sit well with the bishop, Peter Libasci."
This is innuendo and casts a shadowy, psychological pall over the bishop in the minds of viewers even though no one in the Vortex video actually accuses Libasci of anything. That is exactly the point of those comments. They are intended to foment suspicion against the bishop in the minds of viewers, while the Feeneyites of the St. Benedict Center are presented as innocent victims. This sort of journalism lacks integrity and is what the public can usually expect from entities like CNN and MSNBC.
The dubious reporting does not stop there. Voris flatly asserts that "The individual responsible for the attacks from the diocese is Fr. Georges de Laire..." Voris claims that "Diocesan insiders tell Church Militant the attacks are designed in part by de Laire to improve his image in Rome so he can climb the ladder and be promoted."
Just who are these "diocesan insiders" exactly? What qualifies a given individual to be one? Voris never says. Viewers are simply expected to trust Mr. Voris when he reports these things.
Then, how are viewers to know if these so-called insiders are both knowledgeable and honest enough to offer truthful information? Does anyone really imagine that Fr. de Laire went around telling people in the offices of the Diocese of Manchester that he planned to stick it to the Feeneyites because it would be a good career move? For all the public knows, Michael Voris could have interviewed a disgruntled janitor who has a grudge against Fr. de Laire because the priest once walked across a freshly mopped floor.
It is also bizarre that Voris acts as though the judicial vicar were independent of the bishop and acting entirely on his own initiative and authority regarding the St. Benedict Center. Does Voris imagine that Bishop Libasci is unaware of the actions of his own judicial vicar? Does Voris not know that the bishop speaks through Fr. de Laire? And what about the former chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, Diane Murphy Quinlan? Her signature is also on the precepts against the St. Benedict Center, or did Voris not notice? The idea that Fr. Georges de Laire, Episcopal Vicar for Canonical Affairs, is acting on his own against the Feeneyites is idiotic.
Just who are these "diocesan insiders" exactly? What qualifies a given individual to be one? Voris never says. Viewers are simply expected to trust Mr. Voris when he reports these things.
Then, how are viewers to know if these so-called insiders are both knowledgeable and honest enough to offer truthful information? Does anyone really imagine that Fr. de Laire went around telling people in the offices of the Diocese of Manchester that he planned to stick it to the Feeneyites because it would be a good career move? For all the public knows, Michael Voris could have interviewed a disgruntled janitor who has a grudge against Fr. de Laire because the priest once walked across a freshly mopped floor.
It is also bizarre that Voris acts as though the judicial vicar were independent of the bishop and acting entirely on his own initiative and authority regarding the St. Benedict Center. Does Voris imagine that Bishop Libasci is unaware of the actions of his own judicial vicar? Does Voris not know that the bishop speaks through Fr. de Laire? And what about the former chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, Diane Murphy Quinlan? Her signature is also on the precepts against the St. Benedict Center, or did Voris not notice? The idea that Fr. Georges de Laire, Episcopal Vicar for Canonical Affairs, is acting on his own against the Feeneyites is idiotic.
Then there is Voris' complaint that no diocesan officials granted his request for an interview. Voris says, "Church Militant contacted Fr. de Laire, as well as other diocesan officials, asking for an interview about this whole situation, but that request unsurprisingly was rejected." Why should anyone in the diocese talk to Michael Voris? Who is he?
Besides, the Diocese of Manchester already publicly posted a statement on its website saying that "Rome pronounced the matter closed, thus no longer open to dialogue or debate." What part of "no longer open to dialogue or debate" does Michael Voris not understand? There is no good reason to expect Bishop Libasci to have any dialogue with the Vortex after Rome declared the issue closed to discussion. The Bishop is obeying his superiors with regard to a legitimate command.
Besides, the Diocese of Manchester already publicly posted a statement on its website saying that "Rome pronounced the matter closed, thus no longer open to dialogue or debate." What part of "no longer open to dialogue or debate" does Michael Voris not understand? There is no good reason to expect Bishop Libasci to have any dialogue with the Vortex after Rome declared the issue closed to discussion. The Bishop is obeying his superiors with regard to a legitimate command.
