A few more things about Voris and RealCatholic TV…

Canon lawyer Ed Peters today follows up on his post from earlier this week and addresses a couple more questions, including one that a lot of people have raised:

What about every other use of the word ‘Catholic’ out there?

The question rests on a multitude of scenarios, of course, and I can’t address them all, but here are a few preliminary points.

1. Like her Founder, the Catholic Church has precious few “tools” with which to carry on her mission, but among those tools is her very name, Catholic. True, Catholics in every land and in every age have misused the name “Catholic”—not always with evil intentions, of course, yet often enough with bad (sometimes, very bad) consequences for the Church. But, notwithstanding the frequency of such misappropriations of her name, the Catholic Church has the right to take whatever steps she can to protect her name from being appropriated by those who think they have the authority to wrap themselves up in it.

2. The canon law regarding use of the word “Catholic” binds Catholics regardless of the degree of protection accorded, or not, the word “Catholic” under civil law. The alternative view effectively holds that the Church may enforce only those canons that the State lets her enforce. Perish that thought.

3. The canon law on use of the word “Catholic” and on certain types of public activities carried on by Catholics is considerably broader and more complex than any descriptions I have yet seen accorded it in the blogosphere. Folks who look up a canon or two and purport to explain their meaning risk doing a disservice to both the law and the community that law is meant to serve.

4. People are basically correct, I think, to note that ecclesiastical efforts to protect the word “Catholic” have been deficient over the last several decades. They areincorrect to hold that nothing (or practically nothing) was done to protect the word “Catholic” during those years, and I invite them to do some basic research to see for themselves. And they are certainly wrong to imply that the regrettable failures of the past to protect the name “Catholic” from misappropriation effectively bars Church leadership today from acting to protect that name (as if the solution to the ills of past disregard for law were—of all things—continued disregard for law!)

5. An archdiocese, like any governing/serving organization, has limited resources (financial, personnel, etc.) with which to respond to a virtually unlimited number of situations, opportunities, and problems. The priority accorded any specific matter is, therefore, always a function of the prominence of the issue (itself to be assessed in different ways), the clarity of the potential resolution(s), the present availability of resources to address the issue, and so on. Assuming that the AOD is acting within its authority—and it is—those who assert that it should deal with X, Y, and Z before saying anything about Voris/RCTV are entitled to their opinion, of course, but, in the end, they can only be saying that the AOD’s list of priorities is not identical to theirs.

I must repeat, this matter turns essentially on canon law, and will finally be decided not by webmasters or combox jockeys, but by ecclesiastical officials acting in accord with the substantive and procedural provisions of canon law, provisions to which all parties in this matter have rightful access.

Read more.

Comments

  1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH! CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. THE NAME CATHOLIC IS USED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLES AND ENTITIES.

  2. vox borealis says:

    Rudy, are you suggesting that the Constitution supersedes Church authority in such areas? That is the basically the same logic used by the National Catholic Reporter.

  3. vox borealis says:

    Great stuff as always from Ed Peters, and this coming from someone who is more or less sympathetic to Voris.

  4. naturgesetz says:

    Dr. Peters already answered you in his article. “2. The canon law regarding use of the word ‘Catholic’ binds Catholics regardless of the degree of protection accorded, or not, the word ‘Catholic’ under civil law.” Did you read before you ranted?

    And note, also, that, as Dr. Peters says, canon law “binds Catholics.” It doesn’t bind non-Catholics, although if they seek something from the Catholiuc Church, such as a marriage or an annulment, the Church will, of course, follow its laws in dealing with them.

  5. Richard W Comerford says:

    Re: Further Defense of AOD

    Canon lawyer Edward Peters is an employee of AOD. In his second article on the current Voris kerfuffle the good lawyer essentially defended the previous action of the AOD PR guy. Lawyer Peters’ defense can be broken down into three parts:

    1. He writes in part: “Since when, I ask, does the AOD need ‘jurisdiction’ to reply to inquiries made to it by third-parties regarding Voris/RCTV”. Clearly AOD should reply to said inquiries. However an honest public reply should in justice include the fact that RCTV is owned by a member of another Diocese and that the RCTV presentations are either orthodox (or heterodox).

