As readers of this blog know, I have in no way denigrated the Holy Father personally nor disrespected the office of the Papacy when I've made criticisms regarding objectively questionable words/acts. I also have not lobbed one criticism to Church Militant TV for their chosen policy and I certainly haven't sent any vitriol their way (in fact, I have not sent one email to them). My grievance with Church Militant TV is that they have seen fit to chide those of us who do believe it incumbent upon us to raise some red flags. They have made no distinction between those who do tear at the Papacy and those of us who question the Pope precisely because we do love Holy Mother Church. Many of us have raised the point of such distinctions numerous times; it is all over the blogosphere. Again in today's Vortex no such distinction is being recognized, although Church Militant TV cannot claim ignorance regarding our concerns. Is it not reasonable to assume that the distinction is being omitted precisely because Church Militant TV is lumping us all together? I hope to be proven wrong on this matter.
After the jump break, I will post the video, with my minute-by-minute rebuttal afterwards.
At 1:38 he states that in the minds of many, "Pope = Church". He then talks of "pope wars" and "pounding on the Holy Father". I'm sure that some do "pound on him" - but I don't frequent those blogs. Again, I take issue with Voris lumping all those who voice legitimate concerns about Pope Francis with the "pounders". I see no distinction being made; sadly I must conclude that such "lumping" is deliberate. If I am wrong, I'd be delighted to be shown proof of my error; until then I will go by the information given me to date.
He states that "our first duty as Catholics is to lead souls to Christ". That's quite true. However, some papal actions to date have rendered that duty all the more difficult to accomplish. My friend at the Tenth Crusade has stated - with some anguish - how the pope's gaffes have made her task as mother all the more difficult because of the mixed papal signals undermining her maternal authority and teaching. A little later he says that "anything we may say or do that would interfere with that sacred duty will be judged harshly". True enough - but the same can be said when our silence interferes, for when people notice inconsistencies from our leaders - even supreme leaders - they deserve completely honest answers.
Then at 2:38 he says "not everyone in the world has the intellectual heft to understand some of the nuances involved in these things..Their faith is more tender". That's rather condescending. Many people do accurately perceive inconsistencies; they aren't naive bumpkins.
At 3:21 he admonishes us that "publicly criticizing the pope is a spiritually dangerous road to be strolling down and making a living from". CMTV can breathe a sigh of relief in my case for I earn not one red cent for my blogging efforts (yes, I have a real job during the day and blog on time off).
Then he talks about "converts needing protection". Well, might they need "protecting" from some of the garbled messages emanating from the Vatican? I can assure CMTV that the recent converts I know are quite aware when something baffling comes from the Vatican; again, they aren't stupid but quite intelligent and well-informed. When they notice strange things from the Vatican, they deserve decent answers or they will be baffled by imprudent actions and statements (such as "who am I to judge"). As he said at the beginning, "pope = church"; when the pope breaks Canon law by washing women's feet at the Last Supper liturgy, would they not see that as "church breaks canon law"? Then look at 3:49 - 4:21 and think of some garbled signals emanating regarding divorced/remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion. That warning applies to those allowing the confusion to go unabated.
Then at 4:29 he says "but what about the saints who said things about the pope" as though he were going to brush aside that question. The most notable examples are indeed St Paul and St Catherine of Siena. Then, as though to imply that all of us are still disqualified, he says they are canonized saints, very holy people. True enough. Some tiny little details are overlooked:
- At the times they offered fraternal words of correction, they were not canonized saints. Being humble people, they most likely didn't realize that they were specially qualified - more so than their Catholic contemporaries - to exercise the first Spiritual Work of Mercy (of course I'm being facetious).
- He recounts a story of St Catherine's self-mortification, implying that most, if not all, those voicing concerns are nowhere near that holy. Be that as it may (and how could Voris possibly divine that), such lack of holiness would not excuse one from speaking out when error is noticed.
- At 6:17, after reciting the story about St Catherine, he says "THAT is the kind of person who is allowed to offer corrections to the pope publicly" By what objective authority does he make this pronouncement? There is no objective authority of course. Voris is entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is - his opinion. Then he says to "puss-water drinkers", "have at it". The condescension is palpable.
- Speaking of St Catherine, was it not she who uttered this statement "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence! She never added, "but only if you're as holy as I am."
He reiterates his belief that because the Pope sits in Peter's chair, his actions cannot be criticized. At 7:26, he opines that "no one comes to the church or leaves the church because a cardinal says something stupid". Again, how does he imagine this? This statement is completely without basis.
He then speculates (at 7:46) the "very holy people in the Church right now who have their private concerns not criticizing the pope publicly". Well, what of them? I don't speculate on what they believe are pressing concerns or what they might wish to do. That's irrelevant to my main objection to Voris' stance regarding many of us: that we are no different than those who harbor malevolence to the Church.
Mundabor has a good reflection on this - a tad "tongue-in-cheek" but the point is clear.
