Last week I wrote a defense of Michael Voris and Simon Rafe (a defense I stand by, despite what follows). Catholic News Agency was, I felt, jumping on the story a bit prematurely and critics of Voris and Rafe were, it seemed to me, being rather hasty both in seeing something sinister in his failure to keep up with complicated paperwork and in their demands that a penitent Rafe be punished for writing a role-playing game with a few rather ambiguous naughty bits. I say “ambiguous” because we simply don’t know how the game proceeded. If you write a game in which a character you are playing does something you know you shouldn’t do and you get rewarded for it, that’s one thing. If you write a game in which evil choices ultimately lead to bad consequences or to repentance, forgiveness and redemption, that’s another. Many readers were quite ready to huck Simon Rafe under the bus merely because of a pull quote in a story, devoid of information about how the rest of the game went. Worse, even with his apology, contrition, and promise of firm purpose of amendment, a number of Voris fans were not satisfied. They wanted Rafe fired or punished in some way. I thought the accusations against Voris and Rafe were a bit breathless, so I spoke.
This week, however, there is a different pattern emerging that I find equally disturbing, and frankly, related to Mr. Voris’ standard methodology. Consider these quotes, pulled from various comboxes:
Interesting to see AmChurch liberal Catholics calling the kind of modesty we learned in imitation of the Blessed Mother as “puritanical.”
***
God bless Michael Voris. He has opened the eyes of many Catholics (and is trying to open your eyes as well) who have been confused for far too long a time, who have had horrific catechism (or lack of, or distorted “kumbaya”, modernist, liberal nonsense).
***
As for Mr. Voris, he has finally earned his stripes. He now has a bona fide wolf pack after him. I think I shall give him a donation as a token of my esteem for his excellent taste in enemies.
***
It is sad and disturbing that most of this probing and scrutiny will continue to come from the duplicitous who care less about fidelity to Christ and more about digging up dirt to silence Voris — a thorn in their side.
***
The only reason Voris exists is the complete lack of spine of almost every other “Catholic” institution, and self appointed “news” service.
***
We find ourselves in the day and age where any call to Orthodoxy is openly attacked by cafeteria Catholics as one of the worst sins imaginable. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance itself has become the ultimate “commandment” for too many “catholics.” Tolerance has effectively rendered the Ten Commandments into The Ten Suggestions. It has recast the Truths of the Church into the mere medieval opinions of an out-of-touch power-hungry Magisterium that should be overthrown.
[W]e are indeed commanded to help our brothers and sisters by pointing out their serious sins. And that surely pertains to the outright rejection of many of the Church’s fundamental truths: Abortion, artificial contraception, the grave disorder of homosexuality, the definition of marriage, etc., etc.
***I’ve been immersing myself in Catholic news sources and blogs and other intra-Catholic discourse on the web and elsewhere. I was immediately taken aback at all of the glad-handing, PC enforcement, demonizing of outspoken orthodoxy, and propagation of modernism jumping off paper and screen. I’ve been studying the art and science of effective propaganda, marketing, and public relations for years. From what I’ve analyzed so far, a good portion of “Catholic” news is, at worst, direct subversion of Catholic faith and true Christian fidelity. At best, it serves as clever misdirection and diversion of Catholics and is extremely divisive in it’s effect. Ultimately, this all works to hinder the ability of faithful Catholics to respond to corruption and crisis within the Church in any unified and meaningful way. These “Catholic” news providers and pundits are using the same playbook as those in the secular media and achieving the same result: polarizing and perpetuating the multitudes of confused, distracted, uninformed and apathetic. It will be interesting finding out who is funding this “Catholic” propaganda and why.
***
Cowards like CNA and all those others paint a picture as if Voris is doing this to make more money out of it. Those ‘people’ are so lost. And they must feel that way because they are threatened by Voris’ style of defense. He defends what is true. It seems the coward stricken individuals are the ones who turn to anger and madness when they hear Voris speak.
***
In the last year Mr. Voris has been attacked by different publications and bloggers who identify themselves with some sort of Catholic identity. Since these attacks by said ??Catholics?? I have wondered what their own personal motivations are in not only tarnshing Mr. Voris’ reputation and credibility, but his St. Michael’s Media staff members as well.
***
God bless Michael Voris! He is ethical and he is doing important work, work that many, including our clergy and hierarchy, fail to do. He is telling the truth and the truth upsets many. He is not acting like a victim. The real victims are the girly-men, libs and progressives and dishonest people who hate what he says about Catholic doctrine. They hate the message so they aim to shoot messenger.
***
Micheal is much appreciated for his exposure of liberal (often 60’s throwbacks) “Catholics” working within the church management and at the USCCB who support abortion, gay marriage and a host of issues that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO CHURCH TEACHING. It sounds like you are either 1) of that CINO group, 2) socialist who believes in “collective salvation” and not in the dignity of the individual, or 3) just really uninformed about Michael’s good work ...
What strings together all these analyses is the same basic narrative. Michael Voris is a brave and staunchly orthodox truthteller locked in mortal combat with evil leftist dissenters who all want gay marriage, abortion, communion in the hand, women priests and various other indiscriminately listed horrors. The liberal Catholic media that favors these things is part of a shadowy cabal of liberal CINO’s who hate the Faith and who should have no right to approach the altar or call themselves Real Catholics[TM]. All Real Catholics[TM] understand this and recognize that any criticism of Mr. Voris—any fault-finding of any kind directed at Mr. Voris—is simply and solely due to the malignant forces of Progressive Dissent in the Church who hope for unlimited abortion, homosexual marriage, women priests, no fault divorce, National Socialism, clown Masses and a permanent Obama dictatorship.
Here’s the disconnect: When we speak of “progressive dissent” in Catholic media, it’s not a secret where to look for that. You can find it in various diluted forms in places like America or Commonweal or the Tablet, or in places like the Washington Post or some other MSM source (or, alas, diocesan paper) that regularly publishes the musings of Fr. Richard McBrien, James Carroll, Rosemary Radford Ruether or other Usual Suspects. You can find it in more chemical purity in the National Catholic Reporter. So how has, say, the Reporter contributed to the alleged progressive dissenting conspiracy to destroy Michael Voris?
It’s pretty horrific. They (and you may want to sit down for this), urged that he be allowed to speak!:
The Diocese of Scranton and Marywood University recently cancelled a speech planned by Michael Voris, an obnoxious rightwing personality who runs the outfit “RealCatholicTV.” Earlier this year, a bishop told me, “Funny thing is that his show is not real and it isn’t Catholic.”
Now, it is puzzling to me why anyone would invite the spewer of right-wing agitprop to rant on campus in the first place. But, censorship is not the answer. Let people hear Mr. Voris’s paranoid fantasies about unorthodox bishops and the USCCB’s supposed collusion with the Culture of Death. There is nothing attractive about his rants. The best way to expose a scoundrel is to shine the light of day on him.
Admittedly, not the warmest defense ever written, but it points to an interesting fact. The truth is, the commonly accepted narrative from comboxes all over the conservative Catholic blogosphere overlooks a crucial reality: namely, there is no campaign being conducted against Michael Voris by leftist dissenters in the Catholic media. That blog entry in the Reporter was about all I could find on him in the Lefty Catholic press. Nobody at the Reporter or other Progressive Dissent watering holes pays much attention to him because, yes indeed, they do regard RCTV with disdain — so much disdain that they just don’t talk about Mr. Voris unless there’s some bit of news like “Voris banned from Scranton.” And though at least one nameless bishop appears to be not so keen on RCTV, that doesn’t really establish a coordinated conspiracy all that well, given that the point of the tale is that the Reporter blogger thinks that Mr. Voris doesn’t so much need to be destroyed as to be allowed to destroy himself.
And yet Voris defenders perpetually talk as though it is leftist zealots for abortion and gay marriage, secret cabals of relativists bent on destroying Holy Church, and legions of radical feminists (plotting to put hemlock in Pope Benedict’s beer and then anoint Sinead O’Connor as Popessa as they stand on his twitching corpse) who are trying to bring Mr. Voris down.
What’s going on then? Only this: Voris and his defenders in the comboxes are not really attacking Progressive Dissenters in this and several other contretemps. They are, by and large, attacking faithful Catholics in conservative Catholic media and labeling them as Progressive Dissenters.
Consider: How else can we explain how a defense of Michael Voris could possibly be labeled “AmChurch liberalism”? Does a scribe for Commonweal describe somebody as conscience-haunted as Simon Rafe as “running wild”? No, it is a combox fan of Voris who does that. Would any normal healthy Catholic say that the Catholic News Agency is staffed by people devoted to “PC enforcement, demonizing of outspoken orthodoxy, and propagation of modernism”? Could any sane person talk as though the Register is dedicated to the protection of “libs and progressives and dishonest people who hate what he says about Catholic doctrine.” Only people who either cannot think or cannot grasp minimal standards of honesty and decency can say that CatholicVote.org is staffed by CINOs and socialists who “support abortion, gay marriage and a host of issues that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO CHURCH TEACHING.”
Seriously, people need to think about how absolutely ridiculous that looks to any normal healthy Catholic. So why do so many Voris fans fling such wild charges despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for them?
Answer: They write such things because Michael Voris urges them to think and say such things. For it is his perennial habit to declare that his mission is to trap and expose “lies and falsehoods” — not mistakes, differences in taste or approach, or well-intended but poorly executed prudential actions: lies and falsehoods. In short, he begins by characterizing those he criticizes as heretics, enemies of the Church and fifth columnists who must be “exposed.” Yet he often does so in such a way as to give himself a backdoor for denying that he is poisoning the well.
Exhibit A: Mr. Voris’ analysis of the Fr. Corapi scandal. Short story for those who missed it: Fr. Corapi was a popular priest who, as investigation showed, was behaving in ways which made him “unfit for the priesthood” as SOLT put it. His bishop (Mulvey of Corpus Christi) and superiors in SOLT took a whole lot of abuse from fans who refused to consider the possibility that Fr. Corapi could possibly be in the wrong. Eventually, Fr. Corapi abandoned his priesthood, was discovered to have been engaged in fornication and drug abuse (among other things), betrayed his vows, attacked his bishop as a libeler and a blackmailer and started the process of reinventing himself as the absurd superhero “The Black Sheepdog.”
How did Michael Voris respond? Referring to Corapi, he cast the whole thing in his standard Culture War template and suggestively told his followers who the real villains and hero in this drama were. Eulogizing Corapi, Mr. Voris declared, “He unabashedly talked about the angry homosexual subculture that controls so much of what goes on. He blasted unfaithful bishops ... meaning not only the obvious ones but also the ones who quietly and cowardly sit back and let heterodoxy and heresy spread unchecked. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to conclude many of the enemies he made and noses he got out of joint among the bishops and their lapdog media lackies are glad to see all of this going on.”
Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the exact same scenario regurgitated in the combox entries cited above: Righteous Truthteller Persecuted by Corrupt and Sinister Liberal Cabal. Nor did the Corapians (as these sectarians now call themselves) fail to get the message. Mulvey and SOLT=evil. Corapi=Persecuted Saint. My comboxes (among others) swelled up and burst with denunciations of the persecution of Corapi by those horrid liberal bishops and their liberal media lapdog lackeys (meaning Mulvey, since he was the only one responsible for the investigation, and those in Catholic media who covered the actual facts as they emerged).
And emerge they did. It turns out Corapi was, in fact, unfit to be a priest and Mulvey and SOLT were absolutely right to call him to heel. Are there progressive dissenters who don’t much like Corapi? Sure. But was this, in fact, what brought Corapi down? No. It was Corapi’s own sins and rebellion against his bishop and superiors that did that. So why exactly did Michael Voris make the link with angry homosexuals and heterodox enemies if they had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand? Because Fr. Corapi was a useful tool for doing what Voris always does: attacking the bishops as a shadowy cabal of liberals. It fit the template, so he ran with it and his audience, who believe every attack on a bishop Voris launches, ran with it too.
Only here’s the thing: Voris wound up siccing the angry mob not on “progressive dissenters” but on faithful Catholics who were concerned about the integrity of the Church’s witness — including Bishop Mulvey and the conservative and orthodox Catholic media who covered the story. In short, there was no cabal. There was only a brave orthodox and good bishop named Mulvey enduring tons of abuse from fans of both Corapi and Voris, but who stuck to his guns, thus exposing a fraud and a knave unfit to be a priest. Similarly, there were no liberal media lapdog lackeys. There was just conservative, orthodox, and faithful EWTN and the Register , which likewise caught an awful lot of flack from the energized followers of Corapi and Voris, who bought the complete myth that their entirely fair and just coverage of Corapi’s self-destruction was somehow part of a sinister liberal lapdog lackey conspiracy.
Bottom line: Mr. Voris’ picture, painted with the colors of hint and suggestion, that the story of Corapi was one of a Brave Truthteller vs. a Corrupt Shadowy Gay Cabal, was dangerously and recklessly false — and Mr. Voris has never noted nor retracted a word of it. Brave bishop Mulvey and the SOLT investigators (and the conservative Catholic press who covered the story) did the right thing with absolutely no thanks to Mr. Voris and the followers he egged on against a non-existent liberal cabal.
Exhibit B: This attempt to slime perfectly obedient Catholics as Priscillianist heretics:
Note the same strategy of hints and suggestion in place of reasoned argument: Mr. Voris suggests some sort of linkage between those who receive in the hand today and an ancient condemned heresy, then denies he is saying any such thing. The obvious question is “If Priscillianism has absolutely nothing to do with modern practices (which are approved by the Church), then why bring Priscillianism up at all?” And if you get rid of all the stuff about Priscillianism in the video, exactly what is the point?” That Michael Voris really likes communion on the tongue? Duly noted. I like chocolate. Some gnostics felt that all gustatory pleasure was an evil snare because the body is evil. But does that mean that those who don’t prefer chocolate are somehow kindred spirits with gnostic enemies of our Incarnate Eucharistic Lord? No it doesn’t. And neither, in the end, are those who receive communion in the hand where Holy Church permits it. So exactly why bring in the Priscillianist heresy?
Answer: To suggestively tar honest and faithful Catholics with the odor of heresy while denying he is doing it, that’s why. The entire suggestive digression serves absolutely no other rhetorical purpose.
But note the main thing: Once again, Voris is not attacking genuine dissent. He is not attacking pro-abort lefties, or people who hold the Church’s teaching on ordination or sex or the sacraments in naked contempt. He is attacking faithful orthodox Catholics who are disobedient to no precept and in dissent from no doctrine of Holy Mother Church. And he does it, yet again, by suggesting (but not quite saying) they are tainted with dissent or heresy.
Exhibit C: Mr. Voris’ response to the CNA story. It is really a missed opportunity, because he could have taken the high road. But instead, after offering his explanation about the messed-up paperwork (which I think any normal person is fully prepared to accept), he then says:
And furthermore ... with regard to not filling out paperwork with the state ... or being behind ... there is now information on various blogs which make the claim that Catholic News Agency or its affiliate is 4 years behind on its own filings. We are not reporting this because ... frankly ... we don’t care.
Mhm. Why does this inexorably remind me of the politician who says, “My opponent is rumored to have once been a heroin addict, but I will not bring that up here because I don’t care.” Please, Mr. Voris, if you are going to bring it up, then just deliver the manly poke in the eye without the passive-aggression.
But if he is going to poke CNA in the eye, he should at least be sure of his source. So, for instance, he should clarify that “various blogs” appears to actually mean “one unsubstantiated Reactionary dissenting blog”. He should also find out if there is anything to that blog’s claim by calling CNA, just as CNA called him. Otherwise, when he throws his passive-aggressive punch of retaliation, he can find himself in the embarrassing position of bearing false witness against his neighbor, which is a poor way of making a sincere apology. For, in fact, CNA does have a reply to the rumor Voris chose to pass along:
The host of “The Vortex” noted that he did not count CNA among his purported “enemies.” He did, however, call attention to “various blogs which make the claim that Catholic News Agency or its affiliate is 4 years behind on its own filings,” one of which he cited in the video’s official transcript.
