Michael Voris takes EWTN to task

[Credo111]

My bird’s-eye view is just fine, thanks.

Not to minimize Voris’ experience, but his is far from unique. You could ask all those same questions and just as easily be talking about some liberal theologian who is travelling the lecture circuit – almost always talking to like-minded people that are constantly telling them that they are just what the Church needs right now.

Just because one is hearing from a lot of people does not mean they aren’t also in an echo chamber.

I don’t see how your response addresses anything I’ve said.

If it were an insignificant minority of people talking to him, then it could be written off as an echo chamber. But it’s not insignifcant. It’s thousands upon thousands of people from dioceses all over the world, in person, in e-mails, and over the phone.

And he’s got the support and encouragement of solid champions of orthodoxy like Cdl. Raymond Burke and Bp. Fabian Bruskewitz, among others, who agree that what he says is on target and needs to be said.

So let’s not write off Voris as some fellow who (1) doesn’t know what he’s talking about or (2) exaggerates.

Did you even read the statistics I cited about the Church? How can you read that and say things are just hunky-dory and doing great?

Are you aware that only 1/4 of Mass-going Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?

That means that next time you go to Mass at your average parish, look to the right and to the left–more likely than not, neither one (statistically speaking) even believes that the Sacred Host is Our Lord, whom they are about to receive into their bodies and souls.

Well, at this point, I’ve said what needs to be said. I happen to be deeply, profoundly concerned about the state of the Church, alarmed at the spiritual torpor that seems to envelop many Catholics while our brothers and sisters are falling into hell like snowflakes, as our Lady of Fatima said.

 

[Joe_5859]

Exactly, I believe at this time a good Bishop is hard to find. Otherwise, there would not be the nonsense like allowing heretic Methodists ordain “clergy” in a Catholic Church, or proclaiming a fortnight for freedom campaign when the diocese has been paying for contraception benefits all along, or allowing Gay friendly masses to go on.

Critics of Voris fail to be able to discount the actual reporting he does. That is why they mostly criticize his delivery, that he his harsh or that he is blowing things out of proportion.

Again, we are at the same impasse that the actual issues at hand are smaller than Voris indicates. I believe that the issues speak for themselves.

Look at it like this, sodomy has always been sodomy. It doesn’t change. Not long ago this was consider by most Americans to be a heinous crime. Today, it is considered a right and those who speak out against it are bigots.

To a liberal modernist Catholic who fails to perceive the body of Christ in the Eucharist, it is not a big deal if one falls to the floor and gets trampled on.

Voris would look quite ridiculous to everyone if the issues he brought up were venial and he ranted about them.

The very reason he is putting a spot light on them is because the rest of Catholic media is not. There are other who feel as strongly as he does. It is not because people like scandal or causing dissension. The dissension are the issues themselves.

I have been actively trying not to critique his delivery.

I think it’s incorrect that the “issues speak for themselves”, which is probably one of the roots of the problem. We take a look at a handful of events out of context and use that as some sort of “proof” that the bishops don’t care.

First, even if those stories were 100% accurately reported and meant exactly what the critics think they mean, that only accounts for 0.00001% of what a bishop does. But we latch on to stories like that a bishop allowed for non-Catholic ordinations in his cathedral (ignoring that it is something Canon Law puts in his authority to do) and use that as evidence that the Church is in shambles and all our hand-wringing is vindicated. That’s simply not even close to the whole picture. Nor is it helpful in any way, shape or form.

Just because someone is saying facts that are true does not mean they are connecting the dots in a way that is accurate. Nor is it the whole story.

 

[Gidge]

Just because one is hearing from a lot of people does not mean they aren’t also in an echo chamber.

So, then you believe that Voris is talking to himself and/or no one is listening ?

I respectfully disagree, and his thriving ministry bears this out.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would not consider a direct quote a possible cliche. In that case if I quoted Jesus too much his words would lose effectiveness.

I’m not saying it’s cliche. It just seems like people hide behind that quote as an excuse to say whatever they want about the bishops. Just because St. John Chrysostom said that and just because some bishops have fallen far short doesn’t mean it’s open season on criticism.

Maybe that’s not what people mean when they post the quote. But if not, then I don’t understand why they post it.

 

[jking1962]

I have been actively trying not to critique his delivery.

I think it’s incorrect that the “issues speak for themselves”, which is probably one of the roots of the problem. We take a look at a handful of events out of context and use that as some sort of “proof” that the bishops don’t care.

