jump to navigation

Michael Voris hits THE nerve September 1, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, manhood, persecution, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the enemy.
trackback

I am breaking my usual rule not to blog during weekend/family time to address this most critical subject. It touches on the most critical aspect of the crisis in the Faith – the collapse in episcopal leadership over the past 50 years, which was spurred by, but has also enormously advanced, the modernist/progressivist revolution against the Church.

I saw while on vacation that Catholic Answers, after insulting some of their potential supporters with their repeated attacks on traditional or “radical traditional” Catholics, is hurting for money.  Their begging for more donations seemed to have been the tiny crack that caused the dam of critical sentiment against Catholic Answers to burst.  I was surprised by the reaction – it was stronger than I would have expected.  I think we’re seeing a preference cascade among pious Catholics, away from Catholic Answers. I will state, from my own experience, I have rarely used Catholic Answers, and the few times I did, I was utterly scandalized by what I found in their forums, in particular. That is why I strongly support Faithful Answers as an alternative.

What I found particularly interesting, and revealing, was the flurry of investigation this caused, investigation into the salaries of many professional Catholics. As Michael Voris reports below, many well known Catholic bloggers, speakers, and writers are extremely well paid.  Note, all the figures in the video below are base salaries, and do not include speaking fees and book royalties, which could easily add tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the figures given in the video below:

In case you couldn’t guess it, it’s obvious the bishop in question towards the beginning of the video is Archbishop Chaput. This is not the only source that has reported such tantrums on his part.  I will also note that I’m not so sure the recent diatribes against traditional Catholics (and I’ve never been in an SSPX or “independent” church or chapel in my life) are the source of Catholic Answer’s funding problems. I saw in one place that they bring in $5 million a year?  Well, Catholic Culture blegs to the tune of $500k or so a year, so it’s possible, I suppose. I don’t know what they do with all that money, but, whatevs.

It is not surprising that Michael has met a violent reaction.  This is hitting the professional Catholics where it really hurts.  I don’t begrudge the salaries these men make one bit - if the market, so to speak, will bear that salary, good for them.  I don’t think Michael cares in the slightest, either.  But I will agree with Michael’s main point: all these high paid personalities - who would have a nearly impossible time making up their present income otherwise - are entirely dependent on the good graces of the very bishops who continue to lead the Church in such indifferentist, damaging ways.  That is why few of these top speakers/apologists EVER criticize the hierarchy.  At least, it’s a very compelling explanation for why they fail to do so.  Coffin, Kresta, Akin, Staples, Shea, et. al., virtually never, ever, emit even a peep of criticism regarding the failure to uphold ecclesial discipline, maintain the integrity of the Sacraments, defend the sanctity of life, make the salvation of souls the visible, 100% top priority for the Church, deny Communion to wanton apostates………..I could go on for a very long time.  In addition, most all of these top personalities also pretend, just about constantly, that the Church was created in 1965.  I think that speaks for itself.

I thought all this was quite obvious.  You cannot get that cherished “approved” status on the Catholic Speaker’s Guild without explicit episcopal approbation.  Having an STL from the Angelicum won’t do it – I know a very brilliant guy with one making $25k a year running the youth group at a San Antonio parish. To be an elite speaker, you have to have a sponsor. You have to be someone’s boy.  Someone has to like you.  And, for certain, you can never, ever sharply criticize the hierarchy, or you will instantly lose that cherished, and highly lucrative, approbation, as Michael notes above. I know several people who used to have quite lucrative careers with the Catholic Speaker’s Guild, but criticized the wrong thing, and lost their spot.

At least, things used to be that way.  More and more independent voices, not beholden to episcopal approval, are entering the fray, due to the massive leveling effect of the internet and Catholic blogs. Michael Voris not only does not have a sponsor, he seems to be despised by many in the hierarchy, but by keeping a lean operation and focusing exclusively on the good of souls, he has created quite a nice niche for himself. To which I say, good on you.

