Michael Voris takes EWTN to task

[jonathan_hili]

Okay, just watched his video and have to agree that, from the limited exposure I get to popular Catholic media (e.g. CAL), there is very little coverage of problems in the Church. My only concern with what he is saying is that he seems to suggest that everyone in Catholic media knows precisely what is going on in the hierarchies, parishes, and other institutional bodies of the Church, when this might not be the case. However, he is spot on that these evils should be exposed, and that some media producers are more afraid of damaging their careers or losing their tax-exempt status than revealing where the problems lie.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would suggest giving the guy a chance. There are people whose personality or delivery initially turn me off a bit but after focusing on the information being delivered rather than the delivery I had a better appreciation of the individual. In defense of Voris, the constant criticism is “he’s uncharitable”. I might seem uncharitable to on onlooker when I am chastising a friend. What I fail to hear is some substantial criticism of Voris in regards to content i.e. erroneous reporting. Reporting “too much” about a substantiated truth is not a good argument. I would like to see this list of legitimate errors in Voris reporting. Perhaps I am misinformed.

If we are called to imitate Jesus and those before us who have been faithful what is the problem with identifying a specific behavior of someone with a Saint? Where is the syllabus of errors in Voris’ reporting?

In regards to “professional Catholic” certainly Voris is certainly a professional Catholic. He is not criticizing people who earn a living being a spokesperson in a Catholic lay ministry. Otherwise, as he must include himself. What he does criticize are people or groups who turn a blind eye to ills in the Church. “If you see your brother in sin…” Voris particular ministry is a watch dog to bring to public awareness the ills in the Church. Most of us appreciate this kind of reporting such as “60 minutes”. Woodward and Bernstein helped bring Nixon to justice in the 70’s. In light of all the corruption in the Church today ministries such as these are needed, but of course there were people who despised Woodward and Bernstein because they loved a person more than the truth.

In regards to circles, I attend a very growing FSSP parish with three priests and no EMs so perhaps we do run in different circles, but is that really pertinent to the discussion?

I just don’t feel the need to turn to Voris for my Catholic information needs nor do I have the desire to acquire a taste for his style. But then I don’t watch EWTN either. I just go to the primary sources.

My main complaint with Voris isn’t that he’s uncharitable. It’s that I just don’t agree with his assessments of current events that I have seen. We could set aside his style completely focusing solely on the substance of what he says and I still wouldn’t find him to be particularly accurate in that respect.

Take the video in question. He uses the fact that the Catholic media didn’t start openly criticizing the hierarchy back in March over the secular media’s claims of a “gay lobby” as evidence that they are cowards with no journalistic integrity who don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. I think that’s patently false. And if it is true, the burden of proof is on Voris to prove that it is true. The more likely explanation is that the Catholic media outlets did not want to put forth hearsay as truth, nor use it as the foundation upon which to air a whole laundry list of grievances against our bishops. I count that as a mark in favor of journalistic integrity, not against it.

He speaks generally without singling out any specific person. You could say that he does this in order to avoid slander – which is good. But it also makes it impossible to prove him wrong. If I were to find a Catholic reporter at one of those outlets who is the model of holiness and an unmistakable beacon of light, all Voris would have to say is that the person is the exception and he wasn’t talking about them specifically. Which begs the question, who exactly is he talking about? The only way to conclusively prove him wrong would be to personally interview every single employee of all of those media outlets he mentioned. But even then, he would just have to say that some of them are lying to save their jobs and reputation.

When an argument is that slippery, that’s a huge red flag. That’s why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It’s hard to come up with a counter-argument to a generalization (as I’m sure you have experienced in trying to counter the generalization that Voris is uncharitable without someone mentioning specific examples).

I desire truth in these matters. Not opinions based on conjecture.

Unless Voris has some impressive network of contacts within the Vatican that I don’t know about, I don’t see how he could possibly assert all the “gay lobby” stuff as unqualified fact. As he admits that his reporting has led to him being not allowed to speak on many Church properties, I have difficulty believing he has such a network of contacts that could provide him with the first-hand info he would need to be able to make such observations with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Gidge]

My main complaint with Voris isn’t that he’s uncharitable.