That claim, however, rests upon a misreading of state documents showing that CNA’s nonprofit group, in some cases, received notification that its annual reports were overdue. The same documents show that each year’s reports were later filed with the state in a matter of weeks or months.
But that bit of rumor-mongering is just the start. For Mr. Voris then delivers himself of exactly the same “Righteous Truthteller vs. Shadowy Liberal Cabal” narrative we saw regurgitated time and again by his fans above, followed by an identical denial that he is attacking the people he appears for all the world to be attacking:
I have communicated to management at CNA that I think it was unfair to publish the story when they did. The reporter called me here in Madrid, Spain during a very hectic time of production for us ... sprung a series of questions on me of which I was incapable of answering at that moment ... agreed with me that I needed time to get to the bottom of things ... and then published an article. We think that was unfair and portrayed us in a bad light.
During my conversations with the Catholic News Agency it has been revealed to us that they get all kinds of secret anonymous stories about either me or our work ... all trying to depict me or our work in a very bad light. The same is true with this story ... it came through an anonymous source.
The owners of the website realcatholictv dot com are aware that because of some of what we talk about in various programs ... we have developed enemies in the Church.
Sad as that it ... it is the reality. If the person who knew about these problems did not come to us first privately as a brother in Christ to point them out ... but went instead as an anonymous source to the Catholic media ... to gin up an air of suspicion about the efforts of St. Michael’s Media as well as the website realcatholictv.com ... then perhaps CNA should be investigating THAT instead.
Anyone who has spent anytime in the world of Church politics knows that there are some people who can be absolutely immoral in the way that they deal with others. Jealousies ... turf wars ... financial fights ... personality clashes ... lies ... vicious personal attacks ... thanks to original sin and personal sin ... all of these unfortunately mar the Body of Christ.
We are very aware that there are many people in the Church who have it out for us. We aren’t playing victim ... merely stating the reality that we confront almost daily and has now been confirmed for us by the Catholic News Agency.
In that respect we are not unlike many other groups on the web who are also maligned ... often by members of the clergy in Canada for example, who smear good and faithful Catholics with terms like “Taliban Catholics.” ...
If the genesis behind this anonymous source ... which we heavily suspect ... is someone with an axe to grind about reports we have done on lack of leadership ... or watered down catechesis or the questionable financial and theological positions of the Social Justice club inside the Church ... or any of a hundred other problems which need to be addressed and not ignored or covered up ... if the goal is to intimidate or malign us ... then thank you for finally showing your fangs. At least now ... many others can see what we have seen for some time now.
We sincerely wish all these people ... and we are NOT talking about the Catholic News Agency ... who consider themselves our enemies ... who constantly blather on about charity and tolerance and dialog would follow their own advice.
If they have a problem with us ... and again ... we’re aren’t talking about the CNA ... they should confront us like a man ... not some sniveling school girls who resort to tattle tales and smear campaigns.
We pray for unity in the Church. But unity cannot come at the sacrifice of the truth.
Beyond Mr. Voris’ transparently passive-aggressive rumor-mongering about CNA paperwork, there is, yet again, the classic suggestion of guilt by association followed by the immediate denial that any such suggestion is being made. He alludes to his enemies as sniveling school girls who resort to tattletales (i.e, anonymous sources). And yet, who can he mean but CNA, since it is they who are publishing these anonymous sources. They are in league with and providing a mouthpiece to shadowy liberals in the “Social Justice club” and are aiding and abetting efforts “to gin up an air of suspicion about the efforts of St. Michael’s Media as well as the website realcatholictv.com.” Indeed, Mr. Voris then says, “perhaps CNA should be investigating THAT instead” with the clear implication that they have it in for him and are ignoring the real problem. But at the end of the tirade?:“We are NOT talking about the Catholic News Agency” — merely about the evil liberal conspirators from whom CNA allegedly gets its information.
And the way we know all that? Because Michael Voris “heavily suspects” it. That’s it. No evidence is provided for the shadowy liberal cabal to whom CNA plays liberal lapdog lackey. Indeed, the only thing Voris knows is that CNA gets “all kinds of secret anonymous stories about either me or our work ... all trying to depict me or our work in a very bad light”—and has only followed up on one. So nothing is directly stated. Just suggestions. Associations. Rumors. Mr. Voris, once again, does not say that CNA is serving a hotbed of progressive dissent out to destroy a righteous truthteller.
And so, when fans follow the suggestion and go off on “Cowards like CNA” or blurt baseless claims that stories critical of Mr. Voris in an obviously conservative orthodox news site are the result of “‘Catholics’ working within the church management and at the USCCB who support abortion, gay marriage and a host of issues that are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO CHURCH TEACHING” we can be assured that they are, of course, not being prompted to do so by anything Michael Voris is saying.
However, all that noted, and troubling as it is, it is not this that troubles me most.
No, the line that bothers me most is the last one: “We pray for unity in the Church. But unity cannot come at the sacrifice of the truth.” Because it telegraphs my principal concern with Mr. Voris’ M.O: the unflagging cocksureness that he is the arbiter of Truth (certainly not the bishops he endlessly flogs as CINOs if not outright traitors to the Faith) and that anybody Mr. Voris chooses to attack is an enemy of truth for whom the unity of the Church can be swiftly and easily sacrificed. Whether it’s a brave bishop investigating Fr. Corapi, somebody who receives communion in the hand or, most recently, a conservative and orthodox news agency that, in fact, told no lies in its coverage of Voris and Rafe, the perpetual narrative emitted by RCTV is that disagreement with or criticism of Michael Voris, a request for a little charity, or a call to remember unity can only proceed from a deceptive desire to “sacrifice truth.” If Mr. Voris marks you out as a liar who must be trapped and exposed, a progressive dissenter, an enemy of the Church, somebody bent on promoting abortion and gay marriage, ordaining women, destroying Catholic faith and practice, and trying with might and main to advance the work of Satan, then that’s what you are. It is unthinkable that you are actually a faithful, orthodox, and pious Catholic who seeks to follow Holy Church but disagrees that Real Catholic faith is defined by Michael Voris and Michael Voris alone.
Nonetheless, I will say it: It appears that, as often as not, the main group of people within the Church who suffer because of Michael Voris’ tactics are not Progressive Dissenters who really do hold the Church and her teaching in contempt, but faithful orthodox Catholics (like Bp. Mulvey, like those who warned of and investigated Fr. Corapi’s perfidy, like the Knights of Columbus, like the many good and honorable bishops, like innocents who receive communion in the hand or standing with perfect piety, like people who happen to have a taste for “Amazing Grace,” and like the good people at CNA and other good Catholic media outlets) who all get tarred as fifth columnists by the fans who have anointed RCTV (and themselves) as judge, jury, and executioner of the faith and piety of their fellow Catholics. This inquisitorial subculture is poison and nothing good will come of it — least of all for Michael Voris who has, like all the rest of us, feet of clay.
Comments
Post a Comment
I view Voris as South Park views Donohue.
This is a very good dissection and it needed to be said. But you forget to mention Voris’ poisonous way of implying that you and other bloggers and writers are suspect by dint of being “professional Catholics fattening their bellies” (his words) off the faith, while he is just a heroic guy telling the truth for God and Church while charging for premium content and hawking merchandise on his site. Which leads me to ask, when will you start selling “Catholic and Enjoying It” tee shirts and coffee mugs? Because I think they’ed be cool. Voris is running the same script as Corapi. I wonder if that means he will eventually become a narcissistic superhero, too.
So CNA was not actually a legitimate 501c3 for weeks and possibly even months or years?
There’s something fishy going on there, you know.
If you can clear CNA of bearing false witness, maybe you should put your six shooter back on safe there when it comes to Voris?
You ignore the fact that CNA made some baseless claims against Voris’ integrity and his organization.
Why would they make a rush to judgment without hashing it through with Voris first, to make sure they had the facts straight?
Anyway, go ahead and carry on about how vitriolic and unfair and passive aggressive Voris is…
Please, ignore the dissenting leftists in the comboxes who hate Micheal Voris because they disagree with Church teaching and he’s reminding people about it.
You make a number of good points.
The authentic Catholic faith has plenty of room in it for various personal preferences and local practices, so long as they don’t go too far.
That said ... how is it that the Catholic Church is in such a sad state of disarray, if everyone is properly doing their respective jobs?
Somebody needs to stand up for traditional orthodoxy. God knows there’s so little of it remaining.
Those of us who live in the Chicago area know the problems we have with the Archdiocese here, where church policy faithfully reflects the traditions of the Chicago political machine, as much or more than it does those of the Catholic Church.
Holy Name Cathedral used to be quite beautiful ... until the elegant, traditional, Catholic stained glass, art and statuary was summarily torn out and replaced with mere colored glass ... plus about a dozen big, black, Rorschach-like ink blot panels ... and some of the most uninspiring, virtually unidentifiable metallic artwork that anyone could possibly imagine.
The sad part of it is that “new” decor reflects the true “spirit” of the local “Shadowy Liberal Cabal” which recently produced the most pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, pro-homosexual American president in our country’s long and distinguished history.
In the years since the close of Vatican II the rulers of the Catholic Church have done serious violence to the faith of Catholics everywhere.
Caught up in the revolutionary spirit of those times, they did it with impunity. They did it in a wanton and willful manner, and many are still doing it ... when they can get away with it.
The evidence for this is unfortunately, all around us.
Thank God somebody with guts(Michael Voris)finally showed up and began calling attention to it, assigning responsibility for it, and calling for the necessary reforms ... since nobody else has done anything like that for more than 40 years ... and it’s quite likely that no one in today’s church hierarchy would ... or even could ... actually get the job done.
Mark, you’re a good Catholic writer, but like many others, you often tend to look at the church through rose colored glasses. And that’s OK.
But Michael Voris doesn’t ... and that’s OK, too.
So please, do your work and let Michael do his. In the end, we’ll all be better off for it!
FWIW, I had a very pleasant conversation with Mr. Rafe last week, as well as an email from somebody who spoke to Mr. Voris in Spain. Both of them told me that Mr. Voris emphatically denied that he was referring to me in that unfortunate remark. It was left unclear as to who he was referring to. I hope that Mr. Voris clarifies this matter for his fans, because the “Professional Catholic” epithet has been a favorite term of abuse ever since he placed it in their mouths. One of the more amusing aspects of that particular meme propagation was the sudden delusion that fell upon partisans of Mr. Voris and Fr. Corapi that Catholic blogging is a source of untold riches.
I’ve thought about the coffee muggery and so forth, but it’s been too much of a hassle to follow up on. Someday, when I can catch my breath from all the other work I’m doing to keep our nose (barely) above water, I will try it.
Yo Tancred - he dealt with the report on Voris’s non-profit status and such last time. That is not what this particular post is about.
—
“Please, ignore the dissenting leftists in the comboxes who hate Micheal Voris because they disagree with Church teaching and he’s reminding people about it.”
—
You did, like, read the blog post didn’t you? Please tell me this is some high form of sarcasm. Some sort of subtle, or even not so subtle, joke at the expense of the knee-jerk only-lefties-disagree-with-Voris reaction? Please?
Jacob:
Tancred and the many others who persist in viewing all criticism of Voris as proof of Progressive Dissent illustrate well the old adage that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
You can’t hide a light under a bushel. You, Mark Shea, have personally elevated Michael Voris to A level Catholic commentator. Thousands who did not know now know he exists. For 30 years relatively no one knew about a carpenter from Nazareth. Then the priests, scribes, sadducees, pharisees and sanhedrin got wind of Him and made Him a star. Well done!
Oh, look. 9 comments in, and Voris is the Second Coming already. That must be the sanity of the “true Catholicism” that neither bishops, nor popes, nor priests, nor Councils, nor Church Doctors, nor Apostolic Fathers know.
I highly suspect Michael Voris wears a wig. Clearly he is guilty of the sin of vanity, and is therefore a demagogue out for his own gain. [This is a joke, but illustrating his ludicrous approach to argument.]
If Voris is such a wonderful, orthodox True Catholic (tm, not associated with the “true Catholic Church” of Fr. Lucien Pulvermacher, one assumes), why does he resort to this kind of infantile slur against his opponents, and why do his followers? Certainly, it is offensive to Christian charity*. And what does it achieve? You don’t change peoples’ minds by insulting them, and you don’t convert people by cat-calling.
And this is my big problem with Voris: what is he actually trying to achieve? Certainly, his brand of hysterical, screeching rhetoric won’t convince anyone, so devoid as it is of any real argument or content.
It seems to me that, far from being an apostolate or an apologetic ministry, Voris is feel-good entertainment for frustrated traditionalists. He gives a regular blast against the perceived right-on liberalist agenda, in the same way Glenn Beck did for Republicans. He’s a tub-thumper preaching to the converted, and we shouldn’t give him the credit of being an evangelist, or an apologeticist, or anything else except what he is.
*no, don’t wheel out the old “liberals always talk about charity” line; I’m not a liberal, and the Church [and Christ, and St Paul] talks a lot about charity, too
Wow. This is quite a screed.
Does it actually say that well-known enemies don’t use seedy tactics to silence conservatives and orthodoxy?
This has to be the most ludicrious statement I have ever read on the National Catholic Register.
Breathtaking, given the Register literally, positioned themselves to muffle Catholics who were reporting that Cardinal O’Malley contracted with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to kill unborn children, hired the people to do it and promised to give a free ride to their executions.
Why not just be honest?
It isn’t the Bishops who are engineer the killing and raping children with their misfeasance and malfeasance that offends you, it is the people who publicly report it and demand that it end.
Mark Shea…“Both of them told me that Mr. Voris emphatically denied that he was referring to me in that unfortunate remark. It was left unclear as to who he was referring to.”
————————————
Short of calling them liars, who cares then to whom Mr. Voris was referring? What is this, high school?
These Jets vs. Sharks, tribalist feuds going on in the Catholic Blogosphere are juvenile at best. Lot’ of wasted energy.
What bothers me the most about Michael Voris is that there is no ‘grey’ area in his reporting. There are many situations that call for pastoral care and these cannot be strictly black or white. Many times priests and bishops have to work out situations that, on the surface, appear to be one thing but in actuality are complex and demand careful handling. Until one walks in the shoes of the priest or bishop, charity demands prudence when criticizing them.
“the main group of people within the Church who suffer because of Michael Voris’ tactics are not Progressive Dissenters who really do hold the Church and her teaching in contempt, but faithful orthodox Catholics (like Bp. Mulvey, like those who warned of and investigated Fr. Corapi’s perfidy, like the Knights of Columbus, like the many good and honorable bishops, like innocents who receive communion in the hand or standing with perfect piety, like people who happen to have a taste for “Amazing Grace”, ....” Again AMEN
BTW - I don’t view the vengence tactics you and others use upon Catholics who “tattle” in the public square of the crimes against children, Christ’s Church, salvation and the poor souls they prever to enslave to ignorance to get money out of their wallets as ‘progressive dissent’.
I view it as the same spiritual sickness used to sweep pedophilia under the carpet. It is warped.
Our Bishops are collaborating with the killers of children and have been for forty years. They have our faith chained up from the souls to whom it belongs by inheritance.
The days when we are intimated by silenced with this kind thuggery and yellowbelly jouranlism are over.
You had a good run. I wish you nothing but pleasant memories of the good old days with the good old boys.
My advice to you is to get out of our way because by the Christ, we are going to get our religion freed up and these men are going to stop collaborating with rapists and killers or they are going to face bad publiclity and bankruptcy.
Peace out brother.
