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, 2012Part One
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.
Loading ...
Re: Jurisdiction
Lawyer Peters, an employee of the AOD, argues essentially that the AOD has jurisdiction in this matter. He is right. If Mr. Voris is indeed teaching error on points of Catholic faith & morals then the Archbishop of Detroit not only has a right but the duty to correct Mr. Voris & in so doing guard his flock from error. And, as Mr. Voris, has a trans-Diocese appeal then every Good Shepherd has a right & duty to protect their flocks. And so far the Bishops have remained silent.
As to the jurisdiction question regarding the word “Catholic” so far we have heard only from AOD employees and a Detroit blogger. The Archbishop has remained silent on this matter too. In the end only the Bishops count. So who cares?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
It seems to me that many of these arguments that the AOD has jusrisdiction are contradictory to the arguments that the same AOD and others have put out as prima facia that these same diocese do not have jusrisdiction…… when it comes to pro abort politicians (the washington dc jusrisdiction V.S. the home diocese jusrisdiction of the offending political communicant).
So which is it? Do these diocese have jurisdiction only when it is politically correct? Or when it is true?
It seems to me that the AOD is interjecting confusion, and thereby causing scandal in the Church at large. This to me is the bigger picture, as RCTV is just the fish of the week for the press to try and feed us, and the repeated violation of the pro abortion political machine in AOD is continuing to be oiled by the loss of souls who are disallusioned and down right disappointed.
I grew up in the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese and have lived in the AOD for the last 18 years. Nine years ago, I was so discouraged by the state of things here. I decided I just had to do or say something positive and decided to write to Bishop John D’Arcy in Fort Wayne. I told him how valuable it was to me that, whenever I returned to his diocese, I knew I could go to any parish and find a reverent Mass there. I said nothing of my troubles here. He sent a kind reply.
In my opinion, this matter should be at the very last of a long list of concerns in the Archdiocese of Detroit.
RWC, i think you continue to miss Dr. Peters’ point. “Jurisdiction” is not an issue. The AOD simply stated RCTV has no authority to use “Catholic” in their name.
In Scotland there is published a free bi-monthly news-sheet, Catholic Truth, which is vilified by elements of the clergy in vituperative terms – because they have exposed some of the salacious goings-on and contra-Catholic teaching abroad in various parts of Mother Church in Scotland. [www.catholictruthscotland.com]
Voris, I suspect, falls into the same category.
It would be nice if we had clarity. Why does the diocese want the name Catholic dropped?
The point isn’t whether this is “fair.” If the authorities are asleep at the switch for a long time about which Catholic enterprises can use the word “Catholic,” and one day they wake up and do something, it’s not an excuse to say that everybody else was doing it and you only came after me, waahhh. I guarantee you, that wouldn’t impress my mother.
The people who got away with it should thank their lucky stars (and start watching their P’s and Q’s), the rest of us should resolve to watch our P’s and Q’s, and the persons caught out should strive to find out how to fix the problem, not waaah a lot and stamp their tiny feet.
Naturally, the Archbishop should also explain what his problem is with it and how things could be fixed; I gather this was already explained at some point in private correspondence, but it’s quite possible that confusion took place. It would also be nice if all the bishops would explain what can and can’t be done, so that we all can start watching said P’s and Q’s.
In other words, let’s do something constructive, and not just bellyache to the whole Internet.
While Dr. Peters may be technically correct, I don’t think his argument that this “multiple jurisdiction” structure is necessary to defend the Catholic faith holds any water. Since Canon Law holds no force in civil law, then Canon Law can de facto only be used against those who hold Canon Law as binding. A liberal or dissenting group couldn’t care less whether some bishop gives them permission to use “Catholic” in their name or not, whereas to a faithful Catholic like Voris, this permission would matter a great deal. Add in the fact that AOD has never once ordered a group to stop using the term “Catholic” in their name prior to this (when there are many obviously heretical groups using the “Catholic” label who are without a doubt within AOD jurisdiction), then this entire matter becomes something of a farce. I am starting to understand why people get fed up with this kind of garbage and join SSPX. Bishops are essentially using their authority as a weapon against faithful Catholics while turning a blind eye to heresy.
Selective enforcement. Precisely. That is what has occurred for decades. Used everywhere. Against the faithful, in favor of heresy.
Julian the Apostate used that tool too.
If this is about the use of “Catholic” in the organization’s name, then the org would have to be recognized as a Juridical person, and that would be in the diocese where it is domiciled. If it’s really about Voris, then they need to make it about Voris, not about the org. Bottom line, as shin says, Selective Enforcement seems to be what’s afoot.
Every post in this string should be prefaced with:
Lawyer Peters, an employee of the AOD….
For another example of this kind of thing, look at the contrast between Fr. Frank Pavone (faithful Catholic) vs Sr. Carol Keehan (liberal dissenter). Guess which one gets called to the carpet by their Ordinary for “management of finances” and which one goes on running a large non-profit with no scrutiny whatsoever? Yet another example is Fr. Robert Altier in the St. Paul/Minneapolis Archdiocese (my home diocese). He was removed from his parish and banned from public speaking over being critical of some non-doctrinal Archdiocesan policies, while many more liberal and heretical priests continued spouting their heresies unabated. At least here in MN we have a different Archbishop now who is spending his energy defending the Church instead of attacking those who do.
Frank H says:
“RWC, i think you continue to miss Dr. Peters’ point. “Jurisdiction” is not an issue. The AOD simply stated RCTV has no authority to use “Catholic” in their name.”
Thank you. I frequently missed the point. However lawyer Peters in his last writing on this matter devoted a considerable amount of print to his claim that the AOD does have jurisdiction on this matter. Contrary a Canon lawyer from another Diocese appears to claim that AOD does not have jurisdiction.
When you figure all this out kindly let me know because I cannot.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I don’t think is is an issue in which each bishop gets to decide for his own diocese.
There are still a few classes of books for which a bishop’s imprimatur is required. Canon 824 is clear that the bishop to grant the imprimatur is the ordinary of the place where either the author lives or the place where the book is published.
Can. 824 §1 Unless it is otherwise provided, the local Ordinary whose permission or approval for publishing a book is to be sought according to the canons of this title, is the author’s proper local Ordinary, or the Ordinary of the place in which the book is published.
§2 Unless the contrary is clear, what is said in the canons of this title about books, applies also to any writings intended for publication.
As long as that requirement is met, the book can be distributed anywhere in the world. It’s not necessary to get a separate imprimatur from the bishop of every diocese in which it is sold. It’s the author’s and publisher’s choice to decide which of the two possible bishops to approach.
Although not spelled out in the Code, some similar approach is needed for use of the name “catholic”. Websites, television and radio broadcasts, mailings, etc are not limited in distribution to one diocese and it would be impractical to get a separate authorization from each ordinary.
That is, if it makes sense to try to control the use of the word “Catholic”, which I rather doubt.
After viewing the various videos below and the Bishops allowance of the absurd and blasphemous interpretation of the Holy Mass, I find it rather ludicrous they would consider Catholic T.V. in violation of the usage of the word Catholic. I certainly can not understand how any Bishop can preside or allow such an indignation to the Lord. What has occurred with this Bishop trying to silence Catholic T.V. is indicative of what is happening to faithful Catholics in every diocese. On a smaller scale people who complain about liturgical abuses are dismissed as gadflies or simply traditionalists who could not accept the reforms of Vatican II. I suspect Catholic T.V. is being targeted as Mother Angelica once was the target by some Bishops in their wrath against orthodoxy. This edict is nothing short of censorship. I am certainly not an attorney but I really do not know how a Bishop can legally silence Catholic T.V. The definition of Catholic when used as an Adjective:of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it. Based on this interpretation how in ones mind can anyone believe a violation has occurred with its usage concerning Catholic T.V. Quite frankly when (SOME) Bishops stop the usage of the word Catholic from organizations such as the one in the link below then and only then should they be taken seriously when they attack Catholic T.V.
http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
It has been interesting to see the hostility displayed toward Ed Peters by several commenters over the few threads on this topic, simply because he has had the temerity to claim that the AoD is correct in its position vis-à-vis jurisdiction and a bishops competence to admonish his own flock. Dr. peters is a well-respected canon lawyer and, as far as I have ever seen, an orthodox “straight shooter.” He has not made any statement whatsoever about the *content* of RCTV…in fact, in an earlier post he complimented Voris for presenting solid Catholic catechesis. He has restricted himself only to commenting on the canonical ramifications of this little spat between RCTV and the AoD. Yet Peters is being treated like the enemy, and his arguments repeatedly have been ignored or seemingly willfully misconstrued.
as I have said repeatedly, I am a fan of Voris, what I have seen. That said, I am persuaded by Peters about the canonical aspects of the situation. In total, it is obvious the matter of jurisdiction *is* complicated, certainly not black and white as many seem to think. Hopefully this will all be resolved soon.
Is there no court of canon law that can sort this out with justice and common sense? The Diocese of Detroit is:
“straining at the gnat”: slapping down the “C” in RCTV, while
“swallowing the camel”: allowing heritodox groups to keep it.
Tantum Ergo:
“Is there no court of canon law that can sort this out”
Sadly there is no case yet and therefore no Court action. The Archbishop of Detroit has neither ordered Mr. Voris to take an action nor has he condemned Mr. Voris for teaching error in regards to faith & morals. Indeed the good Archbishop has been remained silent. As a Detroit area commenter put it this matter is being pushed by AOD employees and a Detroit Catholic blogger.
We own our obedience to our Bishops in all things just and licit – not to Church bureaucrats and bloggers.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
It sounds to me that if I were to tell someone I am a Catholic that I would then not have the authority to do so if a bishop, any bishop, were to tell me not to. Is that the case? Also, what if, for the sake of argument, the Bishop of the Diocese of Billings Montana decided that “Real Catholic TV” DID have the right to use the word Catholic but the bishop of Detroit decided they did not?
Also, this whole thing seems to stem from a purported stance held by Michael Voris that is opposed to some aspect of the Catholic faith yet no such stance has been demonstrated. Could someone show me where he takes such a stance and how it is opposed to the faith?
Thanks,
Geoff
Richard W Comerford,
That is an interesting position. The AoD announced: “The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities.”
Is this not an implicit order to stop using the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities?
Again, I am not taking sides as to the rightness of their position. But it does seem clear to me that the diocese has ordered RCTV to do something.
Meanwhile, the only thing as interesting as Voris and his most strident fans conspiracy theories, is Mark Shea’s conspiracy theories…
Even if Ed Peters is correct and the AoD is within it’s rights to do and say what it has; and even if it is correct that the archdiocese is not required to give a reason as to why it will not permit someone to use the Catholic name, the fact remains:
No reasonable person on God’s green earth who has followed this dispute, including the others that have arisen in recent years (i.e., Scranton, WYD), would believe that the AoD wouldn’t simply turn it’s head the other way, unless there was some thing else involved (whether it be a valid concern or a grand conspiracy in the chancery that so many seem to feel it is).