First, even if those stories were 100% accurately reported and meant exactly what the critics think they mean, that only accounts for 0.00001% of what a bishop does. But we latch on to stories like that a bishop allowed for non-Catholic ordinations in his cathedral (ignoring that it is something Canon Law puts in his authority to do) and use that as evidence that the Church is in shambles and all our hand-wringing is vindicated. That’s simply not even close to the whole picture. Nor is it helpful in any way, shape or form.

Just because someone is saying facts that are true does not mean they are connecting the dots in a way that is accurate. Nor is it the whole story.

This is the fallacy of the looking at the whole. A man will still go the jail for a felony offense regardless of what his past history is. Even if he was, father of the year, if he committed a serious crime he must be brought to justice.

Again, you are suggesting that these are venial issues.

 

[Joe_5859]

So, then you believe that Voris is talking to himself and/or no one is listening ?

I respectfully disagree, and his thriving ministry bears this out.

I’m not saying Voris is talking to himself. I’m saying that almost any public figure is naturally going to spend far more time amongst those who agree than disagree.

Imagine a liberal theologian. They’ve taught thousands of students over the course of decades at several prominent Catholic universities. They’ve been on the lecture circuit giving talks to tens of thousands of students, catechists, teachers, DREs, scholars, etc. They’ve sat at banquet tables with other prominent theologians, priests, bishops, and maybe even a few dignitaries. They’ve been to Rome on multiple occassions. They’ve got Cardinals on speed dial.

All of this does not add up to making their views correct. So why use that argument with Voris?

 

[Credo111]

I’m just not sure this thread is accomplishing anything at this point.

Joe, you’re obviously a good guy. If you don’t see what Voris is seeing, maybe you will one day. That’s fine. I’d encourage you to keep listening to him, and maybe even contact him at contact@churchmilitant.tv. He gets hundreds of e-mails weekly, so I can’t guarantee a response, but he does read everything.

I know him personally, and am close friends with the Exec Producer and board members. I myself am a supporter of his apostolate because Michael did much to instill in me a passion and zeal for the faith that I had lost for various reasons.

I do agree about speaking respectfully of the bishops, which Michael always tries to do–but he also won’t water down the message if scandal is being caused by their actions (or inaction). He is always asking the faithful to pray and pray hard for the bishops.

Anyway, I need to get some work done, so will be bowing out of this discussion. If anyone would like to talk with me, you can always send me a private message.
God bless,
Christine Niles

 

[jking1962]

I have been actively trying not to critique his delivery.

I think it’s incorrect that the “issues speak for themselves”, which is probably one of the roots of the problem. We take a look at a handful of events out of context and use that as some sort of “proof” that the bishops don’t care.

First, even if those stories were 100% accurately reported and meant exactly what the critics think they mean, that only accounts for 0.00001% of what a bishop does. But we latch on to stories like that a bishop allowed for non-Catholic ordinations in his cathedral (ignoring that it is something Canon Law puts in his authority to do) and use that as evidence that the Church is in shambles and all our hand-wringing is vindicated. That’s simply not even close to the whole picture. Nor is it helpful in any way, shape or form.

Just because someone is saying facts that are true does not mean they are connecting the dots in a way that is accurate. Nor is it the whole story.

Canon 1210 does not allow for this. You are reading a liberal interpretation of this. Common sense says that by allowing this activity you support it. The Catholic Church calls for its fallen away brothers to come back, not to support the promotion of this heresy by the fake ordinations.

 

[Gidge]

I’m not saying Voris is talking to himself. I’m saying that almost any public figure is naturally going to spend far more time amongst those who agree than disagree.

Imagine a liberal theologian. They’ve taught thousands of students over the course of decades at several prominent Catholic universities. They’ve been on the lecture circuit giving talks to tens of thousands of students, catechists, teachers, DREs, scholars, etc. They’ve sat at banquet tables with other prominent theologians, priests, bishops, and maybe even a few dignitaries. They’ve been to Rome on multiple occassions. They’ve got Cardinals on speed dial.

All of this does not add up to making their views correct. So why use that argument with Voris?

The echo chamber remark is what I didn’t (and still don’t) understand. Would you kindly explain Voris viz-a-viz an echo chamber?

Being well connected in Catholic/Vatican circles points to the fact that Voris probably has more of an “inside scoop” than the average Catholic in the pew, which leads to his credibility as a journalist/critic.

The very fact that Voris strikes a nerve with the “go-along-to-get-along crowd” shows me he’s on the right track (not to mention my personal experiences with a Church in decline here in America over the past few decades).

