Michael Voris Question

[PRmerger]

• Clarification: he does not NEED approval of his bishop in order to speak about the faith. Every Catholic is allowed to do this.

I understand.

What was not “approved” was the use of the name Catholic.

And that’s where my antennae are up. WHY.

The fact that they changed the name is good. But it still doesn’t answer the question as to WHY he was not approved to attach “Catholic” to his ministry.

 

[PRmerger]

• That is not correct. The statement was ONLY that MV was not on their list of approved speakers. That does NOT mean that he was UN-approved.

Why didn’t MV request permission to be on their list of approved speakers?

• This really cracks me up!!! Since when is Catholic Answers the litmus test of all things Catholic?

It’s my litmus test. Or at least one of them, anyway. And I assume I have the right to have one, yes?

I did not do that, nor do I think it was appropriate. It did not lend anything productive to the discussion. I’m sorry that happened.

Much appreciated. :tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

I’m really sorry if I have in any way been a part of that. I hope you will reconsider, based on your OWN opinion of what the apostolate produces, and not what anyone here on an internet forum has said.

God bless,
~Liza

I think I may. :yup:

So far, MV videos I’ve seen:
MV advocates (many): not so much.

 

[Stylites]

I don’t think he has an apostolate when his bishop forbids him to use the word 'Catholic".

 

[lizaanne]

And that’s where my antennae are up. WHY.

The fact that they changed the name is good. But it still doesn’t answer the question as to WHY he was not approved to attach “Catholic” to his ministry.

You know what? MV has been asking the same question for YEARS!!! But NO one from the AOD has ever answered that question, so he has no idea. He has personally asked several times to have a personal appointment with his Bishop, but has not ever received a response.

So who knows!!! Your guess is as good as mine, or anyone else’s!!



~Liza

 

[Havard]

But we need to get away from issues of style and presentation, and focus on content.

That’s just the thing though, when presentation is right, people only focus on the content.

 

[lizaanne]

Why didn’t MV request permission to be on their list of approved speakers?

I don’t think it ever even occurred to anyone to even ask, because the intent was not to glom onto the WYD people, it was to just BE there, and speak to the young pilgrims, just like others who were there to celebrate being Catholic. Everyone at the apostolate was totally shocked when they made that announcement, because there was never any intention to appear as if MV was associated with WYD officially. So why even ask?

It’s my litmus test. Or at least one of them, anyway. And I assume I have the right to have one, yes?

Fair enough. But remember that your personal litmus test does not apply to others - so just because you feel that Catholic Answers is the apostolate to be measured by, that not everyone may feel that way for a number of reasons. And that’s really ok - but it is really only your personal opinion.

I think I may. :yup:

So far, MV videos I’ve seen:

I’m glad to hear that!

MV advocates (many): not so much.

Perhaps some of us have something to work on there.

~Liza

 

[PRmerger]

You know what? MV has been asking the same question for YEARS!!! But NO one from the AOD has ever answered that question, so he has no idea. He has personally asked several times to have a personal appointment with his Bishop, but has not ever received a response.

So who knows!!! Your guess is as good as mine, or anyone else’s!!



~Liza

That is interesting.

 

[Stylites]

That’s just the thing though, when presentation is right, people only focus on the content.

 

[Stylites]

You know what? MV has been asking the same question for YEARS!!! But NO one from the AOD has ever answered that question, so he has no idea. He has personally asked several times to have a personal appointment with his Bishop, but has not ever received a response.

So who knows!!! Your guess is as good as mine, or anyone else’s!!

That’s a big red flag in itself, and not something to just shrug off.

 

[Stylites]

I just created an event on facebook to get young Catholics energized about their faith and a person in support of the event posted a Michael Voris video on why “Catholic is the New Cool.” I am wondering if I should leave it up or take it down because Michael Voris seems more like the kind of guy that Catholics with considerable amount of knowledge about their faith would be attracted to and those that know little to nothing might be turned away. Any suggestions on what to do?

Probably okay to leave it up, but one could always add a comment under it that the video is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Another Michael Voris thread?

Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Well, because people agree with what he says is why.

Voris would hardly be called a soft touch though so if you’re tryiong to attract people for an exposure to the faith I’d go a whole lot more with Fr. Barron than I would with Mike V.

Take the current Voris issue: The Al Smith fund raising dinner in NYC. The President is invited to the roast. OK, so is the challenger. Problem is the President is actively attacking the faith, morals and practice of the Church and Cardinal DOlan is leading the counter attack. Voris questions how that will look from a PR standpoint. I have to agree with him as much as I put Cardinal Dolan on a pedastel, I think he’s making a tactical error. Voris is simply warning him and us.

