Michael Voris takes EWTN to task

[jking1962]

Very few media outlets if any strictly report news without interjecting some level of perspective of the implications the particular news has on society. This is the perspective of opinion of that particular media outlet. I tend to watch Fox News but understand that certain reports perspective I do not agree with. My perspective doesn’t always match Fox News.

Which brings me back to the reason people like me watch (not worship or drink kool aid with) Voris is because we agree with his perspective.

I stand with Voris that the Church is in a mess and obviously you do not.

 

[jking1962]

Perhaps. I definitely wouldn’t say the Church is “full of disease”. It’s not that I don’t see any problems nor that I underestimate their seriousness. I am just extremely hopeful that things are improving in wonderful ways for the Church. I know the gates of hell won’t prevail, so I’d rather “be of good cheer”.

But now you’ve got me thinking of a new catchphrase Voris can use: The Kidney of Christ – expelling poison from the Body of Christ since 2006.

I think you hit the nail on the head in regard to your own perspective. As a Protestant convert I exchanged “Sola Scriptura” for the Church. My naive approach was that God ran the Church so anything an officer of the Church did was stamped “approved by God”. Now that I am less naive I understand that these officers are also sinners capable of great sin. I also understand they are my brothers and that it is my obligation to help them out of their sin even if an “intervention” is required. I used the examples of St. Paul and St. Catherine of Ciena who at the time were also sinners and not yet saints and who spoke up to the Pope of their time against their sin. Somehow, a very good correlation of behaviors got turned into an overused phrase.

 

[jking1962]

Perhaps. I definitely wouldn’t say the Church is “full of disease”. It’s not that I don’t see any problems nor that I underestimate their seriousness. I am just extremely hopeful that things are improving in wonderful ways for the Church. I know the gates of hell won’t prevail, so I’d rather “be of good cheer”.

But now you’ve got me thinking of a new catchphrase Voris can use: The Kidney of Christ – expelling poison from the Body of Christ since 2006.

The real argument is not really about Voris but rather is the Church full of problems or not. My question to you is in light of all the facts why do you feel this way?.

Definition of POLLYANNA
: a person characterized by irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything.

I tell you what. I am very optimistic that the Church will triumph, but meanwhile God has enlisted me to fight the good fight and not assume that the officers of the Church will do it by themselves. Isn’t that one of the thing VII taught

 

[1AugustSon7]

What was he actually saying?

Do you have a link to the video?

From my experience, Michael Voris is like the Ark of the Covenant: he’ll blast anyone who comes in his orbit and is 110% holy.

LOL!

 

[jking1962]

LOL!

With this detraction it is clear that the “cult of personality” indictment is promoted by Voris critics. No real indictment of actions but a personal demonization that is kin to slander. The very thing his critics accuse Voris of doing.

It is important to mention that we will be judged by everything we say. This includes promoting visual ideas of a personality that is not based on fact and is designed to erode a person’s credibility.

 

[Joe_5859]

The real argument is not really about Voris but rather is the Church full of problems or not. My question to you is in light of all the facts why do you feel this way?.

Definition of POLLYANNA
: a person characterized by irrepressible optimism and a tendency to find good in everything.

I tell you what. I am very optimistic that the Church will triumph, but meanwhile God has enlisted me to fight the good fight and not assume that the officers of the Church will do it by themselves. Isn’t that one of the thing VII taught

Oh no, not the dreaded “pollyanna”! I suppose I am more optimist than pessimist. I tried being a pessimist before. I didn’t like it very much.

I’m not trying to argue that the Church doesn’t have problems. It is obvious to me that there are all sorts of problems inside and out. But I don’t want to let the fact that there are problems lead me to conclude that anyone who says there is a specific problem is correct in both their identification and evaluation of the problem. Each claim ought to be evaluated separately.

Not to get all self-reflective o), but I think what touches a nerve for me in these discussions is that I see a different problem: a lack of respect for the bishops. To be sure, not every criticism is unwarranted. We don’t need to look far to see evidence of that. But despite their failiings (and the spectacular failings of some), they are still the successors of the apostles. And my first impulse is always going to be to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bishops take criticism from all sides no matter what they have done. I’ve seen it time and time again. Not to say that posters here are advocating for rebellion against the hierarchy. I’m simply offering this by way of explanation for why I’m on guard with regards to the Voris discussions.

Now I’m veering off topic. I’m supposed to be talking about Catholic media, not the bishops.