I sometimes worry about Mark and other bloggers having to deal on a daily basis with the stupidity and lack of charity that pops up continuously in com boxes from people who are supposed to be on the same side. Like one day he is going to just go completely crazy and end up heavily medicated weaving a belt or something.
@Guy—really? Poor Jesus was no one without the Pharisees? And Voris is Jesus and Mark is like a pharisee? Did you read what Mark wrote here? Was that supposed to be funny? I hope that was just heavy sarcasm.
Perhaps the key word is obedience. Obedience to the Magesterium of Holy Mother Church. Perhaps the question to ask is: who is obedient to official Church teaching? Holy Mother Church is no democracy - as Catholics we are called and chosen to use our reason and faculties to learn our faith - and lift ourselves to a higher plane. We are not called to mold the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to our whims and fancies, to our proclivities and sensabilities. It’s simple - do you buy in to what the Magisterium teaches or do you not? Are you Catholic or are you not?
I have applauded some of Michael V’s reports. He really has exposed goings on that should not have went on. The problem is that if your program is totally based on exposing lies and falsehoods, when you run out of ammunition, you are going to need to attack every little mistake. This recent attack on M.V. might not be deserved, but it is a case of his own style being turned back on him. Setting the Church up as an institution to be attacked, is not what Christ wants us to do. I think it is the difference between the reform brought to us by St. Francis and that attempted by Martin Luther. Both in their mind were seekers of the truth. But one went his own way and made the Catholic Church the enemy for her errors instead of loving her into reform.
I think Michael V is probably a good person. IF he humbly submits all of this to our Lord who can use all things for good, perhaps this will ultimately help Michael to use his talents more effectively to build up the Church.
Good article. It’s high time someone called the noisy crowd of self-appointed armchair bishops, like Voris ands his more strident fans, out on the carpet. Forbidding what Church law does not forbid, strident criticism of a whole host of the Successors of the Apostles. It amounts to a false right-wing magisterium, as surely as some NC Reporter commentators set themselves up as a false left-wing magisterium. On the whole I think blogdom needs more such denunciations to keep young Catholics, particularly fresh converts, from being deceived, as I was.
It seems to me that Vorris and certain supporters are using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. He declares what real Catholics should believe. When it is pointed out that faithful Catholics don’t hold his position, they are labelled as not being “truly” Catholic.
Essentially it’s a rejection of evidence his view is not correct.
Barbara, if the priests and Bishops are not faithful in a period of history then ypu havebtje choice of losing the generations of souls being perverted, including your children, or following St Athinasius. There is nothing unCatholic about Athinasius.
Elise, that you. could read this screed and not feel empathy for the Catholic Mark has the voodoo doll for and obsessively sticks pins in, really says something about the cult mentality Mark has bred in his readership. Catholics are not allowed to promote Communion by mouth to avoid the particles of Christ being scattered everywhere. We can expect you to dig for dirt to humiliate your fellow Catholics if we want our religion taught to our children.
You are worried about Mark?
What is going on here is beneath contempt and righteous and just people are called to speak out.
The teachings of Michael Voris include many inaccuracies and over-simplifications, several serious doctrinal errors, and even heresy (about the Trinity) http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/michael-voris-errors/
Who do you think you are ridiculing people who wanted to wait to hear evidence before they condemned Corapi?
What nerve you have to do this to people in the name of charity and righteousness.
The unfortunate thing here is that quite a bit of the substance of what Voris has to say is worthwhile stuff, but the style he brings to how he says it continues to be a real problem.
I suppose on the stuff that matters most my views (and Mark’s) converge with Voris’s at least 80-90 percent of the time (or virtually 100 percent, if you define “stuff that matters” narrowly enough). Despite this, I have a real problem with Voris’s relentless promotion of an us-vs-them narrative in which “us” are always in the right and “them” are always in the wrong.
Voris serves up a diet of 100 percent red meat; that is, he never challenges his fans, never points out anything in any way unwelcome to their worldview, or anything that causes them to question the ways in which they might be part of some problem somewhere. Everything he tells his fans confirms everything they already know and believe: the rectitude of themselves and their cause, and the indefensibility of everything they disagree with and everyone that stands against them.
Conversely, one of the things I most love about Mark’s writing (and that of a lot of great writers, like Chesterton) is his fearlessness in giving it to all sides—critiquing everyone’s sacred cows, and also cheerfully acknowledging the validity of a point no matter whose point it happens to be. That includes people who critique him; Mark engages in self-criticism with disarming frankness, and when he thinks he was wrong, he repents and apologizes handsomely.
Does Voris have a capacity for self-criticism? Can he repent and apologize for his excesses? I hope so.
I know that the present National Catholic Regime postdates the Maciel scandal but really - just imagine if this paper/website had devoted half as much time to analyzing Maciel as they have Corapi and Voris…they could actually claim some journalistic integrity.
(for the record - not a fan of any of the 3 entities I cited above. At all.)
I think that this post is unfair to Voris. There are just a few things I want to point out here:
1) Voris does not defend corapi, he simply states that he did a good job speaking the truth and that the critical tone was over the top especially before the SOLT statement came out. Voris specifically stated he did not want to comment on Corpai being innocent or guilty
2) CITH v COTT may be a personal preference issue but with such a lack of belief in the real presence, we might want to look into how we treat reception of communion… also, he was just pointing out a historic fact: did Voris lie? What is the problem with simply pointing out an interesting fact that is relevant in this argument?
3) Many Bishops are simply heretics. “Lies and falsehoods” need to be exposed, some things are NOT a matter of discussion. The gay mass in Boston is an example. Totally inexcusable that the Archdiocese supported it. Should we “sacrifice the truth” here? Let this go on for a false unity? Some Bishops are bad. (“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops”) At some point when there is loss of faith, mortal sin committed regularly by CINOs (ABC, voting pro-choice, missing mass, and defense of these things) and there are no priests speaking up against heresy and warning about hell, the Bishops (being in charge) are to blame. Another big example is unless the Bishops come out and clearly state that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is a mortal sin(when there is a pro-life candidate), they are doing all Catholics a disservice.
In conclusion, one may disagree with the style of the Vortex, but has Voris ever said anything contrary to the teachings of the Church?
Keep exposing the TRUTH Michael as those wolves nip at your heels.
Folks, We have some real problems. From my experience coming into the Catholic Church, there is a majority of folks who are in dissent of Catholic Teaching. In some cases, they have been affirmed of their dissent by Priest and lay people who have been given audience to spread their version of Christianity. Women Priests, Gay Marriage, and Contraception are communicated as things that those old people, (The Magisterium) will eventually understand and allow. Voris is a response to gross error making it’s way to becoming acceptable norm. The execution of Church discipline is there to protect the flock. Frankly, it appears that many people are being led to destruction since they are not being corrected. Our Lord in the Eucharist is not for those who are in dissent of his teachings. He provides himself for his friends and his Father’s children. Since conversion happens through Law and Gospel, if you make the law subjective, what exactly are you converting from? But, the Church has been a mess since it’s beginnings and I reject a puritanical approach to the issue. We are left in the tension. If we stick to Law and Gospel, the rest of this stuff will work itself out by design.
TomD123,
Please identify, by name, each heretic bishop and list the specific heresy with citations to specific public teachings. There had better be a bunch, because, as you stated, there are “many” of these heretic bishops. Then, you need to make a formal complaint to the Vatican, with all your evidence, and we can have an old fashioned heresy trial.
If you can’t do this, then why don’t you kindly shut up with your unsubstantiated lies about the successors to the Apostles? And you need HERESY, armchair bishop.
Look at the length of your article. You spent way too much time digging into Voris to bring him down. You should devote your effort toward exposing some of the dissidents you name in the first third of this manifesto. They are the real people who are corrupting souls. Yes Voris is brash. But he is orthodox.
Could you just stop your obsession with Voris? It makes you look weird. Seriously. There are such crappy and terrible things going on in the Church and in the world, and you are caught up in this? This guy just wants to help the Church, just like you do.
And who made you arbiter of what is a “healthy, normal Catholic?” Can we just admit of some differences in approach, style, focus, and charism here without implying that your adversary is sick, or poisonous, or a zealot, or unhealthy, and all those who like him are twisted in some dark way?
I didn’t know who Voris was a month ago. Since you have filled me in, boy do I feel sorry for the guy. You’re allowed some verbal vomit to get things off your chest… but again and again and again? Pull up!
Joe Six Pack:
The irony of this comment coming from a Voris supporter is hilarious.
Steve Greydanus…
The irony of this comment coming from a Voris supporter is hilarious.
——————————-
Careful, that knife is sharp and cuts both ways. I guess it depends on which tribe you claim affiliation.
Voris makes himself a public figure so he is media bait like everyone else, but I do think CNA has a bad habit of selective witch hunting, and I’m not sure what their criteria is. Why single out Voris? Will they use the same “vigilance” with other personalities they don’t agree with?
I’m not by any means a diehard Voris supporter (while he makes some excellent points, he also paints with too broad a brush many times) and think Simon Rafe has some issues, but I do try to be one who appreciates fair media practices. I bet you can find folks on CNA’s staff who are not living 100% holy lives outside the office. What if a news agency tried to discredit CNA because one of its employees had out-of-office issues? It seems like CNA feels like they’re bulletproof now because they have EWTN backing them. Just as Voris has the potential to self-destruct with his style, so does CNA. Both sides need to be very careful about fraternal correction and pray about what they’re doing.
Voris supporter? I just know obsession/compulsion when I see it. The fact that you think I am “hilarious” is, I suppose, meant to be snarky and mean? Nice.
I always get nervous when I start seeing lay people telling bishops what they should and should not be doing. The vast majority of us, liberal, conservative or contrarian :), don’t have more than a fraction of the theological background or pastoral experience that our bishops have. Furthermore, they were appointed “overseers” by the Church.
I will grant that there are some bad bishops, but there are also many good bishops as well.
The danger with taking the path of Saint Athanasius is that we are not bishops. And Athanasius was not rebelling against the hierarchy of the Church as much as the hierarchy of the empire. While I can’t be sure, I suspect that every schism in the Church, and even heresies began because some were sure they were right and the teachings of their bishops were wrong.
Stu:
On the contrary, it depends on whether you think tribally or whether you think catholically (small c).
Tribal thinking entails us-vs-them narratives, a lack of self-criticism, and a hermeneutic of suspicion applied to outsiders. Mark’s “In Defense of Michael Voris” post last week is an excellent example of catholic rather than tribal thinking. Just because Mark objects to Voris’s style doesn’t mean he’ll settle for any stick to beat a dog, or that he isn’t willing to defend Voris even when other people are piling on.
It’s precisely because Mark is willing to grant “differences in approach, style, focus, and charism here without implying that your adversary is sick, or poisonous, or a zealot, or unhealthy,” etc. that he objects to Voris’s tendency to ride roughshod over those very truths.
TOM,
Is your post supposed to imply that you ate ignorant of the heresy, cowardice and corruption of the overwhelming number of Bishops?
Your request would take years to compile.
Don’t yelle that along with pretending there are no attempts to silence Church teaching y’all are pretending the USCCB is nothing bit faithful bishops?
This ous like dropping into lala land.
I found the video on Priscillianism to be quite horrid. His ability to pretend that he is not accusing everyone who takes communion in the hand of heresy while at the same time telling us the history of the “heretical” practice is the worst sort of dodge.
I had never heard of this guy before you talked about him in your blog. And I am thankful to you for doing it. And, be clear, it is nothing that you said about him that makes me distrustful of him, it is his own words out of his own mouth.
I appreciate your role as messenger here on the blog, and I always take exception to the lack of charity that is shown to you by some of the commentors. When will people realize that we are required to love our brethren, even when we disagree with them?
@ Joe Six Pack: I don’t think you really mean “obsession” in a clinical sense. You probably just mean Mark is harping on the subject too much. This is only his second NCReg post on Voris—and the first one was defending him. As for Mark’s own blog, I don’t know how many substantial posts he’s done on Voris, but I doubt it’s all that large a number.
As for “hilarious”: snarky, yes; mean, no; and FWIW Mr. Voris, not you, was the object of the implied critique.
Steve,
I find all of the blogosphere feuding going on between Catholic personalities to be nothing but tribalism. Each draws their lines and criticize one another while their respective supporters fight it out in the commboxes all while assuming the “high ground” and an air that they are above it all.
The whole thing stinks to High Heaven. True differences in opinion would be handled in a very different manner that focused on the truth and not on tit-for-tat for apparent personal affronts. But admittedly this approach does generate traffic. Sadly, the Catholic blogosphere has begun to devour itself from within.
Exhibit A: New Poll Shows Strong Catholic Support for Gay Rights
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/
———————-
Exhibit B: POLL: Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx
—————————
Yes of course Mr Shea; Obviously the REAL problem in the Roman Catholic Church these days is those out-of-control burn-em-at-the-stake Inquisitor types like Voris and his conspiratorial-minded cabal. (Never mind the inherent contradiction that labeling anyone who spoke out for orthodoxy on the previous thread as a “Voris supporter”, is it’s own form of conspiratorial nuttery.) Well played sir.
Thanks for clearing all of that up Mr. Shea. After all, what would the Church do without contradictory-defenders of squishy “catholicism” like you?
Probably thrive I should guess…....
(“Posted by elise on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011 9:02 AM (EDT):
I sometimes worry about Mark and other bloggers having to deal on a daily basis with the stupidity and lack of charity that pops up continuously in com boxes from people who are supposed to be on the same side.”)
“STUPIDITY and lack of charity”?
How very “charitable” of you elsie.
That’s for teaching by example. *facepalm*
When you have any legitimate gripes against what Voris is actually saying, let us know.
Receiving Communion in the Hand is a Calvinist innovation. That’s a fact you’ll have to contend with before you go about doing exactly what you’re accusing Voris of doing. Priscillianism was an actual heresy that promoted Communion in the Hand. Rather than deal with the historical realities, you accuse Voris of making suggestions and smearing.
Don’t attack the messenger. Deal with the facts.
Your vitriol against Voris seems to stem more from being shown the truth of something you don’t like rather than any coherent, rational argument.
It’s so much more simple to accuse him of making slurs against people’s good will than actually dealing with the points he’s making.
Great article, Mark. I used to think Mr. Voris was doing a good thing, but agree, totally, with your assesment. He is not helping the situation. When one wants to help, they teach what the Church says, w/o attacking anyone, so people are armed with knowledge of their Faith, a thirst for knowing more and more, which results in a deepening of love, for Christ, and His Church.
Although I long for the time when we were quiet before Mass, had quiet time during Mass, and quiet, thankfulness after Mass, and pray that our priests and bishops will speak of this and it will return, you article is right on the “mark”, stating most Catholoics think they are being faithful. Thankfully, catechisis is now getting better and the beauty of the Mass proclaimed. The many errors that have occurred, and are now considered normal, will be corrected, I pray, as time goes on. It is slowly getting better.
Your article is so correct, and yet when ones heart breaks seeing the lack of reverence by those attending Mass,both in their actions and their dress, and when drums, bongos and such are used to play what surely is not anything but entertainement, it is very hard to concentrate on the Mass, which is being set as a side note, in my eyes. With all the music and sining going on right next to the altar, the glory of the Mass seems to be downplayed. I pray choir lofts return and the people will no longer be there in front. That would be an extremely positive step.
Thank you again, Mark, and my prayer is there will be like understganding for those of us who miss reverence, and whose hearts ache to see it pushed aside. It always amazes me how quickly things changed “in the spirit of Vatican II’, but how long it is taken for that real spirit to be properly implemented, and for things discarded in that spirit to come back to their rightful place. It has been a very hard, hurtful, hopeful forty some years. Christ’s peace.
Mark,
You’re not progressive because you disagree with Voris, you’re just progressive.