If Archbishop Vigneron is aware, the mess is being compounded by his silence, given the public uproar. If he is not aware, he should be.
IMHO, rather than allowing this to escalate in public – and as a matter of justice and charity – it would be better if the archbishop would receive Voris and Brammer in his office for some private discussion. Leave the talk about canon law and jurisdiction at the door and get down to some frank and honest conversation about the “why”.
Mr. vox borealis:
“Is this not an implicit order to stop using the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities?”
Our Holy Father both has Cardinal and Pope has on several occasions told us that what the Church needs today is less “bureaucracy (structure) and more Holy Spirit” If Mr. Voris is teaching error regarding faith & morals then the good Archbishop, in charity & justice to all parties, must clearly so teach and correct citing both Mr. Voris’ error(s) and citing the CCC. If Mr. Voris persists in publicly teaching error then as a minimum the good Archbishop must warn his flock to flee Mr. Voris as sheep would a wolf.
Right now according to a Detroit commentator this matter is being pushed by AOD employees and a Detroit blogger. If true then the good Archbishop must clearly, quickly and strongly sort this matter out.
Catholicism USA can survive without Mr. Voris, Mor Corapi and Fr. Pavone. It cannot survive without Good Shepherds.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
A law selectively enforced turns justice on its head, creating injustice. Objectively, the AoD’s behavior here is unjust, considering that the diocese has not taken such an extreme position on the use of the name Catholic in the past, and it has been given plenty of opportunities.
To me, the real issue is that, if I understand the situation correctly, the AoD has implied by its press releases that Real Catholic TV is a danger to Catholic Faith, even heretical–and now the diocese lets that slander hang in the air, with no justification forthcoming.
Remember the press release about Michael Voris’s presentation at WYD not having an “official” stamp of approval–a stamp of approval requirement that has never existed?
I have always respected Ed Peters for getting to the nub of an issue. In this case, however, he seems to be avoiding the nub while putting a magnifying glass to a tangential topic. Does Canon law endorse, in this case, the full power of a diocese to, at best, detract against an organization of lay faithful, or at worse to commit calumny against an organization of lay faithful?
I believe the worker bees who do not cherish orthodox Catholicism in the AoD are doing quite a bit of RCTV research about now. They must find some fig leaf of RCTV heterodoxy to justify their statements. My prediction: they never will.
I can imagine that Dr. Peters’ duty to research and report to his employer (if, in fact, the AoD did consult with Dr. Peters on this particular matter, which cannot be automatically assumed to be the case) was maybe distasteful to him personally. However, his legal opinion that the Archdiocese of Detroit does have jurisdiction would require him to inform his client as such, regardless of what the Chancery’s intentions are.
I still cannot vilify in the slightest Dr. Peters in this matter. (Not that it’s particularly important what a random layman in Texas thinks of the particulars of this case.)
How many people substitute strident blog comments instead of prayer for our ecclesiastical princes? Like Fr. Z has said yesterday regarding “what to do regarding terrible sermons,” we should pray for holy priests and bishops, fast and offer sufferings to demonstrate our need to our Lord. I’m not sure if I’m on solid theological ground here by making this sweeping statement, but is it possible that part of the reason why our priesthood and curias are so lacking is because we (as a society, or as the Faithful as a whole) do not make ourselves worthy of such blessings with our prayer and fasting?
‘I can imagine that Dr. Peters’ duty to research and report to his employer”
Lawyer Peters said he was not advising AOD on this mater. Instead he essentially said he was merely making professional observations. However in doing so he did not advise that he makes his living working for AOD. A potential conflict of interest.
“but is it possible that part of the reason why our priesthood and curias are so lacking is because we (as a society, or as the Faithful as a whole) do not make ourselves worthy of such blessings with our prayer and fasting?”
Could be. But we have just endured 50-years of Scandal wherein Church employees enabled and protected known sexual predators. And this mess is still going on (See Philadelphia). It is time for crystal clear transparency on the part of Church employes on all matters regarding the faithful.
Above all we Bishops who a Good Shepherds. We can survive without Mr. Voris, Mr. Corapi et al. We cannot survive without courageous Bishops. – successors to the Apostles.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I love Dr. Peters! Every time I learn a lot from his very lucid and balanced posts.
What I learned from this thread:
1) It comes down to part 2 of Canon 216: “[…] no undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’ without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.” Simply put, it appears that RCTV did not seek such consent.
2) People have turned the “competent ecclesiastical authority” into a matter of “jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is apparently non-issue in this particular matter: Any shepard has the right to intervene on matters that affect the flock entrusted under his care.
3) That the AoD should focus on “more important” matters, or why don’t the go after other alleged “usurpers” of the name “Catholic–all of these are red herrings. As Dr. Peters explained earlier, it’s a matter of priorities. If a policeman pulls me over because I’m speeding, it would be a lame excuse to say “and why didn’t you pull over the guy in front of me?”. “Sir, I pulled you over today and, right now, let’s talk about your behavior.
4) Whether Voris/RCTV broadcast orthodox teachings… again, I think it’s a red herring, and it would be for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. AoD simply says that Voris/RCTV wants to use the title Catholic, so they should consult obtain such consent. If they in good faith, it’s not like going to Canossa or getting one’s teeth pulled out.
“As a Detroit area commenter put it this matter is being pushed by AOD employees and a Detroit Catholic blogger.”
Richard, who are you talking about? I haven’t been able to find any one else besides Michael Voris — in that videotaped statement — arguing that this is being pushed by AOD employees or bloggers.
Who else is talking about it like that?
Deacon:
The commentator (who used a handle), and who alleges that he/she is from Detroit, about 3-days claimed: that Attorney Peters is an AOD employe, and that the AOD Statements so far have been put out only by the AOD PR guy – not the good Archbishop, and that this matter is being pushed by only AOD employees and a Detroit blogger.
I checked and sure enough Attorney Peters is employed by AOD; and the AOD statements on this matter come from only their PR guy; and teh good Archbishop himself (so far) has remained silent.
I am backtracking through my history trying to find the alleged Detroit commentator – who I seem to remember had his/her own blog.
If I find something I will let you know.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
It strikes me that an important factor in this affair has not yet been mentioned, namely that it was St. Michael’s Media and Michael Voris who started all this. According to the AOD website, St M’s Media and Voris in 2006 sought approval from the AOD for their undertaking. AOD says they responded with an explanation of what further information St. M’s Media (and presumably anyone else) would have to provide, and steps that would have to be taken for the AOD to be able to consider the request, citing their own and USCCB guidelines on the subject. According to AOD, although there have been “discussions,” the matter is unresolved. There is no mention of the request having been withdrawn, and the implication is that it is, technically, still pending.
In light of that factor, I can see why AOD would say that the work of St M’s “cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.” AOD hasn’t silenced St M’s or Voris, hasn’t asked them to desist from anything, but has merely said, in effect, that it has not approved an undertaking whose request for that approval is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
Further, it seems to me that the 2006 request by St M’s and Voris for approval by AOD constituted a voluntary acknowledgment of and submission to the jurisdiction of AOD. Dr Peters knows better about this jurisdiction matter, but to my mind Michael Voris himself pretty well settled that matter five years ago.
Actually selective enforcement in regards to speeding is another problem too.
It’s unjust to apply the law in that fashion. What the government has nowadays, is a proliferation of laws that allow authorities to enforce and persecute people whenever they choose, and leave alone those whom they chose.
There is always a way the law can be interpreted against those who are to be suppressed, and always a way to not those who are to be allowed free.
It is a whitewashed wall situation.
Deacon Greg,
Diane at Te Deus Laudamus Blog has commented on this situation and posted on her blog. She is a member of the Assumption Grotto parish, I believe. Perhaps this is the infamous Detroit Blogger? Her blog is excellent, by the way, as is Ed Peters’. Those claiming or implying conflict of interest with these two are, I believe, mistaken.
Mr. sirlouis
“AOD hasn’t silenced St M’s or Voris, hasn’t asked them to desist from anything, but has merely said, in effect, that it has not approved an undertaking whose request for that approval is incomplete or otherwise deficient.”
So why the big Kerfuffle?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Selective enforcement? I don’t think so. If people took the time to check, they would find that similar statements have been made by ordinaries about the National Catholic Reporter, Catholics United for Choice, and what have you. The result is always the same: the private progressive magisterium announces that right is on their side and they can ignore the bishops.
The only question is whether in this case another private magisterium will announce that they don’t have to listen to the bishops. Let us pray that the party is this case proves himself a more faithful son of the Church than the NCR, CUC, etc.
Canon law, I’ve been told, for whatever it’s worth, is when it has a restrictive sense to be interpreted strictly, and not broadly.
The law we have today was not written with regard to the Internet.
Dr. Peters, with his expertise seems confident it can be done properly. This is not necessarily always the case. There can be a real need for new law. And there can also be a need for better legislators before that new law is written.
It seems to me that Dr. Peters is begging the question.
Of course the Archdiocese of Detroit has “jurisdiction” to issue a statement. I don’t think anyone has disputed that.
Obviously, the real argument is about the following: should the Archbishop take a formal, canonical action (which thus far has not occurred), would he have jurisdiction to do so? Additionally, to the extent that Mr. Voris is obligated to seek permission to use the term “Catholic” in the name of his enterprise, from whom should he seek it?
It seems to me that this is not a serious effort to bring about some kind of enforcement action, but is really more that someone in the chancery feels the need to distance the Archdiocese from some of Mr. Voris’ more “enthusiastic” statements.
B Knotts,
Voris himself sought permission from the AoD, back in 2006: http://tinyurl.com/6pc6no4
With all of this talk about jurisdiction, what has been forgotten is the issue of whether it is just to punish someone when they don’t appear to have said anything false or heretical. I know, I know: “It’s up to the bishop!” But, surely a bishop has to have some reason–one that goes beyond personal dislike–for doing something like this. I hope that no one is suggesting that this has been done purely out of animus towards Voris.
Mr shin:
“The law we have today was not written with regard to the Internet.”
Does it have to be? Prior to and after the the Reformation itinerant preachers, many in Franciscan garb, moved from Diocese to Diocese teaching error. They claimed to be subject only to their alleged monastic superiors – often in distant locations. This matter was resolved only when courageous Bishops took the time to sort things out.
The kerfuffle between St John of the Cross and his Carmelite superiors rested upon an interpretation of authority. The Papal delegate ordered St john to do one thing and Carmel another. St John went with the the Papal delegate. After the delegate’s death St John continued to fail to comply with the orders of his Carmelite superiors. His superiors eventually arrested, imprisoned and flogged (weekly) St John. He broke out of his imprisonment and did a runner. After St John’s death Carmel fractured into two separate Orders A real mess.
These kerfuffles appear to be the norm in the Church.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
B Knotts gets it right… So far Mr. Peters has spent hours of his life arguing simply that any bishop has the right to issue a statement. So what? I can issue a statement on any sibject in the world if I so desired and so can any bishop.