But others are not so approving.  I have watched with dismay over the past few years as Fr. Longenecker has, in my opinion, lost much that made his blog informative and even helpful to the cause of restoring the Faith. He makes plain in this post that he has no use at all for Michael Voris.  I could easily fisk the entire thing, but am not interested in doing that. I will simply note that the entire post is one long, sad ad hominem, so far beneath the dignity of a priest it is shocking.  Fr. Longenecker, I would like to think in his unthinking anger, does not even address Michael’s point – that the very generous compensation top Catholic media personalities receive plays a large role in their obeisance to the bishops regarding the crisis in the Faith.  That is to say, they don’t address the subject at all, or so gently and generically that whatever criticism is made, is so mild it is completely ineffectual, which is exactly what the bishops want, and demand.  To do otherwise is instant career-death – and for people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (an essentially irreplaceable income if they lose that critical approbation), this is no mean threat. The alternative might mean making $50k a year teaching religious ed at some parish somewhere – if they’re that lucky.  That’s not to say there are open threats to toe the line, or else!  There doesn’t have to be.  Top Catholic media personalities know the score, and they simply stay away from certain “controversial” topics. Not biting the hand that feeds one is one of the oldest human traits. But I share Michael’s fear that such behavior is only perpetuating, exacerbating the crisis in the Church.

Fr. Longenecker doesn’t even address that huge point, which was the focus of the Vortex above and many before, but instead tells us all what a bad, wicked person Michael Voris is, and who crowned him Emperor of All Catholics, anyway?  Fr. Longenecker also casually tosses out insinuations that Michael Voris is jealous of the income the Catholic aristocracy earns, which, knowing Michael personally, is so far off the mark it’s not even funny.  I would also say, mote and log, and all that. But I was shocked by the casual assertion of totally  unsubstantiated calumny, nonetheless. I note in passing that all bloggers at Patheos are monetarily compensated for their efforts, and Fr. Longenecker is at least tangentially a member of that elite Speaker’s Guild, which, good for him. I guess.

To answer Fr. Longenecker’s question, who appointed Micheal Voris arbiter of all things Catholic? No one did.  But as Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, with so much of the clergy and episcopate gone over to modernist revolution, if the Faith is to be saved, it is the laity who must do the saving. I thought much greater involvement by the laity in the Church was one of the core aspects of that “new evangelization” we hear so much about?  Or is that only a certain kind of involvement, say, a totally docile one? I tell  you, sweet readers, there has never been so much clericalism, as in the progressive dominated, “anti-clericalist” post-conciliar Church, where the laity are very encouraged to speak their mind, so long as they say nothing that makes anyone uncomfortable, or, sin of sins, evidence any old school Catholic intolerance (for how this came about, see my post on the heresy of Americanism). God forbid!

The moral quandaries and enormous temptations involved in ANY public role, in our media saturated (and worshipping) society, are prime reasons why I have not leapt at several offers to make this blog more public, do a book, or strive after speaking engagements, etc., although I have been approached for such, from time to time. Some of these, like writing a book, part of me would really like to do, but it seems like Grace prevents me, or laziness, one of the two. I wasn’t even ever entirely comfortable doing radio, except with Vicki, God rest her special soul. That is also why I still, after nearly 4 years, blog semi-anonymously, although hundreds of people know me as the author of this blog.

Oh, one final note. I thought the part in the video above regarding ALL’s criticism of CRS leading to Judie Brown’s husband losing a lucrative printing contract with…………CRS!……….disheartening.  What did the Browns think CRS would do?  And I have to say, it’s a bit disingenuous to be bashing CRS to bits over their funding of abortion and contraception (and rightly so), while at the same time depending on CRS for income.  Please. I thank God I do not have to make my living off the Church.

 

About these ads

Comments

1. Carol - September 1, 2013

Magnificent.

