The Canonical Defender Prof. Peters has posted some thoughts and response regarding the seemingly divergent approaches of the Archdiocese of Detroit and the Diocese of Diocese Wayne-South Bend in the matter of Michael Voris and RealCatholicTV. HERE.
Prof. Peters doesn’t have a combox. Here is the first part of his longish post, which you can read there:
Some thoughts on the ‘jurisdiction’ question in the AOD – Voris/RCTV matter
January 9, 2012
Further to the “jurisdiction” questions being raised about two public statements made by the Archdiocese of Detroit concerning Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV, and with the same provisos in place regarding my earlier posts (here and here) on this matter, it seems to me that some people (a) are unaware that I addressed this question in my earlier blogs; or (b) know of my answer but don’t follow the point I made; or (c) know of and understand my answer, but disagree with it.
Group A, of course, I may simply refer to my original post.
For Group B, perhaps I can rephrase things this way: every time someone asks what “jurisdiction” the AOD has over Voris/RCTV to make the statements it made, they imply, without stating, that the AOD needs “jurisdiction” (however that is to be understood) in order to make the statements it has made. I reject that unstated assumption: the AOD does not need “jurisdiction” over Voris/RCTV in order to make the public statements it has made, most recently, that it “does not regard [Voris/RCTV] as being authorized to use the word ‘Catholic’ to identify or promote their public activities.” Indeed, as declarations of fact, the statements could have been made by anyone with adequate knowledge of the situation; had those persons direct responsibility for the welfare of the Church in their area, their statements would carry all the more weight. In any case, given that Voris resides there and that RCTV programming is produced there, coupled with the fact that AOD is frequently asked about Voris/RCTV, the right of the AOD to make the statements on them, is obvious, I think—this, without any need to find and prove “jurisdiction”.
Group C offers several variations on a theme, but I’ll address them jointly.
The rest is available over there. Free free to discuss, after actually reading what he has to say.