 

[lizaanne]

Probably okay to leave it up, but one could always add a comment under it that the video is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

That would be incredibly misleading because it is not true. The Catholic Church does not “sanction” videos. Where did you get the idea that it did?

This is the problem - people make these statements and forget that words actually mean things, or consider the implications. If you say that something is not “sanctioned”, there is an implication that it is supposed to be, and that is simply not true, and is misleading.

~Liza

 

[Stylites]

That would be incredibly misleading . . . words actually mean things, or consider the implications.

Yes, words do mean things, and is probably why the Church asked that Mr. Voris stop using the word ‘Catholic’ in his private association.

 

[lizaanne]

Yes, words do mean things, and is probably why the Church asked that Mr. Voris stop using the word ‘Catholic’ in his private association.

And he did. So why is this still a bone of contention for you? Let it go, it’s over now.

~Liza

 

[Stylites]

And he did. So why is this still a bone of contention for you? Let it go, it’s over now.

~Liza

That naming issue has been resolved, certainly, but unfortunately some even here are calling his private asscociation an ‘apostolate’ and hence the apparent need to not let it go. That his own bishop won’t give him the time of day says that there is no oneness of mission with the Church. I suspect that the Church sees the effort as lacking in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, which are neither open to nor dependent upon “matters of opinion.”

 

[lizaanne]

That naming issue has been resolved, certainly, but unfortunately some even here are calling his private asscociation an ‘apostolate’ and hence the apparent need to not let it go. That his own bishop won’t give him the time of day says that there is no oneness of mission with the Church. I suspect that the Church sees the effort as lacking in the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, which are neither open to nor dependent upon “matters of opinion.”

You are most certainly allowed to feel that way. I, however, disagree, as do many others.

So - since we are all welcome to our own opinions, and the only thing can come from that is to just try to convince each other that we are wrong, I don’t see any fruitful discussion from this point on. I’m quite sure the OP has been provided with more than sufficient amount of opinion and suggestion to direct him with regard to his question.

~Liza

 

[zab]

From my point of view, it is sad that the fighting on these many CAF threads is not between liberals and conservatives, rather it is between faithful Catholics. Speaking for myself, I don’t mind Michael Voris’s style or the content of his videos most of the time. I do have occassional concerns for example, his video attacking Catholic Relief Services. I don’t want to get into another discussion about that topic on this thread. But the reaction of that video was to cause many people to no longer give to CRS. Catholic Relief Services is one of the charities that I support monthly. I was at first alarmed by the LifeSiteNews article (which prompted the Vortex video) however, I was satisfied with the reply from CRS as well as the reply from the President of the National Catholic Bioethics Center enough to not withhold further contributions. I would rather let any benefit of the doubt to continue serving those in great need. And it seems to me that CRS is intent on being faithful to Church teaching as they carry out their mission. Others do not see it that way and refuse to give another cent to CRS. So we have a difference of opinion and we get into internal fighting and when some can’t convince me and others of their position they start in with personal attacks. It is the same here. I would like to think that if Michael Voris ever read any of these threads that he would know what we mean when we talk about uncharitableness. It is not about his style or directness in giving truth, rather it is the uncharitableness of personal attacks issued at people whose opinion is different than their own.

 

[Credo111]

If anyone would like to discuss concerns with regard to Michael Voris or his apostolate, please feel free to send me a private message and we can continue the discussion offline. I think that would be far more productive; the public threads always seem to get derailed and go off-topic.

God bless,
Christine

 

[lizaanne]

…rather it is the uncharitableness of personal attacks issued at people whose opinion is different than their own.

And isn’t that really the case with any of the major contentious topics on CAF? Headcovering (not as much as a couple years ago, but can still get heated), hand holding during the Our Father, the sign of peace, receiving Holy Communion on the hand or tongue, kneeling — on, and on, and on.

So the MV threads are not special in this regard, I think they seem that way because they are about one singular person, and not a topic in general. But I agree, they are hardly ever fruitful. It’s just so much easier if everyone just decides - if they don’t like it, don’t watch it - but don’t make it a personal crusade to change the opinion of others regarding what they like or don’t like. Since none of these debates are hardly ever over content (and even those are all opinion based as well) - it’s really just a “cup of tea” discussion, and really not worth the effort.

~Liza