.Bravo

2. Barbara - September 1, 2013

You have very clearly explained the chasm between those of us who are very traditional Catholics who will give no sway to the modern culture and those whose faith is lukewarm who pretend to be faithful. To collude with errant priests and bishops is a sin in itself. To deny that collusion means that they are living a lie and we all know who the father of lies is. To continue living the lie means one is subject to the effects of iniquity wherein God turns those who are in grave and obstinate sin over to their own depravities so they no longer are of competent mind. The smoke is still entering the Church. They continue to deny it. Thank you for your courage.

3. Catholic4Life - September 1, 2013

Reblogged this on Catholic4Life and commented:
With all the politics aside, I was outraged how a Catholic Priest (Longenecker), in a public forum could actually ask the Horrid question, “do we need Michael Voris”. Fr. Longnecker was clearly out of line and should publicly apologize, what a horrible thing to say. I tried to post a comment on Fr. Longenecker’s blog in defense of Michael Voris but they didn’t publish it. I guess he can dish out the criticism but cannot take it. It is one thing to be criticized from Protestants or other faiths , but when it comes from your own, it is very sad indeed!!

Carlos Caso-Rosendi - September 4, 2013

The things that those in that group of “apologists” do to each other are much worse. Darkness abounds among them. You can tell the good ones just by observing them carefully. This is no big deal in comparison with other things Michael has suffered in the past. He may be a saint in the making like St. Ignatius Loyola. Please do not be scandalized by my comparison.

Catholic4Life - September 5, 2013

A word of caution be very careful who you hold in such High Esteem. I speak from experience I held a Priest at one time in “High Esteem” as many did, you may recall Fr. John Corapi’s Fall from Grace. The signs were there but I was too blind to see, I had just entered the church in 2008 and caught him one night on EWTN, but when I look back now he spoke Way too much about himself. One priest I think is genuine and the real deal, is Fr. Isaac Relyea, when he speaks it is not about him but ALL about Jesus. So no, I am not scandalized by your comparison but we must be very careful who we look up to, they might very well be a FRAUD!

Carlos Caso-Rosendi - September 5, 2013

St Francis Solanus (Francisco Solano) used to thunder against the vices of his day and suffered much. So did St Ignatius Loyola. My opinion on Voris is a cautious “may be” not one iota more than that. You are right. We must be careful. The sad case of Fr. Corapi (whose series on the Catechism educated me on the Doctrine of the Church when I was a freshly arrived convert) is a good thing to keep in mind. I am almost certain that Fr. Corapi will one day return to the fold, if he has not done so already in secret. God Bless.

tantamergo - September 5, 2013

That is a major reason why the priests on Audio/Video Sancto insist on anonymity. There are so many temptations, even among very pious, well meaning souls, for unhealthy cults of personality, disordered attachments, etc.

Another reason I try to keep this blog somewhat anonymous.

4. Joseph D'Hippolito - September 2, 2013

I have had bad experiences with Fr. Longenecker on his blog. He is an arrogant man with a tremendous sense of entitlement who will never honestly confront the consequences of his positions. He’s really a lot like Mark Shea, only with a bit less bile.

I make no excuses for him either as a priest or as a writer. As a priest, he should know better; that speaks for itself. As a writer, he should be professional enough not to let his anger get in the way of his message.

But he is not a professional writer. He is a poseur. Take it from me; I have written sports stories and political and religious commentaries for outlets in eight countries, including the United States. No professional behaves like Longenecker did … unless that “professional” is named Maureen Dowd (another poseur) and is protected by the New York Times.

I suggest that people not only pray for the parish in Greenville, S.C. where he is a pastor but send a letter to his bishop about his remarks.

5. TG - September 2, 2013

Good post. Judie Brown is not the bishop’s favorite either because she will not compromise on abortion and has criticized the bishops. She said Cardinal Dolan when he was bishop refused to dine with her. (Yet he dined with Obama.) I received emails and a letter from Catholic Answers. I don’t care for them since they got on me saying I criticized a priest. Their forum is nothing but opinions and people fighting. I admire Michael Votis for what he does and am thinking of sending him a donation.

