John Henry Western Channel

I myself turn more and more to Our Lady and Jesus in prayer. The Devil is so very,very powerful at the moment. I recall the words of Our Lady, 'At the end the Holy Rosary will be your only sanctuary'. Which implied that things are going to get very,very bad indeed in the Church and this appears to be panning out. Because I turn more and more to prayer and especially the rosary I don't follow things as much as you used to. But when I do, quite honestly, they would turn your hair white so bad have they become.

I suppose there is no need to comment so much any for it is obvious to any good Catholic who prays and keeps the Faith how bad things are.

What can we do, we ordinary Catholic lay folk do anyway but pray, pray, pray.

My own sense of things is that we are in a quite astonishing downward spiral, even worse than under Papa Frankie. But I hope I am wrong.

Prayer, prayer, prayer.

 

One good thing in all this , the Truth seems to just keep coming out. No matter how they try to bury it.

Thank God for the Rosary.

 

Full article from Chris Jackson's Big Modernism substack: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/the-coup-that-failed-lifesite-leo

LifeSiteNews was never supposed to be respectable.

It was loud, confrontational, unapologetically pro-life, and willing to say what other Catholic outlets wouldn’t: that the Church is in crisis, and that the problem isn’t just secularism, it’s the men in miters enabling it. For over two decades, John-Henry Westen was the face of that mission.

Thanks for reading Hiraeth In Exile! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

And last week, the board tried to get rid of him.

Thanks to a leaked recording and statements from former employees, we now have a clearer picture of what really happened behind the scenes. It wasn’t just a personnel dispute. It was an ideological knife fight, thinly veiled as an “administrative decision.”

The attempted coup failed, for now, and you have yourselves to thank! You let your voices be heard and it had an effect. As of July 18, 2025, Westen has been reinstated as CEO and President of LifeSiteNews, though “subject to administrative review and investigation.”

But the deeper problem remains. A once-militant Catholic news outlet is now infested with careerists, climate liturgy defenders, and opinion-policing board members who seem more scandalized by alleged sedevacantists than by sacrilege in Rome.

The Ambush

In the leaked board meeting audio, (Read part I here) Westen is confronted without warning. He is provided a staff survey by Bishop Strickland a few days before the meeting and is expected to immediately resign. He is not shown the full complaints. He is not allowed to respond to the employees whose testimonies are read aloud. The board moves quickly, without procedural fairness, transparency, or even basic charity.

Instead of a proper review, Westen is given an ultimatum: step aside or be removed.

The board cites anonymous staff complaints and a vague reference to declining morale. But no concrete standards are cited. And no effort is made to verify whether the criticisms reflect a majority of the staff, or a faction unhappy with Westen’s traditionalist editorial direction.

The Survey Nobody Saw

One of the main weapons used against Westen was an internal survey.

According to former employee, Stephen Kokx, it had 12 responses: roughly 20% of the staff. Yet in the leaked meeting, the board describes the survey as though it were a referendum on Westen’s leadership. At the time of the vote, not even all board members had seen the actual questions.

Stephen Kokx also stated:

“I took the LifeSite staff survey. I did not in any way call for the removal of John-Henry Westen or make critical remarks of him. My comments were directed primarily at the new co-CEO Rob Hoover and the climate he created.”

He further notes that the board’s claim, that “100%” of the survey responses were negative toward Westen, is false. Other staff may come forward to confirm this.

So we have an internal vote that relied on an unverified, non-representative survey, with conclusions that are now publicly disputed by at least one known participant.

Strickland and Fournier: From Allies to Enforcers

Perhaps the most shocking part of the audio isn’t procedural, it’s theological.

Bishop Joseph Strickland, once seen as a defender of tradition, sounds more like a bureaucrat than a prophet. He tries to strong-arm Westen into resigning and seems irritated when Westen doesn’t immediately resign after handing Westen the survey. Strickland comes off as passive-aggressive during the exchange, threatening to Westen that he will leave LifeSite if Westen doesn’t resign. Then Strickland has the temerity to act offended when Westen says no thank you. Westen said:

