Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 26

Michael Voris' Fawning Interview with Extremist and Anti-Semite E. Michael Jones, and Responses

 

Replies / Critiques  
Christopher Blosser (Against the Grain, 1 May 2012)

Mark Shea (26 April 2012) [+ a follow-up post]

Paul Zummo (American Catholic, 30 April 2012)

[see also the vigorous discussions in the comboxes of these articles, and ensuing Facebook discussion about this post on my page]


Related:
"E. Michael Jones, the newest anti-Semite on Iranian TV" (Aryeh Tuchman , 28 May 2011)  

"Jewish Control of the Catholic Mind: Interview with E. Michael Jones" (Real Jew News / Nathanael Kapner, 2010: an outrageously anti-Semitic site)

"E. Michael Jones and the Jews" (Fringe Watch, 9 January 2006)

Thoughts on How Much Money Apologists Should Make and Our Society's Low Estimate of the Worth of Spiritual / Theological Work

[Taken from an earlier discussion thread. Citations from others are from different commentators]

What would be a very interesting discussion is "how much is too much?" How much money can the Catholic worker make before he is regarded as materialistic and greedy and jilting donators and contributors? Whatever that is deemed to be, I'm quite sure I am well below it and likely will be indefinitely.

*****

How is a donation fundamentally different from a purchase? I take it that a contributor feels that he or she has personally benefited from the work of the group that they support (that seems generally true with regard to my own supporters). Whats the big dif? You support them because you agree with their "product."

*****

I wouldn't find it unseemly for an executive of a company to make this much... perhaps more

Again, here is the beginning of what I would find a tremendously stimulating discussion. Why is it that no one objects to someone who manufactures mufflers or aprons or gasoline or cupcakes, making fabulous amounts of money from good ol' capitalism, yet if someone in a Catholic apostolate makes what is deemed to be "too much" it is a huge scandal and people resent it and blast them?

I'll answer my own question: I suspect it is because spiritual and theological teaching ("product" so to speak) is simply not valued as important. Our society values material goods, so the ones who produce them are entitled to unlimited wealth, but if someone dares to devote themselves to Catholic education or outreach, we believe that they ought to live like paupers (as my own case abundantly illustrates!).

Why? What is the difference? Does anyone have a better theory than my own, above? It's not considered proper "work": it's always been that way: the priest or pastor was not considered to be a person who "worked" like most folks do. In my observation, they run rings around any other kind of worker, bar none. It's like the ridiculous canard that housewives don't "work." Right!

***** 

 "Didn't the Pope reference exactly this recently regarding priests, the cars they drive, and the lifestyles they live?"

Priests are a special case: they voluntarily renounce much of that, along with marriage. That is a heroic call (the evangelical counsels). Lay Catholic workers are not bound to that. In my case, I have a wife and four children to support: five other human beings.

***** 


"Economics: a free economy exchange is mutually beneficial. I am getting a product for my use, and they are receiving compensation for producing that product. An organization that asks for donations is something else entirely."

Ah, but you and others are getting a "product" from Catholic Answers and other similar apostolates (such as my own). It's just that it is not solely material; it's spiritual. My point was that the spiritual is undervalued. Your very analysis almost presupposes this.

We are providing a service, like many other services. We just don't get much money for it. I've written 40 books: several bestsellers in their (tiny) field. But I have to live like a pauper, because people don't value those things. Otherwise, I would make all kinds of money. If I wrote a sex novel or even a romantic novel and managed to get proper advertising; I could potentially make ten times or more what I make. Why? Because that is the "demand" of our society. Supply and demand, right?

It's fine to expect that someone who takes a vow of poverty should be poor (priests, religious), but the lay Catholic worker hasn't done that, and (usually) has a family to support, and is worthy of his or her wage, as the Bible says. My family lives very simply, by choice and philosophy and outlook on life and priorities, but we have bills to pay like anyone else.

But how much is too much? That is the interesting question. People assume and feel a lot of things, but is it really totally thought-through? Usually not . . .

*****

I have no idea what a just wage is; I am questioning others who feel certain that they do know; playing Socrates. I am sure, however, that the key thing is our interior attitude towards wealth and materialism, and its relation to other far more important things in life.

I'm also sure that people by the multiple thousands -- well, millions -- have made idols of money and materialism. That's patently obvious, but it's much more difficult to pinpoint individuals who have done so, because we don't know all the facts and we can't read their hearts.

*****

 How much money is too much and how is it determined? You have a perfect right to your opinion. I wanna know what lies behind it and no one is giving me a reason except for one person who said that $45,000 was some kind of federal figure, so above that is too much.

*****

 "Now like or dislike Voris one has to admit the man does a lot of work."

And Karl Keating doesn't? He's only arguably the father of modern apologetics and built the largest apologetics organization in the world. You can still say it's too much money, but this is not the way to do it . . . People don't know what Karl does with his time. Not all work is outwardly visible to the public. Even if he were semi-retired, why is it that originators of other corporations and enterprises who retire (Karl is over 60) or cut back on their own work are never raked over the coals with implications that they are lazy or didn't earn their money? They still began the thing and that counts for something within the capitalistic system. It's still providing a "product": just spiritual, but expressed in physical things: books, tapes, articles, talks, radio shows, a forum, question-answering from house apologists . . .

*****

I don't think "federal standards" cut it in terms of Catholic social teaching on just and equitable wages. I'm just glad I live in Michigan, with my ridiculous income (to me $45K would be fabulously rich!). We manage. In California I'd be be cleaning toilets every night, working 80 hours a week.

*****

The poorer person has less temptation to idolatry of materialism or greed, obviously, but then the devil introduces class envy and bitterness and felt injustice (not to mention sloth in some cases), and those are killers as well.

 I still think riches are more problematic, though. Jesus warned a lot more about that, than vice versa. But yes, the devil attacks every state of life; gets in there somehow: the tyranny of the "grass is greener" and all that. We just can't live our lives either ignoring others totally or being jealous and envious of them. We gotta live for God and follow His calling on our lives.

*****

 "and [Catholic Answers] even [has] the nerve to put out a "emergency" call for donations,"

That is standard practice in almost all fundraising appeals. It's done because it works, and the tendency (similar to sales pitches in general) is to exaggerate and make out like Chicken Little. People respond to that every time.

My upcoming fundraiser (next Tuesday, until I raise what I need) is a bit funny and different in this respect. I will simply say that my funds are exhausted, because of my unique / odd "situation" of receiving most of my income just twice a year (in book royalties). That's the fact. It's gone right now, after I pay my house bill. I used to be able to get by, month by month. Since Obama and losing my part-time job at Coming Home Network as a result of his lamebrain policies (their donations drastically decreased), I cannot now, despite 40 (!) books and the endless work I have put into my apostolate, lo these 17 years (the last nearly 12, full-time).

But at the same time I'll never say that "if I don't get x amount of dollars it's all over." I'm a lifer. I ain't ever gonna retire unless I go into a coma. I do what I do because I am called to it, with 1000% commitment; it has proven to be fruitful, and God has provided. So yes, I need the money right now (primarily because of the devastation of the economy) but it won't be raised by appealing to the Almighty "crisis" / impending doom routine. I agree about that; always have.

It'll be raised on the basis of whether a person agrees that what I do is of value, and especially if they themselves have benefited from it. I gotta make a living like anyone else. My 2,492 blog papers are available for free, for anyone. Took a lot of time to write all those. Time is money, etc.

*****

 People can have opinions about "how much is too much" but in this entire long thread I've yet to see an argument that solidly proves beyond all dispute that a certain income is "too much" and amounts to "material greed."

The problem I have is people saying, "that is too much!" Then when I probe and ask for the reasoning as to why they think so, I don't feel that I have received an adequate answer all day long, bouncing this topic back and forth. It's usually (in my opinion) a mere feeling, sometimes class envy, and sometimes a double standard, where any other profession can engage in unbridled free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism, but if a lay Catholic worker makes a little money, then that is a huge scandal, even though they have taken no vow of poverty, and usually have families to support. 

 *****

Are So-Called "Establishment" Apologists Financially Compromised and Do They Deliberately Avoid Criticizing Bishops for Fear of Monetary Loss? (Michael Voris' Criticism)

[ source ]
This is a follow-up paper, to my previous one having to do with Michael Voris making an issue out of the salaries of apologists like Karl Keating and Catholic radio talk show hosts like Al Kresta (both personal friends of mine). See:

Michael Voris Applied for the Job of Host of Catholic Answers Live in February 2009

I had noted that Karl Keating clarified that Catholic Answers doesn't receive grants from the bishops; therefore, it is unreasonable to accuse the organization of kow-towing to them and being silent about any corruption or scandal in the hierarchy. Two supporters of Michael Voris replied similarly, as follows:

Jay Boyd wrote in my blog combox:

It’s not about the dollar-amount salaries themselves. It’s about the fact that if any of those speakers/writers did the kind of reporting MV does – i.e., if they openly acknowledged the problems in the Church instead of pretending all is well, and if they called out wayward bishops – they probably wouldn’t have their jobs, nor their salaries, because of the bishops’ disapproval and resultant pressure on the employers.

Even if the bishops don’t contribute a dime to those salaries, they still have the power to blacklist speakers in their dioceses. And that does have an effect; just ask Michael Voris. The bottom line is that the mainstream Catholic media does not report much that addresses the crisis in the Church, and if they did, their heads would begin to roll. Does anyone deny that?

Likewise, Terry Carroll, a person who actually works directly with Michael Voris, noted on a "traditionalist" site (I have italicized where he used caps):

So Catholic Answers and EWTN etc. say "we don't take any money from bishops" and, therefore, Michael's Voris' allegations are demonstrably false. Well try this on.

Suppose that Catholic Answers did precisely the same things that Michael Voris does, i.e., hold the feet of the hierarchy to the fire and expose the state of crisis in the Church? How many of their apologists would be welcome to speak on diocesan property? How many guest appearances would there on be on mainstream Catholic media outlets, like EWTN and Catholic radio? Would there even be a Catholic Answers Live show? How might donations to Catholic Answers be affected if it were publicly known that they were "not an approved apostolate"? None of this is "money from the bishops" but is a consequence of "not playing ball" with the bishops. So, yes, it is possible to speculate whether refusal to expose corruption in the Church might be influenced by money and access.

If EWTN continued on the path of Mother Angelica, who was very critical of the hierarchy, how many bishops or priests would appear (or be allowed to appear) on the air?

Those are the consequences that Michael Voris must endure. He is banned from appearances on EWTN and Catholic radio. It's the exceptional bishop and priest who agrees to be on the air with him. Since his diocese goes out of its way to advertise that he is "not approved," this makes it necessary that those who invite him to speak to find locations not on diocesan property.

To piously intone that you "don't take any money from bishops" and therefore, Michael Voris' charges are false is ... disingenuous in the fullest sense of the word. All the squealing from the targets of these Vortex episodes is proof that Voris hit his targets. He's holding up a mirror to them and they don't like what they see.

I have two replies to this line of reasoning: coming at the same error or falsehood from two different angles. The first I developed in its specifics last night (and have been mulling over this in my mind -- in a general sense -- for many months). It has to do with what the very purpose and modus operandi of the apologist is, in the first place (something I know about, being one myself, full-time for almost twelve years now). I wrote:

There is also a whole other sub-discussion about this sort of thing that I have engaged in at length with Jay McNally: what is the function of an apologist in the first place?

When I wake up in the morning, I am thinking of how I can defend the doctrines of Holy Mother Church and help encourage Catholics in their faith. That's what apologists do, by definition. Journalists, on the other hand, can (and do) probe and troubleshoot and do hard-hitting investigative reporting. That's Michael and Jay's thing, because they are journalists. I have a problem with their demanding that I and other apologists must do exactly what they do. It doesn't follow. I'm not against criticism of corruption or bishops at all; only against the notion that apologists have that as one of their duties or priorities.

What compels Voris to take on people like Catholic Answers and Al Kresta? Why can't he just do his thing and not attack fellow Catholics whom he readily admits are doing good work -- in apologetics, which is what they are devoted to! DUH!!! Apologetics is one thing; journalism is another.

Karl Keating made a variation of this response to textbook RadCathR Chris Ferrara last night in the combox for his latest article, having to do with radical Catholic reactionary criticism of the two shows Catholic Answers Live did on that topic. Chris Ferrara commented and Karl replied:

Chris Ferrara: What about the 'radical neo-Catholicism' of these liberalized masses of people in the pews, who are helping to perpetuate the culture of death by slowly contracepting the Western world into oblivion, voting to elect radically 'pro-gay' and pro-abortion politicians to public office everywhere?"

Karl Keating: Yes, indeed--what about them? Catholic Answers has an extensive chastity ministry that reaches hundreds of thousands of people yearly with the Church's teaching against contraception and in favor of the historic understanding of marriage and sexuality. We have published books and booklets on homosexuality and abortion. Our voter's guide, which covers those two issues and others, has been distributed in the millions of copies. We're doing our part. We're trying to fix a problem that you and we all recognize.

What is "The Remnant" doing beyond pointing out that there is a problem? What are you doing to convert those masses of Catholics to full Catholic morality? It's one thing to raise an alarm about a fire, but then one needs to attend to putting the fire out.

Bravo! This is exactly right, and hits the nail on the head. It's a theme I have talked about for many years now: the RadCathRs and many "mainstream traditionalists" as well, are far too busy bitching and moaning about the Church to do something as mundane as apologetics and evangelism. They don't have time for it. And who would want to come into a Church (a warped, grotesque caricature of the actual thing) that is presented as a radical like Ferrara presents it anyway? Can you imagine Ferrara out street witnessing or doing outreach on the Internet (say, in a Calvinist or evangelical venue)?:

"Hey folks, come and join the Catholic Church! It's self-destructing, at death's door; 95% of our bishops are fundamentally compromised; so are most of our apologists, even the orthodox ones who tell the truth (kow-towing to all the modernist bishops); our popes are spineless wimps who encourage pagans to pray, as if that was equivalent to Christian prayer, and who think Allah and Yahweh are identical. Everything is hopeless and dismal in our ranks; vocations are declining drastically, Mass attendance is a shell of what it used to be; 2% of our people even believe all that the Church teaches anymore, it's spiritually dead, everything is in terrible shape. But come and join the Catholic Church because we're the fullness of truth!"

I would have (quite literally) laughed such a message to scorn, back in 1989 when I was a happy, confident evangelical apologist (fully a Christian by virtue of my valid baptism) and zealous pro-life activist. It would have been far more likely for me to become a jihadist terrorist or travel to the moon in a hot air balloon, than to become a Catholic on that basis.