The point of jurisdiction has nothing to do with issuing a statement, it has to do with taking canonical action. Mr. Peters is defending against an argument that isn’t being made.
And I think he’s coming across as rather uncharitable and condescending in so doing.
If, on the other hand, there was some specific thing that Voris said on one of his programs, why wouldn’t the Archdiocese permit him to clarify? That’s the frustrating part about all of this: the Archdiocese has, apparently, refused to meet with VOris & co. and they’ve refused to give any reason for the punishment. They’ve simply decided to try to destroy Real Catholic–because, it’s not just about the name, but the implications. If you’ve been sanctioned like this by a major Archdiocese, you’re not going to be invited by Catholic radio shows, TV shows. parishes, etc.
Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P.:
“I don’t think so. If people took the time to check, they would find that similar statements have been made by ordinaries about the National Catholic Reporter,”
Indeed people have taken the time. And a generation after the Ordinary announced that NCR could not use the word “Catholic” Bishops, Priests and Religious in good standing continue to write for the NCR and Chanceries and Catholic institutions continue to advertise in NCR.
Perhaps our betters could first set a good example in this matter?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Abasham,
This is not accurate. Peters makes two arguments: (1) That the archbishop of Detroit does have jurisdiction over Voris/RCTV because jurisdiction is not determined solely by where the company headquarters is located. (2) That in any case the archbishop does not need jurisdiction to admonish his flock / make a statement about Voris/RCTV.
Denis,
No one is being punished, at least not in any meaningful way. The Archdiocese has stated only: “The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities.”
So at most, it looks as though the archdiocese wishes RCTV to refrain from calling itself “Catholic,” a stipulation that could easily be met without changing the content of the productions one bit. No one is being excommunicated or banned from speaking or the like. On the other hand, it does seem silly that AoD makes this statement without following through with any explicit demands, and more moreover it does appear odd that RCTV was (it seems) targeted.
I agree with deacon Greg Kandra on this, though I’ll use blunter language. This whole thing is starting to look more like a pissing match than anything else.
Re: From 1968 NCR Condemnation by Bishop Helmsing
“I had to issue a public reprimand for their policy of crusading against the Church’s teachings on the transmission of human life, and against the Gospel values of sacred virginity and dedicated celibacy as taught by the Church.”
“NOW, AS a last resort, I am forced as bishop to issue a condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter for its disregard and denial of the most sacred values of our Catholic faith.”
“Within recent months the National Catholic Reporter has expressed itself in belittling the basic truths expressed in the Creed of Pope Paul VI; it has made itself a platform for the airing of heretical views”
“an attack on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the virgin birth of Christ,”
“blasphemous and heretical attack on the Vicar of Christ”
how they can escape the penalties of automatic excommunication entailed thereby.
“In fairness to our Catholic people, I hereby issue an official condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter. Furthermore, I send this communication to my brother bishops, and make known to the priests, religious and laity of the nation my views on the poisonous character of this publication. ”
The above is quite different from the statements issued by the AOD PR guy regarding Mr. Voris. And one must ask how any Bishop, priest, religious or layman could contribute or advertise in NCR?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Only one person can end the conflict.
The archbishop IS the archdiocese. The continuing confusion can only be ended by him.
Why does he not say that he approved of the release of the AoD statement about Voris?
If not, has the perpetrator been reprimanded or fired?
The faithful are due a response.
I think the Archbishop and the Archdiocese of Detroit have a canonical right to ask any group not to use the word Catholic without the permission of the Archbishop. But what I am completely baffled at is why the Archdiocese is putting energy and effort into this kind of scuffle. Does anyone there have the common sense that the good Lord gave to a gnat?
And although I admire Archbishop Vigneron for his great service to the Church, I must say I am disappointed he is allowing this to drag on. He knows better as a pastor, a father, a shepherd. Either he should sit down with Michael Voris and RealCatholic TV executives to lay out his concerns about use of the word Catholic, or better yet, just sit down face to face with these men, hombre to hombre, and let them know if something has him ticked off. Have they said or done things to offend? If so, the guy with the pointed hat needs to act with leadership and boldness, and not sit back with popcorn and see how it plays out. It is very stupid to allow one’s diocese to be dragged into a media fight and appear to be blissfully ignorant, or worse–to appear to be blissfully wimpy and afraid to do or say anything.
tcreek,
By this logic, there is no need for the archbishop to do anything. If the bishop is the diocese, then the diocesan statement is by definition the bishop’s statement. The bishop’s failure to further clarify, in this formulation, can only be taken as clear evidence that he approves of the statement issued. hence, no real confusion.
@voxborealis ‘No one is being punished, at least not in any meaningful way. The Archdiocese has stated only: “The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities.”’
I disagree. This is a punishment. I wouldn’t be surprised if Voris hasn’t already had some engagements cancelled as a result. How can a Catholic media program or a parish invite a speaker who has been denied the right to use “Catholic”? Obviously, that denial has great significance, and suggests that you are doing something un-Catholic.
The determination has been made that Voris & co. have failed to live up to some standard, and that, as a consequence, they must stop calling their work “Catholic.”. It would be very helpful to everyone–not just Voris & co., but everyone who wishes to promote the faith in the media–if some explanation were given of what those standards are. One obvious standard would be orthodoxy–though, it appears that that isn’t a standard that has been applied to every “Catholic” enterprise in the Archdiocese. Is that the standard that Voris has violated? I doubt it. So what is the standard? Again, it would be awful if the impression is given that this has been done out of nothing more than spite or anumus towards Voris.
There is a standard for theology professors in Catholic universities: the Mandatum. Every professor should have signed one, and should becommitted to its principles. I wonder: has the Mandatum requirement been enforced in the AOD? Why not begin with the standards that have already been clarified–the ones that involve a sheet of paper easy to print out and sign? Instead, the Archdiocese has decided to take on an orthodox Catholic whose does not appear to have done anything wrong–and, if he has, we’ll never know, because the Archdiocese isn’t telling us what it is.
Dennis,
Have you bother to read the statements from the AoD? They make it clear that, going back to 2006, what Voris/RCTV needed to do to obtain diocesan approval to use the work Catholic in public ventures was explained to him. Thus, from 2008 (found here: http://tinyurl.com/6pc6no4):
I am a fan of Voris’ work. But it also looks like he and the owner of RCTV are playing a sort of shell game, as I have written before. They obviously knew that they needed diocesan permission because they sought it before. They clearly were told how they did not, as of 2006 / 2008 comply with diocesan and USCCB standards (fairly applied or not). Now they are holding out that RCTV is not bound by the AoD but by the Diocese of Great Bend-Fort Wayne, though apparently they have not sought diocesan permission there (if they had, surely that would have been made public).
The “permission” sought by Michael Voris in 2006 to which Vox Borealis links above deals with a request by Michael Voris to the AOD for “approval of its media enterprise and programming from the Archdiocese of Detroit.” No where does it say that he was looking for an approval to use the name Real Catholic TV which began broadcasting 2 years later. So it appears people are mixing apples and oranges when discussing this issue. Further this statement from the AOD in 2008 continues with “Therefore, the catechetical presentations and the interpretations of Catholic teachings or positions presented by St. Michael’s Media and/or RealCatholicTV— be they audio, video, or exclusively Web-based— cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.” which indicates this is more than just a question over the use of the word “Catholic” in RealCatholic TV. The same document/link also offers links to commentary on this case to none other than Dr. Peters. Now I take Dr. Peters at his word that he is/was offering his commentary on this matter of his own accord and not as a representative of the AOD. However as he is an employee of the AOD and they are linking to his opinions and commentary to support their position I think it only fair if he no longer weigh in as an “impartial observer.”
Perhaps Dr. Peters would offer some opinion on this hypothetical scenario. A certain Catholic grassroots lobby group Political Action Committee uses Catholic in its name. Several bloggers contribute stories and “tweets” using this groups Catholic name. These bloggers are living in different states. One or more of the more prominent bloggers live(s)on the East Coast and the other(s) live somewhere in the Midwest. The organization itself is registered in the Midwest but it is a subsidiary of another group that happens to also be in the same city but could just as well might be HQ’d in a third locale. Which Ordinary would they approach for permission to use the name Catholic. Could the Ordinary of one of the other cities prohibit the blogger/tweeter from posting or tweeting from inside his Archdiocese?
Does this mean I can submit a listing of periodicals, websites, etc, all with the name “Catholic” and get a ruling from the AOD if they should be using the name Catholic?
The USCCB publishes their guidelines “Protocols for Catholic Media Programming and Media Outlets”:
http://www.usccb.org/about/communications/protocol-for-catholic-media-programming-and-media-outlets.cfm
Some interesting tidbits:
So, according to the USCCB guidelines, which the AoD appears to follow–
a) it is the obligation of the entity that wishes to act as a Catholic media outlet to seek permission
b) ecclesial authority is determined by the location of the production headquarters, not where the owner lives or the corporate headquarters. For RCTV, the production facilities are in Detroit, so the archbishop of Detroit appears to be the proper authority, not the bishop of Great Bend-Fort Wayne.
voxborealis,
Yes I have read it and it just muddies things even further. First of all, it tells us that ‘the catechetical presentations and the interpretations of Catholic teachings or positions presented by St. Michael’s Media and/or RealCatholicTV…cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.’
That, to me, seems to be a completely different issue, unrelated to the use of “Catholic” in their name.
But let’s assume for the moment that this statement relates to the present controversy. Even so, it tells us absolutely nothing about what Voris did wrong. It cites ‘ basic archdiocesan media protocols and those of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)’. Are there protocols against excessive orthodoxy?
It says, “production HEADQUARTERS” not facilities. That can be take to be Indiana as well.
Stu,
I don’t think that can be taken to mean Indiana, unless one is willfully confusing the protocols. RCTV is produced in Detroit, despite where the backer-owner lives.
Further up, “vox borealis writes:
Deacon Greg,
Diane at Te Deus Laudamus Blog has commented on this situation and posted on her blog. She is a member of the Assumption Grotto parish, I believe. Perhaps this is the infamous Detroit Blogger? Her blog is excellent, by the way, as is Ed Peters’. Those claiming or implying conflict of interest with these two are, I believe, mistaken.
Good grief, if I am the “Detroit Blogger” that Richard W. Comeford keeps talking about in his cookie cutter posts all over the blogosphere, I’d like to know what it was that I did or said that constitutes some kind of conspiracy with “AoD Employees”. Here is what he is pasting in at numerous blogs and has repeated in several posts here and in other threads by Father Z.
Right now according to a Detroit commentator this matter is being pushed by AOD employees and a Detroit blogger.
I’ve seen enough. That’s what is wrong with much of this discussion. Everything hinges on judgment from suspicion – better known as rash judgment. It’s called filling in the blanks in the absence of proof and using that information as if it is fact.
People need to read and ponder CCC 2477-2478 real carefully before treating someone else’s unsubstantiated inuendo as fact, even if it pertains to some nameless faces in an archdiocese with a well documented, troubled past.
