I have heard John-Henry Westen speak in person at several events in the past several years. He is an authentic, sincere, humble and devout Catholic, filled with charity; compassionate, but unwaveringly honest. At one talk I was moved to tears by his passionate honesty regarding the state of the Church, and how the Body of Christ is being ripped apart before our very eyes, recalling example after example of incidents of heretical actions and statements by the Church hierarchy that seemed like the brutal lashes of the Roman soldiers at the scourging at the pillar.
We owe John-Henry Westen a gigantic debt of gratitude for what he gave us through LifeSiteNews. He is truly a great man, a giant among Catholics, and I expect when he appears before God, he is one who will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
And I expect LifeSiteNews will now become a Modernist propaganda machine, and will more than likely go out of business in a few years due to lack of readership.
I will say this much, no job, no position, no work on this earth is worth your soul. Great saints like St. Athanasius were removed from their bishopric and exiled, in his case 5 times, because he would not be quiet about the heresy of Arianism.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?
Lifesite is a limited hangout conservative news site. The fact that they do not report the twice scandalous election of Prevost is evidence.
Scandal #1: One month before the conclave Survival Network for Abused priests published the list of cardinal electors who had protected pedophile priests and Prevost was on it. And they willingly went ahead and elected him! We can forget about the current claimant to the throne of St Peter doing anything about sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
Scandal #2: The cardinals violated Pope JPII papal law on elections Universi Dominici Gregis by having 133 cardinals voting when the maximum allowed is 120 and also because they elected a candidate who had made statements against catholic doctrine (Fiducia Supplicans, Amoris Laetitia etc), contrary to Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Oficio.
John of Rochester - There is indeed a strong argument to be made that allowing 133 cardinals to vote was canonically illicit. However, not everything that is illicit is necessarily invalid, and as canon 10 states, it must be made EXPRESSLY known that a certain act is invalidating for it to be invalidating. In other words, proving that someone violated the law (i.e. committed an illicit act) is not sufficient to prove that the act was invalid (i.e. never occurred). And Universi Dominici gregis does in fact explicitly state what makes a papal election invalid: using any method other than secret ballot or not receiving two-thirds of the vote. Is it scandalous to break the law? Yes. Does it necessarily mean that Leo XIV is not a valid pope? No. That requires a very high standard of proof, and I haven't yet seen an argument meeting that standard.
Bugnolo is a fraud and scam artist. He relieved me of around £1500 after I discovered Trad. Catholicism still existed and was so glad I was a sitting target. I knew nothing about online personalities etc. and it didn't occur to me some might be frauds. Yes, I was a fool and gullible but was a sitting duck until I realized my money wasn't going to a 'crusade' to help persecuted Christians. He runs various such 'money-raising' appeals.
I have read at the below link that Brother Bugnolo has refunded donations when the person donating has changed their mind. So if you are going to sustain your claim, instead of calling him names in public I suggest you contact him advising him when you made the donation, how you sent the money and for which project it was, and ask for your money back. Then see how he responds.
As for Michael Schneider's article see here Br Bugnolo's refutation. Also be aware that Fr Schneider was called a calumniator in this article at Catholic Family News so I would not take his opinion seriously.
Francisca - Thanks for the information. Committing fraud and scamming people sounds like the OPPOSITE of Franciscan poverty, doesn't it?
His canonical argument that the election was invalid is juridically unsound and entirely unconvincing. He's also flip-flopped on his opinion and attempted to co-opt things written by others (including canonist Cathy Caridi and myself, when we don't even agree with each other much less with the scammer) to make himself look more "scholarly" by citing people who happen to have a few letters after their names.
John of Rochester - There is no such thing as a "Franciscan friar of private vows." The link you provided discusses private vows for confraternity members, not friars (religious brothers).
A confraternity is an association of the faithful, whose members may include laypersons, clerics, or both, according to canon 298. Such associations perform works of piety and charity together, but they do not establish a rule of life binding the members by public vows (which is why that link even mentions the option of private vows in the first place). A person can join several associations of the faithful (c. 307 §2) but cannot join multiple religious institutes, because while one may perform many different works, one can only be governed by one rule of life.