@ Stu: Criticism equals tribalism? Mark is trying to show, by example, that we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and defend each other where appropriate (as he did last week), and that when we criticize each other it should be on the merits, not on the basis of tribal affiliation, and not in an exaggerated paradigm of heroic us and dastardly them. Mark regularly engages in self-criticism and criticism of people on “his own” side of the culture wars, the antithesis of tribal thinking. He also defends those on the other side where appropriate. He’s about as non-tribal a writer as you can find. If you can tar and feather Mark with the “tribalism” label, you can tar and feather anyone with any label in the world.
could you please just stop the plank-finding and write about things that EDIFY and BUILD UP the Church?
Where did I say “criticism equals tribalism?” I used the term “tribalism” intentionally because I think those who like to throw it about are akin to those who claim to be “non-denominational.” Seems to me that we should all be prepared to receive our own critcisms back upon ourselves. I’m simply pointing that out to Mark and that I think his style too leaves much to be deserved. Now if you want to categorize that as “tar and feathering” him, so be it. I guess this challenging of those on our “own side” is a one-way deal.
It’s not a conspiracy. Those who dissent don’t call each other to coordinate their efforts. Rather, it’s a “zeitgeist”, a worldview, that swells and falls as time goes by. Give Mr. Voris a break.
If only St. Anthony of Padua (‘The Hammer of the Heretics’) had the brilliant gas-baggery of Mark Shea (‘The Sophist of The Spongy’) to guide him along the way in those days…...
Mr Shea could have warmly and wisely directed Anthony thus: “Don’t you dare question people’s cafeteria-catholicism you conspiratorial wing-nut!”
Ah…if only….....
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Mark. I don’t think Voris is a bad guy, nor do I think CNA is bad. In fact, I think they are on the same side, promoting orthodox Catholicism. I do have a problem with some of Voris’ tactics, as well as how he has handled this whole situation, as you have pointed out. Well stated.
Mr Shea,
I agree with Stu. Enough already. If you can take the time to write this blog, why don’t you sit down face to face with Mr Voris and settle your PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES ..............ENOUGH ALREADY.
While your at it, perhaps you could practice the Litany of Humility prayer written by Cardinal Merry Del VAL. For your convince you can find it on the Ewtn web site. I remember the line from a song “Just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down” I work with children that get along better the you two gentleman.
Oh yea I’ll bet if Mother Angelica could she would tell you two boys to grow up.
You’re not progressive because you disagree with Voris, you’re just progressive.
I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Period.
Bright Star:
Thanks for keepin’ it classy and illustrating my point about the poisonous fruits of Mr. Voris’ tactics.
@ Stu: Not at all. Criticism of Mark, or of me, is perfectly within bounds. I’ve criticized Mark myself at times. Mark has criticized Mark at times. That’s one thing differentiating him from Voris, and one reason why the tribalist label applies to Voris and not to Mark.
Saying Mark’s style leaves much to be desired is one thing; indicting him of tribalism is another. I’ve no problem with your point about the measure we give being the measure we get, but it doesn’t follow that Mark is guilty of tribalism because he accuses others of tribalism. I’ve pointed out the implications of tribalism and the extent to which Mark’s work is pretty much the antithesis of that. Beyond that, each must judge according to his wits.
I feel like Voris is very self-righteous.
His mentality, to me, comes off as : You struggle with SIN. You are HUMAN. Therefore, you are not a REALCatholic(TM), like me, because I don’t dissent from Church teachings, and if you sin you obviously find those things to be morally acceptable. My ad-hominem attacks are NOT attacks against charity, they are the TRUTH! I AM RIGHT! I AM THE CHURCH!
There are plenty of good people who struggle with plenty of sins. Living chastely as a homosexual, choosing life for your child when it could possibly kill you, etc. etc. Giving into sin doesn’t necessarily mean one dissents or finds it morally acceptable, it merely means they are a human being like the rest of us and [unfortunately] gave into their fallen nature.
Labeling them AmCathLibs and waging an angry verbal battle against these people [ie These people are destroying the Church] doesn’t bring them back. It turns them away. And that doesn’t get anyone to Heaven.
It’s not a conspiracy. Those who dissent don’t call each other to coordinate their efforts.
They have eyes, but they do not see.
Did you read my article? Show me the evidence (beyond Mr. Voris’ “heavy suspicion”) that those who are critical of Michael Voris are simply and solely motivated by “dissent”. Sure, some are. But that is not an all explaining theory of everything by a long shot.
May I ask what any of this has to do with the purpose of the Register blogs, which I assume are to promote the Faith and not the personal complaints of the Register’s bloggers?
Steve Greydanus…Beyond that, each must judge according to his wits.
——————-
Indeed. And I have stated how it looks from cheap seats.
Actually, I doubt Mike Voris believes those Catholics who receive in the hand are heretics or even bad Catholics. He has been seen recently attending several Masses at a well known Roman Catholic Church here in Royal Oak where the Novus Ordo Mass is in English and Communion is given to the Faithful in their hands!! I think if this bothered him as much as his fans might like to believe he wouldn’t be anywhere near a Mass where the vast majority of Catholics receive the Host in this fashion. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Voris this question instead of assuming he actually believes receiving in the hand is such a bad thing.
(Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011 11:50 AM (EDT):
Bright Star: “Thanks for keepin’ it classy and illustrating my point about the poisonous fruits of Mr. Voris’ tactics.”)
Mr Shea:
Thanks for showin’ me how to “keep it classy” by continually crediting my salient points to an exclusive personal loyalty to Voris.
....because that’s certainly not your own form of conspiratorial-nuttery is it . No, of course not.
Tancred,
No offense, but you logical flaws are showing. Mark’s point was not whether or not Priscillianism promoted communion in the hand; the point was that Mr. Voris was trying to build an association in the minds of his viewers that people who accept communion in the hand are somehow heretics. An association that has obviously worked with you. The thing is, practice is not the same as heresy (which is based on belief). Heretics often have many practices, some of which might be accepted as legitimate by the church at large. Dualists (of which Priscillianism is a type of) often look to fasting as a practice, but that does not discredit fasting by orthodox Catholics.
—
Receiving communion in the hand has not caught on because of some Heresy in the Church, but rather because of people’s irrational squeamishness about the possibility that someone else’s fingers might touch their mouth.
Alicia:
Promoting the teaching, “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3) and reminding people that they are not judge, jury, and executioner of their brother’s and sister’s faith *is* promoting the Faith. Don’t be silly and say this is about “personalities”. It’s about the content and presentation of the gospel and the bad habit, cultivated by Michael Voris and his followers, of fomenting attacks on innocent and faithful orthodox Catholics by labeling them as progressive dissenters when they don’t happen to fit the simplistic Culture War template into which RCTV routinely jams the Church. The adage is “In essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”
I love this big messy tent we all live under! Many parts all one body! I spent a bit of time torn between the Voris types and what I was learning in my parish. I asked a good friend for her opinion and she told me there are big “T” and little “t” traditions and the bishops have authority over many little “t” traditions. When we critisize bishops over their decisions we may be lacking in the obiedience we have been called to by Christ. It really bothers me when people attack another’s dedication to the faith over a petty disagreement or when they don’t get the answer they want.
Mark- Maybe an explanation of big “T” and little “t” tradition would be helpful in discerning the differnce to those of us who are less educated in these matters. That is, if you haven’t already done so.
Mark Shea (expert on CIA interrogation techniques and counter terrorism). Wait till the election season heats up, he will be going after those ‘pro-life’ republicans with a vengeance. He will expose their support of pouring water over terrorists’ faces, and will say we shouldn’t be voting these people just because they’re against killing a million unborn babies per year. He will also expose that shallow minded narcissist Sarah Palin.
Mark Shea is right, both parties are equally bad.
Jasper:
I oppose abortion and will not vote for any politician who supports it. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Everybody seriously needs to chill here. There’s room for Voris and Shea, NOR and NCR, etc., etc. We’re all faithful Catholics, but each person is going to put a different emphasis on what they believe is most important.
I’ll admit, as a fan of Voris, that he may need to take some time off to reconsider the intensity of his media. I really like his style, but if it’s turning otherwise faithful Catholics off, then something might be wrong.
Then again, why don’t more within the Church tell it like it is in the same way Voris does? He is constantly hammering away at VERY REAL problems within the Church. His inspiration has caused me to consider a vocation to the priesthood, not for the sake of bashing faithful Catholics, but for the sake of defending the Church from her enemies within and without her.
Oh dear goodness, are people seriously calling Mark Shea a progressive? This is painful.
Keep up the good work, Mark!
Sincerely,
A Faithful, Conservative, and Orthodox Catholic
This article by Mr. Shea is very disturbing. Apparently anyone (like Mr Voris) who points out real problems in the Catholic Church is labeled various demeaning adjectives. It is so discouraging to Catholics who actually defend and fight for real teachings of Christ’s Church. There should NOT be “Liberal/ CINO Catholics” or “Conservative/Orthodox Catholics”. Unfortunately as a Catholic Respect Life Ministry member for many years, I have experienced first hand the fight we not only have with outside secular groups but also within the Church! There are good Priests & Bishops but there are far too many who are not and are destroying the Church. I applaud Mr Voris for his defense of the Catholic Church!
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it. And indeed to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
—Pope Felix III
Mark, it seems that you have attracted the most extreme and radical of the bunch to this comment page. Since when did an honest and heartfelt critque like this one make somebody a crazy, liberal, progressive? And how did abortion come into this?? Jasper, you’re crazy. Nowhere in this article (or any of Mark Shea’s other work) does he give any suggestion of being anything less than staunchly pro-life. What crazy accusations.
Mark, I’d just like to assure you that normal, rational people appreciate your column. Whether they agree with it or not (I personally agree 100%), they don’t think you’re liberal for writing it.
what does CINO mean?
Mark,
You write too much. You are not that thoughtful. Give your pen a rest.
Communion in the hand likened to a preference for chocolate? Curious attitude to the Body of Our Lord.
From Fr. Jaki’s book on Newman’s warning about Neo-Arianism: “If the Church would be vigorous and influential, it must be decided and plain-spoken in its doctrine.
GHU,
The problem, as Mark points out, is not the positions Mr. Voris takes, nor his willingness to speak up in support of them. The problem is the way he goes about defending the Church. His cause might be just, but not necessarily his means. Mark’s example of the debate over Communion in the Hand is a great case in point. Priscillianism was not the only heresy that took roots in Spain; it is however the one Mr. Voris used to prefix his position on communion. No one can accuse those who receive in the hand today of Priscillianis since the modern practice has a completely different rational behind it. Yet Voris links the two. The only logical conclusion is that he is trying to convince people that the practice alone makes one heretical.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read the stuff about Mark Shea being a squishy progressive. Mark, I’m not sure it’s worth paying too much attention to what goes on in comboxes: people aren’t really at their best there.
@dk, CINO means Catholic In Name Only.
Mr. Shea’s problem is very simple. He entered the Church nearly 20 years after the conclusion of Vatican II and 17 years after the introduction of the NewRite of Mass. He and so many others entered a Church with already watered-down doctrine, liturgy and philosophy. He rejects “cafeteria Catholicism” but embraces something worse: “potpourri Catholicism.” This can be defined loosely as a blend of everything, thrown together, and giving off a scent never before present in the Church.
If he ever had to debate an authentic Catholic apologist, he’d discover just how shallow his knowledge of the Faith truly is.
DK:
CINO=“Catholic in Name Only”
Gabriel:
The point of the analogy is not one’s attitude to the Body of Christ, but one’s attitude to things which Holy Mother Church allows as a matter of liberty. Like it or not, Holy Church permits communion in the hand and Mr. Voris has no business tainting those who receive it that way with the odor of heresy. His personal preferences are not precepts of the Church. He can argue as he pleases to say that it is the preferred manner. He can cite Pope Benedict or whoever. It’s a free country. But when he crosses the line from saying, “This is preferred” to suggesting that those who do what the Church permits are tainted with heresy or dissent, he is wrong.
Why is it important to you to be the critique of Michael Voris? Is it that you are perfect?
This sort of ‘journalism’ benefits no one.
Wow.
You really thought Voris’ unfair by his comments?
All I can say is, “Oh brother!”
So many opinions, and so little time. I won’t bore you. Since the beginning of Lent, I have questions about each and every person in the public sphere who claims to be a member of the Catholic Church.
We are supposed to love one another as Christ loves us, without any conditions. We are supposed to offer forgiveness to all no matter how much they oppose us.
I am a struggling and faithful Catholic. I see many things and hear and read many things I don’t like. All I can say is I hope that what these things accomplish is a Church with people who bother to pray more, and really bother to learn just exactly what they profess to believe. I want to spend the little time I have been given on earth in such a way that I attract others to Christ and His Church.
From what I read and see, I have a hard time seeing Christ.
May God help us to use the spoken and written word to lift up the body of Christ, to bring all to the knowledge of Christ and so to glorify Him who loves us all.
Mr. Shea, I’m becoming more and more convinced that you are one of the most balanced Catholic commentators out there today. Keep up the good work! Also, I’ve never liked Michael Voris; it seemed to me he’s setting himself up as some Catholic-esque Glenn Beck. So it’s saying something now that I’m thinking I might prefer Beck. :-o
@Carol
‘I view it as the same spiritual sickness used to sweep pedophilia under the carpet. It is warped.
Our Bishops are collaborating with the killers of children and have been for forty years. They have our faith chained up from the souls to whom it belongs by inheritance.
The days when we are intimated by silenced with this kind thuggery and yellowbelly jouranlism are over.
You had a good run. I wish you nothing but pleasant memories of the good old days with the good old boys.
My advice to you is to get out of our way because by the Christ, we are going to get our religion freed up and these men are going to stop collaborating with rapists and killers or they are going to face bad publiclity and bankruptcy.
Peace out brother.’
Do you also write for the Washington Post.
Do you realise you sound like your ‘enemy’?
‘What nerve you have to do this to people in the name of charity and righteousness.’?
I ask you in your own words.
Pax
Mr. Voris points out correctly that many dissidents going back to Bishop Cardinal Cushing invented the lets NOT offend anyone mantra that has caused a meltdown in the faith in Gringo North America and Europe-Australia etc.. Most of the CNA story involves paerwork-clerical errors on the Michigan based RC-TV and its St. Michaels media outlet Mr Voris offends because he points out the fact that many Catholic so called Universities and Bishopric chancery official are Catholic in Name Only. They either do not believe or somply refuse to defend the faith or promote it at all. Heretical fifth columnists like Richard McBrien, Hesberg and Jenkins at Notre Dame has done great damage to the fading faith at ND-Indiana. The Catholic Campaign(In name only) of Human development and staffers at the USCCB should have been called out on the carpet long ago. Mr. Voris does what few bishops besides Chaput, Burke and Bruskewitz etc. have the stomach to do. He has pointed out to the chagrin of the Social Justice crowd so called catholics who have squandered the faith handed to them by the late Bishop Sheen and others. It is very sad that the Catholic Univ. in Scranton PA had as a featured speaker a lesbian advocate of Homosexual “Marrige” and legal Abortion speak at Marywood? Univ. in Scranton. I guess in the twisted AM-Church liberal plague that has befalled the Gringo- Catholic church in North America etc that is freedom of speech not granted to Mr. Voris.. No wonder the Catholic faith in the USa is now largely that of Hispanic and east european immigrants. Mr. Voris is Banned in Scranton but Lesbian liberals are a featured speaker at Marywood Univ. in Scranton.Obviously we need more Mike Voris’s, & Archbishop Chaput etc. and less Liberal so called Cardinals( O Malley of Boston etc.) in the USa..
@Ed M.
‘Gringo North America’ ... really?
Are we now making ethnic slurs in the name of orthodox Catholicism?
Spare us, please.