Did I question the survey results? Yeah. Absolutely because I was presented with something that was, it was given to me all of a sudden. And I didn’t - I didn’t have any clue about it. I was given a text by Bishop Strickland, that basically said, you’re not fit for leadership, and then I went down to meet him and you know thinking to talk; and basically, he presented some of the survey and handed me an already written letter saying that I resigned from both the Board position and any leadership at LifeSite and that I could retain a job with LifeSite. I didn’t know under what authority that letter was written or who wrote it. Also though, I asked him if I could pray about it before I signed, and he said, “Well, I’ve got to leave tomorrow, so you have until tomorrow.” So, in the meantime, I went to as many Masses as I could; I prayed as much as I could. I spoke with my spiritual director, with my wife, and as I spoke with my wife there, and I told her, you know, I can probably resign from leadership. She was so aghast at what was being done. It was unbelievable. But I told her, look, if, you know, I’m not suited to lead the organization, that’s one thing. But I did feel that I shouldn’t resign my position on the Board. And that – so I thought of perhaps asking Bishop if he might take that stipulation out of the letter and I could then sign. But it was right at that second when I was discerning that that Bishop texted, and his text said that if I would not agree to sign and resign from the board he would disassociate from LifeSite. And so, I felt that was an answer to prayer. In conscience, I knew I couldn’t sign the letter. So, when I went back the next day after Mass Bishop Strickland offered in the hotel room there, I told him of my discernment and of my, prayerful decision that I could not sign the letter; and I was going to explain, but he didn’t want an explanation. He said how he felt like the Mass that he had just celebrated was like a funeral Mass; and I asked him if I could explain, and he said no and he left.

Strickland responds:

…John-Henry. You can’t lay this off on me… we gave you the chance to know about this very devastating survey that I know it’s hard to hear and you basically discounted it …I believe that LifeSite has a mission that is important and that’s why I’m here because the world and the Church needs the truth. It doesn’t need the slants and the opinions that have taken over LifeSite… LifeSite needs to get back to proclaiming truth that the world and the Church needs desperately. …for John-Henry to basically set this up as some sort of ambush by me is totally inaccurate and not fair at all because we could’ve just let him deal with this without, truly without knowing about it. He read Brian’s survey. He read it; the full text given. I saw him read it, and he rejected it. And when I said that I would have to dis-affiliate with LifeSite, he basically said, “Goodbye.” And it’s not about me but for LifeSite to simply say a successor of the Apostles is not significant to have their support, to me that said something very troubling.

He warns Westen that LifeSite’s articles are being seen as “opinion” rather than news. He suggests a future in which Westen steps aside for his own good while new leadership directs the organization away from controversy — and if not? Strickland tries to guilt him into resigning by threatening to disassociate from LifeSite. A curious threat to make while claiming to love the organization. All over a survey that was never critically examined, but apparently taken on faith to be gospel.

It’s also a strange position for a bishop who was himself canceled for criticizing papal error to take. But now, under Leo XIV, Strickland appears to want a more diplomatic tone, one less willing to connect the dots between heresy and hierarchy.

Then there’s Deacon Keith Fournier, who has publicly praised Leo’s “Care for Creation” Mass and expressed enthusiasm for its liturgical innovations. In the meeting, Fournier backs the removal, framing it as an opportunity to “restore LifeSite’s voice.”

But whose voice, exactly?

Fournier’s defense of papal climate theology and his charismatic leanings, including speaking in tongues, suggest a very different vision of Catholic journalism, one far more comfortable with the post-Vatican II consensus that LifeSite was founded to resist.

 

Full article from Chris Jackson's Big Modernism substack: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/the-coup-that-failed-lifesite-leo (continued)

The Anti-Sedevacantist Remark
The most disturbing moment comes from Ann Lyke, LifeSite’s marketing director. She says the quiet part out loud:

“Can you imagine the harm that would come to LifeSite if ... our enemies or if our donors discovered that our CEO has been knowingly employing these people for years and doesn’t see a problem with it?”

“These people,” it turns out, are sedevacantists, faithful Catholics who hold that men manifestly preaching heresy cannot be true popes. Whether one agrees with them or not, Lyke’s comment paints them as an inherent threat to the brand, as if theological dissent from Leo XIV is a greater scandal than blessing same-sex couples or crushing the Latin Mass.

As commentator Louie Verrecchio noted, the analogy writes itself: Imagine if Lyke had said the same about Jewish employees. There would be resignations, lawsuits, and public outcry. But against sedevacantists, discrimination is fair game, even if they do their jobs well and never inject their views into the editorial process.

