Church Militant and its latest attacks

[silentwitness]

I think most organisations seek to defend themselves from attack, whether the see the attackers as internal or not. When attacks resonate with your own supporters, defence is even more expected.

Perhaps this is part of the CM following in that some people do expect (even demand) a response from the church about certain allegations.

As a Christian i would say that if truth is on your side it should be easy to make rebuttal statements.

I understand that the church does not want to cede the agenda and authority to outside groups but the possibility is that a lack of a robust defense does exactly that.

 

[FiveLinden]

As a Christian i would say that if truth is on your side it should be easy to make rebuttal statements.

There are many defences to many sorts of attacks. In the case of CM it seems to specialise in ‘damning’ characterisations of people with whom it disagrees. ‘Damning’ in this sense means ‘to condemn utterly’.

A defence in this case would normally be suggested by comms professionals along the lines of indirect response by highlighting the good points of your organisation and its people while finding ways to make your distain, and the distain of your supporters, for the attacker clear.

This is not the same as doing nothing. I am wondering if perhaps the scatter-gun approach of CM, attacking people in multiple diocese and other leading roles, plays to the weakness of the multiple jurisdictions of the Catholic Church. Although it appears monolithic, its ability to respond is fragmented on regional lines. This does not work well in internationalised media.

 

[StudentMI]

I am wondering if perhaps the scatter-gun approach of CM, attacking people in multiple diocese and other leading roles, plays to the weakness of the multiple jurisdictions of the Catholic Church.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Over all however I just think they don’t want to give them more publicity. And besides, if they did address it CM followers would likely just dismiss the rebuttals as lies.

 

[silentwitness]

This is not the same as doing nothing. I am wondering if perhaps the scatter-gun approach of CM, attacking people in multiple diocese and other leading roles, plays to the weakness of the multiple jurisdictions of the Catholic Church. Although it appears monolithic, its ability to respond is fragmented on regional lines. This does not work well in internationalised media.

The response does not have to be through internationalised media.

The localised nature of the church can be a great strength if organised correctly. Strong dioceses in union with each other should easily be able to answer a Youtuber if they want to.

 

[JulianN]

The response does not have to be through internationalised media.

Yes, I was not suggesting that private responses had not been given.

 

[gracepoole]

CM and Voris increasingly give scandal to the Church. That seems more than reason enough to actively oppose them.

 

[gracepoole]

I’d like to see prominent Catholics turn on them in large numbers.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

the Church has not recognized the problem with Voris and ignored it, hoping it would go away

The Church has a habit of doing this in many situations. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it goes horribly wrong.

I do wonder, though, if a lot of the “problem” might not go away if the next Pope is more conservative like Pope Benedict was.

 

[Glennon_P]

I do wonder, though, if a lot of the “problem” might not go away if the next Pope is more conservative like Pope Benedict was.

I suspect you are 100% correct.

 

[1ke]

I’m trying to understand how it is possible for CM to still be seen as a part of the Church.

What makes you think CM is “part of the Church”?

I see the Detroit Archdiocese has been critical but it still appears to be able to operate and be seen as a part of the Church.

Um, no. CM used to be called Real Catholic TV and the Archdiocese of Detroit required them to stop using Catholic in their name. They changed it to CM.

There isn’t anything, legally, that the archdiocese can do more than that. They can’t use Catholic in the name of their organization. The archdiocese can’t stop them from existing. They are a legal entity, not a church entity.

They are NOT part of the Church nor do they have permission or approval of the Archdiocese of Detroit.

What would be the steps that potentially could be taken? I know they lost the right to use the word ‘Catholic’ in their title - but what else?

None, really.

The archbishop could censure individual people, depending on whether a person violates a specific canon of canon law.

 

[TMC]

Real Catholic TV

I remember those days. The joke was that Real Catholic TV was none of those three (real, Catholic or TV).

 

[ProVobis]

Oh no! A Pope who looks like Robert Redford?

 

[FiveLinden]

So I have been trying to understand why some who have kindly responded to my post consider that Church Militant is not part of the Church or that the Church is in some way not responsible for, or expected to respond to, what CM says.

So I looked up the Catechism (see, I’m learning!) and it says: “752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers.These three meanings are inseparable”. Later the catechism points our that the ‘Church’ includes both sheep and shepherds.

So on this definition, the people who make up Church Militant are a part of the Church.

 

[Anesti33]

FiveLinden:

I’m trying to understand how it is possible for CM to still be seen as a part of the Church.

What makes you think CM is “part of the Church”?

I see the Detroit Archdiocese has been critical but it still appears to be able to operate and be seen as a part of the Church.

Um, no. CM used to be called Real Catholic TV and the Archdiocese of Detroit required them to stop using Catholic in their name. They changed it to CM.

There isn’t anything, legally, that the archdiocese can do more than that. They can’t use Catholic in the name of their organization. The archdiocese can’t stop them from existing. They are a legal entity, not a church entity.

They are NOT part of the Church nor do they have permission or approval of the Archdiocese of Detroit.

What would be the steps that potentially could be taken? I know they lost the right to use the word ‘Catholic’ in their title - but what else?

None, really.

The archbishop could censure individual people, depending on whether a person violates a specific canon of canon law.

The archdiocese couldn’t make them remove “Catholic” from their name, legally, which could be registered as a trademark, and the archbishop could do nothing, civilly, about it.

Church Militant chose to obey, and changed their name anyway.

 

[StudentMI]

So on this definition, the people who make up Church Militant are a part of the Church.

They are part of the Body of Christ, yes. They are our brothers and sisters in faith. CM is not.

 

[FiveLinden]

They are part of the Body of Christ, yes. They are our brothers and sisters in faith. CM is not.

So the members/employees/owners/supporters of CM are a) part of the body of Christ and 2) the same thing as CM, but CM is not part of the Body of Christ? How so?

 

[StudentMI]

So the members/employees/owners/supporters of CM are a) part of the body of Christ and 2) the same thing as CM, but CM is not part of the Body of Christ? How so?

The same way that there are many Republican Catholics. They are members of the Republican party. They are part of the Body of Christ, but that does not mean the Republican party is part of it.

 

[FiveLinden]

The same way that there are many Republican Catholics. They are members of the Republican party. They are part of the Body of Christ, but that does not mean the Republican party is part of it.

But the Republican Party consists of people who are and are not Catholic and exists for a range of reasons and purposes, none of which are specifically Catholic. CM consists only of people who are Catholic, gathered together precisely because they are Catholic.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So on this definition, the people who make up Church Militant are a part of the Church.

You’re mixing apples and oranges. Yes, from a standpoint of “who is a member of the Church” then every baptized Catholic is a member. That means Michael Voris and his staff are members of the Church. The Church doesn’t issue or revoke “membership cards” based on your behavior or attending X Masses in a year etc.

However, from a civil, legal standpoint, Church Militant is NOT “part of the Church”. The Church is not responsible for or liable for what it does or says. When one says a media outlet is “part of the Church”, thta would mean it’s owned, controlled, operated by the Church to some degree, or the employees of the Church (such as bishop, priests, Diocesan staff, the teachers at the local Catholic school etc) were running it. It would need to have more association with the Church than just being owned and operated by baptized Catholics.

I’m a baptized Catholic, so I’m part of the Church. That doesn’t mean if I go start a business or a charity, and ask other Catholic laypeople who are friends of mine to help me with my venture, that the business or charity becomes “Part of the Church” or that the bishop or priests can tell me how to run it, nor that the Church is automatically liable for debts or lawsuit judgments that my business might incur. Same for Voris and his staff and Church Militant.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But the Republican Party consists of people who are and are not Catholic and exists for a range of reasons and purposes, none of which are specifically Catholic. CM consists only of people who are Catholic, gathered together precisely because they are Catholic.

This makes no sense from any sort of legal viewpoint.
Church Militant staff did not gather “because they are Catholic”, they gathered because they want to run a media outlet that publishes on topics of interest to Catholics.

Starting a 501(c ) (3) with all Catholics or even to deal with some Catholic topic like publishing about Catholic subjects does not automatically make it “part of the Church”. Organizations, groups and enterprises become “part of the Church” if they fall legally under Church control because the Church owns or controls them, like any other legal entity.

You seem to be pushing some model whereby the Church is responsible for everything any Catholic might do related to Catholicism or any thought a baptized person might express on the Catholic Church. That’s not how it works. I think most people would not be part of any religious institution that exerted thta kind of control, and religious institutions wouldn’t want that kind of legal entanglement with their members’ daily activities.