Religious institutes are defined in canon 607 §2: "A religious institute is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common." Religious must have public vows and live a common life, period. If this supposed Franciscan friar has not made public vows and does not live in common with other brothers, then he is NOT a religious brother and is thus NOT entitled to walk around in a habit calling himself "Brother" and misleading people.
I personally have made a private vow, and I do not go about my life wearing a habit (or any kind of distinctive clothing) and calling myself "Sister." If I did, I would be misleading people with regard to my canonical status in the Church.
There is such a thing as "Franciscan by private vows". For the record:
Brother Bugnolo joined the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1991, and completed his novitiate 1992-1993 at their Convent in Fiume Rapido, Frosinone, Italy, and professed public vows on Sept 15, 1993 at the shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows in Castel Pietroso, Italy, that year and renewed them. He separated from them on Aug. 6, 1996, and began living by private vows immediately, making them before two witnesses on Nov. 1, 1996, in the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Easton, Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, USA.
Anyone can write the FFI and obtain official confirmation that he was a member with them, and that there is no record whatsover with them of any malfeasance, and that he left freely of his own will. So while he is no longer part of the FFI, he lives according to the rule of St Francis, and his vows are private because he took them without the acceptance of a superior as detailed in Can. 1192 §1. A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private
Furthermore, the Congregation for Religious, in a 2006 letter to Br Bugnolo signed by the Secretary of the Congregation, himself says in the final paragraph that "some form of consecration in a private way is always possible". This is on his website at www.fromrome.info
As for the franciscan habit, it is worn out of devotion during processions in Italy, Spain and Portugal and has been worn by even laymen who are members of the Third Order. No Bishop has objected to him doing so. He wears the habit because he is a faithful apostle of St Francis, whose Rule requires that he do so under pain of mortal sin.
John - What I gather from your comment is that he was a publicly professed member and then left the institute of his own free will before making private vows. When he left the institute, he ceased being a religious. There is nothing wrong with being a privately consecrated layperson, but such persons should not misrepresent themselves as members of religious institutes.
See my reply to John of R above. He's a fraud. Probably censored now for good reasons - this is where I say that even social media sometimes gets it right.
It is censored on youtube, X and facebook and so it is difficult to be found. I encourage you to look into the invalid election which is very pertinent at this time but has not been discussed anywhere:
John of Rochester - I find it alarming that I'm seeing an increase in the number of people giving credibility to that website. The author constantly claims to be censored on a bunch of platforms, which might be true in some cases, but I can find him just fine on YouTube.
He claimed to have been "blacklisted" from Substack, making him unable to comment on one of my articles, in a blog post mentioning canonist Cathy Caridi and myself. (In reality, Caridi and I don't agree with each other on this topic, much less with that blogger, who co-opted my argument to support his juridically baseless agenda and seems to have mentioned her solely to give his post a fake veneer of credibility by citing two people who have a few letters after their names.)
And lest anyone accuse me of being some stooge for Leo XIV, I made the argument before the Conclave when I had literally no clue who Robert Prevost even was that the participation of 133 cardinals would render the election illicit: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/no-133-cardinals-cannot-participate. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the man or not; I don't know him personally, so my default is to be simply indifferent and unemotional about that sort of thing.
Certain people are making juridically false claims while positioning themselves as "not like the other bloggers/journalists/whatever" and using strong but ultimately empty rhetoric to compel readers to suspend their own judgment and unquestioningly side with them out of fear of possibly "defending lawbreakers" (something I was accused of myself despite having been one of the first people to argue that the election was illicit).
I have tried posting comments on trad inc youtube channels linking to fromrome.info, and they have all been erased. Furthermore none of the Trad inc commentators discussed Prevost's 2 time pedeophile protection allegations and none of them discuss the arguments for or against the invalid election.... this for me is censorship.