    2. He also writes in part regarding other groups that us the word “Catholic”: “An archdiocese, like any governing/serving organization, has limited resources (financial, personnel, etc.) with which to respond to a virtually unlimited number of situations, opportunities, and problems.” True. But for about a generation now an AOD auxiliary (Gumbleton) has been running around the world presenting himself as a Catholic Bishop; but preaching a heterodox version of Catholicism. AOD has never addressed this issue. One would think that if the AOD PR guy found time to issue a statement regarding the orthodox layman Voris that, after 30-yeras or so, he could find time to also issue a statement regarding the heterodox Bishop Gumbleton.

    3. “this matter turns essentially on canon law” I hope so. Rome has never excommunicated an orthodox group for using the word “Catholic” without permission.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  6. vox borealis says:

    Who is talking about excommunication?

  7. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Vox borealis:

    This is 21st Century USA. The AOD cannot burn Mr. Voris at the stake. What other serious penalty (that is going to get his attention) can the AOD inflict on Mr. Voris & Company? If it is inflicted, and Mr. Voris appeals to Rome, then if history is any guide it will not be upheld. (A disaster for AOD.) One wonders why the AOD PR guy took this route?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  8. Good article on this over at Rorate Caeli.

  9. Henry Karlson says:
  10. I think that there is a much deeper question which no one has asked: Why did the Diocese of Detroit, via their communication department, do this?

    What was the ultimate reason? It simply was not the fact that they had the word “CATHOLIC” in their name but it had to be something much deeper, something much more fundamental.

    Now, I can speculate that RealCatholicTV…

    – had been a “thorn” in the side of the USCCB (as an organization) and individual bishops, by their very pointed and sharp criticism of them on a number of issues.
    – has a following, which when viewing what they have heard, decide to take action — via calls, blogging, etc.
    – does not adhere to the party line — support of illegal immigration, muted criticism of the Obama administration, etc.

  11. vox borealis says:

    You’re getting a little overwrought. While it is of course possible that a bishop would try to excommunicate someone, how often has that penalty been invoked in the last twenty or thirty years (excepting Latiae Sententiae, which happens automatically)? As you say, it’s the 21st century, so what is most likely to happen is what has happened: the diocese will issue a series of statements increasingly condemning Voris or at least admonishing the public that he is not authorized in that diocese. No one is going to excommunicate anyone.

    Now, I am pretty sympathetic to Voris, but he is likely in the wrong here, at least technically. I hope this all works itself out in due course.

  12. vox borealis says:

    It could be something much more acute. Right before this happened, Voris ran a Vortex complaining about a parish that displayed a Happy Holidays sign, and he all but explicitly encouraged people to call the parish to complain. Now I can imagine the parish getting bombarded on about December 20, with some angry callers ringing in from outside the diocese and mentioning Voris. Then the secretary tells the parish priest, who complains to the chancery about Voris, and…

    I’m sure the diocese is no fan of Voris, but my gut tells me something very specific brought him into sharper focus and triggered this particular slap down.

  13. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    I wonder if they could solve the problem by just becoming Real Catholics (plural) TV, as the other group did … ?

  14. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. vox boealis

    “You’re getting a little overwrought.”

    Well I would hope so.

    “While it is of course possible that a bishop would try to excommunicate someone, how often has that penalty been invoked in the last twenty or thirty years”

    In 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, the local Ordinary of Honolulu (now deceased), formally declared to be excommunicated six members of his flock who promptly appealed to Rome and won.

    “No one is going to excommunicate anyone.”

    I am glad you possess a crystal ball.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  15. Richard W Comerford says:

    As evidenced by the 1991 kerfuffle in Hawaii where the Ordinary excommunicated 6-orthodox members of his flock (who successfully appealed to Rome) for, among other things, using the word Catholic, Bishops can be bullies but Rome has always defended faithful Catholics.