For the record, I take issue with the approach used by Michael Voris to address problems in the Church, specifically in the Vortex. I have made this known to him in an email last year. I have made this known to other staffers at RCTV. That doesn’t make me a liberal and it surely doesn’t make me a grand conspirator with “AoD employees”, and it does not mean I condone how the AoD is handling the matter. I’ve seen enough people offer genuine, useful, constructive criticism only to get treated as if they were traitors of the faith by supporters. Some offering such constructive criticism are avid supporters and regular viewers of RCTV. I’ve already said it in my own blogpost the other day that those things should be taken to heart and considered by RCTV, not dismissed as if the person can’t handle straight talk.
I know that Michael Voris has a great love for the Church and a good many things he says are true. For me, how some of those things are communicated is not helpful.
It’s very easy to just cut loose and say whatever is on your mind. It takes skill to say it in a way that will be received not just by those who will agree, but by that large chunk of people in the middle who aren’t sure what to think, and maybe – just maybe, someone who is off on the rail. That’s where the real “New Evangelization” is at – winning hearts with reason. So many people are poorly catechized that even those who promote misguided things or spread heretical teachings often do so out of ignorance. You won’t win them through derision. And you don’t help them along by telling them why they are so miserable without real solutions. Those solutions involve tilling soil, planting seeds, watering, waiting, cultivating and continued maintenance. It means knowing you can overwhelm an uncatechized soul with too much just like you can overwork the soil of a seedling and kill it.
When I first started taking my faith seriously again in 2005, I got angry when the floodlights went on and I saw just how badly I was jipped for decades by those shepherds who were responsible for my spiritual well being. I turned into an angry, bitter Catholic. But it was a number of priests at my parish encouraged me to move past the anger and into something more constructive – specifically prayer and arguments built with reason and stated in a way that was mindful of the dignity of others (Pope Benedict XVI provides us with a solid example and it is not because he is the Pope that he avoids derisive rhetoric). I was encouraged not ridicule, to not post while angry, and to pray first for those whom I was addressing and to be as blameless as I can in discussing hard issues. I know I do that imperfectly, but I try as best I can and when I mess up, I have recourse to Sacramental Confession.
If expressing these opinions I’ve become an enemy of the [RCTV] state, so be it. I’m acting on my conscience and out of love for the faith.
Now, I’ve already stated further up in this combox, that I believe the archbishop should receive Voris and Brammer and put it on the table, whatever it is, leaving canon law and jurisdiction at the door so they can get down to what may be a pastoral issue. I don’t make the presumption that the archbishop is without knowledge of this case. Others are free to do so. Given the serious distrust between the folks at RCTV and the chancery, I hope and pray that His Excellency, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron, will sit down with these folks and have some wholesome discussions. I also pray that both sides will be open to hear each others concerns and find ways to address them.
Some months ago, wanting to understand CCC 2478 better, I decided to look to Scripture, the saints, the fathers and doctors of the Church, the great theologians and church documents. I made this blogpost, FWIW. I recommend people look at what Father Hardon has to say about rash judgment and imprudence, further down in my post. Learn to recognize inuendo and unsubstantiated claims; be careful about running with those things as fact, even if only in your mind.
Disagree vox.
Define “headquarters.” One can argue that Indiana is the HQ for all production decisions.
Further, these are guidelines and not Canon law.
Denis,
The issue is not what Voris did “wrong.” It is that RCTV did not receive proper authorization to distribute “Catholic” stuff as a Catholic media enterprise. It has everything (much?) to do with the name Catholic, because if RCTV was not so named, there would be less ground for the relevant ecclesial authority to say anything about it.
Can we all be given a reason for this, please? We belong to a rational Church and this internecine struggle is, again, making the Church look inept and disorganized. Let the Archbishop, no one else, state why the name Catholic must not be used, let the burden of proof be on the side of the Diocese and let the issue be clarified for all. My traditional friends and others in England see this as yet another suppression of an international voice for traditional Catholic teaching. There are so few independent voices speaking the language that people in the pew understand. Michael Voris is one. If there has been a doctrinal error, let it be made public. If not, why is the problem causing new scandal? This is not merely a situation which affects Detroit or America. And, he is being punished, as such statements from chanceries have repercussions.
@ Vox Borealis the USCCB document you quote makes the statement, “Radio and television stations, broadcast and cable networks, and Web sites which intend to function as Catholic media outlets should voluntarily seek ecclesiastical approbation. You however state that the media outlet is obligated to seek permission. That is clearly not what the USCCB requires. The USCCB document is also here dealing with the function of a Catholic media outlet to broadcast etc, and has nothing to do with the use of the word Catholic in the name of said media group.
Again according to the previous document of the AoD from 2008, their issue with Michael Voris will not be resolved by dropping Catholic from Real Catholic TV. They want him silenced.
Here’s the real irritant in that AoD statement:
‘Therefore, the…interpretations of Catholic teachings or positions presented by St. Michael’s Media and/or RealCatholicTV… cannot be approved or endorsed by the archdiocese at this time.’
So the issue is RCTV’s ‘interpretations of Catholic teachings.’ That’s pretty serious. If RCTV’s interpretation is mistaken, isn’t it the Archbishop’s duty to warn his flock about the specific errors being taught by RCTV? The Abp should know that some people in his diocese listen to Voris; doesn’t he want to make sure that they’re not misled? For heaven’s sake–I want to know what falsehoods Voris is teaching; perhaps I’ve been led astray.
Ms. Diane at Te Deum Laudamus:
“Good grief, if I am the “Detroit Blogger” that Richard W. Comeford keeps talking about in his cookie cutter posts all over the blogosphere, I’d like to know what it was that I did or said that constitutes some kind of conspiracy with “AoD Employees”. ”
Nope. The Detroit area commentator I cited did not mention you. Nor have I mentioned your name. In fact I do not think anyone has mentioned your name. Nor has anyone mentioned “some kind of conspiracy with “AoD Employees”. You have my e-mail. If you had any questions you are always free to contact me. Just in case you lost it: cincdeb@yahoo.com.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Denis.
Exactly.
My default position is with the Bishop. But the lack of clarity by the AOD has been a disaster. Regardless of who is right or wrong, someone in the chancery staff should be reassigned by the Bishop for how poorly this has been handled.
Stu,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think you are proposing needless parsing, which clouds otherwise fairly clear protocols.
In any case, it is obvious that Voris was aware of such protocols, because he attempted to follow them in the past. Yet now RCTV appears not to have bothered to get approval from any diocese, and this strikes me a, well, a bit shady. And again, I generally like Voris’ stuff.
Vox,
It’s clear to you because you want it to support your position. We all do that. But at the end of the day, it’s actually vague and ultimately non-binding as a voluntary guideline.
To Richard Comerford,
I could see that my name was not mentioned by you specifically. I can see how vox borealis thought that what you were repeating from someone else was in reference to me. There are only so many Catholic bloggers working out of Detroit and I offered a post the other day, as well as comments here at Father Z’s that could have been construed as being anti-RCTV.
What I would ask of you is that you not run with unsubstantiated claims, even when they don’t involve names, as if they are facts. Why not ask someone how they know that, rather than take it as truth and spread it all over the internet in comboxes, and in this thread several times where it causes people to form suspicious judgments (in this case of anyone blogging out of Detroit).
I think this matter is only going to escalate and get uglier unless Archbishop Vigneron takes time out of his day to sit with Mike and have a heart-to heart. In fact, I’d go so far as to say they ought to do it over a beer. Now that’s a good way to cut the tension.
Denis,
Exactly, see my comment. Why can’t we have specifics? I have not watched all of videos. I have not watched more than 30% over the years. But, if one doctrinal error has been made, I would like to know. And, if there are many, it is an issue. However, the vague statement you quoted makes the situation more suspect, rather than less. Let the issues be made public. Simply put, what
interpretations are not Catholic? Which programs are not capable of being supported by the Archdiocese? Plurals were used-let’s see the list.
Denis,
I’m not sure what you write follows. The Diocese does not say that Voris et al have made specific errors, only that they cannot approve their programming because it has not received the proper approval. It’s akin to licensing, no? Let’s say someone is practicing medicine without a proper license from a recognized granting agency. The American Medical Association may issue a statement that it cannot recommend the “doctor” because he lacks credentials, even if the work he has done has been free of error. Similarly, a school may not accept transfer credits from courses taught at an un-accredited online “university.” Again, the courses may have contained valid content, but without proper credentials their courses will not be deemed acceptable.
This is of course because an authority (the bishop, a learned society, etc) can not always review everything that an alleged professional does—it would be impossible for a university administrator to try to evaluate if a given online course was taught at a legitimate university level, presenting valid material–so they rely on accreditation.
What the AoD seems to be saying is “caveat emptor”—it cannot vouch for the Catholicity of RCTV’s programming because RCTV has not received the proper accreditation, which is granted by the proper ecclesial authority.
Stu,
Is it a non-bonding guideline? Canon 216 mandates that no such “undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority,” and the guidelines lay out the USCCB protocols for determine the proper ecclesial authority for the establishment of a Catholic media venture. Even if we accept that the guidelines are vague (which I think they are not), in no way does it appear they are voluntary and non-binding. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean?
By the way, the real winner in all of this is the Devil, who is sitting back and rubbing his proverbial hands with glee at the dissension this entire situation is causing in the world, and I mean, world. After a year of bad press regarding several priests and their removal by bishops from key ministries, or being silenced regarding the truth about sexual ethics, this episode adds to the European perception that American bishops either are not in control of their own chanceries, or that some have ego issues. Now, as men in apostolic succession, I owe these men respect, but even we have a right to expect clarity and charity from our bishops. And, they, alone, are not infallible, only when in the college of bishops, with the Pope, CCC. So, even bishops can make mistakes, and letting this situation go without clarity and charity is a mistake.
The USCCB guidelines or protocols dealing with media outlets are just that. By definition protocols deal with etiquette or a courtesy, not obligations. There is no mention of what happens should one fail to provide this information. Again nowhere does it say that this is what one has to do or that they are automatically prohibited from acting as such w/o approbation.
My apparent defense of Mr. Voris, if it is taken that way, is not that per se. It’s just that looking down the road this has the potential to lead us down a slippery slope. Perhaps someone with a bug up their arse might suggest that Fr. Z’s blog is a media outlet and needs Diocesan approval. Same goes for a considerable number of other websites. So this has the potential for far greater implication that just between Mr. Voris and the AoD.
Vox,
The guidelines are not Canon Law and further they call for voluntary action. That’s why I say the guidelines are non-binding.
voxborealis,
I’m very confused by your explanation, the following part in particular:
‘This is of course because an authority (the bishop, a learned society, etc) can not always review everything that an alleged professional does—it would be impossible for a university administrator to try to evaluate if a given online course was taught at a legitimate university level, presenting valid material–so they rely on accreditation.’
Are you saying that the AoD asked RCTV not to use ‘Catholic’ in their name because they had no time to examine RCTV’s application?