John of Rochester - YouTube is weird and inconsistent with just about everything. Comments posting links are frequently removed, no matter what the links are. It's probably being done by AI registering comments with links as spam rather than censorship performed by a human being. Even changing the settings from the creator dashboard doesn't always fix the issue. Some creators have even had their own comments on their own videos mysteriously removed without explanation.
With regard to the validity of the election, there really isn't anything to discuss at this point. It was illicit. It happened. It's over now. I reached out to a bunch of news sites before the Conclave began and heard nothing in response. Maybe some people are too terrified of being called sedevacantists for even raising the question. The more likely explanation, however, is that most people just didn't bother digging into it further because they genuinely don't see the issue. And it's not helped by the fact that the people arguing that it was invalid don't exactly have the best reputations.
I have tried posting comments on trad inc youtube channels linking to fromrome.info, and they have all been erased. Furthermore none of the Trad inc commentators discussed Prevost's 2 time pedeophile protection allegations and none of them discuss the arguments for or against the invalid election.... this for me is censorship.
Mother Angelica was the first one to try the “step down as owner and hire a friendly board of directors” dodge to fend off the USCCB and the Vatican from a hostile takeover. It worked. Until her death. Then it was a free for all of greedy Church insiders. Today EWTN may as well be run by Cdl. Timmy Dolan and his merry band of Karens.
LifeSiteNews is finished. Just like EWTN post Mother Angelica and just like The Remnant. Folks, if you’re a layman and you want to build a Catholic media outlet to reach the masses, keep it simple and focused, have a day job and on that note… do not allow it to grow where you have a board of directors, filled with donor class people. Also, I strongly suggest all of us stock up on printed books about the Traditional Teachings of the Church cause it’s only a matter of time before A.I. starts to censor the web, social media and yes, Substack too.
I can only speak of my own experience, but a post of mine that the Remnant did not like they not only removed, which was certainly their prerogative, but they also labeled it as spam. That was a bit too much...
My comment was about the 5 minutes of white smoke at the 1958 conclave actually meaning what white smoke is intended to mean.
The Novus Ordo board leadership was uncomfortable with LSN's posture on the COVID death serum, because it made them uncomfortable to be against Francis/apostate authority.
Then the Vigano endorsements made them even more uncomfortable, especially after the fake excommunication.
Finally, LSN began posting persuasive arguments from the sedevacantist perspective, which nobody in Novus Ordo-land could rebut, and this was the last straw.
First, sedevacantist commentary once again became verboten.
Soon, LSN would post their official rebranding notice (Toward a More Excellent Way), whereby they decided to speak more respectfully of apostate Rome (similar to the SSPX rebranding).
Then they perma-banned those regular commentors whom they could not defeat.
These three measures make it seem as though Westin received a slap on the wrist behind closed doors.
Finally, they decided they needed to ban Kokx and Westin, having already discarded McCusker and Wright, ultimately because the Board did not want to become trad.
You'll notice there is no comments box under the Westin announcement. They don't want to hear what you think about it. They're just getting back on board with the Novus Ordo establishment. Period.
Hopefully Westin, Kokx, McCusker/Wright will get something else going on their own. They were mostly the only ones worth reading there anyway."
Steve Jalsevac at LSN has just published a mass-email defending the decision to cancel Westin, which includes this revealing blurb:
“ While legal constraints prevent us from delving into extensive detail, I can share that the decision was influenced by several factors, including a 72% drop in readership from 2021 to 2024 during John-Henry’s tenure as CEO, a decline in monthly and new donors, and other business challenges. Additionally, an internal survey revealed significant concerns regarding staff sentiment and safety scores, which further informed the board’s considerations.”
Aside from not explaining the observations made above regarding the change in editorial content, canning Kokx, etc, it rather admits I was on target:
The trad circle is too small to be profitable. They want bigger numbers, and want to go where the numbers and dollars are: The conciliar church.
Perhaps you should post the same thought on Bishop Strickland’s commentary about LSN….reading his before you I could almost convince that Bishop Strickland had some inside information, just an uneasy sense.
My monthly $25 donation to LifeSite News ends today. JHW is THE reason so many people looked to LifeSite News for truth and objectivity regarding the confused and confusing direction of the institutional Catholic Church. God bless John-Henry Westen!