  16. vox borealis says:

    Yeah, so you picked out one case from twenty years ago. There were also some excommunications in St. Louis a few years back (upheld by Rome) and the notorious inderdicts in Nebraska back in the 1990s. That’s a pretty small set of examples, two from a long time ago, and none in circumstances particularly close to these. So while it is possible that excommunication arises, it strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.

  17. vox borealis says:

    That’s not really accurate. They were not excommunicated for using the word catholic. They an SSPX group, and were excommunicated for calling in an SSPX bishop to perform illicit (though valid) confirmations. Completely different circumstances.

    A more valid comparison might be the conflict in Arizona, where the bishop threatened to remove a hospital’s standing as a Catholic hospital, but no excommunications were handed out (except latiae sententiae for the nun involved in procuring an abortion for someone).

  18. Richard W Comerford says:

    “That’s not really accurate. They were not excommunicated for using the word catholic.”

    As cited above the Hawaii-6 were excommunicated “for, among other things, using the word Catholic”. What makes this case relevant was that the Hawaii-6 were in fact formally excommunicated by their Ordinary; but their appeal to Rome rested in large part on their Orthodoxy and Rome ruled in their favor.

    American Bishops do excommunicate. But Rome, so far, has always upheld orthodoxy.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  19. Another great post Richard. I was not aware that Peters was an employee of the AOD. Where was that information?

  20. Still say that Real Catholic TV loves this and I would bet hopes it continues to gain attention on blog sites as their viewership increases dramatically.

  21. Mark writes: “Another great post Richard. I was not aware that Peters was an employee of the AOD. Where was that information?”

    Ummm, about 1.5 inches to the right of my blog entry, where it says “Since 2005 he [Peters] has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit MI.” Did you even read the post?

  22. Richard W Comerford says:

    Attorney Peters

    Re: Ummm, about 1.5 inches to the right of my blog entry

    You may not realize this but your “blog entries” on this matter have been treated as stand alone articles by a number of parties. Your “blog entries” are lifted and published elsewhere without the small print “about 1.5 inches to the right” announcing that you work at a seminary in Detroit Michigan.

    Most folks probably do not realize that you are an employee of AOD. They might even think you are a disinterested, independent third party without any apparent conflict of interest. So how difficult would it be for you, a highly educated literary guys with all sorts of degrees, to start off your “blog entries” on this matter with a disclaimer of maybe: “Fair warning – I make my living by working for the AOD?”

    After 50-years of the Great Scandal, a great evil enabled by the lies, half truths and secrecy of Church bureaucrats, do you not think it is now time for crystal clear transparency?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  23. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr vox borealis:

    I do not know why you are so upset? You asked me for an example from the last 20-30 years. I gave you one: Orthodox Catholics who were formally excommunicated by their American Bishop in 1991, in part, for using the word Catholic. Rome found for the Orthodox Catholics as (so far) it always does. Now in the way the Vatican thinks and moves 1991 is just about an hour ago. The AOD PR guy should know this. Which raises the question why start a public kerfuffle in the first place?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  24. Sir, my relationship with SHMS, and thru it, the AOD is long-standing and quite well-known. What I post on my site is accurate and fairly disclosed. Others use some or all of my posts as they see fit, and I cannot be expected to track down every lifted-post or lifted-part of a post and plaster additional disclaimers to it, assuming they’d even be seen. I am responsible for what I post, and others, for how they use it.

  25. Richard W Comerford says:

    Attorney Peters:

    “Sir, my relationship with SHMS, and thru it, the AOD is long-standing and quite well-known.”

    No doubt, among Church bureaucrats, seminarians and the like. I am sure you are famous.

    “I cannot be expected to track down every lifted-post or lifted-part of a post and plaster additional disclaimers to it, assuming they’d even be seen”

    Look, this may come down to a very ugly fight between RCTV and AOD. You work for AOD. You are also commenting on the matter. What is so hard about starting your blog posts on this matter with something like “I make my living working for AOD?”