Pax
He rejects “cafeteria Catholicism” but embraces something worse: “potpourri Catholicism.” This can be defined loosely as a blend of everything, thrown together, and giving off a scent never before present in the Church.
That’s got to be one of the wooliest and dumbest things I’ve read this week. Since I make clear that I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God, this silly charge can only amount to saying that there are two Churches, pre- and post-Vatican II. In short, you deny the indefectibility of the Church. I believe in the indefectibility of the Church. An inquisitor who condemns his victim on the basis of “scent” and some vague rubbish about potpourri Catholicism” is not going to be too persuasive to normal healthy Catholics. But thanks for illustrating my point about the judge, jury and executioner mentality of Vorisees.
Ooooh. Now we have “Voorisees” to combat. Goes along well with the “Corapians.” I look forward to seeing all of the team jerseys.
Not to mention that the future of the faith(USA) lies in Hispanic and asian and East European faithful immigrants . The Irish and west- Europeans(USA etc.) sad to say have largely abandoned the faith. Just look at the laws-on Abortion-Homsexual marriage in my native New England home states . The Economies in Western Europe are melting down due to Demographic winter and the abondonment of the faith-morals and families in their daily lives. Even in Norway ten percent of the population are non Scandinavian immigrants. There is a higher percentage than that in England , France etc.. In Quebec Canada the French Canadiens are becoming a minority in their own province.No ethnic slurs intended but facts are facts.Sadly the Gringos in NA , Europe-West europeans-Aussies etc. are drowning in a moral cesspool economic collapse caused as the present Pope has stated publicaly by their own immorality and abandonment of the Catholic Christian moral values and faith.
Mr Shea, you seem to be implying in your article that:
- People who happen to like Voris (and Voris himself) are abnormal, unhealthy Catholics.
- Voris fans are also militant Corapi fans (because Voris said they must be) and immediately went all “angry mob” on anyone who criticised him (this is completely incorrect).
- Any one who happens to disagree with YOU is obviously completely brainless and must belong to an angry mob of people who have been brainwashed by Voris and who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They, of course, only do his bidding and cannot make up their own minds about certain topics.
So, exactly how is your behaviour here any better than anybody elses?
Oh Mr. Shea, did I hit a sore spot?
Due to your inexperience as a Catholic (I’m one for 60 years—you’re just an infant who occasionally throws a temper tantrum) you have not learned to make distinctions. Our Lord preserves the indefectability of the Church; He does not always preserve from that which is theologically, philosophically and liturgically deficient.
Until you acquire some more experience, Oh Puffed Up One, save your parries.
Why are people accusing Mark Shea? Again, I’m a Voris fan, but some of his criticisms are valid. Mark doesn’t necessarily disagree with Michael Voris on everything, but is criticizing Voris’ means and attitude towards those who disagree with him. There’s nothing wrong with this, and it doesn’t mean that Mark Shea is somehow a member of The Enemy. Any other Voris fans on this board need to pull-back and say a prayer for guidance before they write anymore.
I’ll bring this up though: if Voris is so wrong about people receiving Our Lord in the hand, why has Pope Benedict XVI been encouraging in his writings and practices kneeling and receiving on the tongue? His example is being all but ignored by the American clergy. This disturbs me.
Precisely, TELEMACHUS. The Pope has been hinting that there’s been a deficiency in the Church’s liturgical discipline. But shhhhh! You’ll wake the infants.
@TELEMACHUS Well, I don’t really think Mark Shea is the best example for how to deal with those who disagree with you. See how he treats those he calls “Voris fans” or “Vorisees” like brainless minions and implies that those who disagree with him are not normal or healthy.
Wow, @SeanNorth, you’ve been a Catholic for SIXTY YEARS?!?! You must be SO HOLY…a walking saint! The Church should really promote you to the status of infallible because of all your knowledge and wisdom.
Mr. Shea is just a baby Catholic, like you said. He ranks down with Stt. Therese of Liseux, who was only Catholic for 24 years (the Church should really revoke her sainthood - there’s no way she could have gotten it right in such a short time). Unlike you, of course, who are perfect, sinless, and infallible due to your 60 years of Catholicism.
Steven Graydanus thank you SO much for opening a clear ray of reason, and nailing the central issue the outburst this combox has become, illustrates with textbook precision: the preponderance of expressly tribalistic conceptualizing among those who volunteer their commentary, assuming it to inherently be valid debate. I am personally convinced that mode of thinking soaks into us through television from our earliest moments, but tribal reaction, ironically in the 21st century, has become THE way to behave in the Internet age, no matter what one’s favored argument may be for or against one’s most or least favorite figure.
People, go to the top and reread everything (actually read it instead of stopping once your opening zinger materializes) as though you were a visitor from another planet reading a textbook. What can you learn, oh alien life form, about how some humans interact?
Respectfully to all, may I suggest meditating on the role of what we often call “stardom” and its function in the culture of death.
@LadyBunnylot: Yeah, I don’t like the terminology Mark Shea is using either, but I don’t like some of the things that fellow Voris fans are saying here as well. Sean North’s recent comment, for instance. Again, people need to chill out a bit. We’re not enemies… THEY are! Ha ha, just kidding with some mock paranoia. :-D
You must admit, we Michael Voris fans are an impassioned bunch, and those who are filled with passion don’t always stop to check if they are reacting uncharitably. I need to learn this lesson continually.
So, anyone who disagrees with Michael Voris is immediately “a leftist.”
You people make Shea’s point for him.
Tom D: “Voris does not defend corapi,”
Correct. Voris was lukewarn on Corapi. He also never said a word once it was shown that Corapi was in fact unfit to be a priest. Voris very slyly avoided saying anything about Corapi that might have upset his paying audience, or defending him only to be embarrassed later. Instead he weant after the bishop, Corapis order and those “professional Catholics” who dared to ask any questions. As someone said, Voris has built his empire on throwing red meat. He has no choice but to continue throwing it wherever he can, or creating schism and leaving the church he finds so full of repugnant people.
Uhm. Did you guys all get together on a Skype call or something and figure out an illustration of my point. Well, anyway thanks!
Lady Bunnylot:
I neither say nor imply nor suggest any of the things you claim.
Telemachus:
Voris is not wrong to encourage receiving on the tongue if he likes. As you note, the Pope does the same. But the Pope does not smear those who receive on the tongue as somehow associated with heresy. Nor does he insult faithful Catholics as “infants” for doing what the Church permits. That’s what Voris and his fans are wrong to do.
All: I apologize for the “Vorisee” crack. One does get tired of being called a heretic for failure to fall at the feet of the latest celebrity.
Mr. Bradford, first of all, if you are young…..I always referred to my elders as “Mr.” in a more civilized Catholic Age. And my health is, by the grace of God, very good. Thank you for asking.
I never said my age was important. I merely mentioned it to point out that some of us have been reflecting about the present catastrophe in the Church (and experiencing it) longer than others. Perhaps it shoudl be “A” consideration, n’est ce pas?
If you don’t, however, address the substance of my point instead of dwelling on your present silliness, I’m afraid you’ll appear to have nothing really to say except for the pathetic reiteration of your ad hominum remarks.
Faithful Catholics sniping away at each other detracts from otherwise legitimate constructive criticism, i.e., fraternal correction. Ill mannered comments and division serves no purpose but to make the devil laugh. Some may call our “tough talk” a conversation of truth spoken in love, but I see/hear people talking past each other and serving ego more than truth.
Let’s retrain our web-sights on the lukewarm, the cafeteria Catholics who deserve a fraternal tongue lashing.
I respectfully suggest staying on topic might be a thought to consider, too.
well, my father watched Voris and *IS* abnormal and unhealthy.
He’s saying we need to invade Canada, establish a “truly Catholic country” where anyone who disagrees with the Pope [which incidentally would include himself- he supports the death penalty and the war in Iraq] is thrown out, however ultimately this attempt will fail and we will all die martyrs, except for the lousy CINOS who will abandon their faith for all of Satan’s secular prizes.
He also assumes anyone taking CITH and not on the tongue is a lesbian on the pill who is going to a Satanist convention, because everyone who receives communion on the toungue is a saint. Extra points for kneeling!
All I’m saying is, he never wanted to invade Canada and wage literal war BEFORE watching Voris.
Don’t you kids MAKE me come back there.
I.. WILL TURN.. THIS.. CAR… AROUND!
Michael Voris = Just another Catholic with an opinon.
Mark Shea = Just another Catholic with an opinion.
Come on people, do the research and prayerfully decide for yourselves. Discern the message, not necessarily the social life or personality of the messenger. (Divorce emotional reaction or feeling from any drawn conclusion). While opinion may always be debated, if what Voris states about American bishops and the Church is factually wrong in any degree, can someone please state it for me and post it here.
Although I enjoy Michael Voris’ programming and have rarely found myself to disagree with him in the videos I have watched, I find it disturbing that this discussion is so polarized as though you are either for Voris or against him. Quite frankly, some of the things Mr. Shea says are valid and some of them seem a tad bit exaggerated. Does this make Mr. Shea a progressve, liberal, modernist, communist, nazi, scumbag? Do I even need to explain why that’s completely psychotic?
Now, Mr. Voris has a very firm and uncompromising attitude about defending the faith, which is a virtue when pitting yourself against those who liberally pick and choose what is and is not to be believed in the Church. However, does Mr. Voris and his fans occasionally get over excited and attack faithful Catholics who happen to unintentionaly suggest liberal leanings? Yes.
In other words, everyone is scared. We’re all aware of the problems withni and without the Church, and we all have a certain way of dealing with it that, within certain boundaries, are completely reasonable. Some are more vigilant and suspicious and some are more calm yet concerned. Some legitimately put their trust in God’s prodivdence and some legitmately gird up their loins in order to make a change for the best. Some are Franciscans at heart, some are Dominicans at heart(like myself), and some associate with some other manifestation of their catholicity depending on their particular God-given charism. We’re all Catholics. We’re all concerned. We all want to help.
We have not loyalty except to the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, and the succesors of the apostles whose head is the succesor of Peter. I like Voris because I favor a ‘Church Militant’ mentality with regards to the areas that I want to tackle amongst the problems of the Church. Some favor a ‘Church Pilgrim’ mentality. These are both authentic. There are different fronts in the battle against the gates of hell. Let’s not find ourselves involved in friendly fire.
@Mark Shea: Agreed, Mr. Shea. Then again, there was absolutely no reason after Vatican II for the Church in America to remove alter rails and start forcing people to receive in the hand. As the Church worships, so she believes, and I don’t think it is beyond the pale to say that the movement to this form of reception as standard practice has affected how Catholics view the sacredness of Holy Eucharist.
That the practice has heretical roots would not surprise me. However, it’s a matter of discipline, not doctrine, so the application of the label “heretical” to the practice would be a misapplication. For this, Voris would be reasonably criticized.
But Mark, you must admit that it is a bit strange for CNA to target RCTV like they did, especially during WYD, and especially when Voris asked for more time from their reporter to get the low-down on the situations which he was being questioned on. That sounds to me like a deliberate move on their part.
@Mark Shea
I do think that it may help to take a step back and look at what you have written with a more objective eye. To me, at least, you have said and implied all of those things. It comes across as a severe lack of respect for those who disagree with you. Or rather, a lack of respect for the opinions of those who you do not like. Sure, this is normal human behaviour but it does not come across well.
You’re free to criticise Voris or anyone else but its the way you go about that comes across as quite offensive. E.g. you don’t need to say “normal and healthy catholics” believe this and this…. Here you are implying that the people you criticise are not normal or healthy regardless of what you are accusing them of.
Look at your apology for the “Vorisee” crack. Look at what follows:
One does get tired of being called a heretic for failure to fall at the feet of the latest celebrity.
Um, okay… that just sounds like another dig. It sure doesn’t sound like you’re sorry.
Do you really not see this?
Mark Shea…
All: I apologize for the “Vorisee” crack. One does get tired of being called a heretic for failure to fall at the feet of the latest celebrity.
————————
Mark,
Honestly, can you for once apologize for something without following up with how the other guy is wrong too or how you think you have been wronged?
God bless Michael Voris and Mark Shea. I believe they are both working for the faith. I think Mr. Voris does a great job of highlighting problems within the Catholic church. He then asked for these problems to be addressed. Nothing more. I am surrounded by cafeteria catholics, including priests and bishops. It’s high time that someone like Mr. Voris says it like it is. Few others do. Whatever you say about him he has a backbone and is willing to do all he can to promote real Catholicism. I believe Mark Shea is also trying to promote the faith. Different people, different approaches. Satan and sin are our real enemies let concentrate our efforts there.
God bless
Del:
Please note the Catch-22 you are creating. I just gave a detailed analysis of just a small portion of Voris’ reckless and dangerous methods of attack, showing a number of ways in which he is factually wrong. For my troubles, I am informed that I “write too much” and am “obsessing”. Now you demand that somebody set aside the literal months it would take to go over everything Voris has written, combing it for errors. Besides not being worth the effort, the whole project would be greeted by Voris fans as an attempt to “destroy” their hero.
FWIW, Ron Conte has already done a bit of work demonstrating that Voris is not the infallible oracle of orthodoxy he is cracked up to be. If you are serious about your question, you might click the link and engage him. For myself, I’ve said enough in this piece. My point is not “Michael Voris is wrong about everything.” He’s not. Indeed, I think he could be a real ornament of the Church. But his presentation of a gospel of law and his tendency to tar his critics as Progressive Dissenters and “sacrificers of Truth” are bearing the poisonous fruits of Phariseeism among his followers. No good will come of it and it could well come back to destroy him once his own clay feet (we all have them) are discovered by those whose perpetual itch is to rid the Church of the impure.
Mr Shea, ALOT of the bishops are CINO and this has been the case for 20-30 years! RCTV has done investigations and presented proof. I didn’t want to admit it when my Mother-in-law would tell me years ago about what she put up with at the USCCB! But she was right then and he is right now. Talk to good new priests and you will hear the same thing. 50% of priest being homosexuals in the US and closer to 70% in Europe, and they do want to take down the Church. One of our local parishes seems to have some pretty wild parties with priests only being invited. Why people are not naming names is awful. Voris is getting his courage up and people are slowly stepping forward. We are personally pressuring my MIL to name names…which she called out to us the Miami Vice issue and did name that bishops name(he was a monsignor at the time in the USCCB)...but sadly my FIL is of the “don’t create scandel” type and told her to just step down quietly, she feels personally responsible for not having spoken out years ago when these guys could have been stopped and fewer people hurt. Though she didn’t know the full extent at that time of how people(kids) were in the crosshairs! And good Catholics are doing things that they had been told are good practices when they really are not, shouldn’t they be aware that kneeling was the norm to begin with? Shouldn’t we all know that at one point people were excommunicated over standing and receiving? My husband twice got rebuked for kneeling to receive, in public during communion and in an embarrassing way. It is about time someone is willing to tell it like it is. St. Catherine of Sienna once said, “We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see the world is rotten because of silence!” YELL IT FROM THE ROOF TOPS!!
Honestly, can you for once apologize for something without following up with how the other guy is wrong too or how you think you have been wronged?
Stu: Sorry for failing to just sit there and take a punch. I’m sure you are much better at it when somebody tells you you are a pro-abort, potpourri Catholic gasbag. My regrets for apologizing. Let no good deed go unpunished, Stu. Your vigilance does so much to help.
Sheesh!
@TELEMACHUS
Yes, I agree that everyone here is a little bit worked up. Myself included.
Mr Shea, ALOT of the bishops are CINO and this has been the case for 20-30 years!
Documentation please? Names. Quotes. How many?
You know, the irony is that one of Voris’ own fans wrote of the Shadowy Cabal that they: “recast the Truths of the Church into the mere medieval opinions of an out-of-touch power-hungry Magisterium that should be overthrown.”
