Saturday, April 23, AD 2016

come let us reason together




As faithful readers of this blog know, I have never been a fan of Michael Voris, but I must say bravo to his response to an alleged smear attempt by villains, (the New York Archdiocese has denied the allegation of Voris), within the Church:

 It involves the sins of my past life all committed prior to my reversion to the Catholic faith. We have on very good authority from various sources that the New York archdiocese is collecting and preparing to quietly filter out details of my past life with the aim of publicly discrediting me, this apostolate and the work here.

I have never made a secret that my life prior to my reversion was extremely sinful. I have said many times — in public — that I was in a state of mortal sin, and had I died, I would have been damned. I also revealed these sins were of a sexual nature and that they occurred over a prolonged period of time. I did not reveal the specific nature or details of the sins, because when I returned home to the Church, I did not think that a full public confession of details was necessary in order to start proclaiming the great mercy of God.

Perhaps that was a wrong assessment. I don’t seriously know. Perhaps along these years I should have been revealing of greater detail. That, I now think so, but more on that in a moment.

Whatever the matter, I will now reveal that for most of my years in my thirties, confused about my own sexuality, I lived a life of live-in relationships with homosexual men. From the outside, I lived the lifestyle and contributed to scandal in addition to the sexual sins. On the inside, I was deeply conflicted about all of it. In a large portion of my twenties, I also had frequent sexual liaisons with both adult men and adult women.

These are the sins of my past life in this area which are all now publicly admitted and owned by me. That was before my reversion to the Faith.

Since my reversion, I abhor all these sins, especially in the world of the many many other sins I have committed having nothing to do with sexuality. I gave in to deep pains from my youth by seeking solace in lust, and in the process, surrendered my masculinity.

Many of you know the story of my mother’s prayers and sacrifices and pleading to God on my behalf that I give up my sinful life and return home to the Church. As a last resort, she prayed to be given whatever suffering needed so that I would be granted sufficient grace to revert. It was shortly after that prayer that her very early stage stomach cancer was detected, which she died from a few years later.

During the last year of her life, I began to change by beginning to frequent the sacraments more often. When my mom died, I pledged at her coffin that I would change. I said, “Mom, what you went through for me, you will not have gone through in vain.” I returned fully and completely to the Faith and close to two years later, I began this apostolate.  

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Confession

  • In order to be open and honest about ourselves and our weaknesses, we have to actually trust God. We know the devil is wily and have complete confidence that he will come against us in a myriad of ways…whether we try to keep a secret or openly share our struggles, that ancient still-vigorous foe will find a way to snare us and incite others against us.
    Michael is a strong example of a man first snared by pride and self will who by the grace of God sees, admits and repents – now himself out there like a human fleece, in love and trust.

  • I have never had much use for Voris, but when I read this I knew he was a stronger man than me.

  • Good post, Don! I saw a similar one at the blogsite of St. Corbinian’s Bear. I posted this comment there:
    I have always thought that Michael Voris had been homosexual or done homosexual things, and frankly, I never gave a damn. So freaking what! I am a drug addict and an alcoholic (recovering). How the heck is my past any better? Or the past of any of us? The Big Book of AA says on page 69:
    “We all have sex problems. We’d hardly be human if we didn’t….”
    Anyone out there without sin able to cast the first stone? Therefore, as for Michael Voris, Acts 10:15 and 11:9 applies:
    “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”
    Regarding the Archdiocese of NY, now that its plans of calumny are laid waste, of course it denies a conspiracy to defame and ridicule Michael Voris and CMTV. 
    PS, I think some things Michael Voris has gotten into – like geocentrism – are nonsense and I do not always pay attention to him. But he is a good man and his Apostolate is doing the Lord’s work.

  • Why shouldn’t Michael show his evidence? Why does Michael get a pass? So far we have seen unsubstantiated accusations. This is not an attack on Michael but a plea for fairness.

  • I assume that if he has evidence it will be forthcoming.

  • All things are possible with God. It’s amazing the lengths to which God will go to recover one of his lost sheep, and the people he puts in our lives to make that happen. Mrs. Voris was another St. Monica. Thank you Donald for this story.

  • I thank God that He is my judge, and not man.

    For God knows our hearts.
    Man needs evidence. Man can not fully understand the heart. Man is insufficient and unable to hold a suffering heart in it’s sinless hands, and the one who took upon our sinfulness is the only one who knows the penitent’s heart.

    Henry. Pray no man asks you for evidence for your repentance. Pray.

  • Henry…his evidence may well slander various third parties. I doubt Mr. Voris will alow that, but….in the future, some may come forward voluntarily.

  • “Regarding the Archdiocese of NY, now that its plans of calumny are laid waste, of course it denies a conspiracy to defame and ridicule Michael Voris and CMTV.”

    The Archdiocese has denied it though it is possible that it was not officially sanctioned but planned by officials of the diocese without higher approval.

    A difference without distinction in the end.

  • I still don’t like the guy, but you know, if angels in Heaven rejoiced over his return to the fold, I can’t really be a jerk about it, can I?

  • Lot’s of folks have known about Michael’s past for a long time. It was inevitable that it would become public. But there remain mysteries about him, e.g., why he will not speak out about Pope Francis questionable theology and generally confusing statements. Despite this weakness I think Michael does good work and will pray for him as well as all good Catholic bloggers.

  • Michael, you wish that Voris complained…more? I never expected to hear that.

  • Pinky–

    Yes, about Pope Francis.

  • It seems rather doubtful to me that Mr. Voris would come forward with such a confession if something compelling was NOT in the offing. Also, this type of thing, the repenting of past sexual acts, especially if they be homosexual, is hardly in vogue today.
    Were he to wear his folly as a banner, he would be loudly acclaimed in the US Church.

    The overall account rings with a deeply pained and heartfelt candor—Does one talk of one’s mother’s death, and a vow to amend one’s life over her casket, as a light matter?
    I think not.

    His church ideas aside, I rather now have a new-found respect for Mr. Voris.

  • Well, I actually watched the video in question. I do recommend it…the story of his mom’s prayerful sacrifice is good. The boy seems strongly determined to persevere in truth.
    I liked the way he calls out Satan in the end, reminding how the evil one strikes at the heal the BVM, while she will crush his head.

  • Regarding the Voris situation:

    I do not say this is always the case, but tarring a person is an effective means of silencing them. “Outing” is often done by the very pink brigade themselves, when the opportunity presents itself.
    I was shocked a few years ago when a teacher and a friend at a well-known Jesuit university was rolled-up and sacked for propositioning a male student. I had never known his possible furtive orientation,.. but this is a reason why you don’t go drinking with your students (of any sex, I would think).

    However, the hypocrisy and the zero-to-60 speed of the dismissal in mid-semester, even, was breath-taking, as well as the lightning-quick broadcast to other schools by the quite-hypocritical lavender mafia. However, after all, he was a very conservative philosophy teacher, and this was the chance to permanently tar his reputation. A little bit like what it sounds like was in the offing against Voris? Let us just say, it is a familiar technique.

    One Jesuit called me after the incident, deeply troubled about the whole thing. “Do you know Fr. G. was jumping up and down on a couch in the community rec room, exulting about the dismissal of Dr. Z, shouting over and over again, “We finally got the bastard, we finally got the bastard!” I nearly dropped the receiver, speechless.

    “The end justifies thee means.” –Trotsky

  • God doesn’t make mistakes. God doesn’t make junk.

Bear Growls: Voris to Bloggers: Drop Dead

Thursday, October 29, AD 2015



Our bruin friend over at Saint Corbinian’s Bear has been on a roll lately:


Michael Voris is once again under the Bear’s scrutiny, because once again he has done something noteworthy. Since the Bear is not a Professional Broadcaster, he will go with an easy-to-understand, lawyerly chronological outline at the risk of burying the lede.

Voris’ Premise

Voris’ premise is that the bad guys are playing a game of pointing fingers of blame at conservatives when conservatives criticize Pope Francis. This is a welcome clarification of his recent “Failed Papacy?” Vortex, which the Bear found impossible to understand. Voris’ premise depends upon the idea that ordinary folks follow ecclesiastical politics and care. Voris gave three examples of how this has been tried.

First: “The Letter.” The letter circulated by some prelates was spun into an attack on the Pope. Some of them who had supposedly signed it, denied signing it. Voris apparently supposes this had traction with the man on the street.

Second: “The Tumor.” There was some speculation that the story released by an Italian newspaper was planted by evil conservatives to undermine Pope Francis’ papacy, although there were never any names suggested to the Bear’s knowledge. Again, Voris imagines that people follow this sort of “inside baseball.”

Third: “The Pope’s Enemies.” Cardinal Wuerl speculates about the Pope’s enemies. Once again, people are supposed to hear this, know who Cardinal Wuerl is, and agree with him. Thus we, the good guys, take heavy damage, according to Voris.

Liberals and Modernists use these tactics because they know they work, Voris says. In secular politics, criticize President Obama and liberals will call you a racist. Similarly, criticize the Pope and Modernists will say you, well, criticized the Pope. (A quibble: America has a built-in race factor bubbling under the surface that liberals can tap into in a way Cardinal Wuerl can’t in ecclesiastical politics.)

Now the reason we should not attack the Pope is because it is a bad tactic. For this reason, according to Voris, we should attack the evil men around the Pope.

Voris’ Solution: Ditch Blogs and Rely on the Professionals

This is where it gets interesting. It reminds the Bear of the scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman tells the guy at the library, “Back off, man. I’m a scientist.” Except now it’s “Back off, man. I’m a Professional Journalist.”

First, you have to have a real theological education to detect “subtleties and nuances.”

Second, you have to have professional, secular media experience.

Why, what do you know! We’re in luck! Michael Voris has both of these qualifications. In case you have failed to connect the dots, Voris actually states Church Militant TV has these ingredients. And they’re no fly-by-night blogs sensationalizing things for a few extra clicks.

And then he immediately asks for money: to buy a Premium Membership.

So do you get this? Don’t bother with a bunch of amateurs who will hose it all up. Stick with professionals, like, why, me! It’s like the famous 1975 Daily News headline, “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.” Except this time it’s “VORIS TO BLOGGERS: DROP DEAD.”

The Bear’s Reaction
The Bear can’t help but observe that if you allow the other side to control the debate, you’ve already lost. When the Bear practiced trial defense, he would always pick the prosecution’s most shocking piece of real evidence, maybe the murder weapon, to pick up and use before the jury. It showed everyone that the Bear was not afraid of anything the prosecution could present. It also desensitized them, thus eliminating the shock value.
The other side is going to do their thing, period. There are givens. You can’t let that dictate your strategy.
So the Bear is not sure he even agrees with Voris’ premise. This just sounds like the same old lyrics of “don’t criticize the Pope,” set to a different tune. The Bear is not convinced that most people are attuned to ecclesiastical politics as are we visitors, friends and woodland creatures, or Michael Voris’ Premium Members.
But that’s not even the main thing that moved the Bear to put paws to keyboard.
In case you missed it, unless you’re Michael Voris, you bloggers should take your cheap quest for clicks somewhere far from Catholic news. You don’t have a degree in theology? You don’t have extensive secular broadcast experience? Then you don’t have what it takes to be in the big boy’s game. You’ll miss the subtleties and won’t know how to present the story. And you don’t even have a rich backer to send you to Rome where you can look like a journalist, “live from Rome,” even though you have said you don’t act as one. (Which makes one wonder what the use of that formidable professional experience is, since Voris apologized for acting like a journalist in the “Harming the Pope” incident with Cardinal Burke on October 22 of last year.) 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Bear Growls: Voris to Bloggers: Drop Dead

  • Voris has put himself into a “Never speak any unkind truth about this pope” box, so he has first, he blamed the Kasperites only, then when the synod final report failed, he tried to blame previous popes, then he tried to blame his bloggers and catholic parents for the failures, and even uttered this gem; never fail to tell the truth.
    He would provide a great service to truth if he didn’t ignore his own advice, and play the game Adam played. “Lord, it was that woman You made…”

  • Michael Voris never seems to tire of shooting himself in the foot – or even a little further up. The first place I go to for Catholic News: TAC, Father Z, Toronto Catholic Witness, One Peter Five – NOT the Vortex. I like Father Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment too now that I have stumbled on it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t watch the occasional Vortex or like some of the things that Michael Voris says. But save us, Lord Jesus, from ourselves, I do wish he would stop shooting himself in the genitals! Arrrggghhh!

  • PWP: I only read TAC for Catholic news. Without YAC, I may read the NYT or “America” (not our Country). If I did that, I may wind up blind. Luckily I own only one ice pick . . .

Bear Growls: Michael Voris

Sunday, February 15, AD 2015




Initiating a new series.  I have been greatly enjoying the commentary at Saint Corbinan’s Bear.  Whenever I relay to the readers of TAC some of these, I will do so under the rubric Bear Growls.  The Bear has turned his attention to Michael Voris and his hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil policy in regard to Pope Francis:

Here it is in a nutshell: Michael  Voris will expose, criticize and ridicule any bishop of the Catholic Church who fails to adhere to his own conservative sensibilities. That is mostly what his flagship program, The Vortex, does, day after day. Michael Voris cannot stand the “Church of Nice,” (i.e. ordinary Novus Ordo parishes) nor the weak, compliant and corrupt bishops who lead them. However, one thing Michael Voris can’t stand is laying any mistake or misdeed at the feet of the Pope.

Hence we have Christine Niles of CMTV saying at least some forms of criticism of the Pope were “just unacceptable.” Michael Voris interjects an “amen.”

Michael Voris is the furthermost right of legitimate Catholicism. Everyone to the left is despised as the “Church of Nice,” and everyone to the right is dismissed as reactionaries.

It is very narrow spectrum of opinion, if you think about it!

Now, Michael Voris and the rest at CMTV know the problems with Pope Francis as well as anyone. They admit (albeit in a sort of hypothetical way) all the problems we talk about concretely here at SCB. So it isn’t that they are fans of Francis (as far as the Bear can tell), or do not cringe at his mistakes.

The ostensible reason for Michael Voris and his people to ignore Pope Francis is that if media powerhouses like CMTV, or The Remnant, start pecking at the Pope, in no time people will desert the Church for more appealing havens, such as SSPX, whom they dismiss as “schismatic.”

Mr. Voris also characterized the Catholic blogosphere by putting both hands by his head and making rapid “talking gestures” while babbling — apparently suggesting ill-informed chatter by hysterical malcontents.

Mr. Voris was quick to point out that the Pope could never err in doctrinal matters, other people do not understand infallibility, and the Pope can entertain and even express wrong ideas on a human level.

Fair enough. But the answer to that is: Mr. Voris, with all due respect, where have you been the last fifty years? Has it been changes in doctrine that have all but destroyed the Church? Or has it been everything but doctrine that has undermined our worship, polluted Catholic culture, and confused the faithful? The Pope does not have to infallibly change doctrine to do mischief! Indeed, why would he, when he can use “gradualism,” and “compassion” to change the implications of existing doctrine until the same words mean the opposite?

The Bear isn’t sure where Mr. Voris is coming from with regard to the Pope. The risk of driving people to SSPX seems small to the Bear.

But to pretend that the Pope cannot harm the Church so long as he does not exercise his infallibility is ludicrous. If adulterers are welcomed to the communion line, one may be sure it will not have been because any doctrine has been changed. Indeed, the Church will take pains to explain that nothing has really changed, but our times demand an enlargement of compassion, not following the letter of the law in some picky way that doesn’t meet human needs.

One supposes Michael Voris and Church Militant TV will pass over all that in silence, unless they can blame the Bishop of Poughkeepsie, instead of the Bishop of Rome.

The irony of what you are reading right now is that the Bear isn’t what you would call a “traditionalist,” not in the way traditionalists would recognize, anyway. He doesn’t think Francis is not really the Pope, and can personally take or leave the Latin Mass. He tells everyone at least once a week to “nail your foot to the floor in front of your favorite pew and die there.”

But to adopt a policy of ignoring Pope Francis short of him infallibly declaring the Moon to be made of green cheese is unsupportable in a Western institution. If God wanted robots blindly obeying the big cheese in every tiny detail, no matter how ridiculous or harmful, He would have not a pope in Rome, but an imam, and there would be a great big mosque where St. Peter’s sits, around which we would all deliriously orbit.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Bear Growls: Michael Voris

  • Where Michael Voris is going with all this is anybody’s guess. Bizarre enough is his see-no-evil policy with the Pope but now his attack on The Remnant Newspaper (which isn’t SSPX, by the way), the SSPX, Chris Ferrerra, Michael Matt,….. is just beyond the pale. He may or may not just be following orders from his superiors but either way, I just ignore him. I quit watching The Vortex a couple of years ago.

  • Michael Voris used to be good.
    So was Mark Shea once good.
    There – I used both names – people so unlike each other that they are the same in essence.

  • You can disagree with the pope (respectfully and insistently); as long as you don’t leave the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

  • I was never a devoted follower of Michael Voris. He, like Shea, Fr. Corapi and all the rest of us, as the current Roman Pontiff, are sinners and nobody should take very word from them as if it came from God.

    Maybe we need Pope Optimus Prime. Optimus Prime never sins. Optimus Prime looks for peaceful ways but strikes back at the enemy when called for. Even the voice of Optimus Prime sounds as if it were from God. After all, several years ago some supermarket tabloid revealed that Pope John Paul II’s secret plan was mechanical priests. Optimus Prime would have my son’s vote as Pope.

  • While I’m not beating the drums for Mr. Voris; it appears by the snidely comments that he has been a success. The Vortex as described is often critical regarding some aspect of what is going on in our Church. This can relate to a person or dogma. What no one mentions are the hundreds of hours of teachings available on numerous topics. Mr. Voris for my two cents does a tremendous service for our Church. Catechesis has been non existent for most or all of the last 50 years from my perspective. When I read what a Bishop’s main job is—TEACHING— I must conclude they have been derelict. I’m seventy years old and still remember bishop’s and priest’s actually teaching what our Faith requires of us from the pulpit. Rarely happens these days and more often than not it is some form of pablum that is espoused. Pre Vatican Council II all children were required to memorize the Baltimore Catechism which formed the basis and catechization for generations of children. Mr. Voris at least attempts to evangelize a Church population in dire need of it.

  • “human needs.” Human need is fulfilled by the Truth. The Truth is infallible or it is a lie.

  • Ray: You mentioned the Baltimore Catechism. I cannot tell you how many times as an adult, I am older than you, I have remembered what the good sisters taught me through the Baltimore Catechism that has set my feet back on the straight path starting with: “Who is God and Why did God make me.” “God made me to know, to love and to serve Him”: here on earth and attain heaven. If I had the wealth, I would put the Baltimore Catechism in every catechism class. “On Becoming a Person” (Carl Rogers’ philosophy) never mentioned God and was taught in every religion class across the country. sick.
    You also mention “This can relate to a person or dogma.” The doctrine, the dogma, the issue at hand relates to the Person of Christ and Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ on earth. To abandon this truth for an idle opinion (by idle, I mean not thought through to the truth) is to lead the infant souls away from their Creator, their Redeemer and their Sanctifier. To lead infant souls away from their sanctification is a sin, a bloody sin, that calls to heaven for vengeance.

  • Mary De Voe responding to Mary De Voe: ““human needs.” Human need is fulfilled by the Truth. The Truth is infallible or it is a lie.”
    Jesus said to test everything. I am relieved too, that the bear did not eat St. Corbinian. I was afraid that he might.

  • Truth is Jesus Christ, Mary, all infallible, always indefectible.

  • Mary: I keep a copy of the Baltimore Catechism close to my computer and continue to profit from its words of Truth. How fortunate we were to have had good faithful nuns to teach us our faith with such a wonderful instrument. My wife teaches PSR in our parish and still occasionally uses the old catechism to reinforce something from the new texts they currently use.

  • Michael Voris is promoting a cultic mindset among his followers. I’m a former cult member, and when Voris says don’t publically criticizes the Pope, a cold chill goes through me. Been there, heard that! But why is Voris telling people this? One possible answer is that he’s being influenced by Opus Dei members and supporters. Mike thinks very highly of OD but many Catholics, especially ex-members, believe OD is a cultic organization. Go to to see why they believe that it’s a cult.

  • Who does Christ see as the Moses of His day…which then is the Pope of His day?

    Matthew 23:2Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
    2 “Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.”

    That means they were Moses…not Bishops…Moses….one chair. Yet both Christ and John the Baptist used very strong language against them when …when…they needed to hear it.

  • Stephen: I believe that Josemaria Escricva is today a saint. In my youth taught by the good Sister’s of the Most Precious Blood and Notre Dame, we were taught to emulate the Saints. Members of Opus Dei are good Catholic folks, find it alarming that people attribute evil to good Catholics.

  • Ray: I don’t wish to attack a man who has been sainted by the Church, but all the evidence I’ve seen points to Opus Dei being a cultic organization. As a former cult member, I have to agree with the folks at ODAN about OD. The members of OD may see themselves as “good Catholic folks” but remember, the Pharisees saw themselves as “good Jewish folks”. And I remember that Jesus didn’t think to much of the “goodness” of those folks.

  • Unlike the Bishops and Priests that he criticises I don’t think Michael Voris is responsible for anyone deserting the One True Faith, neither is Pope Francis. Yet! If and when PF does cause people to leave (God forbid!) then I am sure MV will have some criticism of him. In the meantime I think everyone should just cool it and wait to see what will happen.

  • Voris is a prime example of why you should never take a man with a really bad toupee seriously. His judgement is obviously suspect.

  • The author of this article doesn’t understand the Michael Voris and as a result mischaracterizes many things.

    The Vortex is only a tiny part of what CMTV offers, which is catechesis for the faith. But let’s just focus on the Vortex since it’s so visible. He doesn’t equate “Church of Nice,” with “ordinary Novus Ordo parishes”. He regularly attends NO and is in favour of NO, properly practised according to the desires of Vatican II. Read the Vatican II documents. What we currently have is not what the council fathers wanted. And criticizing “nor the weak, compliant and corrupt bishops who lead them” should not be an issue. Why should a Catholic support corruption? The sex abuse scandal was as large as it was precisely because people kept silent to be “a good son or daughter of the Church”.

    Also it’s not true that he will “expose, criticize and ridicule any bishop of the Catholic Church who fails to adhere to his own conservative sensibilities”. He has criticized a hand full of bishops and then only for doing what most good Catholics would be troubled by. He spends a lot more time lauding bishops that have the courage to defend the faith.

    As for not criticizing the Pope, he’s made it clear. We’re Catholics because we stand by the Pope (Matthew 16:18), even if he’s one of the most corrupt corrupt Popes in history such as the ones on this list: . Does that mean that the Pope can’t seriously harm the Church. Of course he can and has. Historically, we have two schism and a major Protestant revolt laid at the foot of ineffective or bad Popes. But our mission to defend the faith, evangelize, and support good bishops and priest remains regardless of what happens in Rome. As a lay Catholic, we can’t do anything about that, and the average lay Catholic who has family commitments can do less. But the little we can do is all that’s required of us.

  • I think Michael Voris and/or his financial supporters are members of Opus Dei which forbids it’s members from criticizing the Pope . This position is, of course, completely irrational in view of Michael’s near total condemnation of the Bishops who happen to be employed by the Pope. If Michael is to have the credibility he needs he should free himself from his Opus Dei handlers who are after all also beholden to the Pope.

  • Opus Dei is not a cult. Most people that say this have never had personal interactions or experiences with Opus Dei. I have close friends who have left Opus Dei vocations who wouldn’t even say that Opus Dei is a cult.

    I was educated at an Opus Dei school. My daughter attends an Opus Dei school.

    I am not a member of Opus Dei nor are any members of my family. And I don’t intend to be. But I respect and love the way these organisations uphold the Faith, and provide a very personalised education that is extremely rare and unique.

    I have been hearing this garbage for 27years. Right back when mothers used to try and put fear in my own mother by telling her that students at the school are forced to pray the Rosary during Lunch whilst skipping rope! And that Opus Dei is a cult.

    Of course my mother ignored them. She has always been a lady who made up her own mind by using her God-given common sense.

    My siblings and I went onto achieve great academic results and brilliant Formation in the Faith. I had to tell my cousins who attended a Catholic school the basics- like receiving Communion in a state of sin is a Mortal Sin. That attending Church on Sunday is obligatory for Catholics. You know, the “duh” basics.

    They didn’t know the basics. They still don’t.

    Don’t read that garbage ODAN. Because it’s exaggerated, bitter and twisted. But, if you must read it, know that for every disgruntled ODAN advocate, there are thousands of fabulous, strong Catholics that are a result of their contact with Opus Dei organisations, people and Preists.

    Regardless of the above speel, I still do not like Michael Voris work. I don’t warm to the style.

  • Donald R: keep on keepin’ on! Thank you. Ray-I think the primary role of a bishop is Shepherd-to shepherd us from here to heaven; and to protect us from the wolves , hyenas, and coyotes. The hirelings pursue status, power, wealth and govt subsidies while the true bishops lay down their lives for us. Part of their job is, as you say, teaching. Mary de Voe-love that Mary responding to Mary. Reminds me of a grandson looking in the mirror holding up both hands and looking from one to the other as he said “oo bettah not do dat ting; oo bettah do dat ting.” Perhaps you should identify MaryI and MaryII so we know who’s who. I do like Escriva’s “God does not lose battles.” Michael V may not be infallible, but in my view he does a lot of good. Ezabelle, there is a reason everyone has different gifts-some people hear Michael V, some hear others – many are of God and many are used by God, with different voices and tone and language-but all for bringing folks back to Him. Re the family synod debacle, when I use my words “marxomaniac” and “kaspeomaniac,” I am sure some go “there goes Guy again;” but others appreciate them [St Athanasius, Athnasius Contr Mundum, used his word “ariomanicas” for the Arian heretics-some thought St Athnasius was off the deep end-but he was faithful and he was right]. Especially when I talk about RETA and the Deathocrats there are varied reactions; but to some it conveys a message. [RETA = racial eugenic targeted aboretion]. These comment sites are opportunites for all of us to try to speak truth and in some cases to try to speak comforting truth; in others a la John the Baptist, truth to power. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Guy McClung: “Perhaps you should identify MaryI and MaryII so we know who’s who.”
    Jesus achieved Himself in death on the cross. Christ’s Resurrection was achieved for Him by the Holy Spirit. When Jesus asks us to test everything, it holds with two witnesses, who are required to establish a judicial fact. Two witnesses, one would be God and the other would be man, that is, to make sure that God is He, Whom you are following. When Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” Jesus was telling Peter to follow Him, even to be crucified in Jerusalem, the same as when Christ said to the rich young man: “…come follow me.” So, to test everything would be to make sure that our lives are predicated on God, not on ourselves, as your grandson is doing.
    I am greatly amused by your MaryI and MaryII. I think I will stick with MaryI. See if you can get some Baltimore Catechisms over to you church, and thank you, Guy McClung, for the smiles.

  • Guy McClung: “Re the family synod debacle, when I use my words “marxomaniac” and “kaspeomaniac,” I am sure some go “there goes Guy again;” but others appreciate them [St Athanasius, Athnasius Contr Mundum, used his word “ariomanicas” for the Arian heretics-some thought St Athnasius was off the deep end-but he was faithful and he was right].”
    A changing culture requires a renewing vocabulary to identify and name the different heresies. God gave Adam the authentic authority to name everything. One that comes to mind is Anthony Esolen’s “pseudogamy” to name homosexual behavior. Your naming of “marxomaniac” and “kasperomainiac” hit home because these names actually carry the weight of their meaning. “We, the people” are to give visibility to deviance by shining the light of truth on the matter.