Will the real “Real Catholic TV” please stand up?
In this confusion about jurisdiction and headquarters, there is something that everyone seems missing:
There are 2 legal entities which are licensed to do business as “Real Catholic TV”:
1. Concept Communication L.L.C based in Ferndale, Michigan (archdiocese of Detroit) is a for-profit limited liability company owned by Gary Michael Voris and is licensed to conduct business in the state of Michigan under the assumed name “Real Catholic TV.”
Source: Documents on the state of Michigan website ( http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/bcs_corp/image.asp?FILE_TYPE=ELF&FILE_NAME=D201007\2010210\E0114036.TIF )
2. Greenstar Enterprises, Inc. based in South Bend, IN (diocese of South Bend) is a for-profit corporation owned by Marc Brammer and is licensed to conduct business under the assumed name of “Real Catholic TV.”
Source: Documents on the state of Indiana website ( https://secure.in.gov/sos/online_corps/view_details.aspx?guid=1BDBDC2A-0C1D-4F02-BA83-97A4485CB575 )
It seems to me, the big question is: when you pay money to “Real Catholic TV” through their website (which uses Paypal) where does that money go? Does it go into a bank account owned by “Real Catholic TV-Concept” (owned by Voris) or does it go into a bank account owned by “Real Catholic TV-Greenstar” (owned by Brammer)?
Find the money and I suppose you find the headquarters.
What of St. Michael’s Media? That is a non-profit corporation started by Gary Michael Voris in Ferndale, MI but it does not appear to have any legal connection to “Real Catholic TV”. Both companies using the assumed name of “Real Catholic TV” are, in fact, for-profit entities.
As a follow-up, Canon law appears to give Bishops conferences the right to determine protocols for Catholic media:
So, the protocols established by the USCCB have the backing of Canon law, and would thus appear to be binding.
Denis,
Of course not. It seems that, at least with the 2006 request by Voris, the application was reviewed and deemed lacking in some way. Thus permission to act as a ‘Catholic media outlet” was never granted. Permission was, it seems, never sought—and certainly never granted—for the current incarnation, RCTV.
This says little about the content of RCTV programming. The Diocese is not claiming that the programming is flawed or contains specific errors. Rather, it is claiming that Voris et al never received permission from the start to act as “Catholic media outlet.” Thus, the Diocese cannot approve the programming.
It’s like a declaration of nullity: it doesn’t claim that the marriage is no longer valid, or that it suffered from grave problems. Rather, it claims that the marriage ever existed in the first place.
voxborealis,
Here is a question for you, since you seem to be familiar with the situation. Look at the following sentences in the AoD statement:
‘In 2006, St. Michael’s Media of Ferndale, Michigan, through its chief executive, Michael Voris, and his associates, requested approval of its media enterprise and programming from the Archdiocese of Detroit. The Detroit archdiocese responded to their initial submission and gave them direction as to the additional information and steps that would be need to be taken. At issue was and is compliance with our basic archdiocesan media protocols and those of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). While there have been some discussions, the matter with St. Michael’s Media remains unresolved’.
Do you interpret this to mean that SMM did not follow the ‘direction as to the additional information and steps that would be need to be taken’? Because that’s not what is being said. The statement seems to be worded to give that impression, but it does not explicitly deny that SMM provided the additional information or took the additional steps. The wording is that, subsequent, to the direction given to SMM, the situation ‘remains unresolved.’ Is that because SMM failed to comly with the additional directives, or because, after SMM provided the additional information, the Archdiocese denied the requested approval?
Stu,
With respect to the guidelines and Canon law, see my comment above. As for voluntary action, it is clear that the USCCB use of “voluntary” means “undertaken on one’s own accord,” not “optional.” Status as a Catholic media outlet will only be granted, according to the protocols, once the “voluntary” application is submitted and approved; if not, the entity may not promote itself as a Catholic media enterprise. It appears, then, that the “voluntary” application is rather an obligation incumbent on the person(s) who wish to establish a Catholic media enterprise.
voxborealis,
Now you really ahve my head spinning! You say:
‘The Diocese is not claiming that the programming is flawed or contains specific errors. Rather, it is claiming that Voris et al never received permission from the start to act as “Catholic media outlet.” Thus, the Diocese cannot approve the programming.’
So the AoD did not give permission because permission wasn’t given by the AoD? Who is running that office–Yossarian?
@vox borealis
I think you are confusing the application of canon 216 with the protocols for media outlets by the USCCB. When Mr. Voris voluntarily submitted an application to approve his media outlet in 2006 he was not seeking approval to use the name Catholic for his venture. He apparently was simply following the protocols suggested by the USCCB. The only information that was really requested is general information that might be found under an “About Us” section of a website. It was not as if he had to submit material as though it were to receive an imprimatur from the AoD. Nevertheless it took the AoD nearly two years to respond and now another three plus years to issue another statement, unless I’ve missed some links to previous documents in between that timeframe.
Denis,
Heck, you got me…that’s perhaps the million dollar question! Did Voris et al follow all the rules and yet were shot down by the Diocese, and if so, why? Or, did he decide to circumvent the Diocese, and if so, why?
In truth, I’m not familiar with the situation, other than that I tried to read as many of the official documents as I could before weighing in on the issue. My gut tells me that both sides have contributed to this conflict. As my father used to say, it takes two to tango.
Can’t you see AoD staff staying up late at night viewing every video Voris has ever made, frontwards, backwards and sideways. — “We gotta find something … “
Denis,
Good heavens, Denis, I hope you are not trying to be obtuse, and equally I hope I am not being as confusing as you claim. Look, it’s this simple: The AoD statement says that it cannot approve RCTV material because it was never approved as a Catholic media enterprise by the proper authority (the AoD). RCTV was not approved as such because, it seems, either RCTV never submitted an application, or it submitted an insufficient application, or its application was rejected. This has nothing to do with the content of the programming produced, which may or may not be error free. Maybe RCTV has produced wonderful, error free, orthodox programming for the last few years. That is irrelevant to the issue, which is they are promoting themselves as a Catholic media enterprise without having received prior permission to do so.
It’s that simple, really.
BTW, if you want to know what the application is to include, just look at the protocols.
Ms Diane at Te Deum Laudamus
“There are only so many Catholic bloggers working out of Detroit”
How do you know how many bloggers, Catholic or otherwise, are working out of Detroit? I do not know. How does one find these things out? Who cares?
“What I would ask of you is that you not run with unsubstantiated claims, even when they don’t involve names, as if they are facts.”
What “unsubstantiated claims”? Two out of three of this guy’s or gal’s claims were clearly substantiated and I so stated. The third was not substantiated and I so stated.
“Why not ask someone how they know that, rather than take it as truth and spread it all over the internet in comboxes”
Because when I read the alleged Detroit commentator the thread was closed. It was no longer a functioning thread. I could not ask him or her. I also have posted on this matter on a grand total two sites. Not “all over the internet”.
“and in this thread several times where it causes people to form suspicious judgments (in this case of anyone blogging out of Detroit).”
How do you know someone has formed “suspicious judgments”. From what I can see no one has mentioned your name. Certainly no one has attacked your blog or your character or your name. Who has accused you of any wrong doing?
What are you complaining about?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Cavaliere,
According to the AoD statements:
Clearly the AoD’s position is that there HAVE been followup discussions over the years, perhaps many, yet RCTV has failed to follow the proper procedures and/or receive approval.
Now, whether one believes the AoD, or if one thinks that these discussions have been shams, with the AoD stonewalling Voris, well that’s a matter of interpretation.
voxborealis:
‘RCTV was not approved as such because, it seems, either RCTV never submitted an application, or it submitted an insufficient application, or its application was rejected. ‘
Isn’t that the point: that the AoD’s statement explains nothing? Given that the statement was written to suggest that there was a failure on RCTV’s part without actually saying it, my strong suspicion is that RCTV submitted the materials, that the application was rejected, but that there were no substantive doctrinal grounds for the rejection…hence the statement that explains nothing.
Having said that, I’m inclined to agree with Cavaliere that this statement has no relevance to the present controversy–that it relates to the use of catechetical materials in the diocese rather than to the use of the name ‘Catholic’ in RCTV’s name.
Denis,
I doubt that for such application, “substantive doctrinal grounds” play much of a role in approval or rejection, given that such evaluation is supposed to come before anything is produced. It strikes me as more likely that the AoD looked over the application, which would have included “the resources usually employed in preparation of radio/TV programming,” and found them lacking. Or maybe his mission statement was crazy or inflammatory (“we at RCTV want to expose the deep rot in the church, especially the open heresy preached by so many liberal bishops since the Second Vatican Council”). Accurate perhaps, but not a way to win friends. Or maybe the bishop’s office figured, who the heck is this guy? Yeah, he has a theology degree, but what are his credentials? What are the credentials of his staff? He needs to do more to convince us that he’s legit and not some crank.
Vox,
Guidelines are just that…guidelines. These are non-binding guidelines from the USCCB and do not in any way affect how a particular Bishop runs his diocese. They are not Canon Law. Nothing else really to say.
“should voluntarily” indicates a non-requirement. Now had they said, “shall submit” then that would be a different matter.
Well, thanks Diane at Te Deum Laudamus.
I applaud your point about the archbishop meeting with RCTV.
If I could make a constructive criticism…Perhaps you should consider the word catholic. Universal. It encompasses all kinds of people. It is nice to know that you have found a comfortable place for your chosen style in explaining this beautiful Catholic tapestry of Faith and Truth. That does not mean that others, whose styles are very different from your own, are wrong. They are just different.
While reading your post, I became more and more irritated. It was your style. To me, you came across as a superior finger-wagger, an I’m-well-measured-and-thoughtful-and-if-you-do-not-do-it-the-way-I-do-you-are-just-not-enlightened-enough sort of person about how other lay people evangelize. Perhaps The Vortex elicits from you a similar kind of emotional response. ( And maybe it takes one to know one ?.)
I am not trying to poke you with a sharp stick. I am trying to give you a larger perspective on humanity. I know lukewarm Catholics who have been brought back to their faith by the Vortex. I don’t think your style of evangelism would have touched them. Is there room in your Catholic faith for people who are rejuvenated by Voris? Or would you rather those kind of people go away? I also know a Catholic woman who was very timid about defending her faith in the face of real anti-Catholic attacks. Michael Voris’ work gave her the information and the courage she needed to be able to “give a reason for the hope that is in [her].” Again, she had read much from your measured, gentle style, but that just did not do it for her. Our church would be devoid of many great saints if your idea of the right way to evangelize were the only way. And there is a time for everything, even anger. For some things, anger is the correct, yes, even Christian response.
You wrote: “If expressing these opinions I’ve become an enemy of the [RCTV] state, so be it. I’m acting on my conscience and out of love for the faith.” Yes, and Michael Voris could just as easily write, “ If expressing these opinions I’ve become an enemy of Diane at Te Deum Laudamus, or this archbishop or that nun, so be it. I’m acting on my conscience and out of love for the faith.”