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  26. Bill Russell says:

    Is that a toupee that Mr. Voris wears? In any case, it is quite absurd. I do agree with much of what he says, though not often how he says it. But the hair is off-putting. The eccentric changes in appearance, including the strange goatee, exhibited by the former “Father” Corapi were warning signals that something strange was afoot. I have every confidence that Mr. Voris does not have any baggage like Corapi’s, but his self-appointed “personal ministry” (for profit) is not what we need right now.

  27. naturgesetz says:

    Even if he did, there would be no guarantee that when Deacon Greg posts an excerpt that disclosure would be included.

  28. vox borealis says:

    Richard,

    To reply to one of your responses above—I am not at all upset. Rather, you seem upset, given the tone of your comments to Ed Peters and what I termed your overwrought invocation of excommunication. But neither you nor I know for certain each other’s emotional state, so it is best to drop this line of discussion.

    Returning to the main subject of our mutual comments. You raised the issue of communication, I said that such a penalty was highly unlikely. You gave an example of a group that was excommunicated twenty years ago in Honolulu, which was subsequently overturned by Rome. I pointed out that the circumstances of that case are entirely different the Voris situation. Voris has been warned that he may not pursue his teaching apostolate under the name “catholic” because he did not receive permission from the AoD.

    The case of the Honolulu-Six had NOTHING to do with the unauthorized use of the name Catholic, despite your repeated statements that this was a partial cause. I have read and re-read the formal canonical warning issued in 1991 by the bishop of Honoloulu, posted (as I am sure you know) on the SSPX.org site. The bishop excommunicated the group for establishing a chapel, running a radio show that disparaged the 1970 missal, and most importantly, procuring the services of SSPX for illicit (but valid) confirmations, which together the bishop deemed schismatic acts. Canon 212 is never mentioned. They were not punished for not getting permission to use the name Catholic. Moreover, when Rome issued a statement claiming the excommunication was invalid, it referred only to the alleged act of schism…nothing again was said about the use, correct or otherwise, of the name Catholic. And it is worth noting that the letter from Rome, signed in the name of then-cardinal Razinger, encouraged the bishop of Honolulu to use other punishments against the group.

    So, in short, the case of the Honolulu-Six tells us very little about the Voris-AoD situation. Indeed, I would say it informs us not at all.

    Lastly, I will pint out that nearly every example of excommunication in the last twenty years or so, excepting latiae sententiae excommunications, has involved priests, laymen posing as priests, and/or illicit sacraments. Catholic laity not listening to their bishops pretty much never brings about excommunication, provided the lay person is not pretending to be a priest.

    Thus, I stand by my initial prediction, no one is going to get excommunicated as a result of this dust-up. And I say that all the while not one bit upset. Cheers.

  29. Richard W Comerford says:

    Re: A Matter of Justice for the Hawaii-6

    “And it is worth noting that the letter from Rome, signed in the name of then-cardinal Razinger, encouraged the bishop of Honolulu to use other punishments against the group.”

    No. The Papal Nuncio initially refused to release the Ratzinger letter. Instead, under his own signature, he sent a letter to which on his own authority he unlawfully added unauthorized punishments. The actual Ratinger Letter:l http://www.sspx.org/images/Miscellaneous/pronuncio_28Feb94_520x634.jpgletter

    “you seem upset, given the tone of your comments to Ed Peters and what I termed your overwrought invocation of excommunication”

    I always try to be overwrought not upset.

    “Voris has been warned that he may not pursue his teaching apostolate under the name “catholic”.”

    No such “warning” has actually been issued by AOD (or anyone else. Cousult the learned AOD. Attorney.

    “The case of the Honolulu-Six had NOTHING to do with the unauthorized use of the name Catholic”

    WE will have to agree to disagree.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  30. A couple questions and comment -
    The questions:
    1. Is the possible reason for AOD to make its request is that ReaLCatholicTV and by extension Mr. Voris is making a profit from the ue of the word Catholic?
    2. Is it at all possible that the AOD is following a common strategy of having a lower level person begin the process of public communication to prevent an even larger issue? This happens all of the time.
    3. Is it at all possible that what Mr. Voris presents is not correct? If memory serves me correctly I believe this is the third time in recent history that Mr. Voris has received a “vote of no confidence” from the Church – Scranton Pa and World Youth Day – Scranton did not allow him to present and WYD went to great lengths to display he was not part of the event.
    My comment, beginning with a question – why is it when a Bishop or other member of the leadership of the church attempts to reign someone in who is of the more conservative bent people in the commboxes attack the church? This does so much damage to the church and the leadership of the church – far more damage than the foolish behaviors of the persons in these roles.