  • I believe Michael is showing due respect to Pope Francis for the sake of unity. All of us have been misled by the U.S. bishops for decades and Michael is finally exposing the reality. He is concise, informative and very refreshing. As his success accumulates, some will take a jab at him. He is not perfect but he is very, very good. As Saint Paul has stated, take the good and leave what is bad.

  • He has criticized a hand full of bishops and then only for doing what most good Catholics would be troubled by.

    Then why is the Bishop of Rome exempt – the very one who encourages them? It seems the only response CMTV has is: because Pope. Sorry, not very convincing. If anything, as Pope, he bears greater responsibility and thus should be subject to greater criticism.

    What we currently have is not what the council fathers wanted.

    Then why do we have it? Why haven’t the bishops, and the bishop of Rome, put an end to it? Answer: because we do have what the current hierarchy wants. It’s their call; it’s their fault (NB: Will give BXVI props for trying to change it, but too little too late; the rest have not even tried to stop it).

    As a lay Catholic, we can’t do anything about that

    Cop out. Of course we can. We can call a spade a spade, no matter the spade’s rank.

  • Ezebelle, you may not be a member of Opus Dei, but you sure picked up an elitist ,cultic attitude from them. You seem to think you’re superior to ordinary Catholics because of your education. Newsflash lady! What matters to God is a humble spirit. Cultic organizations like OD are great for putting an arrogant spirit into the minds they influence. I can see that attitude in you by the way you look down on that mother of eight and how you defend the Pope, even though he’s wrong. When I was a cultist, the leader was always right, and some people ‘misunderstood’ his remarks. That sounds sooo familiar!

  • Mary I-One parish I go to here regularly puts out many many copies of Ken Untener’s Little Books-black, blue etc. They have no nihil obstat and no imprimatur. But if I put out my Baltimore Catechisms, or even excerpts, I fear I would be asked to leave this parish and never return. c matt, you are so right re speaking out, see my Speak Out article at Catholic Lane site. Even the good thief, from his own cross, spoke out and proclaimed the truth that Jesus was Lord . . .and he won paradise very quickly. Canon Law says we have the right, and sometimes the duty, to speak out to the hierarchy and to the faithful. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • I am not an elitist. My parents were immigrants with little education. My mother till grade 6, and my father till grade 10. My father is a blue collar worker. We received an education on the back of a lot of sacrifice. In the same way my husband and I are doing now for our children.

    Don’t disregard the good. I’m not saying Catholic schools are bad. All I’m asking is for credit to be given to where credit issue. OD schools are fantastic academically (not the best- some public schools here out-do them), and their Faith formation is wonderful. Cardinal Pell was trying to reform the bad Catholic education here before he took up a post with the Vatican. And OD model was one he looked at closely.

    I just wander what contact you have had with an OD organisation. I don’t understand how you can make a claim about an organisation from reading 1 website.

    I do not claim to call the Mormon Faith a cult because I have had no contact with the Mormon Faith. I can look up websites that claim that the Mormon Faith is a cult, but that Internet is a jungle.

    I’m sorry about your terrible experiences with being trapped in a cult. That must have been horrific and the damage long lasting for you. I pray you find peace from it. Nobody should endure that suffering.

    I just can’t reconcile my own positive experiences with Opus Dei with those of ODAN. I would rather find out first hand before I make a judgement on something.


  • I agree that Michael Voris has been unfairly characterized by the bear.. I wish he was more of a burden bearing bear and less of an attack bear. Michael gets trouble for being too critical ( of bishops who are not good catholics) and also get in trouble for not being critical enough of the pope. I think it is fair to say that the pope is as yet an unmeasured quantity… hence the “popewatch” – the bishops Michael talks about are pretty well and fairly measured.

  • “-One parish I go to here regularly puts out many many copies of Ken Untener’s Little Books-black, blue -” Guy McClung

    They are put out every year here too, in both parishes I attend on weekends and during the week.. I have spoken to the priests in both places but they just laugh and say oh those have just been a standing order for so long….¿ sigh

  • Ezabelle, you only had contact with a very small part of the OD. The people who are critical of it have had more in depth contact with the inner workings of the organization. They’re the ones who have given their all to the group and have been hurt the worst by it.
    You seem to be eager to deflect any criticism of OD by making statements such as these.
    “OD schools are fantastic academically.” A lot of schools run by religious groups are “fantastic academically”. Bot if the main purpose of the school is to bend the mind to think in a very, narrow sectarian way, then all of those “fantastic academics” will be focused into serving a selfish sect, rather than the community at large.
    You seem to think it would be impossible to know anything about OD unless I had face to face knowledge of it. Lady, I was in the World wide Church Of God cult for nearly a decade, and I didn’t know the real story about the group until I left. Groups like the one I was in (and the one that educated you) know how to keep secrets and control information to their benefit. And your put down about only getting information from one website about OD, well, when I was coming out of the Armstrong cult, there was only one source I could go to get reliable information about it. It was a newsletter called the Ambassador Report. The AR was denounced by the cult’s leadership as a rag put out by disgruntled dissidents, but every thing in the Report was well documented. And it had to be, since it contained some stories about the personal lives of the cult leaders that could have ended up in a lawsuit, if the stories weren’t adequately documented. So, your one source criticism doesn’t hold water.
    Like wise, your statement saying you can’ call the Mormon Church a cult because you have had no contact with them. Do you have to have contact with a wild animal to know it’s dangerous? The LDS has been around for about 180 years. Many outsiders and former insiders have told us the real history of that organization, and their claims have been checked and double checked by researchers of various secular and religious biases for decades. Their basic conclusions point to the LDS as being a cult. And much of their research is available on the internet. Yes , the net is a jungle, but by looking at how many stories and testimonies can be collaborated, it’s possible to come to a conclusion about what Mormonism is all about.
    Your ‘positive experiences’ with OD doesn’t disprove what ODAN has documented. There are people in the cult I was in who are all a ga-ga about their ‘positive experiences’. But the overwhelming evidence against the group shows it was a negative experience for most of it’s members. IMO, you need to talk to some people who have seen the negative side of OD. It wouldn’t hurt.

  • Stephen, there is personal accountability that needs to occur. If you choose to be “brainwashed” then that is on you.

    My closest friend of more than 20 years became a numerary at age 16. She left in her early twenties. I remember picking her up from the Opus Dei centre where she lived for a coffee. She would be in tears. She knew she couldn’t live the life of a numerary. She is now in a very successful woman with an overseas post with Apple. Another friend left a few years ago and is now a Freelance journalist in Afghanistan. Another friend left and is now married with 2 children and works as a project manager. Another friend left after many years as a numeraryand is a lawyer working in a political office.

    None of these people in my talking with them consider OD a cult. They took ownership of their choices. Having said this, there are many very happy numeraries living in centres.

    I have heard and seen the ugly side. The ugly side was because of a handful of ugly people- bullies. They came from a Spanish culture where you became a nunerary at 16years and that’s just normal there. They took orders. They didn’t question their path. These people are happy with their choices. It doesn’t always work in the liberal West here. We question a lot! And rightly so. OD is a Spanish organisation founded under an unstable political era. It has since changed and become more open to work better in countries outside of Spain.

    Regardless, none of these people who I know, who left OD, take ODAN with any true credibility. They don’t consider OD a cult even after their life in there.

    I have read ODAN. I take it with a grain of salt because of its “victim” mentality. A true victim of a cult would, I would think, be sexually, mentally and physically abused, harmed, their family divided, involve Satanic elements, use mind control techniques, shun society etc… There is no personal accountability in ODAN.

    There is NO organisation with its negatives. There is no organisation that doesn’t want to increase its “membership”. There is no organisation that is free from error. Anything run by humans will always be problematic at some stage. Look at the Catholic Church over the centuries!

    Again, I’m sorry about your experiences. God Bless you abundantly.

Michael Voris, Say Hi to Saint Paul

Thursday, October 23, AD 2014

Hilarious.  Michael Voris apologizes for a story:


Hello everyone. Michael Voris coming to you from Rome with a clarification. This past weekend we aired a breaking news report about Cardinal Raymond Burke having granted an interview to a secular outfit in which he publicly revealed for the first time he was going to be transferred AND, in his estimation the pope not speaking out openly about the crazy ideas floating around the synod was harming the church. We decided to go with the story for two main reasons.

One – the tone of discourse had not risen to that level prior – that harm was being done to the Church and that he had now CONFIRMD he was going to be transferred.

Secondly – unlike much of the “inside the Catholic world” news reports that had been published before – THIS one had been released by the secular media – it had broken out of the Catholic media bubble and into the mainstream.

We approached the story and its details strictly from a journalistic point of view. In hindsight, that was a mistake because ANOTHER unintended impression was generated – that we were criticizing the Pope.

I could give a number of reasons why we didn’t forsee this – being close to the story here on the ground, being tired etc., but they aren’t sufficient to offset the unintended impression.

Given that some people may think we were criticizing the Pope, it was wrong to air the story. I alone made the decision so the responsibility is entirely mine. Again, I was approaching this from a journalism aspect, and not enough, or at all, from an apostolate standpoint. Other media outlets who cover Catholic things can run with the story as a newsworthy story, but this apostolate has an additional filter. What we do at Church is use the tools of the new media to further the cause of the Church. Period. We don’t use them as an end in themselves. On this occasion, I unthinkingly inverted those priorities and ran with it. For that I offer you my deepest apologies and ask your forgiveness.

I have dedicated the remainder of my life to serving the Church and to have to consider that I did something that brought some harm to Her makes me heart sick. On a personal note, to show you how bothered in spirit I am by my actions, I chose not to receive Holy Communion on Sunday, and have gone to confession over this entire matter.

Now .. shifting to the harm to the Church question, again, the harm has come in that some individuals have interpreted this report as being a criticism of the Pope, and by extension the Papacy, and by further extension the Church.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Michael Voris, Say Hi to Saint Paul

  • 100% correct! Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church – He and NO ONE else. The Pope is to be respected for the office he holds, but flattery of Peter does Peter no good and the Church great harm.

  • The man who happily carpet-bombs any Catholic bishop who doesn’t have “of Rome” in his title is worried about how his reports affect the Church?


  • This is a real head scratcher. There has to be more to the story or the sacramentals around his neck are cutting off his circulation.

    I’d actually prefer an apology from him for wearing Notre Dame paraphernalia given the harm that the “University of South Bend” does to the Church every day.

  • How am I supposed to know what he’s saying without random words being highlighted on the screen?

  • It is sad but true that people who are drawn to the humanity of this pope see perceived “criticism” of him as unfair or unreasonable because … he is so loving and merciful. Many will not listen to a discussion of what has played out in this synod that gives emphasis or credence to the remarks of Burke or Pell.
    Giving people the impression of criticism of the pope, closes their ears, and Michael, like most of us, hope people’s ears will remain open.
    I think it is fine that he offered this clarification in an attempt to help people understand that the coverage provided by Church Militant is not motivated by ill will, and that he does respect the office and the person of the pope. Everybody who writes here knows how easy it is for words to be misunderstood, exaggerated by the hearer. The mission efforts of Church Militant can easily be rendered useless.
    The kind of heartfelt confusion and chaos that many many people are feeling is just what the devil hopes for. He probably loves to read the sniping between Catholics. Anywhere there is a crack or a fissure, the devil comes with his crowbar of malice, and accusations of malice. It is important that Michael tries to make clear that his criticisms are not out of malice.
    Most people don’t read the word “criticism” as a disinterested appraisal of something, but see negativity and even malice in the very word. He is not trying to reach just the people who are educated about legal meaning, but those also who just respond with their heart to what they perceive.
    If he felt he had something to confess about his own emotional response to the characters and their machinations- God bless him for earnestly looking to his own motives.

  • I had hopes the other day that he’d finally pulled his head out of the sand. Alas, apparently not. This clarification video turned me off for a couple of different reasons. Obviously the first being that he still believes that to criticize the Pope (or to report on anything that might even sound like he’s criticizing the Pope) is wrong, wrong, wrong. But what bothered me even more, I think, is his public confession and telling us all how he’s mortifying himself and what sacrifices he’s making to atone for these great sins of his. Sorry, that whole part came off really poorly, no doubt exactly the opposite that you no doubt were going for. Seemed like false humility. Look at me! Look at me! Michael, what you perceive as your sins are between you and God. Good grief. It’s no wonder I ceased listening to his shows months ago. This confirms it.

  • So Voris is showing and admitting that he also has the same flaws that you point out that the popes have.
    I actually quite like Voris. Sure, he is often OTT in some of his criticisms, but he also applauds bishops that do the right thing, and IMO there is a radical voice required in the Church to pull it back from many of the modernist errors that have barnstormed into the Church over the past 50 years.
    I applaud him for standing up for the Truth – I also criticise him, as he does some bishops, for ocasionally getting it wrong. Whe one puts oneself “out there”, one will always cop a lot of flack.

  • Don the Kiwi & Anzlyne.

    For what’s it worth I’m in your camp on this one.
    It is so Easy to fault others for trying to serve and making a mistake in the process.
    Only God knows hearts…anyone who claims otherwise is unaware of his own heart.

  • Elizabeth- Your take was an interesting one in calling this false humility. On the one hand he should make a public apology if what he did was of a public nature, which it was. On the other, we don’t need to know the details of how he has mortified himself or what sacraments he has or hasn’t availed himself.

    He’s entitled to his foibles like the rest of us.

  • @Paul D: Perhaps “false humility” wasn’t the correct phrase. Maybe I should’ve said over-the-top, melodramatic mea culpas.

  • Voris would be horrified over Pat Buchanan’s statement from
    his recent article, that Francis may be leading the church into heresy
    should he change the teachings of the church on divorce and
    remarried Catholics and on gay unions and active homosexuals
    receiving communion, both of which would violate the principle of
    infallibility, and therefore nullify Francis’ Papacy.

  • I think Michael Voris was being himself, not using “false humility” because this is the style in which he always speaks. He probably felt he was between two hard positions because he has a large following and didn’t want to be responsible for causing people to be cynical about the Pope and his authority. He might have felt if he sounded critical that he may be sounding like he’s critical of the papacy in general. I think the work he has done has reached a whole new audience not formerly familiar with the intricacies of the politics surrounding certain men in the church and he is to be commended for exposing a lot of that. However since he put himself out there, he is under a microscope as our culture of watching is always waiting to pounce on small things.

  • Has Michael forgotten that we are proudly ‘papists’ not patently ‘papolators’? Of course loyal and respectful criticism of the Pontiff is no mortal sin: the pope himself would be the first to admit he needs it. The history of the papacy is enough evidence, for we know that some popes were not, putting it mildly, quite up to scratch. But perhaps Michael felt an understandable concern for the orthodox standing of his media apostolate , and as the saying now goes, who am I to judge?

  • I am a supporter of Michael Voris and most disappointed in his retraction. He indefensible support of Pope Francis undermines his stated mission. He finds fault with most of the Bishops but not with their leader. This doesn’t make sense. My guess is that Opus Dei has something to do with this.

  • Writing in the aftermath of the First Vatican Council, Bl John Henry Newman was at pains to warn against the Ultramontanist tendency of creeping infallibility.
    “I observe that, conscience being a practical dictate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope’s authority only when the Pope legislates, or gives particular orders, and the like. But a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it be observed that the Vatican Council has left him just as it found him here.”
    And he offers a number of examples:
    “Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sextus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts.”

  • Sounds like some are reacting to MV’s attack of conscience as a personal indictment. It reminds me of Debbie in Days of Wine and Roses in a drunken stupor mocking “Sober Joe”.

  • Nope, my comments merely reflect the ahistorical nature of the scruples of Voris.

    “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Fr. Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.

    “Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers.” “The court is the leprosy of the papacy.” Pope Francis

  • Is his hair real? And is it his?

  • On this one, I would give Voris the benefit of the doubt. He said an impression was generated that he was critical of the Pope. If that was not his intention but enough folks made comment as such, then he may have felt obligated to make a public correction. I do wonder where the objections came from.

    I would be more surprised if the Pope moved toward pastoral changes that in effect denuded Church doctrine and Voris did not opine.

  • Franco: I was about to say that changing the teaching on the inviolability of marriage would cancel infallibility. The Vicar of Christ must teach infallibly, but you, Franco, have said it better…and that business about the assault and battery that is sodomy to be overlooked is just plain crazy.

  • In the matter of the assault and battery that is sodomy to be overlooked, some people, some priests believe that two adults consenting to sodomy make it innocent, but man cannot consent to sin, any sin without having sinned; man cannot consent to any crime without committing a crime and therefore, sodomy remains a sin to which man cannot commit his immortal soul.
    Going to hell to prevent other souls from going to hell is the no greater love than this: that man lay down his life for a friend.
    As far as infallibility is concerned, Bishops Burke and Pell have already pulled out of the Magisterium on any requirement to dissolve the indissolubility of marriage, and therefore, Pope Francis cannot speak “ex Cathedra” without Bishops Burke and Pell.

  • Hey everyone. .

    Where did any of you read or hear that Michael Voris thinks no one should criticize the Pope? Why this response? Clearly it is a decision of his apostolate to have no pope-bashing, none. I can see that. I can admire it.

    But Michael in no way is trying to bind others to the same decision.

    I do not hear Michael saying no one should criticize the pope. I think he saying he is not going to do it. He has decided not to, not in his public ministry. He does not fawn as so many do. He does report.

  • Mary De Voe wrote “Pope Francis cannot speak “ex Cathedra” without Bishops Burke and Pell”

    Of course he can (which is not to say that he will)
    The First Vatican Council taught that “when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church”

    “Ex sese non ex consensus ecclesiæ” – of itself and not from the consent of the Church means that the Pope can issue an ex cathedra pronouncement, even if all the bishops oppose him on it. It was specifically aimed at the Gallican heresy, which said the pope was only infallible, when he spoke in union with the bishops (by which they usually meant the French bishops).

  • I didn’t realize that Voris’s organization is called St. Michael’s Media. St. Michael isn’t a communicator, he’s a warrior. St. Gabriel is a communicator. That sums up Voris perfectly – he never seems to grasp the whole picture correctly. It also fits him in that he thinks an attack is the proper way to communicate.

  • Pinky

    St Michael is the patron saint of grocers (amongst others)

  • Michael Voris is “Trapped and Exposed” in his own “Vortex”, in this video. His Backer must have dressed him down and now Michael is as if, a Crying Cocker Spaniel, who infuriated his “Master.”

  • A post I can respect for Voris …. now, what kind and type of bloggers could he have been referring to? Hmm.

  • I was a supporter of Voris until his dumb-ass must not criticize the Pope statement came out eight months ago. As a former cult member, I’m alarmed at the blind obedience this idiot is demanding of his followers. Hasn’t he ever read church and world history on what happens when people give that type of obedience to a man? Voris’s CMTV has become a Papolatrist cult. And, fwiw, I believe that his contacts with Opus Dei members has something to do with it.

  • I seriously doubt that every tom, dick and harry are qualified to pass judgment on the actions of the pope.

    and, most of what is see on the internet are every tom, dick and harry offering their opinions like they were delegated by God to give them.

    and, most of the opinions I have read suffer from a lack of knowledge and understanding related to matters that are NOT black and white.

    for example, nowhere and at no time have I read or heard that any member of the hierarchy is advocating eliminating the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage, but, boy are a lot of people writing as though such a thing is imminent.

    another example, nowhere and at no time have I read or heard that any member of the hierarchy is advocating that some sexual acts performed outside of a Christian marriage may be moral.

    fear of the pope does not come from the Holy Spirit.

  • This did it for me. I liked Voris but he is now part of the Church of Nice. Watch Remnant TV for the REAL Catholic News

  • The part about not receiving communion was really weird. Ostentatious and TMI. I interviewed Ann Barnhardt for the podcast today, and we talked about this (somewhere near the end…don’t remember exactly where.)

    Personally, I think the CMTV decision to avoid any criticism of the pope — even when that means simply saying what another cardinal said in a news brief — is a major strategic misstep. People are waking up to what happened at the synod, and who is pulling the strings, and it’s time for some candor.

    To me it seems only logical to conclude that if Voris believes he sinned by quoting Burke, he must think Burke sinned by saying what he said. And Cardinal Burke doesn’t need any more enemies right now.

  • Very apt title.
    Very true comment.

  • I loved Voris trying to pin Forte down on the gifts gays bring to the Christian community ( I believe repentant gays alone bring incredible gifts and they do in humble demeanor)… but this no criticizing the Pope on content is off the wall but was supported by a lady at Patheos because that’s what some ladies do within family…they stop all criticism at dinner.

  • Bill, I loved the exchange with Forte also. Cardinal Forte’s first few words in response were revealing. He drew from is holster the word “ontological” and claimed it was a difficult question. We all now know he wrote the few paragraphs in section of the relatio. This was a clear attempt to do the proverbial tap dance. Voris nailed him with a precise and concise question. Forte was rather embarassing to watch and Voris was fantastic!

  • I get tired of these ‘over the top’ mea culpa scrupulosities. We are called to ‘criticize’ or maybe as the Bishops have indicated in the Synod a change of ‘language’ maybe to ‘correct’ irregular Catholic mutterings from our prelates. (all in the name of political correctness, of course) What is wrong with ‘calling a spade a spade?’ If we do so in charity with no personal attacks, isn’t that what we are called to do?

    A second thought…….are Catholics so ‘sophisticated’ that they don’t give a second thought (or a first) to the possibility that we are in fact living in critical times in Church history? Many mystics have prophesied about such times and about the Popes in such times, but maybe they are all to be dismissed? Padre Pio for example, one of the greatest mystics of our times, and one of many: ‘Masonry will evade the Vatican all the way up to the Pope’s slippers.’ I guess no one takes any of that seriously. Padre Pio was just a loon? We are to trust that ALL Papal elections are valid and Popes are ALWAYS infallable even to the time of Jesus second coming? Somehow, there is not much awareness that any time, including now COULD BE ‘end times’. Not saying that it is now, but no one watches? There will never be a ‘bad Pope’ that needs ‘correction’ ? Incredible. That the mysticism of the Church has been terribly damaged since Vat. ll is so very evident, even among ‘traditional’ Catholics.
    Watch and Pray… motto.

  • Donald R. McClarey well said!

  • I have no idea what happened to your comments Tom. They are not in our Trash or Spam files and I did not delete them.

  • Pingback: 11 Ways the Synod Failed Pope Francis’ Vision -

The Great Shea-Voris Grudge Match

Sunday, October 20, AD 2013

Mark Shea and Michael Voris recently met for some verbal sparring:


Before I start to describe all that I recall regarding the event, in the interest of transparency I have to say that I would place my own views in closer proximity to the Voris camp than to the Shea camp, although I do greatly respect and enjoy reading/watching both gentlemen’s work.

Since Mr. Shea was arguing in the affirmative on the topic, he gave his opening arguments. The mic was then passed to Mr. Voris, and this is where things quickly became a bit heated. In his first turn or two at the microphone, Michael Voris focused less on the substance of the debate, but instead started referencing quotes that Mark Shea had written on his blog regarding, Michael Voris, Michael Voris’s followers, etc. Michael Voris clearly came to the debate with an ax to grind.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that what Shea has written on his blog regarding Voris was both juvenile and irresponsible (you can search Mark’s blog for yourself), but I have to say that this tactic by Voris didn’t reflect well on him. Where I was sitting, there was a chorus of groans erupting when it became clear that Michael Voris was starting in with the personal attacks rather than addressing the question posed. Thankfully, this was the most contentious portion of the debate, which only lasted around 45 minutes. Everything following that moment was a bit more civil, with the two even finding some common ground.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Great Shea-Voris Grudge Match

  • There was a great fight last night that says should be a candidate for Fight of the Year.

    “Siberian Rocky” Ruslan Provodnikov defeated the defending champion Mike “Mile High” Alvarado. Here is the reporter’s description of the end of the fight:

    “Ruslan´s face expression when he knew he had won the fight is just priceless, the big smile and his eyes were the perfect ending for the Siberian Rocky real life movie.”

    Didn’t get to see the fight, but sounds like a good a time.

  • I like Mark Shea, I follow his blog, but rarely I read it. I did not have much patience with him. As you said, he is too juvenile to me, especially regarding republicans, conservatives, just war theory, pewsitter readers,…

    I think he tries to be in the middle, but makes many mistakes, and use bad words.

    Regarding Voris, sometimes he push too hard, but he almost always right.

  • And, by the way, I love Fr. Barron, but it is true he runs way from “controversial” (there are not really controversial) issues, like abortion, gay marriage or even hell. Voris is right.

  • I’ve had limited exposure to either of them. From what I’ve seen, they both display the worst traits of the internet era. It’s impossible to provide a steady feed of calm, thoughful postings, and it’s very difficult to remain charitable at all times.

  • Pingback: Superior Catholic Schools Exceed Common Core Standards -
  • I love good ol’ boxing .. and despise that new MMA cheap crude. It’s orthodoxy versus new age. Also, let’s not stoke the Shea v Voris match. Both have good matches and bad matches …. like each and every one of us. Worst still is the pitting of Don “legal beagle” McClarey against His Holiness Francis “the Argentine Vicar” in a 12 round, winner take all brawl.

  • The notion that Fr. Barron runs away from controversial issues such as abortion, gay marriage and Hell is laughable. He just addresses them with the measure of an adult rather than sophomoric ridicule, and his commentary about them is always 100% orthodox and correct.

In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

Monday, April 30, AD 2012

Agreeing with something Mark wrote in criticizing Michael Voris?  This might just be my last post at The American Catholic.

All kidding aside, I second Mark’s concerns regarding Vorris’s association with E. Michael Jones.  As Shea details:

Let us be clear about what is happening here. Marc Brammer and Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning, will be working hard to mainstream somebody
Jim Stone shows Israel Behind Fukashima Disaster
The European Jewish Union Exonerating Everything Jewish
Jewish Child Molesters
Mossad Involvement in 9/11
Jewry’s push for War with Iran
Jewish Atzmon Says Merah Was a Mossad False Flag Agent
and, last but not least, E. Michael Jones: Who is the World’s Real Enemy?(Guess who?)
(For a full catalog of Sungenis’ vast corpus of crazy statements about the Jews, go here.)

I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes Mark can exaggerate (I’m being charitable here) others’ viewpoints, but I don’t believe he is doing so here.  Jones has a fairly extensive record of what can only be described by any reasonable person as anti-Semitism, and yet Voris is happy to give the man a platform.

I’m sure there will be those that object that Voris himself does not hold these views, and that this is a game of guilt by association.  I would counter that providing an open platform to such a person as Jones is beyond reprehensible.   People should be able to engage in honest discussion with others who hold differing viewpoints, but this goes well beyond that.  There are certain lines that when crossed should disqualify individuals from ever being taken seriously again.  When you willingly not only associate yourself with such individuals, but actually provide a forum which grants a certain amount of legitimacy, then you should also be taken to task

And of course leave it to the very first commenter on Mark’s post to play the “but what is anti-Semitism?” game.  It’s an insipid attempt to change the discussion and avoid having to address the issue at hand.

I haven’t gotten involved with previous discussions about Voris because I haven’t really seen that much of his work.  And I think it’s fairly well-known that I have had my share of disagreements with Mark, to say the least.  So I have no personal axe to grind with Voris.  But he should be held to account for his decision to associate with Jones.

Continue reading...