It is less charitable to say nothing and allow someone to continue down the road to perdition.

Admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy, and sometimes it needs to be forceful.

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay, just watched his video and have to agree that, from the limited exposure I get to popular Catholic media (e.g. CAL), there is very little coverage of problems in the Church. My only concern with what he is saying is that he seems to suggest that everyone in Catholic media knows precisely what is going on in the hierarchies, parishes, and other institutional bodies of the Church, when this might not be the case. However, he is spot on that these evils should be exposed, and that some media producers are more afraid of damaging their careers or losing their tax-exempt status than revealing where the problems lie.

Comments like this concern me. Can someone explain to me how this is not conjecture based on hearsay?

I’m not saying that it’s impossible that this is true. For all I know, it is true. But to state it so confidently as though it is certainly true is not something we can do based solely on generalizations.

Unless someone can point to a specific example or they know such media producers personally, I count such comments to be articulations of feelings based on suspicion. Why should I give credence to someone’s suspicious feelings?

 

[Joe_5859]

It is less charitable to say nothing and allow someone to continue down the road to perdition.

Admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy, and sometimes it needs to be forceful.

Did you notice that I said my main complaint with Vori is not that he is uncharitable? I spoke at length about the problems I have with the content of this specific video and that’s the comment you pick out?

But this is the straw man that often gets used. No one is arguing that “admonishing the sinner” is not a spiritual work of mercy or that it can never be used. It is a spiritual work of mercy and it should be used when called for.

However, it does not give carte blanche for someone to say whatever they want to say, however they want to say it and then just insist that since they were “admonishing the sinner”, no criticism can be made of the content of the remarks nor their methods. It is certainly possible to admonish the sinner in an uncharitable way.

But, again, I don’t feel the need to evaluate Voris’ level of charity. I’m trying to look at the content of the video in question.

 

[Gidge]

Did you notice that I said my main complaint with Vori is not that he is uncharitable? I spoke at length about the problems I have with the content of this specific video and that’s the comment you pick out?

But this is the straw man that often gets used. No one is arguing that “admonishing the sinner” is not a spiritual work of mercy or that it can never be used. It is a spiritual work of mercy and it should be used when called for.

However, it does not give carte blanche for someone to say whatever they want to say, however they want to say it and then just insist that since they were “admonishing the sinner”, no criticism can be made of the content of the remarks nor their methods. It is certainly possible to admonish the sinner in an uncharitable way.

But, again, I don’t feel the need to evaluate Voris’ level of charity. I’m trying to look at the content of the video in question.

I guess it’s time for new eyeglasses, I stand corrected re: your charity comment

I’ve heard of the “lavender mafia” from many other sources (e.g. Fr. Z, rorate-caeli, etc)

and have talked to priests who have experienced their influence in their seminary days.

One doesn’t need to be a Vatican insider to follow what goes on inside the Church.

I see nothing wrong with the video in question, and EWTN was not “taken to task”, IMO.

 

[Joe_5859]

I guess it’s time for new eyeglasses, I stand corrected re: your charity comment

I’ve heard of the “lavender mafia” from many other sources (e.g. Fr. Z, rorate-caeli, etc)

and have talked to priests who have experienced their influence in their seminary days.

One doesn’t need to be a Vatican insider to follow what goes on inside the Church.

I see nothing wrong with the video in question, and EWTN was not “taken to task”, IMO.

I knew I should not have used a contraction. They do make it easier to leave out the “not” when one is reading.

I agree that the title is misleading. EWTN was just one of a number of news outlets mentioned and “taken to task” is stating things a bit strongly.

Yes, I too have often heard reference of the “lavendar mafia” and have heard personal stories from guys in seminary. But I don’t think that tells the whole story nor do I believe it is the best way to frame the issue at present. And I always resist the urge to take a hodge podge of anecdotal stories (especially when most of those stories are 15, 20, 30+ years old) and turn that into some orchestrated conspiracy.

 

[pnewton]

Which version of the Bible states that “nice” is a virtue?