Screen shot taken from the FAQ section of www.catholicnh.org, a website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, USA.
It is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
It is a fair use exemption under the U.S. Copyright Act.
Not knowing when to quit, Voris makes the claim, "To be clear, the group does not preach heresy — not in the slightest..." Who is he to make that judgment? What are his credentials, and where is his place in the hierarchy? What authority does the Church grant to Michael Voris that permits him to make such declarations?
On the other hand, the Church, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, declared in April 2016 and again in October 2016, that the manner with which the Saint Benedict Center and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary interpret the principle “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” (outside the Church there is no salvation) to be erroneous and contrary to Church teachings. The CDF has the authority to make that judgment.
And, naturally, Voris tells viewers that "They [the Feeneyites] have also retained civil counsel should any litigation in the civil courts become necessary." Of course they have. The members and supporters of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire are no strangers to filing lawsuits. In the 1980's, the center's own founder, Fakhri Maluf, (a.k.a. Br. Francis) brought suit in the civil courts against another faction of Fr. Feeney's original community to decide who would have the authority to direct the community's affairs. (See The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion by George B. Pepper.) Maluf lost, and the court gave the leader of the other faction the power to evict Br. Francis and his followers. From there, Maluf would eventually take his group to New Hampshire where they continue the practice of bringing suit against other parties.
A Google search of the internet reveals that in 2009, the St. Benedict Center sued Richmond, New Hampshire (St. Benedict Center v. Town of Richmond et al.) In 2013, Nicolas and Jill Bosonetto, supporters of the St. Benedict Center, also filed suit against Richmond, New Hampshire (Nicolas and Jill Bosonetto v. Town of Richmond et al.) Douglas Bersaw, a.k.a. Br. Anthony Mary, a tertiary of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, has been particularly active in the practice of bringing suit against others. He is listed as the plaintiff in Bersaw et al. v. Resolve Solution Services, Bersaw v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Bersaw v. Matthew Thomas & Associates, Douglas Bersaw v. Northland Group, Inc., and Bersaw v. Mega Energy of New Hampshire, LLC. Resorting to litigation is very much part of the character of the Feeneyites of New Hampshire.
The question is, though, what exactly do the Feeneyites of the SBC expect that the civil courts can do for them? Do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart believe the secular justice system can order the Catholic Church to send the center a priest? Do the Slaves want the secular courts to force the Diocese of Manchester to sack Fr. de Laire? Do the Slaves think the civil courts can force the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome to change its judgment regarding the heresy of the Feeneyites? Or are the Slaves worried about their tax exempt status? The prohibitions slapped on them by the Diocese of Manchester are a direct threat to the Feeneyites' collective pocketbook. It's all about the money.
The question is, though, what exactly do the Feeneyites of the SBC expect that the civil courts can do for them? Do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart believe the secular justice system can order the Catholic Church to send the center a priest? Do the Slaves want the secular courts to force the Diocese of Manchester to sack Fr. de Laire? Do the Slaves think the civil courts can force the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome to change its judgment regarding the heresy of the Feeneyites? Or are the Slaves worried about their tax exempt status? The prohibitions slapped on them by the Diocese of Manchester are a direct threat to the Feeneyites' collective pocketbook. It's all about the money.
"I consider Bishop Libasci to be my protector. When I contacted him to report the sexual misconduct of a priest from the St. Benedict Center, His Excellency responded to me immediately through his chancellor, and he was attentive and courteous. He also thanked me for coming forward."~Mary Jo Anger
Vortex Video: Heretic or Loyal Son
In this video, Heretic or Loyal Son, Michael Voris proclaims that "Father Feeney was in Boston, and his preaching of this dogma [Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus] earned him the dislike of men like Cushing despite the fact that his style and directness was used by Our Lord to bring a large number of converts into the Church." Whatever Cardinal Cushing's attitude may have been, it is clear that Venerable Pius XII in Rome opposed Feeney. The Boston Jesuit did not earn the disapprobation of the pope because the priest preached EENS. Rather, it was Feeney's mangling of the dogma that earned the opposition of Rome.
