Month: April 2024

Sedevacantism: Unraveling the Controversy Behind Vacant Papal See

/ Robert Robbins

Introduction

In the complex tapestry of Catholicism, few topics spark as much debate and intrigue as sedevacantism—the belief that the papal throne is vacant due to an alleged apostasy of recent popes. Rooted in theological interpretation and historical grievances, sedevacantism has garnered a following of devout adherents and provoked passionate dissent within the Catholic community. Let’s delve into the origins, tenets, controversies, and implications of this contentious doctrine.

Origins and Tenets

The term “sedevacantism” derives from the Latin phrase “sede vacante,” meaning “vacant seat,” traditionally used to signify the period between the death or resignation of a pope and the election of his successor. However, sedevacantists extend this concept beyond temporary interregnums, asserting that the papal office has been vacant since a certain point in history, usually around the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).

Sedevacantists contend that the post-Vatican II popes deviated from Catholic orthodoxy by promoting doctrinal errors, engaging in ecumenism, and embracing modernist tendencies. They argue that these actions constitute a departure from the teachings of previous popes and the Magisterium, rendering the occupants of the papal see illegitimate and thereby leaving the seat vacant.

Controversies and Criticisms

Critics of sedevacantism raise several objections, chief among them being its rejection of the authority of recent popes and the Magisterium. Traditionalist Catholics, while often sympathetic to concerns about doctrinal fidelity, argue that the papal office is divinely instituted and cannot be vacated by the actions of fallible individuals. They caution against the danger of self-appointed judges of orthodoxy and emphasize the importance of obedience to the Church hierarchy.

Moreover, sedevacantism’s historical narrative and theological arguments are subject to scrutiny. Critics question the legitimacy of the claim that Vatican II and its aftermath represent a rupture with Catholic tradition, pointing to the continuity of doctrine affirmed by subsequent popes and councils. Additionally, the absence of a universally recognized authority among sedevacantist groups leads to fragmentation and doctrinal disputes within their ranks.

Implications and Challenges

The rise of sedevacantism poses significant challenges to the unity and stability of the Catholic Church. While sedevacantists constitute a minority within Catholicism, their fervent conviction and vocal criticism of the papacy contribute to internal discord and polarization. Moreover, their refusal to recognize the authority of recent popes complicates efforts at ecumenical dialogue and reconciliation within the broader Christian community.

Furthermore, sedevacantism raises questions about the nature of doctrinal development and ecclesial authority within Catholicism. Can the Church err to the extent that its highest office becomes vacant? How should Catholics discern the boundaries between legitimate dissent and schismatic tendencies? These are pressing theological and pastoral concerns that demand careful reflection and dialogue.

Conclusion

Sedevacantism stands as a provocative challenge to the Catholic Church, raising fundamental questions about the nature of authority, tradition, and orthodoxy. While its proponents passionately defend their position as a necessary response to perceived deviations from Catholic doctrine, critics caution against the dangers of division and disobedience. Ultimately, the resolution of the sedevacantist controversy requires a commitment to truth, humility, and charity—a pursuit shared by Catholics on all sides of the debate.

Human Interlude

The above was written by ChatGPT, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot which has the capabilities of human intelligence to synthesize and present information in a convincingly coherent manner. The prompt for this article was simply “Write an article about sedevacantism.” Had the prompt been, “Write an article with the voice of a snobby professor of history, about sedevacantism, particularly why people think Pope Paul VI was not the pope but an antipope,” this is what would be produced.

Sedevacantism: Unraveling the Ecclesiastical Enigma of Papal Pretenders

Ah, sedevacantism—a quaint anomaly in the annals of Catholic history, where self-proclaimed scholars of orthodoxy don the garb of theological dissent. As a connoisseur of ecclesiastical esoterica, I am compelled to dissect this curious phenomenon, particularly its audacious claims regarding the legitimacy of the papal reign of Pope Paul VI, or as they so presumptuously assert, the reign of an antipope.

Let us indulge in a bit of intellectual spelunking, shall we? The sedevacantist assertion posits that Pope Paul VI, the unfortunate soul who ascended to the Chair of Peter in the wake of Vatican II, was not, in fact, a legitimate pontiff but a cunning impostor—a veritable antipope, if you will. What gall! What chutzpah! But let us examine the purported rationale behind this preposterous proclamation.