101 Responses to In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

  • There is an alarming trend with ultra-conservatives (don’t get started, I am a frequent EF Mass attendee and can sing a mean Missa del Angelis!) towards anti-semitism. From Mel Gibson to SSPX BIshop Wiiliamson, they have moved from praying for Israel to accept her Saviour to downright sinful anti-semitism.

  • E.M. Jones was, once upon a time, an engaging and insightful writer. Sorry to hear about all this.

  • Yeah, E. Michael Jones is an anti-semitic, conspiracy mongering nutcase:

  • Right-wing commentary is the most potent stuff in the sphere…..and then someone mentions the joooos and it is like watching a helicopter with its rear rotor shot off.

  • It should be understood that Voris didn’t just happen to do this interview. He, Marc Brammer, and Jones are now business partners.

    That’s why I say Voris is deliberately mainstreaming Jones’ antisemtism. The goal is to make this stuff normal and acceptable, all while portraying themselves as valiant champions of True Catholic Faith who are standing up to evil bishops (like Chaput(!)). And note the kooks in my comboxes who are cheering for it. This guy is poison.

  • I don’t endorse anti-Semitism as I’ve always understood it, which is a hatred for Jews as a race or for the Jewish religion.

    But I sure get accused of it often enough for simply questioning the wisdom of the United States’ apparently unconditional support for Israel or for my own traditional Catholicism. And I think some of us are a little sick of this card being played, over and over again. I really resent it, and I can see how it can push some people right into anti-Semitism.

    It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC, as well as traditional Catholics, are pushing each other into mutual hatred sometimes. The SPLC puts traditional Catholic groups on their “hate watch” list, groups that have never made a single threat against a single Jewish person organization, who have simply taught what the Church has taught for 2000 years. The traditional Catholics react with hostilities for Jews as such, which further justifies the scrutiny they’ve been put under. It’s a cycle I’d like to see come to an end, but don’t think will.

    The bottom line is that while I absolutely reject the insane conspiracy theories of the sort advocated by this writer (of whom I’ve never heard), I also reject the race-baiting that Jewish groups engage in with people who simply disagree with their political positions, or who proclaim the traditional faith. I am willing to die for the traditional faith, including its teachings on the Jews and the Old Covenant. And no matter how the teaching itself may offend the Jews, it is also a historical fact that the Papacy absolutely forbade anyone to do violence to Jews, or to spread blood libels, despoil them of their property, etc. Those bulls are still in force as far as I am concerned.

  • Michael Voris is absolutely wrong in supporting an anti-Semite.

    I have been accused of being a Zionist. That gratifies me. I hope Israel kicks the Islamic fanatics back into the stone age.

    I want a strong and powerful Israel with lots of thermonuclear weapons. Don’t like that? Too bad. I don’t care any longer. I won’t argue the point with anyone. Say what you want. Israel free and secure forever!

  • When it comes to Jews my sentiments are those of Pope Pius XII:

    “On the 28th of April 1944 the Palestine Post published an article entitled ‘A Papal Audience in War-Time’. A young Jewish man told how three years before he had managed to meet the Pope with the help of a German priest. In 1941, after escaping from Germany, the young man entered the Apostolic Palace. He was filled with fear since there were also a few German soldiers present at the papal audience, but he managed to talk with Pius XII for a few minutes. He told the Pope about the conditions of five hundred Jewish refugees living in poverty in Rhodes and held captive by the Italian military who were waiting to hand them over to the Germans.

    After telling the Pope who he was, Pius XII replied “You have

    done well to come to me and tell me this. I have heard about it before. Come back

    tomorrow with a written report and give it to the Secretary of State who is dealing

    with the question. But now for you, my son. You are a young Jew. I know what that

    means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!”

    Then raising his voice so those who were close by could clearly hear his words, Pius XII said “My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on this earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!”

    In the latest issue of ‘Inside the Vatican’, the American scholar William Doino, author of several papers and articles on Pius XII, managed to give a name and a face to the author of this story (

    It is Heinz Wisla: Jewish, born in Germany, at the time of the audience he was 21 years old. In his writings during the winter of 1941-1942, Wisla attested that, thanks to the personal intervention of the Pope, the Red Cross saved the Jews who had been imprisoned and took them to Italy. This is yet another testimony of the behaviour and actions of Pius XII, wrongly considered an ‘anti-Semitic’ Pope by some publications.”

  • If Jones had ended that little history lesson with “Well, what are you going to do about it, whitey?” it would not have been out of place.

  • “I hope Israel kicks the Islamic fanatics back into the stone age.”

    For a lot of Islamists that’s what–two hours ago?

  • “If Jones had ended that little history lesson with “Well, what are you going to do about it, whitey?” it would not have been out of place.”

  • Sometimes the pot is right when it calls the kettle black.

  • Mr. Price,

    I did NOT say that I hope Israel kicks the Islamists back into the stone age. I said the Islamic fanatics – you know the kind: those who make women wear hoods over their heads and treat them as slaves, those who teach little children to be suicide bombers on Israeli school buses, those who declare that Israel should be driven inot the sea, those who pilot jet aircraft into towers filled with thousands of innocent people.

    And by the way, we are only branches grafted in. We had better not become haughty and self-satisfied as the “new Israel.” Read Romans 11. St. Paul said that all Israel will be saved.

    I despise and loathe anti-Semitism. I also despise and loathe Muslim women and children being treated in the way that their religion treats them – just for the record.

  • Paul,

    You’re right. We shouldn’t be haughty and self-satisfied as the New Israel.

    But the Catholic Church IS the New Israel, and Jesus Christ was the son of God. Both beliefs are antithetical to Judaism, and there are some Jews, especially in Israel, who virulently hate Christianity.

    It would really be shocking and amazing if there was ANY group of people on the Earth that didn’t have members who really hated people of other groups.

  • Paul, it was a misfired attempt at humor. As in, they’re only two hours out of the Stone Age *right now.*

    “How can you tell if they’ve been bombed back to the Stone Age?” and the like.

    The main difference I can see between the murderous fanatics and Islamists is the former tries to murder you and your loved ones, while the latter patiently explains to you why you deserve it.

  • Maybe Vorhis et al., are just depressed a$$#oles.

  • Pingback: I Agree with Mark Shea’s taking on of Michael Voris. This article expresses well why he should be of concern to Catholics everywhere | Catholic Canada
  • “It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC….”

    The SPLC is not a Jewish organization in any explicit sense. In fact, claiming that they are would plausibly be considered defamatory to any number of Jews — or at least those who recognize Morris Dees as the shamelessly self-aggrandizing huckster that he is. (And for what it’s worth, Wikipedia lists him as a Unitarian.)

  • Just a tangential observation, Voris’ identification of Murray as a participant of the infamous Hyannisport, MA meeting with the Kennedy’s (around the 40 minute mark) is historically incorrect — Murray not only wasn’t present, he reportedly perturbed by Kennedy’s attempt to sever any connections between one’s religious and political creeds. “To make religion merely a private matter,” Murray argued, “was idiocy.” (See: JFK’s Houston Speech at 50: Three Views, by George J. Marlin. The Catholic Thing 9/9/10.

    If there’s one thing I’ve gathered from reading Murray, it’s that he is appropriated by both ends of the Catholic political spectrum, and what Murray actually countenanced in his lifetime is often different from speculation of what Catholics like to imagine he would have, or might have endorsed. (Of course, being dead, he’s not very adept at defending himself from exploitation).

  • Gotta hand it to Jones, though — that part about Archbishop Chaput being involved in a black operation, continuing the devious work of Murray, Luce and the CIA to the point of infiltrating the papacy itself (“occupying the mind of [Pope Benedict XVI] and he doesn’t even know it“) was a new twist I hadn’t heard before.

  • This runs rampant through Shaw’s alleged mind. “Why do we live like this? The violence and the hatred, Bernardo . . . ” With apologies to whoever copied “West Side Story” from Shakespeare.

  • I have a copy of Murray’s “We Hold These Truths,” and what I’ve read so far is very worthwhile. I think the problem is that he’s been soundbitten and turned into a totem, mostly by the left. I suspect he would not appreciate it.

  • I don’t know Mike Jones, I’ll make my judgement after watching the video with Voris.

    So far, I know he got fired from Notre dame for being pro-life.

  • I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. As a good friend of mine likes to say, sometimes Christians are persecuted for their Christian beliefs and sometimes they’re just persecuted for being a-holes. Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage. Just a thought.

  • @ Francis

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.” True in general cases, but in this specific one, is there material evidence, or is there simply circumstantial occurrences and innuendo? OK, don’t answer that. Not relevant to the topic. I hope and pray Fr. Corapi is innocent, but I am a pessimist by nature. 🙁

    @ Dale

    Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    @ Bonchamps

    If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it. BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts, and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.

  • I just saw that Shea posted a follow-up to this, too. This can only end very badly. I don’t know what they were thinking in starting a business collaboration with Jones.

  • Mike Jones sounds reasonable, he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    “I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. ”

    what evidence do you have that he got fired for another reason?

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.”

    Fr. Corapi was an excellent priest who has taken a terrible fall, I hope he comes back.

  • Jasper, if you find Michael Jones to be “reasonable,” then there’s honestly nothing we can do for you.

    he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. If I were to go on a long rant about how black people were responsible for all the crime and villainy in the world, and then said that “of course, I’m not a racist,” that declaration would not in fact absolve me of racism.

  • “And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. ”

    I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.

  • Listen a little more closely to how Jones defines anti-Semitism. That’s a very narrow understanding of it. A person can be an anti-Semite without having a purely racial prejudice against Jews. Some of the commenters at Shea’s blog (including Shea) already picked up on that. I think Paul Zummo’s point (above) is on target as well.

    In regard to Jones’ firing at Notre Dame (supposedly merely for being openly pro-life), all I’m pointing out is that all we have is his personal say-so. What corroborating evidence is there for Jones’ claims? Considering his affinity for conspiracy-theories, it seems reasonable to question whether he may have imagined or exaggerated a conspiracy against him at Notre Dame as well. In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general. Maybe what he says about his firing is true. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s partially true.

    Regardless, from what I have seen, it’s a mistake for Voris and his enterprise to collaborate with Jones. This is bound to end very badly.

  • “In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general.”

    was he paranoid about the corruption and heresy in church when he wrote about it back in the 80’s?

  • Voris is not a “business partner” with E. Michael Jones.

  • You missed the point about Jone’s view of what “anti-Semitism” means, Jasper. It’s unduly narrow. And your point about what he wrote isn’t really relevant to mine. I didn’t say Jones has never been correct about anything. I said that he’s into conspiracy theories and in my experience people like that tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general – increasingly so the longer they stay engaged in that kind of theorizing. I said he may or may not be right about what actually happened at Notre Dame. But I’d like to see corroborating evidence other than his personal say-so.

    If Voris intends to increase his collaboration with Jones, I think it’s a mistake that will not end well for him and his enterprise.

  • Paul P,

    “If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it.”

    I don’t disagree.

    “BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts”,

    Even if he isn’t, he still wouldn’t be referring to people who reject Christ. The New Israel originally consisted of converted Jews, people who accepted Christ as the Messiah. The “grafting” (what a word!) of Gentiles did not take much longer. There is no Jew or Greek in Christ – hence his words in Galatians. Such distinctions no longer matter. Our faith is what counts, and our membership in the Body.

    “and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.”

    I support us minding our own business. Had we done so consistently, Islam would not have become the potent political force it is today. Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist. So was Yasser Arafat. So was Momar Qaddafi. Meanwhile our most cherished ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, has been an Islamic regime for ages.

  • Franicis,

    I came into this thread being accused of being an ‘Undiscerning’ idiot. I wonder now who is being undiscerning, neither Voris’s video or McClarey’s have convinced me. Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews? after all, they are flawed in what they believe What am I missing?

  • I didn’t call you or anyone an “undiscerning idiot”, Jasper. I’ve just pointed out some things about what you wrote in regard to Jones. I think the kinds of things documented at Shea’s blog, like calling Jews “the enemy of the human race” and the interviews Jones gave to a white supremacist and another extremist are disturbing. There’s more over there, did you read it all?

  • Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?

  • @ Bonchamps,

    I mostly agree. To your point about Saudi Arabia: Had we fully developed our nuclear energy capability in the 1970s, then we would by now be producing liquid fuels or hydrogen from nuclear power plants to fuel our cars, trucks, trains and airplanes. But after TMI, Jimmy Carter allowed the industry to become emasculated by the excessive regulations of the US NRC, and thus coal (which has to be transported to coal fired power plants by diesel fueled trains), oil and natural gas became dominate. So now we import much of our oil from Canada while our military keeps the sea lanes open from the Middle East to Europe so that Europe can get Saudi oil (there’s only so much oil to go around). Renewable energy is a joke that natural gas companies just love – always got to have spinning reserve. So we support Saudi Islamic extremism – Wahhabism – in the name of “democracy.” We have enough thorium and uranium to tell these fanatics to go drown in their mineral slime, but we can’t because we are now hopelessly addicted.

    I won’t go on further right now because it’s not on topic, but I agree that we made our own mess. As for Israel, supporting them is probably the only right thing we did. You’ll disagree, of course. That’s OK. Personally, I just wish we’d go all nuclear and tell the Muslim fanatics (not the Muslims – there’s a difference) to take their oil and shove it. But first, NRC Chairman Jackzo has to be fired and the NRC has to go from being an antagonist to actually living up to its charter in ensuring the SAFE use of nuclear power, not the non-use of nuclear power. Of course that’s not going to happen under Obama. It was happening under Bush with his GNEP initiative, but that’s a story for a different blog post.

  • PS, sorry I wasn’t on topic, but I agreed with Bonchamps for reasons that Bonchamps might not have expected. Now that this rare moment of lucidity has passed, I shall return to being an ultra-conservative pro-Israel pain in the neck. 😉

  • “Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews?”

    We are supposed to convert everyone Jasper. That has nothing to do with the fact that E. Michael Jones is an anti-semite, who believes in bizarre conspiracies to support his hate and who peddles wretchedly bad history while doing so.

  • Francis wrote: “Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?”

    I know because I know. Shea has a very fertile imagination, and he lets it take him to rather interesting places. Voris is not collaborating with E. Michael Jones, nor are they business partners. He had him on his show “Roman Forum” for an interview–that’s it. He’s had a number of people on for interviews, and he doesn’t necessarily agree with everything his interviewees say or do. This whole “guilt by association” tactic is nonsense.

  • Vincent Lewis’ comment is a You Tube video by Brother Nathanael, a Jew and now a Russian Orthodox Monastic who himself is ironically anti-semitic:

    I watched several You Tube videos and browsed around. There is only so much fecal matter I can stand in any one day. According to this guy, Jews are in control of the banks and the Congress and everything else, and soon Christmas will be outlawed and we’ll be forced to celebrate Hannukah instead while the goyim get taxed to death. What planet is this guy from? Or am I the one in outer space?

  • Well, I was kind of hoping for something a bit more than “I know because I know”. 😉 I still hope you’re right, though. And maybe it’s me, but I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much. Considering the fact that he obviously knows about Jones’ reputation in regard to Jews (he mentions it in the interview), it’s hard to understand how he could not be aware of the disturbing things about Jones that are documented at Shea’s blog. The information is readily available on the Internet.

  • Never mind. The offending video is deleted, so feel free to delete mine “response.” I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. Thought I was going batty!

  • Francis wrote: “I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much.”

    As someone who has watched every interview Michael has done on Roman Forum, he smiles and laughs with every single one of his guests. I didn’t notice that he was any friendlier toward Jones than toward the others. As to your other questions, I don’t speak on Michael’s behalf. Perhaps you should send him an e-mail at and ask him directly yourself.

  • Whenever the subject of Jews is raised on a Catholic website nutcases start coming out from underneath rocks to proclaim their undying hatred of the Children of Abraham. That is simply not going to be tolerated on The American Catholic. I deleted the idiotic video of the racist and anti-semite who goes by the name of Brother Nathanael Kapner and banned Vincent Lewis for posting it. Anyone who wishes to engage in paranoid rantings against the Jooos!, or defend those who do engage in such paranoid rantings, will have to find another venue to do so.

  • “I know because I know”.


    Meanwhile, Voris *entire* defense against his bishop when he was ordered to stop using the name “Catholic” was, “Who? Me? I don’t run Real Catholic TV! Brammer does! And he lives in Indiana! Talk to him! I just work here.”

    Yes. Brammer lives in Indiana. And by a strange coincidence he shares exactly the same mailing address as Jones for his business.

    So yeah, these guys are in bed together, Christine’s ineffable and incommunicable knowledge to the contrary notwithstanding. We’ll see more from these guys. They are in cahoots. And Voris *is* trying to mainstream Jones–with some success. Not good.

  • (at 31:44 in the video)

    Jones: And so what was neo-conservatism? 2003. We are involved in a war. Who would have thought we were going to get involved in this war? Who was responsible for this war? It was the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism is a Jewishrevolutionarymovement. And that got me thinking, how is this fit into history. And that’s the genesis of the book that I wrote called The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

    Voris: Some people have read that book and said, “Oh, Michael Jones is clearly an anti-Semite”

    Jones: Anti-Semitism is very clear. Every Catholic has to condemn anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism says that the Jew cannot be trusted, is an evil person, because of his racial inheritance, because he’s got bad DNA. No Catholic could ever say that. Okay? What we are saying here is, the traditional teaching of the Church is basically, when Jesus Christ came to this earth He came for one group of people, and that was the Jewish people. And the Jewish people had to make a decision. They had to either accept Him as the Messiah or not. The Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah are now known as the Catholic Church. The Jews who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah are known as Jews. Okay? When they rejected Jesus Christ they rejected Logos, which is the order of the universe. When they rejected the order of the universe they rejected the social order as well and when you reject any possible social order you become a revolutionary. And they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ. And the history, the history of history since that time is the battle between the descendants of the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ and the descendants of the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ. And that’s what that book is about. And that is not anti-Semitism, in any way, shape or form. And I go on record, I condemn anti-Semitism. I do not believe in any form of racial determinism, period.

    Paul Zummo observed that “[Jones] rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris. And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world” To which Jasper responded, “I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.”

    Really, Jasper? That’s all you heard? Jones had just been asked to defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. And what does he do? Exactly what Paul Zummo said–he charged the Jews, all Jews, with rejecting the order of the universe, rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore being by nature “revolutionary”. He made absolutely no distinctions or qualifications, he just broadbrushed all Jews of all time in the very place in which he was supposedly defending himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. How did you miss that?

    But more seriously, Jones has his theology all screwed up. The Church does not teach that Jesus Christ “came for one group of people”. It teaches that He came for all men, the Jew first and then to the Gentile. Taken at face value, Jones’ statement is heretical. On the contrary, “as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation” (Nostra Aetate 4).

    Second, it seems to me that Jones here outlines a sort of second Original Sin, in which the decision of many of the Jews of that day to reject Christ–“the Jewish people had to make a decision”–and some of them to put Him to death–“they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ”–was a decision made on behalf of all Jews, those living and all those yet to be born. By that corporate decision, all Jews automatically (and apparently culpably) a) reject Logos, and therefore b) reject the order of the universe, which leads automatically to them c) rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore d) they are all, by definition and intrinsically, “revolutionary”. Not treated in any way as individuals by Jones, the “Jewish people” without any distinctions all share in this revolutionary inheritance of the decision of those living at the time of our Lord. Thus all of subsequent history comes to be defined as the struggle of these revolutionaries against “any possible social order”. No wonder, then, that they can be fairly described as the enemies of the universe.

    But that’s not anti-Semitism, mind you. (Wink, wink.)

    It’s not that the Jews are evil and not to be trusted on account of their DNA. No, that would be racial determinism. It’s just that they’re not to be trusted because they all share in the corporate sin of their forefathers, they have corporately rejected Logos, they corporately reject “any possible social order” and therefore they are all revolutionaries, bent on subverting all good order and right morals. Who could possibly see anything dangerous about that?

    How is this not directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that, “His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures” (Nostra Aetate 4)? And even more pointedly, the Church teaches that:

    “our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.” (Catechism of Trent, Article IV)

    And why the double-standards when it comes to Jews? Historically speaking, the Protestants of today are far closer in time to the fathers of their schism than are the Jews to theirs. Therefore, there is certainly at least equal excuse for today’s Jews for not expressly entering the Catholic Church as there is for Protestants. Lutherans who are born into their faith are quite different from the perspective of moral culpability than Martin Luther and his contemporary followers. The same is true of today’s Jews vs. the Jews 2,000 years ago who actually knew and heard Jesus. And while the selective rigorist who is fixated on followers of Judaism may argue that at least Protestants “accept Christ,” one may counter that rejection of the Church is also rejection of Christ (Lk. 10:16). The notion that all of today’s Jews who haven’t been baptized are consciously rejecting Jesus Christ and His Church–and that this rejection must truly be of Jesus and His Church and not what they falsely believe them to be (perhaps as a result of the kind of “teaching” spewed by people like Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones under the guise of “Catholic” theology)–is preposterous.

    Some weeks ago, in a lengthy discussion on the Catholic Answers Forum, I repeatedly challenged Bob Sungenis (a follower, friend and collaborator with E. Michael Jones) to provide magisterial support for his novel and idiosyncratic views on the Jewish people. In the face of these repeated challenges, there was nothing but a resounding silence. The same goes for Dr. Jones, who brazenly claims that he’s simply upholding “the traditional teaching of the Church”. So I issue the same challenge to Jones. Back up your novel theology from magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, Mike.

    I anticipate the same response. Silence.

  • Exhibit A, Christine.

    And yes, you do–constantly–speak on Michael’s behalf all over the blogosphere, perpetually turning up on any blog that says anything critical of him. You may not have been *sent* by him to speak on his behalf. But speak on his behalf you constantly do.

  • Indeed, Christine, as I scroll down the comboxes of the link I just posted, there you are! So you *know* that Brammer, who Voris insists is the one in charge of RCTV, and Jones have the same address and phone.

  • Mark Shea is right about this. I like Voris, but this stuff is creepy.

  • When I see a good man maligned, yes, I will speak on his behalf.

    Brammer owns the domain name for, which is registered in Indiana. The Institute for New Media is Brammer’s baby; it has nothing to do with St. Michael’s Media or RCTV.

  • I understand Mark S’s concerns, I’m sure he knows alot more about EMJ than I do.

    But, let’s take a step back and look at who controls the awful anti-catholic media, anti-catholic hollywood, the porn industry, those who lead the legalization of abortion, the anti-christian legal system, etc. For being just 1-2 % of the US population they sure have wreaked alot of havoc.

    This is my last comment of this thread, I had a good, clean comment up that got deleted…

  • “For 1 to 2 % of the population, they sure have wreaked a lot of havoc.”

    No. Rather, we Catholics with our pitiful embrace of social justice / common good nonsense did that. We wanted bellies filled with the food that perishes instead of the Bread of Life. It’s our very own – Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, Cuomo (Mario and Andy), Leahy, Pelosi, etc ad nauseam who have done this, along with too many effeminate, hand-wringing clerics more interested in the praises of men than of God. NOT the Jews! The Jews didn’t do this.

    BTW, aren’t this week’s daily gospel readings on Jesus’ bread of life discourse?

  • I am amazed that absolutly no one has pointed out the mean spirited, unchartible way that Shea makes his points in this article.

    …..Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning

    What a wonderful thing to say. A nice insult really gets a point across.

    Another charitable description:

    It will be interesting to see how long fanboys of Voris’ dangerous demagoguery will go on defending this or drinking this poison because “He has some good things to say you know”.

    I was completely unaware of this whole situation, but I am glad to be labeled utterly undiscerning and a “fanboy”.

    I am amazed a Catholic blogger can be so nasty and not be called out on it.

  • This is my last comment of this thread,

    No jasper, that is your last comment on this blog. Bye.

    Though I will leave your comment up as it destroys the facade you were so careful to erect.

  • Chris P:

    If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    Christine: Somehow your concern for people being maligned only extends to Voris and not to a nation being maligned en masse as “enemies of the human race” while Voris chuckles and rolls his eyes at the dolts who (“get this” says his mocking tone) think Jones is anti-semite. You have no problem with Voris helping to malign Chaput and encouraging contempt for him. Or, really, anybody Voris deems to be not a “Real Catholic[TM]”. Seriously, when the moneybags behind RCTV is Brammer and Brammer is in bed with Jones and Jones is given a softball interview by Voris calculated to mainstream his nuttery and create more Jaspers, Voris passes his sell by date. He is a dangerous demagogue and what he is selling is poisonous Jew-hatred. That the Jew-hatred is dolled up as Traditional Catholic Teaching and not as racism, just makes his poison more toxic. Stop making excuses for him.

  • Chris P is correct. Mark Shea is every bit as diplomatic and “charitable” as Michael Voris is. Sorry, Mark. I agree with you about this particular issue, but you and Michael do share some characteristics. No insult is intended.

    PS, I too am about as diplomatic and “charitable” as a skunk off gassing at Sunday morning Mass. Fortunately, I have little audience if any to speak of.


  • Considering the things that Jones has said, and the platform and supportive interview Voris provided, I feel Mark was actually restrained in his comments.

  • Quite rite, Paul Z. Mark was certainly more restrained than what I am capable of.

  • Yeah, you know how THOSE people are, Jasper. I mean, they’re basically all the same, THOSE people…those…JEWS. They have wreaked a lot of havoc…those enemies of the universe.

    As Paul Primavera pointed out: Who is in control of our government? Jews? No. The Supreme Court? Jews? No.

    Boy, they are pretty tricky mind-controllers, those Jews. They manage to control 98-99% of the population. They must have special Jew-powers. Maybe they’re doing something to us all through our cell phones? I’d really like to see where they all meet to come up with their plans. I hear they don’t even have to all vote on what evil they’re going to perpetrate. They just KNOW! They all think alike, kind of like the Borg!

    So, who invented the birth control pill – the very thing that enabled the sexual revolution? That Jew, John Rock. Oh, wait. John Rock was a Catholic.

    Who did away with the decency code in Hollywood. That Jew, Jack Valenti. Oh, wait. Valenti was an Italian Catholic.

    Who introduced Rock and Roll and crazy sexual gyrations to our youth? That Jew, Elvis Presley. Oh wait, Presley was a member of the Assembly of God.

    Who founded Playboy? That Jew, Hugh Hefner. Oh, wait. Hefner’s lineage is German/English and he was raised a Methodist.

    Penthouse? That Jew, Bob Guccione. Oh, wait. Guccione was an Italian Catholic.

    Hustler? That Jew, Larry Flynt. Oh, wait. Flynt’s ancestry is English.

    But it’s all the fault of the Jews. These poor, simple Gentiles couldn’t resist the mind-control power of THE JEWS!


  • Paul P.: No disagreement. I know I irk people. I don’t much care about it in this case since people irked on Voris and Jones’ behalf for this are people whose opinion I don’t value and whose approval I would feel ashamed of. I do care about Catholics pretending that declaring the Jews the enemy of the human race is “Traditional Catholicism” and I acutely care that influential demagogues like Voris package, market, and sell that to suckers who have anointed him the latest Folk Hero. That sh*t is poison and he needs to be stopped. I hope the bishops of Detroit and South Bend step on them *hard*.

  • And I got to agree w/ you, Mark. Someone in authority should step in. I don’t like any of this. 🙁

    Hail Mary, full of grace……….Maybe that’s what we should do – pray.