None, why do you ask?

 

[pnewton]

It makes me uncomfortable that every single Voris thread seems to include a comparison of him to St. Catherine of Siena and St. Paul.

This, sir, is untrue at worst and misinformation at best.

This is true. Sometimes it is Jesus. FYI - Mr. Voris never made this comparison. Not all of his fans do. However, enough compare him to Jesus or the saints as to make it a common feature on most threads. As jking pointed out, that does not invalidate the argument. I think rather the argument is best invalidated by the fact it begs the question of whether there is a comparison. If one believes there is a comparison, then it is a valid point. If one thinks there is not, then it is an invalid point. I do not think anyone would consider Michael Savage saintly for speaking out. Aggressiveness is not a virtue. It is a tool that sometimes fits, sometimes doesn’t.

I do not think such comparisons are the fault or indicate a failing in Mr. Voris. Cult of personality plagues many men, good and bad.

 

[Credo111]

Anyone who has spent any amount of time dealing with the mainstream Catholic media knows there are certain hot-button issues they avoid discussing–for precisely the reasons Michael states. If he seems a little irritable in the video, it’s because whenever Michael has pursued those topics in the past, he has been excoriated by certain prelates and there have been media personalities who refused to appear with him or have ridiculed him.

Clarification: Voris has friends in some of the establishment Catholic media outlets, so he is clearly not claiming that EVERYONE working there is a careerist–but it is the case that some of them seem very bold in attacking HIM for whatever reason, but when it comes to controversial topics like the gay lobby–their boldness is nowhere to be found. Instead, we hear crickets.

The point of this video is: why do the Establishment Catholics never discuss the gay lobby? Why do they write it off as non-existent, when priest after priest, and now the Holy Father himself, has acknowledged its very real and harmful existence?

Fr. Zuhlsdorf recently wrote a strongly-worded post about this homosexual lobby that is worth reading:

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/what-is-lobby-all-about-in-the-vatican-gay-lobby-chatter-going-on/

On the gay lobby:

**This has been so obvious to me for so long that it isn’t news. It also makes me angry, and not in a good way. I hate reading or writing about it.

I detest this whole story because I suffered at the hands of these types for decades both in my home diocese and in Rome. And to be clear, they weren’t always liberals. Most were liberals and dissenters, but a few here and there were solidly on the traditionalist side which makes them even more loathsome. But most of them were dissidents and liberals and were well networked. And they were vicious to anyone who was conservative. These evil twisted men need prayers for the shameful way they treat the priesthood and the Church and because they risk the eternity of Hell. If I sometimes seem to have little sympathy for homosexuals – including and especially pedophiles – in the priesthood, that’s part of the reason.**

I really wish these threads would stop turning into discussions about Michael Voris the man and start discussing the substance and content of the videos.

 

[pnewton]

The point of this video is: why do the Establishment Catholics never discuss the gay lobby? Why do they write it off as non-existent, when priest after priest, and now the Holy Father himself, has acknowledged its very real and harmful existence?

Perhaps the consider a lobby per se non-existent. Can anyone link the CGL website, their HQ address, who their officers are, their financial portfolio? It is reasonable to assume them to be non-existent in the organized, conspiratorial terms that they are described as. However, many media stories have existed about specific statements and incidents that have occurred. I know that the term is more rhetoric that conspiracy theory, but one should never criticize others because they do not take your rhetoric seriously.

I really wish these threads would stop turning into discussions about Michael Voris the man and start discussing the substance and content of the videos.

You can start a thread on any such issue. However, if Mr. Voris is the subject of the thread, his name will probably come up. This thread is not about homosexuality and this gay lobby thing, yet it is brought up. This thread is specifically about his attack on Catholic media. Do you think everyone should simply agree with him and not be allowed to disparage his attack?

Yet, as a rule, you have a point. I think the reason why is that it is the soft answer that turns away wrath. Aggressiveness does not turn away wrath, but amps up the level of anger. Maybe we need to be the Forum of Nice?