The irony? Lyke herself is not Catholic but Orthodox, belonging to a communion that rejects papal authority altogether. But in the new regime, believing too much in the papacy (i.e., that a heretic can't hold it) is somehow worse than not believing in it at all.

Royce Speaks Sense
Amid the turmoil, one board member stands out: “Royce.” He questions the survey’s validity. He expresses concern that Westen wasn’t given a fair chance to respond. He reminds the board that Westen helped build the LifeSite brand and deserves at least a transparent process.

It’s clear from the audio that Royce is a minority voice. But it’s equally clear that he understands what’s at stake: not just a CEO’s job, but the soul of the apostolate.

What This Was Really About

This wasn’t just a leadership shakeup. It was an attempted course correction: a quiet, donor-friendly decapitation of LifeSite’s traditionalist legacy.

The goal? Soften the tone. Broaden the appeal. Distance the site from “radicals” who question papal legitimacy or the morality of synodal documents. In short: become another respectable Catholic outlet that laments the crisis but never names its architects.

If Westen had gone quietly, the purge would be complete. But thanks to the work of Stephen Kokx, Liz Yore, Frank Walker, Steve Bannon, and the outcry from you, dear readers, it has been exposed and stopped…for now.

The question going forward isn’t just whether Westen keeps his job. It’s whether LifeSiteNews keeps its mission.

 

One of the saddest things about this affair is it seems that Bishop Strickland led the charge against John Henry Westen. Mr. Westen was one of the 1st people to support the bishop after his Vatican ouster from his diocese. He gave him a platform (Lifesite) for a program of his own. Yet he was the one who handed him a prepared resignation letter and demanded he resign.

Things are not at all what they seem. Diabolical disorientation comes to mind.

 

It sounds like the management of lifesite took a leaf from Pope Francis. Produce a fake survey to justify the elimination of John Henry.
It's all shocking especially Bishops Strickland's part in this. A lot of reflection and forgiveness needed. I don't know how they can go on.

 

Thanks for your insight Brian.

 

I do agree that it is difficult to see how things can continue. As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. As I see it, either JHW will leave again voluntarily or he will need to make it very difficult for those who undermined him to continue in the organization. I see the fundamental issue to be the split between sedevacantists and non-sedevacantists. They really are like oil and water even if it is traditionalists involved. Hence the purge by Bishop Strictland who is staunchly non-sedevacantist despite being traditional. One might say that JHW is not sedevacantist but he is I think titering on the brink. I see the same fault line on this forum. In my heart I know one can't have it both ways and I do fear a purge or a parting of ways. But I remain apparently tolerant of both sides in the hope of discerning the truth in this matter. Jesus, as Isaiah prophesied, brought the truth to victory. May we know the truth and be victorious in our faithfulness to Jesus.

 

Agree
Praying that the truth will come out and people will be helped.

 

We are all sinners. Thank you for reminding me BrianK. I will not break the crushed reed nor put out the smoldering wick.

 

Brian, I didn't know about that definition of sedevacantist. Doesn't it just mean that the seat is empty, not necessarily with a particular time frame. For example, the Vatican issues sedevacante postage stamps during a conclave to elect a new Pope. Sorry if this looks like I'm nit picking but is there a particular reason the year 1958 matters to the definition?

Regarding the staffing situation in Lifesite, I'm sure that with some reflection and good will, there's no reason they can't steady the ship and continue their work.

 

I have always taken the literal translation to mean that the See is empty, but the dictionary gives the meaning since 1958 as the time frame. I believe both can be correct.

 

Yes, the literal meaning is just that but there is now an entire sect of "traditional Catholics" who hold the thesis that Cardinal Siri was elected Pope in 1963 but some mysterious circumstance forced him out off the throne hence all successive Popes elected after him were/are antipopes. I believe Mel Gibson professes to be one such Catholic.

 

Many thanks for your helpful replies.

I'm at a loss now as to what would we call someone who doesn't qualify as a sedevacantist under that definition but believes that some later Pope is an anti-Pope. My head is spinning.

 

Welcome to the club

 

Most sedevacantists don’t hold to the Siri thesis, and the conclave was in 1958 not 1963. Mel Gibson’s father was a sedevacantist, but Mel isn’t.

I’ve seen them called Benevacantists.