Thanks for the sad news, Chris. I see that John Henry committed the original sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness. He followed the money:
"He even speculated that Leo’s election was engineered to bring disillusioned U.S. donors back into the Vatican fold."
This sounds like one of the most plausible explanations for his departure. My scorecard on "Is the former Robert Prevost now Francis II or Leo XIV?" stands at:
He flew too close to the Jew. He did a significant series on Chabad-Lubavitch recently. He was critical of Israel. Perhaps his criticism of Pope Leo was part of it. He is their guy after all.
Your Christian witness is truly inspiring, Myles. Thanks for taking a break from listening to Candace Owens content to provide these penetrating insights.
Having been a donor to Lifesite for several years now, I am appalled the John-Henry will no longer be allowed to speak the truth. I will no longer donate to a site that seems to have lost it's vision. Bring John-Henry back now. He's a good Catholic, and believes in the Word of God and in LIFE.
I expect a rout of financial donors to LifeSiteNews (because I am one of them). Goodbye to their shameful betrayal in the cause of exposing the Synodal usurpation of valid Church governance! [Looks similar to the expulsion of James O'Keefe of Project Veritas: 1) Take over the Board. 2) Eject the heroic leader of an investigative organization.]
Back awhile ago when LSN got "upgraded" with a US site and correspondents and video feed and production facilities, it was obvious that there was a cash infusion and with that kind of money and assistance strings are always attached.
No worries… God will provide a new platform for John Henry. I will follow John Henry Weston wherever he goes!!! Probably a Blessing in disguise!!! People trust him even more to speak the truth!!! Thank you John Henry for your courage to stand up for what is right and true!!! God Bless you and your family. Join the wonderful ranks of truth tellers: Candace Owens, Tucker, Fr James Altman, Bishop Strickland, Arch Bishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Fr Pavone… !!!!
I'm interested to see and hear how Frank Wright and others related recently with LifeSite report on such changes and who the voters were in the 5-4 vote cited by Welsch's X post. Pray for our Pope, JHW and all affected by such change.
Bloody hell! It was LSN I trusted during Covid for all my news on the true nature of the shots and why I opted not to get vaccinated. It is LSN where I get all my trusted news for an authentically Catholic perspective, ignoring (or at least dosing with huge amounts of salt) MSM. I first heard of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt thru LSN and found them here on substack. I became a regular LSN donor. I'm going to have to rethink that seriously. Another commenter queried what Frank Wright and other journalists may have to say; I quite agree. Such a heavy day, so very shocking.
I have heard John-Henry Westen speak in person at several events in the past several years. He is an authentic, sincere, humble and devout Catholic, filled with charity; compassionate, but unwaveringly honest. At one talk I was moved to tears by his passionate honesty regarding the state of the Church, and how the Body of Christ is being ripped apart before our very eyes, recalling example after example of incidents of heretical actions and statements by the Church hierarchy that seemed like the brutal lashes of the Roman soldiers at the scourging at the pillar.
We owe John-Henry Westen a gigantic debt of gratitude for what he gave us through LifeSiteNews. He is truly a great man, a giant among Catholics, and I expect when he appears before God, he is one who will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
And I expect LifeSiteNews will now become a Modernist propaganda machine, and will more than likely go out of business in a few years due to lack of readership.
I will say this much, no job, no position, no work on this earth is worth your soul. Great saints like St. Athanasius were removed from their bishopric and exiled, in his case 5 times, because he would not be quiet about the heresy of Arianism.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?
Unbelievable.
Lifesite is a limited hangout conservative news site. The fact that they do not report the twice scandalous election of Prevost is evidence.