  • Paul P.:

    In cyberspace, you’re on your own. In the real world, on rare ocassions, bishops step in to put out fires if they threaten to burn out of control. Vigneron tried it once and Voris defied him while posing as persecuted savior of the American Church and disingenously passing the buck to Brammer. If these guys keep this up, my prayer, frankly, is that Rhoades of South Bend (who already has had to tangle with Sungenis’ nuttery) and Vigneron of Detroit will bring the hammer down on this whole dodgy operation. It’s a faint hope: a poor thing but mine own. And when it happens you can *bet* that there will be screams from the Voris crowd about the liberal gay cabal silencing a brave hero (just like with Corapi). For my part, I will applaud it as a real act of episcopal courage.

  • I tend to agree with Bonchamps. Saudi Arabia that excellent friend of the US, is the main sponsor of Islamism. Of course they do not need sponsor Bin Laden or AlQueda to get their job done, merely pour in billions into their taquiyya in various countries. Things will then take care themselves. It turns out that Hans Blix was right: Saddam Hussein neither had nuclear weapons nor the means to produce any. Essentially the US took out a toothless tiger who had some value in preventing wholesale Iranian takeover of the Persian Gulf to no purpose. Christians are routinely hounded and murdered in the new Iraq. A few hundred thousand of them are refugees in the surrounding countries. If the remaining neocons and Hillary Clinton have their way, the two million Christians in Syria would meet the same fate. I don’t think the Israelis give a damn one way or another about the Christians so any hope that the paladins would ride out from Tel Aviv is forlorn indeed. They abandoned their Christian allies the SLA without much heartache in 2000.

  • Ivan:

    Both the Kay and Duefluer reports affirmed that Hussein posed an even greater threat than even the Bush administration thought. WHile there were no WMD stockpiles found, he was retaining all his experts that could very easily make WMD after the UN sanctions had been lifted, something that was in the works but the US overthrew the regime. Plus Saddam was awash with cash, thanks to the corruption of the Oil for Food program.

  • Hussein posed a greater threat… to whom, exactly?

    Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

  • Sorry, this is off topic. I’ll start a foreign policy discussion soon and we can all have it out then 🙂

  • Pingback: Good for Paul Zummo and the American Catholic blog!
  • Mark,

    I would rather Voris repents of association with Jones. I would also pray for Corapi’s return. The Bishops have a bigger cleanup job to do w/ Pelosi, Sebelius and crew than w/ Voris.

  • Is the Old Testament still part of the Catholic Tradition to the “Traditionalist Catholics”?….in my recollection I believe there are numerous passages in which God warns in scripture, that the Jewish People are his and he will deal with his people himself.. and that anybody who wrongfully or unjustly persecutes them will bring genuine “creator-of-the-universe-wrath” onto themselves…. as mentioned previously in these forums… history has already shown this, time and time again.

    Mark’s sage-like ability to detect the beginnings of yet another so-called orthodox Catholic personality spectacular falls from their mountain tops is both uncanny & depressing…

  • Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

    Nice bit of excuse-mongering. He conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil. Previously, he had thrown eight years and several hundred thousand lives into an effort to conquer the Iranian province of Khuzestan. You seem to forget the Ba’ath Party was a multinational pan-Arab fascist organization and the limits on his ambitions in and amongst the Arab states were purely practical. From 1972 to the day it was ejected in April of 2003, it was consistently among the half-dozen or so most abusive governments in the world and in a similarly exclusive club as regards the use of military conquest as a political tool and developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

  • I really didn’t know what to think of this guy Voris with the wig until I got to know him through this interview yesterday.

    Quite a different picture.

  • Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    Nah, Paul, you’re a good egg, all around. In my attempt at humor, I deliberately used Islamist as opposed to Muslim. Your point is a good one. And since the only doctor to ever cut into my innards is a Muslim, I’m inclined to agree with your distinctions. 🙂

    In my experience, the Shia are really a good bunch. Alas for Khomeini and the Mullahocracy, who are the worst possible examples of Shiism ever to exist.

  • Art Deco correctly wrote: “He [ Saddam Hussein ] conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil.”

    If we did this (see web links below), then we wouldn’t need to care about Kuwaiti or Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi oil:

    @ Dale – thanks for the kind response.

  • If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    I really don’t know who Jasper is and it was not relevant to what I said. I didn’t know two wrongs make a right???

    I do know this, when I go to the youtube RCTV I see an excellent video on abortion. I watched an excellent series on overcoming pornography. He talks about attaining holiness and praying for others.

    I found out about this site and some others through RCTV.

    Obviously I don’t agree with everything he says, but why don’t you try pointing out his errors without the snide comments….

  • A rant.

    The reason why the Middle East is so messed up is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why the US is not energy self-sufficient is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Jews is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Arabs, Persians, Muslims, etc. is human envy, greed and lust for power.

    The problem is sin. The problem has always been sin – rebellion against God. And the problem always will be sin.

    Now as for Voris, I really like it when he slames liberal politicians and clerics (sorry, I’m bad and I know it). And no, I am not a shrill for the GOP-Republicans; personally, I prefer the Constitution Party, but that’s a different topic.

    But I don’t like it when Voris goes in with anti-Semitic jerks like Jones or when he unfairly demeans our separated Protestant brethren. I used to post his videos at my blog. I have since stop doing that except in rare cases. My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” My Mom and siblings will learn more about the Catholic faith if I actually live that faith instead of acting like a triumphal jerk (which I am well adept at doing).

  • Paul wrote: “My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” ”

    Voris didn’t make up that doctrine–he’s merely repeating what the Church has always taught. If merely teaching basic Catholic doctrine offends people, so be it.

    The Church allows for the possibility of salvation outside the fold in cases of invincible ignorance. But that is the exception, not the rule. By the ordinary means of grace, we need the Church to be saved. We do protestants no favors by sugarcoating or whitewashing this teaching, as their very souls are in danger of hell without the sacraments.

    The purpose of proclaiming “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is not to be triumphalist–it is to SAVE SOULS. That should be the only motive for anything we say or do.

  • Paul,

    The dogmas of the Church will always be insulting to those who reject them. But they are the divinely revealed truths which we MUST believe as Catholics. EENS is not negotiable, and you only cause harm to souls by pretending otherwise. I have many Protestant family members too. Sugar-coating things won’t help them.

  • Oh darn! This is another thing not directly related to the topic. Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks) that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” means “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus.” That “Ecclesia Romana” recognizes as valid the Holy Orders and Sacraments within the independent autocephalus Eastern Orthodox Churches demonstrates that “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus” is a false sentiment and one need not be “In Communione Plena cum Sede Petri” to be saved.

    OK, now I suppose that I too will be branded a heretic. Can’t win no matter what.


    BTW, my whole family knows exactly where I stand on the primacy of the Catholic faith. If I am an opinionated “loud mouth” here, how do you I am around my own family? Rhetorical question.


    We simply don’t argue the point any longer. Now I guess I should get back on topic.

  • Paul,

    You certainly can’t win when you disagree with God and His Church.

    Valid sacraments, BTW, have nothing to do with Church membership. The sacraments are valid because they have power in and of themselves, just like the name of Jesus Christ does. But just as NOT everyone who says “Lord, Lord” – including those who even cast out demons with His name – will be saved, neither will people be saved merely because they gave or received valid sacraments.

    The Easterners are still in schism, and none of the basic conditions for unity such as those spelled out by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos have been met. But if THEIR position is precarious, then that of the Protestants is even worse.

    This isn’t some petty academic dispute either. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation. The Protestant confessions present a version of the faith that does not produce saints, nor does it even really acknowledge the validity of sainthood as we do.

    That said, there will be as many Catholics in hell as there are Protestants. Being a Catholic isn’t a one-way ticket to Heaven. It’s just a boarding pass. You can get kicked off the train at any time before you die.

  • “Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks)…”

    No, you don’t know what he thinks, so best to leave all speculation aside and refrain from attributing beliefs to him that are false. He follows the Church’s teachings on EENS–no more, no less.

  • Bonchamps wrote: “St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation.”

    Very true. Just think: one mortal sin is sufficient to send one’s soul to hell, unless one receives sacramental absolution. And protestants not only reject sacramental absolution, they also in many cases reject the notion that grave sins can cause loss of salvation, and even reject what those sins might be. According to the Catholic Church, using contraception is a mortal sin; masturbation is a mortal sin; indulging in pornography is a mortal sin; sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin; etc. If a protestant has done any of these even ONCE in his life, he has lost his salvation, until he is absolved through the sacrament of penance.

    Our Lady of Fatima said souls are falling into hell like snowflakes because they have none to pray and sacrifice for them. We have the truth that the world is literally dying to hear, and we must share it.

  • David Palm specializes in half truths. First let me say that the only “silence” he received was when I said “we are done” to anymore discussion with Mr. Palm after I caught him divulging a private email on the CA thread I sent him several months prior. As for his “challenge,” Yanni and I spent two weeks informing Mr. Palm about what Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teach about the Jews, but he simply didn’t want to accept it. That’s because Mr. Palm believes the Jews are “special people” just because they are Jewish, just as Roy Schoeman and David Moss teach. This is nothing more than spiritual racism. It is heretical and sinful, and it is precisely what Dr. Jones and I are fighting against. Neither Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium teach it.

  • Christine, are you a Feenyite?

  • “Christine, are you a Feenyite?”

    I’d think my remarks would have answered that question clearly. No.

  • The Shadow Priest on EENS:

  • I apologize, Christine, but it was not obvious to me. You are correct that the related doctrines of invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire are exceptions to the rule so to speak, but some exceptions swallow rules. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed the precise contours of these related teachings to the Church, so we must acknowledge them as not being fully understood. Accordingly, we must be cautious in assuming a perfect understanding of the eternal fate of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, including those who are unbaptized. This cuts two ways of course. We must evangelize since we cannot assume our non-Catholic loved ones who live in accordance with natural law will know God, but we may also avoid despair for our loved ones by knowing that the Church most definitely holds out the possiblity that their souls may experinece eternal rest with the Lord. This uncertainty may be a gift in that it avoids the temptation to despair as well as the temptation to dismiss the importance of evangelization.
    Finally, your apparent assertion that a single moral sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.

  • Mike, I was following what you said, up until this: “Finally, your apparent assertion that a single mortal sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.”

    The Catholic Church unambiguously teaches that mortal sin causes the death of the soul. There is no speculation there.

    From the Baltimore Catechism:

    “68. Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, what else does mortal sin do to the soul?

    Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.”

    The Church also unambiguously teaches that the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin is through sacramental absolution. There are exceptions of invincible ignorance–but those are the exceptions, and we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule.

  • Mike P:

    Christine may not be a “Feeneyite”, but I am, more or less.

    If you want to debate the merits, I will be happy to do so. If the argument is simply “Feeneyism is heresy”, well, that is a whole different debate. Obviously I don’t think it is, and neither does the current pope for that matter. From all I have read, this is considered a legitimate theological dispute.

    I’ll grant that this is one of the most terribly misunderstood positions a person can hold, and I’ve heard every – and I mean every – concievable argument against it. This might not be the thread to have it out on this topic, or maybe it is.

  • I say “more or less”, btw, because Fr. Feeney wasn’t right about everything. He held a few erroneous positions, but his position on EENS and baptism wasn’t one of them.

  • I had to look up Feeneyism:

    Wow! No offense, Bonchamps, but there are as many “sects” (well, maybe that’s not the right term) within Ecclesia Romana as there are without.

  • Bonchamps,

    Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?

    Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?

  • Guys (and gals),

    I know the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, but we are diverging quite a bit from the topic at hand.

  • Christine,
    It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.
    In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS. One must evangelize by convincing non-Catholics that the Church is Christ’s true mystical body on earth. No thinking person will agree to be received into the Church for fear of his soul until he first determines that the Church is what She claims to be. Leading with EENS is destined to be feckless.

  • So now Robert Sungenis has gotten into the comments box here defending his associate E. Michael Jones? This is the sort of company Michael Voris is exposing his viewers to. As I said, I think this is going to end badly for Voris.

    Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?

  • Mike wrote: “It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.”

    No one can reasonably come to that conclusion by reading all the magisterial pronouncements on EENS, which proclaim forcefully and unequivocally that the Church is necessary for salvation. It has only been in the 20th century that the teaching seems to have been watered down to near-meaninglessness.

    “In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS.”

    I leave it to each person to decide the best way to evangelize in a particular situation. I do know that in my experience, downplaying the necessity of the Church never leads to any good, and deprives non-Catholics of the graces of the sacraments they so desperately need. We do souls no favors by watering down this teaching.

    “Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?”

    Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.

  • Mike P,

    “Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?”

    First, there is no “Church teaching” on Baptism of Desire. It is not a Magisterial teaching. It appears in many catechisms, yes, but there is no “ex cathedra” statement on this. Some point to a passage in the Council of Trent, but if it is studied contextually, it is by no means certain that the council is actually teaching the doctrine – and even if it were, it would have been teaching the doctrine as it was believed by some (though not all or even the majority) of the Church Fathers, which basically limited the possibility of BOD/BOB to catechumens with explicit faith in Christ.

    “Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?”

    There’s no evidence that anyone died without baptism (saying “by water” seems redundant, since the word means “immersion in water”…). There are some martyrs for whom there is no record of a baptism; there is no case that I know of in which historians are absolutely positive that there was no baptism.

    What I do know is that there is no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium for any exceptions to Jn. 3:5, and I find 99% of the attempts to find one to be based upon purely subjective emotions. Are these emotions understandable? Yes. Are they valid as far as establishing the truth of this matter goes? Not in the least. People who worry about their non-Catholic relatives going to hell should recall, as well, what Jesus said:

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” — Lk. 14:26

    I’m not saying my take on BOD is dogma and you have to share it to be a good Catholic. I am saying, though, that every person I’ve discussed this with has a personal, subjective motivation for wanting to reject Feeney (and St. Augustine). They are unable or unwilling to seriously and objectively consider the facts. And that’s fine, if you just can’t bring yourself to it. But then usually follows the name-calling, the “you must think you’re so great” line of thought.

    As I see it, I just believe what the man said, and what the Church always taught.

  • “Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.”

    Christine, based on the information brought out by Mark Shea, there clearly seems to be some type of collaboration going on between Jones, Brammer and Voris beyond Jones’ appearance on Voris’ show. And he conducted an interview with Jones in which he allowed Jones to white-wash the whole “Jewish issue.” Do you see what that might not be a good idea for Voris’ reputation? Why it might not be good for his audience? Now Jones’ associate Robert Sungenis is chiming in. I don’t think that’s a good thing for Michael Voris, either.

    I’d think that he would appreciate and value feedback from someone like yourself who has devoted such time and energy to defending him. For all we know, maybe he’s not fully aware of these things. So you’d be doing him a real service. Maybe even more of a service than promoting and defending him on blogs. I mean that sincerely.

  • Yes, it’s going to end very badly for Voris. The greater tragedy will be how many people get sucked into the Jew-hating pit with him.

    No one who claims to care for his work seems inclined even to warn him away, which is another, lesser tragedy.

  • Paul asked that this thread return to the topic of his post and his request has been ignored. I am going to disable comments for this thread. Paul may re-enable comments if he wishes. Right now this thread seems to be home to several debates that are far removed indeed from the original topic raised by Paul.

Canon 216: Who Are You Calling Catholic?

Tuesday, January 10, AD 2012

49 And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.

Luke 9:49-50

On December 15, 2011, the Archdiocese of Detroit stated that Real Catholic TV could not use the term “Catholic”.

In a Dec. 15, 2011 statement addressing the organization’s name, the archdiocese clarified that the Church encourages its members “to promote or sustain a variety of apostolic undertakings,” but forbids them “from claiming the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”   The archdiocese added that it has been communicating with Voris as well as his media partner at Real Catholic TV on the issue for “some time.”

Last month’s announcement also referenced Canon 216 of the Roman Catholic Church’s current Code of Canon Law, which holds that “no undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’” without authorization.   According to the archdiocese, Real Catholic TV’s programming is “disseminated from the enterprise’s production facility in Ferndale, Michigan,” within the jurisdiction of Detroit’s Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron.   But Voris maintains that Archbishop Vigneron is not the “competent ecclesiastical authority” over Real Catholic TV, which is owned by Indiana resident Marc Brammer.   “I don’t have ownership over the name of the organization. It’s not my organization. The headquarters are outside of the diocese,” Voris told LifeSiteNews in a Dec. 23 article. “It’s the wrong person, and the wrong outfit asking the wrong person the wrong question.”

Go here to read the rest at LifeSiteNews.  As for Real Catholic TV, I have no great feeling one way or another.  I have watched very little of it, but what I have seen I have not found very impressive.  The heart of Mr. Voris appears to be in the right place, but his head often doesn’t seem to be fully engaged.  Having said that, considering all the faith destroying drek that I have seen promoted under the name “Catholic” in this country over the past four decades, I find it amusing, although completely unsurprising,  that it was the traditionalist Real Catholic TV that was chosen for this rare application of Canon 216.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Canon 216: Who Are You Calling Catholic?

  • My comment is here:

    I don’t agree with everything Voris says. But why doesn’t AoD ask why TAC gets to use the name “Catholic” in its title? Now I think that “The American Catholic” is a perfectly fine title for this blog. But do entries at this blog have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat (not that they need them)? Indeed, the question remains: why single out Voris? I think that it is because he has with his usual caustic personality (I have one of those, so I recognize it well) pointed out the hypocrisy rampant among the US Bishopry and some (er, almost all) liberals really don’t like that.

  • Sounds like trademark infringement.

    Matthew 7:21: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

    The operative clause is, “competent ecclesiastical authority.”

  • Now if only the Archdiocese of Kansas City will take away the “Catholic” from the National Catholic Reporter.

  • On the other hand, were Real Catholic TV to submit and cease to use the Catholic moniker, it could provide coverage for bishops to do the same with other actual abusers of the Catholic identity and serve as a good witness.

  • @Phillip, so true!

    Can this apply to people? Can we have Nancy Pelosi stop calling herself Catholic?

  • Yeah, to say that I’ve never been impressed by Real Catholic TV is to put it mildly — but this kind of thing seems to show up a nasty passive aggressive streak in the hierarchy: “Oh, you keep pestering us to be more strict in enforcing standards within the Church? Well, if you like that so much, we’ll be strict with you but with no one else.”

  • I’m just finishing a book about Saint Dominic. The author puts a lot of stress on the apostolate of teaching and how certain levels of teaching authority have to fall under the authority of the Church. There really are two separate questions: who is speaking on behalf of the Church and are they properly representing the Church in their statements. One is a question of ecclesiology, the other of theology. A bad sermon is a theological problem; an independent organization implicitly claiming teaching authority is a matter of ecclesiastical discipline. Rorate Coeli is wrong to blur the two.

    But definitely, groups like Catholics for a Free Choice and the National Catholic Reporter should fall under the same scrutiny. And it’s not simply a matter of intellectual property rights. That’s like saying that simony is outside Church prosecution because an exchange of sacraments for money is a legal transaction. The Church may not have the muscle to prevent the unauthorized use of the name “Catholic”, but it has the responsibility to speak against those who falsely claim to be representing Catholicism.

  • So Pinky, should TAC then remain “The American Catholic”?

    Should Steve Ray’s blog remain “Defenders of the Catholic Faith”?

    Should Mark Shea’s blog remain “Catholic and Enjoying It”?

    I have no objection to all three retaining the name “Catholic” just as I have no objection to the same for RCTV.

    But to single out RCTV is unequitable and unfair. BTW, what about the Old Catholic Church in the US that believes in contraception and women in the priesthood?

  • Guys,

    I’ve been thinking again (a dangerous thing for a nuclear trained person, to be sure!). Remember the scandal over Fr. Corapi (whose web site is apparently pulled down now)? Remember how he really irritated a lot of people, and now he is essentially no more. I am not arguing over whether or not he really did something wrong, but rather this: what if a scandal like that is brewing for RCTV? No, I am NOT saying anybody has done anything wrong, but these kinds of things generally start with “You don’t speak for the Church” and then they escalate until all the dirty laundry is waving in the breeze. And again, no, I am not saying that there is any such dirty laundry, but things have a way of turning very ugly even in the best of circumstances (and this isn’t one of them).

    We should for both Voris and Vigneron (interesting that both names begin with “V”). We don’t need another scandal.

  • Darn my fat fingers – we should PRAY for Voris and Vigneron. Arrrrgggggghhhhhhh!

  • Paul, those are fair questions. I think that if anyone misunderstands “The American Catholic” or “Defenders of the Catholic Faith” to imply official status then, yes, the names should be changed. It’s something I’ve never thought about before, but it makes sense. I don’t think that anyone would hear the name “Catholic and Enjoying It” and assume that it speaks for the Church.

    I’m unfamiliar with the Fr. Corapi story, but to my knowledge, things rarely start with “you don’t speak for the Church”. But I can believe that one of the unintended consequences of the Council’s implementation is a confusion about who does speak for the Church. Again, I’m not saying that the clergy or official Church outlets are flawless, but lay teaching has risks, and clarity of status isn’t a bad thing.

  • “Paul, those are fair questions. I think that if anyone misunderstands “The American Catholic” or “Defenders of the Catholic Faith” to imply official status”

    The only thing “official” about this blog is our “official” mascot:

  • Michael Voris is awesome, refreshing, truthful, no-nonsense. I suppose the effeminate types and other liberals who work in these diocese offices would be turned off by him.

  • I get Voris’ daily e-mail which contains “The Vortex”, and their news segment.
    There has been a bit of an argument here at our blog.

    I think Voris gives a direct and unflinching propounding of the Catholic Faith. Sure, he can be critical of many things and people in the Church – he tends to brush over ….”in all things, charity.” Having said that, I have never heard anything that Voris says that is not orthodox Catholic teaching – he gives his presentations in a clear and unambiguous manner, and I think it is this that ruffles many feathers, particlularly the liberal/ progressive element in the Church, and he calls out liberal bishops for their failure to lead the Church firmly, thus giving cause to the multitude of problems that the Church now faces.

    I would be interested to hear directly from Bp. Vigneron. It is the chancery – the Director of Communications that is after Voris’ blood, and he has been employed by the AoD for 20 years when the infamous Bp.(Stumblebum) Gumbleton was at the helm, and he (Gumbleton) allegedly allowed or turned a blind eye to such things as Clown masses, promotion of women priests, and homosexual clergy involved in the abuse scandal.

    Also, the canon lawyer from the Indiana Diocese of Frt Wayne-South Bend considers that there is no issue with

    Interesting when the dust settles.

  • Donald, why did you post the video of Senator John Warner?

  • Isn’t this the issue that came up for Mother Angelica? If I remember correctly from her biography, she admittedly said something very unwise about a bishop, and the fallout eventually was an apostolic visitation for the television station. After the apostolic visitation, she was told that she should not have started her TV station without proper approval. She asked if approval was likely to have been granted. “No,” was the answer. Imagine….. we would have “Catholics” in government destroying our religious freedom with abandon, but no EWTN to teach the faith. Such a sad thought!

  • Tell me, good people, why would any Organization calling itself “Catholic”, coming from another country, refuse to present themselves to the “Local Ordinary” to be officially recognized as a Catholic Organization in their new domicile??? That is the question, Donald. The Canon Law quoted is unambiguously clear and it applies to all. The onus is not on the Ordinary to chase those opening in His See to present themselves to him for official recognition. It is on the Organization coming into a new See to present themselves. May you all be blessed this New Year 2012

  • So Mary, should Steve Ray’s “Defenders of the Catholic Faith” (which by its very title makes itself out to be some sort of authority on or for the Catholic faith) present itself to the local ordinary and get imprimaturs and nihil obstat for all the information on its web site? (BTW, I love Steve Ray’s apologetics and routinely plagiarize his works, though I cite attribution, buty that’s not the point.)

    Should the “National Catholic Reporter” – that liberal bastion of godless dissent – present itself to the local ordinary also?

    You yourself said that the Canon Law cited is unambiguous and applies to all of us. Does it? Really? And is it being so applied? The answer to the last is clearly “no.” Uber orthodox Michael Voris is being singled out. 🙁

    Now no, I do not agree with everything Voris says, and sometimes his mannerism is as caustic as my own. But his heart is in the right place and the liberal elements in AoD hate that.

  • Hey, guys, I can’t find Lionel Andrades comment that I received in my e-mail. I did want to respond to it by pointing what St. Paul wrote in Romans 11, namely, that God has not rejected His people Israel or the Jews, and that as Christians we are simply branches of a wild Olive shoot grafted into the Tree that is Christ. It always upsets me to read or hear criticism of the people through whom God chose to give us His Son. I do, however, agree that the Church is in a sense the “New Israel”, and that Jews and Gentiles alike are called to conversion and repentance, but St. Paul uses that very point in his Epistle to the Romans to caution us as Gentile Christians against arrogance, lest we find ourselves as wild branches cut off from the graft.

  • Paul, when Jesus taught us that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, did everybody accept Him? NO. Did that mean that His Divine Identity and Salvation Message was false? NO. It follows therefore, that the Teachings of the Catholic Church and its Magisterium Authority are binding to all those who wish to remain Faithful to Christ’s Church. But God gave us Free Will – to accept His Divine Truth and Salvation Mystery subsisting in the Divinely Constituted Catholic Church by Christ Himself and led by “The Rock” and His Successors or reject that Truth and Salvation Mystery. God created us without our permission, but He shall never save anyone without their co-operation.

Shea, Voris and Amazing Grace

Monday, July 25, AD 2011

An interesting spat has developed between Catholic blogger Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It and Michael Voris of RealCatholic TV.  In the above video Mr. Voris attacks the use of the Protestant hymn Amazing Grace at Mass.    Amazing Grace was composed by John Newton, an eighteenth century captain of a slaver, who converted to Christianity, was ordained in the Anglican Church and became an abolitionist.  The song is used frequently at Mass in my parish.

Mark Shea, who has never had any use for Mr. Voris as far as I can tell, attacked the video in a post at his blog:

Voris’ sole message is “I am the measure of Real Catholicism and those who agree with me have the right to call themselves Catholic, while those who disagree are liars and lukewarm fake Catholics”.

Continue reading...

131 Responses to Shea, Voris and Amazing Grace

  • Imus on Fox Business just played Billy Joe Shaver’s “If you don’t love Jesus go to hell.” Truth. How appropriate is that?

    Was Shea staring at his own reflection in the screen as he typed that?

  • Truthfully, I have no use for Shea. Now perhaps I don’t agree with everything Michael Voris says in his video. Still, 99% of what he puts out is right and correct. Shea’s self-glorification is however different and the less publicity given to him, the better.

  • Shea ought to commit himself to writing exclusively for publication. When his utterances are not redacted by Brian St. Paul, they can be just godawful.

  • As far as singing Amazing Grace at Mass is concerned, I might have some stylistic qualms with it, but it is certainly not heretical hymnity as Voris would lead us to believe. I think Voris is becoming way too invective prone for his own good.

    As far as Shea is concerned, I agree with Paul. I find Shea to be a calumnious windbag. Although I agree with Mark in this instance, he is lobbing grenades from a glass bunker in going after Voris.

  • This whole Amazing Grace thing started on Dave Armstrong’s blog. He didn’t like Voris’s take on AG either. I defended MV by saying if we are Catholic, we should be singing our own Catholic songs and hymns. Why bother with music from a tradition that is hostile to us? Armstrong labeled me a Pharisee and another commentator told me that we would be barren without those Prot songs and hymns! We have a 2000 year heritage of sacred music, and we would be barren without those Prot thingees? ROTFL!

  • I’ll stick with Voris. Never heard of Shea. Just As well.

  • Shea’s a pompous tool… of all people, to criticize someone because they put forth themselves as the measure of Catholicity. Physician, heal thyself.

