H
HillbillyHermit
Guest
I watched some of his videos on YouTube, and IMO it’s too much complaining, something that is far from lacking on the Internet or done the old fashioned way among members of the Church. :twocents:
- Status
M
Megan7
Guest
I have a subscription to churchmiltant.TV, I think it’s an interesting and informative show.
I think that Micheael Voris is a forceful and knowledgeable host. But I also want to find out what you guys think. Also do you think Boondock Saints is a “catholic movie”?
P
pnewton
Guest
Okay. I am done with this person who fancies himself a modern prophet, or a Catholic Rush, I know not which. His latest attack on Cardinal Dolan was the straw that broke the camels back. He is devoid of moral authority, deficient in intelligence and reasoning (at least in that tirade) and lacking in anything I view as Catholic. I have lost all respect I have had for him on that last one, unless he issues a retraction, correction or apology. If he lacks the fortitude for that, then I suspect he will stay for ever in the realm of an occupation outside of the Church; a conservative version of the liberal Catholics that live on the opposite edge.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Feel better now?
~Liza
~Liza
M
minion
Guest
To be fair, I can’t help but feel something’s wrong when I see an image like this
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...sh/de/76/de7619d01bac9fbd48d47265a89a5b68.jpg
tied with this
Judge Dismisses Suit: HHS Mandate No Threat to Religious Freedom
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...sh/de/76/de7619d01bac9fbd48d47265a89a5b68.jpg
tied with this
Judge Dismisses Suit: HHS Mandate No Threat to Religious Freedom
C
Crescentinus
Guest
That had become the subject of many a Catholic meme these days.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t recall ever seeing you this riled up before.
I guess I’m glad I missed whatever comments you are referring to.
P
pnewton
Guest
WHew, Yes.
Okay, I will back off and just say that Voris does not get it when it comes to this dinner. That’s not that big of a deal really.
O
october_baby
Guest
It is a big deal, it gives ignorant catholics and hostile protestants the idea that the cardinal is ok with the presidents actions.
BTW, you may dislike Voris, but he point out that 2 former NY cardinals dis invited 2 former
pro aborotion presidential canidates. (including Clinton.) You may dislike Mr. Voris, but I think you got a little personal, just my humble opinion.
O
october_baby
Guest
BTW, Mr. Voris has taken shots at Mr. Romney. which you wouls know if you watched
all of the vortexs.
S
SirStephen
Guest
RealCatholicTV was not HQ’d in Michigan, it just operated there so there was no need to get permission. On Canon 216, I think Voris will end up winning his point by showing how many overtly pro-choice “Catholic” organizations are out there openly politicing for Obama using the name Catholic in the organization title with no complaints.
Also, I think it is “a fair assumption”!
S
SirStephen
Guest
I am very glad the Romney rose to the occasion while President Obama came across flat at the Cardinal’s dinner. But to not understand Voris’s concern is to be either disingenuous or to have a very tin ear in the political sphere. President Obama needs the Catholic vote. President is easily the most overtly anti-Catholic President this country has seen - at least in the modern age (and maybe ever). When many Catholics tune in (very late or very superficially), they will be told of the great attack on the Church’s rights and that this is a cause worthy of mobilizing, dare I say, the Church Militant. When those Catholics ask, in their ignorance, whether the issue is really that serious, the Dems will answer by telling them to relax, its not that much of a problem, after all, here is the President with the Cardinal less than a month before the election yucking it up.
For those Catholics less aware than they should be, they will look at those pictures and conclude, not unreasonably, that there isn’t really an “undermine the Constitution” level issue because if it was really that big, the Cardinal wouldn’t have extended the invitation. It was, yet again, a slap at Catholics who really believe in questions of Abortions who are also Americans who may well have a deeper understanding than the Cardinal on how serious this assault on the First Amendment really is. The President showed up to get that photo op and it will show up in urban ethnic Catholic sources to make just that point.
From a political landscape perspective, that was what the dinner was about and Voris struck a genuine and genuinely held position that reflects not only the view of very many informed Catholics, but also was explained along the political context that defined the issue.
Have you noticed how fast folks at the Catholic League, like Donahue, were to attack serious Catholics for being “more Catholic than the Pope” on issues the Church as been telling us to take seriously for the last 40 years? Could these be among the Catholics that Pope Benedict was referring to when saying “it is sad that there are what you might call professional Catholics who make a living on their Catholicism, but in whom the spring of faith flows only faintly, in a few scattered drops.”
P
pnewton
Guest
No, it is not that I am disingenuous or have a tin ear. Really? Do you think Cardinal Dolan is either? No. He is following the steps of the Savior who had not problem eating with sinners and tax collectors. Voris is echoing the Pharisees, in taking the role of attacking someone for sharing this meal.
I am proud of being a Catholic when I see the Church able to put aside partisanship in a worthy cause. There are too many people that will never be satisfied without the Church becoming a de facto Republican Church, or in the case of extremist, a new Christian version of the Pharisees. After all, when the bride of Christ is persecuted by those who call themselves Catholic, it is not such a stretch to make this comparison.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I encourage you to do more study on the matter. This will get you started:
S
Stylites
Guest
Indeed. Apart from the regrettable and recurring condemnation of the pastoral actions of one of the princes of the Church, the echo being followed can be likened to the zealots, too. The zealots looked for a political kingdom with definable enemies of flesh and blood, and their parchment screeds probably sold subscriptions in its day, too.
S
SirStephen
Guest
My points are not the product of some partisan political calculation. I often say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one is an idiotocracy and the other a moronocracy. But there is some malevolence towards the Catholic Church from O and the DNC’s “war on woman” is specifically templated against Catholic views on abortion and birth control positioned as a bogy man in the election. While not directed against all democrats, it does seem reasonably clear that the DNC leadership has taken a distinct turn to public anti-Catholicism under this administration. To the extent that some decide not to vote for O for that reason, at best, the Republicans are unmeritorious beneficiaries – they are doing no harm.
Regarding Voris, one does not have to be his cheerleader to point out that the position he stated is coherent, deeply and broadly felt, and demonstrably valid, sincere and genuine. He strikes a real cord. Yet your response is to cast him and Catholics like him as “Christian Pharisees” because why? Are you accusing Voris of not walking the walk? Are you saying that people who actually believe Church Doctrines and hence also believe that they should be enforced are suspect for that reason? There is a measure of gravitas associated with the seriousness of the issue given the position taken in which the Cardinal is demonstrably out of position and compromising his case.
I am VERY familiar with the assault on the Church as well as with some who are involved in defending it in the courts. There is great concern about whether the USCCB leadership understands the seriousness of the First Amendment equities involved – ones that extend beyond the Churches “exceptions” to a law they otherwise agreed to in principle for others (they could get shredded on this in cross examination) – ones that will affect every American’s right to practice their religion. At some critical point at trial, the defense attorneys will show pictures of the Cardinal in jovial meetings with Obama, the person whose actions HE designated as constituting both the greatest threat to the Catholic Church in this country’s history and the greatest assault on the First Amendment for all Americans. As such, the Cardinals decision to invite O to the dinner are NOT a reflection of “putting aside partisanship in a worthy cause” but rather that of reducing an issue of profound seriousness to the level of pedestrian “gotcha” politics. The attorney will ask, “if it is so bad, why such friendly good times”. NO ATTORNEY wants to have to defend pictures that reflect an ongoing behavior that is out of synch with the seriousness of the equities involved as expressed by the Cardinal himself when speaking to issue. It’s a matter of affect.
This is not a run-of-the-mill Democrat v Republican issue; it’s about an in-your-face intentional subversion of the First Amendment leading to the intentional direct subordination of the church to the state. This is an issue our troops swear an oath to “support and defend.” Sorry, I want the leaders of THAT movement to act as if they were somehow aware that this is a deadly serious affair – because ultimately, we are going down a road where it could be. Christ attacked the Pharisees; he whipped them in the Temple. When he had dinner with them, it was to confront them. As it relates to the assault on the Church, the O Administration is not today’s lost sheep but rather the wolves in sheep’s clothing the Apostles were warned to protect the flock from. They are not your run of the mill “sinners and tax collectors.” It is for this reason that I believe your comparing concerned Catholics with “Christian Pharisees” to be of a kind with “Christian Taliban” that does constitute a ‘stretch when making the comparison’ when casting such judgment on them.
There are already archdioceses and universities peeling off on this issue. Abandoning the field having taken up the gauntlet is craven defeat or worse. On the central merits of this issue, so is compromise. Yes, O and company have reason to believe that the USCCB leadership doesn’t have the stomach for such a fight (and neither do a lot of folks who know that now that the US Catholic Church has engaged in the fight, also know that they must win or go down swinging – not smiling).
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me clarify this. I cast him in the role of the Pharisees (or he case himself there), not because of any lack of personal piety. After all, the Pharisees were very pious people. Rather, because he is attacking the Bride of Christ for the exact same thing that the Pharisees attacked Jesus.
The Church is not going to change to his mindset. Jesus didn’t. He submitted as a lamb who did not open his mouth. The Church Militant is militant on its knees, not on YouTube. It is not flesh and blood that we wrestle against.
That may be written in the margins of your Bible. It is missing in mine.
The Catholic Church will never be militant in the way that Michael Voris is. Does this confuse some Catholics on certain issues? No doubt, but no less that going off on rants and tirades causes confusion about charity and authority, which are the greater issues behind all issues.
I still in shock that he impugned the choice of Cardinal Dolan on this topic. I still think that he does not understand the mind of the Cardinal properly on this issue. When one find oneself at odds with the Church, I have found that is usually the best time to shut the mouth and open the ears and heart.
S
SirStephen
Guest
I will take this in two steps. Part I –
While I suspect that more than a few who hear Voris speak disagree with him, there is no ambiguity in what he says. If he is able to demonstrate the bona fides for the points he makes, his commentary should not be construed to be either an insult to charity or authority. This new postmodern standard that demands the silencing of that which can otherwise be demonstrated to be true so as not to offend is nothing more than an attack on speech and thought – and hence, an attack on free will. Voris is in good company when challenging this postmodern notion of charity as Pope Benedict himself believes that extreme relativism (postmodernism) is among the greatest evils of our time – and one that has crippled the Church. When Voris is silenced based on this claim of charity, it is hardly Christian and certainly not an act of charity as classically or Biblically understood. Had St. Paul adhered to this faux charity standard, we would not have any of his epistles to read because St. Paul would never have written them. Genuine authority has nothing to fear from the truth either. There are no “greater issues behind” this issue. If Voris was insincere in his bluntly stated concerns regarding the Cardinal’s invitation to O, it would be one thing. But there is little doubt, and one suspects the Cardinal knows this, that Voris is sincere in the positions he takes.
I can’t s speak to my own mind half the time. I’ve been married almost 30 years and sometimes don’t know my wife’s mind on things either. I am under no obligation to pretend to understand the “mind of the Cardinal” in order to state a claim based on what I do know about how the Cardinal may or may not act in circumstances that I do understand. If the Cardinal walked down a dark road thinking it to be straight but I knew that there was a turn before the cliff, I would be obligated to speak up before the Cardinal started down the path. The same is true for you and for Voris. His observations have merit. It reflects a real and resonating voice in the Catholic Community. He has the right to be heard. Voris is not at odds with the Church. He is at odds with a Cardinal in his decision to act in a manner that does not concern issues of faith or morals. It is a sad thing that while the Cardinal made no such demands on Voris to shut-up (I suspect he is both aware and sensitive to the issue), you would seek to have Voris “shut the mouth” under your construct of “charity.”
You may need to get a new bible. While you are entitled to your analogy, I think Voris is entitled to his as well. You seek to cast the Cardinal’s dinner with O as one that is analogous to the errant “tax collectors and sinners” ala Matthew 9:9-13. But these were not Pharisees, they were simply among the sinners chosen by Jesus. When Jesus had dinner with Pharisees, it was to directly confront them – in a very “uncharitable” way. As this is the month where St. Luke is in the daily Gospel readings, check Luke 7:36-50, 11:37-44, and 14:1-6. If they are not in your bible, it may be time to trade up! For those who believe there may be true purposeful anti-Catholic malevolence in the activities of the current administration, the Lucan references above may seem closer to the mark.
While I suspect that more than a few who hear Voris speak disagree with him, there is no ambiguity in what he says. If he is able to demonstrate the bona fides for the points he makes, his commentary should not be construed to be either an insult to charity or authority. This new postmodern standard that demands the silencing of that which can otherwise be demonstrated to be true so as not to offend is nothing more than an attack on speech and thought – and hence, an attack on free will. Voris is in good company when challenging this postmodern notion of charity as Pope Benedict himself believes that extreme relativism (postmodernism) is among the greatest evils of our time – and one that has crippled the Church. When Voris is silenced based on this claim of charity, it is hardly Christian and certainly not an act of charity as classically or Biblically understood. Had St. Paul adhered to this faux charity standard, we would not have any of his epistles to read because St. Paul would never have written them. Genuine authority has nothing to fear from the truth either. There are no “greater issues behind” this issue. If Voris was insincere in his bluntly stated concerns regarding the Cardinal’s invitation to O, it would be one thing. But there is little doubt, and one suspects the Cardinal knows this, that Voris is sincere in the positions he takes.
I can’t s speak to my own mind half the time. I’ve been married almost 30 years and sometimes don’t know my wife’s mind on things either. I am under no obligation to pretend to understand the “mind of the Cardinal” in order to state a claim based on what I do know about how the Cardinal may or may not act in circumstances that I do understand. If the Cardinal walked down a dark road thinking it to be straight but I knew that there was a turn before the cliff, I would be obligated to speak up before the Cardinal started down the path. The same is true for you and for Voris. His observations have merit. It reflects a real and resonating voice in the Catholic Community. He has the right to be heard. Voris is not at odds with the Church. He is at odds with a Cardinal in his decision to act in a manner that does not concern issues of faith or morals. It is a sad thing that while the Cardinal made no such demands on Voris to shut-up (I suspect he is both aware and sensitive to the issue), you would seek to have Voris “shut the mouth” under your construct of “charity.”
S
SirStephen
Guest
Part II
(Please NOTE that the Quotation Box for this entry applies to the last entries assessment and the last entries Quotation Box applies to the commentaries in this section. I messed up! Apologies!)
I do not believe that Voris is accusing the Cardinal of anything more than bad judgment on an issue that one does not have to be a theologian to understand. But the American bishops in the aggregate over the last 40 years, however, they can come under scrutiny and increasingly are. One could say that there is something akin to a cultural level epiphany – an awaking on sorts - on this issue. Under their guidance, the Church in America has been systematically reduced. The Cardinal himself as much as said so in a recent article. Poll 100 adult Catholics who are otherwise discerning and find out just how many are incapable of answering the most basic questions of faith. I would bet somewhere upwards of 80%. This is on the bishops. Then look at the willful muddying of the theology and the confusion it has created. This is also on them. Among those in the epiphany, it is not lost on many that this was at the same time that it was deemed more important to seamlessly weave Alinsky into the garment of what used to be a purely Catholic understanding of social justice. Of course, the USCCB’s contempt for the current Pope is long-standing and well established. At a time when as many as 80% of the bishops were thought to have gone over to the Arian heresy, St. Athanasius is supposed to have said, at the Council of Nicea in 325, that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” The fall of the Church over the last 50 years was primarily an inside job!
You are free to disagree, but there is more than just a small fringe of pseudo SSPXer’s who share St. Athanasius’s view with regard today’s American Church – and that view is growing, is generally aware, and informed. Voris gives a muscular voice to it. You would seek to suppress him by branding his views errant through purely ad hominen slights. So, state your actual claim. What is it that Voris said that constitutes bona fide Church error? I would bet that if you ACTUALLY succeeded at REALLY demonstrating that Voris said something that constituted ACTUAL Church error, Voris would be man enough to step up to the plate, take the hit, retract, and apologize for the mistake. I don’t always agree with Voris, but I do believe that he 1) speaks truth to power (and this is long-overdue) and 2) believes in the truth of what he says – and that he has no intention of saying something he knew to be error. And just like the Pharisees, some in the Church seek to shut him down when he raises bona fide articulable claims of corruption and/or abuse. (I am not comparing Voris to Christ – just challenging your “Pharisee” charge!)
Voris does not believe he is attacking the Bride of Christ, he believes he is defending it against the same abuses that Pope Benedict speaks to. When Christ attacked the “Pharisees,” he was not accusing all the Pharisees of being corrupt, just those who were personally corrupted by the wealth and power of their position. From time to time, the Church has likewise gone through such periods of ecclesial corruption. One cannot be “personally pius” over that which is impious. So, no, the Pharisees Christ took aim at were not “personally pius.” Jesus only submitted as the lamb when He was the high priest of His own sacrifice. He never submitted to the Pharisees, nor to evil. Rather, he crushed them. His ministry was one of direct confrontation with, among others, the Pharisees. That’s why he would have to slip out of places after confronting them before they could stone him. St. Paul likewise spoke of many such experiences. They wanted them dead because they touched where it hurt. Jesus was not a proto-Ghandi, he was no pacifist, and he did not compromise with evil. Yes, man should be on his knees before God, but to be on ones knees before a man or to evil is … well, unmanful.
(Please NOTE that the Quotation Box for this entry applies to the last entries assessment and the last entries Quotation Box applies to the commentaries in this section. I messed up! Apologies!)
In a case most favorable to your dislike of Voris, all you can really claim is that he is a blowhard. To be a Pharisee, he must have ecclesial authority that he is in fact abusing. Voris is simply a concerned member of the lay community. Now the Archdiocese of Detroit, they do have authority and they did use it to try to silence Voris (so where are the Archdioceses when it comes to the “Catholics for Choice” groups? Hmm!). (BTW - Voris did not have to change from Real Catholic to Church Militant but did so anyway – St. Michaels Media is not headquartered in the AOD but in a different state altogether. Hence, the AOD lacked actual jurisdiction!) When compared to groups that the Archdioceses allow to speak on Diocesan properties, it really is something of a scandal that he is suppressed. There are more than a few Catholics, many who don’t even care for Voris, who are keenly unfavorably aware of this miscarriage as it is both un-Christian and un-American.
I do not believe that Voris is accusing the Cardinal of anything more than bad judgment on an issue that one does not have to be a theologian to understand. But the American bishops in the aggregate over the last 40 years, however, they can come under scrutiny and increasingly are. One could say that there is something akin to a cultural level epiphany – an awaking on sorts - on this issue. Under their guidance, the Church in America has been systematically reduced. The Cardinal himself as much as said so in a recent article. Poll 100 adult Catholics who are otherwise discerning and find out just how many are incapable of answering the most basic questions of faith. I would bet somewhere upwards of 80%. This is on the bishops. Then look at the willful muddying of the theology and the confusion it has created. This is also on them. Among those in the epiphany, it is not lost on many that this was at the same time that it was deemed more important to seamlessly weave Alinsky into the garment of what used to be a purely Catholic understanding of social justice. Of course, the USCCB’s contempt for the current Pope is long-standing and well established. At a time when as many as 80% of the bishops were thought to have gone over to the Arian heresy, St. Athanasius is supposed to have said, at the Council of Nicea in 325, that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” The fall of the Church over the last 50 years was primarily an inside job!
You are free to disagree, but there is more than just a small fringe of pseudo SSPXer’s who share St. Athanasius’s view with regard today’s American Church – and that view is growing, is generally aware, and informed. Voris gives a muscular voice to it. You would seek to suppress him by branding his views errant through purely ad hominen slights. So, state your actual claim. What is it that Voris said that constitutes bona fide Church error? I would bet that if you ACTUALLY succeeded at REALLY demonstrating that Voris said something that constituted ACTUAL Church error, Voris would be man enough to step up to the plate, take the hit, retract, and apologize for the mistake. I don’t always agree with Voris, but I do believe that he 1) speaks truth to power (and this is long-overdue) and 2) believes in the truth of what he says – and that he has no intention of saying something he knew to be error. And just like the Pharisees, some in the Church seek to shut him down when he raises bona fide articulable claims of corruption and/or abuse. (I am not comparing Voris to Christ – just challenging your “Pharisee” charge!)
Voris does not believe he is attacking the Bride of Christ, he believes he is defending it against the same abuses that Pope Benedict speaks to. When Christ attacked the “Pharisees,” he was not accusing all the Pharisees of being corrupt, just those who were personally corrupted by the wealth and power of their position. From time to time, the Church has likewise gone through such periods of ecclesial corruption. One cannot be “personally pius” over that which is impious. So, no, the Pharisees Christ took aim at were not “personally pius.” Jesus only submitted as the lamb when He was the high priest of His own sacrifice. He never submitted to the Pharisees, nor to evil. Rather, he crushed them. His ministry was one of direct confrontation with, among others, the Pharisees. That’s why he would have to slip out of places after confronting them before they could stone him. St. Paul likewise spoke of many such experiences. They wanted them dead because they touched where it hurt. Jesus was not a proto-Ghandi, he was no pacifist, and he did not compromise with evil. Yes, man should be on his knees before God, but to be on ones knees before a man or to evil is … well, unmanful.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Outstanding! Probably two of the best posts I’ve read on this ongoing contentious topic.
~Liza
~Liza
- Status