So Karl Keating makes the obvious point. If there is darkness, you don't just stand there and do the purely negative, reactionary thing of cursing the darkness. You do the positive, pro-active thing of turning on a light, sharing the light, for heaven's sake! Teaching and spreading the truth is opposing the darkness and the lies and falsehood. You don't just condemn the error, but you overcome and replace it with the truth. But that's not good enough for guys like Ferrara and Voris. They have to curse the folks who are turning on the lights, too: precisely what will defeat the darkness in the Church (insofar as it is present) in the long run. They keep bashing and bitching day in and day out. Keating and Al Kresta and myself and others in the apologetics movement in the Church keep promulgating and preaching Catholic truth. Which is likely to have more long-term positive effect?

We also see this methodology in someone like Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: my mentor, who received me into the Church and who wrote the Foreword for my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (who is now being considered for canonization). Fr. Hardon knew better than anyone, what it is like to be subjected to liberal nonsense. He was a Jesuit after all. He used to be mocked and made fun of by his fellow priests in the order. Some of us who were taught by him actually observed this firsthand.

Now how did he respond to that? Did he spend all his time writing books about "neo-Catholicism" and the modernist scandals in the Church? No; he simply wrote orthodox Catholic truth, and trained Catholics to do the same. He conducted Ignatian and Marian Catechist classes (I was part of the former). He was a catechist to Blessed Mother Teresa's nuns. He taught the truth. Most "traditionalists" highly respect Fr. Hardon. His orthodoxy, personal holiness, and zeal are unassailable. He may very well one day be proclaimed a saint. I was honored and privileged to have known him. And he paid me the greatest compliment I've ever received about my writing, saying that it was "very Catholic" (that would have referred to what was to become my first book).

As an illustration: when Fr. Hardon was giving his talks at these classes, they were being recorded by a friend of mine, Dan Peper, and Father would slyly half-smile in his endearing fashion and say in the middle of some observation he was making, "turn off the tape player." Then he'd make a "political" or "controversial" observation about liberals in the Church. When he was done, he'd say, "turn the tape player on again." We all knew why he did it. Now, from Ferrara's and Voris' perspective (given how they are treating Catholic Answers and other apologists), this would be proof that Fr. Hardon was a moral coward who was afraid and unwilling to speak out against liberals in the Church.

But it's all in how you look at it. In my mind, he did speak out against them, but in these instances, he did so in our presence only, without wishing it to be public. He wished to limit the audience who heard that aspect (which is wisdom and prudence: an instance of not airing dirty laundry to all and sundry); thus, those observations didn't make it onto the tapes that were made. But we heard them (sort of like oral tradition in the Bible). He also opposed the modernist nonsense (per my contentions above) by teaching the truth and inspiring many hundreds of Catholics (I often hear from them) to try to follow his noble example.

Now for my second and different response to the two quotes at the top of this paper:

I continue to deny that apologetics groups or individual professional apologists are "financially beholden" to the bishops insofar as (it is claimed by Voris and his devotees and RadCathRs in general, and many "traditionalists") they would be subject to banishment from parishes, thus resulting in "heads rolling" (Jay above). This is simply untrue as a generalization, and at best, only partially true in some cases, to a minor extent. Let's look at several examples and see how it works out.

1) Catholic Answers: as Karl Keating has made clear, CA doesn't receive any grants from the bishops. So they aren't supported in that way. They receive approximately 69% of their income from donations, and 31% from the products they sell. CA has a staff page of 44 people. Now, how many of these people would bishops' hypothetical refusal to allow use of parishes affect? Well, only the public speakers, who go out and give talks around the country (e.g., Staples, Fradd, Molina, Horn, Coffin to some extent). They would indeed be affected to some degree by such a banishment. No one else would be.But this is but a small percentage of the whole staff

CA is supported independently of the hierarchy. Karl Keating does some talks and occasionally a debate, but not many. Mainly he writes for the magazine and blog and appears on the radio show. Jimmy Akin does the same, as he is averse to flying, as I understand it. Then there are "house apologists" like Michelle Arnold and Peggy Frye: not affected if there were such a "ban." Patrick Coffin is primarily the radio host (in-house). who does some talks, too. My good friend Todd Aglialoro (editor of four of my own books) wouldn't be affected by such a possible scenario. Even if it did occur, the speakers on staff could simply stick to radio and writing articles, or talk in non-diocesan venues. No biggie. Thus, the accusation is untrue; it's a non sequitur. Besides, Voris is doing fine, even being banished as he is (and why he is banished, is relevant also). He's getting his message out to multiple thousands.

2) Coming Home Network: I worked for them for three years (2007-2010) as their forum moderator. They have a donation base as well. They produce their own radio and TV shows out of their own building (I've been there, just as I've been to the CA offices). When they had a yearly conference it was at the Hilton Hotel in Columbus, Ohio: that could hardly be prevented by a bishop: what would he do? They have freedom of assembly and speech. They have their own publishing operation.

3) Peter Kreeft: he is a professor at Boston College: hardly a bastion of Catholic orthodoxy. He manages to publish his many books and to be the greatest living Catholic apologist (as Fr. Hardon thought, and I agree). How would a hypothetical banishment by bishops affect his success? Not at all . . .

4) John Martignoni: has his own radio station. He's gonna do what he likes, independently of bishops and the hierarchy (in terms of them "controlling" him in a bad sense). But he's orthodox, like all these groups and persons and myself are. We're not against the hierarchy; we're simply not financially dependent upon them.

5) EWTN: even Terry Carroll, above, made reference to "Mother Angelica, who was very critical of the hierarchy." So he admits that they were critical in the past, but thinks EWTN has since compromised and now shut up about any liberal corruption. I don't know if that is the case or not, as I hardly ever watch the station, so others will have to speak to that. But I highly doubt that things have changed as much as is made out. I know that they have plenty of material in their literature archives that is critical. One personal favorite, that I have touted for years (often link to), is a 1995 article, "Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results," by James Hitchcock. That continues to be online, hosted on their site. Now, if they were so cowardly and unwilling to utter the slightest criticism, why would it still be up on their website?

6) Al Kresta: Ave Mario Radio (and University) was begun by pizza magnate Tom Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza), so that is an independently begun enterprise, not beholden to the hierarchy, either. Nor could it be fundamentally affected by a disapproval.

7) Myself: I'm just a small player in all this, with my pitiful pittance of an income and no public speaking or TV appearances, but hey, I do have nine "officially" published books with five different major publishers (no small or easy feat, believe me), lots of published articles (in paper magazines), some 25 radio appearances (including on EWTN affiliates), and a fairly influential website / blog with almost 2,500 papers, that has been online for 16 years. 

How does this theory of "compromise with the bishops" work with me? I've managed to be perfectly free to speak my mind and say whatever I wish. I have a few Imprimaturs (one from my own bishop) but that is no proof that I am "muzzled." It's proof that I write orthodox books! I've never received a dime from my own archdiocese (by quite deliberate design) nor had any formal connection with them whatsoever (nor do I wish to). Nor have I ever been supported by my own parish (22 years of attendance). I have given exactly one talk connected with it, that was at a pizzeria (the famous "Buddy's" in northeast Detroit).

I have my own website; don't do talks (so that isn't affected by any hypothetical disapproval), I have put out 31 books on my own with Lulu: a secular book publishing operation. I raise money on my own, as needed, via the Internet and secular means of Facebook and Blogger (did so last year and will again starting tomorrow), or by part-time jobs: usually utterly unrelated to anything Catholic. The great bulk of my tiny (yet adequate to pay bills) income is from my own books, written by the sweat of my brow.

I could start blasting bishops and the Church on a daily basis, as Michael Voris does. I freely choose not to do so, per the reasoning above in my first lengthy reply, because it's not my area. I would argue that in order to do so (i.e., to make intelligent, specific criticisms or to issue necessary respectful rebukes), one has to do the hard work of serious journalism. My task is apologetics. But if I wanted to -- tomorrow -- start writing like Voris speaks, it would cause virtually no harm to the way I make my living, and the sources of it, which would remain primarily my own book royalties, and donations from regular old people: not from the hierarchy.


The whole thing is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't apply to us "establishment" so-called "neo-Catholics" or whatever epithet we are called. If Voris wasn't doing fine financially, he wouldn't have a staff of twenty. I have no staff except my hiking stick . . . but look at the work I manage to do! Everyone's doing fine. Support or no support from the hierarchy is almost perfectly irrelevant to -- has no relation to -- the fact of someone succeeding in getting out their message or not. Lay apologetics is strongly encouraged, from the highest levels of the Church. That's all we need. We follow our calling  and go out and do our thing, and it's an honor and a privilege and a joy to do so..

Thus, this charge is simply irrelevant in my case, and that of the others above. It's based on the prior quite questionable and dubious, logically fallacious and factually-challenged  assumptions that:

1) We must speak out (as a matter of duty) on issues of corruption in the Church exactly as radical Catholic reactionaries like Voris and Ferrara do (and this assumes in turn that we must agree that things are precisely as bad as RadCathRs claim they are),

and

2) We don't do so because of some nefarious compromise or cowardly traits that prevent us from doing it, lest we lose the bulk of the vast amounts of filthy lucre that we have obtained as ill-gotten gain (especially in my case: I just joined the Forbes 500 last week!).

My first reply above disposed, I think, of the charge in #1, and my second explains why #2 is also a bum rap. Easy to baldly assert as an accusation: much harder to withstand scrutiny . . .It always take a hundred times more ink to refute a falsehood, than to state the thing, which is easy and can be just one or two sentences.

[see also Facebook discussion of this post]


*****

Preliminary Investigations Into Michael Voris' Income (Since He is So Highly Concerned About the Income of Others)

For background, see my previous paper, Michael Voris Applied for the Job of Host of Catholic Answers Live in February 2009 / Resulting Irony and Hypocrisy. In a recent video, Voris cynically aired the (already public) salaries of several people at Catholic Answers, Catholic radio host Al Kresta, EWTN figure Doug Keck, etc., then added that his own salary was $40,000.

The cynicism resided in his insinuation (not for the first time) that this money was at least partially ill-gotten gains: obtained at the price of personal integrity, meaning (for Voris) that these people are afraid to speak out against problems in the Church because they are supposedly beholden financially to the bishops (Karl Keating has since clarified that Catholic Answers receives no grants at all from bishops, and never has).

Voris' stated $40,000 "salary" must be from RealCatholic.TV (in tax year 2011) because it's not listed on the Form 990 for St. Michael's Media. (RealCatholic.TV apparently is / was for-profit and therefore doesn't have to make its return public.)

Very likely, at least a portion of Voris' income, or that of enterprises he founded, is derived from these public non-profit groups as well (something he can easily deny if he wishes to clarify), so let's take a look at that for a few moments, shall we?

1. The most recent 990, for tax year 2011, shows Voris' St. Michael's Media (Voris founded it in 2006) had gross income of $479,195. (Of that $14,394 [3%] was sale of products, the remainder [97%] came from donations.)

2. Voris is the only officer or directed listed. He is said to have worked an average of 38 hours weekly but received zero in reportable compensation and benefits.

3. The company spent $47,541 on "occupancy," which seems to be mortgage payments or rent on its building in Ferndale, Michigan.

4. It also paid a whopping $49,497 in travel expenses.

5. The biggest single cost was $174,177 for "outside services," which are not otherwise explained. Usually this is the kind of line item used to disguise income of the principals (see more on that below).

6. Presumably, Voris' $40,000 salary also doesn't include speaking fees (or anything that might be found within "outside services"). Some unconfirmed sources suggest that Voris may receive as much as $10,000 per talk, but that is unverified, and I make no claims for it at this time (please forget that I even mentioned it).

Since we are told repeatedly by his devotees that Voris is so open and friendly and transparent, I'm sure he would confirm what he charges and how many talks he gives in an average year. If anyone finds out that information, by all means share it with us, so we can know and understand how very self-sacrificial Voris is (compared to all those money-grubbing "establishment" Catholic types). But rest assured, speaking fees are part of income!: albeit not a "salary" per se.

As a comparison:

1. It could be that Voris does what Paul and Judie Brown, of American Life League ("ALL"), do. You might recall that he defended them in the first part of his video, where he attacked Catholic Answers and others.

Let me preface this by saying that Judie Brown is a huge hero to many of us in the pro-life movement. I was involved in about 25 rescues in the late 80s, with five arrests and three trials, and a little bit of jail time, so I was definitely actively involved in it, and it played a big role in bringing me to the Church; I still write about it a lot. Unlike how Michael Voris treats Keating et al, I say that she deserves every last penny she has earned, and need not feel "guilty" about it at all, as all these others whom Voris criticizes apparently are supposed to feel (because they obtain the amounts only by shutting up about modernism and corruption in the Church and never ever ever offending bishops, you see).

ALL has a budget comparable to that of Catholic Answers, about $5.5 million for 2011.

2. Judie is listed as receiving $108,387 in compensation; Paul, none, since he's not an employee.

3. ALL paid $1,197,636 to Paul's printing company for printing services. Presumably Paul had a salary from this company.

4. ALL paid $78,000 yearly as rent for a building owned by Paul Brown.

5. "The personal residence of the President [Judie] was rented to the League" for $36,000. Maybe the Browns claim they work out of their home.

6. If you add up the rents for the building and the home and Judie's salary, the total is $222,387. Then you need to add in whatever Paul takes as income on the $1.2 million he charges for printing. It's easy to imagine income approaching half a million.

7. The 990 has other line items, such as for a generous annuity, that represent, or might represent, income to the Browns.

8. Unsurprisingly, Voris mentioned none of these numbers.

As a further comparison (since we're swinging income numbers around like there's no tomorrow), consider Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis' Form 990 for 2010.

1. He is not listed as a director or officer. Mark Wyatt is president, and Bob's wife is vice president. None of the four directors or officers received compensation; three are listed as spending fifteen minutes weekly working for the apostolate, with Bob's wife spending one hour.

2. Bob is listed not as an employee but as an independent contractor, with his fee being $201,085.

3. Curiously, when Voris was listing salaries of "professional Catholics," he left out any mention of Bob -- another apologist relying on donations from widows and orphans!--who earns 80% of what Karl Keating does, overseeing a company with no employees and with a budget that was 3.3% of Catholic Answers' budget for the same period. I guess Voris would have no problem with that, huh?: even though Bob reported that 91% of his income was from donations (whereas the percentage for Catholic Answers was 69%).

Moreover, Bob is known (some would say notorious) for making all kinds of criticisms of bishops (including his own) and the Church; even to the extent of insinuating recently that Ven. Pope Paul VI was a practicing sodomite. So that may make his money "honest" in Voris' eyes (Bob shows his granite-like integrity in criticizing everyone under the sun), but it's still quite a bit, isn't it? And it still comes from a donor base: with most individual contributors making far less money than Bob does.

This story may perhaps still be developing. Stay tuned! Meanwhile, all you Voris supporters out there: if you could be so kind as to ask Michael what he charges for speaking fees (since he is so upfront about the money he makes, and of course has nothing to hide), and how much is made from that in a year, and get back to us on that, it would be much appreciated. Again, if he makes nothing from speaking (all gratis), then it is simple enough to confirm that. Thanks!

