This is not about Canon Law.
Please do not think that this issue is about Canon 216, Jurisdiction, or who the proper Ecclesial authority is. It isn't about any of these things. Here is how Dr. Peters summarizes his most recent post (of many) on this issue:
I’ll just say that discussions about “canonical jurisdiction” (1) assume as necessary something that is, so far anyway, not necessary; (2) assume the accuracy and completeness of one version of the ownership-control aspect of this matter; (3) assume as being obviously settled by law some issues that are not expressly treated in the law; and (4) assume that canonical jurisdiction over an internet undertaking can be based only on the civil ownership/registration of a website, to the exclusion of any other factual or canonical basis for jurisdiction.Now, Dr. Peters works for the AOD, but I do not seem him as a "lackey" or "Company man." Is there some gravity between what he writes and that relationship? I am sure there is some, but he is a man of rock solid ethics and a good Catholic, therefore it is of no matter to me. I also believe he is probably right about the Canonical issues in this matter. Those Canonical issues are not what this situation is about.
That’s four pretty big assumptions. In a row. None of which, as I have mentioned earlier, are going to be settled in blogosphere, but all of which suggests that this matter is more complex than some are making it out to be.
I respect Dr. Peters immensely, in fact as an aspiring Canonist I look to him as a role model, I have said this before and I stand by that. Therefore, it pains me to say that Dr. Peters is either missing the larger issue here, or is too confined by his attention to realize that the larger matter here isn't about Canon law. He says that none of these Canonical issues are going to be settled in the blogosphere and that this matter is more complex than "some" are making it out to be. Which proves my point.
Why is this matter being batted about by "Arm-Chair-Canonists" in the blogosphere?
Because:
The AOD decided to put out an ill-advised, poorly written, press release as a shot-across the bow as their "move" in a ill-conceived, mismanaged, horribly handled "public relations effort" in an attempt to silence RCTV and Voris.So you see, while Dr. Peters struggles to understand why people don't "get" that you can't just do Canon Law by reading a few Canons, or why "Com-box Jockeys" are acting as if they are Canonists, this situation is playing out in the blogosphere. So, while it pains me to do so, I disagree and think Dr. Peters is wrong on one very important point:
The first thing to understand about the dispute between the Archdiocese of Detroit and Michael Voris and/or RealCatholicTV is that the dispute turns essentially on canon law. As a canonical dispute, it will not be decided by seeing who musters more or louder supporters in the blogosphere; it will be decided by recognizing what Church law says about such matters and then abiding by that finding.The only portion of this dispute that turns on Canon law is the Canon law question of whether the AOD can Canonically prohibit RCTV from using the name 'Catholic.' Beyond that, this matter has nothing to do with Canon law. In the most recent Vortex, Voris himself admits that they will not be making Canonical arguments about this issue. He issues a call to prayer.
If this isn't about popular opinion, blogs, and what people "think" why are so many "gigs" being wasted on it? Why has Dr. Peters written three blog posts about it? Why does Father Z. put up posts that essentially are copies of Dr. Peters' posts, only so that people can use his [Fr. Z's] com-box for discussion? Why have other blogs who rarely write about such things made this a "hot topic" on their blogs? I will tell you why, again. This was meant to be, and has become, a public opinion battle.
The reason that so many are on Voris' side in this is simple: walk into a parish anywhere and you are likely to find what he talks about on the Vortex everyday. This is true in the Archdiocese of Detroit, I was a parishioner there in several parishes. Bloggers who write and talk about the faith everyday know that Voris is on to something, even if they don't like his method, tone, or hair. He is willing to say in public, what most are only willing to say to their close friends: there are serious problems in our parishes and it seems that priests and Bishops turn a blind eye to them. This being the case, when a Bishop, who many consider to be very orthodox and loyal to the Church, comes out and tries to silence that voice... people are left in a quandary.