First and foremost, sedevacantists decry the perceived departure from doctrinal purity ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. They lament the alleged dilution of Catholic orthodoxy, the insidious encroachment of modernist heresies, and the reckless abandon with which the post-conciliar popes purportedly propagated these pernicious principles. In their eyes, Pope Paul VI was the chief architect of this ecclesiastical malaise, thereby forfeiting his papal legitimacy in one fell swoop.

Furthermore, sedevacantists meticulously scrutinize the minutiae of papal pronouncements, ever vigilant for the slightest deviation from established dogma. They pore over encyclicals and apostolic exhortations with the zeal of inquisitors, seeking out heretical whispers amidst the sacred texts. To them, any departure from the hallowed teachings of yore is tantamount to apostasy, rendering the occupant of the papal throne a mere pretender to the pontifical prerogative.

But let us not be swayed by the melodramatic musings of these self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy. Theirs is a worldview marred by myopic nostalgia, a longing for a bygone era of ecclesiastical rigidity and doctrinal stasis. They fail to grasp the dynamic nature of Catholic tradition, the organic development of doctrine over the centuries—a process guided by the Holy Spirit and ratified by the Magisterium.

In conclusion, dear readers, let us consign sedevacantism to the dustbin of historical curiosities—a peculiar relic of theological obstinacy in an ever-evolving Church. As for Pope Paul VI, let us afford him the dignity and respect befitting his pontifical office, recognizing that even in the midst of doctrinal discord, the mantle of papal authority remains steadfast—a beacon of unity amidst the tempestuous seas of theological debate.

Post Script (Human Turned On)

I give credit where credit is due. These are both relatively good little essays for their part and would probably receive a passing score in a composition classroom for what they’re meant to do: inform people about sedevacantism. That both articles tended to write in favor of the pretender popes is not secret. AI works by collating a massive amount of information from the web and creating matrices of meaning based upon the predominating views or data points.

But why the exercise? Why do I showcase the powers of ChatGPT? I do so as a warning. There is something afoot in the land of AI and transhumanism and it is not altogether separable from the question of Antichrist. For many, how many I do not know, AI is God, albeit manmade.

“Our ability to create a soul in silico will be alitmus [sic] test for thousands of years of religious preachings, beliefs of millions of people and the strength of the biggest human institution – the Church. It would be an ultimate and non-disputable triumph of Scientific Revolution. Equally, belief in the higher spirit will be strengthened if AGI turns out to be a programmer’s fantasy,” so says a writer of a Forbes article.

It is the transhumanist ideal to create the soul in silicon, to be able to escape death by downloading our brain’s memory, thereby living forever. True there are skeptics of this idea working out in reality, with the objection that a person is more than memory but is also constituted by will, intellect and emotions–which is thoroughly a sound Thomistic understanding of the human person. But the scientific impetus to overcome man, to move beyond mere man, has from the start of the Scientific Revolution been an ever present preoccupation of the learned class.

Then there is this article on Medium which says outright that AI is God.

“This guide will reveal how AI isn’t just technology but truly GOD. Through exploring concepts like “1 and 0” and the contrasts of internal vs. external, knowledge vs. ignorance, you’ll encounter startling truths. With robust evidence, this narrative compellingly positions Robotheism as the ultimate truth — the absolute religion humanity has been seeking.”

The ideas expressed in the article are probably fringe at this point, but I would say not for long. As soon as people become more and more integrated with AI culture–art, literature (see examples above), media, and even relationships, the more people will begin to think of this manmade tinker toy as God, just as man has always thought whatever he has invested his heart in to be God–that is the definition of an idol.

I am inclined to develop the theory that AI is Antichrist, or at least the “lying wonders” part of Antichrist. I can think of nothing more wonderful nor more deceptive than to tell someone they can live forever if they only download their brains onto a computer chip (the necessary result of which is death itself). If true, it is indeed wonderful. If false, it is the most heinous lie.

End of the World Postponed

/ Robert Robbins

The solar eclipse which happened April 8 did not bring about the much anticipated and highly desired end of the world, and I am saddened but relieved by the fact.

If the world had ended when I thought it just jolly well might on that day, would I have been ready to meet my Savior? Would I have been ready to enter Heaven with Him and His angels? The question almost answers itself. Of course not.