Accountants and other "business folk" out there may also have some relevant input, as to what the above data likely means with regard to Michael Voris' total income in a year.

[see also, further Facebook discussion]


*****

Michael Voris' Critique of Catholic Answers Salaries and Contention that Two Radio Shows on "Radical Traditionalism" Have Harmed CA's Finances and Support

Michael Voris' video of 8-29-13 was a rather cynical, derisive "expose" of the salaries made by several persons at CA (which -- I should note --  was already public information, since it is a non-profit corporation). Now he's making out that CA has taken a huge hit because they dared to do two shows on radical Catholic reactionaries, and he claims this is part of the reason why they are doing a big fundraiser at present (which they do -- like virtually all Catholic apostolates -- all the time: nothing new there at all).

It's rather ironic that Voris is now being so critical of Catholic Answers, seeing that Karl Keating revealed in the combox of Fr. Dwight Longenecker's critical article about Michael Voris (with characteristic delightful understatement):

After Jerry Usher retired as host of Catholic Answers Live, Michael Voris was in discussion with us about becoming the new host. We decided he was not the right person for that role, which later was filled by Patrick Coffin. We otherwise have never had any contact with Mr. Voris. He did not contact us before airing his videos.

Keating also flatly denied that the shows on radical Catholic reactionaries had anything to do with financial troubles:

We have no evidence that our May 31 show on "radical Traditionalism" resulted in any loss of donations. So far as I know, we weren't receiving donations from "radical Traditionalists" anyway, and nearly all "regular Traditionalists" who commented on the program to us said they appreciated it and thought it fair and helpful. (The August 12 follow-up show aired after our "summer slump" occurred.)

This was confirmed further  in correspondence between Karl Keating and myself (9-4-13), where he reiterated that there is no evidence that the usual summer slump was in any way connected to the May 31st show, nor made any worse by it. He also noted that the current fundraiser not only made up the shortfall, but because of much larger average donations than usual, CA will be in even better shape than it usually is this time of year. Thus, analyses that the second show caused some huge backlash against CA is (lie reports of Mark Twain's premature death), "greatly exaggerated."

Moreover, one of Voris' prime and repeated claims is that Catholic Answers won't speak out against problems in the Church because this would alienate the "hand that feeds them": i.e., the bishops. But this is patently false, since, as Karl Keating revealed in his comment, cited above, that isn't their source of income at all:

Catholic Answers never has asked for, and never has received, grants from bishops. It always has been our policy not to ask the Church to underwrite our work. (Of course, when we send a speaker to a parish, the parish pays an honorarium and travel and lodging expenses.)

We observe a sort of love-hate relationship between Voris and Catholic Answers: he "loves" the organization because it does great apologetics work (as he continues to admit even now), but he blasts it on the following two grounds:

1) Making out that the two Catholic Answers Live shows on radical Catholic reactionaries also trashed mainstream "traditionalists": a completely different group.

2) CA is supposedly fundamentally compromised and won't speak out against liberal, heterodox dissidents or problems in the Church, because this would dry up financial support from the bishops.

Demonstrably wrong on both counts (and I argue the second point at length in my next critique). So why does Voris keep reiterating these falsehoods over and over? If he never listened to the two shows in question or never read the articles about them, how could he make such a comment? That would be journalistic irresponsibility and incompetence. On the other hand, if he had done so, then one can only conclude that he is deliberately misrepresenting, which is even worse.

Take your pick: incompetence and shoddy, "hit piece" sensationalistic journalism  (a la The National Enquirer) or a desire to lie about a fantastic Catholic apologetics organization: one that I am very proud and honored to be associated with (radio appearances, articles in their magazine, book published by them).

His follow-up Vortex video of 8-30-13 was even more dubious. It was clearly at least partially damage control for the previous one. He was saying (paraphrase), "it's not about how much money people make. No one cares about that . . . "

Really? So he puts out a video, revealing exact salaries of people by name, then he wants to walk that back and claim that he wasn't objecting to how much money apologists and other lay public Catholic figures make (now that there is an uproar in many venues online about that very thing, with people expressing the usual class envy and "anti-apologetics" tendencies)?

That's an insult to everyone's intelligence (i.e., anyone with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser). You don't reveal someone's salary (and tell yours in comparison) if you are not objecting to it in some fashion. He clearly was.

Catholic Answers has made it crystal clear again and again, both in the shows, follow-up shows, and in articles and on their forum, that they are opposing radical Catholic reactionaries only , not legitimate mainstream "traditionalists" (those who love the TLM, etc.). For Voris and others to misrepresent that or create a caricature of it is unconscionable. But they keep doing it. The truth always triumphs in the end. spreading falsehood only harms the person who is promulgating it, in the long run. God is not mocked. He sees what is happening; and He alone knows the true motivations and intent of people's hearts. We don't. We can only speculate. But falsehoods can be demonstrated and proven by counter-factual information, to be what they are.

Radical Catholic Reactionary-ism constantly exhibits an exclusivisitic, sectarian, "we're the cream of the crop and the other guys are second-class" mindset. It's spiritual elitism, pride, and pharisaism. It's a regurgitation of the historical error of what is called "rigorism" (Donatists, Novatians, Montanists, Jansenists, etc.).

The overall worldview or mentality is what causes so much damage. Michael Voris is in all likelihood a fine person and good Catholic, but he is better than his worldview. This is the problem. People adopt certain premises and conclusions following from them, and then it's off to the dog races. One falsehood breeds another.

The devil has a field day. He loves to exploit this sort of thing. Get otherwise good Catholics fighting tooth and nail against each other . . . Even when apologists like myself (and other commenters) roundly condemn this because it's wrong, we get accused of doing the same thing that we are opposing with all our might (because people don't make crucial distinctions).

Because of his prior false and confused presuppositions, Voris winds up doing a video like this, that even has many of his own "followers" upset and wondering why in the world he is stooping to such low levels (read some of the comments on his own Facebook page).

He knows he blew it (it seems clear to me), which is why he started walking it back with his next video. But in any event, it's his reputation and his apostolate . . . he'll be harmed more than anyone if he continues on this very troubling trajectory.    

[see also the vigorous Facebook discussion about this post and related issues, including my analysis of "how much money is too much?" for Catholic lay workers and apostolates] 

***

For further critical treatments  of Michael Voris, see my papers (+ one by Fr. Dwight Longenecker):

Is Amazing Grace an "Anti-Catholic" Hymn? [Michael Voris says yes] [1 Nov. 2010]

Michael Voris' Denigration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass vs. Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Decrees [16 Nov. 2012]

Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Exaggerated Statements and Pessimistic Views Regarding the Church [3 July 2013]

Critique of Three Highly Questionable Statements from Michael Voris About the State of the Church [3 July 2013] 

Michael Voris Engages in Despicable and Ridiculous Anti-Protestant Rhetoric (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Michael Voris Lies About Communion in the Hand (and Standing) Having No Historical Basis Whatsoever (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Is Michael Voris a Radical Catholic Reactionary or a Mainstream "Traditionalist"? [12 August 2013] 

Michael Voris' Lovefest Interview with Notorious Radical Catholic Reactionary and Kindred Spirit, Christopher Ferrara [Facebook, 15 August 2013] 

Are So-Called "Establishment" Apologists Financially Compromised and Do They Deliberately Avoid Criticizing Bishops for Fear of Monetary Loss? (Michael Voris' Criticism) [2 September 2013] [+ Facebook discussion]

Michael Voris' Fawning Interview with Extremist and Anti-Semite E. Michael Jones, and Responses [3 September 2013] [+ Facebook discussion]  

"Do We Need Michael Voris?" (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, 30 August 2013; dealing with Voris attacking four Catholic apologists and radio and TV hosts for the salaries they make)  [+ vigorous discussion on my Facebook cross-posting]
                                                                  


*****

Michael Voris Applied for the Job of Host of Catholic Answers Live in February 2009

Isn't that a fascinating bit of information? I thought it might be of interest to my readers, seeing that Voris is now blasting Catholic Answers ("CA") regularly: his latest stunt (video of 8-29-13) being a cynical, derisive "expose" of the salaries made by several persons at CA (which -- I should note --  was already public information, since it is a non-profit corporation). Now he's making out that CA has taken a huge hit because they dared to do two shows on radical Catholic reactionaries, and he claims this is part of the reason why they are doing a big fundraiser at present (which they do -- like virtually all Catholic apostolates -- all the time: nothing new there at all).

This gives a bit of a different perspective or angle on things, doesn't it?: to know this little tidbit of information, because it raises the possible, feasible, speculative spectre of a bit of "disgruntled never-hired employee" psychology (not being hired, being almost as offensive as being fired). Mind you, I'm not asserting this (because that'll be the predictable criticism: I'm "judging his heart," etc.). But like I said, it is quite "possible, feasible, speculative" -- and plausible.

This historical fact was revealed in the discussion thread for Fr. Dwight Longenecker's critical article about Michael Voris. Karl Keating wrote in the combox (with characteristic delightful understatement):

After Jerry Usher retired as host of Catholic Answers Live, Michael Voris was in discussion with us about becoming the new host. We decided he was not the right person for that role, which later was filled by Patrick Coffin. We otherwise have never had any contact with Mr. Voris. He did not contact us before airing his videos.

Keating also flatly denied that the shows on radical Catholic reactionaries had anything to do with financial troubles:

We have no evidence that our May 31 show on "radical Traditionalism" resulted in any loss of donations. So far as I know, we weren't receiving donations from "radical Traditionalists" anyway, and nearly all "regular Traditionalists" who commented on the program to us said they appreciated it and thought it fair and helpful. (The August 12 follow-up show aired after our "summer slump" occurred.)

Curious about the timeline of all this, I found the date of when Jerry Usher stopped hosting Catholic Answers Live. I was on the show twice, by the way, when he was host: in October 2003 [hear audio file] and June 2006 [audio file] ). It was at the end of February 2009, according to his LinkedIn page.

I was also curious about Michael Voris' timeline. Had he started his current operations before he was desirous of being part of Catholic Answers and hosting its enormously important and influential radio show? In fact, he had done so. His biographical blurb on one of his web pages reveals that he  founded St. Michael's media in 2006. In 2008 he partnered with RealCatholicTV, which was basically the genesis of his current operation (a few more changes happened, technically and business-wise, but nothing dramatic, philosophy-wise).

Thus, we can assume that his present opinions (that I classify as RadCathR) were in place at the time he tried to get hired by Catholic Answers. That is one irony. But the greater irony and curiosity here is that, if Voris had been hired, he would have, presumably, been making the money at CA that he now blasts others there for making. Is that not rank hypocrisy?

Let's have some fun with this. Imagine Voris (in all his "prophetic" integrity and righteous indignation) hosting a show on Catholic Answers Live exposing the nefarious, money-grubbing ways of his own fellow employees and bosses, including his own outrageous salary, that he would then, of course, renounce on the air. He'd be fired the next day, but how good that would have felt to tell the truth; play the prophet! That was obviously his motivation to get hired by Catholic Answers, right?: to plot a conspiracy that would eventually expose the materialistic excesses and wickedness of that organization, and how they don't earn or deserve their money. Otherwise, why try to be hired by them?

Thus, it sure sounds to me like it could very well be a case of sour grapes. He wasn't able to be a player with the "big boys" of the apologetics world, and so now he blasts them, now that he has flourished in his own little enterprise. He knows better; he's the "cream of the crop" . . . we've seen this mentality again and again within Christian circles: both Catholic and Protestant.

Moreover, one of his prime and repeated claims is that Catholic Answers won't speak out against problems in the Church because this would alienate the "hand that feeds them": i.e., the bishops. But this is patently false, since, as Karl Keating revealed in his comment, cited above, that isn't their source of income at all:

Catholic Answers never has asked for, and never has received, grants from bishops. It always has been our policy not to ask the Church to underwrite our work. (Of course, when we send a speaker to a parish, the parish pays an honorarium and travel and lodging expenses.)

The whole truth is always far more fascinating and revealing, isn't it? Michael Voris as a "Catholic Answers Wannabe" as recently as February 2009? Who woulda thunk it? I think it's hilariously funny. I always appreciate ironically absurd humor.

So now we observe a sort of love-hate relationship between Voris and Catholic Answers: he "loves" the organization because it does great apologetics work (as he continues to admit even now), but he "hates" it, too (in this speculative scenario) because he couldn't be part of it, himself. Now, he has chosen to lie about:

1) The nature of the CA shows on radical Catholic reactionaries (making out that they trashed mainstream "traditionalists": a completely different group).

2) How CA is supposedly fundamentally compromised and won't speak out against liberal, heterodox dissidents or problems in the Church, because this would dry up financial support from the bishops.

Demonstrably wrong on both counts! So why does Voris keep reiterating these lies over and over? If he never listened to the two shows in question or never read the articles about them, how could he make such a comment? That would be journalistic irresponsibility and incompetence. On the other hand, if he had done so, then one can only conclude that he is deliberately lying, which is even worse.

Take your pick: incompetence and shoddy, "hit piece" sensationalistic journalism  (a la The National Enquirer) or a desire to lie about a fantastic Catholic apologetics organization: one that I am very proud and honored to be associated with (radio appearances, articles in their magazine, book published by them).

His follow-up Vortex video of 8-30-13 is even more ridiculous. It was clearly at least partially damage control for the previous one. He was saying (paraphrase), "it's not about how much money people make. No one cares about that . . . "

Really? So he puts out a video, revealing exact salaries of people by name, then he wants to walk that back and claim that he wasn't objecting to how much money apologists and other lay public Catholic figures make (now that there is an uproar in many venues online about that very thing, with people expressing the usual class envy and "anti-apologetics" tendencies)?

That's an insult to everyone's intelligence (i.e., anyone with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser). You don't reveal someone's salary (and tell yours in comparison) if you are not objecting to it in some fashion. He clearly was, and -- quite obviously -- it was intended to cause a big ruckus, just as his lying (yes, literally lying ) about the nature of the two Catholic Answers Live shows on RadCathRism was meant to do harm to CA.

Catholic Answers has made it crystal clear again and again, both in the shows, follow-up shows, and in articles and on their forum, that they are opposing radical Catholic reactionaries only , not legitimate mainstream "traditionalists" (those who love the TLM, etc.). For Voris and others to deliberately misrepresent that is unconscionable. But they keep doing it. The truth always triumphs in the end. Lying only harms the person who is promulgating the lie in the long run. God is not mocked. He sees what is happening; and He alone knows the true motivations and intent of people's hearts. We don't. We can only speculate. But lies can be demonstrated and proven by counter-factual information, to be what they are.