The faithful want an authentic version of the faith. They want to hear the Pope say something, and then witness it in their parish. Parents want to teach their children about the faith, and have it affirmed in homilies at Mass. The youth want a faith that they are willing to go against the culture for. People know what is real when they see it, and frankly... in many parishes - THEY DONT SEE IT. So when someone like Voris says what many have been thinking, they gravitate to him. He becomes the "real" to them. So when matters like this come up, and complex Canonical issues are involved in what has been made to be a "popular opinion" battle, people will do what they can to back their man. That being said, I don't believe that "might makes right," I am simply observing the landscape.
This isn't about Canon law. Archdioceses don't put out press releases on issues preemptively to make the point that they need to deal with a Canonical issue. Someone convinced the good Archbishop that they could acheive whatever ultimate end they are seeking by waging this in the public realm. They were wrong. The good Archbishop should root out his faulty advisors and start addressing the real problem here: modernism and heterodoxy run amok. The world is in upheaval, and people want a strong bold leader. They want words and action. One entity in this dispute has waged a war of words, the other has waged a war of words and action. Specifically prayer.
So realize... this isn't about Canon law. I know I am some lowly ole' blogger in Alaska, but my email is on the sidebar if anyone wants to discuss this further. As always, the com-box is open as well. I just hope the good Archbishop realizes that the longer he lets those in the AOD wage this war attempting to convince people that this is about Canon law, the worse it becomes for him. The blogosphere is speaking, and it isn't echoing many praises of the AOD.
†††
19 Comments so far - Click to Comment::
Mr. Anonymous, that IS the million-dollar question
Anonymous, I am enforcing my Rule listed prior to commenting. I don't allow Anonymous comments, especially when they add nothing to the conversation.
This is an objective determination.
This is a great article, and I agree and support the call that all parties in this spat, turn to Our Lord in prayer.
The real core of this dispute is what and who is the head of the Church. Jesus Christ IS the head and the people ARE the Church. This needs to be 're-proposed' as the perennial truth of the Gospel.
Time for the 'New Evangelization" to commence!
Joe, this is why I refuse to blog about the topic (as I did with Fr. Corapi, etc.). I agree with you 100% that the issue is not canon law but calumny. God bless you for pointing that out.
Brilliant, especially about the disappointment in our leadership, from the parish level up to many bishops, and the content of our Faith as presented in far too many parishes. We want the real thing, and RCTV seems to provide many of us what we're missing elsewhere.
What do you think of this?
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/just-what-is-the-archdiocese-of-detroit-asking-rctv-to-do/
What has RCTV been asked to do? Nothing. There has been no request for action, that I know of. Certainly no action+consequences statement.
I feel like this is an article everyone should read..so I linked to it on my blog. http://tsahaylu.blogspot.com/
Hope that's ok.
p.s.- hope to be visiting Alaska again in May. JetBlue starts its flights there again 5/24.
Can't wait! :>
I see "the vortex" every in the diocese of Boise as well as the Archdiocese of LA...You're absolutely right this is anything but about canon law.
Obviously Vors ins't the Pope or the Bishops in "union" with him. But he tells it like it is, I for one love the guy. And will be praying for this situation.
Well said!
Joseph! I don't know how I missed this before now - I suppose I just assumed it was another Voris post about nothing - like mine are. I'm sorry I thought that.
This AM I got an email from a member of the Catholic Defense League - a copy of a foreward to the League with a copy of your post here. This is an excellent take on the matter and I am going to link to it. Good work!
Terry:
Thanks. I know that it is spiritually dangerous to accuse the institutional arm of the Archdiocese of missteps but I must here.
This is the problem when good Archbishops have men and women working for them in their chanceries that lose sight of what their objective is - TO SAVE SOULS.
I pray that I dont lead anyone astray and I pray that anything I write on this matter has merit and is a unifying endeavor and not something that divides.
Maybe this isn't all about canon law. In fact, you're probably right about that.
Here's the thing: When so many (many, many) normal, conservative Catholics who might otherwise and possibly do agree with Voris can't stand him, it begs the question of why? And no, it's not just the hair.