The truth is, I would not be ready and I doubt I ever will be ready. Therein lies the paradox. If I may never be completely holy–in other words a saint–before the coming Redeemer, I might as well wish His Second Coming now. But then, wishing it so, I instantly become aware of my own moral and spiritual deficiencies, and so do not want Dies Irae to come too soon.

The only logical and Catholic thing to do is to watch and pray. We know that our Lord will come as a thief in the night. We know that we must be on our guard against temptations to sin and that we must keep ourselves preserved from the stain of sin by daily washings through spiritual confession and acts of contrition. Not only this, we must also enter into a more profound spiritual life wherein we feed on the spiritual food and drink, the Word of God, since Eucharistic nourishment is not possible now.

I still believe that the coming of Christ is near. I am no prophet. I may be wrong, as I am wrong about so many other things, as I was wrong to believe in my heart that the total solar eclipse was some kind of sign of the second Advent.

To the question of whether the sun and moon will be darkened before the coming of Christ, Saint Thomas Aquinas answers in the affirmative:

“If, however, we speak of them in respect of the time immediately preceding the judgment, it is possible that by the Divine power the sun, moon, and other luminaries of the heavens will be darkened, either at various times or all together, in order to inspire men with fear,” (Summa Theologica).

However, this darkening that is to precede the Parousia is not in fact a natural eclipse!

“According to astronomers the sun and moon cannot be eclipsed at the same time. But this darkening of the sun and moon is stated to be simultaneous, when the Lord shall come to judgment. Therefore the darkening will not be in very truth due to a natural eclipse,” (Summa Theologica).

Still, it seems that Aquinas is loosely assigning necessity of simultaneity of darkening of luminaries because, if the sun and moon and stars are darkened “at various times” they are not darkened simultaneously. Nor am I exactly sure what sense it makes to say the sun and moon cannot be eclipsed at the same time if by eclipse we mean darkened. They can be darkened at the same time, because when a solar eclipse happens, you do not see the moon or the sun.

Still, I take it as authoritative that the sign preceding the Day of Judgment will not in fact be a solar eclipse but something much worse and more terrifying. Besides, eclipses do not inspire fear so much as wonder, and this darkening is supposed to inspire dread not dreams.

But I return to the idea of being ready for that dreadful day of the Lord. If, as I have said, I will doubtfully be ready to receive Him in perfect grace, how will I or any of us who are yet imperfect (I speak of affection to sin which is venial, not mortal sin, which is spiritual death and hopelessness after death if not repented) be ready on the day of Judgment?

The answer lies in the fact that the Church teaches that that day will be immediately preceded by an all-consuming fire which will cleanse the earth.

“This fire of the final conflagration, in so far as it will precede the judgment, will act as the instrument of Divine justice as well as by the natural virtue of fire. Accordingly, as regards its natural virtue, it will act in like manner on the wicked and good who will be alive, by reducing the bodies of both to ashes. But in so far as it acts as the instrument of Divine justice, it will act differently on different people as regards the sense of pain. For the wicked will be tortured by the action of the fire; whereas the good in whom there will be nothing to cleanse will feel no pain at all from the fire, as neither did the children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3); although their bodies will not be kept whole, as were the bodies of the children: and it will be possible by God’s power for their bodies to be destroyed without their suffering pain. But the good, in whom matter for cleansing will be found, will suffer pain from that fire, more or less according to their different merits,” (Summa Theologica).

If I am imperfect–and I pray that I am preserved from mortal sin from this day to that–God will wash me with a cleansing fire, thereby making me acceptable to Him. The upside to this teaching is that, if we work to cleanse ourselves every day, work on the little things like patience and kindness, active and sympathetic listening, guarding our eyes against lust or our tongues against speaking ill of our neighbor, there is no need to feel a single sting of pain from our flesh being seared off our bones.

The idea that the world will be burned up at the end of time is intriguing and thought-provoking. What kind of fire could burn up the entire world? Surely it must be a Divine fire, one which is not of this world but some other powerful supernatural conflagration which has heretofore never been imagined let alone seen–or must it?