  31. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. naturgesetz:

    “there would be no guarantee that when Deacon Greg posts an excerpt that disclosure would be included”

    The Deacon strikes me as a stand up guy. If the learned lawyer would simply include a disclaimer like (“I work for AOD”) do you think that the Deacon would NOT include it?

    When I visited the learned lawyer’s blog I did not bother to read the fine print located “1.5 inches to the right” (Yes, I know a fatal mistake when dealing with lawyers).. I only learned that the learned lawyer made his living working for AOD by reading another blogger based in Detroit. (Who BTW claims that the current Voris kerfuffle is being pushed by AOD employees and other Detroit bloggers.)

    All this raises the question as to whether the current Archbishop of Detroit actually have a problem with Mr. Voris and company? Hopefully he will speak soon in his own name.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  32. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Andy:

    “Is it at all possible that what Mr. Voris presents is not correct?”

    Quite possible. However if Mr. Voris is heterodox it is the responsibility of his Bishop to so warn both Mr. Voris and the faithful. So far no such warnings.

    “Mr. Voris has received a “vote of no confidence” from the Church”

    No. Neither a local nor the Universal Church has ever condemned Mr. Voris for heterodoxy.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  33. Mr Comerford
    First I used the “vote of no confidence” in quotes to demonstrate that I had no other words to use – I suggest you read the Diocese of Scranton’s statement “The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition.

    Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him.” That suggests that at least the Diocese of Scranton found him objectionable, based on what the Catholic Church Teaches.
    From the organizers of World Youth Day Madrid, Spain, Jul 26, 2011 / 09:47 am (CNA).- World Youth Day organizers said July 25 that the independent catechesis sessions offered by U.S.-based media producer Michael Voris during World Youth Day 2011 are not approved by the event. Voris responded with puzzlement that the announcement was made, stating that his organization has never represented itself as linked to the event.

    “Participants in the World Youth Day 2011 Cultural Program must be recognized and endorsed by the bishops and episcopal conferences of their respective countries,” read a July 25 statement from the event’s organizers.

    There had been “some confusion” about Voris’ affiliation with World Youth Day, organizers said, further noting that “Real Catholic TV” and Michael Voris’ catechetical session “No Bull in Madrid” have not received endorsements from the group’s local bishop—Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit—or the U.S. bishops’ conference.

    They are “not in any way recognized or approved” by the official event. The Pontifical Council for the Laity selects and invites only bishops from around the world to conduct catechesis sessions at World Youth Day, the statement explained.

    Participating organizations in the World Youth Day 2011 Cultural Festival are selected because they “promote the authentic teaching and unity” of the Catholic Church and have received the required endorsements.”

    Again hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Voris he teaches.
    Although not explicitly stated there appears in each of these to be a concern about Mr. Voris. By the way I never said he was heterodox, which to many people is synonymous with heresy. What I said is that what he teaches is incorrect – from Scranton – The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition. and to the mind of at least the Scranton Diocese he doesn’t. Teaching what is incorrect does not make you heterodox – there can be many reasons for this – none of which are evil/sinful/heretical/heterodox – ignorance being one of them, pride being another, lack of charity being another.

    Deacon – I apologize for long-windedness – I felt it important to include these quotes.

  34. naturgesetz says:

    As far as you know, Richard, has Michael Voris or Real Catholic TV or the owner of the enterprise ever received the permission from the competent ecclesiastical authority (whoever that may be) to call their undertaking Catholic, as they are required to do by canon law?

    This is a simple question. It can be answered “Yes” or “No.”

  35. You wish DGK.

    I hope Real Catholic TV fights the AOD.

    and good information about Ed Peters. Never trusted him anyways.