I know there were people who couldn't stand Mother Angelica and Father Corapi, etc., but even then, enough conservative Catholics found the things they said edifying, uplifting, and encouraging. That's not the case with Voris.
Oh yes, he has fans - fans who love him not only for what he says (much of which is worth saying, but some of which is woefully off-base and even sometimes WRONG from a catechism/Church teaching perspective), but moreso who love him for the WAY in which he says it. OK fine, his style is his style. But the thing is that his style is angry, mean, demeaning, and judgemental....which tends only to speak to those who are already angry and fed-up and who are also generally uber-judgemental. In other words, he's singing to the choir.
In theory Voris has the right idea and mostly the right material. But as far as I'm concerned, he's the wrong delivery. Imagine if someone like, say, Jennifer Fulwiler (Conversion Diary blog) took his same materials, re-wrote it, and filmed her own videos? Presto! Instant success that spreads across gaps in Catholicism.
If RealCatholicTV is serious about their mission and message, they need a different spokesperson. THAT is why AOD is after Voris - because they don't want people who are on the edge of faith or who are knee-deep in the spiritual journey thinking that what Voris says and promotes is the difference between salvation and not.
Why is it that otherwise intelligent Catholics feel the need to resort to making jabs about Michael's hair? Not only is it unkind, it comes across as petty.
Not to mention there is absolutely nothing wrong with his hair.
Because if you're going to broadcast yourself to the world as a relevant, respectable spokesperson for the Catholic faith, you should take into account your image.
As in, an honest appraisal that would say: Your hair is universally being acknowledged as a hairpiece that people are making fun of (i.e. it's OBVIOUS) and your suits look too big, dated, and are in very "out" colors that do nothing for you.
To be a relevant Catholic does not mean that one need look dowdy. In fact, in order to be taken seriously by others, one would make it a top priority to come off as polished. He doesn't, period. It's another major flaw in his presentation. Again - Voris might have the right message, but he is the wrong messenger.
It's not uncharitable to appraise a VERY public "spokesperson." If a news broadcaster on your local TV station or on Fox News looked dowdy and everyone thought was wearing a wig or hairpiece, believe me, people would talk. And that TV station would be doing something about it pronto. Looks matter in some situations. It's not mean to say so.
Wow, Charlotte, that's quite an analysis. You've really spent some time thinking about this.
"a hairpiece that people are making fun of (i.e. it's OBVIOUS)"
Shows how much you know.
I sincerely hope fellow Catholics aren't sniggering about some part of your anatomy behind your back.
Christine,
EVERYONE thinks it's a hair piece. If you're not aware of that, you must not read enough blogs. Either that or a very unfortunate choice in hairstyle - shaggy, unkempt, and cur crooked.
Doesn't matter what I "know." What matters is that people laugh at him because of it, which devalues his message.
And yes, I have had people laugh at me for being fat my whole life. So what. True friends look beyond that. However, Voris isn't out to make friends - he's out to convince thousands of total strangers of varying degrees of Catholicity (or not even Catholic) that there is something amiss about modern Catholicism.
AGAIN, to be convincing - he uses a VISUAL medium for his message - he needs to be, well, convincing. He's not polished, he doesn't look professional. A suit doesn't instantly make one look professional and businesslike. It may show proper intention, but if it looks sloppy, it looks sloppy. The camera won't gloss that over. Rather, the camera is famous for bringing out and magnifying imperfections.
BTW,
I've met Voris in person - shook his hand - and I definitely think it's a rug. For what it's worth and knowing, of course, that I could be wrong.
http://youtu.be/S8P0JcvsMgE
Looks pretty good to me!
And here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5K-KWwI9mQ
Michael has this curious ability to wear pink and seem even MORE masculine... ;)
Some folks like posing as orthodox Catholics, but when push comes to shove, aren't.
The hair is real, I've seen the idiotic statements to the contrary (by Damian Thompson in the Telegraph, for one, he had to retract his claim), but when folks see Voris up close, they all agree - it's his. It might be dyed, but it's his.
Post a Comment