6. MP - September 2, 2013

All of the usual kooky suspects at this blog.

Catechist Kev - September 2, 2013

Welcome kooky MP!

7. Brad Johnston - September 2, 2013

This.
A good Traditional Catholic blog to consider is Suscipe Domine.

8. Stephen Dalton - September 2, 2013

When I was coming into the Catholic Church, CA was a big help to me. But as the years went by, I noticed that they tended to recycle the same old stuff over and over again. This lead to, IMO, a stagnation of spiritual growth of anyone who would exclusively rely only on their material. Also, their promotion of people like Mark Shea was a definite downer for me. Really, they can’t get anyone better than this pompous, foul mouthed gasbag for their speakers bureau?

Joseph D'Hippolito - September 3, 2013

Stephen, I visited CA’s Web site sometime ago and it didn’t list Shea as one of its speakers. I don’t think Shea has even mentioned recently doing any work for CA, so the organization probably dropped him.

tantamergo - September 3, 2013

That’s true. He’s not on CA, at least anymore. But he’s of a piece with those who are.

9. Cathy L. - September 2, 2013

Being a printer does not make one a partner. If the Brown’s told CRS they would no longer provide printing services for them, they could have been sued for breech of contract. If they had, like many Catholic bloggers defended CRS and excused their involvement, I would agree that the printing relationship had compromised ALL’s mission. It was definitely “out of season” to reveal the truth about CRS’ association and partnership with PSI, CARE and USAID. Indeed, it cost AKA a large printing contract. In such a scenario, I would call them good servants, but the Lord’s good servant first.

10. phlogiston1667 - September 2, 2013

Thank you, thank you, thank you for a very timely and accurate post. One small quibble however. Regarding the Browns and CRS, if AKA were Judie Brown’s printing company, I would agree with you. To a lesser extent if Paul Brown still ran the company, I might still agree to some extent. But my understanding is that the company is now run by their son. Exacting revenge on the Browns themselves for the criticism might be understandable, even if unchristian, but their family members? That’s beyond the pale. Even for the modernists who still call themselves Catholic.

tantamergo - September 2, 2013

If it were me – and solely speaking for myself – if I had some income from an organization of the Church that I knew or strongly felt was committing grave acts of moral depravity, I would immediately seek to terminate that business relationship, no matter how lucrative or how much a portion of my income it made. See the paragraph on offers I’ve received and not followed up on.

Secondly, I have been very supportive of ALL’s work. Nevertheless, Judie Brown should have revealed this rather pertinent information, as it does color their relationship with CRS, even if in the past. At the least, it presents a possible conflict of interest, but given ALL’s strong stance against CRS, I think that revelation would have redounded to their credit, if they had said, for instance, “see, we are willing to put this business relationship at risk, we care so much.”

Full disclosure is best. This revelation was to me a bit unseemly.

11. skeinster - September 2, 2013

Two things:
1. Unless Mr. Voris has his mentioned bloggers on record as stating that they don’t criticize the hierarchy b/c they don’t want to lose their standing and $$$, he is dealing with conjecture and committing the sin of calumny.

It is human nature to want to know the ‘why” of people’s actions, but the virtue of benevolence requires us to put the best motives on those, until we actually KNOW better. This is very hard to adhere to, but that doesn’t change the requirement.

In effect, Mr. Voris is taking them to task for not being/doing what he thinks is best. He is entitled to his opinion, but not entitled to state motives, that may or may not be true.

2.The business of the Bishop strikes me as a bit weasely. Mr. Voris cultivates a reputation as a hard-hitter, so why be coy? This was his strongest point. Plus, the example of the Browns. The rest? See above.