    Look, I think it’s silly and stupid to have Prot hymns at Mass. But un-Catholic? Eh…. there are so many hymns in the Catholic arsenal that we can BOTH get rid of the modern pablum AND the Prot stuff. We do it at my parish, there are plenty of good hymnals to make it work.

  • Most Catholics today ARE protestantized. It began in the 50’s and was revved up by the liberal apostates at V2.
    An informed, orthodox Catholic–say Cardinal Burke–could sing A. G. and, knowing what it means, find nothing heterodox. The general run of the laity, who see little distinction between one denomination and another (“Hey, it’s all the same God”) understand AG as linking them with the general anglophone population who are nice people who support the place of worship of their choice.
    If Catholicism is not adherence to the one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic (Pope-run) it is not too much, just another church. This has been the theme of Voris: let’s be truly and wholely Catholic.
    Voris is trying to reverse the protestantizing trend and start a Catholicizing on.

  • Nothing like a catchy Gregorian chant to get toes tapping. I like Amazing Grace, especially when sung a capella by a great soprano. It’s like Auld Lang Syne, an oldie but goodie.

  • As for ‘dressing like a Protestant,’ would this include wearing Calvin Klein? 😆

  • I don’t track Voris or Shea, but I’ve heard the first part of Voris’s argument from others. “Wretch” means “unhappy or vile person”, from the Old English word for “outcast”. That sounds about right. The argument is that “wretch” indicates that man is rotten to the core, which is a Protestant view. And maybe the word had that meaning at one time. Heck, maybe it has that meaning *now*. I just don’t make that association.

    I’ve never heard the second argument before, and it sounds valid on first hearing. But the hymn doesn’t deny the existence of actual grace. It says that we recognize the value of grace in our first moment of belief, not that grace appears in our first moment of belief.

    Could a person hear the hymn and come away with a Protestant understanding of grace? Sure. A Catholic understanding of grace? Again, sure. Are there better hymns in the world? Yup, a bunch of them. But as Donald points out, in an average four-hymn mass, there are at least two hymns worse than this one.

  • I think the explanation that Voris may be suffering from overly Protestant hair would actually clear up a number of issues.

  • Don’t like Voris — he annoys me. I do think he’s right about the song, although I like it. It’s a protestant song. And I too have sung “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” in church and found it hilarious. There’s another one we sometimes sing that talks about being “the elect.” I forget which one it is. But we are definitely NOT “the elect.”

    However, yesterday I had to endure a hit parade of awful contemporary songs, ending with the execrable “Anthem” (“Who is justice to the poor, Who is rage against the night, Who is blah blah blah blah blah blah, Who is light…” That is TEN THOUSAND TIMES WORSE than “Amazing Grace,” which one can at least choose to interpret in a Catholic way no matter what it actually means. There is no way to interpret crap like “Anthem” except as crap. “We are question, we are creed” — WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN????

  • I specifically requested “How Great Thou Art” for my uncle’s funeral Mass last year, not being the least deterred by its Protestant origins. There is no reason why Catholics and Protestants cannot share hymnody as long as they do not present theological problems. It is important to remember that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we are in communion with them even if that communion is imperfect.

    Amazing Grace is a fine hymn, even if it suffers a bit from over-use. The complaint regarding the word “wretch” has had currency in Catholic circles for well over 40 years, but I find it unconvincing. When one examines Newton’s life, his self-description is entirely apt.

  • I’d sing “How Great Thou Art” any day.

  • Funny, the referring to oneself as a wretch was what I considered the best part of the song. There’s humility, an admission of sinfulness, and acknowledgement of God’s mercy and grace in that line. Very Catholic, in my mind. The problem with it though is the “saved” – as in it’s a done deal. I know one can sing that line with a Catholic sensibility, but I have no idea how most Catholics think about it, if many even do at all (it is possibly just one of those rote things for many).

  • If Voris is complaining about the casual attire that people wear to church, I can’t fault him. I’d like to see people show more reference to the Blessed Sacrament in their manner and dress. Then again, Protestants used to dress up for church too. The problem isn’t the Protestantizing of American Catholicism; it’s the casualizing of American culture.

  • The hymn Amazing Grace is one of Christendom’s favorites. It’s been exported all over the world. It resonates because its message is simply Christian. It moves from the beginning (conversion) to the end (glory). It expresses a very basic experience shared by all Christians. Such a universal hymn is universally well loved.

  • I attend the 0730 Mass. Then, I don’t cringe through a protestant hootenanny.

    I prefer “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”” and just about any hymn in a 1956 Catholic Hymnal.

    AG is clownish on the pipes. That’s when I speculate what’s under them kilts?

    Yes. Many people come to Mass dressed like they’re going to the beach, and too many don’t know about genuflection or proper reverence for the Holy Eucharist.

  • AG is clownish on the pipes? How so? I think the pipes give it further dignity.

  • I agree, Pat. In some contexts it can be a bit cliche-ish, but cliches often develop for sound reasons. Years ago, when my daughter was a toddler, I decided that Pachabel’s Canon in D would be played at her wedding. Little did I know that since that time it would so dramatically increase in popularity that today it could fairly be described as a cliche. Still beautiful though. And hardly clownish either.

  • Donald:

    How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity. FWIW, I hold no brief insisting that any Catholic *must* sing AG. I merely draw the line at calling it “anti-catholic” and implying that any Catholic who sings it is a protestantized semi-Catholic as distinct from Michael Voris, STB, Real Catholic.

  • Mr. Shea,

    While I might be inclined to agree with you that there is nothing really offensive about Amazing Grace, you still act very arrogantly and appear to be very full of yourself. I recognize this so well because it is one of my own chiefest defects of character. It’s sort of like looking in a mirror. Remember: you are NOT the spokesman for what’s Catholic and what isn’t. I suppose Michael Voris isn’t, either. And I am certainly not. But the fact that you closed down comments on your little piece about Michael Voris indicates you can’t take the criticism. Perhaps I am wrong. Nevertheless, I hope this will be my last interaction with you because you are best when you ignored. PS, feel free to ignore me, too. 😉

  • “How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity.”

    Agreed Mark! Catholic blogdom is just one big happy family! 🙂

  • Donald: I love you man! 🙂

    Paul: “But the fact that you closed down comments on your little piece about Michael Voris indicates you can’t take the criticism. Perhaps I am wrong.”

    Yes. You are wrong. I closed down comments because, as I have said repeatedly on my blog, I’m super busy. I didn’t want to net.nanny the flood of hysterics coming in from pewsitter and elsewhere, so I closed comments. As a cursory glance at the out of control combox war which has broken out over at Creative Minority Report in the thread about me and Voris illustrates, the tongue is a flame. I decided to save myself the hassle while I’m trying to get other work done.

    Seriously, dude. My comboxes are full, every day, of criticism. I get it all the time. Most of the criticism is fairly rational. Corapi/Voris hysteria quickly becomes insane. When I’m busy, insane people are serious times sucks. Mystery solved. If you are going psychoanalyze my inmost motivations at least pay attention to obvious evidence that you are wrong. Thank you.

  • Oh! One other thing, Paul. You write: “Remember: you are NOT the spokesman for what’s Catholic and what isn’t. I suppose Michael Voris isn’t, either.”

    You know, I couldn’t agree more.

  • Shea certainly has been making a lot of noise lately via ad hominem attacks directed here and there…often against those who either cannot or won’t reply. What I don’t understand is how such a one of such a “brotherhood” gets paid for doing such.

    And ever notice how, in the comments afterwards, he has to react immediately against anyone who just might have a differing opinion! How dare they!

  • Rosie,

    Lest I be accused of an “ad hominem attack,” I am not saying this applies to any specific person. Just draw your own conclusions and apply the lesson therein as you see fit.

    If I act like a baboon, behaving as though I am God’s gift to the Catholic blogosphere while making a sanctimonious pretense at pious objectivity, the best thing you can do is to ignore me. Paying attention to arrogant buffonery gives it its power. Denying it publicity is truly the best that one can do.

    In the meantime, we should pay attention to people like Michael Voris. True, he makes mistakes on occasion. But by and large he is quite orthodox and that is exactly what irritates certain self-appointed so-called Catholic experts in the Catholic blogosphere so much. Being by nature heterodox, they get jealous, especially when the orthodox have a better media outlet than they do. I imagine that irritates them no end, and I couldn’t be happier. I believe the saying is “green with envy.” Hmmmm…..doesn’t the last Commandment say something about that?

  • PS, I do like how Michael Voris really doesn’t pay much attention to what people say about him. In fact, whatever defects of character he does possess, being envious of someone else’s reach into the Catholic media doesn’t appear to be one of them. And he doesn’t seem to have this constant need to quote himself. By all appearances, he is quite Catholic and does indeed enjoy it!


  • “Lest I be accused of an “ad hominem attack,” I am not saying this applies to any specific person.”

    Profile in courage.

  • I tend to get the cringes when i hear ‘Amazing Grace’ sung during Mass. I guess its because I remember the song coming out as a hit record back in the late 60’s by Judy Collins, and followed up not too long after by Joan Baez. I loved their renditions of the song and the religious tone of the lyrics, but to me, it was a secular ‘hymn’ – not some sacred music. I also loved the bag-pipe instrumental – stirred that part of my blood which retains a strong but distant Celtic Highlander strain.

    To me, its not sacred or holy (old English for ‘set apart’) music, even though the lyrics have been slightly modified from its originally ‘folksy’ format. i recall many years ago at Mass one Sunday, when no organ was available at the church at Mt.Maunganui, one of the choir members started singing ‘Amazing Grace’ for the communion hymn. The priest at the altar interupted him and asked him not to sing it. Undaunted, he again commenced with the opening lyrics, and the priest again interupted him and told him not to sing that song, as it was not a proper or appropriate hymn to welcome Christ in Communion. I agreed with the priest, despite the offended looks on the faces of the ‘touchy-feely’ bunch – mainly women. 😉

    With regard to Michael Voris, I like the guy and get his daily e-mail and
    video clips. IMO he is a bit extremely orthodox, but that is certainly needed today in the battle we have to combat secular humanism and atheism, and the errors in the Church – that is why he is critical of the bishops, our leaders. I do recall many saints in the Church being extreme at times – St.Francis of Assisi comes to mind.

    And if anyone doesn’t like Mark Shea’s pugnacious boisterous style, don’t visit his blog. I quite like him, actually, but nowadays only a lurker rather than a commenter – that may change. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with everyone, as long as the Truth of the teaching of the Church is not being meddled with.

  • “And if anyone doesn’t like Mark Shea’s pugnacious boisterous style, don’t visit his blog.”

    I visited only once or twice. That was sufficient to see my worst defects of character in simultaneous action: arrogance, pride, ego, envy of others, intolerance of orthodoxy in others, etc.

    PS, if it were pugnacious style that was offensive, then I would never have listened to either Fr. Corapi or Michael Voris, both of whom Mr. Shea derides with impunity. I rather like pugnacious orthodoxy. Apparently Mr. Shea does not.

    I shall now go back to ignoring him. He merits not the publicity of even talking about him. 😉

  • As an objective observer with no dog in this fight, can’t help but wonder why Catholics are bashing Catholics over such a trivial matter whether a hymn composed in 1779 is suitable in church. Aren’t there bigger fish to fry? The last thing Catholics need right now is more disunity — especially over mundane matters. Where is the brotherhood that you so famously claim to have?

  • I really liked Mark’s book By What Authority? and because of that I started following his blog. The one time I posted something wasn’t in agreement with his view on the matter and was quickly slashed with his razor sharp pen. I have a feeling that if I were to ever meet him I wouldn’t like him. Or rather, he wouldn’t like me. He’d probably call me an oaf or something like that.

    I started listening to The One True Faith podcast some years ago and really liked Voris’ direct approach. That got me to look at The Vortex. I commented on one video and was dealt the same pen sword that Mr. Shea likes to use. If I ever met Voris he’d probably call me a lemming or something worse.

    Big EGOs at play here.

  • Joe,

    Remember the story wherein the mother of James and John (the Sons of Thunder) asked Jesus that they might sit one at His right hand and the other at His left when He would come into His Kingdom? The Scripture tells us that afterwards the other ten disciples were indignant over this. Truly not much has changed in 2000 years, and I speak as a guilty party. Yes, I need to go to Confession – again.

  • For the life of me I do not see how Judy Collins or Joan Baez covering “Amazing Grace” renders the song secular. Its lyrics are plainly Christian and stirring, as the song’s history makes abundantly clear. Why a Catholic pastor would be offended by the song is beyond my comprehension, but disobeying his instructions during Mass is inexcusable.

  • While I understand that some people may not like Shea’s style, as far as I can tell, the man has never said a single heterodox thing since becoming Catholic. Claiming that he does not like Voris and Corapi because they are orthodox is silly, and it ignore the point he is trying to make (a point that I actually quite agree with), which is probably why he gets so frustrated by the responses he gets — they miss the point. So, for the record, does discussion about whether Amazing Grace is a Catholic hymn or whose side you take.

    She’s point is that Voris’ attempts at being Catholic are primarily focused on cutting down and attacking, as if orthodoxy were primarily a sword and not primarily something beautiful and life giving. Sure, orthodoxy has to defend itself from heresy or fake orthodoxy. But its main job is to help us have life and have it abundantly. And when the self-appointed guardians of Catholicism — and the ones who tend to make headlines — focus primarily on destroying this or that evil thing (especially when the thing is only questionable) they make converting the culture that much harder by presenting an entirely unattractive and mostly false picture of what orthodoxy looks like.

    Shea is sensitive to this fact. So are all of us with friends who don’t understand why one would want to be Catholic but are open. People like Voris make the task of talking to those friends that much harder. And that is a far worse thing than singing Amazing Grace.

  • We know that arguments on the internet tend to (a) get personal, and (b) escalate. If we can do so, let’s keep the conversation about hymn-good versus hymn-bad, rather than Voris versus Shea. We’re Catholics; we’re supposed to be charitable.

  • I apologize. “AG is clownish on the pipes? How so?”

    I think the pipes once were called “war pipes.” I prefer the pipes for “tunes of glory,” for funerals to tunes of adoration, and for the Sword Dance. The pipes were meant to get the blood up when war was “up close and personal”: cleaving assunder the other clan’s gallowglass with a claymoor or battleaxe. “Clownish” probably is the wrong word.

    Does AG express a confidence (arrogance is opposite of humility) of salvation (justification by conversion/Faith?) which may not comport with Catholic teaching: Hope for Salvation, the forgiveness (repentence, confession, penance, amendment of life) of sins, etc.?

  • I agree, Pinky. For whatever reasons, argumentation over the blogosphere tends to become much more sharp-elbowed much more quickly than argumentation over a Guinness. When participating, I try always to have a Guinness either in my hand or on my mind.

  • I disagree, T, on both counts.

    Hymns are types of prayers, of which their are 5 types: adoration, contrition, love, petition, and thanksgiving. AG falls into the last category — no need for it to touch the other bases as well.

    The use of the pipes for reflective prayer is effective precisely because they are powerful and associated with getting the blood up. It is the reason why the hard rock group Nazareth’s most popular song was the ballad “Love Hurt,” and why Steppenwolf’s subdued “Another’s Lifetime” was the most moving version of that song ever recorded. There is something very powerful in restraint.

  • Opinons are like noses. Everybody has one.

  • A competent musician, and certainly any composer, will offer that music itself conveys a message, one that altogether bypasses the analytical filtering faculties of the listener: “Music is language without words.” Hence it requires a scrutiny perhaops more careful than the lyrics, which we presumably scrutinize as a matter of course. With few exceptions, Protestant music exhibits a characteristic style or range of styles, styles which appear in not a few post Vatican II ‘Catholic’ hymns. The style is marked by a relatively heightened celebration of sentiment (‘enthusiasm’ in Fr. Knox’s sense), which, given the non-sacramental nature of the ordinary Protestant life of faith, stands to reason. Our religious experience must be as sensory as it is spiritual because we are physical creatures no less than souls, and where physical instruments of grace are rejected, an emotional experience of worship must compensate. Given that the musical message is assimilated along with the lyrics, and Amazing Grace is the product of a radically Protestant sensibility, its view is obviously averted from the sacramental life of Catholicism. We are obliged to ask as well, does the message of Protestant music comport with Catholic faith?

  • The problem with Shea’s blogging is not so much his “style”. It is the fact that he often engages in calumnious swipes at those he disagrees with particualrly in matters of politics and national security issues as well as capital punishment. On the latter he accused Tom McKenna of wanting “death, death, and more death” simply because McKenna supported the execution of Saddam Hussein. He has also portrayed Mr. McKenna’s support in general for capital punishment, a position that is perfectly legitimate from a Catholic moral perspective coupled with the fact that Mr. McKenna has specific expertise on this subject as a prosecutor with experieince with capital cases in like fashion. You can also read Shea’s despicable attacks on good Catholics like Marc Thiessien for daring to make the case for the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques employed by the Bush Administration to glean intelligence from high level terrorists when other means failed. These are only two examples, but there are scores more.

    Even worse, MArk has been given a pass on this by the entire Catholic apologetics and writers establishment including outlets like Catholic Exchange, Catholic Answers, and Crisis Magazine. This is a problem that makes whatever failings Voris has look like small potatoes in comparison.

  • Since the Church teaches us that we can only be saved through God’s grace, I simply cannot see any real theological issue with AG.

    And while I find J Pelham’s comments regarding the music itself interesting, I find them far too speculative and subjective to be instructive in assessing AG.

    On the other hand if I were to speculate, I’d say Voris’s assessment of AG is largely a function of his rather notoriously disproportionate animus toward Protestants and Protestantism. If the very same hymn had been written by Newman rather than Newton, Voris and others would have no issues.

  • J. Pelham – I understand the argument, but I don’t think it reflects the history of our hymns, in which Protestant and Catholic tunes and lyrics are mixed. I’ve noticed that a lot of the great hymns from my youth were written by Charles Wesley, for example. There was also an Anglican hymnist, William Chatterton Dix, who wrote “Alleluia, Sing To Jesus” and “What Child Is This”. I mean, “here on earth both Priest and Victim / in the Eucharistic feast”? Are you going to find anything more Catholic than that? We’d also have to give up Bach for not being Catholic.

  • Greg,

    I can’t disagree more; Shea isn’t engaging in calumny when he goes after Marc Thiessen. He is doing exactly what pro-lifers argue our apologists should be doing more of: pointing out the hard truth that one cannot favor certain policies and be a Catholic in good standing. And it was frustrating to see supposedly orthodox catholics bend over backwards to be orthodox Republicans first, trying to twist their Catholicism to justify whatever policies Bush could come up with next. I think what you are calling calumny was merely Shea’s frustrations boiling over.

    As for the death penalty stuff, I don’t recall what you are talking about so I’ll take your word for it. But Thiessen was doing exactly what pro-choice politicians do all the time and he deserved to be called out for it. And pewsitting Catholics deserved to know that one cannot advocate with Thiessen was advocating and remain a Catholic in good standing.

  • There is no comparison between the death penalty and abortion. Romans 13:1-7 gives the State the power of the sword to execute justice. It is ludicrous to make capital punishment and abortion morally equivalent. Quantitatively, there is no comparison between 60 million murdered innocent babies and a few thousand hardened criminals who received what a jury of their peers determined that they deserve. Qualitatively, there is a world of difference between a murderer or rapist being sent to God for final judgment, and an innocent baby being mortally evacuated from his mother’s womb by the most tortuous methods possible. At least the criminal is treated more humanely.

    No I did NOT say I support the death penalty. I prefer (as my father did) solitary confinement for capital offenders with perpetual Bible reading and hymn singing (even Amazing Grace) under a continuously illuminated 100 watt light bulb with no respite. Let the criminal have his bed and blankets, and feed him, and give him a clean toilet with toilet paper. But keep him forever in solitary till God calls him to stand before the Throne of Justice. Of course, all the bleeding heart liberals will hate that just as much as capital punishment. Too bad. Regardless that that is ever unlikely to be done, it’s what I support in lieu of simply sending the criminal to where he belongs.

  • Hymnody doesn’t always represent theology. Poetry can’t be fully faithful to one’s set of views or philosophic points. I find Amazing Grace to be an extraordinary hymn. Sometimes a poem or lyrics manage to capture something. I think that’s what Newton did.

  • I think, too, there comes a time in one’s life when one can say, justifiably, that they possess salvation. Amazing Grace, if it offers that level of confidence at all, is better for it.

  • “I think, too, there comes a time in one’s life when one can say, justifiably, that they possess salvation.”

    That is the sin of presumption. Not as deadly as the sin of despair but a sin nonetheless.

  • I think it CAN be presumptuous if one really isn’t saved. But if one IS and has been so, to acknowledge the obvious signs and reach the correct conclusion is merely a reflex.

  • It’s not presumptuous to say that I have been saved from dying with a heroin needle in my veins (hopefully my detractor won’t yell at me for violating my anonymity again). That’s a reality for which I am grateful. And it’s not presumptuous to say that every day when I ask God for help, I am being saved. As for whether or not I will be saved, I’ll simply be happy to make it as far as Purgatory (because everyone who gets to Purgatory ends up in Heaven).

  • I believe one can reach a point, and will reach a point, where they know they are a child of God. John the epistle writer wrote that his readers may know that their sins were forgiven and that they passed from darkness to light.

  • Isn’t “once saved, always saved” a Calvinist doctrine? I thought Catholicism teaches otherwise.

  • If Pat’s point isn’t correct, then I may as well go back to using heroin and cocaine, and frequenting prostitutes, and stealing and lying as I used to.

  • No, it’s not a Calvinist doctrine, although it’s shared by Calvinists. It’s simply the way it goes. If God calls you home, then a point will arrive where that’s evident to you.

  • No one is saved until after death and safely in Heaven or Purgatory. Even the greatest would be Saint can fall prior to death, and even the greatest sinner can taste God’s mercy prior to death. The proud Pharisee and the poor sinner at the Temple is a telling parable about the dangers of presumption.

  • But I think poor man Divies really did look forward to the promised land. The Pharisee was the one kidding himself.

  • Even the greatest would be Saint can fall prior to death, and even the greatest sinner can taste God’s mercy prior to death

    How so, Don?

  • What you are stating pat has never been Catholic doctrine. It is the false doctrine of Eternal Assurance, or Eternal Security, and has never been taught by the Church.

  • John, the epistle writer, told his readers that he wrote in order that they may know who they were, what they experienced, and what that meant. It’s implications, both temporal and eternal.

  • “Even the greatest would be Saint can fall prior to death, and even the greatest sinner can taste God’s mercy prior to death

    How so, Don?”

    Very easily indeed Joe. The great sinner on his death bed humbly turns to God and asks for forgiveness of his sins, in bitter regret for a mispent life. The lost lamb that is found is ever pleasing to God.

    The great Saint commits a great sin and does not repent of it before he is called before God for the Particular Judgement. The use by Our Lord of analogies of the first being last and the last being first indicates that this may happen more frequently that we humans reckon. On this Earth, no one is ever so high that he cannot fall, and no one is ever so low that he cannot rise.

  • Don, so save the best for the last, right?

  • There is an interesting article at Catholic Answers about assurance of salvation:

  • DOnald, I think the writers of the New Testament bear this out: patterns exist in the lives of those called home to God. Christians should indicate that God’s Holy Spirit is at work in them through holy living. Progressive sanctification is the direction I believe it takes. Deathbed conversions occur. Those people know they are saved and die peacefully.

  • How can one have peace with God? They know their sins are forgiven. Christ died for them. He rose again and they will be resurrected in Him. This is reconciliation through the cross.

  • I think pat that anyone who presumes to know his eternal destination in this life is a fool, and such has always been the teaching of the Church.

    From the Council of Trent:

    “CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.”

    Unless one is promised paradise, as the kids were at Fatima for example, by a special revelation, assuming that one is saved is sinful nonsense. It isn’t as sinful as assuming that one is damned, but it has always been rightly condemned by the Church.

  • “Don, so save the best for the last, right?”

    Rather Joe we should all live as if today will be our last day, because for some of us, present company excepted I trust, it will be.

  • Which is why, Don, I suppose, that there will be people in heaven whom we thought we’d never see. Who knows? Maybe Hitler made a deathbed confession?

  • I disagree. I’m aware of numerous N.T. passages that deal with knowing one is a child of God. Like most else, it remains a matter of faith. But it is a faith that says I’m saved forevermore.

  • Kind of makes a mockery of Pascal’s Wager, doesn’t it, Don?

  • “How can one have peace with God? They know their sins are forgiven. Christ died for them. He rose again and they will be resurrected in Him. This is reconciliation through the cross.”

    Christ died for all pat, including the souls burning eternally in Hell. Our lives determine our eternal destination as Christ stated time and again in the Gospels.

  • I think we live by faith in the Son of Man and what he did. He died for the whole world. Whosoever will may come forth to take the free gift of life that inevitably bears fruit.

  • “Maybe Hitler made a deathbed confession?”

    Considering his last will and testament which endorsed his appalling crimes, the accounts of witnesses to his last hours, and the fact that he put a bullet through his brain, I think the chances of last minute repentance by the Austrian Corporal were minimal. However, not being God I will not presume to guess what happened in the very last instances of Hitler’s life.

  • If one doesn’t know what road he’s on (e.g., the one to heaven), then perhaps one ought to rethink where one is headed. I am NOT saying we should presume that we will stay on the road to end up in Heaven. But we should know what road we are on by doing an examination of conscience and going to Confession. Additionally, we can and should take comfort in knowing Jesus loves us and is a merciful and just Judge. Lastly (at least in my case) we can be grateful that we are saved from a life of self-destruction. Again, I don’t say we should presume we make it to Heaven, but if we can’t look forward to that as our goal, then what’s the point?

  • 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

  • “Again, I don’t say we should presume we make it to Heaven, but if we can’t look forward to that as our goal, then what’s the point?”

    Oh look forward to it all you want Paul, just don’t presume that you’ll get there until you get there.

  • I don’t believe God plays games with us. If he calls us home, then at some point we will find ourselves on the path that leads there. It’s not presumptious to recognize what street I’m on when driving to my physical home, is it?

  • And if I’m called to my spiritual home, I should be aware that I’m heading there. Otherwise I’m going in no particular direction at all, or perhaps zigzagging.

  • I don’t so presume, Donald, because I know what I deserve, and I am well aware I am but one drink or drug away from screwing up royally.

    BTW, I would suspect you, too, are on the road to Heaven. But like any imperfect human being, you too could screw up and not make it there.

    Someone somewhere in the Catholic blogosphere wrote a little essay explaining from Scripture why salvation is a process, i.e., “I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.” The point wasn’t the doctrine of blessed assurance that the Protestants profess, but the idea that salvation is a journey.

  • Salvation is a destination, rather. We are saved from something. We are saved to something. We find salvation in Christ. Christ died for the salvation of the world. ‘Whosoever will’ represents all those who do come. But I think God initiates this. We also knwo that “He who has begun a good work in us will bring it to completion.”

  • I read in Romans:

    If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

  • Yes, I think it really comes down to faith in what God has done. Do we really believe it? THen we are included, and we will bear the inevitable fruit.

  • A few random thoughts of my own:

    All other things being equal, a meal served on fine china with cloth napkins and real silverware will be more pleasing and indicate a higher degree of respect for the guest than if the same meal were served with plastic or paper plates, plastic utensils, and paper napkins. However, if one is starving or really, really hungry and only gets one decent meal per week, one is probably not going to complain too loudly about being served on plastic vs. china as long as the meal is edible.