Radical Catholic Reactionary-ism constantly exhibits an exclusivisitic, sectarian, "we're the cream of the crop and the other guys are second-class" mindset. It's spiritual elitism, pride, and pharisaism. It's a regurgitation of the historical error of what is called "rigorism" (Donatists, Novatians, Montanists, Jansenists, etc.).

The overall worldview or mentality is what causes so much damage. Michael Voris is in all likelihood a fine person and good Catholic, but he is better than his worldview. This is the problem. People adopt certain premises and conclusions following from them, and then it's off to the dog races. One falsehood breeds another.

The devil has a field day. He loves to exploit this sort of thing. Get otherwise good Catholics fighting tooth and nail against each other . . . Even when apologists like myself (and other commenters) roundly condemn this because it's wrong, we get accused of doing the same thing that we are opposing with all our might (because people don't make crucial distinctions).

Because of his prior false and confused presuppositions, Voris winds up doing a video like this, that even has many of his own "followers" upset and wondering why in the world he is stooping to such low levels (read some of the comments on his own Facebook page).

He knows he blew it (it seems clear to me), which is why he started walking it back with his next video. Can he ever retract and admit that he was totally wrong, though? I've never seen it. I sure hope so. But in any event, it's his reputation and his apostolate . . . he'll be harmed more than anyone if he continues on this very troubling trajectory.    

[see also the vigorous Facebook discussion about this post and related issues, including my analysis of "how much money is too much?" for Catholic lay workers and apostolates] 

***

For further critical treatments  of Michael Voris, see my papers (+ one by Fr. Dwight Longenecker):

Is Amazing Grace an "Anti-Catholic" Hymn? [Michael Voris says yes] [1 Nov. 2010]

Michael Voris' Denigration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass vs. Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Decrees [16 Nov. 2012]

Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Exaggerated Statements and Pessimistic Views Regarding the Church [3 July 2013]

Critique of Three Highly Questionable Statements from Michael Voris About the State of the Church [3 July 2013] 

Michael Voris Engages in Despicable and Ridiculous Anti-Protestant Rhetoric (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Michael Voris Lies About Communion in the Hand (and Standing) Having No Historical Basis Whatsoever (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Is Michael Voris a Radical Catholic Reactionary or a Mainstream "Traditionalist"? [12 August 2013] 

Michael Voris' Lovefest Interview with Notorious Radical Catholic Reactionary and Kindred Spirit, Christopher Ferrara [Facebook, 15 August 2013] 

"Do We Need Michael Voris?" (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, 30 August 2013; dealing with Voris attacking four Catholic apologists and radio and TV hosts for the salaries they make)  [+ vigorous discussion on my Facebook cross-posting]
                                                                  


*****

Michael Voris Applied for the Job of Host of Catholic Answers Live in February 2009 / Resulting Irony and Hypocrisy

Isn't that a fascinating bit of information? I thought it might be of interest to my readers, seeing that Voris is now blasting Catholic Answers ("CA") regularly: his latest stunt (video of 8-29-13) being a cynical, derisive "expose" of the salaries made by several persons at CA (which -- I should note --  was already public information, since it is a non-profit corporation). Now he's making out that CA has taken a huge hit because they dared to do two shows on radical Catholic reactionaries, and he claims this is part of the reason why they are doing a big fundraiser at present (which they do -- like virtually all Catholic apostolates -- all the time: nothing new there at all).

This gives a bit of a different perspective or angle on things, doesn't it?: to know this little tidbit of information, because it raises the possible, feasible, speculative spectre of a bit of "disgruntled never-hired employee" psychology (not being hired, being almost as offensive as being fired). Mind you, I'm not asserting this (because that'll be the predictable criticism: I'm "judging his heart," etc.). But like I said, it is quite "possible, feasible, speculative" -- and plausible.

This historical fact was revealed in the discussion thread for Fr. Dwight Longenecker's critical article about Michael Voris. Karl Keating wrote in the combox (with characteristic delightful understatement):

After Jerry Usher retired as host of Catholic Answers Live, Michael Voris was in discussion with us about becoming the new host. We decided he was not the right person for that role, which later was filled by Patrick Coffin. We otherwise have never had any contact with Mr. Voris. He did not contact us before airing his videos.

Keating also flatly denied that the shows on radical Catholic reactionaries had anything to do with financial troubles:

We have no evidence that our May 31 show on "radical Traditionalism" resulted in any loss of donations. So far as I know, we weren't receiving donations from "radical Traditionalists" anyway, and nearly all "regular Traditionalists" who commented on the program to us said they appreciated it and thought it fair and helpful. (The August 12 follow-up show aired after our "summer slump" occurred.)

Curious about the timeline of all this, I found the date of when Jerry Usher stopped hosting Catholic Answers Live. I was on the show twice, by the way, when he was host: in October 2003 [hear audio file] and June 2006 [audio file] ). It was at the end of February 2009, according to his LinkedIn page.

I was also curious about Michael Voris' timeline. Had he started his current operations before he was desirous of being part of Catholic Answers and hosting its enormously important and influential radio show? In fact, he had done so. His biographical blurb on one of his web pages reveals that he  founded St. Michael's media in 2006. In 2008 he partnered with RealCatholicTV, which was basically the genesis of his current operation (a few more changes happened, technically and business-wise, but nothing dramatic, philosophy-wise).

Thus, we can assume that his present opinions (that I classify as RadCathR) were in place at the time he tried to get hired by Catholic Answers. That is one irony. But the greater irony and curiosity here is that, if Voris had been hired, he would have, presumably, been making the money at CA that he now blasts others there for making. Is that not rank hypocrisy?

Let's have some fun with this. Imagine Voris (in all his "prophetic" integrity and righteous indignation) hosting a show on Catholic Answers Live exposing the nefarious, money-grubbing ways of his own fellow employees and bosses, including his own outrageous salary, that he would then, of course, renounce on the air. He'd be fired the next day, but how good that would have felt to tell the truth; play the prophet! That was obviously his motivation to get hired by Catholic Answers, right?: to plot a conspiracy that would eventually expose the materialistic excesses and wickedness of that organization, and how they don't earn or deserve their money. Otherwise, why try to be hired by them?

Thus, it sure sounds to me like it could very well be a case of sour grapes. He wasn't able to be a player with the "big boys" of the apologetics world, and so now he blasts them, now that he has flourished in his own little enterprise. He knows better; he's the "cream of the crop" . . . we've seen this mentality again and again within Christian circles: both Catholic and Protestant.

Moreover, one of his prime and repeated claims is that Catholic Answers won't speak out against problems in the Church because this would alienate the "hand that feeds them": i.e., the bishops. But this is patently false, since, as Karl Keating revealed in his comment, cited above, that isn't their source of income at all:

Catholic Answers never has asked for, and never has received, grants from bishops. It always has been our policy not to ask the Church to underwrite our work. (Of course, when we send a speaker to a parish, the parish pays an honorarium and travel and lodging expenses.)

The whole truth is always far more fascinating and revealing, isn't it? Michael Voris as a "Catholic Answers Wannabe" as recently as February 2009? Who woulda thunk it? I think it's hilariously funny. I always appreciate ironically absurd humor.

So now we observe a sort of love-hate relationship between Voris and Catholic Answers: he "loves" the organization because it does great apologetics work (as he continues to admit even now), but he "hates" it, too (in this speculative scenario) because he couldn't be part of it, himself. Now, he has chosen to lie about:

1) The nature of the CA shows on radical Catholic reactionaries (making out that they trashed mainstream "traditionalists": a completely different group).

2) How CA is supposedly fundamentally compromised and won't speak out against liberal, heterodox dissidents or problems in the Church, because this would dry up financial support from the bishops.

Demonstrably wrong on both counts! So why does Voris keep reiterating these lies over and over? If he never listened to the two shows in question or never read the articles about them, how could he make such a comment? That would be journalistic irresponsibility and incompetence. On the other hand, if he had done so, then one can only conclude that he is deliberately lying, which is even worse.

Take your pick: incompetence and shoddy, "hit piece" sensationalistic journalism  (a la The National Enquirer) or a desire to lie about a fantastic Catholic apologetics organization: one that I am very proud and honored to be associated with (radio appearances, articles in their magazine, book published by them).

His follow-up Vortex video of 8-30-13 is even more ridiculous. It was clearly at least partially damage control for the previous one. He was saying (paraphrase), "it's not about how much money people make. No one cares about that . . . "

Really? So he puts out a video, revealing exact salaries of people by name, then he wants to walk that back and claim that he wasn't objecting to how much money apologists and other lay public Catholic figures make (now that there is an uproar in many venues online about that very thing, with people expressing the usual class envy and "anti-apologetics" tendencies)?

That's an insult to everyone's intelligence (i.e., anyone with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser). You don't reveal someone's salary (and tell yours in comparison) if you are not objecting to it in some fashion. He clearly was, and -- quite obviously -- it was intended to cause a big ruckus, just as his lying (yes, literally lying ) about the nature of the two Catholic Answers Live shows on RadCathRism was meant to do harm to CA.

Catholic Answers has made it crystal clear again and again, both in the shows, follow-up shows, and in articles and on their forum, that they are opposing radical Catholic reactionaries only , not legitimate mainstream "traditionalists" (those who love the TLM, etc.). For Voris and others to deliberately misrepresent that is unconscionable. But they keep doing it. The truth always triumphs in the end. Lying only harms the person who is promulgating the lie in the long run. God is not mocked. He sees what is happening; and He alone knows the true motivations and intent of people's hearts. We don't. We can only speculate. But lies can be demonstrated and proven by counter-factual information, to be what they are.

Radical Catholic Reactionary-ism constantly exhibits an exclusivisitic, sectarian, "we're the cream of the crop and the other guys are second-class" mindset. It's spiritual elitism, pride, and pharisaism. It's a regurgitation of the historical error of what is called "rigorism" (Donatists, Novatians, Montanists, Jansenists, etc.).

The overall worldview or mentality is what causes so much damage. Michael Voris is in all likelihood a fine person and good Catholic, but he is better than his worldview. This is the problem. People adopt certain premises and conclusions following from them, and then it's off to the dog races. One falsehood breeds another.

The devil has a field day. He loves to exploit this sort of thing. Get otherwise good Catholics fighting tooth and nail against each other . . . Even when apologists like myself (and other commenters) roundly condemn this because it's wrong, we get accused of doing the same thing that we are opposing with all our might (because people don't make crucial distinctions).

Because of his prior false and confused presuppositions, Voris winds up doing a video like this, that even has many of his own "followers" upset and wondering why in the world he is stooping to such low levels (read some of the comments on his own Facebook page).

He knows he blew it (it seems clear to me), which is why he started walking it back with his next video. Can he ever retract and admit that he was totally wrong, though? I've never seen it. I sure hope so. But in any event, it's his reputation and his apostolate . . . he'll be harmed more than anyone if he continues on this very troubling trajectory.    

[see also the vigorous Facebook discussion about this post and related issues, including my analysis of "how much money is too much?" for Catholic lay workers and apostolates] 

***

For further critical treatments  of Michael Voris, see my papers (+ one by Fr. Dwight Longenecker):

Is Amazing Grace an "Anti-Catholic" Hymn? [Michael Voris says yes] [1 Nov. 2010]

Michael Voris' Denigration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass vs. Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Decrees [16 Nov. 2012]

Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Exaggerated Statements and Pessimistic Views Regarding the Church [3 July 2013]

Critique of Three Highly Questionable Statements from Michael Voris About the State of the Church [3 July 2013] 

Michael Voris Engages in Despicable and Ridiculous Anti-Protestant Rhetoric (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Michael Voris Lies About Communion in the Hand (and Standing) Having No Historical Basis Whatsoever (+ vigorous Facebook discussion) [8 August 2013]

Is Michael Voris a Radical Catholic Reactionary or a Mainstream "Traditionalist"? [12 August 2013] 

Michael Voris' Lovefest Interview with Notorious Radical Catholic Reactionary and Kindred Spirit, Christopher Ferrara [Facebook, 15 August 2013] 

"Do We Need Michael Voris?" (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, 30 August 2013; dealing with Voris attacking four Catholic apologists and radio and TV hosts for the salaries they make)  [+ vigorous discussion on my Facebook cross-posting]
                                                                  


*****

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Newman, Vol. II

[in progress; likely will be completed by the end of August 2013]

Introduction

While this volume continues the “work” of The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press, 2012), it should be noted that most of the topics are different, though there is some overlap, too. Thus, “supplement” would more accurately describe the contents herein.
The first volume hit the major, “obligatory” theological topics. This one is more wide-ranging and perhaps also more “fun” (in a sense) for Newman devotees. Examples of the latter aspect might include Blessed Cardinal Newman's reflections upon his own writing and books, science and Christianity, heaven and hell, old age, and Ireland and Irishmen. 
The citations also tend to be relatively shorter, and to include proportionately more material from his correspondence.
I managed to locate two additional volumes of Letters and Diaries for this work: volumes 27 and 28: covering the years of 1874-1878. These individual portions of the massive, fifty-years-in-the-making 32-volume set are quite expensive. One is fortunate to find even used copies for less than $50 (some cost as much as $500). It's likely, then, that most people who are interested in Newman at all, have not accessed these books. 
They contain a lot of excellent observations and “gems” on a variety of topics, that I was delighted to find and now to pass along, for the education and edification of the reader. 
Once again, theology is the overwhelming emphasis, so some topics that one might expect to find, or find in much greater depth, will be missing for that reason. But those interested in Cardinal Newman's Catholic and doctrinal thinking and beliefs will, I trust, be satisfied with what I have compiled. Enjoy!
Excerpts
[all from Facebook]
On How Scientific Materialists Illogically Use Evolution to Discount Christianity
On His Own Sermons

On Theological Anti-Catholicism

On the Inevitability of Protestant Tradition Decisively Influencing Biblical Exegesis

On the Necessity of Interpretation of Even Clear Scripture, and the Sensus Fidelium

On Modernist Skepticism 

On Communion in One Kind, the Authority of the Catholic Church, and Related Anglican Criticisms

On Papal Infallibility and Interpretation of  Magisterial Documents

On Potential Catholic Converts Right on the Edge of Being Convinced

Newman Foresees Internet Mind-Reading and Rabbit Trails

On Truth Wherever it is Found, and in its Good Time

Not All Can Debate Well (Newman Included)

On the Orthodoxy of Catholic Universities

On Poisoning the Wells

On the Indefectibility of the Church

On Paganism and Christianity

On Distortions Regarding the Catholic Doctrine of Papal Infallibility

Vatican I Defined God as the Author of the Biblical Books


Misc.