 

[jking1962]

Oh no, not the dreaded “pollyanna”! I suppose I am more optimist than pessimist. I tried being a pessimist before. I didn’t like it very much.

I’m not trying to argue that the Church doesn’t have problems. It is obvious to me that there are all sorts of problems inside and out. But I don’t want to let the fact that there are problems lead me to conclude that anyone who says there is a specific problem is correct in both their identification and evaluation of the problem. Each claim ought to be evaluated separately.

Not to get all self-reflective o), but I think what touches a nerve for me in these discussions is that I see a different problem: a lack of respect for the bishops. To be sure, not every criticism is unwarranted. We don’t need to look far to see evidence of that. But despite their failiings (and the spectacular failings of some), they are still the successors of the apostles. And my first impulse is always going to be to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bishops take criticism from all sides no matter what they have done. I’ve seen it time and time again. Not to say that posters here are advocating for rebellion against the hierarchy. I’m simply offering this by way of explanation for why I’m on guard with regards to the Voris discussions.

Now I’m veering off topic. I’m supposed to be talking about Catholic media, not the bishops.

I understand the concern of criticizing. Sometimes we need to pick our battles. I was tempted to email my current priest about a small criticism and decided not to because I thought about everyone else who might be doing the same and the fact that I have not complimented him recently. The point is we all have issues to clean up and if we always heard from others about our short comings it would be demoralizing. Now if my priest was kissing a parishoner I would pull out the stops and pull all the alarms. Voris is not talking about being 5 minutes late for your own Mass. He is addressing very serious stuff.

 

[jking1962]

If we more clearly understood that even the smallest deliberate venial sin is an offense to our Lord and Savior I believe we would have the zeal to speak out against the ills. And again as my friend attempted to trivialize very grave matters with venial ones, we are either defending Jesus or letting him be offended by our response or lack of. I will not turn a blind eye and assume the Bishops have everything under control when I personally see my Lord and Savior being literally trampled on in Mass (as I mentioned before) or being mocked by a Gay friendly Mass with a Gay friendly Priest with the Archbishop present and cheering them along. The Lord is truly mocked in these cases. May God have mercy on us all.

 

[pnewton]

With this detraction it is clear that the “cult of personality” indictment is promoted by Voris critics.

Again, it was not an indictment. I have explained myself twice and offered not to use terms that confuse or offend. Please do not assign to me something I did not mean. I will try to be more delicate in my words and clear in my meaning.

May God have mercy on us all.

He does. In this, we are to be like him and be merciful to each other to open ourselves to His mercy.

 

[jking1962]

Again, it was not an indictment. I have explained myself twice and offered not to use terms that confuse or offend. Please do not assign to me something I did not mean. I will try to be more delicate in my words and clear in my meaning.
He does. In this, we are to be like him and be merciful to each other to open ourselves to His mercy.

So I can understand, if not an indictment, then what? I am a little slow.

 

[Havard]

Since Mr. Voris speaks so favorably of standing up and challenging, I trust he wouldn’t be offended at this challenge:

How is it that you know the shallow or “cowardly” (his word, not mine) motivations of the good people at the National Catholic Reporter or Catholic Answers. Did they tell you?

Because (giving you the benefit of the doubt), I trust you gave them the benefit of the doubt yourself, right? I trust then, that either you have obtained their direct admissions, or other evidence of such a high standard?

It is worth mentioning that the moderating staff here (who represent Catholic Answers) closed a thread in the news section on this topic, because people use the occasion to spread conjecture, and because the Holy Father’s comments were not meant for publication. How is that not a valid reason for not pressing harder on this “story”?

Likewise, the National Catholic Register did report on the Holy Father’s recent comments, and their editorial and blog staff likewise did address on it. Perhaps not in a way that Mr. Voris would have liked, but they certainly did not sit on the “story”.

So, in short, I’d very much like a little more info from Mr. Voris, as his accusations are rather serious, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a little proof.

 

[Credo111]

Since Mr. Voris speaks so favorably of standing up and challenging, I trust he wouldn’t be offended at this challenge:

How is it that you know the shallow or “cowardly” (his word, not mine) motivations of the good people at the National Catholic Reporter or Catholic Answers. Did they tell you?

Because (giving you the benefit of the doubt), I trust you gave them the benefit of the doubt yourself, right? I trust then, that either you have obtained their direct admissions, or other evidence of such a high standard?