    To me, a Mass done with perfect reverence and with strictly “Catholic” hymns and chant would be like the meal served on china; a Mass done with a four-hymn sandwich that included “Amazing Grace” would be served on plastic; a Mass done with “Ashes” or “City of God” would be served on used paper plates. Yes, it would be much more pleasing served on the elegant china, but as long as it’s a valid Mass and Eucharist and I don’t hear or see anything grossly heretical or liturgically forbidden — if the “food” is not contaminated or spoiled beyond palatability — I’m not going to complain.

    I really don’t see where being excessively picky about liturgical correctness if you are not one of the persons responsible for the conduct of the liturgy (i.e. the priest or the parish music director) is any sign of superior intellect or virtue.

    As far as the doctrine of “eternal security,” obviously no one can be 100 percent certain they will be saved or 100 percent certain that they will be lost. However, there is a lot of range in between into which most of us fall.

    “Living saints” like Mother Teresa might have a 99 percent chance of being saved whereas a hardened criminal or serial killer may only have a 1 percent chance of being saved. Neither is absolutely 100 percent, but the probability can be pretty strong one way or the other.

    Assuming that most of us on this blog are practicing Catholics who are conscientiously attempting to avoid mortal sin, grow in holiness and conform to the mind of the Church — or in the case of Joe, someone open to the truth and sincerely striving to find it — I’d say we have about a 60 to 80 percent chance of being saved. However, that is not absolute certainty, any more than a weather forecast of a 70 percent chance of rain guarantees that you personally will get wet. Hence we neither presume nor despair of our salvation.

  • I probably should clarify that my reference to Mother Teresa as a living saint refers to the way she was perceived during her lifetime, of course, and not to the present, since she is now a Blessed on her way to sainthood (100 percent chance of salvation).

  • I think the tenor of scripture has been that those whom God calls respond and do so with their lives, bearing out that pattern. John, the epistle writer, wrote that we may know our sins are forgiven and that we are children of the light, that we walk in light and are part of the kingdom of light. There is almost a dichotomy, and perhaps there is, in his first epistle.

  • In other words, one is either on one side or the other, and if one is ‘in the light,’ one should realize it at some point.

  • ““Living saints” like Mother Teresa might have a 99 percent chance of being saved whereas a hardened criminal or serial killer may only have a 1 percent chance of being saved. Neither is absolutely 100 percent, but the probability can be pretty strong one way or the other.”

    True Elaine and throughout most of her adult life Mother Teresa endured a long dark night of the soul where she felt no sign of God. If her confessor had asked her about whether she thought that she was saved I doubt if he would have elicited a positive response. Yet another aspect to me of the greatness of Mother Teresa in that she persisted in her wonderful service of God when she did not feel His presence at all.

  • “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

  • Yes, to perist in the Christian life apart from those feelings is difficult. But the conviction that one is a Christian, a saint, and bound for heaven can actually remain amidst that darkness and silence. It is only important that the life continues to be characterized by holiness.

  • “It’s not presumptious to recognize what street I’m on when driving to my physical home, is it?”

    It certainly is if you have no idea when the trip will end and whether you will persist in the journey until you arrive home.

  • Quoting Elaine: ‘As far as the doctrine of “eternal security,” obviously no one can be 100 percent certain they will be saved or 100 percent certain that they will be lost. However, there is a lot of range in between into which most of us fall.’

    Not exactly the certainty I was looking for, Elaine, which I remain a doubter. As a sometimes gambler, the odds don’t look good for me. I’m probably in the low single-digits, percentage-wise. Now if I could get up to 70 to 80 percent I’d feel pretty good. So it comes down to a numbers game, I guess.

    All my life I have been seeking just one certainty. Who was it who said, “Tell me of your certainties. I have doubts enough of my own.” Which is why I am stuck in that worst of all places — agnosticism.

  • “But the conviction that one is a Christian, a saint, and bound for heaven can actually remain amidst that darkness and silence.”

    I can think of few things more spiritually poisonous pat than presuming that one is a saint on earth. For me, I hope I will meet my maker as I am, a poor miserable sinner praying for a mercy that I do not deserve.

  • “Yet another aspect to me of the greatness of Mother Teresa in that she persisted in her wonderful service of God when she did not feel His presence at all.”

    My father, a Pentecostal (Assemblies of God), used to paraphrase a certain verse of Scripture to state, “We do not live by feelings alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

    BTW, my Dad died at 72 years of age where he wanted to die: in church on a Sunday night worship service. The place wasn’t exactly Catholic, but God granted him his wish and if he doesn’t make it / hasn’t made it to Heaven (and none of us know for certain), then my chances are quite minimal.

  • Donald, I don’t find it presumptuous to say where I’m going when I die if I’ve believed and confessed, and if this has been borne out over a long period of time (in a progressive way). I just consider that ‘naming’ the experience. Salvation in Christ. Faith in his work. A life that bears fruit as a result of the Spirit’s work. Forensic justification and future justification on the basis of all that God accomplishes throughout that timespan when judgement comes.

  • God judges us pat, not us. The human capacity for delusion is limitless when it comes to judging oneself, which is why the Church condemns both presumption and despair as sins.

  • I think God reveals himself to his people. I think those people can know what He decides to reveal to them. I believe the tenor of the Bible bears this out: Noah, Abraham, the Prophets, the early Disciples, Paul, believers generally who are called by Him.

  • God encounter us. He initiates a response. There’s a dialogue. If it’s real, we ought to know it’s occurring. Don’t you agree?

  • Presumably Judas thought he had an inside track on salvation when he was chosen by Christ as an Apostle. Martin Luther and John Calvin thought they were assured of their salvation. We are often the very worst judges of our own spiritual state. In any case we do not do the judging, but pray for God’s mercy. Lucifer fell because of his pride, and the Church has always regarded such spiritual pride as a very deadly sin.

  • I think you’re confusing different things. If a person has confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and Messiah, and believe that in their heart, they are saved. They can go forth confidently knowing God loves and forgives them, and that they are his children.

  • “If a person has confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and Messiah, and believe that in their heart, they are saved. They can go forth confidently knowing God loves and forgives them, and that they are his children.”

    And throughout that person’s life they can still fall into mortal sin that can send them to Hell. That is precisely why we say in the Hail Mary:

    “Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    pray for us sinners,
    now and at the hour of our death.

    In the Our Father Christ has us pray:

    “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

    Until we are dead we all feel the lure and temptation of sin, and it is possible for any of us to fall, no matter how cock sure we are of our salvation.

  • Well Donald, if we have salvation through Christ, then it is precisely the mercy of God that has met us. It intersects at the point of our deepest sin, all of which is atoned for. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, has been sent, given to empower and enable, through Christ, to accomplish the will of the Father. The Christian, then, is one who has been called by God, saved in Christ, and is led by the Spirit. To accept this knowledge is not presumptious. It is merely to acknowledge what God has already revealed in the Scripture and in our own life.

  • So I think the following is a good quesion to ask: Do our lives accord with the Scripture?

  • “Well Donald, if we have salvation through Christ, then it is precisely the mercy of God that has met us.”

    God’s mercy is always available to repentant sinners pat. Until death, anyone can die a repentant sinner, and, conversely, until death anyone can die an unrepentant sinner.

  • In this dialogue on salvation, the one word that is missing, is HOPE .
    We cannot say we are saved because we are living according to Christ’s teaching – that is not our call. What we can say is that by following Christ’s teaching, we live in Hope of salvation.
    Hope is, after all, one of the three Theological Virtues – Faith, Hope and Charity.

  • Well said as usual Don! Christ is our Hope.

  • Exactly, Don.

    Pat, there have been some saints who have spoken with confidence about their afterlifes. There have been others who professed no confidence. A good number struggled on their deathbeds. Joan of Arc was asked if she was in a state of grace. She answered, “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.” Paul, who late in life said that he’d fought the good fight and would possess the crown of righteousness, also warned us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

    We are repeatedly warned against both despair of salvation and certainty of salvation. We are told to hope in salvation.

  • Chris:

    Mark Shea’s attacks on Marc Thiessen most definitely ARE calumnious. There is nothing in the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques employed by th Bush Administration that are inconsistent with Catholic morality. If they were then Catholic teaching is inconsistent with itself. Think about it, the Church teaches that it is morally licit to put a criminal to death to protect the common good (i.e. the death penalty), but not impose discomfort to a terrorist to get him to cooperate so he will divulge intelligence that save innocent lives is a clear contradiction. This is what people like Mark Shea are positing as Catholic teaching and equating anyone who disagrees with such idiotic reasoning with pro-aborts as he does Marc Thiessen here:

    As far as his dispicable attack on Tom McKenna, you can read that here:

    And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Any intelligent Catholic who does not regard Mark Shea’s conduct as the scandal that it is shows they have absolutely no respect for the integrity and credibility of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. This is especially true about the apologetics and writers establishemnt who make their living off of that very thing.

    American Catholic’s own Chris Blosser has a good piece on Shea’s behavior here:

  • We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. And we are told to make our calling and election sure. Sure, here, means certainity in the realm of faith, as far as that goes.

  • Greg,
    I am no fan of Mark’s style, but I think you are on very weak ground as to the morality of torture, and yes while the definitional boundaries of torture might lack perfect clarity, the notion that waterboarding is not within those boundaries is simply not reasonable. The comparison to the death penalty is inapt for all manner of reasons, and a fair-minded analysis of Church teaching leaves little room for doubt. I say this even as one who admits a discomfort with (i.e., lack of complete understanding of) Church teachng in extreme cases, such as the proverbial ticking time bomb scenario. The waterboarding of prisoners is not humane, and the Catechism plainly and expressly demands humane treatment.
    All that said, our Church’s teaching in this respect is not especially intuitive despite being grounded, presumably, in natural law. In this respect it is more like the death penalty than abortion, not because the death penalty can be admitted in exceptional cases, but because the case against it as an ordinary matter is not intuitive to most people despite its natural law origins.
    In the end, you are simply mistaken in saying that waterboarding prisoners is not against Catholic teaching. Notwithstanding my discomfort with Catholic teaching in this respect, the teaching is clear to anyone who approaches it fairly and objectively.
    All that said, I do think that given Catholic teaching’s somewhat counter-intuitive nature in this respect, exceptional charity is called for when judging those who refuse to assent to such teaching by basically stubbornly distorting it.

  • And I should have added that I do think that Mark has occasionally failed to display such charity in my view, though in some of these cases his intemperate assertions were themselves responses to intemperate assertions.

  • Shea is clearly in the wrong, and Voris’s orthodoxy offends him.

    If you’ve been banished from Shea’s comboxes, join the support group at:

  • Why create a Facebook web page on a pompous donkey full of himself and what he thinks? It is always best to ignore such people and continue to give credence and publicity to any and all whom they think they can deride with impunity. Michael Voris makes mistakes sometimes, and it is his very orthodoxy which the envious hate. Ain’t nothing orthodox about him who edifies himself as God’s gift to the Catholic blogosphere.

  • I think there are lots of folks who are not aware of Shea’s methods. It’s not just his blustering and foaming at the mouth whenever a “Rad Trad” shows up….It’s the way he censors his comboxes so as to hide the weakness in his arguments. He doesn’t just kick out the obscene and the blasphemous; he ruthlessly puts down well-informed and well-documented objections to his drivel.

    And, satire is inherently fun:

  • All this convinces me more than ever that the real patron saint of the Catholic blogosphere ought to be St. Jerome, who was known for being irascible.

    St. Paul could get kind of snarky when he wanted to as well. In Galatians he ends an extended rant about the “Judaizers” who insisted that Gentile converts to Christ had to first become Jews (which included, for male converts, circumcision) by saying “Would that those who are troubling you would mutilate themselves,” or in my favorite version — think this is from the Living Bible or one of those more “modern” translations — “Tell those who are troubling you (about circumcision) that I’d like to see the knife slip !”

    If the Church survived those two it can probably survive a few combox flame wars, even though flame wars are not my style at all and I actually prefer Shea to Voris (since Shea does at least have a sense of humor).

  • I think Amazing Grace was found troubling because it communicated a level of certainty: it assumes that the Christian person has passed from death to life, that they are a new creature. I frankly embrace that. After all, St. Paul tells us that that’s what it means to be in Christ.

    The writers of the epistles addressed their audiences as people redeemed in Christ. True, some of them had yet to make their calling and election sure. Others were warned or said to be in need of discipline. Still others were considered outsiders. But the writers assumed that the bulk of them were already in Christ and bound for glory. The writers possessed confidence that many or most of those addressed believed, bore fruit, and in doing so, had revealed that heaven was their destination. Confidence and assurance of salvation was sought, encouraged, and acknowledged in numerous ways throughout the epistles.

  • Pat – A theme on this thread is the proper way to argue and/or challenge someone who’s presenting theological error. With that in mind let me say that as far as I know, the teachings of the Catholic Church have consistently spoken against the kind of certainty you suggest. I don’t know if you’re Catholic or if Catholic doctrine carries any weight with you, but you should look into this issue more seriously than we’re likely to get on a comment thread.

  • Pinky, it seems the hymn found disagreement with someone because of its message. What I suggest is that the Scripture witnesses to the theme of grace and that one could reach assurance of their salvation. This has been my experience too. Your thoughts?

  • Mike:

    To say that waterboarding, which cause no permanent injury, is not within the boundaries of Catholic morality because it is inhumane, but capital punishment is, would mean Church teaching contradicts itself. In the case of waterboarding terrorists who we know have actionable intelligence upon whom innocent lives depend and refuse to divulge it. In both cases, legitimate means are being employed to protect innocent people from an unjust aggressor.

    By the way, the Church DOES NOT I repeat DOES NOT teach that torture is intrinsically evil. No, Veritatis Splendor #80 doesn’t teach that either. If you read it closely, along with torture it lists deportation, unsuitable living conditions, etc. You mean to tell me that deportation is wrong under any circumstances? That’s what intrinsically evil means. You cannot define something as intrinsically evil if you have no clear definition of what that something is. Furthermore, if the Church now teaches that torture is intrinsically evil it would contradict her own past since she had no problem with it in past ages.

    Even Mark Shea unwittingly admits that waterboarding is not intrinsically evil when he says that it is morally acceptable for our military to use it to train troops. If it is intrinsically evil that means it cannot be employed under any circumstances, including the training of troops.

  • Greg,

    You are wrong from beginning to end. AMAZING

    Church teaching does not contradict itself.
    Yes, Veritatis Splendor teaches that torture is intrisically evil:

    “Whatever is hostile to life itself, … whatever violates the integrity of the human person, … whatever is offensive to human dignity: … all these and the like are a disgrace.”

    Yes, Veritiatis Splendor teaches that deportation is intrinsically evil. (It not the same as exradition, which Paul VI himself spoke well of.)

    Whether or not members of church practiced or approved torture in the past has no bearing on the intrinsic nature of the evil. (A lively discussion on the matter you may be familiar with:

    No, what’s-his-name does not “unwittingly admit” that torture is a-ok because the military uses it to train troops. If you read anything at all about the SPECIFIC nature of what was done to KSM and the other terrorists, and compare it with the SPECIFIC nature of waterboard training — as so many of us in this debate already have done — you would know how different they are.

  • Larry Coty, Math Professor at Georgia Perimeter College and stalwart defender of the courage of Josef Mengele and the SS! Have you shared with the folks here your vigorous and enthusiastic encomiums to the greatness of the SS? Or your sympathies with David Irving, Holocaust Denier?

    Really, if you are going to go around trying to gather a little group to help you in your Hate Mark Shea project, you really at least ought to tell them a little about your background. They do have a right to know. So sad you pulled down your little bookstore chocked with encomiums to the “great” Adolf Hitler.

  • Hmmmm….are you going to do an expose on everyone who recognizes the kind of person you are?

  • Shea,

    1. You told me in a private email that you “couldn’t care less” whether I left up my “Big Fat Phony” blog, as long as I “stayed out of your comboxes.” I have done so; but apparently the “Banished by Mark Shea Support Group” on Facebook is too much for you. You continue to run your silly little mouth while censoring those who effectively disagree. I am interested to see just how many of us “banned” people are out there. Link here, folks:

    2. I have never defended the greatness of “the SS.” I have tried to explain to you that many Waffen-SS units fought in the field admirably and against tremendous odds. This is a matter of history, not opinion. I have also tried to explain to you that the “camp guard” units were not drawn from the Waffen-SS but from the Allgemeine-SS, which was a completely separate organization and which was *not* under the control of the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht). These distinctions seem too difficult for you to process.

    3. I have not defended Mengele’s entire career. I merely pointed out that the record shows that, *before* he was sent to Auschwitz, and *while* he was fighting the Russians in the 5th W-SS Division “Wiking” he apparently acted heroically in rescuing two crewmen from a burning tank. He got the Iron Cross for this. You, though, insist on a comic-book version of history in which the “Angel of Death” Mengele must have been a crazed villain at every moment of his life. [By the way, folks: This all started when Doktor Shea attacked some Tea-Party candidate simply because he took part in a battle re-enactment group which identified itself as the 5th W-SS Division. These groups are very common, and can be found re-enacting battles from many wars. It seems silly to me; but Shea treats it as a hanging offense.]

    4. I do not have a “bookstore.” I have used an on-demand service to reprint a number of out-of-print books, including two by Savitri Devi, who was a rabid National Socialist. She is an important writer, and has been the subject of a number of scholarly studies (such as Goodrick-Clarke’s “Hitler’s Priestess.”) I have also reprinted books such as “The Divine Liturgy” by Nikolai Gogol, a collection of essays dedicated to Hilaire Belloc, and Dante’s essay “De Monarchia.”

    5. Your repeated efforts to embarrass me or to cause trouble for me (such as by calling the “ethics hotline” of the University System here in Georgia) are doomed to failure. I have written nothing that I would not proudly defend in any public forum. I think it is very significant that you would go to such lengths to try and silence one of your critics. I guess you are afraid that if the word gets out to your fans that you manipulate your comboxes to exclude not only the “wild stuff” but also clear challenges to or refutations of your theses, then you might be seen for the addled egomaniac you so clearly are.

  • Mr. Shea,
    The Hate Mark Shea project was created by you and only you. No one can disagree with you or you corner people to death or you delete our comments or you call their bosses??? NICE. We aren’t the ones that run our mouth and post a blog at everything that comes into our minds like you do. Again, that project – you created. Maybe if you thought first and investigated before you posted and then thought of possibly being charitable in your posts, then more people wouldn’t feel so strongly about your rudeness! My advice? Grab a mirror and take a hard look at thyself. Seriously!

    oh and BRAVO Paul Primavera!!! Perfectly said, “Why create a Facebook web page on a pompous donkey full of himself and what he thinks? It is always best to ignore such people and continue to give credence and publicity to any and all whom they think they can deride with impunity. Michael Voris makes mistakes sometimes, and it is his very orthodoxy which the envious hate. Ain’t nothing orthodox about him who edifies himself as God’s gift to the Catholic blogosphere.”

  • Oh for crying out loud, are we headed down yet another torturtous torture debate rabbit hole? (Having to scroll through or moderate one of those threads would be my personal idea of blogger purgatory 🙂 )

    And how does participation on the German side of a WWII reenactors group make someone a “defender” of the Nazis any more than participating on the Confederate side of a Civil War reenactment automatically makes one a secessionist or traitor?

  • “Your [Mark Shea’s] repeated efforts to embarrass me [L. Coty] or to cause trouble for me (such as by calling the ‘ethics hotline’ of the University System here in Georgia) are doomed to failure.”

    It seems that someone behaves worse than my atheist ex-wife. I am not, however, in the least surprised. Yet it is dismaying that such a person should escape with impunity for criticizing his better – Michael Voris.

  • Well, I am glad I have internet connection this morning as the comments in this thread seem to be devolving into a back and forth on Mark which was not the intention of my post. I am therefore closing the comments and getting back to my vacation. Three comments before I do:

    1. Jasper, I didn’t delete your comments or anyone else’s comments on this thread.

    2. The Waffen-SS had a habit of massacring POWs they captured. They did this for example to American troops at Malmedy. The myth of the simon pure Waffen-SS is just that, a myth.

    3. Writing about Mengele receiving a medal for courage is rather like mentioning that Hitler served with courage in the First World War, both strike me as utterly besides the main point. Both men were monsters and the world was a vastly worse place due to their having lived.

RealCatholicTV, Creating Reversions and Conversions to the Faith

Wednesday, February 23, AD 2011

RealCatholicTV has created controversy among dissident Catholics for it’s orthodoxy and frankl fidelity to the Magisterium.  For some unfathomable reason even some faithful Catholics are put off by this blunt and direct approach.

I for one don’t agree with some of those faithful Catholics because what may seem blunt and direct is actually honest and refreshing.

Souls are at stake and no amount of hang-wringing causes me any lost sleep because Michael Voris states only the Truth.

Those that are uncomfortable with the Truth being spoken should only go back to the Holy Bible and what Jesus says about watering down the Truth:

but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

— the Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 18:6

For RealCatholicTV click here.

Continue reading...

43 Responses to RealCatholicTV, Creating Reversions and Conversions to the Faith

  • For some unfathomable reason even some faithful Catholics are put off by this blunt and direct approach.

    I for one don’t agree with some of those faithful Catholics because what may seem blunt and direct is actually honest and refreshing.

    FWIW, I think there are different emotional and intellectual tones which work better in speaking to different people. While I’m quite sure some find Voris’s approach bracing and encouraging, others seem to find it abrasive or off-putting.

    I think that there’s enough to understand about God that in many cases there can be more than one legitimate way of talking about true doctrine, not because one conceals the truth while the other shows it, but because the things we as Catholics seek to describe are large enough to be discussed profitably in multiple ways.

    To the extent that Voris is helping people remain in their faith or come back to their faith, I would see him as doing good work. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that his is the only way of doing good work and keeping people in the faith.

    So, I think that someone could legitimately think that other approaches than Voris’s would be better at reaching certain people, or even people in general, without being against the truth.

  • Darwin,

    Well said.

    Being part Neanderthal I appreciate Michael Voris’ approach.

    And those that take this approach a different way I completely respect.

  • Do we have a statistic on the number of reversions and conversions that can be attributed to Mr. Voris?

    If so, I wonder how they compare to the number of reversions and conversions that can be attributed to EWTN and its much lower-key approach. I know that EWTN played a key part in my conversion because everything about the programming evinced a love for the Church.

    I like some of what Mr. Voris does, but am completely put off by his attitude toward the successors of the Apostles. Where I saw love for the Church as a would-be convert watching EWTN, if I were a would-be convert watching only RealCatholicTV, I might run in the other direction rather than be part of a Church whose leaders were held in such contempt.

    With Mr. Voris, we see a lot of what’s wrong with the Body of Christ, and very little of what’s right with it. I’m not sure that’s an elixir for creating much of anything, much less reversions and conversions.

  • Heh. I don’t think Voris goes far enough sometimes, to be quite honest.

    But I do appreciate anyone who speaks absolute truth to power. And on most issues he is speaking the truth. He isn’t afraid to offend liberals with his language, and he isn’t afraid to point out the appalling and cowardly behavior of certain priests and bishops.

    He also wages war against the false modernist liberal idea of “charity” in speech, the idea that we must be polite and deferring at all times, even in the face of the most terrible abuses, blasphemies, and sacrilege. This idea of “charitable speech” as it has been promoted by modern liberalism only serves to obscure truth. I absolutely reject it. And I’m glad Voris does too.

  • God reaches people through more than one method.

    To criticize Michael Voris is to bring criticism to your own view on his tactics.

  • I periodically enjoy a good, strong glass of porto. But not on my breakfast cereal.

  • “To criticize Michael Voris is to bring criticism to your own view on his tactics.”

    Again, my comment is aimed solely at the assertion that Mr. Voris is directly responsible for reversions and conversions. I am speaking as a convert to say that his style would not have swayed me toward entering the Church.

    Mr. Voris’ style is good for exposing where there are shortcomings in the Church and its institutions. While I wish he weren’t so harsh with respect to the Bishops, I take no issue with what he sees as his mission.

    The ONLY thing I’m taking issue with is the notion, as stated in the title of this post, that Mr. Voris’ style is likely to bring about a significant number of reverts or converts.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, but, again, speaking as a convert who is, substantively, probably more in agreement with Mr. Voris than not, I do not find his style to be the sort of thing that would have made me WANT to enter the Church.

  • Mad bad Jay.

    Too much porto in my frosted flakes.

  • Voris reminds me of the Tea Party: uninterested in bridging understanding, populist in a “take it back from the intellectuals and the authorities” kind of way, and usually right.

  • The only people who find Voris offensive are the priests and bishops who aren’t doing their jobs, lay people who are reminded of the shortfalls of their faith and practise, and certain Catholic apologists who think he’s dodgy. I think most faithfl Catholics are qite happy with Mike.

  • “The only people who find Voris offensive are the priests and bishops who aren’t doing their jobs, lay people who are reminded of the shortfalls of their faith and practise, and certain Catholic apologists who think he’s dodgy.”

    The product of a lot of study on the subject of Mr. Voris’ detractors, no doubt.

    I wonder in which category I fall. I’m not a priest or a deacon. I’m not an apologist. I must be one of those lay people who fall short in their faith and practice. I think the definition is “sinner”.

    Guilty as charged.

  • The only people who find Voris offensive are the priests and bishops who aren’t doing their jobs, lay people who are reminded of the shortfalls of their faith and practise, and certain Catholic apologists who think he’s dodgy. I think most faithfl Catholics are qite happy with Mike.

    Well, personally, I find his overall style kind of abrasive and annoying — though I am sure that some Catholics find it helpful and I certainly don’t begrudge them that. Similarly, I’m sure that many people would find the writings I find most helpful to be overly intellectual and bogged down in qualifications.

    I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader, however, to figure out which of the above buckets I fall into.

  • I must be one of those lay people who fall short in their faith and practice. I think the definition is “sinner”.

    Guilty as charged.

    Ok, funny story from my college days… I showed up for Confession one Saturday afternoon, and I got in line behind my buddy Vito. He looked me up and down with a disgusted look on his face, and said in a disdainful tone: “Sinner!”

    As for Mr. Voris, I don’t have a problem with the content of his message; it’s more in his delivery.

  • “Do we have a statistic on the number of reversions and conversions that can be attributed to Mr. Voris?”

    Zero. I can assure you that Michael attributes every single reversion/conversion only to the work of the Holy Spirit. RealCatholicTV doesn’t change lives, only God does that.

  • “I wonder in which category I fall. I’m not a priest or a deacon. I’m not an apologist. I must be one of those lay people who fall short in their faith and practice. I think the definition is “sinner”.”

    With due respect Jay, this isn’t what we are talking about. To sin against the faith by denying it or watering it down or falsely representing it in public is nowhere near the same as to be a “sinner” in general. Yes, we are all sinners, myself, Voris, etc. But Church teaching and history, and common sense – since that is the popular phrase these days – show us that we must be able to correctly identify the faith, to distinguish it from false opinions and heretical ideas, even as lowly lay persons.

    Voris does this (to some extent). People who hold views that are contrary to those of the Church’s place themselves by their own obstinacy outside of her, and this is not the same as holding the faith but being a sinner – an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, etc.

  • Many people, not just Michael Voris ,think that the hour is late. The time to come to Jesus is now. The sentimental “God loves you” is fine for ages 7 and under, but people steeped in sin and in misunderstanding of the Bible, Catholicism and the Magisterium need help now. It doesn’t matter if you like his style, is he telling the Truth?