The Quotable Newman and The Quotable Newman, Vol. II: Semi-Complete Index of Correspondents


 Index of Topics 
[not yet complete]

 [topics colored in green were also included in Vol. I. All other topics are unique to Vol. II]

Allegorical Method
Altar Calls Altars Anathemas Anti-Catholicism (Prejudice)Anti-Catholicism (Theological)AntichristApologia pro Vita suaApostates; Apostasy ArianismAristotle
Art
Atheism and AgnosticismBabylon, Whore of Beatific Vision BeautyBishopsCardinalate (His Own)CardinalsCatechumens Celibacy Charity; AlmsgivingChurch and Salvation Church and Social Change
Church and State; Caesaropapism; Erastianism
Church BuildingsChurch GovernmentChurch (“Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)Church, Sinners in Church, Visible (vs. Invisible) Circumincession / Coinherence / Perichoresis CommunismCosmological Argument for God’s ExistenceCreedsCrucifixes “Dark Ages” (Anti-Catholic Myth of)Denominationalism; Sectarianism DevotionsDiscipleship Discussion; ArgumentEcumenism; Non-CatholicsEnglishmen
Enthusiasm, Religious (Derogatory Sense) Essay in Aid of a Grammar of AssentEssay on the Development of Christian Doctrine Evil, Problem of Exegesis (of Scripture) Exorcism FaithFaith, “Blind” (Charge Against Catholics) Fasting and AbstinenceGalileoGeocentrist CosmologyGod’s Love HappinessHealingsHeaven Hell Heresy; Heresies Hermeneutics (Interpretation of Scripture) Idolatry Infidels
Ireland and IrishmenJesus: Judaism andJesus: Sacred Heart DevotionJoyJudas JudgmentLatitudinarianism Law and Gospel; Antinomianism
Liberalism and “Progress” (Political)Lutheranism MartyrsMary: Seat of Wisdom  Mary, Sufferings of
Materialism (Wealth for its Own Sake)MethodismMonks and Nuns
Music
Old AgeOld Catholics (Those Who Reject Papal Infallibility)Oxford University SermonsPaganism and Christianity; ClassicsParochial and Plain Sermons Prayer PreachingPresbyterianism Prophecy Protestantism; EvangelicalismProvidence
Rationalism (vs. Faith)“Reformation” (Protestant) Revivalism and Pietism (Excesses of)RepentanceRevelation Rosary, TheSabbath and Sunday WorshipSaints and Holiness Schism Scholasticism; SchoolmenScience and Christianity ScientismSecond Coming of Christ SecularismSin
SkepticismSloganism (in Religion)Superstition Teleological Argument for God (Argument from Design) Testimony, Eyewitness Theology and Theologians Theosis; DeificationTracts for the Times Truth VisionsVocation (Calling) WitchcraftWorld, The (World System; Cosmos)Worship Writing (Books, Correspondence, Articles) Writings (His Own)
Purchase Information
 
Paperback [soon]


$6.99 [soon]
    $2.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]
$6.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon] 

***

Updated on 20 August 2013.

The Quotable Newman and The Quotable Newman, Vol. II: Complete Index of Correspondents

The portion in regular black color below was part of my original 691-page manuscript, The Quotable Newman. That was trimmed down to 415 pages for the Sophia edition (Sophia decided not to include the Index, for space' sake), leaving many of the citations for the second volume. 
I didn't want all this work to go to waste, and decided to add the data from Vol. II, to make it complete. Even though it isn't included in either volume, it has, I think, some usefulness in finding persons whom Cardinal Newman wrote to often, and for the factual information of their birth and death dates and conversion  data, where known.
* * * * *
[blue color = The Quotable Newman, Vol. II citation. All listings in black are from The Quotable Newman]

* * * * *

Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) [1834-1902]
19 July 1862 (Development of Doctrine)19 July 1862 (Inquisition)
Lord Edwin Richard Windham Adare[1812-1871]
31 August 1846 (Development of Doctrine)31 August 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
Archdeacon John Allen [1810-1886]
8 January 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
12 April 1875 (Grace)
12 April 1875 (Scripture)
Thomas William (T. W.) Allies [1813-1903]
30 September 1842 (Fathers of the Church)30 November 1879 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)30 November 1879 (Writing: His Own)
Mrs. Elizabeth Anstice [1807-1889]
18 December 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)18 December 1845 (Papal Infallibility)20 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)

Charles Appleton [1841-1879]

12 Jan. 1874 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)

William Henry Archer [1825-1909]

25 Feb. 1878 (Oxford)
Arthur Arnold [1833-1902]
22 September 1872 (Papal Infallibility)
Matthew Arnold [1822-1888]
3 December 1871 (Communism)3 December 1871 (Laity; the Faithful)
3 Jan. 1876 (Laity; the Faithful)
3 Jan. 1876 (Truth)
3 Jan. 1876 (Universities, Catholic)
Thomas Arnold [1823-1900; convert]
12 October 1862 (Fathers of the Church)
Edward Lowth Badely [1803-1868; Tractarian; received in 1852]
10 February 1842 (Heresy)10 February 1842 (Lutheranism)23 August 1844 (Conversion: His Own)19 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)19 October 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Bishop Richard Bagot of Oxford [1782-1854]
1841 (Baptism, Infant)1841 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)1841 (Development of Doctrine)1841 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)1841 (Fathers of the Church)1841 (Parochial and Plain Sermons)1841 (Saints, Invocation of)1841 (Tracts for the Times)11 November 1841 (Denominationalism; Sectarianism)
George Sherston Baker [1814-1875]

9 March 1875 (Conscience)


Harmood W. Banner
8 November 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
George Slatyer Barrett[1839-1916]
13 October 1882 (Devotions)
Henry Spencer Kenrick Bellairs[b. 1840]
21 March 1882 (Science and Christianity)
Edward Bellasis [1800-1873; Tractarian; received in 1850]
16 February 1842 (Conversion: His Own)5 August 1861 (Vocation: Calling)20 August 1861 (Vocation: Calling)Jan. or Feb. 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)

Mrs. Edward Bellasis [1815-1898]

4 Jan. 1875 (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)

Edward Bellasis, Jr. [1852-1922]

7 Oct. 1874 [Conversion; His Own] 

Lady Constance Bellingham [d. 1891]

10 August 1877 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
Henry Bittleston [1816-1886]
14 June 1882 (Papal Infallibility)

John Rouse Bloxam [1837-1891]

18 Jan. 1876 (Conversion; His Own)
24 July 1877 (Oxford)
Eyton Bond
5 December 1884 (Hell)12 December 1884 (Hell)
Sister Mary Gabriel (Susan) du Boulay [1826-1906; received in 1850]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 January 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)2 January 1870 (Writing: His Own)
Henry Bourne
13 June 1848 (Conversion: His Own)
John William (J. W.) Bowden[1798-1844; Tractarian]
5 January 1840 (Conversion: His Own)21 February 1840 (Conversion: His Own)29 December 1842 (Oxford University Sermons)21 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. J. W. (Elizabeth) Bowden[1805-1896; received in July 1846]
1 March 1846 (Conversion: His Own)1 March 1846 (Eucharist)22 March 1846 (Conversion and Converts)22 March 1846 (Conversion: His Own)18 April 1846 (Conversion: His Own)27 June 1846 (Providence)24 November 1848 (Saints and Holiness)
Marianne Frances (Maggie) Bowden[1839-1926]
5 June 1866 (Conversion and Converts)5 June 1866 (God’s Love)
Emily Bowles [1818-1905; received in 1843]
19 May 1863 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)1 May 1865 (Laity; the Faithful)16 April 1866 (Conversion and Converts)16 April 1866 (Theology and Theologians)16 April 1866 (Writing: His Own)11 November 1866 (Reform, Catholic)8 January 1867 (Vocation: Calling)30 April 1871 (Reform, Catholic)5 January 1882 (Infidels)15 June 1882 (Skepticism)
Lord Braye [1849-1928]
29 October 1882 (Old Age)4 June 1884 (Vocation: Calling)
David Brown [1803-1897]


4 April 1874 (Science and Christianity)
14 Jan. 1875 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
14 Jan. 1875 (Liberalism and Nominalism, Theological)
23 April 1878 (Writings; His Own)

William Robert Brownlow[1830-1901]
25 October 1863 (Images)13 April 1870 (Teleological Argument)

Miss Emily Buchanan

16 April 1875 (Conversion and Converts)
Reginald Buckler, O. P.[1840-1927; received in 1855]
15 April 1870 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)15 April 1870 (Papal Infallibility)15 April 1870 (Theology and Theologians)
Frederick Capes [1816-1888]
2 December 1849 (Hell)16 September 1850 (Science and Christianity)14 November 1850 (Science and Christianity)
John Moore (J. M.) Capes[1812-1889; received in 1845, left the Church but later returned]
14 December 1848 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)14 December 1848 (Purgatory)12 September 1872 (Papal Infallibility)
C. C. Catcliffe
6 January 1867 (Anglicanism)
Ulric Edmund Emmanuel Charlton[1855-1917]
2 October 1883 (Paganism and Christianity)

Lady Chatterton (Henrietta Georgiana Marcia Lascelles) [1806-1876]

26 May 1874 (Novels)
Mrs. Lydia Rose Christie [received in 1879]
5 November 1879 (Conversion and Converts)29 December 1881 (Discussion; Argument)
Richard William (R. W.) Church [1815-1890; Tractarian]
24 December 1841 (Anglicanism)24 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)25 December 1841 (Anglicanism)23 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)26 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)11 July 1865 (Music)
12 April 1875 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)  11 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Mrs. William Robinson Clark

22 Nov. 1875 (Conversion and Converts)
31 Dec. 1875 (Conversion and Converts) 
27 Sep. 1876 (Papal Infallibility) 

Bishop William Joseph Hugh Clifford of Clifton [1823-1893]
3 October 1883 (Scripture)
Robert Aston (R. A.) Coffin[1819-1885; received in Dec. 1845]
27 October 1848 (Writing)

Sir Henry Cole [1808-1882]

23 Oct. 1877 (Paganism and Christianity; Classics)
Edward Coleridge [1800-1883]
12 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)16 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)3 July 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
5 Nov. 1877 (Writings: His Own)
Henry James Coleridge[1822-1893]
26 April 1867 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)13 March 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)5 February 1871 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)5 February 1871 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)5 February 1871 (Old Age)
John Coleridge [1820-1894]
18 March 1884 (Writings: His Own)
Sir William Henry Cope [1811-1883]
10 December 1871 (Papal Infallibility)13 February 1875 (Apologia pro Vita sua)13 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
William John Copeland [1804-1885; Tractarian]
19 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)20 April 1873 (Discussion; Argument)
5 April 1874 (Writings; His Own)
Augustus Craven
13 April 1875 (Development of Doctrine)
A. H. Cullen
12 July 1877 (Church, Sinners in)
12 July 1877 (Judgment)
John Dobrée (J. D.) Dalgairns[1818-1876; Tractarian; received in Sep. 1845]
10 December 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)15 November 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)8 December 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)31 December 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)

Margaret Dalrymple 

10 April 1874  (Eucharist: Communion in One Species)
O'Neill Daunt
7 August 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
Shirley Day
27 September 1884 (Anglicanism)
William Dodsworth [1798-1861; received in 1850]
19 November 1839 (Conversion and Converts)27 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)
Sir James John Louis Donnet[1816-1905]
5 May 1883 (Witchcraft)
George T. Edwards
8 November 1882 (Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction)8 November 1882 (Sacraments)15 April 1883 (Atonement)2 June 1883 (Gospel; Good News)2 June 1883 (Salvation)9 June 1883 (Crucifixes)24 February 1887 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)

Thomas Edwards

15 April 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
Edgar Edmund (Canon) Estcourt [1816-1884; received in Dec. 1845]
2 June 1860 (Conversion and Converts)
Frederick William Faber[1814-1863; received in Nov. 1845]
4 October 1848 (Tractarianism)

John Finlayson [1840-1906]

3 October 1874 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)9 March 1875 (Theology and Theologians) 
John Cowley Fisher [1807-1887]

22 April 1875 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)


John Woulfe Flanagan [1852-1929]
10 February 1881 (Writing)

William Foran

16 Oct. 1876 (Papal Infallibility)
Henry Formby [1816-1884; received in Jan. 1846]
19 or 20 October 1848 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)

Robert E. Forsaith

25 Dec. 1876 (Devotions) 
25 Dec. 1876 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)
George Fottrell
10 December 1873 (Laity; the Faithful)
Mrs. William (Catherine) Froude [1809 or 1810-1878; received in 1857]
5 April 1839 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)9 April 1844 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)9 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)1 June 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)10 June 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)10 June 1845 (Writing: His Own)16 June 1848 (Anglicanism)16 June 1848 (Conversion and Converts)16 June 1848 (Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction)16 June 1848 (Saints, Intercession of)27 June 1848 (Faith)27 June 1848 (Faith and Works)2 January 1855 (Devotions)2 January 1855 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)8 August 1870 (Papal Infallibility)March 1871 (Development of Doctrine)March 1871 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)March 1871 (Papal Infallibility)c. Oct. 1871 (Papal Infallibility)
9 July 1876 (Old Age)

Eliza Margaret (Isy) Froude [1840-1931]

24 April 1875 (Church, Infallibility of) 
24 April 1875 (Papal Infallibility) 
28 July 1875 (Papal Infallibility) 
28 July 1875 (Perspicuity [Total Clearness] of Scripture [Falsity of])
15 March 1877 (God and Moral Law)
24 Nov. 1878 (Satire)

William Froude [1810-1879]
11 August 1851 (Confession)16 April 1879 (Discussion; Argument)29 April 1879 (Development of Doctrine)29 April 1879 (Papal Infallibility)29 April 1879 (Science and Christianity)
Lady Georgiana Fullerton[1812-1885]
21 October 1864 (Papal Infallibility)
10 Nov. 1874 (Old Age)
10 Nov. 1874 (Writing; His Own)
19 Jan. 1975 (Apologetics and Evangelism)
Charles Wellington (Canon) Furse [1821-1900]
2 May 1870 (Absolution)29 August 1873 (Conversion: His Own)
Miss Maria Rosina (M. R.) de Giberne (Sister Maria Pia after 1863) [1802-1885; received in Dec. 1845]
7 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)8 January 1845 (Conversion: His Own)30 March 1845 (Conversion: His Own)28 January 1846 (Conversion: His Own)2 February 1846 (Conversion and Converts)11 February 1846 (The Church: Ecclesiology)6 June 1848 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)10 February 1869 (Cardinalate: His Own)10 February 1869 (Theology and Theologians)
25 July 1876 (Prayer) 22 January 1878 (Angels)

William Ewart Gladstone [1809-1898]

26 Feb. 1875 (Conversion; His Own] 

William Philip Gordon [1827-1900]

28 Feb. 1876 (Prayer)
Miss H.
31 December 1850 (Art)
Mother Margaret Mary Hallahan [1802-1868]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)
Anthony John (A. J.) Hanmer [1817-1907; received in Dec. 1849]
11 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)10 February 1848 (Anglicanism)10 February 1848 (Conversion and Converts)10 February 1848 (Conversion: His Own)10 February 1848 (Faith)
Thomas Norton Harper, S. J.[1821-1893]
18 February 1864 (Discussion; Argument)
John Hayes
13 April 1869 (Writing: His Own)
Lady Herbert of Lea[1822-1911]
29 June 1874 (Conversion and Converts) 
28 April 1875 (Conversion and Converts)
6 October 1879 (Skepticism)