Furthermore, it is simply over the top for Michael Voris to compare Feeney's style to that of Our Lord. Famed Catholic writer Evelyn Waugh met Feeney in person in 1948 and thought the priest was demonically possessed!
For centuries, heretics have been compared to Christ by their devotees. Voris is merely the latest groupie to come along and do the same with his idol.
Furthermore, it is simply over the top for Michael Voris to compare Feeney's style to that of Our Lord. Famed Catholic writer Evelyn Waugh met Feeney in person in 1948 and thought the priest was demonically possessed!
For centuries, heretics have been compared to Christ by their devotees. Voris is merely the latest groupie to come along and do the same with his idol.
Voris continues and says, "Like so many people who preach the unvarnished truth of the Faith, Fr. Feeney has gotten some bad press, not only in his own day but also after his death." Feeney did not preach the unvarnished truth of the Faith. He preached his own, false version. The Boston Jesuit earned his bad press.
Pretending to be some sort of authority, Voris claims that "Father Feeney never committed heresy..." Real authorities in the Church have declared that, at a minimum, the ideas that Feeney preached, and which are now being preached by his spiritual descendants, are erroneous and contrary to Church teachings. That Feeney was a heretic is well within the realm of possibility. Michael Voris does not have the authority to clear Fr. Feeney of the charge of heresy.
Neither does Voris have the authority to excuse Feeney for failing to obey a summons from Rome to appear there to answer charges. According to Voris, "Being the firebrand personality, he [Feeney] refused to go to Rome with his right to due process being violated..." Where in canon law or elsewhere in the Church are there provisions that exempt clerics with "firebrand" personalities from being subject to obedience to superiors? There is no "firebrand" exemption. Feeney had no authority to designate himself an individual who had been denied due process and therefore entitled to thumb his nose at Rome. Feeney deserved the excommunication that was slapped on him.
Voris goes on to trumpet that "He [Feeney] was never asked to recant his position of there being no salvation outside the Church, because his position was in complete and total accord with the dogmatic teaching of the Church." Actually, Fr. Feeney was a beneficiary of the same false ecumenism in the Church that he had formerly decried. The excommunication of Feeney was lifted in the early 1970's, a time when the Church had undeniably gone soft with regard to its duty to evangelize. At that time, just as the Church was commonly reluctant to condemn the heresy of other groups, so, too, was it reluctant to crack down on the errors of Feeney and his followers.
In fact, one of Feeney's disciples, Fakhri Maluf, the future Br. Francis, rejected the reconciliation between Feeney and the Church. In 1973, Maluf threatened to publicly expose Fr. Feeney's reconciliation as a hoax. Maluf was angry that no official statements confirming Feeney's teachings were released from Rome. In Maluf's mind, it was unacceptable that the whole reconciliation had been achieved without doctrinal acquiescence by the Church to Feeney.
Contrast Maluf's attitude with that of today's members of the St. Benedict Center. The present-day Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary broadcast whenever they can that their champion was received back into the Church. At some point in time, the Slaves must have recognized that it does not help their cause if they insist that Fr. Feeney had remained until his death at odds with the Church. That would have been a big, red flag to Catholics and other potential converts to Feeneyism. A change in strategy was clearly in order, and the Slaves have made it. They know that to sell Feeneyism, marketing matters.
Neither does Voris have the authority to excuse Feeney for failing to obey a summons from Rome to appear there to answer charges. According to Voris, "Being the firebrand personality, he [Feeney] refused to go to Rome with his right to due process being violated..." Where in canon law or elsewhere in the Church are there provisions that exempt clerics with "firebrand" personalities from being subject to obedience to superiors? There is no "firebrand" exemption. Feeney had no authority to designate himself an individual who had been denied due process and therefore entitled to thumb his nose at Rome. Feeney deserved the excommunication that was slapped on him.
Voris goes on to trumpet that "He [Feeney] was never asked to recant his position of there being no salvation outside the Church, because his position was in complete and total accord with the dogmatic teaching of the Church." Actually, Fr. Feeney was a beneficiary of the same false ecumenism in the Church that he had formerly decried. The excommunication of Feeney was lifted in the early 1970's, a time when the Church had undeniably gone soft with regard to its duty to evangelize. At that time, just as the Church was commonly reluctant to condemn the heresy of other groups, so, too, was it reluctant to crack down on the errors of Feeney and his followers.