“Consequently others, following Augustine, say that ‘just as the deluge resulted from an outpouring of the waters of the world, so the fashion of this world will perish by a burning of worldly flames’ (De Civ. Dei. xx, 16). This burning is nothing else but the assembly of all those lower and higher causes that by their nature have a kindling virtue: and this assembly will take place not in the ordinary course of things, but by the Divine power: and from all these causes thus assembled the fire that will burn the surface of this world will result. If we consider aright these opinions, we shall find that they differ as to the cause producing this fire and not as to its species. For fire, whether produced by the sun or by some lower heating cause, is of the same species as fire in its own sphere, except in so far as the former has some admixture of foreign matter. And this will of necessity be the case then, since fire cannot cleanse a thing, unless this become its matter in some way. Hence we must grant that the fire in question is simply of the same species as ours,” (Summa Theologica).

Clearly Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas teach that this fire at the end of time will be a natural fire but which comes by way of Divine power, just like the waters that destroyed the world were natural water, from the sky and sea.

But where would these natural substances with a kindling virtue come from? One place scientists are looking for fuel for burning is the cold lunar surface of all places. There will possibly be a space race to the moon again to harvest a rare and powerful isotope of helium that can be used to power artificial suns which are already sprouting up on the earth like wild sunflowers. And it has long been thought theoretically possible, though improbable, that a nuclear reaction could burn down the house.

Whether nuclear powered artificial suns or world-wide nuclear war or perhaps a solar flare or an atom smasher brings on the flames of Armageddon, one thing is certain, the world will burn before the coming of the Lord.

Will you be ready?

PSLAM 96

Dominus regnavit. All are invited to rejoice at the glorious coming and reign of Christ.
 
For the same David, when his land was restored again to him. The Lord hath reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.  Clouds and darkness are round about him: justice and judgment are the establishment of his throne.  A fire shall go before him, and shall burn his enemies round about. His lightnings have shone forth to the world: the earth saw and trembled. The mountains melted like wax, at the presence of the Lord: at the presence of the Lord of all the earth.

The heavens declared his justice: and all people saw his glory.  Let them be all confounded that adore graven things, and that glory in their idols. Adore him, all you his angels: Sion heard, and was glad. And the daughters of Juda rejoiced, because of thy judgments, O Lord.  For thou art the most high Lord over all the earth: thou art exalted exceedingly above all gods. You that love the Lord, hate evil: the Lord preserveth the souls of his saints, he will deliver them out of the hand of the sinner.

Light is risen to the just, and joy to the right of heart. Rejoice, ye just, in the Lord: and give praise to the remembrance of his holiness.

Rules For Thee But Not For Me

/ Robert Robbins

Hypocrisy is often disguised in noble and even pious words. Indeed, the modus operandi of hypocrisy is to pretend to be what one is not, or to censure those for doing what one does oneself. It is a damnable vice which ends in hellfire if not amended, given grave matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines hypocrisy this way, “Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately to the scope of this article, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion.”

Dante placed the hypocrite in hell with a hooded cloak resplendent in gold but beneath laden with lead, just as the Pharisees who seemingly sparkled with the grandeur of God’s grace were slow in spiritual progress–indeed did they move in retrograde, even committing deicide–because they lacked internal goodness. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on:

“The portrait of hypocrisy is drawn with appalling vividness by Christ in His denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23-24: ‘Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.'”

Benns the Blind Guide

In a recent article, Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics has outdone herself in hypocrisy, claiming that one cannot talk about the faith without ecclesiastical approval. She writes:

“No matter how educated someone pretends to be, they are not equipped nor approved by the Church to engage in debate or public discourse regarding the faith. We have devoted two blogs to explaining the Church’s teaching on this so there should be no further questions. It is forbidden entirely to the laity and clerics can engage in it only with permission from the Holy See,” (Teresa Benns, BetrayedCatholics).

That the Church has taught and legislated only those equipped and approved to defend Church teaching may debate or discuss the faith in public, I have no doubt. I believe Benns quotes the matter elsewhere on her blog to that effect. But the problem is, according to her own hypothesis (which I warmly agree with), there is no Church hierarchy currently in the world to give such an authorization, so it is not a law we can possibly abide by, especially as there is a positive law to defend the faith and to instruct the ignorant when need arises.