  • Lisa – It’s not that simple, is it? A statement like “bishops aren’t holding true to the faith” is correct, but it could undermine a person’s belief and drive him further from the Faith. It could make a person more likely to attend a goofy independent church that claims to be more faithful. It could expose the Church to ridicule. It could lead a person to believe that the problem is too much strictness rather than too much lenience. Casual general criticism is a dangerous thing.

  • I don’t know if “watering down the truth” is the right context for the verse of the Gospel of Matthew quoted.

  • I’m going out on a leg here and saying Jay isn’t a priest nor a nun.

    If bishops and priests feel uncomfortable with Michael Voris, then it’s a perfectly good sign they need to shape up or Lucifer will find a spot on the floor to his home for their cranium.

  • This video is self-congratulatory and shameless self-promotion. It seems that the narrator is quite comfortable with what he has done to convert individuals to Catholicism. Well, if one has read the Saints of the Church that the narrator himself refers to, one would immediately see something wrong with his attitude: he is *comfortable*–he thinks he is doing something better than say, the University of Notre Dame. No saint of the Church has expressed in his or her writings such comfort. Instead, the closer these holy men and women get to God, the more uncomfortable they become and the more inadequate they find themselves–as we can read from holy people like Mother Teresa.

    So in such spirit of loving oneself that seems acceptable in this blog, I’m going to praise myself and my husband. We very much agree with the Opus Dei approach to evangelization, which is perhaps diametrically opposed to what the narrator expresses here. Our friends who have converted to Catholicism perhaps as a result of our influence, have done so not because we told them “in their faces” how wrong they were. Instead, they were curious about something… I don’t know exactly what… maybe icons everywhere in our house, rosaries in our car, shoot, I don’t know. When they asked questions, they were puzzled by how well we knew Scripture, tradition, history, and how well we were able to explain the teachings of the Church. So I would say it has been a result of our actions, not of our denouncement of their beliefs.

  • If bishops and priests feel uncomfortable with Michael Voris, then it’s a perfectly good sign they need to shape up or Lucifer will find a spot on the floor to his home for their cranium.

    Well, or it might be that they feel that Voris would be more effective in reaching people if they spoke about things differently.

    Every so often, I cringe at how people I completely agree with go about expressing the beliefs that we share in common, because I worry that by the way they go about arguing in favor of our mutual position, they’ll end up turning people off rather than persuading them.

  • heh

    I’m one of them knuckle-dragging, first-generation-walking-upright, uncouth loats that thinks Varis is okay.

    I usually see his stuff over at Catholic Cavemen. Do you think there’s a connection?

    Just saying . . .

    Plus, I will not revert to slugging down Dewar’s for breakfast. That never ended well.

  • “So in such spirit of loving oneself that seems acceptable in this blog, I’m going to praise myself and my husband.”

    I think that goes with most blogs. Just look at Vox Nova.

  • ” Our friends who have converted to Catholicism perhaps as a result of our influence, have done so not because we told them “in their faces” how wrong they were. ”

    Are you sure it is Catholicism they are converting to?

  • “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae, 14

  • “16. No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. “All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Saviour, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.”(16)

    From the same encyclical quoted above.

  • The Spiritual Works of Mercy:

    Admonish the sinner.
    Counsel the doubtful.
    Forgive all injuries.
    Instruct the ignorant.
    Pray for the living and dead.

    Every day, in every way.

    Did I miss any?

  • The Church is called Catholic for a reason — it is universal, all embracing, and there is a place in it for all who are willing to accept Her teachings and Her authority. How one lives this out can vary, as evidenced by the lives of the saints. There are humble, quiet saints like Therese of Liseiux; there are calm, reasoning saints like Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More; and there are forceful, even hotheaded saints like Paul and Jerome. Each one of them manifested God’s grace in his or her own way.

    As someone who tends toward being painfully shy and awkward in personal conversation — and who writes much better than she talks! — I appreciate the talents of people like Michael Voris who can do what I can’t. I can also appreciate people who prefer a more subtle approach. Not everyone will be won to the faith the same way and that is why we have a variety of devotions, charisms, apostolates, etc.

  • I think Michael is talking to other Catholics, rather than trying to convert non-catholics. I think he’s excellent. (like the contributors at AC 🙂

  • Look, I believe everything the Church teaches, and I’m no liberal, but I don’t like Voris simply because his theology is oftentimes bad or misleading, his ecclesiology is, to put it bluntly, “Americanist,” and his manner is obnoxious.

    But, all that being said, I do have to admit that the very existence of Voris and his ilk testifies to the failure of the American bishops in successfully implementing a good catechesis capable of reaching large numbers of people. So I don’t blame Voris himself for the phenomenon he has become.

    I also think that Katerina’s comments on this thread are to the point.

  • One other thing: Note that, in the letter sent to Voris, the writer opposed the “real” and “true” Catholic faith to that of “liberals.” Now, I agree, actually that liberalism is opposed to Catholicism at its deepest level, and so on one reading of the letter I am heartened. However, it is clear that by “liberals” Voris and his audience do not understand *all* liberals, but one subset of liberals–the kind, for instance, that you find sipping lattes in San Francisco, subscribing to NPR, and reading Commonweal Magazine. This is, to my mind, dangerous, because it conflates the theological distinction between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy with a political distinction between “liberals”–and here, only one set of liberals (we all know who they are)–and “conservatives”. And it thereby might lead somebody to think that in becoming “orthodox” they are (or should be) becoming “conservative.” But this is a category mistake.

    My suspicion is, however, that it works the other way. Self-described political “conservatives” who for one reason or another are unhappy with the Church’s involvement in the the plight of illegal immigrants, its social teaching, and so on, and who (sadly) are rightly scandalized by Catholics who have no problem voting for pro-abortion politicians, find Voris, and they think: here all my preexising political allegiances are confirmed and are redescribed as those attending the “true” or “real” Faith, and they are gratified by this, and it provides them further ammunition against those “liberal” Catholics who (for whatever bizarre reason) continue to downplay the holocaust of abortion. This is all a very complex process, but my thought is that Voris–and Real Catholic TV more generally–merely participates in and exacerbates, rather than corrects, the depravity of our current cultural and social order.

  • Joe, it’s below the belt to question the authenticity of one’s conversion when one has no evidence.

    In the main, Voris is not my cup of Everclear, though he does do good work in exposing the apparently willingness of Catholic leadership (clergy and lay) to jettison Catholic distinctives and doctrine at will.

    I also agree that he’s the product of a failure to defend that identity and doctrine, as well as bad catechesis. To the extent leadership is revulsed by him, they can blame themselves. There’s a market for what the man is offering, and there wouldn’t be one if they did their jobs better.

    That said, I’m a little bemused by the idea that less than full-throated support for MV is suspect. Especially in a Catholic environment. As can be seen by the multiplicity of orders and liturgy, there are many legitimate forms and expressions of orthodox Catholicism, and not all will appeal to everyone.

  • “Apparent willingness.” Argh.

  • “My suspicion is, however, that it works the other way. Self-described political “conservatives” who for one reason or another are unhappy with the Church’s involvement in the the plight of illegal immigrants, its social teaching, and so on…”

    “This is all a very complex process, but my thought is that Voris–and Real Catholic TV more generally–merely participates in and exacerbates, rather than corrects, the depravity of our current cultural and social order.”

    Of course the first part of your post also seems to do little to alleviate the depravity of the cultural and social order. There is nothing inherently “liberal” (philosophically or politically) about CST. That includes topics like illegal immigration. The link to Bishop Molino’s letter on the situation in Wisconsin points out how people can licitly disagree on matters like union rights, immigration etc. There is much less room for disagreement on abortion, however, as Bishop Molino notes.

  • Philip,

    I agree that there is nothing inherently liberal about CST. Indeed, I think that CST is, at its foundational level, opposed to liberalisms of all kinds. (People disagree about this, but that’s my view, and I think it’s well supported by a careful reading of the documents and the theological anthropology subtending them.)

  • CST as presently implemented in the US is the catholic cadre of the dem (liberal) party.

  • “I agree that there is nothing inherently liberal about CST. Indeed, I think that CST is, at its foundational level, opposed to liberalisms of all kinds.”

    “My suspicion is, however, that it works the other way. Self-described political “conservatives” who for one reason or another are unhappy with the Church’s involvement in the the plight of illegal immigrants, its social teaching, and so on…”

    Then perhaps that suspicion is warranted.

  • I’m a little bemused by the idea that less than full-throated support for MV is suspect

    I didn’t write that anything less than full-throated support is suspect (of ones faith?).

    You probably are referencing some comments.

  • Dale,

    “Joe, it’s below the belt to question the authenticity of one’s conversion when one has no evidence.”

    I didn’t question any “one” conversion, I simply wondered aloud if someone who is “converted” on dubious grounds – perhaps by people who for politically correct reasons do not tell them the whole truth about what we believe – is really believing in Catholicism.

    That isn’t below the belt at all.

  • I can’t credit Voris for my reversion, but his show The One True Faith was a big help in catechizing myself once I came back. I learned more about angels and demons in one 45-minute show (the first episode) than I did in a decade of CCD classes.

    I think Voris is great, but I know people who would be completely turned off by his style, especially in his short videos. (These are the same folks who are conservative to the bone but would never call themselves such because they wouldn’t want to be lumped in with the Becks and Limbaughs, whose bombastic styles they abhor.) If they ran across the Vortex, they’d move on in about ten seconds, and never discover Voris’s deeper, more thoughtful work.

    That’s a shame, but as the first commenter said, different approaches work for different people. We’ve already got tons of people using the non-confrontational, I’m-ok-you’re-ok, don’t-scare-them-off approach, so presumably people who are susceptible to that method are already being served. But very few voices were talking to those who would respond better to being challenged bluntly and told that Catholicism demands things of us, that it’s not just a good way to live, but the only way to live. Voris is doing that. If someone had talked to my friends and I when we were 14-years-old about the faith the way Voris talks about it — unapologetic and straightforward, as if it’s something more awesome than comfortable — I might never have drifted away.

  • “K: Our friends who have converted to Catholicism perhaps as a result of our influence, have done so not because we told them iin their faces’ how wrong they were.

    JH: Are you sure it is Catholicism they are converting to?”

    As posed, your question is larded with assumptions regarding the converts, i.e., that Katerina and Michael soft-pedalled the truth. Thus, it *is* below the belt, as it suggests PC trumping truth. Unless, of course, you have specific knowledge as to the circumstances which support the assumptions. I would concede the validity of it as to converts at, say St. Joan in Minneapolis.

  • Tito:

    Fair enough–I read too much into your post on that point. I guess my concern is that a flinching away from certain forms of spirituality, proclamation and practice does not necessarily say anything bad about the practice or the flincher. Again, on the whole, I think Voris does good work and I am unsympathetic to criticism from leadership which has given free reign to all manner of nonsense and worse over the past 45-odd years.

    I have heard that employees of the archdiocese I live in are discouraged from any contact with RCTV, which I find to be grimly amusing given the fact we’re still not recovered from the Dearden hangover. Then again, our current archbishop has also warned against associating with Spirit of V2 (think both missile and council) fanatics like the American Catholic Council, so I’m inclined to cut him a little slack.

  • As a proud Neanderthal, I agree with Tito. Of course, I also know that Tito likes Fr. Corapi. So for whoever wrote that they prefer the gentler approach of EWTN, I assume you don’t watch EWTN on Sunday nights.

    I know many people who are afraid of Fr. Corapi and I admit that he is a little scary, which is why I like him and for that matter Voris too. If it isn’t your cup of tea, that’s OK. Mr. Angelica and Fr. Groeshel are just as right as Corapi or Voris. The issue is the unwatered down truth. The manner of delivery is a preference. What we must agree on is that lukewarmness is vomit-worthy.

Bishops are to Blame!

Wednesday, January 26, AD 2011

Michael Voris in the Vortex addresses the problems and opportunities lost by American bishops following the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council which finished in the cultural upheaval of 60s dissent and disobedience within the Church in America.

Souls are at stake and our bishops seem more concerned about the next fundraiser or not leading with boldness and the Truth.  Instead they grovel to political correctness and stand quite on society’s most contentious issues such as abortion and same sex marriage.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave an important speech recently where he constructively and critically examined these issues of episcopal disregard.  Especially in the education of the laity with proper catechesis and the lack of defense against modernism and dissent, which have infested chanceries with “yes”-men in which the Pope calls, “professional Catholics”.

Watch this segment of the Vortex to get the full story:

Cross posted at CVSTOS FIDEI.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Bishops are to Blame!

  • Chris, we pray for the bishops, we praise them when they do what’s right, and give them a royal raspberry when they go again 2000 years of Catholic tradition. Sounds like a plan to me!

  • FWIW my almost-immediate reaction to the title of this blog post was

    “and so is each and every one of us!”

  • FWIW my almost-immediate reaction to the title of this blog post was

    “and so is each and every one of us!”

    As it should be.

  • I suggest spending some time with the full text of Bishop Schneider’s address (link below). There is a lot of substance in it, leading up to the most quoteworthy portions which have been seen on the web. It would be disappointing for people to miss the richness of what is in the full text.

    I think it is good to read the document and discuss it, but in a manner that is consistent with how Bishop Schneider does with his audience.

    His Excellency is one of the most gentle teachers I know, who works to win hearts with wisdom, reason and air-tight arguments. At the very root of his effort is genuine love, not anger, for those he is trying to win over.

    The full text prints very well from the EWTN page.

    Father Z has made a podcast of the full text

    Read more about how this full text made it into English. Hopefully, this weekend there will be time to add English text next to the Latin from appropriate sources.

  • “It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.”

    Do whatever you need to do to save your soul.

    Orwell wrote, in his piece on Gandhi, that you either are spiritually or worldly oriented. He wrote that the humanist ideal is that we have this one life and it is our job make it as “good” as we can. The Spiritual ideal is that we place primacy on our souls and we need to be sure we obtain (through God’s grace) redemption.

    Orwell even goes so far as to state the mildest liberal has embraced the humanist and not the Spritual ideal. The atheist that Orwell was, he may have been more Catholic (here) than some bishops.

    St. Paul, loosely: What has a man gained if he wins the entire world but losses his soul?

  • Sorry, no, our bishops do not “stand quite” on abortion and gay marriage. And they don’t need “Taliban Catholics” telling them how to run the Church either. Vitriol against fellow Christians from self-described “real” Catholics does not build up the Body of Christ:

  • Paralysis results from too many varying opinions. I do not
    recognize the Catholicism of these days and cannot reconcile
    it with what/how I was taught in my youth.

    The Catholic Church is reaping what has been sown, in practice.
    It is sad, indeed, but it is fitting. I will be held to account for my
    words and actions at my final judgement. I try to live as I was
    taught but it seems out of sync with most that I see, in my small

    I, however, am tired of hearing that homosexuality is the big
    problem with marriage. Balderdash.

    When a bishop has the data, excommunications should be flowing
    for unrepentant adulterers and unjust marital abandoners, as
    well as for those in positions of influence in the Church, both
    clergy and laity, who go out of their way to find ways to
    “justify” divorce but do not work 10X harder to help heal
    wounded marriages, especially wheh their help is sought.


  • ron,

    I think Pope Benedict’s advice was to be respectful in the blogosphere in the spirit of Christian charity. Comments like “Taliban Catholics” fly in the face of that advice.

    A Tucson moment seems to be evolving around Benedict’s comments on proper behavior in social media. Unfortunately, some of the most vocal in commenting on it have also been those who have been quite prolific in not demonstrating respect and Christian charity in their posts and comments.

  • Try the below for ” . . . respect and Christian charity . . . ”

    “The road to hell is paved (not just with good intentions) with the skulls of erring priests. The sign posts are skulls of bishops.”

    “Goggle” which saint said that.

    Christian charity also may be zeal for the salvation of souls, in contrast to ardor for secular humanism or Dr. Phil/feel good here and now psychology.

    PS: I love you’all’s new campaign slogan: WTF!!!

  • T. Shaw,

    I don’t have a problem with people speaking the truth. I also believe that there are priests and bishops who have, are, and will lead souls to Hell. My point is that for most people, honey does better than vinegar. So we can call a spade a spade, but with respect. That includes our clergy. They are not automatically free from error and may very well be the tip of the spear when it comes to error. But, a la Catherine of Sienna, we should approach them, and all men, with respect.

    My more blunt point was that, there are many Catholic bloggers now attempting to make a Tucson moment out of the Pope’s statement. As with that moment, this only serves to point out the hypocrisy of many of those blaming “conservative Catholics.”

  • Does anyone think that Catholicism in America has thrived in the last 40+ years? What changed and what went horribly wrong? Who here doesn’t cringe at the rotgut modern culture that’s shoved down our children’s throats? And who’s OK with over 50 million unborn babies murdered? Considering the wholesale damage done to so many souls over the years forces us to do more and face the TRUTH. I’m truly sorry if it hurts feelings but aren’t the alternatives are far worse?

    So, Mike Voris quotes bishops, the Pope, and documents several facts as a basis for an analysis. Where exactly is he wrong?

    Hasn’t the Body of Christ suffered enough?

    The hypocrisy of the left both after Tuscon and in the phrase “Taliban Catholic” would be funny except we’re dealing with truth and the spiritual realm. We all answer to God and “shut up you’re stupid” rebuttals may help one’s self esteem but I respectfully submit they do not help you get into heaven.

    In spite of the obvious scriptural basis for a pro-life position there’s a Methodist church next to our Catholic church that would be more than willing to accommodate cafeteria Catholics whose self esteem is uncomfy–they may have even put out the ad below:

  • Templar, it’s not so much the analysis which I’m concerned about, but the fact all we get is complaints about how bad “the bishops” were and are. It’s *almost* playing the victim card… “Woe is we!” How about instead *we* do something about it! The laity aren’t exactly helpless these days to spread the Gospel… these “bad” priests & bishops haven’t stationed the Swiss Guard at our doors to prevent us from evangelizing.

    At the *very* least, we could have a call to prayer for our hierarchy, but we don’t even get that.

    In her amazing story of conversion from Planned Parenthood clinic director to pro-life advocate (and very soon, Catholic), Abby Johnson explains how it was the quiet, friendly, prayerful approach of the Coalition for Life and that helped win her over, while the more combative approach (people in grim reaper costumes, others holding placards of aborted babies) that only hardened opposition to hearing the pro-life message.

    “Honey attracts more flies than vinegar” isn’t just a cliche… it actually works.

  • The fact that sometimes the truth hurts =/= the idea that anything hurtful is the truth. Quoting a saint or pope chewing out someone who deserves it isn’t proof that every time you think someone deserves it, you have the right to chew them out.

  • Spiritual Leadership

    Truly it’s time for the Bishops of America to stop pretending to be shepherds of the faith among god’s people with messages to the flock that merely reflect “concern”, “regret” and “dismay” at the heretical behavior or extreme positions taken by catholic politicians and their “prominent” catholic supporters which betray the teachings of the church.

    We have literally stripped ourselves of the identity as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” church. We are now the diversified, progressive liberal, independent thinking, and apologetic church of America with sentimental ties to Rome.

    Just look at us. We’ve produced the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, and many other “distinguished” members of congress along with a host of “intellectual” clergy and prominent individuals who ALL gave their unbridled support (honorary degrees) to the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president. What does this say for the church in America? Especially when these same people often state and expound that their positions and values don’t conflict with or reduce their standing within the church as they boldly file in line at the communion table.

    Remember when Nancy Pelosi told a reporter that (her) church was not sure when life begins and that it was “debatable” only about 20 of the approximately 150 catholic members of congress willingly signed a letter of admonition to her.( None of the above mentioned). And to realize that these officials are continually reelected by large portions of catholic laity speaks volumes for the guidance the laity are receiving from their shepherds.

    Add to this the fact that we are closing parish schools at a record pace and there is little or no voice in Washington on behalf of VOUCHERS coming from the largest single religious group (29% catholic) of representatives. Clerical Compassion needed for catholic education and faith based initiatives is cautiously reserved like holy water to sprinkle on secular approved issues like gay “rights” or hoped for embryonic research or cloning for medical technology. Need we say more?

    We are in moral disarray here and our spiritual leadership for the most part does not speak forthrightly to us for fear of “politically” advocating Christian values thus overstepping the bounds of “separation” or at worst governmental funding reprisals.

    We can’t be “children” of God without being men and women of honor and deep faith before the sword of separation if we intend to follow Christ.

    Today, as in the time of the early church as the Kingdom of God was being thrust upon the kings of the world, “Martyrdom” needs to be revived in the public arena and a part of our faith life so that the people can witness for themselves that our eternal souls are of more value than political capitol, catechetical compromise, or “apostolic” appeasement which is reducing Christ and His church to the status of “community (ritual) organizers” within a purely secular society. May the Lord have mercy on us if we choose otherwise!

  • Chris, you’re absolutely right that we the laity must do more and especially pray for our church leaders. We must support them, empower them to preach the truth. Let it fly! We and our families can take it! We love our bishops and priests (our parish is blessed) and it would be very embarrassing for me personally if someone pulled out some register of Christian deeds comparing me to a given priest or bishop–yikes!

    Mike Voris took care to praise several bishops and the Pope. How then could anyone say that all they get are complaints? Isn’t Faith the result of reason applied to the world we live in? Please don’t ask me to leave my reasoning at the door in order to be a better Catholic Christian. I never will because it allows me to see the truth in an ever more beautiful light. It also allows me to see the vulgar hypocrisy of leftists supporting abortion, gay marriage, global warming, Keynesian economics, socialism, etc–and stupid shallow labels like “Taliban Catholic.”

    If God’s truth is honey that attracts ‘flies’ then the vinegar out there is from the alleged Catholic groups that deliberately deviate/distort Catholic teaching. Just wade through the ‘National Catholic Reporter’ or ‘America’ and you’ll have enough vinegar for barrels of pickles.

    With respect, I submit that the overall efforts of the laity and the clergy have failed in the past 40 years. So whatever ‘we’ did ‘we’ may want to review it. I would also agree that I’m part of the problem but I’m working on that! I would also agree that kindness and charity are key in changing minds–and I’m working on that too!

    Cardinal DiNardo gave such a beautiful homily this weekend at the Basilica in Washington. I think I could’ve listened better but my knees where killing me from sitting on the floor for so long. The march the next day was great as well–what a great weekend!

    Thanks for your comments Chris, God bless.

  • We need to stand up and “correct” misstatements. In the Sacramento diocese there is a gravitation towards socialism. It has gone so far as to ask “fair distribution of wealth” in petitions of the faithful. This is unacceptable! I have communicated the wrongs in promoting socialism with the Bishop. This issue is not one he objects to.

    To correct this I am printing off ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII

    And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.”

    This will be placed on bulletin boards and I am considering handing it out to parishioners …. I do not know what to expect for my actions….

  • Nothing Michael Vorhis says sounds anything like what Jesus said. Jesus never codemned except those Pharisees that are the hero type Bishops Mr Vorhis hungers for.

    Jesus didn’t tell the publican in the temple pounding his breast and repeating, “have mercy on me a sinner” that it was his sins that would condemn him but rather his submission that would justify him. He never told the woman at the well to repent or do anything more than to believe in him, He never asked the criminal on the cross, once he’d submitted to our Lord, that there was anything more left to do.
    The condemnatory rant of bishops and speakers like Mr Vorhis is the catholic ship that is sinking.

    Sadly, it is a secular government, The US government based on principles of Fairness, Freedom and Equality, caring for the poor, the hungry and ignorant and victimized that sounds more like Jesus than Mr Vorhis or his hero bishops.

  • Soooo, the US government is is more moral than US Bishops speaking the truth in line with the Bishop of Rome? Didn’t the POPE bring up the term “professional Catholic”, indicating that their bureaucratic modernistic notions are causing great harm to the church? Is the Pope one of your Pharisees too? I know many leftists think they’re morally superior to him as well–heck, I literally heard our “Christian Service” (aka recycling, fighting globo warming, blablabla) ‘director’ say that she wished our current Pope would “hurry up and die” during a RCIA class. That’s the ‘vinegar’ trying to sink the ship. Didn’t JP2 tell us all that LIFE is by far the most important issue, i.e waaaaay ahead of the social justice concerns?

    So again, I guess we shouldn’t use reason to try to figure out God’s wonderful infinite truth. We should just blindly submit and believe…. but wait… is it faith alone that gets you into heaven? What did James call those who rely on faith alone? But alas some on this board may be Protestant so they wouldn’t know the book of James since Luther–the original modernist, threw it out of their ‘bible’. What about the Sacraments? Don’t we believe in DEEDS as well especially in a Sacramental life?

    With respect, I reason that Michael Voris cites scripture in a coherent context and in line with our wonderful encyclicals, those wonderful encyclicals that prevent us from cherry picking scripture to suit our individual needs. Isn’t that true submission to God’s truth?

    I feel we should all ask Mary to intercede to give our beloved Bishops and Priests the strength to proclaim Christ’s will to us (like me) who really need it. I know I have a long way to go and I appreciate everyone’s understanding.

    As far as my government’s good intentions go, I’ll cite a favorite recent link from TAC:

AP's Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR's Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course

Monday, October 25, AD 2010

National Public Radio’s ludicrous firing of Juan Williams and a subsequent mainstream media article on Catholic bloggers may seem to be two separate issues. Some may say what does the overwhelmingly conservative leaning Catholic blogosphere have in common with the liberal leaning Juan Williams? The answer is quite simple; both scare the mainstream media because Juan Williams and the majority of the Catholic blogosphere put forth interesting solutions to often discussed questions.

The modus operadi of some in the mainstream media is to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. Combine this with a Juan Williams quote which most of America agrees with and voila you have it; the ultimate straw man from which you can tear apart any minority who appears on Fox News or any Catholic blogger who faithfully defends the teachings of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church.

In this Associated Press article on the Catholic blogosphere, the piece mentions Thomas Peters and Michael Voris (who is known for his videos not his blogging,) but focuses on harsh unnamed Catholic bloggers. The article quotes John Allen who calls elements of the Catholic blogosphere “Taliban Catholicism.” The highly respected Mr. Allen, who though working for the dissident leaning National Catholic Reporter, is often known for his many high ranking Church contacts and his fairness. He should have know better than to give the quote that he did. To take a few bloggers from the right (or even from the left) and call them the Catholic blogosphere is the type of journalism that would not pass muster for a high school paper, let alone the AP. This would be akin to taking the worst rated college or pro football team and telling the world this is the best of American football, or perhaps watching the Walla Walla Community theater production of Hamlet and saying this is Hamlet at its finest. John Allen should have realized where this article was going and chosen his words more carefully.

The AP article continues by naming a Church official who seems worried about the Catholic blogosphere. One wonders if the Church official would know the difference between Father John Zuhlsdorf from Father Richard McBrien, Amy Welborn from Aimee Semple McPherson, Mark Shea from Mark Sanford, Rocco Palmo from Rocco Mediate, or Tito Edwards from Tito Santana. I worked for years in a diocesan office and I have yet to meet, even in my travels, a diocesan official who is well versed in the blogosphere. It seems to be a generational thing and most diocesan officials are not to be confused with the younger, more conservative seminarians or young priests being ordained.

While some in the mainstream media snicker at the Pope and Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) they in reality have their own magisterium. In their secular magisterium anyone who believes in the Catholic Church’s authority is hopelessly outdated, because according to gatekeepers in the mainstream media, true thinkers are those in the dying liberal churches who don’t know what they believe. Sadly, GK Chesterton prophetically predicted this would happen. He said, “It’s not that atheists and agnostics believe in nothing, they believe in everything.” In modern parlance, “It’s all good.” How sad that some who proclaim to be “open minded” can’t see the obvious; liberal Christianity is dying on the vine.”