Scandal #1: One month before the conclave Survival Network for Abused priests published the list of cardinal electors who had protected pedophile priests and Prevost was on it. And they willingly went ahead and elected him! We can forget about the current claimant to the throne of St Peter doing anything about sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
.
https://apnews.com/article/sex-abuse-snap-zero-tolerance-92d2770ffc6ddf2f10c828ed26f1cb17
https://www.conclavewatch.org/cardinals/prevost
https://www.snapnetwork.org/survivors_respond_to_pope_leo_xiv_s_election_with_grave_concern_about_his_record_managing_abuse_cases
Scandal #2: The cardinals violated Pope JPII papal law on elections Universi Dominici Gregis by having 133 cardinals voting when the maximum allowed is 120 and also because they elected a candidate who had made statements against catholic doctrine (Fiducia Supplicans, Amoris Laetitia etc), contrary to Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Oficio.
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/01/project-save-rome/
John of Rochester - There is indeed a strong argument to be made that allowing 133 cardinals to vote was canonically illicit. However, not everything that is illicit is necessarily invalid, and as canon 10 states, it must be made EXPRESSLY known that a certain act is invalidating for it to be invalidating. In other words, proving that someone violated the law (i.e. committed an illicit act) is not sufficient to prove that the act was invalid (i.e. never occurred). And Universi Dominici gregis does in fact explicitly state what makes a papal election invalid: using any method other than secret ballot or not receiving two-thirds of the vote. Is it scandalous to break the law? Yes. Does it necessarily mean that Leo XIV is not a valid pope? No. That requires a very high standard of proof, and I haven't yet seen an argument meeting that standard.
they'll be out of business within the next 12 mos.
Going on their way they went and wept scattering their seeds, but returning they'll come with joyfulness bringing their sheaths with them. God bless
Here is Brother Bugnolo'a opinion on the matter:
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/07/09/lifesite-board-of-directors-dumps-weston-kokx/
Bugnolo is a fraud and scam artist. He relieved me of around £1500 after I discovered Trad. Catholicism still existed and was so glad I was a sitting target. I knew nothing about online personalities etc. and it didn't occur to me some might be frauds. Yes, I was a fool and gullible but was a sitting duck until I realized my money wasn't going to a 'crusade' to help persecuted Christians. He runs various such 'money-raising' appeals.
Fr Matthew Goddard wrote an excellent article about him after doing a lot of investigation. It beggars belief that the guy is still operating and the Trad. Catholic world doesn't seem to care. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2021/03/issues-with-br-alexis-bugnolo-ordo-militaris-fromrome/
Appreciate the intel
I have read at the below link that Brother Bugnolo has refunded donations when the person donating has changed their mind. So if you are going to sustain your claim, instead of calling him names in public I suggest you contact him advising him when you made the donation, how you sent the money and for which project it was, and ask for your money back. Then see how he responds.
https://substack.com/@mark623670/note/c-127818477?r=eoo8i
As for Michael Schneider's article see here Br Bugnolo's refutation. Also be aware that Fr Schneider was called a calumniator in this article at Catholic Family News so I would not take his opinion seriously.
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2022/02/25/fr-matthew-schneiders-never-ending-lies/
https://www.fromrome.info/2021/03/27/a-response-to-schneiders-libel/
Francisca - Thanks for the information. Committing fraud and scamming people sounds like the OPPOSITE of Franciscan poverty, doesn't it?
His canonical argument that the election was invalid is juridically unsound and entirely unconvincing. He's also flip-flopped on his opinion and attempted to co-opt things written by others (including canonist Cathy Caridi and myself, when we don't even agree with each other much less with the scammer) to make himself look more "scholarly" by citing people who happen to have a few letters after their names.
He also lied about being banned on Substack, but somehow he was able to comment here: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
The Fake Franciscan Friar.
Brother Bugnolo has always said he is a Franciscan Friar of private vows. You may be unaware but the Franciscans accept private vows. See here:
https://www.franciscanpenancelibrary.com/vows
John of Rochester - There is no such thing as a "Franciscan friar of private vows." The link you provided discusses private vows for confraternity members, not friars (religious brothers).
A confraternity is an association of the faithful, whose members may include laypersons, clerics, or both, according to canon 298. Such associations perform works of piety and charity together, but they do not establish a rule of life binding the members by public vows (which is why that link even mentions the option of private vows in the first place). A person can join several associations of the faithful (c. 307 §2) but cannot join multiple religious institutes, because while one may perform many different works, one can only be governed by one rule of life.