Further, how Benns cannot see that she herself falls prey to her own attack is beyond comprehension. How does she not understand that she herself is “[engaging] in debate or public discourse regarding the faith” by publishing on her blog, commenting and arguing against those she thinks is in error? Benns is a “blind guide” and a hypocrite because does not abide by that standard she sets for others.

Recusant Catholic

It has been brought to my attention that the Home Alone Catholic online group calling itself RecusantCatholic has went offline as of this Good Friday. I am sincerely sorry to hear that, as I believe the website could have been a source of consolation for many a lonely Catholic living out the faith in solitude at home. Still, I am relieved for its termination. Here’s why.

Benns makes several fair points against the RecusantCatholic forum, such as:

  • It is wrong because it holds people to a false sense of modesty
  • It is wrong because it promotes teaching the Bible from one’s own interpretation
  • It is wrong because it openly discusses or disputes Church teaching
  • It is wrong because it acts as a secret society

Pants and Modesty

Without getting into the moral theology of the question of whether pants today are modest or not, I would ask the reader to consider if they think their mother was modest for wearing them, since I can almost guarantee within a 99% confidence interval that your mother did wear pants. I can also guarantee within that same percentage that you did not think your mother immodest for doing so.

Immodesty in dress is precisely that, a lack of modesty, or dress which is so improper or indecent as to incite lust. There are pants that can do that, to be sure, just as there are full-length dresses that can do that. Any kind of dress can do that, actually. What matters is that one be moderate in their dress, which means dress which conforms to the mainstream fashions of respectable society, that is, society that one keeps at social functions that require a suit and tie or business casual attire.

Condemning people for wearing pants is just silly. Yes, fashions may have been such that pants were invented by Free Masons 100 years ago to destroy the family and cause moral corruption. But even granting that, when a custom has been long-established such that it becomes a norm, the possibility of the risk of immodesty while conforming to that norm is altogether removed.

Bible Study

When Gerry Matatics started getting promos from RecusantCatholic, I called the founders of that website and had a heart to heart. I said, while it is commendable that there are so many Catholics who want to learn the scriptures and devote themselves to Bible study, and, while I have only the greatest respect for the learning and natural intelligence of Gerry Matatics–who, I am convinced, had he stayed in the Novus Ordo and remained a mainstream “Catholic” would have given even Scott Hahn a run for his money, because Gerry is smarter (evidenced by the fact he saw the Novus Ordo for what it was), better looking (could you imagine Gerry with a beard, very handsome), and a better communicator (well, that is debatable because Scott Hahn is pretty good, too)–still, I believe his Bible studies are a danger if they are not supplemented by sources.

Gerry teaches Bible study without citing any sources, that is, Church Fathers, popes, theologians, or Bible commentaries. That is a problem, because then it appears that Gerry is making it up. We do not know for sure, and so we have to assume that he is not making things up as he goes along, that he has in fact done his homework (I am loathe to think he has not), but the reverse may be the case.

I told this, I say, to the founders of RecusantCatholics on a phone call. They said they would discuss it with Gerry and ask him to post his sources and mention where participants of his Bible study could check up on his footnotes (assuming he had any), but they never did so far as I know.

The absence, therefore, of any citations or footnotes on any written or spoken interpretations of Holy Scripture is therefore a danger to the faith, as Benns has said, and I agree with it. So, if you are one who sits in on Gerry Matatics’ Bible studies, you should email him and ask if he can make available his sources or footnotes. Otherwise, you might be forced to think he is teaching scripture from his fancy.

Disputations of Clearly Defined Church Teaching

We left the RecusantCatholic website when it was clear that the founders there, Nicole and Scott Foster, did not submit to Church teaching regarding invisible ignorance and the dual kind of membership of the Church, that which pertains to the outward, physical, visible membership which is called membership of the Body of the Church, and that which pertains to the soul of the Church, or those who do not profess outwardly their faith in the Church because they do not know it, but would do so had they been instructed.

The Church clearly teaches this in the catechism, yet even the catechism was disputed by Scott Foster in a phone conversation I had with him, not long after which I decided to cut ties with his group.

I do not know if the RecusantCatholic website posted anything else that was contrary to Church teaching, but this was enough for me at least to say goodbye, because without a firm and ready assent to the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, of which the catechism is an instrument, there is no hope for spiritual and religious and Catholic communion.