 

[Credo111]

Perhaps the consider a lobby per se non-existent. Can anyone link the CGL website, their HQ address, who their officers are, their financial portfolio? It is reasonable to assume them to be non-existent in the organized, conspiratorial terms that they are described as. However, many media stories have existed about specific statements and incidents that have occurred. I know that the term is more rhetoric that conspiracy theory, but one should never criticize others because they do not take your rhetoric seriously.

To continue in such naïiveté betrays a willful ignorance and blindness–for which we will be called to account. The Holy Father himself has acknowledged the existence of the gay lobby. HE takes it seriously. So perhaps mainstream media types should as well.

These homosexuals have destroyed souls and lives and have caused the Church to lose all moral credibility in the public square with the massive sex abuse scandal; it is long past time that establishment Catholics recognize their existence and stop writing this off.

 

[Credo111]

Do you think everyone should simply agree with him and not be allowed to disparage his attack?

Nope. But I don’t understand everyone’s fascination with Michael Voris the man. I am sure he himself wonders as well.

What matters is the substance of the video–why is the Establishment Catholic so averse to discusssing the homosexual problem in the clergy, the harm it has caused, the deep-rooted influence in the hierarchy, the persecution of orthodox priests and seminarians? It is a major problem–yet we experience silence for the most part.

That is a far more interesting and worthwhile discussion than Michael Voris the man–and I’m sure Michael himself would agree.
Christine

 

[Gidge]

Aggressiveness is not a virtue. .

You may want to study the early Church Fathers.

Take St. Jerome, for example, as gentle as a lamb – UNLESS he was speaking out against heresy – he was known to his contemporaries as the “Hammer of Heretics”.

Agressiveness as standard operating procedure is probably not a good idea.

When it is needed to save one from eternal perdition, it is sometimes necessary.

 

[jking1962]

Still want to see a list of substantiated errors committed by Voris.

I can understand if one thinks everything is fine with the Church then who the heck is this guy and what the heck is he ranting about. We experience this when the other party criticizing our party’s candidate.

Personally I am a new Catholic and had no background to the ills and thought that everything was fine with the Church. After going through RCIA and a lukewarm catechisis I quickly fell into the tepid zone. No one challenged me. I was in the KoC and CHRP. After repenting and making a fervent commitment to be faithful, I soon discovered it was not cool to be to too serious about my faith. People asked me if something was wrong as thought someone died or my marriage was in trouble, because I showed up to daily mass and frequently went to pray at Church. As my awareness of the body of Christ increased I couldn’t help but notice when the host fell to the ground on Ash Wednesday and when I directed the EM to pick it up he ignored me and waited till his line was finished. I was dismissed with no response when I wrote to the priest about this horrible disrespect to our Lord. When Rosalyn Moss talked about reverence and kneeling I decided I would start kneeling for reception of communion (not as a protest, I was unaware of the taboo at that time. It was totally innocent desire to be close to Jesus. I experience a definite push back from the parish. When I became more interested in my daughter’s catechesis and started asking her what she is learning and she tells me about a buddhist new age meditation technique called “prayer bowls” and again wrote the priest and again was dismissed. I can go on and on about things like high fives during “peace” or people talking in the sanctuary as though it was a sports bar.

Things like this went on for two years after my renewal of faith. I was then introduce to Voris and heard that this was not particular to my parish but was rampant across the United States and abroad. The fact that there were others out there upset about this was a major support for me. I don’t know that I would be faithful today without his support or others like him. There are others such as the Human Life League.

If these ills were particular to my parish then I would have just eventually moved on and would not be listening to Voris as what he would be saying then is a lie (isolated problem as opposed to chronic). But I know differently and I appreciate that what Voris is in fact doing is defending the Church by exposing the trash in it. It is sad that people perceive that he is attacking the Church.

If you come from a perspective that all is reasonable well with the Church and the Voris is just complaining about a few warts on the body then of course he would sound uncharitable, but if like me, you come from a perspective that the Church is full of corruption, then Voris is a voice of hope.