  36. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Andy

    “I suggest you read the Diocese of Scranton’s statement”

    The DOS statement did not challenge Mr. Voris’s orthodoxy. Indeed the DOS Ordinary as a Shepherd has an obligation to clearly uphold orthodoxy. He failed to do so.

    “The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition.”

    No. The Church teaches us to love all people (with the sole exceptions of the New York Yankees) The Catholic Church teaches that Catholicism is the “one true faith founded by Jesus Christ”? Not very sensitive. And yet that is exactly what Mr. Voris claims.

    “Participating organizations in the World Youth Day 2011 Cultural Festival are selected because they “promote the authentic teaching and unity” of the Catholic Church and have received the required endorsements.” Again hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr. Voris he teaches.

    As evidenced by his relevant videos Mr. Voris by all accounts taught pure orthodoxy in Madrid. Are you claiming that the World Youth Day bureaucrats do not endorse pure orthodoxy?

    “The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition. and to the mind of at least the Scranton Diocese he doesn’t.”

    No. Again. The Church teaches us to love our neighbor which may hurt our neighbor’s feelings. I note that historically both the DOS and WYD will not allow speakers to address the Church’s teachings regarding sodomy & artificial contraception – the 800 pound guerrillas in the living room. Perhaps DOS & WYD are afraid that such subjects are insensitive and may hurt some peoples’ feelings – even if addressing those same subjects may save peoples immortal souls?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  37. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr naturgesetz:

    “has Michael Voris or Real Catholic TV or the owner of the enterprise ever received the permission from the competent ecclesiastical authority (whoever that may be) to call their undertaking Catholic, as they are required to do by canon law”

    Has competent ecclesiastical authority commanded Michael Voris or Real Catholic TV or the owner of the enterprise to stop calling their undertaking Catholic? This is a simple question. It can be answered “Yes” or “No.”

    When Joan of Arc was literally burned at the stake by the Canon Layers of her day were said Canon Lawyers correct when they titled her a heretic? This is a simple question. It can be answered “Yes” or “No.”

    When St John of the Cross was imprisoned and flogged weekly by his lawful Carmelite superiors were his superiors correct when they branded him a disobedient and heretical monk? This is a simple question. It can be answered “Yes” or “No.”

    In 1313 when the Canon Lawyers of the day burned the last Templar Grand Master & his Prefect for Normandy at the stake were said canon lawyers correct when thet branded the Templars relapsed heretics? This is a simple question. It can be answered “Yes” or “No.”

    It is all so simple. Everything can be answered “Yes” or “No.” under canon law. Of course under the law of charity it is not so simple.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  38. Mr. Comerford
    You may read the Scranton release in any way you want – the Scranton Diocese was clear – the church teaches us to respect all people. You can disagreed with the Scranton Diocese all you want. You can refer to Mr. Voris’ video all you want to demonstrate that the WYD organiziers are wrong. But are you a competent authority to make that judgment. If so please share your credentials, if not then please recognize those that are competent. I am most curious about your use of the term relevant videos, that means I guess that others are not relevant.
    The issue is now what you think or what I think; it is the decision of the AOD we must respect.

  39. I like Dr. Peters period.

    But as far as this struggle, it is naked politics against Real Catholic, nothing else. All the talk about obedience and all of that is just smoke. It’s about a group of clerical bureaucrats who dislike Real Catholic’s positions on the conservative side.

  40. I don’t know about National Catholic Reporter. I know this is a naked use of politics to shut up a voice from the right. Period.

  41. And the one ranting is you. LOL

  42. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr. Andy:

    “You may read the Scranton release in any way you want”

    Thank you

    “the Scranton Diocese was clear – the church teaches us to respect all people”

    Well the problem is that the DOS is quite wrong. As I stated the Church teaches us to love our neighbor and love is a very dangerous thing which may well cause our beloved neighbor to feel “disrespected”.

    “You can refer to Mr. Voris’ video all you want to demonstrate that the WYD organiziers are wrong.”