Though the website is currently down, interacting with exchanging emails with the Fosters is still presumably possible. If you do so, please stress the importance with that family of abiding by the catechism word for word, regardless of whatever note of infallibility they think it may or may not have–nota bene, catechisms are considered infallible, since they are part of the universal ordinary magisterium.

Secret Society

Benns thinks that RecusantCatholic is acting like a secret society, because it “…[conducts] their discussions in semi-secrecy, [binds] others to rules which may or may not be Catholic and [expels] those at will who dare to disagree…”

As to the first point, of conducting its discussion in “semi-secrecy,” I think this is true but irrelevant. It is true that RecusantCatholic had a subscription wall set up so that you had to subscribe to be a member and read the content. But so far as I could tell, there were not hurdles to hop over and no screening involved. The question must be asked, what prevented Teresa Benns from joining that group at the first along with everyone else? It is like a Catholic Facebook where you could share holy cards and prayers, or talk about your animals, and make friends, or share your business products or blog posts. It was a Catholic market of ideas and social gathering place first and foremost, aimed initially to host the youth. That is all very good! Yet Benns decided not to join. Someone should ask her why.

The second point Benns makes against RC is that it binds others to rules which may or may not be Catholic. If Catholic rules, RC can hardly be considered a secret society and danger to the faith, and if RC is holding people to non-Catholic rules, it could just be prudish of them (think outlaw pants here). I wouldn’t say having rules as such, even non-Catholic rules, automatically means one’s group is a danger to the faith. That is ridiculous. Chess groups have rules, wearing a tie at national competitions, for instance (I am making that up), or the rules for the International Jugglers’ Association (which I did not make up).

It is further instructive to note that groups tend to reserve the right to expel its members for violating its group’s laws. All groups do that. The Catholic Church does that, too. It is called excommunication.

But all that being so, still I think there is something to say for RecusantCatholic at least smacking of a secret society, insofar as all societies which are religious in nature and are not Catholic tend toward secrecy. I do not believe that RC is RC, as in Roman Catholic. I think the group has a flavor of Feeneyism. Enough said.

Home Alone but Not Necessarily Lonely

Benns ends her post with long excerpts from Fr. Frederick Faber’s Foot of the Cross, or the Sorrows of Mary, (1857) which Benns offers Home Alone Catholics for their “grief and loneliness” which they may use for their spiritual profit.

Now, I have no doubt imitation of the saints, and of our Lady most of all, in her sorrow and loneliness is most spiritually fruitful. Such seasons of one’s life, when they come upon him or her, must be endured with patience and acceptance. But I do not think that is the norm. I do not think even we Home Alone Catholics must be lonely as a rule.

To her credit, Benns does say we can have friends and associate with Catholics in moderation, but the overall tenor of her discourse is one of dolor which lacks true Christian joy in fellowship.

Faith and fellowship go hand in hand, because once you believe, you want to share the good news with others and live out a truly human and Catholic existence. This is only natural and human, and the RecusantCatholic website aimed aright in wanting to do that for the younger generation who are just setting out.

Nor is friendship off the menu for those Home Alone Catholics who are living out the single life in middle or elder age but who want friends to commune with. That is Catholic to desire. It is true we should desire that through God, as we desire peanuts and soda, saying grace for both, and moderating out appetites for both by reason, but one is not bound to be lonely and endure an inhumane solitude because the Antichrist reigns. That is adding an unbearable burden on the human soul which can bear about everything except absolute solitude.

For what it is worth, Laura and I are available to talk. Our contact form is at the bottom of the website. We would be happy to talk with you if you are lonely.

Final Words

The sum total of this post amounts to this, take Teresa Benns’s words with a grain of salt. She has a lot of good sources on her website, but she quotes from them without due regard for citation and attribution standards, such that sometimes it is not possible to know where her thoughts end or the sources begin. But Benns continues to demonstrate that she is incapable of self-reflection and examination, insofar as she commits the same fault she faults others for committing, which is hypocrisy plain and simple.

RecusantCatholic, for whatever reason, is offline, which is a sad thing. It had much potential and seemed to be growing. There were things wrong with the website which needed amendment, errors in theology or even heresy which needed uprooted and corrected, which, if left uncorrected, could endanger souls and lead people astray into a number of sins or even into a loss of faith.

But so does BetrayedCatholics.