Religious institutes are defined in canon 607 §2: "A religious institute is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common." Religious must have public vows and live a common life, period. If this supposed Franciscan friar has not made public vows and does not live in common with other brothers, then he is NOT a religious brother and is thus NOT entitled to walk around in a habit calling himself "Brother" and misleading people.
I personally have made a private vow, and I do not go about my life wearing a habit (or any kind of distinctive clothing) and calling myself "Sister." If I did, I would be misleading people with regard to my canonical status in the Church.
There is such a thing as "Franciscan by private vows". For the record:
Brother Bugnolo joined the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1991, and completed his novitiate 1992-1993 at their Convent in Fiume Rapido, Frosinone, Italy, and professed public vows on Sept 15, 1993 at the shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows in Castel Pietroso, Italy, that year and renewed them. He separated from them on Aug. 6, 1996, and began living by private vows immediately, making them before two witnesses on Nov. 1, 1996, in the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Easton, Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, USA.
Anyone can write the FFI and obtain official confirmation that he was a member with them, and that there is no record whatsover with them of any malfeasance, and that he left freely of his own will. So while he is no longer part of the FFI, he lives according to the rule of St Francis, and his vows are private because he took them without the acceptance of a superior as detailed in Can. 1192 §1. A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann1191-1204_en.html
Furthermore, the Congregation for Religious, in a 2006 letter to Br Bugnolo signed by the Secretary of the Congregation, himself says in the final paragraph that "some form of consecration in a private way is always possible". This is on his website at www.fromrome.info
https://www.fromrome.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LetterfromCongregation2006.jpg
As for the franciscan habit, it is worn out of devotion during processions in Italy, Spain and Portugal and has been worn by even laymen who are members of the Third Order. No Bishop has objected to him doing so. He wears the habit because he is a faithful apostle of St Francis, whose Rule requires that he do so under pain of mortal sin.
John - What I gather from your comment is that he was a publicly professed member and then left the institute of his own free will before making private vows. When he left the institute, he ceased being a religious. There is nothing wrong with being a privately consecrated layperson, but such persons should not misrepresent themselves as members of religious institutes.
Fake in all departments - except for a knowledge of Latin.
Never heard of From Rome; thanks for the link
See my reply to John of R above. He's a fraud. Probably censored now for good reasons - this is where I say that even social media sometimes gets it right.
It is censored on youtube, X and facebook and so it is difficult to be found. I encourage you to look into the invalid election which is very pertinent at this time but has not been discussed anywhere:
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/01/project-save-rome/
John of Rochester - I find it alarming that I'm seeing an increase in the number of people giving credibility to that website. The author constantly claims to be censored on a bunch of platforms, which might be true in some cases, but I can find him just fine on YouTube.
He claimed to have been "blacklisted" from Substack, making him unable to comment on one of my articles, in a blog post mentioning canonist Cathy Caridi and myself. (In reality, Caridi and I don't agree with each other on this topic, much less with that blogger, who co-opted my argument to support his juridically baseless agenda and seems to have mentioned her solely to give his post a fake veneer of credibility by citing two people who have a few letters after their names.)
In any case, his claim about censorship was proven untrue by the fact that he was able to comment on my latest post here, which also explains exactly what does and does not invalidate a papal election: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/what-invalidates-a-papal-election.
And lest anyone accuse me of being some stooge for Leo XIV, I made the argument before the Conclave when I had literally no clue who Robert Prevost even was that the participation of 133 cardinals would render the election illicit: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/no-133-cardinals-cannot-participate. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the man or not; I don't know him personally, so my default is to be simply indifferent and unemotional about that sort of thing.
Certain people are making juridically false claims while positioning themselves as "not like the other bloggers/journalists/whatever" and using strong but ultimately empty rhetoric to compel readers to suspend their own judgment and unquestioningly side with them out of fear of possibly "defending lawbreakers" (something I was accused of myself despite having been one of the first people to argue that the election was illicit).