Continue reading...

19 Responses to AP's Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR's Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course

  • Pingback: AP’s Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR’s Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course: The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space
  • Keep preaching brother!

    I nominate the following excerpt to be the quote of year here at The American Catholic.

    “One wonders if the Church official would know the difference between Father John Zuhlsdorf from Father Richard McBrien, Amy Welborn from Aimee Simple McPherson, Mark Shea from Mark Sanford, Rocco Palmo from Rocco Mediate, or Tito Edwards from Tito Santana.”

  • Nothing to “wonder” about. The answers are self-evident.

  • Well said, excellent, wonderful!

  • Uh…it’s “magisterium.”

    Good piece, though.



  • It’s not clear to me that Allen was interviewed for the AP story. He was using “Taliban Catholics” in his own writing at least as far back as February.

  • Great piece with good insight. I especially like your quote about people not knowing the difference between Catholic bloggers and others.

    One note: Allen’s quote reveals more about himself than it does about Catholic blogging or orthodox Catholics. For all those who believe him to be fair, you might want to read his work more closely and don’t forget that he chooses to work for the dissident Reporter. His work displays some real blind spots.

  • It’s just funny that in article that to some extent is bemoaning in the incivility of the blogosphere, the term “Taliban Catholic” is so casually tossed about as though there is nothing uncivil about that comparison.

    But that, of course, is par for the course for people who yelp the loudest about tone and the harshness of dialogue. What it really is is an attempt to change the topic and avoid having to defend indefensible positions.

  • Defending the indefensible?

    As in an article that defends the civility of Michael Sean Winters but paints Catholics who are righteously standing up and saying enough as fringe.

    30-40 thousand readers a month may be ‘nobody reading’ to you, but I think it is enough to get an army of Catholics to get folks who espouse the opinions of dissent, silenced.

    It is half past time we take our parishes and schools back.

    We’ll look forward to more armchair criticism from you.

    Carry on.

  • Someone should ask John Allen when was the last time a Catholic blogger destroyed millenia-old works of art. Or shot a woman in the back of the head as halftime entertainment at a soccer match. Or sponsored terrorists who flew airplanes into buildings killing 3000 people.

    For the life of me, I’ll never understand why people who should know better consider John Allen to be “fair”. “Fair” people don’t make such idiotic comparisons.

  • We’ll look forward to more armchair criticism from you.

    Umm, what? I was critiquing the Allen quote and the condescending tone of the AP article, not Dave’s post.

  • Please, please, please – check your spell-check and correct “magEsterium” to “magIsterium”. The word comes from the Latin – magister.

  • Paul,

    Yes, my comments were about the article, not your comments which I completely agree with and thank you for stepping up to the plate to say.

  • p.s. I am not of the opinion that the article had coded message in it that needed to be cracked.

    There are many of us that are finished with letting teachers and priests preach and teach dissent and we area shutting it down by exposing what is going on with teaching, sanctifying and governing.

    Writing intellectual treatises on the internet is swell but it is not helping our children down at the local school being hoodwinked by Sister Mary Wear the Pants and Fr. Hehirtic. We have had to flee from our parishes, pull our children out of schools.

    What are we running from? It’s time to go back and demand our religion be taught.

    1. Pour through every bulletin and expose every problem, naming names and exercising your gifts by explaining the theological problems and consequences to our children.

    2. Start holding the priest accountable.

    3. If the priest won’t be held accountable, go to the Bishop.

    4. If the Bishop won’t be accountable, go to the Nuncio.

    5. If the Nuncio won’t hold them accountable, go to the Holy See.

    Round up as many in your area who are willing to do it.

    If in time, they do not intercede and do something to stop the people poisining the wells our children are drinking from, start a campaign to hold up the money on the annual Bishops appeal.

    Build it and they will flee.

    People may call it harsh. People like this author will call it fringe. Whatever hits you have to take from the author of this article on The American Catholic or anyone in the AP – Do it anyway.


  • Anna, I do hope your not talking about me as being part of the dissent, or just sitting at my computer composing essays while Rome burns. I do think my bona fides as a writer, educator (working in the Church and taking a lot of heat from Church liberals) etc should fit pass muster. I would hope so anyone, considering how many nasty names I have been called by the liberals in the Church. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, please forgive me. However, it would appear to me that you think this article is somehow not orthodox enough. I don’t know how that is possible. It would seem to me that the first three or four commentors (among others) like what I have to say. Anyway, God Bless & take care!

  • David,

    I actually never knew you existed before I found your article, but I can see that you are not a dissident.

    It has been such a refuge to come to the internet and read solid opinions. But we need those opinions to get into our schools and parishes and it is time to do something a little different.

    As a Boston activist who is part of the blogging community described in the AP, those of us on the ground doing this difficult ministry not only get called ‘names’ by dissidents, we are undermined by people on the right, sitting staring at their computers using their orthodoxy and bonafides to take cheap shots at us.

    ” to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. ”

    Is blogosphere a game of “who is the bigger player”? Is it about chumming around with folks who post comments telling you how great you are?

    Oh wait…

    Look, I’ve done my share of years of writing and defending the Magisterium.

    But you know what we realized?

    Not a single dissident in our children’s schools been removed from teaching children by the things we are writing on the internet (myself included)

    A lot of us have been parish shopping for ten years.

    It’s time to go to plan b.

    I can appreciate your frustration with the article that they failed to recognize the big wazoos who have been banging away at their keyboards. But the work we are doing is critical new work and the author of the AP article knew more about that then you did!

    Nobody on the ground is a threat to your thunder. We will not be competing in who is the greatest of them all contests. At ease.

    We are people who are trying to focus getting orthodoxy to our own children, family and friends while you bang away at your ministry doing it for people in the com boxes. Not as worthy as the work you are doing, but it is nonetheless, worthy work that did not deserve your cheap shot.

    The kicker was your respectful attitude towards John Allen, who in between working with Joan Chittister, Tom Roberts, Michael Sean Winters and Bishop Gumbleton (talk about fringe!) serving up poison to Christ’s souls, characterized parents fed up with dissent that is continuously being taught no matter how much you write with concerns to your Bishop, as lecherous murderers.

  • Goodness Anna I think the liberals have got the best of you. I spoke kindly of John Allen? I took him to task for his comment. I only said he was respected by many. Have you ever read what Father Zuhlsdorf says about John Allen? Father Z calls him “his friend and highly respected.” Do you think Father Z has gone wobbly too?

    I understand what you must be going through living in Boston. You may remember that I mentioned in my article that my childhood parish was scourged with not only one priest sent to the slammer for molestation, but two. Some of those these two deviants molested were my friends, so believe me I don’t need any lectures on that subject.

    I would suggest you take some time to pray over the whole matter, calling those that are on your side not wholly orthodox doesn’t help. God Bless & take care!

  • David,

    I must not be making myself clear.

    I have the greatest respect for Fr. Z. But I disagree with his characterizations of John Allen. I am NOT attacking Fr. Z or his orthodoxy. Nor, am I attacking your orthodoxy. Nor am I attacking you.


    There is no need to be defensive. Be at peace.

    The AP wrote an article about a new ministry in the Church and your reaction to it was a knee-jerk.
    Look here:

    ” to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. ”

    The good people in Boston are getting off their fannies and taking our schools and parishes and chancery back. That’s what the article was about.

    What is it about that you wouldn’t embrace?

  • Anna, there is nothing about what you said that I wouldn’t embrace. God Bless you and the good people of Boston who are helping turn the tide. May God Be With You All!

Res et Explicatio for AD 9-13-2010

Monday, September 13, AD 2010

[UpdateRealCatholicTV is back online!]

Salvete TAC readers!

Here are my observations and opinions on the Catholic Church in the Internet:

1. A RealCatholicTV (RCTV) representative is reporting that they have been experiencing technical difficulties and should be up and running by Tuesday evening at the latest.

The RCTV Facebook page reports that they could be up as early as this evening!

2. Last nights Sunday Night Live on EWTN had Father Benedict Groeschel interviewing Archbishop Timothy Dolan and I have to say that the good archbishop is very impressive.

He has a strong presence and speaks well with authority.  Outside of dodging a question on female altar servers, he looks to be the leading archbishop and the unofficial primate of the United States of America for the foreseeable future.

His Excellency posited that the severe drop in receiving the Sacrament of Penance may have contributed to the vocational crisis since 1968.  Most of the interview though was on the recent increase in vocations though.

Another theory that His Excellency suggested was the loss of grandmothers within the home.  He truly believes that grandmothers have a significant impact in passing on the faith which leads to vocations to the priesthood.  But with more and more families sending their dear grandmothers to retirement “homes”, the family is losing a great advocate for vocations to the priesthood.

Cardinal’s hat within five years or less.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Res et Explicatio for AD 9-13-2010

  • Pingback: Trouble with Real Catholic TV? « The American Catholic
  • Tito:

    You and I have disagreed on this before, but I think Fr. Longenecker’s point is that modernism is concerned with choosing between products, whereas our response to the Mass ought to be receptivity (not judgment). I’ve blogged on this topic before:

    There’s a fine line between parish-shopping and seeking out Masses that are truly reverent, one that Orthodox Catholics frustrated with liturgical abuses (and I include myself in this category) have trouble dealing with. In the end, it reinforces the need for a truly “catholic” church-one where the liturgy is universal and the laity ought not be put between their home parish and a reverent parish.

  • Sunday Night Live last night was a rerun from earlier this summer. Personally, I couldn’t bear to watch it again. I have a different opinion about “His Excellency.” You will recall that he asked the sod parish in N.Y. not to march in the sod parade under the parish banner. They ignored him and once again advertised their perversions under the name of the parish. “His Excellency” shows up at the parish to celebrate some sort of milestone, and as the various sod groups are presented to him, none of which are COURAGE, “His Excellency” nods and smiles in his good ole boy routine. Not a word about not participating in the parade. That wouldn’t be PC. “His Excellency” has no backbone. I would love to see what Jesus would have said in the same circumstance. And in the same program, the archbishop dares to laugh at those who call for authentic Catholicism rather than the watered-down, spineless version that’s currently being fed in far too many parishes.

  • Yeah, but what about those “Idaho Vandals” I so recently heard about? 🙂

  • Dale,

    They’re licking their wounds.



    I have not met any serious Catholics that were “parish shopping”, but were looking for a reverent Mass in addition to actually being a Catholic parish and not a worldly “community”.

  • Cory,

    I’ve heard some other stories, but I’m praying he becomes more like Cardinal Spellman than another Cardinal “please like me” O’Malley.

  • “Cardinal’s hat within five years or less.”

    As much as it appears the Archbishop is such a well educated, bright and humble servant of his flock regardless of what he may be wearing over the next five years underneath it all I suspect he will still have on his “politically correct” T-shirt.

  • The more I learn about about Archbishop Dolan, the more tarnished he seems to be.

    He’ll get the red hat, but because it’s New York City, not because of his spine.

  • Parish-shopping too often betrays a consumerist mentality: “what can you do for me?” I wish my fellow orthodox would think more about the potential they have to make a positive impact, by their suffering through a mediocre liturgy if nothing else.

    Re: Dolan, I still don’t see what good blog comments criticizing bishops accomplishes. As I’ve said before, spend the time & energy in prayer for them instead.

  • Chris Burgwald,

    We need to take care of our soul first before we can take care of others.

    That’s why I advocate switching from a liturgical-dancing parish (after all efforts have been shot down) to a real parish.

    I’m all for cutting off the oxygen to a body that refuses to practice the faith.

    They shall be known for their fruits!

  • Tito,

    I’m certainly sympathetic to the desire to bail on liturgical-dancing… our liturgical abuses up here are certainly insignificant next to them.

    But, just to devil’s advocate… how is your soul imperiled by liturgical dance? If the sacraments are valid and there’s no actual heresy, why not gut it out for the sake of the clueless guy next to you who might need your example? Why not be the leaven in the bread? You might be it for those people, after all.

  • You make a good point.

    But what if you have children. You do your best to educate them and don’t want poor influences, especially when it comes in the form of a disobedient/dissident priest who should be a role model and not someone to avoid because he is just plain bad.

    Another thing to consider is if the priest refuses to improve and the bishop refuses to do anything about it, what do you do?

    I decided, because of my character and personality, to switch.

    Rather than soldier on and begin a blogging campaign I switched.

    My soul has reaped the benefits of reverent Mass, an enriching parish life, and many graces that I am still unaware of.

    I’m sure many, many other switchers understand me better than those that haven’t had to deal with a bad parish.

    I highly recommend it.

    Let that parish whither on the vine, especially if that parish priest (and bishop) refuse to do anything about it.

    I want to get into Heaven at the highest possible level. Why endanger it with dissident priests and parishioners who could care less (or even acknowledge) the existence of Heaven.

    I recently attended a seminar on penance at my old parish and this priest who is suppose to be a future star of the Church (he’s on his way to being a bishop) was advocating that penance isn’t that important and getting it twice a year was sufficient. He even pooh-poohed my comments of going almost weekly.

    As soon as I started explaining the many benefits of penance he did his best tap-dancing routine in backtracking on his comments.

    I was disappointed, but relieved knowing that I won’t have to worry about this at my parish once my children (if I’m blessed with them) start getting active in parish life.

    Yes the sacraments are still valid and your soul is better for it for suffering.

    But God does want us to avoid suffering if possible. And if not, embrace the suffering.

    Why put yourself in this position in the first place?

    Believe me, if I didn’t have a choice, I would have raised HELL at my parish and my name would be a curse word around the chancery by now.

    Do I want that?


    //On a side note I made a promise to myself that if I ever attended a Mass where there was liturgical dancing, I would strip down to my underwear and dance along with them just to show how much of a mockery they were making the Mass out to be.

  • I hope you post that video on YouTube. 🙂

    It’s certainly a matter of prudence, Tito. My point is to emphasize that sometimes we are placed in difficult situations because of what we have to offer, i.e. because *we* can bear fruit for others instead of focusing exclusively on the fruit we want to harvest.

  • Chris B.,

    Yes, if I were put in that position, I would do my best to be charitable.

    I would get involved, form an orthodox group of families, and begin transforming the parish with the priest (and/or bishop) kicking screaming.

    As for the YouTube video, I would post it! Only to prove that these shenanigans must stop.


  • I also do not have a great opinon of NY Archbishop Dolan. He kept interrupting Fr. Groeshel in mid-sentence;
    never answered significant questions straight forward;
    and has no business being involved in NY zoning and politics that do not involve the Catholic Church – – since the Cordoba zoning does not involve Saving Souls and Fundamental rights of Man in accordance with the Gospel. (CCC 2245-2246)

    The Archbishop does not understand the Muslim culture, and the symbolic meaning of Cordoba. This is not his area of competance.

    Newt Gingrich wrote:
    “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over,” Gingrich wrote. “The proposed ‘Cordoba House’ overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3,000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.”

    The Archbishop needs to clean up his own NY Diocese including Xavior Parish which still has gay information on its web site not in accord with the Church.

  • I should have added that the Archbishop likes to hear himself talk, and be seen about town.

    He needs to be exposed in the public for his public actions, so that he will NOT become a Cardinal in line to become a Pope.

Trouble with Real Catholic TV?

Thursday, August 19, AD 2010

[This is Tito Edwards, I have current updates on the status of RealCatholicTV here.]

According to, “while thoroughly approving many of the fine videos made available through “RealCatholic TV” site,” caution is recommended to the viewer for two reasons:

An apparent animus against the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, contrary to the clear mind of the Church; and a tendency to over-simplify complex cultural, ecclesiastical and theological problems, leading sometimes to the assertion of mere opinion as the “real Catholic” position.

In a recent episode, Michael Voris lays out the “Real Catholic” position on “Jews and Judaism” — a rather complex theological topic, as most people are aware. According to Voris:

The Jews who accepted him became the Church. The Jews who rejected Him .. having voted themselves OUT of the covenant .. went off and started a man made religion. Rabbinical Judaism (today’s Jewish religion) is to authentic Judaism what Protestantism is to Catholicism.

Suffice to say Steven Kellmeyer has raised some questions about this simplified treatment.

What do our readers think?

(HT: Mark Shea).

Continue reading...

50 Responses to Trouble with Real Catholic TV?

  • I personally do not understand the warning.

    Mr Voris is presenting his opinion or rather conclusions after doing research on the matter of the Novus Ordo has found things that he does not like about it. Has found things that seem rather odd about its implementation, promulgation and its obvious short comings and what he believes to be the ramifications on the Church.

    Mr. Voris only has a limited amount of time in which to present his segments at least on his free site, if he does not engage in to long theological discussions is because, I believe he wants to keep short and simple, something which quite frankly we do not do enough when talking about the Faith.

    I find his approach refreshing, sure it may lack subtlety and refinement but sometimes you need a blunt instrument to get the job done, and boy Mr. Voris if anything is blunt.

  • I’m uncomfortable with them calling it “Real Catholic TV,” esp. since it’s obviously a slam against EWTN, for example, and there’s the whole issue of authorization of the Church to call themselves “Catholic.”

    That said, I don’t see why Voris’s explanation of the historical facts and his analysis of *Jewish theology* are relevant to *Catholic* theology. As I understand it, the Church tells us to recognize that Jews and Muslims also worship the God of Abraham, and to recognize that the Covenant is still in some theoretical way “intact.”

    Yet the Old Covenant never promised spiritual salvation; only worldly salvation. And the Old Covenant was based upon the Ark and Sacrifice. Sacrifice ended when the Temple was destroyed.

    I think Voris’s assessment is fairly accurate, since the Jews of today are not practicing sacrifice.

    It’s kind of like T. S. Eliot’s criticism of “free thinking Jews” that got him labeled “anti-Semitic.” He was criticizing liberal Jews for not following their own religion’s teachings, the way liberal Christians don’t follow the teachings of Christianity.

  • Pingback: The Lewis Crusade
  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris. Oh what a surprise!

  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris.

    Gee, how did I ever miss *that* parallel?

  • He has said nothing extreme or even wrong theologically or historically.

    what does not sit right emotionally with some should not be used as a pretext to tarnish others.

    I can see his points but as with all people, including this blog, i keep the critical filter on.

    lighten up!

  • To be a Christian one has to be baptised, implying a choice to be included in the community, while those who stood outside remained Jews. Those who did not become Christians do not therefore lose their rights as Jews under the old covenant, unless it is claimed that the advent of Christianity had abrograted the old covenant. Now it is an attribute of the Christian God that He cannot contradict Himself in the course of time, for that would imply that He is merely a contingent being unable to fully forsee the future. Given this, the promises that He made to Abraham and his descendants must logically retain their validity through all the vicissitudes of history including the rise of Christianity.

  • People in the days of Judah’s last kings didn’t like the prophet Jeremiah, so they threw him down a cistren. People in the days of Obama don’t like Michael Voris.

    I refuse to believe this isn’t satire. Well played, sir. Well played.

  • Ivan, yes the promises made to Abraham and his seed remain valid… but not efficacious via the Old Covenant which has been superseded by the New Covenant sealed in the Blood of Our Lord.

    If anyone wishes to be saved, it will only happen by way of participation in some way in the New Covenant. Jews are not saved by Judaism or its sterile practices. Protestants and pagans are not saved by any practices of their sects.

    Jews, Protestants, and pagans may indeed be saved, but only by way of some form of participation in the salvific work of Christ and His Church, the only Ark of salvation.

  • “and a tendency to over-simplify complex cultural, ecclesiastical and theological problems,”

    Well, no s*** (Please no profanity – TAC Editors). I think that part of this problem is due to Voris–he really doesn’t, at times, seem to know what he is talking about–and at other times it’s due to the medium.

  • This is insulting. It’s Michael Voris S.T.B. Those letters give him authority.

    In all seriousness, the sooner his bishop hauls Voris into his office and tells Voris to stop it, the better. I honestly cringe every time I’m reminded of their existence. If you’re going to speak on behalf of the Church, you better be prudent and well-read/informed. Voris strikes me as neither.

  • The problem with the video on Judaism is that it ignores the biblical data–e.g., St. Paul in Romans–in favor of a hyper-simplified historical argument.

    And I was flat out agog at the video arguing the “only” appropriate form of government for Catholics was the “benevolent dictatorship” (his words) of a Catholic monarch. Then there was the argument that democratic government can’t work because the franchise cannot be limited to faithful Catholics alone.

    I know the Republic has its ailments, but I’m not interested in his cure.

  • I honestly cringe every time I’m reminded of their existence. If you’re going to speak on behalf of the Church, you better be prudent and well-read/informed. Voris strikes me as neither.

    Right. Voris is reckless and opinionated (which can be ok), but he’s not knowledgeable or particularly thoughtful. It’s a bad combination.

  • I stopped watching when Michael tried to convince us that Amazing Grace was an anti-Catholic hymn because it speaks of the unjustified as wretches. Last I checked, dying unjustified leads one to hell, a pretty wretched state.

    Christopher Burgwald S.T.D. 😉

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic and also quite heretical. To sing such a hymn in a Catholic Church (something which I have seen personally) is a slap of relativism.

    To Michael Denton,

    Why would he do that? To my knowledge he has said nothing untrue or wrong.

    To the rest of the posters,

    Look at Ivan’s response to this thread do you think that may be we not putting things simply enough for people like him? He believes that the Jews are saved by the old covenant for God’s sake.

    The reason many do not like Mr. Voris is simply his attitude and directness. Sure you can be nuance and call it “simplistic” but in reality the reason is being direct something we don’t do because we need to be nice.

    Well there is a time and place for nice, but we live in dire times when we need brave people to stand up for the Church to those inside of it. I for one I am very glad that at least one lay person is doing it and that is Mr. Voris.

  • Voris is right about 50% of the time.

    I actually agree with him 100% on the so-called “ordinary form.” That message needs to be heard more often. What is derided as an “oversimplification” is really the complaint of those who prefer to obfuscate with complexity matters that are really are quite simple, in order to conceal their true intent.

    As for the Jew video, since I don’t believe in thought-crimes, unless he is calling for Jews to be rounded up and killed, I don’t care. I don’t believe that the road to the Holocaust begins 10 years prior with a few anti-semitic remarks (if that is what they indeed are), and claims that it does are nothing but emotional attempts to control and stifle independent thought.

    Like others though, I thought his video calling for a Catholic dictatorship/monarchy was off the rails. It was elitist, politically ignorant, and embarrassing.

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic and also quite heretical.

    Well, the 3rd verse does say the Pope is the whore of Babylon, but I would imagine that is usually skipped when sung at mass.

    What on earth are you talking about?

  • This notion that Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic is just myth. At most it can be described as non-Catholic in origin. There is only one potentially offending passage, but it can easily be interpreted in keeping with orthodoxy. People really need to do some research before posting whatever hearsay they happened to have read. There is good reason that this hymn has been approved for Catholic hymnals. Now weather one likes it or not, that is another question entirely.

  • Do you really want to know what I think?

    I apologize in advance.

    The “animus” thing alleges Voris is 100% against the ordinary form, and is EVIL. That seems to be a false generalization. The “oversimplification” thing seems to say he’s too freaking stupid to understand the complexities or to agree with the “enlightened.”

    So, as it now seems acceptable: the lefty, professional catholic (much like his Obama-worshipping, liberal cousin) resorts to ad hominems, detractions, distractions, exaggerations, misdirections, etc. to stifle anyone so EVIL as to disagree with the TRUTH.

    I think Pope Mark is a jerk, anyhow. Voris isn’t here to defend himself.

    Again, I apologize!

  • I’m sorry did someone just accuse a “lefty, professional catholic (much like his Obama-worshipping liberal cousin)” of resorting to ad hominems?!?!?

    I’m not even sure who is being attacked here, but I do know what an ad hominem attack is. Yeesh.

  • Heh. Yes, well we know only terrible people who injure puppies for fun use ad hominems.

  • “Real” Catholic is real heresy.

  • Mr. Voris has issued an apology regarding the Catholic Government video. He never claimed to be perfect, and is doing what every responsible person should do, apologize when he’s wrong. Calling this extremely faithful man a heretic is so insulting it is beyond belief. He is doing what no one else seems to have the guts to do – say it like it is. For some reason people are intimidated by that, and calling him and his staff names seems to make them feel better. I just don’t get that.

  • With-A-Z,

    I concur wholeheartedly.

    Mr. Voris has above and beyond done more for the Catholic faith than many of us have done.

    He certainly represents many Catholics that obediently dealt with much of what the Spirit of Vatican II crowd brow-beated into us such as these cultural gems like: guitar masses, liturgical dancing, and many other blasphemies that are so still prevalent in the Catholic Church in America.

  • Here’s what I know about Amazing Grace, other than it is campy and has a very annoying, pitchy melody:
    Marcus Grodi has said that “Amazing Grace” perfectly sums up what he *used* to believe when he was a Calvinist.

  • Amazing Grace is anti-Catholic only in the sense that some vanishingly few Catholics wish that the clergyman, John Newton who wrote that hymn after participating in the slave trade was a Catholic himself. Its pure jealousy, nothing else.

  • I have a Catholic friend who sounds like this when he talks about the Jews. Whenever he starts talking about Rabbinical Judaism (which is often) is a man-made religion and then went on to talk about how communism is entirely based on the Talmud, the Jews control everything, etc. So I ran a diagnostic test. I asked him what he thought about the Muslims. He said, “I have no problem with the other Semitic people.” In other words, some man-made religions are fine. It’s OK that they have a world wide religion based on half-truths spouted by a lunatic, but it’s not OK for Jews to believe in something based on books that the Roman Catholic church considers to be divinely inspired. I don’t know how this kind of thinking could not be identified as prejudice toward the Jews, if not full-blown antisemitism.

    Coincidentally, or not so, my friend has the same views as Voris on the Novus Ordo Mass.

  • “I don’t know how this kind of thinking could not be identified as prejudice toward the Jews, if not full-blown antisemitism.”

    Bingo. Anti-Semitism is a poison that harms not only the Jews, but those who harbor it.

  • Go, Michael go!

    Btw, I hope his next vid is a commentary on Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.

  • Sorry about the grammatical errors. The second sentence should read as follows:

    Whenever he starts talking about Rabbinical Judaism–which is often–he first notes that it is a man-made religion, then he goes on to talk about how communism is entirely based on the Talmud, the Jews control everything, etc.

  • Mr. Voris has above and beyond done more for the Catholic faith than many of us have done

    That he has done much for the faith is undeniable. Whether what he has done has been for good or ill is not.

  • I think Voris means well, and I’m glad he manned up on the Catholic government post.

    The problem is, I think his format forces him into an “attack on all fronts” approach which is only going to lead to more gaffes in the future. Complex subjects don’t lend themselves to five minute video essays. The format he’s aping–O’Reilly’s “no-spin zone”–is more of a mini-fisk of 3 or so “news of the day” items. As opposed to, say, the division between Christianity and Judaism and the development of the two post-split. You’re throwing yourself into an elephant trap doing that sort of thing.

  • The problem is, I think his format forces him into an “attack on all fronts” approach which is only going to lead to more gaffes in the future.

    That’s probably a good point. You can only present so much at a time. You either have to get a different more extended format to talk about certain issues or just limit the issues you treat with the shorter format.

    A good example of this is the talk show hosts who write books. Nearly all of the major conservative hosts have written books, out of the ones which I’ve skimmed or read, they all read much more thoughtfully than most of the shows sound, especially to the unconvinced.