Yet who is more zealously pursuing the agenda of portraying “the bishops” as an out-of-touch power-hungry Magisterium that should be overthrown than Michael Voris and people who write wooly and reckless accusations like this? The notion that the Church can only be saved by a vigilante with a web cam and by liberating ourselves from the authority of the bishops is the single most poisonous aspect of this whole cult of personality.
All right, you kids. It’s not like I didn’t warn you. Now I want every one if you to take out your rosary and pray a decade for the most forgotten soul in Pugatory for whom no-one prays.
SHHHHTSSTTSSSSS! Hush!
I don’t care if you forgot yours at home. Use your fingers.
Now, begin nicely, in the name of the Father…
Of all the serious problems facing the Church today (the wide use of artificial contraception, the popular acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, gay-marriage, euthanasia, the self-ordination of women priests, the rejection of the Church’s sacred authority, etc etc) and THIS is what we choose to give serious and dire attention to? A guy like Voris who is trying to bring clarity to the Church’s teaching on these matters? Really? And all because this guy tends to hurt the feelings of the cafeteria catholics who refuse to obey their own Church’s teachings? Really? Has it occurred to anyone that maybe these dissenters *need* to be offended in order to remove the speck from their collective eye AND to defend and preserve the faith that’s being assaulted on a daily basis? Are we supposed tolerate any and all abuse of the faith in the name of worldly virtue of tolerance? This is madness.
Honestly, can you for once apologize for something without following up with how the other guy is wrong too or how you think you have been wronged?
Stu: Sorry for failing to just sit there and take a punch. I’m sure you are much better at it when somebody tells you you are a pro-abort, potpourri Catholic gasbag. My regrets for apologizing. Let no good deed go unpunished, Stu. Your vigilance does so much to help.
Sheesh!
———————
You are such martyr!
If I am going to apologize, then I do it. If I am going to punch someone, then I do that. I don’t mix the two as it make both ineffective. So if you are truly sorry, then say so and let it go. If you want to keep punching, then do so. But don’t attempt to have it both ways. Give your readers a bit more credit than that.
As to being called names, get over it or perhaps look for another line of work.
The “footprint of the dragon” is all over both sides of this. Now, more than ever, we need unity between ALL faithful - Time is short. GOD Bless and keep us all.
“Now, begin nicely, in the name of the Father…”
...and of the Son…
SHHH!! I’m not kidding!
And of THE HOLY SPIRIT…
@Kevin
But he STARTED it!
*sulks
And all because this guy tends to hurt the feelings of the cafeteria catholics who refuse to obey their own Church’s teachings? Really? Has it occurred to anyone that maybe these dissenters *need* to be offended in order to remove the speck from their collective eye AND to defend and preserve the faith that’s being assaulted on a daily basis?
And yet again, the Voris Faithful regurgitate the meme that only Progressive Dissenters can possibly be critical of Michael Voris and that any offense taken can only be due to a hatred of Church teaching. It’s so kind of so many readers to illustrate my point.
TSsshhhhht!
I believe in God, the almighty ...
“And of THE HOLY SPIRIT…”
...Amen. I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord….
LOL @ Kevin and Anthony S.
Real quick, I read Fr. Conte’s critique of Voris’ “The Jews” program in the past, and I found that Fr. Conte misrepresented a lot of what Voris was saying. A lot of his critiques look like nit-picking. I’ll have to take a look at some of Fr. Conte’s other critiques.
Dear adult brothers and sisters, may I point out that this Rosary helps us recognize our true tribal affiliation?
If you people are going to start praying, how do you expect us to save the Church?
Oh, alright.
“He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit…”
While we’re all busy bashing Voris, it might be good to remember that Bishop Bruskewitz—one of the most valiant and orthodox bishops in the hierarchy today—has praised Voris and his work in glowing terms.
Voris also has backing from Cardinal Raymond Burke, who personally came to his studios and blessed them himself. He’s also been told by a bishop (who shall remain nameless) that Voris is saying things that the bishop himself could not say—but which need to be said, and he encouraged Voris to continue to say them.
If these bishops—who are at the forefront of the battle for the Church—find Voris’s work not only valuable but “excellent”, then Voris must be doing something right.
I recommend watching the wonderful talks he gave in Madrid to the youth there:
http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=wrld-2011-08-17&ssnID=173
And hope does not disappoint us, because GOD has poured out his love into our hearts by the HOLY SPIRIT, whom he has given us.
And born of the Virgin Mary..
All of you together…
This is an unbelievably good post. I have always found that those who focus, without mercy or pastoral sensitivity, on the sinfulness and imperfections of others (e.g. Fr. Corapi, Fr. Ken Roberts, Rev. Jimmy Swaggart) are hiding something which eventually comes to light. I pray to God that Michael Voris is an exception, but history tends to demonstrate otherwise.
You are quite right in saying that Mr. Voris is attacking good and faithul Catholics rather than the liberals. In his insinuation that standing to receive Holy Communion is disrespectful Mr. Voris not only demonstrates an ignorance of the universal Church but insults the millions of Eastern Rite Catholics (as well as Coptic and Orthodox Christians) who always receive the Lord in this manner.
Here’s a litany I think we should all pray: O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus…From the desire of being loved…From the desire of being extolled ...From the desire of being honored ...From the desire of being praised ...From the desire of being preferred to others…From the desire of being consulted ...From the desire of being approved ...From the fear of being humiliated…From the fear of being despised…From the fear of suffering rebukes ...From the fear of being calumniated ...From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it…That others may be esteemed more than I ...That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease ...That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...That others may be preferred to me in everything…That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…
If the above litany (of humility) made you feel uncomfortable, then, like me, you have some pride that needs to be take care of. That litany always helps me to put myself in the right perspective :) Pax Christi
Amen.
I believe in God, the Father almighty…
“The angry homosexual subculture controlling our government, gawdy decor, secret gay “cabals”, a moral “plague”, the downfall of your own church and your fears of society, abortion, wow, some of you guys really do find a way to blame just about everything on homosexuals.
homophobia is an irrational fear of gay people. I’d say this qualifies. You’re discrediting the church when you do.
Oops, forgot to refresh….
...suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;...
Thanks Anthony S. : )
Thanks, Anthony. I needed that.
Seriously. someone really needs to ask Mr. Voris what he actually thinks of Catholics receiving in the hand because he goes to vernacular Novus Ordo Masses where this is the practice! Maybe he isn’t as against the practice or the Catholics who engage in the practice as you might think. Does he say the majority of bishops in the U.S. are dissident? Some of Mr. Voris fans seem to think he does say this. Perhaps he would agree to an interview with Mark Shea where these questions could be addressed. Perhaps some of his fans read way too much into his words. I sure hope so because some of the comments on this article are way over the top when it comes to Mark Shea being part of a liberal cabal!!!!
“Voris very slyly avoided saying anything about Corapi that might have upset his paying audience, or defending him only to be embarrassed later. Instead he weant after the bishop, Corapis order and those “professional Catholics” who dared to ask any questions.”
AIP, this seems to imply that Voris had some sort of obligation to apologize for something that he’d done wrong. Mind telling me what that something would be?
I thought Voris’ handling of the Corapi mess quite fair: He challenged the authenticity of the lynch mob that went after Corapi the second any news broke.
I thought the Catholic media handled Corapi’s case in an appalling manner. On the basis of one accusation, a whole bunch of Catholic media convicted Corapi summarily. I felt that Voris closed his mouth on the Corapi matter ultimately because..there was little of value to say.
After we discerned that the charges had reasonable merit, many of us began ignoring him.
I can’t imagine what Voris should’ve done differently.
“I just gave a detailed analysis of just a small portion of Voris’ reckless and dangerous methods of attack, showing a number of ways in which he is factually wrong.”
You did?
I’ve skimmed the article a few times, I don’t see where you provided any particular factual information. It..looks like an opinion piece. ..An opinion piece that laments that many people see issues differently from yourself.
Kevin and Anthony, I think we can figure out how to pray when we believe we should. I don’t get why you’re not pleased with a vigorous discussion?
Strangely enough, Ignatius of Antioch described the key to unity as long ago as 107 AD. Unity is centered around one thing, one entity according to Ignatius: the bishop.
This, to me, is the real problem with Voris and those who would step up to their respective platforms and claim that bishops and others in the Church are leading you down a wayward path: by convincing you to growl at the bishops, they’re promoting disunity. This is sinful matter, and is thus scandalous.
By setting you in opposition to them, he has set you in opposition to the One who sent them.
You are the one in the dream world Mr. Mark Shea.
Many of us have lost household income and suffered substantially grave slander at the actions of the “left” that you claim is some manufactured
ghost of Voris. The attacks upon those of us that keep the faith and stand firm in the TRUTH are real and painful and they come from the inside. The imagination cannot even begin to dream up the antics of the catholic modernists. I hope you get some better glasses.
C.T.:
Nobody says there is not a dissenting Catholic left. Did you not read my piece? What I am saying is that criticism of Voris’ tactics does not automatically make you a member of it.
I like a lot of things about Michael Voris’ video productions. But I have found several of his CATHOLIC INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY productions extremely problematic. He often states that behind each of the shows, there are “over 500 hours of research.” I would like to hear what Michael Voris considers to be good research. Have his productions been peer-reviewed for their factual accuracy and good reasoning? For the “Mass Confusion” episode, I don’t think so. over 500 hours may have been spent on pursuing an idea that Mike already made up his mind about, but in order for it to be good research, other explanations and proper criticisms of some of the important ideas that he asserted in that episode should have been included. He went on several times about how he had a lengthy PHONE interview with Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand (Widow of the great theologian Deitrich Von Hildebrand). Ok, perhaps Dr. Von Hildebrand’s mind is still far sharper than mine will ever be, but she is 89 years old, and was recalling events that occurred 40-50+ years ago! Plus, her husband has been deceased for 34 years (they were married for 18 years). Maybe I’m wrong, but I am skeptical that Voris got all of his facts right all of the time for this episode.
Voris’ style is annoying in the least and could do with a whole lot more charity, even when “right”. Mark Shea could also use a less aggressive manner as he is losing readers who love NCR. There is a lot of value to garner from both and the delivery is losing the audience.
As for us, may we treat others with charity and be obedient to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
A Prayer Of Spiritual Communion
My Jesus,
I believe that You
are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things,
and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment
receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. Amen.
Now, to the topic at hand.
For me Michael Voris’ videos bring back memories of my days as a teenager when I’d attend church-basement CUF meetings and earn badges in heretic detection, bishop bashing, and that popular sport, liturgical javelin-throwing. (Ten extra points if you skewered the felt banner *and* the cantor!) Note: this was not CUF’s fault, as these highly entertaining sports always took place outside the context of the meeting itself; nevertheless, CUF in those days appeared to stand for a secret group of excruciatingly correct and faithful Catholics who were valiantly preserving some tiny spark of the True Faith amidst the heresy of the post-VII Church and her cabal of evil American bishops who, when they weren’t shilling for the Democrats, tended to do such terrible things as cancel holy day obligations and cover up the fact that the local Catholic hospital was handing out birth control (before the Feds started forcing anybody to, even).
The problem was NOT that we were delusional about all of these issues (though some of them could get pretty far-fetched). The problem was exactly what Mark says it is: we got tribalistic, created an “us-vs.-them” mentality, and considered ourselves, if not more Catholic than the actual Pope (though some probably thought they were) at least much more Catholic than our own bishop, most of our priests, and 90% of our fellow parishioners.
Which meant that no matter how right we might have been about a specific issue (that hospital one, for instance, though the bishop really didn’t know as far as I know now and was certainly not covering anything up), many of us—me, certainly—were so blinded by pride, self-love, contempt for our fellow Catholics, and complete obliviousness to our own sinfulness that we could not possibly have been effective in helping to bring about the reform of the reform.
I still fight against the impulse to go there, to that place of secret superiority, and I’m not always successful (for instance, despite the fact that I now sing with my parish choir I still have to fight against the desire to roll my eyes vigorously at some of the music I myself will be helping to inflict upon the poor congregation). And I think this is why I’m wary of Mr. Voris and his “RealCatholicTV” apostolate. Even if he is as pure as the driven snow in his motives and hopes for the Church, his approach and tendency to speak certain “code words” about the shadowy evil types running things behind the scenes is meat and drink to those caught up, as I was, in the mad desire to believe that the Church will not survive without her handful of super-good elect righteous types standing in saintly opposition to—those men who act as the successors to the Apostles.
Certainly the laity can and should try to help bring about the reform of the reform in the little, parish-centered, positive ways that we can. But that does not translate into sitting in judgment on the architecture of the parish (however unfortunate; it’s not something that can be easily changed, after all!), the pastor’s decisions to do things the bishop says he can (such as make use of EMHCs or female altar servers), or our fellow Catholics (e.g., it’s fine to hate some of the music, but it’s NOT fine to hate the people singing it, some of whom, believe me, hate some of it as much as you do and hope to help provide small slow incremental changes which is why they volunteered in the first place).
God has a sense of humor: my “captcha” is “music77.” :)
Thank you, Erin Manning. Excellent comment.
The fruit of Voris’ style is quite clear and the origin of his style is contained in the history of human violence resulting from ignorance of healthy human relationships. Those who follow this style continue to repeat that history of violence.
Voris supporters chime in that he is only attacking what is false in the RCC. Martin Luther could claim the same. He was wrong and so is Mr. Voris. Luther ran from the church and whether you agree or not, Mr. Voris is doing the same. Jesus said of the church “..and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Where are your loyalties Mr. Voris, to Jesus? Jesus left the church here in order to speak and act for him, but you don’t seem to be able to grasp this concept (truth, actually). You have become your own personal Magesterium much like our Protestant brethren. What’s next, Sola Scriptura…Sola Fide?
You weild the pen like a scythe and cut down the wheat with the chaffe and burn it all. Slash and burn all you want, but the Roman Catholic Church will outlast you and your kind. We will be all the stronger for your pitiful efforts to tear us apart. We, the Church, have survived much greater enemies and problems than you will ever be able to throw at us, even those we put in our own paths. You, sir are the pesky little gnat which we swat away. The only difference is that you will be swatted away not by us, but by your own ego and self righteousness.
“Gabriel:
The point of the analogy is not one’s attitude to the Body of Christ, but one’s attitude to things which Holy Mother Church allows as a matter of liberty. Like it or not, Holy Church permits communion in the hand”.
Mark: I am not clueless about the point of your analogy, but rather of its shallowness. Is it a matter of “like it or not”?
I was surprised when Holy Communion in the hand was installed, but reckoned that the Holy Father had other matters of greater importance to worry about [the pill, for example] and accepted it. But I did not do it the way I might choose to have chocolate. This is the reason I wrote that you write too much and think too little. You are too quick on the draw.
PIA,
Lest you think your bid to change topics was ignored by all, here is a useful summary of the Church’s infallible teaching on same-sex attraction:
http://bit.ly/o1IFI1 (links to the CCC)
We may affirm or deny the truth of that teaching. Because I’m Catholic, I choose to affirm it.
Are you requesting affirmation that same-sex attraction plays no part in the Church’s problems?
Or are you suggesting denial of the Church’s teaching on that subject has played only a partial role in the Church’s problems?
I for one enjoy Michael Voris. Bought a subscription to his channel and love it. We need more like Mike to speak up! Concerning Priscillianisim, I don’t think he was calling people that recieved in the hand heretics. He was making a point that recieving communion in the hand reduces the reverence for the Body of Christ. Look at the lack of respect and decreased belief in the Real Presence in the Church. GO MIKE, GO!
There are many charisms even among orthodox Catholics. Look at the saints: St Francis was meek, gentle; Saint Jerome , St Cyril, fiery and choleric. I think this stuff is a distraction from the very real threats facing the Catholic Church.
I gather you have the best intentions, Erin.