Peace.
vox boralis: ‘It strikes me as more likely that the AoD looked over the application, which would have included “the resources usually employed in preparation of radio/TV programming,” and found them lacking.’
That’s not what is written. According to AoD’s statement SMM’s ‘interpretations of Catholic teachings or positions presented… cannot be approved or endorsed…’ That certainly sounds like they’re saying that there is something doctrinally problematic about SMM’s ‘interpretations.’
You also say: ‘maybe his mission statement was crazy or inflammatory…’
…or maybe it wasn’t; in fact, I’d be surprised if it was.
Looking at the January 3rd statement from the AoD intended as a clarification to the December statement it seems to create more questions then answers.
I’m confused, what type of “clarification” would they presume to expect for use of the title, Catholic?
This last statement appears to be an expansion of their previous statement for now no longer are they permitted to simply use the title Catholic in their name but even denied being able to promote themselves as Catholic. So much for the idea of just calling themselves RCTV.
correction to my last post it should have said no longer are they forbidden to simply use the title Catholic in their name.
It is getting so bad that if Bishop Sheen were alive today he would be trump up on some charge for preaching. I am sure The great apostasy will happen from inside I fear
For all the people bringing up examples like “roman catholic womyn prysts” etc as proof that bishops are engaging in “selective enforcement”, keep in mind that most of these groups are essentially in schism. Bishops needn’t, and shouldn’t waste their time, trying to enforce laws on schismatics.
historyb,
It’s GETTING so bad? Cardinal Spellman cancelled (then) Bishop Sheen’s television show out of spite at one point. It’s not a then/now thing.
If you look over in the right-hand column of this page, you will find a great long list of “Blogs I keep track of.” Are we supposed to believe that the owners of each of those blogs has applied for authorization as a “Catholic Media Outlet?”
What is a Catholic Media outlet? Any blog published by one person or a small group of like minded people (Fr. Z , Vox Nova, American Papist, Commonweal, First Things, to go up the presumed staff size scale)? Or is it something at a commercial scale (even if owned by a non-profit) – such as EWTN, Catholic TV (Boston), National Catholic Register, Fr. Barron’s “Word On Fire” ministry with its TV programs and DVDs?
The USCCB definition quoted above lists three categories:
“2.1 Radio and television stations, broadcast and cable networks, and Web sites which intend to function as Catholic media outlets should voluntarily seek ecclesiastical approbation….”
I understand “Radio and television stations, broadcast and cable networks”. “Web sites” seems hopelessly vague.
The USCCB document seems to be concerned about what “Catholic Media Outlets” do, rather than whether they use “Catholic” in their name.
Is it me, or is this conversation starting to be about SOOOOO much more than Michael Voris’s relationship with the Archdiocese of Detroit?
I’ve been following this for a while without comment. After researching the canonical issues I do think there is much to be said on the question of applying the law with justice. On the other hand, I think RCTV should comply, and then turn around and make it into a large campaign for bishops to apply the law likewise to “Catholics” for a free choice, “Catholic” hospitals and “Catholic” universities which likewise dissent from the magisterium.
Nota Bene: The “likewise” was referring to liberal groups, not to RCTV.
I am so confused. What I feel certain of is that I haven’t yet heard the whole real story in any kind of coherent way.
Vox wrote: “Clearly the AoD’s position is that there HAVE been followup discussions over the years, perhaps many, yet RCTV has failed to follow the proper procedures and/or receive approval.”
Read the original Lifesite article. Mr. Voris makes clear that the communications have been one way: he has tried to meet with the archdiocese, only to be ignored again and again. There have been no follow-up discussions.
You claim that Voris was being shady in seeking archdiocesan approval of St. Michael’s Media but now circumventing that approval for RCTV. The difference is that he owns SMM; he does not own RCTV. He is an employee of RCTV, with no authority to change the name of a company he works for. That’s like asking a journalist to change the name of a newspaper he works for; he doesn’t have that authority.
Diane,
There is room in the Church for all kinds of saints–those who whisper, and those who shout from the rooftops. As long as all is done in charity, never compromising truth, all is well. One simply cannot discount the fact that RCTV has brought many people back to the faith, so clearly, Mr. Voris’s approach is reaching some people. It might not be *your* style, but it does seem to be working for souls that need the more hard-hitting approach in order to wake up and return to the faith. If you know of his conversion, you know that he himself needed a more forceful approach to turn away from his life of mortal sin and come back to the Church–and those forceful words came through the mouth of his dying mother.
To be totally frank, I can’t think of many saints who, in their preaching or spiritual writings, offered a totally calm, measured approach to the faith. What I see more often is a holy boldness, an emphatic, uncompromising, unwavering adherence to the truth, no matter how much offense it caused (and it often caused offense).
Stu,
My last on this tired thread–
Canon law, which I cited above, clearly gives the bishops conferences the authority to establish rules for granting authority to preach, teach, and broadcast using the “Catholic” name. The USCCB has established such guidelines. The guidelines are, then, authoritative. It’s really that simple.
Christine111,
Please see my post above.
Mr. Voris most certainly owns “Real Catholic TV”. Mr. Brammer also owns a “Real Catholic TV”. There are two registered businesses named “Real Catholic TV”. Mr. Voris is not “just an employee” of one of them; he is the sole owner. He certainly has the authority to revise the name of “Real Catholic TV” the assumed name of Concept Communication based in Ferndale, Michigan.
Vox,
The USCCB is not in the chain of command. Each Bishop reports directly to the Pope. The guidelines remain….simply guidelines and are thus named. They are not Canon law. End of story.
That’s as simple as it gets.
And here is the key phrase, Vox…
“It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it.”
At the end of the day, the Bishop is called to regulate it and doesn’t answer to the conference of Bishops. He interprets it the way he wants to.
This is just like the military when we have the real chain of command and advisory groups with quasi-authority. At the end of the day, what matters is who you report to. The guidelines remain without real authority, loosely written and only require voluntary compliance. Evidence of such is that we have officials in differing dioceses with differing opinions on what they mean.
Regardless, while AOD is certainly free to make this ruling (and I respect the Archbishop’s position even if articulated through his staff and would comply with it if it required action by me) but it is was ham-handed, wobbily in it’s reasoning, and delivered in a way that doesn’t suggest strong leadership. I actually wish I was an advisor to the good Archbishop on this as a strong and and clear statement would go far instead of this knit-picking through guidelines that are selectively enforced.
Stu (I keep coming back!),
I take your point. However, the AoD statements made it clear that the diocese follows the USCCB guidelines. So, if one wants to know what the AoD’s policies are in this regard, one need look no further than the USCCB protocols, published for all to see.
Now, what we cannot know is if RCTV or whatever name they went under filed an improper application (and if so, for what reason was it deemed improper) , or filed a proper application and it was rejected (and if so, for what reason was it rejected: content or because the eeeeevil and petty folks in the chancery don’t like Voris’ straight, orthodox talk).
I watch Voris because I want to hear a reinforcement of the Catholic truth that I learned in my youth. I, and doubt if anyone else, thought that he was speaking officially for the Catholic church. My wish is that Catholic “officials” would defend the Faith as does Voris.
Katherine and Christine:
First, I don’t think Father Z’s thread is right for this as it is about canonical issues. I opened the rabbit hole so I’m hoping to close it here by saying that I will offer a forum at my own blog to talk about “style” in evangelization and related. However, I think we can do so there without singling out anyone person or apostolate. I think it’s a good topic and one worth exploring. Watch in the next week or two for it.
Before parting this thread, like to offer clarification since both of you believe that my concern is about style. I used the word, “approach”.
“Style” varies and it is good. I have friends who fall asleep in conferences where much detail is given and I feel I’m missing something when a speaker’s style not detailed. One’s style can dynamic or dry; passionate or dispassionate; detailed or to-the-point, humorous or serious, etc.
Those are all valid styles. I think Mike’s style includes dynamic, passionate, and serious. He can be humorous in a good way, but he can also be humorous at the expense of others. Those humorous things tickle the ears of people who mostly “get it” and are itching to hear others told off. I used to use this kind of snarky humor which jabbed relentlessly at Catholics who didn’t get it. Oh, my stat counter went way up and I had all kinds of comments. I myself, an angry, disaffected Catholic was drawing mostly disaffected, angry Catholics and making them more disaffected and angry because all I was doing was telling them how miserable they were, and how little the Church was doing for them. Then I began to speak one-on-one with some Catholics and my heart broke when I saw that rather than drawing them closer, I had pushed them away. The opportunity to win them with reason was lost because I used, as first recourse, the harshest possible means to try to win them. There’s nothing charitable about such a “style”.
I think there is a time and a place to address someone in a hard hitting way. God bless Mike’s mom for doing that at the right time and the right place where it had impact. I suppose you could say that Mike had a “St. Paul” experience where he was knocked down hard and challenged. Good for his Mom and good for him.
The vast majority of people that Christ taught were not taught by such means. Nor did he turn tables on a daily basis to make his point. Rather, Our Blessed Lord taught in parables with gentleness most of the time. He respected people’s free will by simply putting something out there and letting them ponder his words. Even some of the hard-hitting saints often cited as justification for this “style” were selective as to when, where, and who they used it with.
I know Mike personally, and much of his staff. I want to see them succeed because their tools and their talents have such great potential. I know others who want to see him succeed likewise, but have similar concerns. None of these people are liberal. None of them are part of some shadowy cabal in the chancery. They are devout, orthodox Catholics, most of whom have learned as I did that while we can count the number of people we win, we can’t possibly know the number we have pushed the other way.
As I said at the beginning, I’ll offer a forum to discuss this in greater depth at my own blog as it is not fair to continue this line of thought in a thread on canon law. Plus, I think it is worth bringing into the open where others can join in, without referencing any person or apostolate. Let’s dig in to some of what the saints had to say – especially Aquinas, and Sacred Scripture, and the CCC to see how it can help the discussion.
Peace!
It still looks to me (as a non-expert) that Prof. Peters seems right so far as he goes, but he stops before he gets to the interesting bits.
Yes, no doubt the Archbishop of Detroit can comment on the factual matter of whether RCTV needs or has permission to call itself “Catholic”.
But the more interesting questions are:
a) can the Archbishop of Detroit tell Mr Voris to stop working for RCTV until it regularises its position (by gaining consent or changing its name)?
b) can the Archbishop of Detroit order RCTV to stop broadcasting under that name?
c) could another bishop give RCTV the necessary consent to call itself Catholic, and if so which ones?
For (c), Canon 216 requires “the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority”. That seems to me to mean “any” competent authority, not “every” competent authority, in much the same way that an Imprimatur, given by one bishop, then allows printing and distribution across the world.
And once the consent is given by a competent authority, it seems that other bishops would have to accept that.
Vox,
Keep coming back.
Just because the AOD does chose to use them in this case, doesn’t mean that other Bishops give those guidelines the time of day especially when real questions arise as to where RCTV is headquartered. The guidelines are simply unenforceable given the USCCB has no authority.