Lady (Margaret) Heywood [received in 1876]

15 Nov. 1875 (Conversion and Converts) 
8 March 1876 (Faith and Reason) 
8 March 1876 (Church, The [Ecclesiology]) 

Edmond G. A. Holmes [1850-1936]

13 Aug. 1875 (Scientism)
Miss Mary Holmes [c. 1815-1878; received in 1844]
15 August 1841 (Conversion and Converts)
15 August 1841 (Saints, Invocation of)
6 December 1841 (Eucharist)
1 August 1842  (Conversion and Converts) 8 February 1843 (Conversion: His Own)7 April 1850 (Orthodoxy)31 July 1850 (Grace)31 July 1850 (Mary: Intercessor, Mediatrix, and Spiritual Mother)18 November 1859 (Writing: His Own)17 October 1861 (Purgatory)2 March 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)2 March 1870 (Writing: His Own)15 May 1871 (Papal Infallibility)
7 August 1874 (Music)
24 Feb. 1875 (Salvation: Absolute Assurance of, Unattainable)
24 Feb. 1875 (Salvation, Moral Assurance of)
James Robert (J. R.) Hope (Hope-Scott after 1853) [1812-1873; received in 1851]
17 October 1841 (Conversion: His Own)19 November 1841 (Conversion and Converts)24 November 1841 (Conversion: His Own)2 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)14 May 1845 (Conversion: His Own)10 June 1845 (Conversion: His Own)23 December 1845 (Providence)2 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)11 April 1867 (Papal Infallibility)

Hope-Scott, Mary Monica [1852-1920]

28 April 1875 (Old Age)
Gerard Manley Hopkins [1844-1889; received in 1866]
3 March 1887 (Ireland and Irishmen)
Vincent Joseph Hornyold, S. J.[1849-1929]
6 April 1879 (Providence)
Lord Edward Howard of Glossop [1818-1883]
27 April 1872 (Councils, Ecumenical)27 April 1872 (Papal Infallibility)27 April 1872 (Trent, Council of)
Baron Friedrich von Hügel[1852-1925]
15 Jan. 1875 (Writings; His Own)
12 July 1877 (Evil, Problem of)
Arthur Wollaston Hutton[1848-1912]
20 August 1879 (Writing: His Own)
Richard Holt Hutton [1826-1897]
12 October 1883 (Papal Sins, Limitations, and lack of Impeccability)12 October 1883 (Reform, Catholic)
Père Hyacinthe
24 November 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 November 1870 (Schism)
R. W. Jelf
1841 (Anglicanism)1841 (Apologetics and Evangelism)1841 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)1841 (Images)1841 (Saints, Invocation of)1841 (Trent, Council of)
Robert Charles Jenkins[1815-1896]
25 Feb. 1875 (Papal Infallibility) 
2 Dec. 1875 (Papal Sins, Limitations, and Lack of Impeccability) 
2 Dec. 1875 (Rule of Faith)
24 July 1876 (Church, Indefectibility of) 
27 Feb. 1877 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
11 January 1879 (Mary: Assumption of)
James Jones, S. J. [1829-1893]
22 Jan. 1875 (Writing: His Own)
2 April 1881 (Writing: His Own)
John Keble [1792-1866; Tractarian]
24 October 1841 (Conversion: His Own)26 December 1841 (Anglicanism)14 March 1843 (Conversion: His Own)4 May 1843 (Conversion: His Own)4 May 1843 (Papal Infallibility)18 May 1843 (Conversion: His Own)20 August 1843 (Writing: His Own)6 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)23 January 1844 (Conversion: His Own)26 February 1844 (Idolatry)8 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)13 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)21 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)15 August 1863 (Angels)27 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)

Lady Henry Kerr [1811-1884]

4 Jan. 1875 (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) 

James Knowles [1831-1908]

7 April 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
Mrs. Frederick George Lee[1838-1890]
2 April 1881 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)
William Leigh, Jr. [1829-1906]
24 November 1873 (Paganism and Christianity)
Pope Leo XIII [1810-1903; became pope in 1878]
August 1879 (Apologetics and Evangelism)
William Samuel (W. S.) Lilly[1840-1919]
23 Jan. 1875 (Ordination; Holy Orders) 
25 July 1876 (Science and Christianity)
7 December 1882 (Science and Christianity)17 August 1884 (Tradition, Apostolic)
Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle[1809-1878]
April or May 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 July 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
6 Nov. 1874 (Papal Infallibility)
9 Jan. 1875 (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)12 February 1875 (Teleological Argument)
12 March 1875 (Church, The [Ecclesiology] )
21 May 1876 (Truth)
Richard Frederick Littledale[1833-1890]
9 March 1879 (Discussion; Argument)
Mrs. Alexander (Martha) Lockhart [c. 1798-1872; received in July 1846]
26 June 1846 (Conversion: His Own)26 June 1846 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
Frederick Lucas [1812-1855; received in 1839]
20 January 1848 (Anglicanism)
20 January 1848  (Discussion; Argument)20 January 1848 (Englishmen)
William Rowe (W. R.) Lyall [1788-1857]
16 July 1842 (Anglicanism)

Archibald MacCall [1852-1926; received in 1875]

27 April 1874 (Anglicanism)
27 April 1874 (Conversion and  Converts)

Malcolm MacColl [1831-1907]

6 March 1875 (Councils, Ecumenical)
Henry Edward Cardinal Manning [1808-1892; received in 1851; bishop in 1865 and Cardinal in 1875]
14 October 1843 (Conversion: His Own)25 October 1843 (Conversion: His Own)24 December 1843 (Conversion: His Own)
William Maskell [1814-1890; received in June 1870]
15 February 1876 (Papal Infallibility)15 February 1876 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
Mrs. Maskell
6 January 1877 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)
Mr. McGhee
28 April 1842 (Discussion; Argument)
Charles Meynell [1828-1882]
27 July 1869 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)

C. R. Miller

22 April 1875 (Perspicuity [Total Clearness] of  Scripture [Falsity of])
William Monsell [1812-1892; received in 1850 (later, Lord Emly)]
17 June 1863 (Church and State; Caesaropapism; Erastianism)
9 Oct. 1874 (Papal Infallibility)
30 April 1877 (Church, Indefectibility of)
Robert Monteith [1812-1884; received in 1846]
21 July 1848 (Anglicanism)

Edward Moore [1835-1916]

16 June 1878 (Purgatory)
Bishop David Moriarty[1814-1877]
Early 1870 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)20 March 1870 (Papal Infallibility)

John Morley [1838-1923]

20 Nov. 1877 (Writings; His Own)
Anne Mozley [1809-1891; sister-in-law of Newman’s sisters]
30 Dec. 1874 (Conversion; His Own) 
25 April 1876 (Old Age)
6 July 1878 (Discussion; Argument) 
6 July 1878 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
1 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Harriett (Mrs. Thomas) Mozley [1803-1852; oldest of Newman’s sisters]
29 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)
Henry Williams Mozley
25 July 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
James Bowling (J. B.) Mozley [1813-1878]
1 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)24 November 1843 (Conversion: His Own)2 April 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
Jemima (Mrs. John) Mozley [1808-1879; Newman’s second eldest sister]
25 February 1840 (Conversion: His Own)15 March 1841 (Writing: His Own)16 November 1841 (Conversion and Converts)28 August 1843 (Conversion: His Own)22 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)21 May 1844 (Conversion: His Own)24 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)December 1844 (Conversion: His Own)22 December 1844 (Conversion: His Own)11 February 1845 (Conversion and Converts)15 March 1845 (Conversion: His Own)17 August 1845 (Writing: His Own)9 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)14 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)2 December 1848 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)18 May 1863 (Writing)18 May 1863 (Writing: His Own)
John Rickards Mozley [1840-1931; son of John and Jemima Mozley; Newman’s nephew]
19 April 1874 (Church, Sinners in)
19 April 1874 (Science and Christianity) 
19 April 1874 (Scientism) 
1 April 1875 (Church and Social Change)
1 April 1875 (Evil, Problem of)
1 April 1875 (Faith and Reason) 
4 April 1875 (Atheism and Agnosticism)
4 April 1875 (Church, Sinners in)
4 April 1875 (Inquisition / Temporal Punishments)4 April 1875 (Papal Sins, Limitations, and Lack of Impeccability)
21 April 1875 (Denominationalism; Sectarianism)
21 April 1875 (Church, Sinners in)
3 Dec. 1875 (Church, The [Ecclesiology])
3 Dec. 1875 (Paganism and Christianity; Classics)
10 Nov. 1877 (Materialism [Wealth for its Own Sake])
10 Nov. 1877 (Science and Christianity) 
10 March 1878 (Discussion; Argument) 26 February 1880 (Beatific Vision)24 October 1881 (Ireland and Irishmen)March 1884 (God’s Love)
Thomas Mozley [1806-1893]
7 March 1841 (Tracts for the Times)
Miss G. Munro [c. 1823-c. 1913; received in Nov. 1845]
11 February 1850 (Saints and Holiness)
J. J. Murphy
1 June 1873 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)1 June 1873 (Total Depravity)
C. J. Myers
25 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)

J. H. Willis Nevins 

19 June 1874 (Church, Infallibility of) 
25 June 1874 (Church, Infallibility of) 
25 June 1874 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)
Francis William Newman [1805-1897; Newman’s youngest brother]
18 January 1860 (Atheism and Agnosticism)18 January 1860 (Conversion and Converts)
Duke of Norfolk (Henry Fitzalan Howard) [1847-1917]
20 February 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)16 May 1879 (Angels)1 January 1880 (Writing: His Own)
James Spencer Northcote [1821-1907; received in Jan. 1846]
8 February 1846 (Conversion: His Own)8 February 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
20 Sep. 1874 (Doctors of the Church)
20 Sep. 1874 (Saints and Holiness)
John William Ogle [1824-1905]
4 January 1882 (Teleological Argument)
P. Sprague Oram
6 May 1884 (Grace)
Miss (Jane) Parker
9 October 1846 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. Pearson
1 April 1881 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)


William Goodenough Penny [1815-1885]
20 May 1878 (Scripture, Inspiration of)
A. P. Perceval

12 March 1841 (Tracts for the Times)
Alfred Reginald Perring
29 March 1879 (Conversion: His Own)
E. J. Phipps
3 July 1848 (Anglicanism)3 July 1848 (The Church: Ecclesiology)3 July 1848 (Conversion: His Own)3 July 1848 (Discussion; Argument)
Sister Maria Pia
[see Miss Maria Rosina (M. R.) de Giberne]

Basil Montague Pickering [1835-1878]

23 Oct. 1877 (Papal Infallibility)
John Julius Plumer [1814-1875; received in 1846]
19 June 1846 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)

Alfred Plummer [1841-1926]

21 Feb. 1876 (Liberalism and Nominalism, Theological) 
17 Oct. 1876 (Discussion; Argument)
4 March 1878 (Oxford)
Charles John Plumptre [1818-1887]

7 June 1874 (Englishmen)


Edward Hayes Plumptre[1821-1891]
14 September 1884 (Faith and Reason)

Mrs. John Podmore

12 Feb. 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
Mother Mary Imelda Poole [1815-1881]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 April 1866 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)Jan. or Feb. 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Simeon Lloyd (S. L.) Pope [1802-1855]
4 September 1842 (Anglicanism)4 September 1842 (Conversion and Converts)
Edward Bouverie Pusey [1800-1882; Tractarian]
20 March 1841? (Creation; Nature)
16 October 1842 (Conversion: His Own)19 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)25 February 1845 (Conversion: His Own)14 March 1845 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)21 February 1846 (Conversion and Converts)5 September 1865 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)5 September 1865 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)17 November 1865 (Papal Infallibility)23 March 1867 (Beatific Vision)23 March 1867 (Doctrine; Dogma)23 March 1867 (Galileo)23 March 1867 (Papal Infallibility)23 March 1867 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)23 March 1867 (Rule of Faith)
20 April 1874 (Writings; His Own) 4 January 1879 (Hell)
Peter le Page Renouf [1822-1897]
21 June 1868 (Papal Infallibility)
Samuel Rickards [1796-1865]
1 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)1 December 1841 (Writing: His Own)
Frederick Rogers (Lord Blachford after 1871) [1811-1889; Tactarian]
22 September 1839 (Conversion: His Own)25 November 1840 (Conversion: His Own)10 January 1841 (Discussion; Argument)22 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)1 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)
3 June 1874 (Apologetics and Evangelism) 
11 April 1875 (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk) 
11 April 1875 (Old Age)
7 Nov. 1875 (Skepticism) 
17 Nov. 1875 (Matter) 
11 Dec. 1877 (Skepticism)
Miss Rowe

21 June 1874 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
3 Sep. 1874 (Transubstantiation)
7 March 1875 (Temptation)

Charles William Russell[1812-1880]
13 April 1841 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)20 February 1848 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
12 April 1874 (Oxford) 
9 April 1875 (Theology and Theologians)
George Dudley Ryder [1810-1880; received in 1846]
22 July 1832 (Celibacy)
George Lisle Ryder [1838-1905; Newman’s godson]
20 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder[1837-1907]
25 April 1879 (Providence)
Mrs. George (Sophia Lucy) Ryder[1814-1850]
28 March 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)
Marquise de Salvo [b.c. 1815; received in Feb. 1846]
14 December 1845 (Conversion: His Own)18 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)18 August 1846 (Apologetics and Evangelism)18 August 1846 (Conversion and Converts)11 June 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)11 June 1848 (Rosary)

John Douglas Sandford [1832-1892; received in ?]

