Vortex of Plagiarism?

Yesterday, Church Militant's Michael Voris produced a Vortex episode entitled Schismatic Before God treating the issue of the canonical status of the SSPX. It's the second installment in a series focused on the SSPX, and Church Militant's coverage of the matter is scheduled to climax with the release of an in-depth, investigative journalism-style exposé this Friday. Why, exactly, Michael Voris has chosen to write "SSPX♥SCHISM" upon Church Militant's banner is anyone's guess. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose he is concerned with exposing what he sees as a real danger to souls. It's a bit like lecturing on the importance of hand-washing while a chainsaw-wielding lunatic is on the loose, but ... whatever.

As a matter of editorial policy, I try to refrain from publicly engaging the thorny issue of the canonical status of the SSPX on this blog, as my work here is focused on presenting orthodox Catholic educational material from before Second Vatican Council and all the ugliness which transpired in its wake. I try to put into practice what Mr. Michael Matt of The Remnant has been pleading in favor of for some time now: bringing together traditionally-minded Catholics of various stripes for the advance of authentic Catholicism. And judging by the diverse backgrounds of the individuals who have reached out to me in private communication to express their support for what I do here, it's an effective policy.

Nonetheless, here I am, talking about Michael Voris and the SSPX. *sigh*

I will not comment in any way upon the factual accuracy of Mr. Voris' presentation. I really don't want to get into any of that. Why bring it up at all, then? For a completely different reason:

Like any Catholic with his wits about him, I really enjoy listening to the sermons hosted by AudioSancto, as well as its inheritors, Romans10Seventeen, Regina Prophetarum and Luke1128. I like them so much, in fact, that I've listened to many of them several times. They're often so dense that they warrant a second or even a third listening. One such sermon is entitled End Times, and was delivered in two installments towards the end of November 2014. I must have listened to that sermon at least four times now. It's a good one.

Michael Voris must have thought so, too.

Roughly six contiguous paragraphs of Mr. Voris' presentation from yesterday appear to have been lifted - nearly verbatim - from the second installment of that sermon, delivered on 30.11.2014. As far as I can see, no mention is made of this rather extensive and direct borrowing; the transcript lists only Michael Voris, S.T.B. as its author, and there is no indication that Mr. Voris is quoting someone else.

The sizable portion of the text in question is presented below. The audio file containing the original sermon can be found here. The lifted portion begins at 25:20 and runs to about 28:22.

Let's look at two sources. First, St. Augustine, then St. Alphonsus, before looking specifically at Canon 751. 

It is a manifest rule that one ought in no wise secede from the Catholic communion, that is from the body of Christians throughout the world, by the establishment of a separate communion, even on the admission of evil and sacrilegious men. 

Saint Augustine makes perfectly clear that even with evil and sacrilegious men present in the Church - and we certainly have an abundance of those now - we cannot and must not under any circumstances separate ourselves from the unity of the Church. Notice that St. Augustine is not citing canon law, and the reason for this is that schism is essentially a question of moral theology, not a legal question. Schism is not something that comes into being by a legal declaration. 

When speaking of heresy, St. Alphonsus speaks of "heretics before God" - in other words, of someone who is a heretic but has not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The idea here is that the sin of heresy precedes the judgment of the Church that the man actually is a heretic. And even if the Church never got around in a particular case of judging some man, he would still be a heretic before God - and how God views it is all that matters at the end of the day. 

The situation with schism is analogous. We could speak of "schismatics before God" - in other words, of people who are schismatic but have not been legally declared so by a solemn judgment of the Church. The sin of schism precedes the judgment of the Church, just as the evil of murder precedes the judgment of a court. 

If a group or even an individual, while keeping the True Faith, nevertheless voluntarily, knowingly and deliberately separated himself from the unity of the Church by refusing to submit to the authority of the Pope and/or to remain in communion with those who are subject to him, he or they would still be schismatic even if the Church never got around to making a solemn declaration; they would be schismatics before God.  

So schism at its heart, principally and essentially, is a question of moral theology, not of canon law. One notable aspect of the particular evil spirit behind the sin of schism is that it gives the adherents of this sin an impression, which is really an illusion, of purity and piety. It helps them feel holy and good about maintaining doctrinal and moral purity, and at the same time to feel justified in separating themselves from obedience to the Pope or communion with other Catholics, as if they might somehow become tainted by these sort of associations. This is exactly how the schismatic churches of the Orthodox community feel about Rome, for example.

Even a cursory comparison of the text of the transcript provided by Michael Voris and the text spoken on the sermon recording reveals that the two are nearly identical. And yet there is nothing in Mr. Voris' text to indicate that he has borrowed - rather extensively - from someone else's work.

I realize that to suggest that a journalist has committed an act of gross plagiarism is serious business. I do not want to unfairly damage the man's reputation. It is certainly possible that this was an honest oversight on the part of Michael Voris. In fact, given his extensive experience in the field of professional journalism, one is almost bound to assume that the plagiarism was inadvertent rather than gross, and that there was no real intent to deceive. And it might not be his work at all; it is conceivable that the script was prepared by one of the other reporters on the Church Militant staff, and Mr. Voris just read it off the teleprompter. It happens.

Regardless of how it happened, however, the situation needs rectifying. It is, after all, only fitting that the good and holy priests behind projects such as AudioSancto get at least some recognition for their hard work.

*** UPDATE ***

I just received notification from Church Militant that the following has now been added to the transcript in question:

Portions of this script were taken with permission from this sermon.

I understand that changing the actual video recording of the transcript to reflect the fact that a sizable chunk of it was taken from another source would represent some technical difficulty, so I suppose a disclaimer is as good a rectification as we can hope to see.