I have tried posting comments on trad inc youtube channels linking to fromrome.info, and they have all been erased. Furthermore none of the Trad inc commentators discussed Prevost's 2 time pedeophile protection allegations and none of them discuss the arguments for or against the invalid election.... this for me is censorship.
John of Rochester - YouTube is weird and inconsistent with just about everything. Comments posting links are frequently removed, no matter what the links are. It's probably being done by AI registering comments with links as spam rather than censorship performed by a human being. Even changing the settings from the creator dashboard doesn't always fix the issue. Some creators have even had their own comments on their own videos mysteriously removed without explanation.
With regard to the validity of the election, there really isn't anything to discuss at this point. It was illicit. It happened. It's over now. I reached out to a bunch of news sites before the Conclave began and heard nothing in response. Maybe some people are too terrified of being called sedevacantists for even raising the question. The more likely explanation, however, is that most people just didn't bother digging into it further because they genuinely don't see the issue. And it's not helped by the fact that the people arguing that it was invalid don't exactly have the best reputations.
I have tried posting comments on trad inc youtube channels linking to fromrome.info, and they have all been erased. Furthermore none of the Trad inc commentators discussed Prevost's 2 time pedeophile protection allegations and none of them discuss the arguments for or against the invalid election.... this for me is censorship.
Not unlike they did to Mother Angelica at EWTN.
Mother Angelica was the first one to try the “step down as owner and hire a friendly board of directors” dodge to fend off the USCCB and the Vatican from a hostile takeover. It worked. Until her death. Then it was a free for all of greedy Church insiders. Today EWTN may as well be run by Cdl. Timmy Dolan and his merry band of Karens.
And now, Lifesite News.
LifeSiteNews is finished. Just like EWTN post Mother Angelica and just like The Remnant. Folks, if you’re a layman and you want to build a Catholic media outlet to reach the masses, keep it simple and focused, have a day job and on that note… do not allow it to grow where you have a board of directors, filled with donor class people. Also, I strongly suggest all of us stock up on printed books about the Traditional Teachings of the Church cause it’s only a matter of time before A.I. starts to censor the web, social media and yes, Substack too.
Couldn't agree more
So what happened at The Remnant?
I can only speak of my own experience, but a post of mine that the Remnant did not like they not only removed, which was certainly their prerogative, but they also labeled it as spam. That was a bit too much...
My comment was about the 5 minutes of white smoke at the 1958 conclave actually meaning what white smoke is intended to mean.
Here’s what I wrote about it on Gloria.tv:
"Stephen Kokx is gone too.
Easy to see what happened:
The Novus Ordo board leadership was uncomfortable with LSN's posture on the COVID death serum, because it made them uncomfortable to be against Francis/apostate authority.
Then the Vigano endorsements made them even more uncomfortable, especially after the fake excommunication.
Finally, LSN began posting persuasive arguments from the sedevacantist perspective, which nobody in Novus Ordo-land could rebut, and this was the last straw.
First, sedevacantist commentary once again became verboten.
Soon, LSN would post their official rebranding notice (Toward a More Excellent Way), whereby they decided to speak more respectfully of apostate Rome (similar to the SSPX rebranding).
Then they perma-banned those regular commentors whom they could not defeat.
These three measures make it seem as though Westin received a slap on the wrist behind closed doors.
Finally, they decided they needed to ban Kokx and Westin, having already discarded McCusker and Wright, ultimately because the Board did not want to become trad.
You'll notice there is no comments box under the Westin announcement. They don't want to hear what you think about it. They're just getting back on board with the Novus Ordo establishment. Period.
Hopefully Westin, Kokx, McCusker/Wright will get something else going on their own. They were mostly the only ones worth reading there anyway."
https://gloria.tv/post/23Tvfe4WCr4b2DkaesvwDXXxs/replies
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
Steve Jalsevac at LSN has just published a mass-email defending the decision to cancel Westin, which includes this revealing blurb:
“ While legal constraints prevent us from delving into extensive detail, I can share that the decision was influenced by several factors, including a 72% drop in readership from 2021 to 2024 during John-Henry’s tenure as CEO, a decline in monthly and new donors, and other business challenges. Additionally, an internal survey revealed significant concerns regarding staff sentiment and safety scores, which further informed the board’s considerations.”