21 Oct. 1876 (Church, Infallibility of)
21 Oct. 1876 (Development of Doctrine)
21 Oct. 1876 (Ignorance, Invincible)
21 Oct. 1876 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)
21 Oct. 1876 (Purgatory)
21 Oct. 1876 (Rule of Faith)
31 Oct. 1876 (Rule of Faith)
6 May1877 (Mary,  Blessed Virgin [General])
6 May1877 (Mary, Perpetual Virginity of) 
6 May1877 (Theosis; Deification)
22 May 1878 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)


Mrs. Sconce

19 Aug. 1875 (Divorce) 

James Scratton [1825-1884; received in 1851]

6 Sep. 1876 (Science and Christianity)
Lady (Maria Theresa) Shrewsbury [d. 1856]
29 April 1848 (Conversion: His Own)
Lady (Louisa Edith) Simeon [1843-1895]
10 November 1867 (Papal Infallibility)25 June 1869 (Apologetics and Evangelism)8 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
A. Spurrier
11 December 1886 (Church, Sinners in)
Henry Stacke
9 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)12 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)12 February 1875 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)

James Fitzjames Stephen [1829-1894]

14 Feb. 1876 (Discussion; Argument)
Miss Maria Trench [1828-1917]
8 September 1875 (Writing: His Own)
Archbishop William Bernard Ullathorne [1806-1889; became a bishop in 1850]
2 November 1848 (Conversion: His Own)2 November 1848 (Saints and Holiness)8 January 1867 (Discussion; Argument)28 January 1870 (Councils, Ecumenical)28 January 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)28 January 1870 (Papal Infallibility)2 February 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Aubrey de Vere [1814-1902; received in 1851]
31 August 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)
John Thomas Walford, S. J. [1834-1894]
19 May 1870 (Anglicanism)
John Walker [1817-1878]
2 November 1847 (Development of Doctrine)
William (Canon) Walker[1820-1893]
5 August 1864 (Writing: His Own)10 November 1867 (Councils, Ecumenical)
J. L. Walton
9 September 1880 (Indulgences)9 September 1880 (Purgatory)
Catherine Ward [c. 1813-1897; received in July 1849]
25 September 1848 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)25 September 1848 (Tractarianism)12 October 1848 (Tractarianism)18 November 1848 (Church, Infallibility of)18 November 1848 (Crucifixes)18 November 1848 (Development of Doctrine)18 November 1848 (Doctrine; Dogma)18 November 1848 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)18 November 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)18 November 1848 (Rosary)30 November 1848 (Denominationalism; Sectarianism)19 December 1848 (Conversion: His Own)19 December 1848 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)
Wilfrid Philip Ward [1856-1916]
30 and 31 January 1885 (Apologetics and Evangelism)31 January 1885 (Miracles)31 January 1885 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)
William George Ward [1812-1882; Tractarian; received in Sep. 1845]
15 March 1862 (Writing: His Own)18 February 1866 (Papal Infallibility)18 February 1866 (Theology and Theologians)

Mrs. Francis. J. (Eleanor) Watt 

9 July 1876 (Angels) 

Samuel William Wayte [1819-1898]

15 Dec. 1877 (Oxford)
Richard Westmacott [1799-1872]
11 July 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
Archbishop Richard Whately [1787-1863]
11 November 1834 (Conversion: His Own)
Joseph Whitaker [1820-1895]
23 June 1884 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Robert Whitty, S. J. [1817-1895]
12 April 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 March 1878 (Cardinalate: His Own)
20 Dec. 1878 (Theology and Theologians)

Agnes Wilberforce [1845-1890]

5 March 1878 (Psalms)
Henry William Wilberforce [1807-1873; received in August 1850]
27 April 1845 (Conversion: His Own)27 January 1846 (Conversion: His Own)10 March 1846 (Conversion and Converts)29 May 1846 (Conversion and Converts)8 June 1846 (Anglicanism)8 June 1846 (Mass, Sacrifice of)8 June 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)10 June 1846 (Antiquity: The Early Church)25 June 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)25 June 1846 (Saints and Holiness)4 July 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)24 September 1846 (Worship)12 January 1848 (Mary, Blessed Virgin)19 January 1848 (Tractarianism)30 November 1848 (Conversion: His Own)7 March 1849 (Anglicanism)7 March 1849 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)28 December 1850 (Discussion; Argument)24 August 1864 (Conversion and Converts)16 April 1867 (Laity; the Faithful)21 July 1867 (Papal Infallibility)20 August 1869 (Vocation: Calling)
Robert Isaac Wilberforce [1802-1857; Tractarian; received in 1854]
16 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. Henry William Wilberforce (Mary Sargent) [1811-1878; received in June 1850]
17 November 1834 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)17 November 1834 (Conversion: His Own)17 November 1834 (Eucharist)17 November 1834 (Mass, Sacrifice of)17 November 1834 (Purgatory)17 November 1834 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)
 9 Jan. 1875 (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
Samuel Charles Wilks [1789-1872]
8 November 1845 (Anglicanism)
Mrs. Margaret A. Wilson [convert]
20 October 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
1 June 1874 (Writings; His Own)
3 August 1874 (Faith)
3 August 1874 (Liberalism and Nominalism, Theological)
21 Feb. 1875 (Faith and Works)
Nicholas Patrick Stephen Cardinal Wiseman [1802-1865; bishop and Cardinal in 1850]
6 April 1841 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)4 October 1849 (Conversion: His Own)

Charlotte Wood

5 Nov. 1874 (Truth)
11 Jan. 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
Samuel Francis (S. F.) Wood [1809-1843]
6 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)13 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)13 December 1841 (Eucharist)
Miss Henrietta Woodgate
11 May 1881 (Vocation: Calling)

Henry Arthur Woodgate [1801-1874]

10 Jan. 1874 (Angels) 
13 Feb. 1874 (Confession)

Clarence E. Woodman [1852-1924; received in July 1875]

11 May 1875 (Church, Infallibility of)
11 May 1875 (Lies)
Mrs. Albon Woodroffe
16 August 1873 (Conversion: His Own)

Alice J. Wotherspoon

27 July 1875 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
X. Y., Esq.
8 January 1864 (Anti-Catholicism [Prejudice])
J. R. Young
18 May 1881 (Idolatry)18 May 1881 (Mary, Blessed Virgin)
* * * * *   Uploaded on 26 August 2013.

The Quotable Newman and The Quotable Newman, Vol. II: Semi-Complete Index of Correspondents

This was originally part of my initial 691-page book, The Quotable Newman. But that was trimmed down to 415 pages for the Sophia edition (Sophia decided not to include the Index, for space' sake), leaving many of the citations for the second volume. All of the correspondents in Vol. I, however, are included, and it is complete in that sense. All the listings in black font are from the first volume.
I'll also be adding many other quotes to Vol. II from two additional volumes of Letters and Diaries, and snippets from a few more, thanks to Google Books, but won't (at least in the near future) go to all the time-consuming, tedious trouble of adding them to this Index. Thus, this is incomplete, in terms of including all correspondents and all letters to particular correspondents in both volumes.

In any event, I didn't want this work to go to waste, and it has, I think, some usefulness in finding persons whom Cardinal Newman wrote to often, and for the factual information of their birth and death dates and conversion  data, where known.
* * * * *
[blue color = Vol. II citation; but the listing is not complete or comprehensive. If I get ambitious, maybe  I'll add all the additional citations from Vol. II, to compete (knowing myself, I probably will). All listings in black are from The Quotable Newman, and it is a complete listing for that volume]