I do like and appreciate MIchael Voris, but not when he’s in tabloid mode.

tantamergo - September 2, 2013

Sorry, I disagree. These are public actions of very public people going back years. They have been called out on these matters privately – I know this for a fact with at least some of the individuals involved – and publicly, with increasing intensity, and they have not put forth an effective answer for why they refuse to address the crisis in the Church. The remaining reason – self interest – will never be admitted to, especially publicly, and even a private admission is exceedingly unlikely, outside the confessional. At any rate, if there be any moral infraction here, it is more detraction than anything else. Calumny means making an assertion one knows to be false for the express purpose of damaging someone’s reputation. Detraction means making an accusation one knows or believes to be true, again primarily to harm someone’s reputation, but spreading it in public to those who are unaware of the claim. Did Michael or I commit detraction? I don’t know that speculation rises to that level. First of all, I don’t think Michael (or I) made the charge specifically to harm any of these personalities, but to goad them to start speaking out on these matters. That’s my motivation, at least. I don’t get the sense from Michael he’s concerned about anything else other than the good of the Church. The motivation in an act is critical – I pray these famous people make $1 trillion a year if that is what they wish, but that they speak the whole truth. Again, I know folks who have tried to engage these people privately and even semi-publicly on a number of occasions, and they refuse to do so. The reasons I have seen given (for instance, via a letter exchange between a local pious soul and more than one of these famous personalities) are weak and avoid the main point. I won’t go into that more, but if my small experience indicates that private intervention has been made in some cases, it is likely these folks in question have been so counseled or challenged across the board. Further, I think many faithful souls do wonder if the fact that certain folks depend on the good will of the bishops for their income does not color their work, so to speak. Do enough people believe such so that it is a common sentiment, and thus, any revelation made by Michael is really public knowledge. Given that he did not dig up the salary numbers, I think the case could be made that this speculation is pretty common, enough to be semi-public in our small concerned Catholic world.

We all have different emphases and different views on how public affairs should be conducted. Some are more confrontational, some shrink back from such. Being more forward, even to a degree that makes some uncomfortable, is not necessarily an exercise in sin. We are not talking about private acts of private individuals, we are talking about public acts of very intentionally public people. That also mitigates against detraction.

In sum, I don’t think any sin was committed here. At worst, it’s a failure of prudence, not an attempt to damage or destroy an individual or group out of malice.

In addition, there was no accusation made regarding a specific individual by either Michael or myself. We’re talking generally about those in the Catholic personality circuit.

I had another para here, but I deleted it. We can talk more privately about this if you wish.

12. TG - September 3, 2013

Tantagmergo, good points on your reply. You know many of the saints were very outspoken and just flat out called you a “heretic”. So that it is one reason why I don’t understand the mini mouse approach of many orthodox clergy and laity. I think some priests are also a bit afraid after what happened to Father Corapi. I know I admired him for saying the things I thought and same for Mother Angelica.

Does anyone know if EWTN is now under the control of the bishops? I remember reading in Raymond Arroyo’s biography of Mother that it is under control of the laity. I hate to say this but some of their new shows are soooo boring. I like the movies they show, some of the old shows, and the only new one I like is “Women of Grace”. Johnette does have interesting speakers and topics.

Sy Senior - September 4, 2013

I suspect of growing influence of Maciel’s Legionaries over EWTN. Mr Arroyo was very vocal in denying the existence of the Lavender Mafia… a bit too vocal I would add if I may.

13. St. Benedict's Thistle - September 3, 2013

It seems there is a concentrated effort to attack Michael Voris on several fronts. Go here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html.

Scroll down the page to find a headline titled ‘Michael Voris’ and notice that 9 of 11 articles Dave Armstrong writes about MV are from July 2013 onwards. They are, of course, highly critical and use ad hominem attacks quite freely.

The ‘professional Catholics’ are feeling some type of heat. ;-)

14. catquilt - September 3, 2013

Michael Voris is pointing out a very real problem in which the Catholic establishment media is not using its powerful voice to bear pressure on the Church to fix this apostasy that seems to be occurring. They (the media) are choosing to fiddle while Rome burns.