In fact, one of Feeney's disciples, Fakhri Maluf, the future Br. Francis, rejected the reconciliation between Feeney and the Church. In 1973, Maluf threatened to publicly expose Fr. Feeney's reconciliation as a hoax. Maluf was angry that no official statements confirming Feeney's teachings were released from Rome. In Maluf's mind, it was unacceptable that the whole reconciliation had been achieved without doctrinal acquiescence by the Church to Feeney.
Contrast Maluf's attitude with that of today's members of the St. Benedict Center. The present-day Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary broadcast whenever they can that their champion was received back into the Church. At some point in time, the Slaves must have recognized that it does not help their cause if they insist that Fr. Feeney had remained until his death at odds with the Church. That would have been a big, red flag to Catholics and other potential converts to Feeneyism. A change in strategy was clearly in order, and the Slaves have made it. They know that to sell Feeneyism, marketing matters.
Vortex Video: Brother Andre Marie Exclusive Interview
What follows are select, notable statements from this interview which are then coupled with critical commentary. It is only a partial transcript of the interview. Please view the video in its entirety to access all its content.
Voris: Okay, well, first of all, tell us just what is the St. Benedict Center? How did you wind up here in New Hampshire?
Br. Andre: Well, the St. Benedict Center Center Foundation here in New Hampshire started in 1989, and we're kind of an offshoot of a community that was founded in 1949 that was in Still River, Massachusetts. And we ended up here because this is a good place to start a monastery and convent and start a Catholic apostolate out here in the woods."
Br. Andre: Well, the St. Benedict Center Center Foundation here in New Hampshire started in 1989, and we're kind of an offshoot of a community that was founded in 1949 that was in Still River, Massachusetts. And we ended up here because this is a good place to start a monastery and convent and start a Catholic apostolate out here in the woods."
COMMENTARY: Andre's ultra-brief history of his community does not reveal to viewers that the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire was born of in-fighting and wrangling that led the competing factions into the civil courts. In the 1980's, Fakhri Maluf, a.k.a. Brother Francis, the leader of the faction that would become today's community in Richmond, NH, appealed to the civil courts in an effort to be given legal authority to direct the affairs of one group of men and women that had split from the original community founded by Fr. Leonard Feeney. When Maluf lost in court, he and his followers caused yet another split and set out to establish their own community. (See The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion, p. 61, by George B. Pepper.) Eventually, the group settled in Richmond, New Hampshire. There is something unseemly about an organization that arises from power struggles.
Voris: Do you have any success stories that you have gratitude for?
Br. Andre: Oh, yes! We get people who have sent us letters telling us that they've, just recently, in fact, a lady sent one of our brothers a letter saying she's going to confession now regularly because he told her to.
COMMENTARY: First, the preaching of heresy or error cannot truly result in success. Second, it is interesting that Voris does not ask Andre about any failures the Feeneyites have had. In Fr. Feeney's time, there were numerous individuals who were chased away from the Church because of the priest's mad, heretical ravings. Today, there are many individuals who can testify that the rigorism of the Slaves has caused much spiritual distress and despair.
In addition to the spiritual disasters of the Feeneyites, there is the psychological damage and pain caused by the appalling behavior of Br. Andre Marie and his former chaplain, Fr. Rudolf Grega. Br. Andre did not share with Michael Voris that, in 2018, one of the brothers received a letter from the woman who had been targeted by both the licentious chaplain of the St. Benedict Center and its prior. Fr. Grega wanted to indulge his sexual passions, and the prior wanted the woman to drop her complaint about it. The letter the woman sent to the St. Benedict Center was one that expressed outrage and distress. Voris has no interest in investigating Feeneyite failures.
Br. Andre: Oh, yes! We get people who have sent us letters telling us that they've, just recently, in fact, a lady sent one of our brothers a letter saying she's going to confession now regularly because he told her to.
