JayneK
How is it that the other posters were able to judge Gregg for being a "judgmental jerk", despite that, from his posting history, he has always gone to TLM mass and is married with 7 children? Gregg is an anonymous internet poster, like the rest of us, who has no media company or platform of his own. And yet, Gregg was NOT justified to judge Michael Voris as being unsuitable to run a very public lay preaching and teaching media company, without being labelled an uncharitable or judgmental jerk for expressing that view on a forum.
How is a long term practicing catholic father of 7 not "better" than someone who commits sodomy for two decades?
I hear phrases like "there but for the grace of God go I", but the undeniable truth is that Marcel Lefebvre was a better man than Joseph Stalin. If Marcel Lefebvre judged himself to be "better than Stalin" in the 1940s, why would it be wrong? It is the truth after all. I don't see how holding a view that is true can ever be wrong, or arrogant.
If Marcel Lefebvre thought he was a worse sinner that Stalin, or about the same, I would question his sanity. Pious sounding platitudes cannot trump the objective truth. Everyone posting regularly on this forum is "better" than Jeffrey Epstein or the Head of Planned Parenthood. That last sentence is hardly a wildly presumptous statement.
I understand of course that God finally judges, but I assume that God judges on the basis of actual sins and not some strange esoteric formula that humans can make no rhyme or reason of and where sins committed carry no weight.
What does a "state of grace" mean unless someone in a state of grace is "better" than someone in a state of mortal sin? I find the idea that we are floating around in some sort of indeterminate state impossible to comprehend.
I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".
WOULD IT BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SAY, that a reticence to grasp the nettle of reality and judge how damaging sodomites and communists are to the Catholic faith allowed the infiltration and damage of the last 70 years? Who gets to make that determination? Only clerics, only laypersons? Only reformed sodomites? It appears to me that Lefebvre made a judgment about a council, then lots of laypeople and seminarian candidates judged that judgment right and now the resistance have made a judgment too. Judgments are everywhere. Michael Voris is making them weekly.