The AOD, if they really felt the need to say something, should have simply issued a statement saying that in the opinion of the Archbishop, RCTV does not reflect Catholic teaching because of x, y or z or whatever. Be specific. Be clear. Be the leader. The longer they refrain from doing this, the worse they look.
Stu/Vox: I daresay it is not that simple: http://tinyurl.com/74zhoxu
Re: The 800 lbs Guerrilla in the corner
The great hurdle here for AOD is the 1986 condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter by the local Ordinary and the stripping of its right to use the name “Catholic”.
“I hereby issue an official condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter. Furthermore, I send this communication to my brother bishops, and make known to the priests, religious and laity of the nation my views on the poisonous character of this publication.” See: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cofv.
Amazingly since 1968 the AOD has been one of the principal pillars of NCR through the actions of its now retired Auxiliary Bishop Gumbleton. How can AOD justly make a public issue of the use of the word “Catholic” by Mr. Voris when the smiling face of its own Auxillary Bishop appears on the front page of every NCR edition – a publication which has been formally stripped of its right to use the word Catholic by lawful Church authority?
If a law is usually ignored and rarely evoked by the governing officers then said law looses much of its moral authority. Any subsequent attempt to selectively enforce said law raises the specters of unjust discrimination, malice and revenge on the part of the governing officers.
For the AOD the name of the 800-lbs smiling guerrilla in the corner is Gubbleton.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I beg pardon if I make one more poor comment. I can’t help but look at this entire issue without deference to the very last statement in the Code of Canon Law. That being said, pray tell me, what specifically has Mr. Voris or Real Catholic TV done that would warrant such a dispute over the title “Catholic”?
Ms Cathy:
“what specifically has Mr. Voris or Real Catholic TV done that would warrant such a dispute over the title “Catholic”?”
Perhaps secular politics.
What is important here is not Mr. Voris, or Mr. Corapi or Father Pavone – our Church can survive without them; but our Bishops – our Church cannot survive without the successors to the Apostles. And since 1899 when Pope Leo XIII warned us of the heresy “Americanism” (wherein Catholics surrendered points of faith & morals in order to better fit into society but still called themselves Catholic & remained in the Church) there has been a suspicion on the part of some (to include a few Popes) that our American Bishops have not always been courageous Pastors & Good Shepherds because they are influenced by secular politics.
The indisputable events over the past 50-years, where all too many Bishops & their bureaucrats enabled & protected predators, has strengthened that suspicion. The Voris case is really a test, a key test, for our Shepherds. It does not matter whether Voris is a NAZI or another St John of the Cross (who got caught up in another case of conflicting authority, Canon Lawyers & bureaucrats). What matters is whether the Bishops involved will act as courageous Shepherds or as politically astute corporate CEO’s.
As I see it a follower of Jesus Christ should strive to carry his own cross walking (and falling frequently) exactly in his Master’s footsteps striving not to veer either to the political LEFT or RIGHT. IMO Mr Voris likes to veer a bit to the political RIGHT. While many of his critics like to veer to the political LEFT. Much of this kerfuffle appears to be more about secular politics than faith & morals.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Oh, Diane at Te Deum Laudamus, thanks for the invitation, but your approach really puts me off, so I won’t be going to your blog. I do not want to change you, though. I’m actually thrilled that your new, more gentle efforts are bearing fruit for Christ, and I wish you great success with all those people who like that sort of thing! I simply wanted to put the idea in your head that maybe you could give Michael Voris the same respect.
You wrote: “I myself, an angry, disaffected Catholic was drawing mostly disaffected, angry Catholics and making them more disaffected and angry…” So your reasoning here is that, because you “had ears itching to hear someone told-off,” Michael Voris and everyone who is drawn to him must also be angry and disaffected. By your own description, you failed at using a more blunt approach at evangelization, but your failure does require Michael Voris to fail.
“The vast majority of people that Christ taught were not taught by such [hard-hitting] means. Nor did he turn tables on a daily basis to make his point. Rather, Our Blessed Lord taught in parables with gentleness most of the time.” –I think you have a pretty small understanding of the vast awesomeness of the person, Jesus Christ. I understand the way you choose to see Him, but that approach puts The Great I AM in a Diane-sized box.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the almighty Triune One has room for Michael Voris’ “approach” in His plan. Why don’t you? And, oh, by the way, why doesn’t the AoD?
Katherine,
Agreeing with you!!!
Revelation 3:16 indicates a Christ, Who has harsh words for at least one of the Churches in the Middle East-which I think applies to today’s dioceses in some areas. We need more prophets, not less. And, all the prophets, except John the Baptist, were sinners and imperfect. Only Christ, and His cousin did not sin. Yet, words are harsh throughout the New Testament. As Christ said to the Church at Laodicea:
“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” And, I do think that many people are called to the gentle approach and many to the prophetic, “in-your-face” approach. We all have different gifts.
Seems the AoD’s statement of:
“The AOD simply stated RCTV has no authority to use “Catholic” in their name.”
Is essentially MEANINGLESS, and many interpret it to mean that it is suggestive of a denouncement of RCTV’s programming.
This is somewhat ‘corporate speak ‘a vaguery, neither ‘yes nor no’ sentence, something I’ll remind you the devil loves in contrary to the Lord’s command to make what you say as clear as possible. It’s terrible how the Church has adopted the strategy and PR statements of Business Corporations.
As an exmaple let’s take the topic of imprematurs being granted by bishops to a book for example. The imprematur does not necessarily mean that the bishop or the Church endorses what the book says, just that it does not contain error in topics that are speculative and that we may freely speculate about (for example: the detailed nature of purgatory or what heaven or hell are actually like).
Subsequently this statement by the AoD is also vague and could mean any number of things:
– The AoD and RCTV did not formally meet to agree on the use of the word ‘Catholic’
-The AoD has not received nor completely reviewed RCTV’s proposal to use the word ‘Catholic’ and discussions are still underway.
– RCTV has not completed the submission process or requirements the AoD requires to grant it approval to use the word ‘Catholic’
– RCTV has provided everything required to be granted permission to use the word ‘Catholic’, but the AoD has been slow to hold up their end of the bargain.
– The AoD has found doctrinal issues with RCTV and thus is not granting the use of the word ‘Catholic’ until such details are sorted out.
– RCTV has done eveything right and nothing wrong and done al lthat was required of them to gain approval to use the word ‘Catholic’, but for reasons unknown, which could be evil ones on behalf of certain bureaucrats within the AoD, the permission has not been granted.
Nevertheless the statement given by the AoD tells us nothing, and when misunderstood by common people, could be taken to mean that RCTV is not Catholic and their programming is not suitable and even incompatabile or outright against the teachings of the authentic Catholic Church.
But given all the bad things that’ve happened within the Church and the corruption within and that historically this tactic has been used to silence or persecute and deter faithful Catholics from preserving and preaching authentic Catholicism, it is not odd that people are rightfully suspicious of the AoD. The past few years the Church has been through from sheltering heretics, destroying the liturgy, open apostasy, and finally culminating in the sex abuse scandals have made it so and exposed an illness that it suffers from, and it has itself to blame for much of it.
What needs to be done is this:
Everyone MUST CONTINUE to make a big deal out of this so that it forces the AoD to openly and plainly resolve the issue with RCTV. This is what is best for everyone. Do not ignore it or let it die down. If you do that you’ll only let a wound fester and do more damage down the road. Cure the illness NOW! Let it set a precedent, and get the Church as a whole to review it’s entire media policy in light of the internet and Public Relations. The Catholic Church is still notoriously behind the times in properly dealing with our current media age. It can set an example of how to do things rightly and plainly without following the shoddy vagueness of corporate speak and responsibility-dodging currently being practiced the world over, even in government, and is ingrained into the minds of people and children worldwide. How do you think the relativistic age we see today got the way it is?
Thanks Supertradmum. However, Christine did a far better job evangelizing Diane at Te Deum Laudamus, I thought.
Also, I like your reference to gifts. The body of Christ does not work when all of its parts must be ears and no mouths mouths–even when the ears zealously believe that their gift is superior…
^ To clarify I didn’t mean to make the topic of ‘imprematurs’ sound like a bad thing in the same vein as vague corporate speak. I’ve poorly worded that. I actually wanted to use it as an example to show that sometimes people take imprematurs on a book as being a seal of approval that eerything taught in that book is a fact and approved teachings by the Church. When it is not necessarily so.
In the same way, people will likely interpret the AoD’s statement with regards to RCTV to be a negative pronouncement. When it fact it simply means (corporately speaking) that there is no formal piece of paper granting RCTV any (legal) permission to use the word ‘Catholic’ in it’s name. But regarldless of whether permission has been granted or not, their programming might be perfectly alright.
Of course as has happened, sometimes this very exercise of vague non-committal statements combined with foreknowledge that the public will misunderstand the precise nature of such statements, might of course be intentionally used by ill-minded people to intentionally mislead and manufacture dissent against a faithful Catholic.
It’s unfortunate, Katherine, that you so grossly misinterpreted my intentions and misrepresented my words, and in such snotty, sophmoric-like fashion.
Done here. Let’s pray for one another.
Dearest Diane at Te Deum Laudamus,
First, an apology: I did not intend to be a big jerk to you, but clearly I was. I am sorry for hurting you in a snotty and sophomoric manner. Really.
I do hope, however, (since I cannot make what happened un-happen) that the pain of my words was the pain of a seed being pushed into the earth, and that you might return to that pain now and then. My hope is that this seed might germinate with contemplation and grow to bear sweet fruit for you, in time.
All God’s best to you, particularly your endeavors at bringing the Truth and Beauty of the Catholic Faith to the blogosphere!
Sincerely,
Katherine
Diane: Thank you for your thoughtful response. You wrote:
“Then I began to speak one-on-one with some Catholics and my heart broke when I saw that rather than drawing them closer, I had pushed them away.”
From what I’ve heard from people at RCTV, they’ve also had many one-on-one conversations with Catholics, who have NOT been pushed away, but rather strengthened by the apostolate.
It seems as if you are focusing only on The Vortex, which is *meant* to be provocative and biting; it is meant to get people talking. But the vast majority of RCTV’s content is more measured and nuanced. Have you seen Michael’s fabulous talks in Madrid? Or in London? They were fantastic, and judging from many of the comments from audience members afterwards, they were extremely successful in reigniting hearts to serve Our Lord with greater fire and love. I know they had that effect on me, and for that, I am deeply grateful.
I look forward to your commentary on this subject over at your blog.
Patrick wrote: “Mr. Voris is not “just an employee” of one of them; he is the sole owner. He certainly has the authority to revise the name of “Real Catholic TV” the assumed name of Concept Communication based in Ferndale, Michigan.”
Wrong. But there’s little use arguing about this with people whose minds are already made up.
I am coming into this quite late. Diane and Katherine, I would like to offer my perspective.