This is not unlike the national media ignoring the damage Obama is doing. But I guess it’s okay to complain about *that* media falling down on its job.

15. anabela33 - September 3, 2013

It is very unchristian to constantly criticise Priests, Bishops and Cardinals. Much division is being caused through this and it is not good for us in the Church. We are called to PRAY for them and not constantly berate them. All of this is causing division and we can see this on the Catholic blogosphere. It is very sad and I am sure the evil one is quite happy with all these Catholics fighting with one another.

Our Lord told St. Catherine of Siena:

You ought to despise and hate the ministers’ sins and try to dress them in the clothes of charity and holy prayer and wash away their filth with your tears.

Indeed, I have appointed them and given them to you to be angels on earth and suns, as I have told you. When they are less than that you ought to pray for them. But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayers and my own desire, will be merciful to them.

tantamergo - September 3, 2013

Good points. They are quite valid. Scandal is a painful situation. We have been up to our necks in it for decades, which is the fruit of the revolution in the Church. I feel called to try to address this scandal, to change the situation, in a more confrontational way. I can quote Saints who declare that scandal must be fought and opposed openly, publicly, even chastising the sinner. All must be done in prudence, and conscience. Some, in conscience, feel that there should never be public criticisms of our Church leaders, no matter how egregious the sin. Others take the tack of St. Peter Damian, who called for erring shepherds to be publicly outed for their sins and failings.

I love St. Catherine, and she certainly counseled prayer, for the most part, in dealing with these kinds of failings, but she also publicly rebuked sinners, including priests and bishops. She publicly rebuked those who embraced the anti-Pope Clement VII, calling them sons of satan and worse.

Scandal is a public matter that requires public redress. It is a matter of prudence and conscience to determine how best to address it. We must, of course, always observe the evangelical counsels and charity for those concerned, and our motivation in these matters is critical. If our motivation is simply to wound and embarrass those we see as enemies, our actions are sinful, but if we are motivated with sincere concern for their souls and the good of the Church, even public rebuke can be justified, and may even be necessary. The crisis in the Church has reached such proportions that many are convinced only public rebuke may be an effective means of ending the mass scandals that confront us every day. But, as I said, it is a matter of prudence, and conscience.

God bless you!

skeinster - September 4, 2013

I’m willing to concede that I might just not like Voris’s style at times- there is the impression that he is playing to his audience, and knows just the right notes to hit. My impression of the video was that he was, in fact, out to embarrass those named (or obliquely referred to) for personal reasons. For what I am sure he sees as their, and our, own good. But we can talk about that later…

16. Frank Smith - September 3, 2013

As someone who likes Michael Voris AND the “Establishment” Catholic media, I side with Voris on this one. I think more Catholics should criticize the Bishops for tolerating dissent and modernism inside the Church. I also think it’s perfectly reasonable to speculate that careerism and self-interest prevent more prominent Catholics from doing so. When I survey the madness in a typical “Catholic” parish or school, I am reminded of a Homer Simpson quote: “It’s like a freakin’ Country Bear Jambaroo around here!”

17. Michael Aiello - September 3, 2013

I was banned fro Catholic Answers because I expressed outrage over the censuring of a priest in the diocese of Washington DC who withheld the Eucharist from a lesbian who was openly living with and was civilly married to another woman. The priest was sent to Russia where he originated and the reason was that he was irritable when dealing with parishoners. I made the point that the man in charge in Washington, Cardinal Whorel was one of those whose name appeared on the infamous doculemt “Always our Children” that encouraged parents to let their children experiment with homosexuality.

The reason I was banned was that I was accused of attacking the clergy and wouldn’t repent.

tantamergo - September 3, 2013

It’s Cardinal Wuerhl, but point well taken.