    The WYD were not wrong. The WYD bureaucrats did not accuse Mr. Voris & Co. of heresy or heterodoxy.

    “But are you a competent authority to make that judgment.”

    Do you mean will good hold me accountable on Judgement Day for the judgements I made in my life? Well, I am afraid so.

    “If so please share your credentials”

    God will judge me in part because I am a baptized and confirmed member of His one true Church and I must live my life accordingly.

    “if not then please recognize those that are competent”

    The Ordinaries of the AOD & DOS are certainly competent to judge heresy & heterodoxy in their respective Churches. However neither Bishop has declared Mr. Voris a heretic or warned the faithful to flee him.

    “I am most curious about your use of the term relevant videos”
    So am I.
    “The issue is now what you think or what I think”

    Oh yes it is. Our immortal souls may hang in the balance.

    “it is the decision of the AOD we must respect.”

    What decision? The AOD PR guy made no decision (nor could he). He merely announced to the world that Mr. Voris is not authorized to use the word “Catholic”. Nothing else. The AOD Ordinary did not declare Mr. Voris a heretic, or an excommunicate or even a New York Yankee fan. No decision was made.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  43. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    I think we can draw two conclusions:

    1) The AOD doesn’t particularly like Michael Voris or his style, and doesn’t want him speaking on behalf of the Church — no matter how “orthodox” he may be.
    2) Ditto DOS and WYD.

    That’s their right. Just because someone teaches the Truth doesn’t mean that he does it well, or does it in a manner that those in authority agree with. But more honestly would be refreshing. (FWIW: In my experience, no diocesan “PR” person puts out a statement like that without the approval and authorization of the ordinary. And let’s face it: if he disagreed with it, he would have disavowed it by now. It’s unfortunate that he hasn’t taken responsibility for it.)

    It’s all very vague, and somewhat passive-aggressive, and lets people jump to their own conclusions. Which leads to discussions like this one.

    Dcn. G.

  44. naturgesetz says:

    Mr. Comerford,

    Your evasions of my question together with your repeated references to heterodoxy show that you don’t have the slightest understanding of the issue here. People have tried to explain, but you seem incapable of grasping it.

    As for invoking the law of charity on behalf of Michael Voris — there’s a fine bit of irony.

  45. Phyllis Zagano says:

    It would seem that memebers of the Catholic Church would follow the law of the Catholic Church. The RCTV issue is complex, and points directly to the loss of control by the bishops. Here’s my recent NCR column on the topic: http://ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/lay-preaching-bishops-and-new-evangelization

  46. Richard W Comerford says:

    Deacon:

    “The AOD doesn’t particularly like Michael Voris”

    This raises the question as to who or what is the AOD? So far the Archbishop has not spoken. As pointed out by a Detroit Catholic so far the latest Voris Kerfuffle has been pushed by AOD employes & a a Detroit Catholic blogger – not teh Archbishop.

    “Ditto DOS and WYD”

    Certainly someone or someones at DOS & WYD do not like Mr. Voris. But then again being a follower of Jesus Chrisy is not the same thing as competing in a popularity contest. Our Lord & Savior was not very well liked in certain circles.

    The Church in the USA can survive without Mr. Voris, Mr. Corapi & Fr. Pavone. It cannot survive without courageous Bishops. A good shepherd should always speak with crystal clarity to his flock. The sheep should know their master’s voice. In this matter the Shepherd’s silence has not been encouraging..

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  47. Richard W Comerford says:

    Mr naturgesetz:

    Re: On Charity

    Your evasions of my question together with your repeated references to heterodoxy show that you don’t have the slightest understanding of the issue here.

    Yes, i am stupid.

    “People have tried to explain, but you seem incapable of grasping it.”

    Very stupid.

    “As for invoking the law of charity on behalf of Michael Voris — there’s a fine bit of irony”

    We are obliged to invoke the Great Commandment (love God, love neighbor) on behalf of every person – even Mr. Voris (OK, maybe not to the New York Yankees.) Indeed if we sinners refuse to extend charity to Mr. Voris then how can we expect the Christ to extend mercy to us?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X