COMMENTARY: First, the preaching of heresy or error cannot truly result in success. Second, it is interesting that Voris does not ask Andre about any failures the Feeneyites have had. In Fr. Feeney's time, there were numerous individuals who were chased away from the Church because of the priest's mad, heretical ravings. Today, there are many individuals who can testify that the rigorism of the Slaves has caused much spiritual distress and despair.
In addition to the spiritual disasters of the Feeneyites, there is the psychological damage and pain caused by the appalling behavior of Br. Andre Marie and his former chaplain, Fr. Rudolf Grega. Br. Andre did not share with Michael Voris that, in 2018, one of the brothers received a letter from the woman who had been targeted by both the licentious chaplain of the St. Benedict Center and its prior. Fr. Grega wanted to indulge his sexual passions, and the prior wanted the woman to drop her complaint about it. The letter the woman sent to the St. Benedict Center was one that expressed outrage and distress. Voris has no interest in investigating Feeneyite failures.
Voris: ...Just briefly describe what the main charism is of the community.
Br. Andre: We want to make a Catholic America.
COMMENTARY: The Feeneyites must themselves convert before they can convert America.
Br. Andre: We want to make a Catholic America.
COMMENTARY: The Feeneyites must themselves convert before they can convert America.
Br. Andre: We do a lot of support and encourage Catholic family life, and we do that through our school and through youth programs which we always try to include the parents because we don't want to take them away from their families.
COMMENTARY: It is interesting to watch the video interview and see the facial expressions of Br. Andre as he remarks that his community does not want to separate parents from children. Andre seems slightly exasperated and defensive when he makes that assurance. He has cause.
The St. Benedict Center has a very long and well-documented history of breaking up families and rearing children in unnatural ways. Writer George B. Pepper notes in his book The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion that during the years spent at Still River and before permanent splits fractured the group, the children of SBC members were raised communally. It was forbidden to honor or respect the special bonds between parents and their own children.
This approach led to all sorts of strife including the dramatic case of the Collopy family. In 1963, Robert Collopy, the father of a family of five boys, grew dissatisfied with the living arrangements at the St. Benedict Center. He asked his wife to come with him and their sons and leave the community. She refused. Mr. Collopy turned to the civil courts for relief.
Through the assistance of the Bishop of Worcester, Robert Collopy was able to obtain legal aid. He won custody of all five of his sons whom he then took out of state to Ohio. Later, Mr. Collopy petitioned the Church for an annulment on the grounds that Fr. Feeney, the priest who had presided at his marriage, had not had faculties. The petition was granted.
As an adult, the eldest son of the Collopy family would write a book entitled Walled In: The True Story of a Cult. Using the pen name of Robert Connor, he detailed the horrors of spending his childhood at the St. Benedict Center.
Today, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, does not continue the strict, communal style of child-rearing that had been practiced with devastating results in the past. However, Br. Andre still harbors suspicions about the ability of families to teach their own children. As can be seen from the following screen shots taken from his public Facebook page, the prior of the SBC is particularly worried about the baneful effects of mothers on their own sons.
COMMENTARY: It is interesting to watch the video interview and see the facial expressions of Br. Andre as he remarks that his community does not want to separate parents from children. Andre seems slightly exasperated and defensive when he makes that assurance. He has cause.
The St. Benedict Center has a very long and well-documented history of breaking up families and rearing children in unnatural ways. Writer George B. Pepper notes in his book The Boston Heresy Case in View of the Secularization of Religion that during the years spent at Still River and before permanent splits fractured the group, the children of SBC members were raised communally. It was forbidden to honor or respect the special bonds between parents and their own children.
This approach led to all sorts of strife including the dramatic case of the Collopy family. In 1963, Robert Collopy, the father of a family of five boys, grew dissatisfied with the living arrangements at the St. Benedict Center. He asked his wife to come with him and their sons and leave the community. She refused. Mr. Collopy turned to the civil courts for relief.