It is very widely acknowledged that the Catholic Answers fora are wretched dens of scum and villainy.

Fenton - September 4, 2013

“Always our Children” that encouraged parents to let their children experiment with homosexuality.”

I’ve read this document and cannot find this. Can you point us to the paragraph?

tantamergo - September 4, 2013

Yeah, not sure on that. But it’s a very problematic document, nonetheless.

Faustina - September 5, 2013

I agree, I just read the document and I did not find it encouraging the experimentation with homosexuality. When we say things that are an opinion and not a fact it does not help to win the discussion!
I do have issue with Cardinal Wuerhl for not taking a stand on Washington “catholic” politicians.

18. Pseudonym - September 4, 2013

Thank you, as always, for the intelligent commentary. I was disappointed to see that on The Journey Home, Marcus and his guest, Dan Burke (from the Register) spent the first five minutes criticizing Voris (without mentioning him by name). I’m slated to be a guest on the Journey Home, and I can testify to your claim that lay apologists/evangelists know they can’t say certain things if they want to find a wider audience for their apostolate (hence my anonymous post). I’m a nobody, but I’ve censored my online comments for a while now because I didn’t want to leave a digital trail that would hamper my apostolate.

As your response to Anabela33 indicates, it is difficult to know what the will of God is in speaking against certain clergy and their policies. I wrote a long piece that was widely read (over 10,000 hits in a week), and it was clear to me while I wrote it that God willed that I pull my punches when I discussed the failures of the post-conciliar parish experience. I would have preferred to say something like what Fr. Shannon Collins said shortly before being banned from EWTN. Instead, I moderated my criticisms of the usual novus ordo experience, and instead focused on the beauty of the old mass. Many great evangelists have taken this approach–avoiding polemics while fully presenting the beauty of the faith and tradition. Fr. Hugh Thwaites comes to mind, as does Mother Theresa’s instruction to always receive on the tongue but without entering into verbal disputes. Speaking for myself, I also have a fear that I might be wrong in my strong opinions, and so in my arrogance may be working against God. Sorry for the long comment but I find these to be deep waters.

19. Pseudonym - September 4, 2013

When I enter into the beatific vision–God willing–I expect to find that the same commenter who variously calls himself “Anita Lay”, “Mona Lot” and “Dick Hertz” is none other than Mark Shea. It fits his sense of humor to use bawdy names (“Anita Lay” = “I need a lay”, etc.) while pretending to be the right-wing catholic rube he takes us to be. He also has a history of using fake names to post late at night and is obsessed with Pewsitter (which linked to this post).

Mark, I admired your “mea culpa” post, and I’d love nothing better than to hang-out and talk. It would do us both good. You know who I am and I live just down I-5. Drop me an e-mail.

tantamergo - September 4, 2013

Thanks for the heads up. I knew the flood of comments was from the same person. The very names of the commenters was (were?) grounds for banning.

I guess the implication is that uptight Catholics are sexually deprived. That’s a pretty common cheap shot, but hey, if that’s the best you’ve got…..

You know, back in my using days, especially when drinking, I would have a habit of getting a bit lit up at night and then troll various blogs or chat rooms, picking fights. The drunker I was, the more incendiary I would be. Whoever posted that last night, that would have corresponded to a nice, moderate buzz for me back in the day. Smarmy, but playful. Say, 8 beers in 2 hours kind of buzz.

Thank God, there’s help for all of us: http://portaltools.na.org/portaltools/MeetingLoc/

20. VIDEO: Michael Voris hits THE Catholic Relief Services Nerve | Pro-Life News - September 4, 2013

[…] Continue… […]

21. Benjamin Dover - September 4, 2013

Sorry, but you guys are wrong. Your assumption that “Anita Lay, Mona Lott,”et al, are someone you know, is incorrect. Nor did the poster claim to be anyone. You simply assumed. And you assumed incorrectly.