It is worth mentioning that the moderating staff here (who represent Catholic Answers) closed a thread in the news section on this topic, because people use the occasion to spread conjecture, and because the Holy Father’s comments were not meant for publication. How is that not a valid reason for not pressing harder on this “story”?

Likewise, the National Catholic Register did report on the Holy Father’s recent comments, and their editorial and blog staff likewise did address on it. Perhaps not in a way that Mr. Voris would have liked, but they certainly did not sit on the “story”.

So, in short, I’d very much like a little more info from Mr. Voris, as his accusations are rather serious, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a little proof.

If you’re genuinely interested, Havard, then why don’t you write them at contact@churchmilitant.tv, instead of posting your query in an obscure Catholic Answers thread that Michael is certain not to read?

 

[Havard]

If you’re genuinely interested, Havard, then why don’t you write them at contact@churchmilitant.tv, instead of posting your query in an obscure Catholic Answers thread that Michael is certain not to read?

I did once, a few years back! No response though.

But thank you for your suggestion. I did submit my question, so here’s to hoping for a response this time!

Perhaps Lizaane could be of help.

 

[jonathan_hili]

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?

Hi Joe, I understand where you’re coming from and agree that there probably isn’t much hard evidence of this. However, I have heard speakers on CAL say, for instance, that they wouldn’t comment on particular political candidates because they didn’t want to jeopardise their tax-exempt status, and I assume lots of other stations would take this position too. Of course, I don’t blame them - after all, much good can be done with the money - but at the same time, it is a little unsettling. What makes it unsettling, at least for me, is that it represents a pragmatism that, while understandable, shies away from expressing a complete moral message. Perhaps this might be the case with criticising the Church too.

I don’t watch EWTN or listen to any other Catholic radio stations (only CAL on podcast) and so can’t really comment much, but I have never really heard anyone on CAL seriously criticise problems in the Church hierarchy when there clearly are. Again, I can understand why - after all, why would you attack the Church in any substantial way on an apologetics programme! - but still, it is a little unsettling.

 

[pnewton]

So I can understand, if not an indictment, then what? I am a little slow.

A phenomena of human nature. We all like to see something exciting. Consider the crowds that followed Jesus just to catch something cool. Jesus also alluded to this with John the Baptist, or more accurately, the crowds that came out to see John the Baptist.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

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?

Well!!! Comparing rush with militant Islamists??? I always appreciate your comments and love your kitty cats, but really, PNewton!
Michael V was a shock to my system when I first began to pay attention to his commentary, but I would agree with our new Catholics who found that the lukewarm faction of their Church home assumed there was something amiss with a person who attended daily Mass our of pure love for Jesus Christ. Mr Voris can be shocking, and, ok, sometimes he uses certain phrases or gestures or a combination just to get your attention…But truly, he began to discuss the problems of the gay clergy and the pressure they were bringing to bear on the conservative elements long before the main stream Catholic media would touch it. I really wanted to believe that this guy was a crackpot and worried that he would give scandal to those who were looking at converting to the one true church, but now I have seen enough evidence that points to Michael’s clarity of thought and his love for the Church which is driving his ministry.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I did once, a few years back! No response though.

But thank you for your suggestion. I did submit my question, so here’s to hoping for a response this time!

Perhaps Lizaane could be of help.

You could “like” him on facebook and comment away!!

 

[pnewton]

Well!!! Comparing rush with militant Islamists??? .

I have no idea what you were reading, but there was no comparison with these people. What I was doing was showing the most convincing evidence I know of that aggressiveness is not a virtue.

 

[jking1962]

The problem isn’t Voris. The problem is not seeing the gravity of ills in the Church.

I liken the negative response to Voris as a bi-stander who witnesses a Dad severely chastising his his teenage son in public. Without knowing the reason for the chastising, the father sounds harsh, so the by-stander inquires about the ruckus. He actually suspects that the father may be abusive.

The father says that his son is has been kissing some of the girls in the neighborhood. The by-stander interjects that although this is not good he could be doing a lot of worse things. The father says his son is HIV positive. The by-stander a little more concerned, but dismisses the problem saying that HIV cannot be transmitted by kissing. He tells the father to ease up. Later the by-stander finds that his daughter was kissed and she contracted HIV from the boy.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I am amazed that Michael Voris has the following that he does. 100 percent of his reports are vicious criticisms of things he doesn’t like about the Church. He is over-dramatic, one-sided and uncharitable. The equivalent of a Catholic tabloid magazine.