Aside from not explaining the observations made above regarding the change in editorial content, canning Kokx, etc, it rather admits I was on target:
The trad circle is too small to be profitable. They want bigger numbers, and want to go where the numbers and dollars are: The conciliar church.
Jalsevac revealed more than he may have intended
Were the “safety scores” designed by the committee for public safety?
Perhaps you should post the same thought on Bishop Strickland’s commentary about LSN….reading his before you I could almost convince that Bishop Strickland had some inside information, just an uneasy sense.
There were comments for awhile as I posted one,most were not good for LSN, and then closed down the comments.
Spot on!
My monthly $25 donation to LifeSite News ends today. JHW is THE reason so many people looked to LifeSite News for truth and objectivity regarding the confused and confusing direction of the institutional Catholic Church. God bless John-Henry Westen!
Thanks for the sad news, Chris. I see that John Henry committed the original sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness. He followed the money:
"He even speculated that Leo’s election was engineered to bring disillusioned U.S. donors back into the Vatican fold."
This sounds like one of the most plausible explanations for his departure. My scorecard on "Is the former Robert Prevost now Francis II or Leo XIV?" stands at:
Francis 33, Leo 6....
He flew too close to the Jew. He did a significant series on Chabad-Lubavitch recently. He was critical of Israel. Perhaps his criticism of Pope Leo was part of it. He is their guy after all.
"He flew too close to the Jew"
Your Christian witness is truly inspiring, Myles. Thanks for taking a break from listening to Candace Owens content to provide these penetrating insights.
There is a type of Catholic who would be loyal to the pope and cut off those who are not even if the pope denounced Jesus and his mother.
Bergoglio the False Pope frequently denounced Our Lord Jesus and His Mother.
Having been a donor to Lifesite for several years now, I am appalled the John-Henry will no longer be allowed to speak the truth. I will no longer donate to a site that seems to have lost it's vision. Bring John-Henry back now. He's a good Catholic, and believes in the Word of God and in LIFE.
I expect a rout of financial donors to LifeSiteNews (because I am one of them). Goodbye to their shameful betrayal in the cause of exposing the Synodal usurpation of valid Church governance! [Looks similar to the expulsion of James O'Keefe of Project Veritas: 1) Take over the Board. 2) Eject the heroic leader of an investigative organization.]
Back awhile ago when LSN got "upgraded" with a US site and correspondents and video feed and production facilities, it was obvious that there was a cash infusion and with that kind of money and assistance strings are always attached.
No worries… God will provide a new platform for John Henry. I will follow John Henry Weston wherever he goes!!! Probably a Blessing in disguise!!! People trust him even more to speak the truth!!! Thank you John Henry for your courage to stand up for what is right and true!!! God Bless you and your family. Join the wonderful ranks of truth tellers: Candace Owens, Tucker, Fr James Altman, Bishop Strickland, Arch Bishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Fr Pavone… !!!!
AMEN AND I AGREE
And there it is! Thanks Chris for opening the door to The Truth of the matter!!!
Time for JHW and Frank Wright to start their own show on Substack.
I'm interested to see and hear how Frank Wright and others related recently with LifeSite report on such changes and who the voters were in the 5-4 vote cited by Welsch's X post. Pray for our Pope, JHW and all affected by such change.
Too many bend the knee or keep silent when it needs to be shout out from the rooftops.
Bloody hell! It was LSN I trusted during Covid for all my news on the true nature of the shots and why I opted not to get vaccinated. It is LSN where I get all my trusted news for an authentically Catholic perspective, ignoring (or at least dosing with huge amounts of salt) MSM. I first heard of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt thru LSN and found them here on substack. I became a regular LSN donor. I'm going to have to rethink that seriously. Another commenter queried what Frank Wright and other journalists may have to say; I quite agree. Such a heavy day, so very shocking.