I do not run a blog but like Diane, within the last 8 years when I began to take my faith more seriously I also became angry and enraged at the liberal element in the church. I often went for coffee with a colleague at work who was and is a believing Catholic. We talked in depth about the scandals and how liberal bishops over the last 45 years have done unspeakable damage to the church. Although my anger was against genuine problems, I had become a bitter person instead of a happy perone full of love for the lord and my neighbor. Through our conversations, I had also made my work colleague an angry bitter Catholic. No doubt we should all be angry over what was robbed from us but for it to be our only focus will result in spiritual damage.
For myself and many others, RCTV does not bait us to be enraged at the church. Instead I find it encourages to live and love the faith and to expect the best of our shepherds.
Each of us has our own styles. I find Michael Voris to be blunt and to the point. He talks about the faith in a clear and concise manner and comes across as unapologetically in love with the faith. Although the Vortex often focuses on church problems, it also focuses on many positive aspects of the faith as well. It has encouraged me to take and live my faith more seriously. Also, there is so much more to RCTV then the Vortex as well. Lots of apologetics and educational material.
The whole situation with the AoD is very sad. As study after study reveals a steady decline in church attendance and adherence to church teaching, the AoD chooses to marginalize a group of lay people who are actually getting positive results using the new media. If I was an outsider considering joining the church this whole fiasco would not be impressive.
Lorenz wrote: “For myself and many others, RCTV does not bait us to be enraged at the church. Instead I find it encourages to live and love the faith and to expect the best of our shepherds.
Each of us has our own styles. I find Michael Voris to be blunt and to the point. He talks about the faith in a clear and concise manner and comes across as unapologetically in love with the faith.”
Amen!!
re: Johnno – “Everyone MUST CONTINUE to make a big deal out of this so that it forces the AoD to openly and plainly resolve the issue with RCTV. This is what is best for everyone. Do not ignore it or let it die down. If you do that you’ll only let a wound fester and do more damage down the road. Cure the illness NOW! ”
What everyone must do is pray and fast, or offer some other type of mortification. It would be nice if the Archdiocese were open and transparent about the situation, but that is their option, not a requirement. The more we dig in our heels, the more likely it is the AoD will dig in theirs. The only winner then is Satan. This is a cross those associated with RCTV – and, to a lesser extent, the rest of us – have been given to bear. Do we accept it, or do we continue to reject it by continuing with these cyber self-indulgences?
Without any commentary on the rights and wrongs of it all, here’s how I read the situation…
The AOD made their play and Voris/ RCTV/ St. Michael’s Media basically said ‘yeah, we’re not budging.’
So, the AOD now has two choices: to let it go or to force the issue.
If they chose the former, then that’s that. But I doubt they will.
If they chose the latter, then they have two choices: the USCCB or Rome. They could persuade the USCCB to act as one but that would probably backfire. Voris’ whole approach is based on the fact that the USCCB is also denying ‘real’ Catholic faith, and so being censured or ordered to stop or whatever by them might just be power to his arm.
I suspect that the AOD won’t chose that approach. Firstly, because of the reason I’ve just given, and secondly, because any disagreement between Bishops on the subject which were raised in the process would look very bad.
That’s why I suspect that the AOD’s next move will be to go to Rome and try to secure some sort of order from the Apostolic Signatura (sp?) or the PCL or whoever does that sort of thing, telling RCTV to stop using the name ‘Catholic.’ They will probably have more luck there, given that we already know some in the Vatican don’t like RCTV, and they probably get that such an order couldn’t be ignored as easily as a statement from a single diocese.
RCTV ruffle feathers all round the world. I strongly suspect that before 2012 is out we will be seeing a formal censure of some kind from Rome, but I could be wrong.
As I say, I’m not commenting one way or another on the rights and wrongs here. Just speculating.
I think we should keep Voris and everyone concerned in our prayers.
Jerry,
RCTV ruffle feathers all round the world, you noted. Voris is very popular with some of the young Catholic men of various countries in Europe. Some young men follow him more than I do. He is popular because they consider him the only voice which speaks to their own experiences in colleges, among pagans, in seminaries. I hope you are not implying that ruffled feathers are a bad thing. We need more strong men to be out there speaking to the faithful and encouraging this generation of under thirties, not with stupid Life Teen fluff, or feel good youth events, but with the real deal. Those on the front line need inspiration like this. We are in a battle with evil in many disguises and Voris is clear about this. He is like the major or colonels in World War I who went over the trenches first, followed by the best and the brightest. Frequently, those majors and colonels were the first casualties. Hmmm. We need more Voris types, not less. And, he is in the mainstream Church, which has been a great thing. Let us hope he is encouraged.
The Detroit Archdioces Canon Lawyer who is employed in the Archdiocese seminary must also acknowledge that Canon Law demands that a bishop ( a juridical person) must be a ‘a Catholic’. A bishop to be ‘a Catholic’ must be able to affirm all Church teaching ,especially those which must be ‘firmly beleived'(Dominus Iesus on Other Religions).
Neither is the bishop of Detroit or Fort Wayne-South Bend willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is at the heart of the Real CatholicTv.com issue i.e the subject of the Jews in particular and non Catholics in general and their need to enter the Church for salvation.Michael Vorris has produced some good videos on this issue.
The bishops of Detroit and Forth Wayne-South Bend are not willing to affirm the dogma or say that Jews need to convert for salvation and now they are targeting Michael Vorris and his financier Marc Brammar for defending Catholic teaching.
As Shepherds they needed to inform Vorris and Brammar what was the precise moral or faith issue violated.They have not done so.
The Canon Lawyer of Detroit must know that the Archbishop there has no right to call himself Catholic, according to Canon Law, since he denies a magisterial teaching in public.
A simple question for the bishop of Detroit, which I asked Bishop Kevin Rhoades and he did not answer during the Robert Sungenis controversy was: Does the Catholic Church teach that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation? (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J etc).
How can these bishops not affirm the dogma outside th church there is no salvation and canonically still offer Holy Mas ans remain as bishops? They can commit sacrilege just because they have the political support of the ADL and the pro abortion rabbis linked to Israel?
Why would Vorris and Brammar want a recommendation from these bishops in dissent?
Michal Vorris has affirmed th dogma now the next step is to tell the bishops that we do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So they are not defacto exceptions to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible statment'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
This was one of the public errors of Bishop Kevin Rhoades when he put it in writing on a website against apologist Robrt Sungenis, approved by the Catholics United for the Faith,Steubenville ,when Bishop Rhoades was the bishop of Harrisburg,Penn.
Questions for the Canon Lawyrs.
1.Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be conidered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
2.Can they deny the dogma and still offer Holy Mass according to Canon Law?
3.If they assume that those cases saved in invincible ignorance (LG16) and with the baptism of desire (CCC) are explicitly known to us and so are an exception to the dogma then would this not be heresy and a denial of the dogma?
(Note Vatican Council II and the Catechism of th Catholic Church mentions those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this is as a posibility (de jure). No magisterial texts claim that we defacto know these cases and so they are an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation).
Mr. LionelAndrades:
“The Detroit Archdioces Canon Lawyer who is employed in the Archdiocese seminary must also acknowledge that Canon Law demands that a bishop ( a juridical person) must be a ‘a Catholic’”
Which Canon are you citing?
“A bishop to be ‘a Catholic’ must be able to affirm all Church teaching”
“Neither is the bishop of Detroit or Fort Wayne-South Bend willing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which is at the heart of the Real CatholicTv.com issue”
Which party claims that this “dogma” is the “heat of the issue”?
The bishops of Detroit and Forth Wayne-South Bend are not willing to affirm the dogma or say that Jews need to convert for salvation and now they are targeting Michael Vorris and his financier Marc Brammar for defending Catholic teaching.
Which party to this dispute makes said claim?
“As Shepherds they needed to inform Vorris and Brammar what was the precise moral or faith issue violated.They have not done so.”
Neither Diocese has accused Mr. Voris of “violating” issue of either faith or morals.
“the Archbishop there has no right to call himself Catholic”
Of course he does.
“since he denies a magisterial teaching in public”
When has the Archbishop of Detroit ever denied a “magisterial teaching in public”?
“They can commit sacrilege just because they have the political support of the ADL and the pro abortion rabbis linked to Israel?”
I hope you are not implying that there is a vast LEFT WING Conspiracy going on here.
“Michal Vorris has affirmed th dogma”
What dogma are you referring to?
“We accept this is as a posibility (de jure)”
Who is “we”?
Pardon for saying but I do not find your post very clear. Are you sure that this is related to the current Voris Kerfuffle?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Pingback: The Michael Voris controversy and who gets to decide what is Catholic | English Catholic
Pingback: English Catholic
Christine111 wrote:
“Wrong. But there’s little use arguing about this with people whose minds are already made up.”
Everything I stated is supported by registered legal documents from the state of Michigan and the state of Indiana. Your contention that Voris is no more than an employee is based on what supporting evidence?
You are proposing that although Voris owns a company that is licensed to do business as Real Catholic TV, he doesn’t? He’s just an employee of a different Real Catholic TV? Hmmm.
As I said before, follow the money and you find which Real Catholic TV is the actual business.
PatrickThornton:
“Everything I stated is supported by registered legal documents from the state of Michigan and the state of Indiana. Your contention that Voris is no more than an employee is based on what supporting evidence?…You are proposing that although Voris owns a company that is licensed to do business as Real Catholic TV, he doesn’t? He’s just an employee of a different Real Catholic TV?”
I am not a business man. But by my estimation between them, Mr. Brammer and Mr. Voris appear to be involved in three to four related media business ventures. Mr. Brammer described two of them in a radio interview here: http://rpconradio.com/our-guest-marc-brammer-senior-director-at-moodys-analytics-new-york-ny-to-discuss-his-institute-for-new-media/
During said interview Mr. Brammer clearly stated that everything Catholic should be under the Bishop.
Elsewhere Mr. Brammer & AOD acknowledge that Mr. Brammer is the owner of RCTV.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Jerry:
Yes we should also fast and pray. My concern is that we have habitually made it a rule to let things die down, and over the course of time that has been building up and harming us and blowing up in our faces. This is precisely what happened with concern to the sex abuse scandal. Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, begged to be allowed to take care of the situation way back then, but was ignored, and the problem was left to fester. Then it blew up and the Church has been mortally wounded which will take a great deal of time to recover from. Yes, fast, pray, do all of that! That’s a given and I feel it is simply restating the obvious to say we should. But don’t only do that! Where you can, be active as well! Our bishops need encouragement and sometimes we need to give them a helpful push. After all, those apostates and detractors working in the Church and the world over are being very pushy, and guess what? They are getting better results and I doubt they are praying as much or if they are I can scarcely imagine what it is they are asking for! The life of the Catholic is to not just simply pray, but to turn prayer itself into a physical action and response, where every movement and word we produce is a recognition and expression of faith and prayer. We turn prayer into example; We turn words into actions; we live what we believe, just as the Word of God created the universe and became physically incarnate.