Right-wing fringe group building multimedia empire near Detroit

[commenter]

I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t asking about Voris in my scenario. I was asking if a faithful member of the Catholic Church created a blog and made no errors, wouldn’t it be fair to call the site a Catholic blog? I would think so, but was trying to follow your reasoning where you might not call it so. I asked in earnest.

I would want to ask why you want to call it a **Catholic **blog, why not call it a **personal **blog? The fact that someone regards himself as a faithful member of the Catholic Church means little. Don’t we all? How do I know I am making no errors? Because I said so?

I have known lots of Catholics who have strong opinions, and, with good intentions, tend to fixate on certain things, and be oblivious of other, very important things about religion. If they want to start a blog among a dozen of their friends, sharing their opinions, fine. But suppose my friend starts a blog, advertising it as a Catholic blog, that catches on, and influences how many people live their spiritual life. If he quotes a 1960 document, an apostolic exhortation, they don’t know he is skipping over a more authoritative document from a later date. The problem is not what he puts in his blog, but what he omits.

They don’t know him. They don’t know when he presents information he is really presenting opinions. Catholics tend to give much higher trust to any source that presents itself as a Catholic source. So it is tempting to re-brand your lecture, your bible study, your social justice program, your (whatever) as a **Catholic **whatever. It boosts your audience, and your impact.

 

[HOTI]

OK, I guess I don’t know enough about blogs to give a proper answer to your question. Not meaning to shut you off!

I think I’m too tired to go on. I’ll shut myself off. Good night. :tiphat:

 

[Fiasco]

While such designations are diluted by inclusion of groups like Church Militant, it is hardly an honor to be included along side the KKK and the New Black Panthers.

They’'ve managed (deliberately) to get so many things wrong, they’d have to (accidentally) get one or two right.
By the way, you forgot Tony Alamo!

CSM did not label Church Militant a hate group, as least from what I have seen. It simply reported that the Simon Wiesenthal Center said that Church Militant was “on the spectrum” of hate groups, whatever that means. Here is the article:

CM said differently; but of course, they’re to be treated with suspicion.

As already stated, i’m not 100% on Voris’ side, and that has prevented my becoming a Premium member. But i’m sick and tired of this “inside” and “outside” the Church business! There are hierarchs who can’t be trusted, and that’s all there there is to it! There’s downright treachery!

That annual LA “RE Congress”, also known as “The LA REC” (WRECK), must be a circus. Voris had a dig this year and was thanked by a number of good folks. As he said, some faithful Catholics are waking up to the truth that something is horribly wrong. They were comforted to know that they were not alone.
Archbishop Gomez is saddled with this monster, thanks to his predecessor.

To quote Archbishop Sheen again; at the beginning of one of his retreat talks in September 1973, titled “The Church: the Body of Christ”, he says:
“I know many of you are concerned about the Church, and deeply concerned.” The entire talk is brilliant.
He knew!

A question which was asked before, but not answered:
Have Biden, Podesta, Kaine and other so-called Catholics ever been ticked off by their bishops? We may as well add Perez.
Anyone willing to answer that question?

 

[commenter]

To quote Archbishop Sheen again; at the beginning of one of his retreat talks in September 1973, titled “The Church: the Body of Christ”, he says:
“I know many of you are concerned about the Church, and deeply concerned.” The entire talk is brilliant.
He knew!

A question which was asked before, but not answered:
Have Biden, Podesta, Kaine and other so-called Catholics ever been ticked off by their bishops? We may as well add Perez.
Anyone willing to answer that question?

Archbishop Sheen supported lay action, but not through organizations unapproved by the Church. He did in fact recognize there were problems (throughout history) made by bishops and priests; problems that would, sadly, affect laity as well. Some problems made by bishops impacted his own ministries. But the problems of bishops needed to be dealt directly by other bishops, and the problems of priests needed to be dealt with directly by bishops and priests.

The failures of bishops and priests make the laity’s job harder, and the failures of the laity make the bishops’ and priests’ job harder. Sheen never urged laity to confront bishops, but laity will have to work harder to affirm the Faith. Re: the individual politicians you named, how would I know what communications they have had with their bishops?