Through the assistance of the Bishop of Worcester, Robert Collopy was able to obtain legal aid. He won custody of all five of his sons whom he then took out of state to Ohio. Later, Mr. Collopy petitioned the Church for an annulment on the grounds that Fr. Feeney, the priest who had presided at his marriage, had not had faculties. The petition was granted.
As an adult, the eldest son of the Collopy family would write a book entitled Walled In: The True Story of a Cult. Using the pen name of Robert Connor, he detailed the horrors of spending his childhood at the St. Benedict Center.
Today, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, does not continue the strict, communal style of child-rearing that had been practiced with devastating results in the past. However, Br. Andre still harbors suspicions about the ability of families to teach their own children. As can be seen from the following screen shots taken from his public Facebook page, the prior of the SBC is particularly worried about the baneful effects of mothers on their own sons.
November 2016
|
November 2016
|
Content from facebook.com that is posted with the audience selector of PUBLIC is considered public information.
Voris: Why would you think America would be better being Catholic America?
Br. Andre: Well, because the Catholic Church is the church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It's the true religion. It has all the truth that was confided to the Apostles by Our Lord, and this is ultimately the way man pursues his happiness both in this life and especially in the next. 'Cause there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
COMMENTARY: The primary reason why America would be better as a Catholic nation is because it is God's will. Before offering any other answer, Br.Andre should have mentioned Matthew 28:19 which contains the divine command to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is odd that the prior of the St. Benedict Center answers the question put to him by giving secondary reasons instead of the primary reason.
Br. Andre: Well, because the Catholic Church is the church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It's the true religion. It has all the truth that was confided to the Apostles by Our Lord, and this is ultimately the way man pursues his happiness both in this life and especially in the next. 'Cause there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
COMMENTARY: The primary reason why America would be better as a Catholic nation is because it is God's will. Before offering any other answer, Br.Andre should have mentioned Matthew 28:19 which contains the divine command to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is odd that the prior of the St. Benedict Center answers the question put to him by giving secondary reasons instead of the primary reason.
Voris: Do you believe that non-Christians can go to Heaven?
Br. Andre: Of course, if the question is "Can somebody go to Heaven," the answer is "yes" as long as someone is living and breathing, everyone has sufficient human, sufficient grace, rather, to be saved. And not only that, they're not out of God's reach. They have the potential to enter into the Catholic religion.
But what do you need to go to Heaven? What do you need to be saved? You have to have not just natural life, but they have to have supernatural life in the soul which means you have to have divine faith infused into you by God as one of the three theological virtues, as well as the other theological virtues, and the state of sanctifying grace. You have to die with supernatural life in your soul in order to be saved.
Voris: What we typically refer to as "a state of grace."
Br. Andre: Yeah, the state of grace. Justification. Being alive in God. There are different ways of saying it.
COMMENTARY: This is where Andre pulls out the heterodox theology, although he does so subtly. He separates the infused, theological virtues and sanctifying grace, speaking of them as if they do not go together. The Church teaches that if a soul is in a state of sanctifying grace, it has all three theological virtues, or conversely, if one has all three theological virtues, then one is in a state of grace.
Br. Andre: Of course, if the question is "Can somebody go to Heaven," the answer is "yes" as long as someone is living and breathing, everyone has sufficient human, sufficient grace, rather, to be saved. And not only that, they're not out of God's reach. They have the potential to enter into the Catholic religion.
But what do you need to go to Heaven? What do you need to be saved? You have to have not just natural life, but they have to have supernatural life in the soul which means you have to have divine faith infused into you by God as one of the three theological virtues, as well as the other theological virtues, and the state of sanctifying grace. You have to die with supernatural life in your soul in order to be saved.
Voris: What we typically refer to as "a state of grace."
Br. Andre: Yeah, the state of grace. Justification. Being alive in God. There are different ways of saying it.
COMMENTARY: This is where Andre pulls out the heterodox theology, although he does so subtly. He separates the infused, theological virtues and sanctifying grace, speaking of them as if they do not go together. The Church teaches that if a soul is in a state of sanctifying grace, it has all three theological virtues, or conversely, if one has all three theological virtues, then one is in a state of grace.
Content from catholicism.org that appears on this site is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Share Alike License.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Updated March, 2024.