* * * * *

Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) [1834-1902]
19 July 1862 (Development of Doctrine)19 July 1862 (Inquisition)
Lord Edwin Richard Windham Adare[1812-1871]
31 August 1846 (Development of Doctrine)31 August 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
John Allen [1810-1886]
8 January 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Thomas William (T. W.) Allies [1813-1903]
30 September 1842 (Fathers of the Church)30 November 1879 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)30 November 1879 (Writing: His Own)
Mrs. Elizabeth Anstice [1807-1889]
18 December 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)18 December 1845 (Papal Infallibility)20 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)
Arthur Arnold [1833-1902]
22 September 1872 (Papal Infallibility)
Matthew Arnold [1822-1888]
3 December 1871 (Communism)3 December 1871 (Laity; the Faithful)
Thomas Arnold [1823-1900; convert]
12 October 1862 (Fathers of the Church)
Edward Lowth Badely [1803-1868; Tractarian; received in 1852]
10 February 1842 (Heresy)10 February 1842 (Lutheranism)23 August 1844 (Conversion: His Own)19 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)19 October 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Bishop Richard Bagot of Oxford [1782-1854]
1841 (Baptism, Infant)1841 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)1841 (Development of Doctrine)1841 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)1841 (Fathers of the Church)1841 (Parochial and Plain Sermons)1841 (Saints, Invocation of)1841 (Tracts for the Times)11 November 1841 (Denominationalism; Sectarianism)
Harmood W. Banner
8 November 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
George Slatyer Barrett[1839-1916]
13 October 1882 (Devotions)
Henry Spencer Kenrick Bellairs[b. 1840]
21 March 1882 (Science and Christianity)
Edward Bellasis [1800-1873; Tractarian; received in 1850]
16 February 1842 (Conversion: His Own)5 August 1861 (Vocation: Calling)20 August 1861 (Vocation: Calling)Jan. or Feb. 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)
Henry Bittleston [1816-1886]
14 June 1882 (Papal Infallibility)
Eyton Bond
5 December 1884 (Hell)12 December 1884 (Hell)
Sister Mary Gabriel (Susan) du Boulay [1826-1906; received in 1850]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 January 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)2 January 1870 (Writing: His Own)
Henry Bourne
13 June 1848 (Conversion: His Own)
John William (J. W.) Bowden[1798-1844; Tractarian]
5 January 1840 (Conversion: His Own)21 February 1840 (Conversion: His Own)29 December 1842 (Oxford University Sermons)21 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. J. W. (Elizabeth) Bowden[1805-1896; received in July 1846]
1 March 1846 (Conversion: His Own)1 March 1846 (Eucharist)22 March 1846 (Conversion and Converts)22 March 1846 (Conversion: His Own)18 April 1846 (Conversion: His Own)27 June 1846 (Providence)24 November 1848 (Saints and Holiness)
Marianne Frances (Maggie) Bowden[1839-1926]
5 June 1866 (Conversion and Converts)5 June 1866 (God’s Love)
Emily Bowles [1818-1905; received in 1843]
19 May 1863 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)1 May 1865 (Laity; the Faithful)16 April 1866 (Conversion and Converts)16 April 1866 (Theology and Theologians)16 April 1866 (Writing: His Own)11 November 1866 (Reform, Catholic)8 January 1867 (Vocation: Calling)30 April 1871 (Reform, Catholic)5 January 1882 (Infidels)15 June 1882 (Skepticism)
Lord Braye [1849-1928]
29 October 1882 (Old Age)4 June 1884 (Vocation: Calling)
William Robert Brownlow[1830-1901]
25 October 1863 (Images)13 April 1870 (Teleological Argument)
Reginald Buckler, O. P.[1840-1927; received in 1855]
15 April 1870 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)15 April 1870 (Papal Infallibility)15 April 1870 (Theology and Theologians)
Frederick Capes [1816-1888]
2 December 1849 (Hell)16 September 1850 (Science and Christianity)14 November 1850 (Science and Christianity)
John Moore (J. M.) Capes[1812-1889; received in 1845, left the Church but later returned]
14 December 1848 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)14 December 1848 (Purgatory)12 September 1872 (Papal Infallibility)
C. C. Catcliffe
6 January 1867 (Anglicanism)
Ulric Edmund Emmanuel Charlton[1855-1917]
2 October 1883 (Paganism and Christianity)
Mrs. Lydia Rose Christie [received in 1879]
5 November 1879 (Conversion and Converts)29 December 1881 (Discussion; Argument)
Richard William (R. W.) Church [1815-1890; Tractarian]
24 December 1841 (Anglicanism)24 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)25 December 1841 (Anglicanism)23 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)26 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)11 July 1865 (Music)11 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Bishop William Joseph Hugh Clifford of Clifton [1823-1893]
3 October 1883 (Scripture)
Robert Aston (R. A.) Coffin[1819-1885; received in Dec. 1845]
27 October 1848 (Writing)
Edward Coleridge [1800-1883]
12 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)16 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)3 July 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
Henry James Coleridge[1822-1893]
26 April 1867 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)13 March 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)5 February 1871 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)5 February 1871 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)5 February 1871 (Old Age)
John Coleridge [1820-1894]
18 March 1884 (Writing: His Own)
Sir William Henry Cope [1811-1883]
10 December 1871 (Papal Infallibility)13 February 1875 (Apologia pro Vita sua)13 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)
William John Copeland [1804-1885; Tractarian]
19 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)20 April 1873 (Discussion; Argument)
Augustus Craven
13 April 1875 (Development of Doctrine)
A. H. Cullen
12 July 1877 (Church, Sinners in)
John Dobrée (J. D.) Dalgairns[1818-1876; Tractarian; received in Sep. 1845]
10 December 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)15 November 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)8 December 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)31 December 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
O'Neill Daunt
7 August 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
Shirley Day
27 September 1884 (Anglicanism)
William Dodsworth [1798-1861; received in 1850]
19 November 1839 (Conversion and Converts)27 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)
Sir James John Louis Donnet[1816-1905]
5 May 1883 (Witchcraft)
George T. Edwards
8 November 1882 (Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction)8 November 1882 (Sacraments)15 April 1883 (Atonement)2 June 1883 (Gospel; Good News)2 June 1883 (Salvation)9 June 1883 (Crucifixes)24 February 1887 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
Edgar Edmund (Canon) Estcourt [1816-1884; received in Dec. 1845]
2 June 1860 (Conversion and Converts)
Frederick William Faber[1814-1863; received in Nov. 1845]
4 October 1848 (Tractarianism)
John Woulfe Flanagan [1852-1929]
10 February 1881 (Writing)
Henry Formby [1816-1884; received in Jan. 1846]
19 or 20 October 1848 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)
George Fottrell
10 December 1873 (Laity; the Faithful)
William Froude [1810-1879]
11 August 1851 (Confession)16 April 1879 (Discussion; Argument)29 April 1879 (Development of Doctrine)29 April 1879 (Papal Infallibility)29 April 1879 (Science and Christianity)
Mrs. William (Catherine) Froude [1809 or 1810-1878; received in 1857]
5 April 1839 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)9 April 1844 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)9 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)1 June 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)10 June 1845 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)10 June 1845 (Writing: His Own)16 June 1848 (Anglicanism)16 June 1848 (Conversion and Converts)16 June 1848 (Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction)16 June 1848 (Saints, Intercession of)27 June 1848 (Faith)27 June 1848 (Faith and Works)2 January 1855 (Devotions)2 January 1855 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)8 August 1870 (Papal Infallibility)March 1871 (Development of Doctrine)March 1871 (Mary: Holiness and Immaculate Conception)March 1871 (Papal Infallibility)c. Oct. 1871 (Papal Infallibility)
Lady Georgiana Fullerton[1812-1885]
21 October 1864 (Papal Infallibility)
Charles Wellington (Canon) Furse [1821-1900]
2 May 1870 (Absolution)29 August 1873 (Conversion: His Own)
Miss Maria Rosina (M. R.) de Giberne (Sister Maria Pia after 1863) [1802-1885; received in Dec. 1845]
7 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)8 January 1845 (Conversion: His Own)30 March 1845 (Conversion: His Own)28 January 1846 (Conversion: His Own)2 February 1846 (Conversion and Converts)11 February 1846 (The Church: Ecclesiology)6 June 1848 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)10 February 1869 (Cardinalate: His Own)10 February 1869 (Theology and Theologians)22 January 1878 (Angels)
Miss H.
31 December 1850 (Art)
Mother Margaret Mary Hallahan [1802-1868]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)
Anthony John (A. J.) Hanmer [1817-1907; received in Dec. 1849]
11 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)10 February 1848 (Anglicanism)10 February 1848 (Conversion and Converts)10 February 1848 (Conversion: His Own)10 February 1848 (Faith)
Thomas Norton Harper, S. J.[1821-1893]
18 February 1864 (Discussion; Argument)
John Hayes
13 April 1869 (Writing: His Own)
Lady Herbert of Lea[1822-1911; received ?]
6 October 1879 (Skepticism)
Miss Mary Holmes [c. 1815-1878; received in 1844]
6 December 1841 (Eucharist)8 February 1843 (Conversion: His Own)7 April 1850 (Orthodoxy)31 July 1850 (Grace)31 July 1850 (Mary: Intercessor, Mediatrix, and Spiritual Mother)18 November 1859 (Writing: His Own)17 October 1861 (Purgatory)2 March 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)2 March 1870 (Writing: His Own)15 May 1871 (Papal Infallibility)
James Robert (J. R.) Hope (Hope-Scott after 1853) [1812-1873; received in 1851]
17 October 1841 (Conversion: His Own)19 November 1841 (Conversion and Converts)24 November 1841 (Conversion: His Own)2 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)14 May 1845 (Conversion: His Own)10 June 1845 (Conversion: His Own)23 December 1845 (Providence)2 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)11 April 1867 (Papal Infallibility)
Gerard Manley Hopkins [1844-1889; received in 1866]
3 March 1887 (Ireland and Irishmen)
Vincent Joseph Hornyold, S. J.[1849-1929]
6 April 1879 (Providence)
Lord Edward Howard of Glossop [1818-1883]
27 April 1872 (Councils, Ecumenical)27 April 1872 (Papal Infallibility)27 April 1872 (Trent, Council of)
Baron Friedrich von Hügel[1852-1925]
12 July 1877 (Evil, Problem of)
Arthur Wollaston Hutton[1848-1912]
20 August 1879 (Writing: His Own)
Richard Holt Hutton [1826-1897]
12 October 1883 (Papal Sins, Limitations, and lack of Impeccability)12 October 1883 (Reform, Catholic)
Père Hyacinthe
24 November 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 November 1870 (Schism)
R. W. Jelf
1841 (Anglicanism)1841 (Apologetics and Evangelism)1841 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)1841 (Images)1841 (Saints, Invocation of)1841 (Trent, Council of)
Robert Charles Jenkins[1815-1896]
11 January 1879 (Mary: Assumption of)
James Jones, S. J. [1829-1893]
2 April 1881 (Writing: His Own)
John Keble [1792-1866; Tractarian]
24 October 1841 (Conversion: His Own)26 December 1841 (Anglicanism)14 March 1843 (Conversion: His Own)4 May 1843 (Conversion: His Own)4 May 1843 (Papal Infallibility)18 May 1843 (Conversion: His Own)20 August 1843 (Writing: His Own)6 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)23 January 1844 (Conversion: His Own)26 February 1844 (Idolatry)8 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)13 June 1844 (Conversion: His Own)21 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)15 August 1863 (Angels)27 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)
Mrs. Frederick George Lee[1838-1890]
2 April 1881 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)
William Leigh, Jr. [1829-1906]
24 November 1873 (Paganism and Christianity)
Pope Leo XIII [1810-1903; became pope in 1878]
August 1879 (Apologetics and Evangelism)
William Samuel (W. S.) Lilly[1840-1919]
7 December 1882 (Science and Christianity)17 August 1884 (Tradition, Apostolic)
Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle[1809-1878]
April or May 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 July 1870 (Papal Infallibility)12 February 1875 (Teleological Argument)
Richard Frederick Littledale[1833-1890]
9 March 1879 (Discussion; Argument)
Mrs. Alexander (Martha) Lockhart [c. 1798-1872; received in July 1846]
26 June 1846 (Conversion: His Own)26 June 1846 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
Frederick Lucas [1812-1855; received in 1839]
20 January 1848 (Anglicanism)20 January 1848 (Englishmen)
William Rowe (W. R.) Lyall [1788-1857]
16 July 1842 (Anglicanism)
Henry Edward Cardinal Manning [1808-1892; received in 1851; bishop in 1865 and Cardinal in 1875]
14 October 1843 (Conversion: His Own)25 October 1843 (Conversion: His Own)24 December 1843 (Conversion: His Own)
William Maskell [1814-1890; received in June 1870]
15 February 1876 (Papal Infallibility)15 February 1876 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
Mrs. Maskell
6 January 1877 (Liberalism and Nominalism; Theological)
Mr. McGhee
28 April 1842 (Discussion; Argument)
Charles Meynell [1828-1882]
27 July 1869 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)
William Monsell [1812-1894; received in 1850]
17 June 1863 (Church and State; Caesaropapism; Erastianism)
Robert Monteith [1812-1884; received in 1846]
21 July 1848 (Anglicanism)
Bishop David Moriarty[1814-1877]
Early 1870 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)20 March 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
Anne Mozley [1809-1891; sister-in-law of Newman’s sisters]
1 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Harriett (Mrs. Thomas) Mozley [1803-1852; oldest of Newman’s sisters]
29 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)
Henry Williams Mozley
25 July 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
James Bowling (J. B.) Mozley [1813-1878]
1 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)24 November 1843 (Conversion: His Own)2 April 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
Jemima (Mrs. John) Mozley [1808-1879; Newman’s second eldest sister]
25 February 1840 (Conversion: His Own)15 March 1841 (Writing: His Own)16 November 1841 (Conversion and Converts)28 August 1843 (Conversion: His Own)22 September 1843 (Conversion: His Own)21 May 1844 (Conversion: His Own)24 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)December 1844 (Conversion: His Own)22 December 1844 (Conversion: His Own)11 February 1845 (Conversion and Converts)15 March 1845 (Conversion: His Own)17 August 1845 (Writing: His Own)9 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)14 October 1845 (Conversion: His Own)2 December 1848 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)18 May 1863 (Writing)18 May 1863 (Writing: His Own)
John Rickards Mozley [1840-1931; son of John and Jemima Mozley; Newman’s nephew]
21 April 1875 (Church, Sinners in)26 February 1880 (Beatific Vision)24 October 1881 (Ireland and Irishmen)March 1884 (God’s Love)
Thomas Mozley [1806-1893]
7 March 1841 (Tracts for the Times)
Miss G. Munro [c. 1823-c. 1913; received in Nov. 1845]
11 February 1850 (Saints and Holiness)
J. J. Murphy
1 June 1873 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)1 June 1873 (Total Depravity)
C. J. Myers
25 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)
Francis William Newman [1805-1897; Newman’s youngest brother]
18 January 1860 (Atheism and Agnosticism)18 January 1860 (Conversion and Converts)
Duke of Norfolk (Henry Fitzalan Howard) [1847-1917]
20 February 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)16 May 1879 (Angels)1 January 1880 (Writing: His Own)
James Spencer Northcote [1821-1907; received in Jan. 1846]
8 February 1846 (Conversion: His Own)8 February 1846 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
John William Ogle [1824-1905]
4 January 1882 (Teleological Argument)
P. Sprague Oram
6 May 1884 (Grace)
Miss (Jane) Parker
9 October 1846 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. Pearson
1 April 1881 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)
Alfred Reginald Perring
29 March 1879 (Conversion: His Own)
E. J. Phipps
3 July 1848 (Anglicanism)3 July 1848 (The Church: Ecclesiology)3 July 1848 (Conversion: His Own)3 July 1848 (Discussion; Argument)
Sister Maria Pia
[see Miss Maria Rosina (M. R.) de Giberne]
John Julius Plumer [1814-1875; received in 1846]
19 June 1846 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)
Edward Hayes Plumptre[1821-1891]
14 September 1884 (Faith and Reason)
Mother Mary Imelda Poole [1815-1881]
25 June 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)2 April 1866 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)Jan. or Feb. 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Simeon Lloyd (S. L.) Pope [1802-1855]
4 September 1842 (Anglicanism)4 September 1842 (Conversion and Converts)
Edward Bouverie Pusey [1800-1882; Tractarian]
16 October 1842 (Conversion: His Own)19 February 1844 (Conversion: His Own)25 February 1845 (Conversion: His Own)14 March 1845 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)21 February 1846 (Conversion and Converts)5 September 1865 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)5 September 1865 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)17 November 1865 (Papal Infallibility)23 March 1867 (Beatific Vision)23 March 1867 (Doctrine; Dogma)23 March 1867 (Galileo)23 March 1867 (Papal Infallibility)23 March 1867 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)23 March 1867 (Rule of Faith)4 January 1879 (Hell)
Peter le Page Renouf [1822-1897]
21 June 1868 (Papal Infallibility)
Samuel Rickards [1796-1865]
1 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)1 December 1841 (Writing: His Own)
Frederick Rogers (Lord Blachford after 1871) [1811-1889; Tactarian]
22 September 1839 (Conversion: His Own)25 November 1840 (Conversion: His Own)10 January 1841 (Discussion; Argument)22 April 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)1 May 1864 (Apologia pro Vita sua)
Charles William Russell[1812-1880]
13 April 1841 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)20 February 1848 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
George Dudley Ryder [1810-1880; received in 1846]
22 July 1832 (Celibacy)
George Lisle Ryder [1838-1905; Newman’s godson]
20 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder[1837-1907]
25 April 1879 (Providence)
Mrs. George (Sophia Lucy) Ryder[1814-1850]
28 March 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)
Marquise de Salvo [b.c. 1815; received in Feb. 1846]
14 December 1845 (Conversion: His Own)18 December 1845 (Conversion and Converts)18 August 1846 (Apologetics and Evangelism)18 August 1846 (Conversion and Converts)11 June 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)11 June 1848 (Rosary)
Lady (Maria Theresa) Shrewsbury [d. 1856]
29 April 1848 (Conversion: His Own)
Lady (Louisa Edith) Simeon [1843-1895]
10 November 1867 (Papal Infallibility)25 June 1869 (Apologetics and Evangelism)8 March 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
A. Spurrier
11 December 1886 (Church, Sinners in)
Henry Stacke
9 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)12 February 1875 (Papal Infallibility)12 February 1875 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)
Miss Maria Trench [1828-1917]
8 September 1875 (Writing: His Own)
Archbishop William Bernard Ullathorne [1806-1889; became a bishop in 1850]
2 November 1848 (Conversion: His Own)2 November 1848 (Saints and Holiness)8 January 1867 (Discussion; Argument)28 January 1870 (Councils, Ecumenical)28 January 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)28 January 1870 (Papal Infallibility)2 February 1879 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Aubrey de Vere [1814-1902; received in 1851]
31 August 1870 (Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent)
John Thomas Walford, S. J. [1834-1894]
19 May 1870 (Anglicanism)
John Walker [1817-1878]
2 November 1847 (Development of Doctrine)
William (Canon) Walker[1820-1893]
5 August 1864 (Writing: His Own)10 November 1867 (Councils, Ecumenical)
J. L. Walton
9 September 1880 (Indulgences)9 September 1880 (Purgatory)
Catherine Ward [c. 1813-1897; received in July 1849]
25 September 1848 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)25 September 1848 (Tractarianism)12 October 1848 (Tractarianism)18 November 1848 (Church, Infallibility of)18 November 1848 (Crucifixes)18 November 1848 (Development of Doctrine)18 November 1848 (Doctrine; Dogma)18 November 1848 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)18 November 1848 (Mary: Devotion to; Veneration of)18 November 1848 (Rosary)30 November 1848 (Denominationalism; Sectarianism)19 December 1848 (Conversion: His Own)19 December 1848 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)
Wilfrid Philip Ward [1856-1916]
30 and 31 January 1885 (Apologetics and Evangelism)31 January 1885 (Miracles)31 January 1885 (Protestantism; Evangelicalism)
William George Ward [1812-1882; Tractarian; received in Sep. 1845]
15 March 1862 (Writing: His Own)18 February 1866 (Papal Infallibility)18 February 1866 (Theology and Theologians)
Richard Westmacott [1799-1872]
11 July 1845 (Conversion: His Own)
Archbishop Richard Whately [1787-1863]
11 November 1834 (Conversion: His Own)
Joseph Whitaker [1820-1895]
23 June 1884 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
Robert Whitty, S. J. [1817-1895]
12 April 1870 (Papal Infallibility)24 March 1878 (Cardinalate: His Own)
Henry William Wilberforce [1807-1873; received in August 1850]
27 April 1845 (Conversion: His Own)27 January 1846 (Conversion: His Own)10 March 1846 (Conversion and Converts)29 May 1846 (Conversion and Converts)8 June 1846 (Anglicanism)8 June 1846 (Mass, Sacrifice of)8 June 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)10 June 1846 (Antiquity: The Early Church)25 June 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)25 June 1846 (Saints and Holiness)4 July 1846 (Papal Supremacy and Petrine Primacy)24 September 1846 (Worship)12 January 1848 (Mary, Blessed Virgin)19 January 1848 (Tractarianism)30 November 1848 (Conversion: His Own)7 March 1849 (Anglicanism)7 March 1849 (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)28 December 1850 (Discussion; Argument)24 August 1864 (Conversion and Converts)16 April 1867 (Laity; the Faithful)21 July 1867 (Papal Infallibility)20 August 1869 (Vocation: Calling)
Robert Isaac Wilberforce [1802-1857; Tractarian; received in 1854]
16 November 1844 (Conversion: His Own)
Mrs. Henry William Wilberforce (Mary Sargent) [1811-1878; received in June 1850]
17 November 1834 (Church: “Roman Catholic”: Anglican View of)17 November 1834 (Conversion: His Own)17 November 1834 (Eucharist)17 November 1834 (Mass, Sacrifice of)17 November 1834 (Purgatory)17 November 1834 (Saints, Communion of; Veneration of)
Samuel Charles Wilks [1789-1872]
8 November 1845 (Anglicanism)
Mrs. Margaret A. Wilson [convert]
20 October 1870 (Papal Infallibility)
Nicholas Patrick Stephen Cardinal Wiseman [1802-1865; bishop and Cardinal in 1850]
6 April 1841 (Ecumenism; Non-Catholics)4 October 1849 (Conversion: His Own)
Samuel Francis (S. F.) Wood [1809-1843]
6 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)13 December 1841 (Conversion: His Own)13 December 1841 (Eucharist)
Miss Henrietta Woodgate
11 May 1881 (Vocation: Calling)
Mrs. Albon Woodroffe
16 August 1873 (Conversion: His Own)
X. Y., Esq.
8 January 1864 (Anti-Catholicism [Prejudice])
J. R. Young
18 May 1881 (Idolatry)18 May 1881 (Mary, Blessed Virgin)
* * * * *   Uploaded on 20 August 2013.