Let me state very plainly (if one cannot glean it from my writings) that I know that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church - sole source of the Sacraments and full deposit of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am NOT going anywhere and I'm no sedevacantist or SSPXer. Because I love the Church I will speak out, regardless of the deficiencies of my own holiness.
Let me state very plainly (if one cannot glean it from my writings) that I know that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church - sole source of the Sacraments and full deposit of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am NOT going anywhere and I'm no sedevacantist or SSPXer. Because I love the Church I will speak out, regardless of the deficiencies of my own holiness.
Thank you again and again for your courage to address Papal actions that are of concern. Not all but I would say many
ReplyDeletewho refuse to look at the shocking manifestations are marginalized by their own concerns about monies. Certainly The Vortex,
EWTN and most non profits whose donations would be affected by such public questions, are keeping silence. Some are
just ignorant but most I would say "follow the money trail" applies. All in all, you are a great writer and you are doing a much
needed service. We are all called to "Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues". I too see the world is rotten by silence.
This is a very simple argument to me. I pray for the Pope and leave any misgivings to the Holy Spirit who is in charge of the purity and direction of the line of Peter. This is not opinion but the words if Jesus Christ. Why do we think that we, as sinners, should tell the Pope what to do? This us not our job, but it is the job of Someone else whom I believe has it handled. Relax. And pray. We are in good hands and all will play out EXACTLY as it should.
DeleteTests 208
Of course, "tests", we pray for the pope. But what if the Holy Spirit is telling YOU to speak out? Will "relax" be your stance then?
DeleteAbove all people who love the Lord and His church should avoid forming circular firing squads. Have honest disagreements, but do not stoop to vitriol or pretending to know people's motives.
ReplyDeleteLearning
With regard to EWTN, I have been upset with some of the things they have done of late, especially the promotion of Roma Downey as a good Catholic. I do feel that EWTN has lost some of its orthodoxy since Mother Angelica is no longer in charge. However, with regard to clerics, credit has to be given to them. Yes, I get very annoyed by their seemingly endless love for Cardinal Dolan, when he is way off on Canon 915 and 916. Still, I do not see them as the kind of organization that is driven by money. I think when it comes to the Pope and Bishops, they feel it is best to respect the office, pray, and stay silent. It may not be the best strategy, but it is what they have employed. And, to their credit, I would not even know about the Canon 915/916 stuff, if not for them. No other Catholic network has talked about this in detail, and it is definitely not a topic that is spoken of on the pulpit.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Downey, here is an informative link about her: http://davemosher.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/roma-downeys-comments-and-connections-with-psychic-medium-john-edward-show-she-is-not-a-christian-as-she-claims-but-a-new-ager/
-Dawn
Dawn, they're silent with regards to clerical antics - because Mother Angelica wasn't. With the orthodoxy went the courage and resolve. I was aghast when Arroyo hosted Mark Shriver to hawk his book - mere months after a number of us picketed Shriver's book-signing at a Catholic church in DC. ETWN might be ok, but they've lost their focus and their single-minded edge.
DeletePlease ignore the anti-Catholic elements of this link. The point is, John is into necromancy, which is condemned outright in the Old Testament--and Roma is involved with him. Sorry. I did not read the entire link before it was sent. However, it does contain good info about Downey and Edward.
ReplyDelete-Dawn
I don't find this entirely true. I think Arroyo gets away with a lot, under the guise of "art." However, Mother Angelica did not always criticize every cleric publicly. For example, she was very to-the-point with Cardinal Mahony, but, as far as I know, never said a thing to Bishop Foley. Foley was on the board at EWTN, and may still be; I'm not sure. I'm not saying that has anything to do with any lack of criticism (she was not like that), but I'm just saying she did not always criticize everyone, it seemed to me. Thus, I don't think EWTN is doing any different than they used to in that regard.
ReplyDelete-Dawn
Voris's telling us to shut up reminds me of the cult I was in as a young man. The cult leaders wanted us not to notice anything either. As a result, all kinds of outrageous abuses and behaviors occurred. Voris should be ashamed of himself for fostering a cultic mentality among his supporters.
ReplyDeleteSteve, I too survived a thought-reform cult. After leaving I read much literature about cults in general and there are some common tactics that most follow. One of them is "information control" - that is, the discouraging and even forbidding of their members to view contradictory materials. When I read that first statement on the CMTV web page, my "red flags" flew all over the place as there was the suggestion that John Vennari, Michael Matt and others wrote works that "should not be read". That's classic, cult-like information-control.
DeleteR-DC-C, I was involved in Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church Of God cult. Which one were you in?
DeleteI was involved with charismatics about 20 years ago. At that time "charismatic communities" were rather well-known and public. Some of them networked with local churches, including Catholic churches. Such was the case with Mother of God Community in Gaithersburg. At that time, MOG was one of several prominent groups that came under the scrutiny of their respective bishops and were ordered and/or sanctioned by them to institute changes. I can send you the links to the Washington Post articles; they're still online. MOG still exists and I think they've made some real changes. I still saw some harm 20 years ago so I just parted ways with the group.
Delete