22. Stephen Dalton - September 4, 2013

Joe,m I didn’t know Shea was no longer used by CA. Still, why did they use him at all?

23. c matt - September 4, 2013

As for Voris, I agree he fills a niche that is sadly lacking among many of the professional Catholic apologists. Still, while he accurately assesses their tendency to avoid confrontation on the more hot button issues within the Church, they do a pretty good job of apologetics to non-Catholics. Heck, better than most Catholic schools have done over the last 40-50 years (not that the bar was very high). If they would stick to that, and not anathematization of anyone who thinks the TLM really did not need fixin’, much less its virtual destruction, they would go a long way to maintaining support.

tantamergo - September 4, 2013

Good points. And they do apologize for the Faith, viz a viz the culture and/or protestantism, quite well. But when one starts getting more deeply into the Faith, problems emerge. You realize these guys either get some things wrong or simply avoid certain topics. You don’t get the entire story.

And, they do have a tendency to ignore anything prior to 1965, except for the lives of some Saints. But, overall, they do quite good work, and I think Michael noted that, too.

24. Benjamin Dover - September 5, 2013

I’m watching Voris right now. All I can say is BRAVO, I hope EWTN and CA go BANKRUPT. Tomorrow.

25. anabela33 - September 5, 2013

I don’t wish in a million years for EWTN to go bankrupt because there are many people in other countries (my own included) who depend very much on them to keep their heads above water. Many people who can’t get to Holy Mass like my mother who is infirm at home loves and looks forward to the Holy Mass & the Rosary each day. If that was taken from her, that would be a big loss to her and to so many others. Some of us don’t get any homilies in our Churches and we don’t have the opportunity to just go to another Parish but we depend on EWTN to help us with that, to give good homilies and good teaching. EWTN provides a great service not only to USA but to the whole world. It preaches the Truth of the Gospel which we so badly need. They are doing what others are not. Be very careful what you hope for, because you may end up causing great division and hurt in the Church to the many faithful who live alone, who are ill or who simply don’t have access to a Church even and who dont’ hear the truth anymore. I understand Michael Voris’s frustrations but we need to think about the manner and way in which we criticise others because we could end up hurting many people in the process. I would ask people to not withdraw your support from EWTN because so many desperately need it. Please be careful what you say and how you say it. God bless.

tantamergo - September 5, 2013

Agreed. We have to have some balance. EWTN still does a great deal of good. Do I think it’s gone downhill in the past few years? Yes. But, much of their programming is still very solid. But, it will never be the same without Mother Angelica’s fire and faith.

EWTN played a big role in my conversion to the faith. When I was starved of the authentic faith, I got good doses of it from EWTN. Fr. Corapi, especially the early Fr. Corapi and his series on the Catechism, helped tremendously. I think EWTN still provides a great deal of good, especially for souls coming into/back into the Faith. I think it has its limits, and I’m afraid it shows signs of being gradually subsumed into USCCB dreck, but for now, it’s still a quite valuable resource.

26. TG - September 5, 2013

Agree with Anabel on EWTN. Not as good as when Mother Angelica ran it but still some good programs and of course the telecast of the daily Mass, rosary, and chaplets. Father Corpai’s shows and Mother ‘s shows have helped me in learning about the faith.

Tantamergo, are you doing a blog on what Michael Voris presented yesterday evening? I took my grandson to CCD class so I couldn’t listen to it.

27. Baseballmom - September 6, 2013

Thank you for a clear and concise appraisal of the situation regarding Mr. Voris and the Catholic Media. The Church is in a shambles and it is mainly the fault of the hierarchy and the clergy. When I tried to introduce a prolife talk I to my “Catholic” school I was reprimanded – along with the teacher – for doing so. We left, and started our own Catholic school to teach orthodoxy to our children. Twenty- two years later it continues to thrive.

tantamergo - September 6, 2013

That’s wonderful! God bless you!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 477 other followers

%d bloggers like this: