Does Church Militant represent a small % of Catholics?

[TheLittleLady]

The doctrine of love you enemies, do good for them who despitefully use you springs to mind.

The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind.

 

[phil19034]

So you are saying that Mr Marshall thought it was more of a peer pressure event to shine up to a teacher? Okay, but if that’s the case, he picked the wrong approach to use to point out a possible discomfort felt by someone for having to do something. I would hope most seminarians wouldn’t be hosting a beer and football gathering for children. A better approach would be the example of employees feeling subtle pressure to give money towards a group gift for the boss, if that was the real concern. Mr Marshall is an educated man and could have given some better scenarios for comparison instead of freaking out about a gingerbread contest for children and then ridiculing others for taking part in the activity. I expected more from someone with his background and presence in the Church.

Look, he absolutely expressed himself wrong, and from what I heard, he admitted that.

But again, putting out messages via Twitter can easily be misunderstood or mis-stated.

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay, here’s an example of the issue with Church Militant.

A few days ago, they published a story about a Franciscan University English professor’s book that was assigned for class. The book contained some pretty bad passages. So they publish a hit piece on the professor. Now read the professor’s response. Compare and contrast the tone of the two articles.

Was Church Militant technically correct about some of the basic facts? Sure. The professor did assign the book. And the book did contain questionable passages. Did they bother to get his side of the story? Nope. They put an article out there for thousands of people to read and get outraged over it without even knowing the full context.

I like Emily Stimpson Chapman’s response that someone posted in the thread on the story:

Lastly, please keep in mind that it is Church Militant who published—with no context, no discussion, no good intent—all those bits from the book that people are finding so scandalous. They disseminated those words to THOUSANDS. At Franciscan, they were read in context, with discussion, and good intent by FIVE upper level students, who will read far, far worse if they go on to grad school. (I studied English at a major secular university, so this, I know). All this is to say that, as far as I can tell, Church Militant is much more guilty of the sin of scandal than anyone at Franciscan University. If you want to be outraged, be outraged at them. I am.

That more or less summarizes how I feel. Church Militant often perpetrates scandal far more than those in their cross hairs. They are angering people for the sake of angering them regarding stories that people have no direct connection to and no power to control. It’s a sort of twisted voyeurism, not the pursuit of truth.

 

[phil19034]

So sad to say, but the conversation is proving that the Church Militant mentality is not just their own clique organization but is popping up in several quarters of the church. Maybe still a small minority, I hope. But I’m definitely noticing it more.

It’s because people are sick and tired of clergy abuse. People are mad.

Look at the latest with Cardinal Wuerl. First he says he had no knowledge of McCarrick’s sinful actions. Then, he said Arb Vigno was lying about him knowing. When documentation appears, he then said he knew about the seminarian abuse but not the child abuse. Now, he says he simply forgot about the child abuse.

Come on!!!

Wuerl is lying and was either in on the cover-up, McCarrick had/has dirt on him, or he really thought he could get away with the lie.

Why didn’t Wuerl come clean? This is what people are sick of.

Also, people like Dr. Marshall (who used work for the Church in Washington, DC) have heard tons of rumors over the years - far more than the average lay person. And now, that a lot of them are coming out as true, I’m sure he has to be very angry - esp when he most likely has heard far more rumors of these sinful actions than what are being reported in the secular & Catholic media.

And that’s also why groups like Church Militant get bitter too. They have been screaming about guys like McCarrick for years, but no one would listen. And worse, the bishops who knew about it did/said nothing.

So yes, people are mad. The only way things are going to get better is when dissent bishops & priests are gone.

God bless

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The book contained some pretty bad passages

I didn’t see in the First Things article where he explains that the book contained pornographic context regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and that the priest in charge knew nothing about that type of content. Also, it was outraged parents who contacted CM. That is where the anger started.

 

[phil19034]

Okay, here’s an example of the issue with Church Militant.

A few days ago, they published a story about a Franciscan University English professor’s book that was assigned for class. The book contained some pretty bad passages. So they publish a hit piece on the professor. Now read the professor’s response. Compare and contrast the tone of the two articles.

Was Church Militant technically correct about some of the basic facts? Sure. The professor did assign the book. And the book did contain questionable passages. Did they bother to get his side of the story? Nope. They put an article out there for thousands of people to read and get outraged over it without even knowing the full context.

I like Emily Stimpson Chapman’s response that someone posted in the thread on the story:

Lastly, please keep in mind that it is Church Militant who published—with no context, no discussion, no good intent—all those bits from the book that people are finding so scandalous. They disseminated those words to THOUSANDS. At Franciscan, they were read in context, with discussion, and good intent by FIVE upper level students, who will read far, far worse if they go on to grad school. (I studied English at a major secular university, so this, I know). All this is to say that, as far as I can tell, Church Militant is much more guilty of the sin of scandal than anyone at Franciscan University. If you want to be outraged, be outraged at them. I am.

Agreed.

However, to Church Militant’s defense, when the President of the university learned about the contents of the book, he too agreed that it had no place in a Catholic college. Also, the Theology professors, like Dr. Scott Hahn agreed that the book didn’t belong on a Catholic campus.

So the professor was in the wrong. Could Church Militant handled it better, sure. But are they using the same tactics that are used against faithful Catholics by secularist & dissents, yes.

NOTE: I’m not defending Church Militant. However, I do object to a lack calling out unCatholic behavior on both sides of the spectrum. People have a tendency to call out the opposition, but remain quite or cheer on their side for doing the same thing.

God Bless.

 

[Wampa]

Look, he absolutely expressed himself wrong, and from what I heard, he admitted that.

But again, putting out messages via Twitter can easily be misunderstood or mis-stated.

Re this tweet kerfuffle, I only know what’s been posted here (the tweet itself and the context you all have provided), but your Twitter point is my main takeaway from the entire fiasco.

You wrote a long and very articulate explanation of the point you think he was trying to make (for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct). Trying to make a point that detailed in 280 characters is a terrible idea. Especially when the medium is designed to reward retweeting, which encourages users to employ cutting humor, brashness and other “edgy” techniques to stand out from the crowd and get highly-liked and -retweeted.

While it may be the case that everyone is misunderstanding him and reading too much into what he wrote, ultimately the responsibility has to come down on him for choosing to use that medium to express that point with that joke.

I am regularly dumbfounded that otherwise educated and sophisticated people put themselves in that situation with social media. The consequences of doing so (that we’ve seen here) should not be surprising.

P.S. Phil, I always appreciate the time you put into explaining things. It helps to get both sides fully-delineated in threads like this.

 

[Paddy1989]

I used to watch the vortex a few years ago when it was very effective at articulating church teaching and being a strong voice for Catholicism at the height of the abuse scandals and as an alternative to the culture of relativism. In recent years however it has descended into something else, almost a fundamentalism and watching a recent interview with Milo Yiannopoulos where he goes into a abusive rant about the Pope while Michael sniggers in the backround just made me feel off about his approach and current attitude. I feel he lacks love and Charity and he appears to have lost faith and trust in the Church which is not surprising with it’s handling of the abuse crisis. Michael also has called on the Pope many times to resign over his handling of the sex abuse crisis. I didn’t go into to listening to what reasons he think the Pope should resign specifically so perhaps it’s worth a listen to hear him out.

 

[twoangels]

Recently I watched something from Church Militant. I should have stayed away, because I knew it would be an occasion for me to get angry. Well, I watched it anyway.

I’m so torn up about this. Please tell me most Catholics are not like Church Militant.

Why haven’t they been rebuked by the Catholic Church? Or have they?

Knowing who I am, if CM represented the Catholic Church, I don’t think I coul

They definitely don’t most of the Church. The best way to understand and see this is to become friends with people at your local parish. A lot of people do parish shop too. Each parish has its own feel. They’re as different as any family.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Look, he absolutely expressed himself wrong, and from what I heard, he admitted that.

But again, putting out messages via Twitter can easily be misunderstood or mis-stated.

Re this tweet kerfuffle, I only know what’s been posted here (the tweet itself and the context you all have provided), but your Twitter point is my main takeaway from the entire fiasco.

You wrote a long and very articulate explanation of the point you think he was trying to make (for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct). Trying to make a point that detailed in 280 characters is a terrible idea. Especially when the medium is designed to reward retweeting, which encourages users to employ cutting humor, brashness and other “edgy” techniques to stand out from the crowd and get highly-liked and -retweeted.

While it may be the case that everyone is misunderstanding him and reading too much into what he wrote, ultimately the responsibility has to come down on him for choosing to use that medium to express that point with that joke.

I am regularly dumbfounded that otherwise educated and sophisticated people put themselves in that situation with social media. The consequences of doing so (that we’ve seen here) should not be surprising.

P.S. Phil, I always appreciate the time you put into explaining things. If helps to get both sides fully-delineated in threads like this.

Thanks!

I agree 100%, Dr. Marshall made a huge mistake in sending out that Tweet. But hindsight is always 20/20 and he deleted the Tweet, realizing it was not what he meant to say.

One thing for sure: Twitter is not making the world a better place. Yes, I know some people like Patrick Madrid love Twitter, but it’s an easy way to stick your foot in your mouth.

God bless

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Jesus was not a soft and meek lamb who was all about love, as many on here seem to believe.

Of course Jesus was all about love.

If we forget this, we surrender the Christian Faith!

 

[phil19034]

I feel he lacks love and Charity and he appears to have lost faith and trust in the Church which is not surprising with it’s handling of the abuse crisis.

Oh, he has 100% lost all faith in the Bishops. Hands down. He’s even critical of conservative bishops like Archbishop Chaput.

 

[phil19034]

padrepio_2012:

Jesus was not a soft and meek lamb who was all about love, as many on here seem to believe.

Of course Jesus was all about love.

If we forget this, we surrender the Christian Faith!

I think @padrepio_2012 means that Jesus wasn’t a hippie.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yes, this is the same video interview where Voris snickers at Fr James Martin who needs to “come out” of the closet and stop being a priest in order to “wear dresses.”

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yeah, Jesus didn’t live in 1960s America. Who says he did?

 

[phil19034]

Yeah, Jesus didn’t live in 1960s America. Who says he did?

Again my friend, you do not have to be short. I was not implying that you claimed that. I was responding about the other poster’s comment. There really are some people who think Jesus was like a hippie. It’s sad, but true.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But I don’t really understand the point. He was not a hippie, as opposed to what, exactly? He was a “Jew, not a hippie.” What exactly are we saying?

Because at the end of the day, whatever words we use to say who Jesus was or was not, I simply do not find any evidence to support that Jesus practiced the methods of Church Militant (as discussed in this thread’s context).

Sure, Jesus was blunt sometimes. Sure, Jesus had black and white, high standards. And sure, Jesus practiced righteous anger to get his point across.

But as @ChristMyLife has also attempted to express, there is a distinct approach that CM offers that is quite different from a genuinely Christ-like one. And maybe just maybe it takes a general experience and familiarity with Christ in the Gospels, through the saints, and in the church’s own teaching and practice that best demonstrates this. It’s hard to argue any one-liner. But someone who walks with Christ and really makes Christ his or her friend may better appreciate just how different Christ’s own approach is from a group like CM.

Reading Thomas Merton lately, I’ll offer him as an example. He was a peacemaker. He was quiet and contemplative. He strove for social justice. What would he think of CM’s methods? etc.

 

[DisorientingSneeze]

Slightly off topic here, but… Does anyone else think Church Militant has hijacked the traditional term for the Church of the living here on earth?

Yes! I still havent made it to the end of this thread, but I dislike that there is a negative connotation growing upon this beautiful term thanks to both the YouTube channel and general misunderstanding of the term.

 

[BroIgnatius]

There are some problems with Church Militant, but those problems are not doctrinal. The problems are mostly personality, ego, narcissism at times. The projects initialed CIA and FBI are rather adolescent and pretentious, but none of those issues are important except for the optics of it.

Michael, however, is a geocentrist, which makes him a little odd, but that is his personal business.

Michael’s side-kick, Simon Rafe, however, once declared that I was going to hell, not maybe, but with certainty. As far as I know Michael knew nothing of Simon’s sin on this.

But, every group has its oddities, and every group makes mistakes, or especially, every group has members who make mistakes.

What the Church Militant says mostly is concerning the protection of doctrine and tradition. This is good, very good and very needed.

 

[EXdrinker]

I’m not in the habit of going to churchmilitant.com, but on occasion one of their articles comes to my attention. Then I check the facts and usually find that they have exaggerated, misrepresented, or even just made stuff up. I don’t trust them.

I have done similar research when attempting to make up my mind about Church Militant and have been unable to find adequate examples of this. Would you please point me to an example or two.

Thank you in advance.