I find I cannot agree with your conclusions.
Some things about the Church, such as physical buildings, cannot be changed easily. People understand that. Many other things that be changed..are not, because of a frame of mind in place.
Architectural difficulties can be overcome—at least partly—by a willingness within a parish to make better use of facilities. Other difficulties, such as essentially discretionary choices, can be changed, but are not for various reasons.
Music problems usually come about because someone doesn’t wish to hear traditional music, but insists on a more “folksy” style. Altar servers issues frequently come about because some groups of people wish to insist that girls or women have “rights” that don’t preciscely exist.
EMHCs and other kinds of concerns come about sometimes when a parish doesn’t wish to reconsider how best to approach distributing communion.
I have yet to come across a parish in which traditional concepts come into acceptance without a fight. Usually, if you attempt to make even incremental changes in favor of traditional practice, you see a battle develop. Too many insist that “the way we’ve always done it” works just fine, and never mind what the pope said. Sometimes the bishop can be almost as much the obstructionist as the laity.
For the record, I’m hoping that someone besides the Catholic diocese will wind up buying the Crystal Cathedral. I think that building much better suited to something besides Catholic Mass.
I also comment that I’ve ceased being a member of choirs before, precisely because I grew weary of singing something that required little or no real effort. Incremental change can’t happen without backing from the director and pastor.
As to girls as servers, laity as EMHCs, tow other thoughts come to mind:
When these concerns arise, concerns about what “participation” means tends to be neglected, as does any other concern for roles within the Church. Always the focus winds up being another “battle of the sexes” or the equivalent. Additionally, I have seen the Vatican acknowledge that both of these are permissible.
I have never seen a declaration that either is mandatory.
Many people forget that part.
You, sir, in this article and others do exactly what you are accusing Mr. Voris of doing. If he doesn’t agree with you or “most normal healthy Catholics” (this is an absurd statement even by itself) then he is obviously wrong and uncharitable.
After reading your article, I find that it overflows with moral relativism. I wonder if this has skewed your idea of what a “normal healthy Catholic” really is.
Mr. Voris speaks the truth…the Truth. For some, the Truth hurts.
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Hey Mark, how long do you think it will take your new bannedbymarkshea FB group to start selling “Mini Mark” stuff?
And no, I have no idea how many millennia that just bought me in purgatory.
Goes to show that being a lone wolf separated from the Pack, be it either a rogue vortex, a black sheep dog or some other variation, no matter how good the intention or message -does not end well.
After reading your article, I find that it overflows with moral relativism.
After reading you comment, I find that it overflows with illiteracy about the meaning of “moral relativism”.
Wow Mark seems like an important guy like you would have better things to do than stalk these com boxes…oh well.
The entertaining part about the FB Banned by Mark Shea group is that it is run by a guy named Larry Coty, a math teacher at Georgia Perimeter College who is a supporter of David Irving (famous Holocaust Denialist) and an enthusiastic defender of the courage of Josef “Auschwitz Angel of Death” Mengele and the SS. That’s what got him banned from my comboxes. The little clutch of people who joined that group don’t know the company they are keeping. It will be fun to see what happens when they do.
Mikew:
I wrote the article that precipitated these comboxes and was asked by my editor to keep an eye on them so that people Play Well With Others.
Mark.
“Joe six pack” is right on the money. Methinks you protesteth too much!
Mark - we can rehash the same grind about Voris. The obvious difference between you and Voris is that you do not see a crisis of faith in The Church and Mike does. Mike is a sinner and may miss the mark from time to time. I believe it is ridiculous to compare Voris’s imperfection with the evils that he exposes on the Vortex. I believe his arguments hold water as evidenced by the silence of those he has accused. If he was out of line they would have been all over him. As I said before it is not about the messenger but the message. Please stop shooting the messenger and address the message if you have a problem with it. I hope Mike becomes a canonized saint. We could use one. Think about all the saints in the past and the opposition they received within The Church. Do you really want to be guilty of being a criticizer of a future saint? As much as you know about The Church and saints you should know that many were outspoken defenders. We need more defenders like Mike.
PS - please do not misconstrue my comment about Mike becoming a saint as personally worship.
John King
...how about a thing called absolute Truth? Ever heard of it?
The obvious difference between you and Voris is that you do not see a crisis of faith in The Church and Mike does.
I’m perfectly aware the Church is in crisis. I’m also perfectly aware that it has *always* been in crisis.
I believe it is ridiculous to compare Voris’s imperfection with the evils that he exposes on the Vortex.
That’s why I didn’t do it. Instead, I pointed out that the people he often attacks and teaches his fans to attack are not guilty of any sort of dissent, but he says they are because his method is to label as a dissenting evildoer those who criticize his broad brush recklessness.
If he was out of line they would have been all over him.
Unless, of course, they were holy men like Bp. Mulvey and chose to turn the other cheek while Voris maligned them. Or unless they are innocent, uneducated people who have never heard about the uber-traditional obsession with communion in the hand and were completely blindsided, dismayed and confused by the scurrilous smear that they are somehow associated with Priscillianist heretics. Not all silence implies consent, as Jesus’ silence before his accusers attests.
As I said before it is not about the messenger but the message. Please stop shooting the messenger and address the message if you have a problem with it.
Precisely the point of my article: stop shooting the messenger as a sinister dissenting liberal merely because he delivers the message that Voris’ broad brush tactics are wrong and destructive.
Do you really want to be guilty of being a criticizer of a future saint?
Spare me. I’ll take my chances on Mr. Voris’ future canonization and continue to live in the present, where he is doing bad things to innocent people right now. Do you really want to be guilty of stopping me from rebuking his graceless attack on innocent people, thereby preventing him from growing in holiness and stopping from becoming a saint? (See two can play that ridiculous game of Intimidation Through Prophecy.)
Chris: not sure of your point, but are you implying one side is cheering for ‘absolute truth’ (by which I’m going to assume you mean trust in the Holy Magisterium of the Church on all matters of faith and morals) and the other side is cheering for.. Something else?
...how about a thing called absolute Truth? Ever heard of it?
Yes. I hate truth. I hate the Catholic faith and want it destroyed. That’s why I write for the Register and constantly defend the Faith.
Do people who offer these ridiculous responses even bother to read the article? *Can* they read?
you tell em, mark!
Tim B,
Look at GHU’s quote. There are Bishops who may not deny Church teachings by word but by action they do. And it is not all of them, but there is a significant handful of them that seems to be a problem. For example, ALL pro-choice CINO politicians receive communion and are in good standing with the Bishops. Money is sent to the CCHD and the USCCB has had ties with other questionable organizations. We had a “gay-mass” recently in Boston. Was that heretical? Was that a matter of opinion? Or was that a “lie that needed to be exposed”? How about the defense of Ted Kennedy and his funeral which made it seem like he was already a Saint? In NY, gay marriage was passed by a Catholic governor, no condemnation there. I think the biggest problem is that it is legal in our country to kill the unborn yet the Bishops are unwilling to do everything they can to stop this. So, would you approve of the job the Bishops have done?
Secondly, AlP, where does Voris criticize SOLT? Where does he criticize his Bishop? I think I missed that video.
Lastly, Mr. Shea, Voris followers will not criticize all those who are not Voris fans, but those who seem to have something strongly against him. Now, you say that Voris fans state “only Progressive Dissenters can possibly be critical of Michael Voris,” now this is exaggerated but it has some truth to it. The fact is that Voris followers will be skeptical of those who consistently attack Voris simply because whether or not you like HIM, what he TEACHES is correct. In a world where we have abortion on demand and there is loss of faith in all places, a “call to disobedience” and we have gay masses (how would Jesus react? think of how he reacted when they were selling things in the temple) and few authorities cracking down (ie Bishops), the biggest problem is not that MV comes off a bit too strong.
I could make all sorts of points here, but drogah made the important one, and has proved a better traditionalist than anyone else here (myself included, naturally).
Bishops are not merely “overseers” but are the Successors to the Apostles, the head of the Church in their diocese (in union with and in submission to the bishop of the First See, who is the visible Head of the Church), and it is indeed shamefully scandalous to label them en masse as heretics and liberals without clear evidence and very good reason.
Scandal is a sin, and it is a sin just as much when trads do it as when liberals do. In this instance, it is distructive to the unity of the Church, and it sets up the authority of a lone figure, without any right faculty, above that of the Church.
Those who draw similarities with Athanasius miss the point: first, the heresy of the Arians was manifest and clear for all to see, because they stated their beliefs openly. Second, Athanasius had the explicit support of the Pope. Third, Athanasius was a bishop and not any bishop, but Patriarch of Alexandria, and successor to St Mark the Evangelist, who was a disciple of St Peter. Athanasius had authority from the Church and the Pope (actually, two Popes - Liberius and Julius I).
Michael Voris, by contrast, seeks an enemy he claims is everywhere, yet can muster little hard evidence of. Far from being a Successor to the Apostles, he is a layman with an STB.
This does not make him wrong, or bad, or evil. But comparable to St Athanasius? Not quite.
Mr. Shea,
Considering the number of times in the past six months that I’ve seen you, yourself, take a needless shot at Voris, your proclamation about failing to shoot the messenger doesn’t hold very well.
Mark,
I clicked over to those articles by Ron Conte, and they seem sound. I just thought I’d warn you that Mr. Conte also considers your co-writer at NCR, Jimmy Akin, to be a heretic on many counts. He’s got some strange criticisms over there.
Now, here’s a chance to tie this to the subject at hand: just because I may agree / disagree with some or many of Mr. Conte’s points, it doesn’t mean the remainder of those points are doctrine / heresy.
In a similar way, just because Mark criticizes Voris’ approach and content doesn’t mean that everything Voris has ever done is incorrect.
Methinks you protesteth too much!
And again, the suggestion that criticism of Voris and his fans can only proceed from malignant and guilty motives. Voris is somehow opposing or exposing some heresy near and dear to me and that is my *real* motive for criticizing him. Yet, curiously, no actual facts are produced to back up this suggestion. The pattern repeats again. Thanks for producing more documentation of my point, Therese.
You kids! I have NO PROBLEM making you take out your rosaries again.
Yes I know you forgot yours at home, I told you you can use your fingers.
I tried posting this but it didn’t work so I apoligize if it appears twice:
“Or unless they are innocent, uneducated people who have never heard about the uber-traditional obsession with communion in the hand and were completely blindsided, dismayed and confused by the scurrilous smear that they are somehow associated with Priscillianist heretics. Not all silence implies consent, as Jesus’ silence before his accusers attests.”
When there is a lack of faith in the REAL Presence, a core doctrine of the Church (yes it is essential see Lumen Gencium #11 for example), we have a REAL problem and there is nothing wrong with looking A) back into a rich history or B) quoting the Cardinal who is in charge of a Congregation that deals with this or C) following the Pope’s example. This is all Voris did. What do you disagree with here?
The fact is that Voris followers will be skeptical of those who consistently attack Voris simply because whether or not you like HIM, what he TEACHES is correct.
No. What he teaches is not always correct. Which is why I wrote—to correct him and his followers. You are living in an enclosed bubble in which differences with Michael Voris’ teaching constitutes proof of heresy. Such cults of personality do not end well, a lesson that might have been learned from the examples of Maciel, Euteneuer, and Corapi and will have to be learned yet again, by the blind tribalism which is playing out again here. The main lesson Voris is teaching, as abundantly evidenced by his defenders here, is arrogance and pride, whatever factoids he may be imparting (and which can be obtained from a thousand other sources, starting with the Catechism and, yes, the bishops).
This is all Voris did. What do you disagree with here?
I disagree with suggesting that reception in the hand is tainted by a connection to Priscillianism or (in your case) some sort of proof that the person who observes this form of piety denies the Real Presence. Stop poisoning the well with this rubbish.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again,I’m sure Michael Voris has won far more converts than you have Mark Shea.You would have been a blogger regardless of whether you were interested in gardening or tap dancing or Catholicism.You try to prove Voris wrong on the grounds of technicalities. The Church is in crisis,I don’t think you understand that or care. People like Michael Voris are what is needed,not a tightly nit bunch of computer geeks patting each other on the back for a good blog.
‘The main lesson Voris is teaching, as abundantly evidenced by his defenders here, is arrogance and pride’
Really? That is simply not true.
Mark - this is so good - you nailed it. Thanks.
are we done with this yet?
Mark,
Here is my original post:
Michael Voris = Just another Catholic with an opinon.
Mark Shea = Just another Catholic with an opinion.
Come on people, do the research and prayerfully decide for yourselves. Discern the message, not necessarily the social life or personality of the messenger. (Divorce emotional reaction or feeling from any drawn conclusion). While opinion may always be debated, if what Voris states about American bishops and the Church is factually wrong in any degree, can someone please state it for me and post it here.
Here is your reply:
Del:
Please note the Catch-22 you are creating. I just gave a detailed analysis of just a small portion of Voris’ reckless and dangerous methods of attack, showing a number of ways in which he is factually wrong. For my troubles, I am informed that I “write too much” and am “obsessing”. Now you demand that somebody set aside the literal months it would take to go over everything Voris has written, combing it for errors. Besides not being worth the effort, the whole project would be greeted by Voris fans as an attempt to “destroy” their hero.
FWIW, Ron Conte has already done a bit of work demonstrating that Voris is not the infallible oracle of orthodoxy he is cracked up to be. If you are serious about your question, you might click the link and engage him. For myself, I’ve said enough in this piece. My point is not “Michael Voris is wrong about everything.” He’s not. Indeed, I think he could be a real ornament of the Church. But his presentation of a gospel of law and his tendency to tar his critics as Progressive Dissenters and “sacrificers of Truth” are bearing the poisonous fruits of Phariseeism among his followers. No good will come of it and it could well come back to destroy him once his own clay feet (we all have them) are discovered by those whose perpetual itch is to rid the Church of the impure.
Thank you for your feedback. I did refer to the Conte link you provided. This was very insightful and I appreciate it.
This impels me to clarify a bit more on my OP. As I stated, “opinion” can always be debated. I should have specified “theological” opinion. A big omission on my part. I also encouraged readers to pray and discern for themselves. Conte certainly does a good job of this in responding to Voris.
I should have further clarified my reference to the “American bishops” and the “Church”. My implied defense of Voris refers to his criticism of the Church Bishop’s social and political policies, not necesaarily Voris’ theological opinions of the Church in general. In the case of the former I think Voris is right on. In the case of the latter, Voris can certainly be critiqued, for he is not a theologian, and neither does he claim to be.
Thanks, Del. Fair enough.
“I disagree with suggesting that reception in the hand is tainted by a connection to Priscillianism or (in your case) some sort of proof that the person who observes this form of piety denies the Real Presence. Stop poisoning the well with this rubbish.”
I am not saying that a specific individual who receives in the hand denies the real presence, what indicates that? (Personally, I recieve in the hand, its what I’m used to) but I am saying if I were investigating the lack of faith in the Real Presence, I would look at 1) when it started and 2) what changed during that time. What would I come across? So does Voris state that it is wrong to receive in the hand? No. He simply states a historic fact and he quotes a Cardinal. Is it the historic fact or the Cardinal you disagree with? Or the Pope’s example?
Also, I must use an example here to illustrate a point: The early Christians fasted on Wednsdays and Fridays. Was there something intrinsically wrong with the Mondays and Tuesdays? No, but that is when the hypocrites fasted. So, rather than avoid connection with them even in a minor thing, they did their own thing. No example is perfect, but my point is that why not do what the Church has done for most of history and avoid what the Church condemned before?
Once again, to those people claiming U.S. Bishops are heretics, please list, by name, each heretic bishop and the specific heresy with citations to specific public teachings.
If you can’t do this, then why don’t you kindly shut up with your unsubstantiated lies about the successors to the Apostles being heretics?