 

[pnewton]

Critics of Voris fail to be able to discount the actual reporting he does.

There may be something to this. I have seen some decent episodes. It is the nature of this place that it seems only the more controversial episodes are brought up as topics. I will try and remind myself that I can be critical of an episode, like this one, without discounting all. I have no business judging him.

The very reason he is putting a spot light on them is because the rest of Catholic media is not.

So if it is acceptable for him to run his media organization in the manner he does, should not the other Catholic media organizations be given the same courtesy?

 

[jking1962]

There may be something to this. I have seen some decent episodes. It is the nature of this place that it seems only the more controversial episodes are brought up as topics. I will try and remind myself that I can be critical of an episode, like this one, without discounting all. I have no business judging him.
So if it is acceptable for him to run his media organization in the manner he does, should not the other Catholic media organizations be given the same courtesy?

This argument sound plausible as first blush, but it implicitly suggests that the issues at hand are venial.

For example, say it is 1940 and the Blitzkrieg is raging over Britain. I would expect all media outlets to be covering it extensively.

In contrast, I don’t expect all news programs to cover a specific DUI incident.

This takes us back to the fact that the difference is not Voris and his delivery, but what we consider serious problems in the Church.

 

[Gidge]

There may be something to this. I have seen some decent episodes. It is the nature of this place that it seems only the more controversial episodes are brought up as topics. I will try and remind myself that I can be critical of an episode, like this one, without discounting all. I have no business judging him.
So if it is acceptable for him to run his media organization in the manner he does, should not the other Catholic media organizations be given the same courtesy?

Everyone should judge, how else would you discern, say, right from wrong, which car to buy, which friends to associate with, etc. ?

I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, the command by Our Lord not to judge involves :

a. One’s motives
b. Ones spiritual state

Critiquing Voris’ ministry, as we’ve been doing here is perfectly fine.

To your second point, I don’t know how the many heterodox “catholic” organizations are allowed to use the title “catholic” (e.g. catholics for choice) ?

 

[pnewton]

This argument sound plausible as first blush, but it implicitly suggests that the issues at hand are venial.

I would think the issue is not the seriousness of the issues, but the reality of the issues. I do not mean to imply all is well, only that the sky is not falling, the house on fire or whatever extreme figure you wish to use.

Let us take Catholic Answers, for example, since it is a media I am familiar with. The sexual abuse scandal was a very damaging and serious event. This was reported on. On the other hand, should Catholic Answers have devoted a disproportionate amount of resources or space to it (say, more than 2%)? FYI - they did report on it. So, now that such behavior has been addressed and reduced exponentially, why would they devote more time to it if they do not believe in some conspiracy? It is not that they do not think such behavior is serious, just that it isn’t pervasive.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m just not sure this thread is accomplishing anything at this point.

Joe, you’re obviously a good guy. If you don’t see what Voris is seeing, maybe you will one day. That’s fine. I’d encourage you to keep listening to him, and maybe even contact him at contact@churchmilitant.tv. He gets hundreds of e-mails weekly, so I can’t guarantee a response, but he does read everything.

I know him personally, and am close friends with the Exec Producer and board members. I myself am a supporter of his apostolate because Michael did much to instill in me a passion and zeal for the faith that I had lost for various reasons.

I do agree about speaking respectfully of the bishops, which Michael always tries to do–but he also won’t water down the message if scandal is being caused by their actions (or inaction). He is always asking the faithful to pray and pray hard for the bishops.

Anyway, I need to get some work done, so will be bowing out of this discussion. If anyone would like to talk with me, you can always send me a private message.
God bless,
Christine Niles

I appreciate the courteous remarks. These discussions can get tense, so I’m glad we can disagree without things turning ugly.

I don’t think my blood pressure could take watching Voris regularly, though. But don’t worry about me. I’m in a good position to evaluate things even without Voris’ help.

 

[pnewton]

To your second point, I don’t know how the many heterodox “catholic” organizations are allowed to use the title “catholic” (e.g. catholics for choice) ?

They do so in disregard to canon law. I am still going to try and stick just to the specifics and not make overreaching statements, if for no other reason, to lessen offense here. I do not like that I have caused consternation and anger.

 

[Joe_5859]

The echo chamber remark is what I didn’t (and still don’t) understand. Would you kindly explain Voris viz-a-viz an echo chamber?

Being well connected in Catholic/Vatican circles points to the fact that Voris probably has more of an “inside scoop” than the average Catholic in the pew, which leads to his credibility as a journalist/critic.

