I saw it in a thread at SuscipeDomine, when one poster was complaining about Voris they were called out as "being judgemental",  the poster who made a compliant then offered to pay a contribution to the forum for every similar judgment anyone could find anywhere on the internet about Voris.  I looked myself and could not find any and neither could anyone else.  I think someone came up with a grand total of 1 in the end.  Nearly every comment was supportive of Voris'.  Almost zero were in anyway judgmental.  I cannot find the thread any longer but that was the crux of it.

Here is the main thread about Voris:  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0

The offer to pay for internet comments was in a different thread:  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=14274.0  reply #121

Thanks Jaynek.  You are clearly smarter than me at searchin'.

Also, E Michael Jones wrote a scathing report on Michael Voris. It was almost too personal and hurtful, but maybe it was necessary. I don't know.

I found multiple videos of Rafe speaking with just a Google search.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aTof42eKSq8

Forgiveness is one thing. But there is a total innapropriateness to all of these "former" homos and perverts carrying the banner for Catholic conservatism. What happened to penance? I guess God is now demanding media stardom instead...

This part really rang true with me. The same goes for converting from Protestantism (or something else) to Catholicism.
They should be spending some years learning, catching up, etc. before they become media stars.
Even if they ARE more fervent than many life-long Catholics. ("One convert is worth two apostles.")

Let's put it this way: there is an incentive -- even in this world alone -- for ANY high-profile sodomite to convert and become a nationwide-famous figure. It's not like ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a life of pleasure. It is degrading and disgusting, filled with drugs, alcohol abuse and self-caused diseases, for those who have emotional issues and hate themselves.

For both ex-heretics and ex-sodomites:
What do they have to teach the majority of us, since they are so NEW to the Faith themselves?

I should also add:

the Church's position on certain sins, was that A) sure, God forgave you, here's your absolution, but B) you're still damaged goods; you need to do penance in a monastery for life.

This especially applied to fallen priests.

Part of the spirit of penance should be wanting to avoid the public limelight -- not seek it out like a Protestant who has "found Jesus". (What's up with that, anyhow? I kid you not, if I had been raised protestant, I think I would have gone astray for a year or two, just so I'd have a "my story" to tell all my devout church friends later, so I could write a book, give speaking tours, etc.)

Thanks Jaynek.  You are clearly smarter than me at searchin'.

You're welcome, but I'm not so much smart as I happened to remember the right details to make a search work well.

Anyhow, I browsed through the thread, since I had looked it up.  I think that part of what was going on was that people were reacting to the abrasive tone of the poster.  (Remember, this is someone who got banned from CI for basically being a jerk.)  I noticed several people explicitly mention that and I suspect there were others who did not say anything who were just irritated by his crass language.  Also, he did not just call for prudence, but he stated that he was a better person than Voris.  That really is judgment. 

I think that if a person raised the question in a pleasant and reasonable way as you have here, most trad Catholics would agree that, even though God forgives the sins of a person who repents and confesses, there is still a need for prudential judgment about what responsibilities to entrust him with.

In that SD thread, St. Paul was given as an example of someone who preached and taught after a life of serious sin.  But I don't think that anyone mentioned that St. Paul was accompanied by St. Barnabas, a seasoned and virtuous Christian.  I think that St. Barnabas may have played a role similar to a spiritual director for St. Paul.

I remember from my early days as a trad  (and there is a permanent record of my posts on Fisheaters from that time, in case I ever forget) how completely unaware I was of how much I needed to learn.  I figured that I had an M.Div so I was already an expert. In fact, a degree from a conciliar institution does not make one an expert on traditional Catholicism.  If anything, it is the opposite.  One needs to unlearn much of what one was taught. And I thought that my background being raised in a Jєωιѕн family gave me special expertise on Judaism when that is probably one of the areas where I was most ignorant about the traditional understanding.

The point is that people don't know what the don't know.  Probably anyone in a position of teaching or leadership should have some sort of spiritual director, but especially new converts/reverts.  No matter how sincere they are, they need oversight from someone who can see their blind spots.  I think that in itself is a good measure for prudence.

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.