“No. What he teaches is not always correct. Which is why I wrote—to correct him and his followers. You are living in an enclosed bubble in which differences with Michael Voris’ teaching constitutes proof of heresy. Such cults of personality do not end well, a lesson that might have been learned from the examples of Maciel, Euteneuer, and Corapi and will have to be learned yet again, by the blind tribalism which is playing out again here. The main lesson Voris is teaching, as abundantly evidenced by his defenders here, is arrogance and pride, whatever factoids he may be imparting (and which can be obtained from a thousand other sources, starting with the Catechism and, yes, the bishops).”
1) Voris usually discusses things that if one were to disagree with them, they would be heretical. (He talks a lot about abortion, contraception, gay marriage and the Church being the ONE TRUE Church)
2) If one were to disagree with what Voris says about who caused what or who is to blame, I would wonder why but it would not be heresy.
3) Cults of personality are bad, but for some it is not the person but the truth which attracts them. You mention Corapi, well, regardless of his own personal sinfulness, he was a gifted speaker who spoke the truth.
4)To say that the main thing that Voris teaches is pride is truly unfair and over the top
5)And yes the truth can be obtained by a number of sources but the Bishops are questionable to be honest. Why no excommunications? Why is Pfleger still a Priest? What about the Gay Mass? That okay now? So why would I go to the Bishops, whose actions are questionable (as a whole, some individuals are actually very good)when I could listen to speaker who I think is good willed and gets it?
Lastly, Tim, the Bishops may not say a specific heretical statement, but actions speak louder than words. The fact that no pro-murder pro-sodomite politicians who recieve communion and are openly Catholic are excommunicated is good evidence for me that there are a number of bad, yes, successors to the Apostles, of whom 11 were saints and one was, yes, BAD- Judas is in hell. But for starters is Cardian O’Malley a heretic? or was the gay mass no biggie (Yes God destroyed a city for sodomy but, hey, that is out of date, right?)
Can someone please tell me when (Fr.) John Corapi’s inappropriate “behavior” was proved? Are we assuming SOLT’s statement is fact? I thought the charges were allegations and that Fr. denied them.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again,I’m sure Michael Voris has won far more converts than you have Mark Shea.
And I’ve said it before and will say it again, it is foolish and un-Catholic to talk about human beings winning converts, much less to set up sports leagues and rack up convert scalps as proof of Real Catholic[TM] awesomeness.
The Holy Spirit and nobody else makes converts.
“Can someone please tell me when (Fr.) John Corapi’s inappropriate “behavior” was proved? Are we assuming SOLT’s statement is fact? I thought the charges were allegations and that Fr. denied them.”
Thank-you, this is a very good point
I am SO tired from all this reading. I like Mr. Voris, but I have noticed a few inconsistencies in his reporting. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic and I do believe there has been too much liberal thinking these past 30 or 40 years here in the U.S. People like me are looking for TRUTH and CONSISTANT TEACHING w/ ROME. I LOVE the Register and bloggers like Shea and Matt Warner especially (both). I do not think All the Bishops in the USCCB are lovers of the gay rights, women priest, etc. either. I am especially happy to see Archbishop Dolan as the New Head. Keep it coming gentlemen. VERY good article Mr. Shea. Thank you.
...“And again, the suggestion that criticism of Voris and his fans can only proceed from malignant and guilty motives. Voris is somehow opposing or exposing some heresy near and dear to me and that is my *real* motive for criticizing him. Yet, curiously, no actual facts are produced to back up this suggestion. The pattern repeats again.”
Where are your facts that he has said anything that goes against Church teaching? You keep saying he has….where is it?
...the thing that amazes me the most is that you are just as much of an example of the problem of Modernism that has infested our Church and the sad part is that you don’t even see it. Modernism has become so much a part of the Church over that past 40 years, most of the people who deem themselves as good honest Catholics don’t even see it. Sad
...and to say you write for the National Catholic Register makes you a cross bearer of the Truth is laughable. Maybe a neo-con, but come on sir, REALLY!
Just as saying that there are no Bishops who go against Church teaching. If you can’t name one Bishop who is pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro women priests,etc or that one who supports the above, you truly are blind. They are men just like you and I and we all are capable of the gravest of sins. To say there are no Bishops who could not possible be a heretic is simply turning a blind eye to a problem in the Church.
No. I don’t “keep saying that” because the point of this piece is not that Voris’ main problem is factual incorrectness about Church doctrine. It is that he is attacking (and teaching his fans to attack) innocent orthodox believers as Progressive Dissenters. That is a violation of Church teaching on charity. In addition to that error, I have also noted some critiques of actual doctine above by Ron Conte. But I don’t think Voris’ problem is error about Catholic doctrinal content. As a general rule, he seems to me to be accurate. But it is presented without mercy and with a tendency to tar people who disagree, even about matters of liberty, as heretics.
Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011 6:47 PM (EDT):
“”...how about a thing called absolute Truth? Ever heard of it?”
Yes. I hate truth. I hate the Catholic faith and want it destroyed. That’s why I write for the Register and constantly defend the Faith.
Do people who offer these ridiculous responses even bother to read the article? *Can* they read?”
—-
## Don’t bet on it LOL - if only some (a few ?) Catholics qualify as the “real” Catholics, all Catholics who are better-adjusted turn into “false” Catholics, however orthodox or orthopractic or even saintly they may in fact be. That’s what happens, when part of a body takes for itself alone a name that belongs in reality not only to it, but also to the rest of the body. If only some in the Church are “Real Catholics(TM)”, it is logically impossible for anyone else in the Church to be anything but a CINO - and thus, an enemy. ISTM that Voris’ outlook is utterly sectarian, & not remotely Catholic - Fundamentalist, in fact.
**
If this is correct, Voris & the article are *both* right - by different standards: for if Voris is a True Catholic(TM) & the bishop, by not coming up to the standards of Voris, is not a True Catholic(TM), the bishop is necessarily a CINO. Only by coming up to the standards of Voris can the bishop cease to be a CINO & become a True Catholic(TM). The same applies to Mark Shea :) - he is a CINO *by Vorisian standards*, just like the folk at the other NCR, even if he is not a CINO in reality. Voris’ world-view (or Church-view) makes Catholics into enemies of the Church to which both they & he belong. His Church-view is too confined to be Catholic - except in name.
**
IMO it’s a very bad practice to label people as CINOs - it’s self-serving. If we have the luxury of dismissing “liberals” - or anyone else in the Church - we are releasing ourselves from the duty of loving them, praying for them, & seeking their good, just as we desire them to do for us. If we allow ourselves to give into tribalism, the Church will be shattered. As “we all have feet of clay”, we need to help one another, not cut each other down.
I cannot believe the lengthy diatribe of Shea. He is so incredibly SELECTIVE in the comments he selects. Did you read any pro-Voris comments that you judged fair and intellectual ? And the selected and out of context quotes of Voris! It seems that all the faults shown for Voris are almost exact copies of the faults of Shea. What is it with this guy and his venemous hatred of Michael Voris. It is a total lie that Voris took a stand on Corapi’s innocense or guilt. All he said was that he agreed on many of the stands that Corapi did. If Corapi is guilty, he should be excommunicated. But the stands he took on the issues/dogmas were correct. That is all Voris was saying. And I don’t think Voris is saying there is an ORGANIZED conspiracy of the “progressives” in the church. But if you don’t think there is a problem with modernists and pro-abortionists in the church, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. I’m not sure what it is with Mr. Shea, but I think he definitely has some problems. Voris knows he is a sinner (as I am) but practices TOUGH love on his fellow Catholics. Jesus said he would spit out the luke warm. Man up Shea !!
...the thing that amazes me the most is that you are just as much of an example of the problem of Modernism that has infested our Church and the sad part is that you don’t even see it. Modernism has become so much a part of the Church over that past 40 years, most of the people who deem themselves as good honest Catholics don’t even see it. Sad
And yet another volunteer from the audience makes my point about self-appointed inquisitors acting as judge, jury, and executioner of the faith of fellow Catholics. A baseless charge of Modernism flung, merely because I blasphemed a celebrity idol with the sin of doubt.
...and to say you write for the National Catholic Register makes you a cross bearer of the Truth is laughable. Maybe a neo-con, but come on sir, REALLY!
I didn’t say any such thing. I said it is utterly ridiculous to talk as though the Register is a hotbed of progressive dissent. That opinion can only come from within a reactionary bubble so out of touch with reality as to be laughable.
It is also, by the way, ridiculous to describe my views as “neo-con” (unless, of course, you are simply illiterate and no more know what “neo-con” means than you know what “moral relativist” means). Given that “ignorant” is less morally culpable than “deliberately bearing false witness” I will assume you are ignorant and meant to say “Neo-catholic”.
That term too is absurd, as you can discover here and here.
Venomous? Hate?
Those are your accusations against your brother Mark?
As a Catholic?
Publicly?
On a Catholic publication?
You planned this out wrote it and sent it for all to see?
Tom,
We now have a starting point. A “gay Mass” would of course be wrong, and it is correct to point out such a liturgical abuse. I’m sure you have filed a complaint with Rome with proper documentation for the investigation (seriously… complaining is b.s. unless you DO something).
However, we’re still not at heresy. You have made an accusation that a Successor to the Apostles is a heretic. Please provide specific citations to specific heretical teachings.
Once again… you have made the accusation of HERESY. Prove it or admit you are a liar and maligning those who have rightful authority over us as heretics. It’s that simple.
Mark
You make derogatory statements about the “fans” of Voris. Is it not true that some bishops, some priests, some nuns, some CINO institutions are corrupt? They do not exist in a vacuum. Their corruption has brought pain and scandal to some Catholics, parishes and dioceses. In other words there are Catholics who know from their very own experiences that Michael Voris describes realities. You cannot ask them to deny what they know, nor should you deride them. Hearing Voris speak openly about these issues brings hope of reform.
Re: The Prodigal Son, Corapi and Voris
“Fr. Corapi abandoned his priesthood, was discovered to have been engaged in fornication and drug abuse (among other things)”
The relationship between a Bishop and one of his priests is exactly that of a Father and one of his sons. The model for a Bishop on how to deal with an errant priest is that of the prodigal son. What loving Father would announce to the world that paid investigators have discovered that hisson consorts with prostitutes and abuses drugs? If Bishop Mulvey wishes to abandon his role as Father to Corapi must we also abandon our role as brothers to Corapi? To their great credit both Corapi and Voris have faithfully passed on the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a hostile world despite their very human frailties. Perhaps praise rather than criticism is in order?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mark, I’ve run into the ‘neocon’ threat before. It’s like that blue stuff that explodes all over a bank robber then everybody knows!
Ha—HAA!
Haaaaaaahhhhhh!
Haa.
You… neocon.., you and your specifics and your subtle-yet-critical distinctions. Haagh!
I bet you even read EVERYTHING FIRST.
Did you weigh all things keeping what is good and discarding what’s not?
Huh?
Neocon?
I bet you read MANUALS FIRST, too.
I cannot believe the lengthy diatribe of Shea. He is so incredibly SELECTIVE in the comments he selects.
Wow. Too long *and* too selective. No pleasing some people.
But if you don’t think there is a problem with modernists and pro-abortionists in the church, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
And yet again the curse of illiteracy strikes. To repeat: I never said there are no modernists or pro-aborts in the Church. Indeed, I made clear that Progressive Dissent is real. However, I also said that criticizing Michael Voris does not mean you are automatically a modernist or a pro-abort. Something you seem incapable of grasping—which was my point.
Jesus said he would spit out the luke warm.
God help Michael Voris should he ever find himself in a situation where his sins or failings are not excusable to Puritan Purgers of the Unfit such as you, Mr. Wendell. Your gospel of mercilessness eats its young.
Posted by Ed M. on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2011 1:13 PM (EDT):
“Mr Voris offends because he points out the fact that many Catholic so called Universities and Bishopric chancery official are Catholic in Name Only.”
Nope; that isn’t why he offends. I would be hard-pressed to name an issue on which I substantively disagree with Mr. Voris—so how can it be, under your theory, that I find him repulsive? Your theory is conceited and wrong. Mr. Voris offends friends as readily as foes because the manner in which he presents himself.
Now, I must be clear: I am not suggesting that all of those who criticize Voris are /actually/ offended by him. And that’s part of the problem, why he does more harm than good, on balance; Richard McBrien and all those other folks who you quite correctly call “[h]eretical fifth columnists” aren’t actually offended by him, per se, but his unpleasent manner gives them cover, lets them dismiss the views he advances because they can feign offense at the messenger. How many attempts to address liturgical problems at parishes have been stillborn because a well-meaning traditionally-inclined person has been dismissed unheard as “one of those Voris nightmares who’s going to be an endless caustic time-suck if we listen to him”?
The problem with the trite “attack the message not the messenger” line is that sometimes the problem IS the messenger, because especially when he’s a messenger for your side of the argument, if he conducts himself in a manner that alienates even allies (an irony that I take it is not lost on Mark today), he does his cause few favors.
Michael is not perfect but he does a decent job of teaching the real faith with a pinch of zeal and a dash of entertainment. I hope more like him enter the field of public discourse in the coming years. Michael is competition for the current crowd though. This is the blogosphere crowd that sat by and did little to nothing while dissent in the church crept along. I suppose we need both warriors and craftsmen to fight this battle. Let’s keep them both.
Richard,
Bp. Mulvey made the announcement to respond to the misinformation the “Black Sheep Dog” was putting out in an effort to protect the faithful from Corapi’s deception. Corapi abandons his vows before God and is having sex with prostitutes and doing drugs, and you save your criticism for the Bishop? Shame on you. Shame on you.
Speaking of which, you right: “If Corapi is guilty, he should be excommunicated.”
Or, you know, maybe he should be confronted, prayed for, exhorted. Maybe the first thought should be “God save him!” not “God consign him to the everlasting flames.” This perpetual lust for blood and desire to kick the Impure out as soon as possible is disturbingly characteristic of the Voris subculture.
Whats wrong Shea, you can’t handle certain things being critiqued? Is it really necessary to write a short novel criticizing someone, makes me wonder about you. This is ridiculous, do something better.
I’m getting off this thing. You guys play rough. Good thing Mark doesn’t have to judge anyone’s salvation.
I think this “Catholic blogosphere” some of you talk about like it’s a weird senate hall or something…
Well you can have it. I forgot why I tend to write of the shrill crowd as kooks, but thanks for the reminder y’all.
God bless you for your fortitude Mark. I can’t handle riding this thing.
Vicious choice of words robs me of my peace too easily I guess.
Yes, Steve. I’ve engaged critics all day because I can’t handle criticism. Voris uncompromising orthodoxy fills me with fear that my love of abortion, gay marriage, women priests, limitless sexual license and the worship of Barack Obama will be jeopardized. This is the case with every single critic of Voris everywhere on earth. Your mystic powers of soul reading are uncanny.
Do we have any other volunteers from the audience who would like to prove my point?
What little respect I had for Mark Shea I’ve just lost. I am not a fan of Corapi or Voris, and don’t intend to defend them, but Shea apparently has decided to become the judge and jury of all catholic apologists. Of course, the fact that he was trounced by James White in a debate several years ago may have influenced his decision and encouraged him to take up a line of work other than apologetics, and its no secret that he has had it in for Voris for some time as demonstrated by his going after Voris for his show on Amazing Grace, but now he has drug TCR down into the name calling mire with him. I really disappointed that THR allowed this article to be printed.
“Shea apparently has decided to become the judge and jury of all catholic apologists.”
Huh?
“the fact that he was trounced by James White in a debate several years ago”
What? I’ve never debated White. I’ve never debated anybody.
“its no secret that he has had it in for Voris”
No doubt why I defended him last week.
“now he has drug TCR”
What’s TCR?
What’s THR?
Unity in the Body of Christ
1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.