The very fact that Voris strikes a nerve with the “go-along-to-get-along crowd” shows me he’s on the right track (not to mention my personal experiences with a Church in decline here in America over the past few decades).

My point is that a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from others – even a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from other Catholics – is no guarantee that one is getting the whole story. If one’s contacts are all like-minded, then the views one keeps hearing are bound to be similar.

I know that it doesn’t mean he’s not getting the whole story, either. Thus it’s not proof one way or the other. But the fact is, there are lots of Catholic reporters out there with plenty of connections, too. But they’re not all telling the same story Voris is. So his connections alone aren’t reason to put any more veracity into what he says than someone like John Allen or Raymond Arroyo.

I’m not part of the “go-along-to-get-along” crowd. If I was, I wouldn’t be arguing with you guys here.

 

[Gidge]

They do so in disregard to canon law. I am still going to try and stick just to the specifics and not make overreaching statements, if for no other reason, to lessen offense here. I do not like that I have caused consternation and anger.

Who’s angry ?

God bless you !

 

[Gidge]

My point is that a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from others – even a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from other Catholics – is no guarantee that one is getting the whole story. If one’s contacts are all like-minded, then the views one keeps hearing are bound to be similar.

I know that it doesn’t mean he’s not getting the whole story, either. Thus it’s not proof one way or the other. But the fact is, there are lots of Catholic reporters out there with plenty of connections, too. But they’re not all telling the same story Voris is. So his connections alone aren’t reason to put any more veracity into what he says than someone like John Allen or Raymond Arroyo.

I’m not part of the “go-along-to-get-along” crowd. If I was, I wouldn’t be arguing with you guys here.

I was not saying that you were part of the “go-along-to-get-along crowd”, but certain Catholic media outles are, as Voris points out.

God bless you !

 

[jking1962]

My point is that a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from others – even a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from other Catholics – is no guarantee that one is getting the whole story. If one’s contacts are all like-minded, then the views one keeps hearing are bound to be similar.

I know that it doesn’t mean he’s not getting the whole story, either. Thus it’s not proof one way or the other. But the fact is, there are lots of Catholic reporters out there with plenty of connections, too. But they’re not all telling the same story Voris is. So his connections alone aren’t reason to put any more veracity into what he says than someone like John Allen or Raymond Arroyo.

I’m not part of the “go-along-to-get-along” crowd. If I was, I wouldn’t be arguing with you guys here.

It’s funny that you mentioned Raymond Arroyo, because I personally think he avoids even sharing his own opinion on most anything. He has guests do that. It is funny because I dislike Raymond for not reporting on the issues that Voris does. It all goes back to what you think is serious or not. This is the big fight inside the Church.

It reminds me of when I attempted to bring to my priest’s attention the fact that EM’s were leaving hosts on the ground and was quietly dismissed.

At the same time I brought to my daughter’s public school’s principle’s attention the fact that her teacher introduced a ouija board into the class. He was on the case instantly and I had the teacher leaving my messages daily that she was sorry and this would never happen again. This is a secular school. You see the contrast. I don’t beat up on the principle anymore because he did the right thing and rectified the problem.

Voris and people who support Voris simply want the Bishops to do the right thing.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s funny that you mentioned Raymond Arroyo, because I personally think he avoids even sharing his own opinion on most anything. He has guests do that. It is funny because I dislike Raymond for not reporting on the issues that Voris does. It all goes back to what you think is serious or not. This is the big fight inside the Church.

It reminds me of when I attempted to bring to my priest’s attention the fact that EM’s were leaving hosts on the ground and was quietly dismissed.

At the same time I brought to my daughter’s public school’s principle’s attention the fact that her teacher introduced a ouija board into the class. He was on the case instantly and I had the teacher leaving my messages daily that she was sorry and this would never happen again. This is a secular school. You see the contrast. I don’t beat up on the principle anymore because he did the right thing and rectified the problem.

Voris and people who support Voris simply want the Bishops to do the right thing.

I think a reporter not sharing his own opinion is a good thing. I like my news without the editorializing.

The Eucharist on the ground? I’m sorry you had that type of experience. That is truly sad. I know I could fill a book with such stories that would give fodder for months of Vortex episodes. But to what end?

I’m the one who admitted to only watching this one episode of the Vortex (I watched 2 minutes of another one years ago ). If it bothers anyone that I would draw conclusions based on one episode and a whole lot of second-hand information, I would ask you to imagine how the bishops feel. They get judged just the same. And if we owe Voris a bit of room before forming an opinion, how much more do we owe the successors of the Apostles?