Father Rosica Tries To Silence A Catholic Blogger






We truly live in maddening times.

The blogger of Vox Cantoris, a perfectly orthodox Catholic blog mentioned here a couple of times, has been threatened with a lawsuit if eleven posts concerning the very same Father Rosica, and all of them concerning his public activity and statements, are not removed.

Bravely, the blogger has already indicated he will not comply.

I am not an expert in Canadian law, but it seems extremely difficult to imagine the letter has any chance at all of being successful.

Rather, it seems to me that here something different is at stake: a Vatican official uses a financial muscle (the threat of a very expensive, long-drawn lawsuit) to shut up a faithful Catholic blogger.

Father Rosica is, in a way, the number two of Father Lombardi, and they often appear together at press conferences. I repeat it again, none of the posts make allegations about Father Rosicas private life or affairs, and there is no trace of slander. That a man working with the press would try to silence the free expression of opinion in this way truly beggars belief.

Some questions are now, I think, ripe:

1) How long can the oh so merciful TMAHICH pretend he does not know of this? Will he stubbornly shut up as he did, and still does, in the FFI matter? (Oh well, wait! He said “soon, soon” to the old couple! An obvious lie!).

2) How can Father Rosica remain at his place if he shows such obvious contempt for the very freedoms that make his job?

3) How many dozen of other blogs will Father Rosica have to sue now? Do we want to call them, say, twenty-four, in at least half a dozen jurisdictions?

Vox Cantoris is on a “Blogger” platform. I can, therefore, not reblog his posts. I could link to them, but the link would not work if the posts are removed. 

If any, ahem, “Blogger” blogger wants to reblog his posts, I think this will have the effect that the posts would remain on the blog of the “reblogger” even if they were to be removed from the original site; a decision which Mr Domet could take at any time.

Let me make clear that I would not blame Mr Domet if he decided that he wants to be able to blog in peace, and sleep at night. But I appreciate it the much more, if he decides to fight this fight for all of us.

As Mr Domet has obviously decided he wants to see Father Rosica’s cards, I invite every Catholic blogger of good will, including priest bloggers, to give vast echo to this matter and make their voice heard.

Vaya lio!


I beg of you. I implore you. If you are thinking of starting a blog, do so anonymously.

We live in strange and disturbing times.



Posted on February 19, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. Things must not be going so well at the “Circus Franciscus”.

  2. I note, with twee irony, that you post a Voris video. But more noteworthy, is how Voris phrases the story, as if the Pope has absolutely NO idea, after all, it was behind his back!

    • I obviously thought twice before posting the story. It seems to me when Voris can help some right cause, he should not be hindered from doing it. Which does not mean you should give money to CMTV.

      If the BBC defends Burke, I will link to them.

      As to Francis, it seems too soon to say he – or even Lombardi – is behind this. The behaviour is so stupid it seems to me it is Rosica’s Initiative.


  3. The blogger should appeal for funds to fight this. I would contribute.

  4. Disgraceful. I am sorely tempted to visit Rosica’s blog and give him a verbal thrashing regarding this complete and utter nonsense. This is beyond sickening. I wonder if Skorka referred Rosica to the law firm of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP?

    • The firm does not mean the lawyer must be Jews. Even if they were, it would be wrong to discriminate against them because Jews.

      If you want to make him less then happy, the best way is not to write a comment on his blog he will not publish, but to thrash him on other blogs, who will publish.

      And keep the allusions concerning Jews for yourself. They don’t make you look smart.


  5. Fair enough. When seeing a story like this your blood tends to initially boil. I did post on Rosica’s blog but my one-liner was very tame as I took a few minutes to calm down. He may not publish it but someone will read it.

  6. Thank you very much for this posting, Mr. Mundabor. Canadians have seen Fr. Rosica’s litigious instincts in action over a number of years now. But nothing like this before and certanly not since he became a Vatican spokesman. The attack on an unimpeachably orthodox Catholic blogger by a cleric so highly placed – and especially at such a critical time! – made many of our blood run cold. Thank you again for speaking up, sir.

  7. Dear Mundabor, Anyone who has changed poopy diapers knows what “number two” means. This seems an apt description of Fr. Rosica, although I doubt you intended it.

  8. I believe Father Rosica has committed a crime against a Canadian citizen, according to Canadian law. Please share far and wide: In Canada, the 2008 version of the Criminal Code prohibits extortion as set out at §346(1):

    “Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.”

    In R v Davis, Chief Justice lamer of Canada’s Supreme Court wrote, in 1999:

    “Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, through threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. Threats, accusations, menaces and violence clearly intimidate. When threats are coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim’s freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do.”


%d bloggers like this: