(Archdiocese of Detroit:) Statement regarding Real Catholic TV and its name

[LiveCatholic]

Well, well…isn’t this interesting?

From another article:

There is however an interesting twist to this story. Michael Voris, while he may be the star of RealCatholicTV’s programming, is not the owner of the website. The owner is Marc Brammer who lives in South Bend Indiana in the diocese of Bishop Kevin Rhoades.

(emphasis mine)

Hmmm… interesting, indeed.

Well, the issue is further complicated by the fact that Mr. Brammer is a member of Opus Dei,* and therefore might not even be within Bishop Rhoades’ jurisdiction (but instead under the personal prelature of Opus Dei). Perhaps a canonist can comment further on this?

Further confusing things, is the question of who is answerable to ecclesiastical authorities in this situation: Marc Brammer, the owner of the website?–Mike Voris, the ‘face’ and presenter of the material?–or the company/website itself? Certainly someone canon law will be needed to clarify these issues…

*rpconradio.com/our-guest-marc-brammer-senior-director-at-moodys-analytics-new-york-ny-to-discuss-his-institute-for-new-media/

 

[Sirach2]

It just amazes me the timing of all of this. Lizaanne was seen here surfing this thread, and just a short time afterward, the article is suddenly “discovered” by you, her friend, from Lifesitenews. The posting time of the article falls in line coincidentally a few minutes after these posts. :ehh: Interesting, indeed, as you said.

 

[jam070406]

Just happened to stumble across this publication, huh Jam? There are always two sides to the story.

Yes, at the launching of St. Michael’s Media when he deliberated with the AoD for approval of his apostolate, he was given specifics as to how to come into compliance for the said approval. He has failed to meet them since 2006. So yes, I can appreciate that the Archdiocese is disturbed enough to cancel subsequent media efforts.

Would you happen to have the publication from Lifesitenews that gives the reasons for denying approval for his apostolate? That seems harder to find than hen’s teeth.

Yes, I just stumbled across it, as it came out today. What are you insinuating?

Yes, there are two sides. It’s not looking very honest for the staff at the AoD, as they were well aware that he does not own the name.

I don’t have any info about his initial meetings.
Any idea why they claim they have tried to work this out with him but in reality have snubbed his requests to meet and discuss the issue?

 

[jam070406]

It just amazes me the timing of all of this. Lizaanne was seen here surfing this thread, and just a short time afterward, the article is suddenly “discovered” by you, her friend, from Lifesitenews. The posting time of the article falls in line coincidentally a few minutes after these posts. :ehh: Interesting, indeed, as you said.

Oh please!

For one, I barely speak to her. In fact, hardly ever.
Second, I’m not sure your point. Are you trying to make me look dishonest or something?

If you must know, I have pewsitter.com bookmarked. There is a link at the top in red that lead me to Fr. Z’s blog. I read the comments and someone posted the link that Voris responded. Sheeesh… c’mon man!

You’re being a little paranoid. There is no conspiracy theory with me or any other poster.

 

[Sirach2]

You’re reading too much into the story. The article stated that the “machine” said they would be out of the office until after the holidays. How is that a refusal?

It also depends upon when the AoD learned the owner was other than Voris. The article wasn’t very specific, but I may need to read it again to be sure.

And since 2006, he has had no opportunity to make the needed corrections as the AoD advised him specifically?

Jam, you are a friend of Liza’s and a true admirer of Voris, so it will not go well between us to debate this. Your team will defend him without limit, and I note that Liza has already found time to comment at the Lifesitenews.

Maybe we should just back off so our relations do not develop into a fracas.

 

[jam070406]

You’re reading too much into the story. The article stated that the “machine” said they would be out of the office until after the holidays. How is that a refusal?

It also depends upon when the AoD learned the owner was other than Voris. The article wasn’t very specific, but I may need to read it again to be sure.

And since 2006, he has had no opportunity to make the needed corrections as the AoD advised him specifically?

Jam, you are a friend of Liza’s and a true admirer of Voris, so it will not go well between us to debate this. Your team will defend him without limit, and I note that Liza has already found time to comment at the Lifesitenews.

Maybe we should just back off so our relations do not develop into a fracas.

From the article:

“Voris told LifeSiteNews that he has requested a meeting with Archdiocesan officials seven times to discuss the matter, but each time he has been ignored or rebuffed.”

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from linking me to conspiracy theories with “teams”, thank you.

I will not “defend him without limit”. There is obviously more to the story. Two sides, as you yourself said. If he is being treated unjustly, I don’t care who it is. I want to hear the Truth.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Apparently my profile information here violates Canon Law?

Your profile information is a identification of your personal religious beliefs/affiliation as a member of an internet forum website, not the name of an undertaking like Real Catholic TV (or Catholic Answers, which I assume does have the proper permissions.)

If you started a nonprofit (or for profit, for that matter) organization called Catholic Exoflare Inc. as a medium to express your opinions to the world and didn’t receive the permission of the relevant Church authority than you probably would be in violation of Canon Law.

 

[Dale_M]

Is there an official document from an authority in the AOD that forbids RCTV to use the name Catholic? Other than “the AOD” says? It’s kinda like when a publication from “the Vatican” comes out and it’s used as authoritative, when in fact it is not. Like, Vatican calls for world bank.

The press release from the archdiocese doesn’t name specific individuals, but refers contact requests to the archdiocesan Department of Communications.

Here is the press release, in its entirety:

Statement regarding Real Catholic TV and its name

Issued: Dec. 15, 2011

Contact: Joe Kohn, infodesk@aod.org / (313) 237-5943

The Church encourages the Christian faithful to promote or sustain a variety of apostolic undertakings but, nevertheless, prohibits any such undertaking from claiming the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority (see canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law). For some time, the Archdiocese of Detroit has been in communication with Mr. Michael Voris and his media partner at Real Catholic TV regarding their prominent use of the word “Catholic” in identifying and promoting their public activities disseminated from the enterprise’s production facility in Ferndale, Michigan. The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities. Questions about this matter may be directed to the Archdiocese of Detroit, Department of Communications.

aodonline.org/AODOnline/News+++Publications+2203/Press+Releases+2303/2011+18610/RCTV.htm

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Being conservative is controversial.

I guess I’m just a devious, controversial person, too, then. It kind of feels mysterious. :dancing:

Gotta love RCTV. I watch it daily. I honestly love the program, but it must be too conservative for some people. Hahaha!

Bishop Rhoades, I doubt will be bothered too much by this. He’s a pretty straight-forward, conservative man. Used to be my bishop.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Voris criticizes all sorts of figures in the church including bishops. How could he possibly want to be an official Catholic media under the authority of his bishop? His whole purpose is to be ready to point the finger at bishops, including his own. He should just stop using the word catholic and continue on with his videos. To come under their authority would negate his purpose.

 

[Sirach2]

Originally Posted by jam070406 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Is there an official document from an authority in the AOD that forbids RCTV to use the name Catholic? Other than “the AOD” says? It’s kinda like when a publication from “the Vatican” comes out and it’s used as authoritative, when in fact it is not. *

This was posted very early in the thread, but perhaps you and others have not read it entirely. It is not "the AoD says, " but rather, “the Church says.” It is written clearly in Canon Law, #216.

Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition.
Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Dirt,

As for using spiritual zealousness, I can accept strong speakers, but not a lack of charity in dispensing the subject matter - THAT’S what bothers most of the members. I’m straining to be kind. Red-neck ruffians are most likely to appreciate his crass verbiage.

ironically how very uncharitable of you

 

[Sirach2]

:thankyou:I always appreciate good feedback.

 

[TrueLight]

Does that mean one can’t use “Catholic” for a blog like Brooklyn Catholic for example?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Does that mean one can’t use “Catholic” for a blog like Brooklyn Catholic for example?

I was just thinking the same thing. I must know at least twenty blogs with “Catholic” in the name.

But they aren’t too important. I have no idea why the Archdiocese or the Archbishop or whoever would want to give this internet site any free publicity or who would make any demands on anyone over whom they have no authority, but the whole thing seems ill-advised.

But, they will have to decide what to do about these Internet sites, I suppose. I imagine simply stating publicly that the Church has no affiliation at all with this or that site, but these other ones have some sort of official permission to operate… I dunno. Seems like a tempest started in a half-empty teapot of cold dregs, anyway.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Being conservative is controversial.

So is being overly liberal.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Does that mean one can’t use “Catholic” for a blog like Brooklyn Catholic for example?

I was just thinking the same thing. I must know at least twenty blogs with “Catholic” in the name.

I don’t think they’d “go after” the term Catholic if it was used to denote the individual rather than some kind of authority. I think the term “RealCatholic” has drawn raised eyebrows because it might seem to convey that its some kind of teaching authority authorized by the Church in some way.
Whereas someone simply calling their blog “Brooklyn Catholic” merely denotes a Catholic person from Brooklyn…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Although, it has come to light that Michael Voris does not own the name, and the owner is not in the AOD. And…the staff at the AOD knew this and even wrote a letter acknowledging this.
Sorry Sirach, this seems to be turning out to be a witch hunt against Mr. Voris by liberal AOD staffers that have had it in for him from the beginning, even before RCTV was launched.

lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-detroit-asks-michael-voris-to-stop-using-the-name-catholic

I could be wrong, but I’m not sure it matters who owns it or where they live. I would think it matters where the corporation operates out of. If its incorporated somewhere in the Detroit archdiocese I’d think it would have competence over the matter.

 

[TrueLight]

I was just thinking the same thing. I must know at least twenty blogs with “Catholic” in the name.

But they aren’t too important. I have no idea why the Archdiocese or the Archbishop or whoever would want to give this internet site any free publicity or who would make any demands on anyone over whom they have no authority, but the whole thing seems ill-advised.

But, they will have to decide what to do about these Internet sites, I suppose. I imagine simply stating publicly that the Church has no affiliation at all with this or that site, but these other ones have some sort of official permission to operate… I dunno. Seems like a tempest started in a half-empty teapot of cold dregs, anyway.

I have to say, as a new Catholic, this seems very strange to me. It’s like the Catholic Church has a patent on the word “Catholic”?

I don’t think they’d “go after” the term Catholic if it was used to denote the individual rather than some kind of authority. I think the term “RealCatholic” has drawn raised eyebrows because it might seem to convey that its some kind of teaching authority authorized by the Church in some way.
Whereas someone simply calling their blog “Brooklyn Catholic” merely denotes a Catholic person from Brooklyn…

Okay. You think Old-Time Catholic is okay?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

He usually targets those that are destroying the Faith. Like the pro abort, pro homosexual marriage, pro contraception, pro women Priest crowd. Can you provide an example of how he could be more charitable to those destroying the Faith?

It’s not his place to target anyone.

Jesus didn’t target people, neither should he.

Our goal as Christians is to bring people to the truth, not drive them away with harsh words and finger pointing, especially when those words are often misinterpreted by the person using them.

Jim