 

[Credo111]

Personally I am a new Catholic and had no background to the ills and thought that everything was fine with the Church. After going through RCIA and a lukewarm catechisis I quickly fell into the tepid zone. No one challenged me. I was in the KoC and CHRP. After repenting and making a fervent commitment to be faithful, I soon discovered it was not cool to be to too serious about my faith. People asked me if something was wrong as thought someone died or my marriage was in trouble, because I showed up to daily mass and frequently went to pray at Church. As my awareness of the body of Christ increased I couldn’t help but notice when the host fell to the ground on Ash Wednesday and when I directed the EM to pick it up he ignored me and waited till his line was finished. I was dismissed with no response when I wrote to the priest about this horrible disrespect to our Lord. When Rosalyn Moss talked about reverence and kneeling I decided I would start kneeling for reception of communion (not as a protest, I was unaware of the taboo at that time. It was totally innocent desire to be close to Jesus. I experience a definite push back from the parish. When I became more interested in my daughter’s catechesis and started asking her what she is learning and she tells me about a buddhist new age meditation technique called “prayer bowls” and again wrote the priest and again was dismissed. I can go on and on about things like high fives during “peace” or people talking in the sanctuary as though it was a sports bar.

Things like this went on for two years after my renewal of faith. I was then introduce to Voris and heard that this was not particular to my parish but was rampant across the United States and abroad. The fact that there were others out there upset about this was a major support for me. I don’t know that I would be faithful today without his support or others like him. There are others such as the Human Life League.

If these ills were particular to my parish then I would have just eventually moved on and would not be listening to Voris as what he would be saying then is a lie (isolated problem as opposed to chronic). But I know differently and I appreciate that what Voris is in fact doing is defending the Church by exposing the trash in it. It is sad that people perceive that he is attacking the Church.

If you come from a perspective that all is reasonable well with the Church and the Voris is just complaining about a few warts on the body then of course he would sound uncharitable, but if like me, you come from a perspective that the Church is full of corruption, then Voris is a voice of hope.

JKing–I’m sorry you had to endure this. Yes, yours is the experience of many Catholics all over the world. And I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. Those who recognize that the Church is in serious and grave crisis are more likely to find Voris’s analyses powerful and trenchant. Those who are contented with the status quo and see few problems are more likely to dismiss him.

 

[pnewton]

You may want to study the early Church Fathers.

Take St. Jerome, for example, as gentle as a lamb – UNLESS he was speaking out against heresy – he was known to his contemporaries as the “Hammer of Heretics”.

Agressiveness as standard operating procedure is probably not a good idea.

When it is needed to save one from eternal perdition, it is sometimes necessary.

That does not make if a virtue. Since you fashion yourself more knowledgable on the Church Fathers than me, might I impose on you for a citation that aggressiveness is a virtue? Do you think Rush L. is a virtuous person for his aggressiveness? What about militant Islamists?

 

[pnewton]

Nope. But I don’t understand everyone’s fascination with Michael Voris the man. I am sure he himself wonders as well…That is a far more interesting and worthwhile discussion than Michael Voris the man–and I’m sure Michael himself would agree.
Christine

I wouldn’t know either. I have never started any thread or even thought of starting a thread on him. I don’t get it.

 

[jking1962]

I believe this is a canard. I was a big fan of John Corapi, not because I liked his voice or personality but because of his catechesis. His EWTN shows were great. In light of recent events I am not a “fan” of him personally but still appreciated his message. There were fans of Richard Ramerez (serial killer) who in spite of his evil message were devoted to him. I believe 99% out there are fans of Voris’ message and not his hairstyle. If God forbid he goes off the rails, I will be the first one to point out his error in charity to my brother in Christ. Speaking of errors, I am still looking for that list.

 

[pnewton]

To continue in such naïiveté betrays a willful ignorance and blindness–for which we will be called to account.

You do not even begin to know me well enough for such an incredibly judgmental station. You do not know how much I know and how little I know. Disagreement with someone on a matter such as how many homosexuals are in the clergy and how they are organized is not something that justifies you threatening that people will be brought before the judgment seat on such a matter. I would have more sympathy for your defense of the person of Mr. Voris if you would not do the same thing you object to.

FYI - I do not resort to ad hominems, though I have seen such things here.