Mr. Voris does an excellent job but I do object to some of his rhetoric and how it is lifted from the categories of our enemies.
One such example is his use of pedophilia. The problem is not pedophilia and Poggi identified the sex crimes as being committed against adolescent males; and women, not children.
That is not pedophilia.
I also object to Christian Catholics using "Gay" when they., presumably, mean homosexuals.
As it is the case that the queers have taught the Church to call homosexuals, Gay, maybe we should, as Ralph wisely suggested recently, teach the Church to call the EF Mass the Gregorian Rite.
For my measly part, that is what I will do from now on; no more Ef this or TLM that; It will be Gregorian Rite.
I know what I have written can be seen as leaden pedantry but words do matter.
Dear Dr. THis will seem an odd aside (because it is) but were Mr. Voris to go into Saint Peter's and dip his fingers into a fount and then make the Sign of the Cross, would he be blessing his own self with Holy Water or Happy Water?
IANS has a Saint Michael the Archangel Holy Water Fount in his house and he gets his Holy Water from Christ the King Catholic Church in Sarasota (FSSP Apostolate) because the water in the Catholic Congregational Communities (CCC) around his house only have Happy Water; that is, due to the reformed Book of Blessings, the water in the Founts, or bathtubs, to be found in our Catholic Congregational Communities (CCC) ain't Holy as has even been admitted at the Brick By Brick Bund.
Happy Water does not call down from God a Blessing upon the person who uses it nor does it remit his Venial Sins; however, many of the bath tubs in our CCC gathering spaces have fountains in them which sound soothing to ears that itch; so, we've got that going for us, which is nice.
I think Mr. Michael "Jeremiah" Voris is becoming generally more careful than he has been in the past, but some of these terms are used incautiously, I agree; and by many others besides him.
While I don't have time to go into definitions, it's important to realize that many such terms as "pederasty," "pedophilia," "ephebophilia," etc. have fairly specific definitions, even though they're not always used carefully. Another problem is with terms like "homosexual" and "gay," "gender" and "sex," as Young points out in this article, which have largely been co-opted by the left in their bid to change the culture through preempting use of the language for their ends.
I admit to using terms I don't even believe in, because they've become a sort of short hand in contemporary society. I suppose if we were all more careful, we would shun using "gay" and even "homosexual" as nouns, because there is no metaphysical basis for such beings. Rather, there are only human beings, just like you and me, but with disordered attractions. If I were consistent, I wouldn't even use the terms "they" and "their" as third person singular prepositions, which they aren't, in PC substitution for "him" and "his."
Fr. Z once had a post on the new rite of blessings, particularly for holy water, and raised the same questions you do.
I left the same information on FB - hope you don't mind. I don't know which you visit more often.
With "I am not Spartacus", I'm concerned that Voris is promoting the least charitable and most scandalous interpretation before the facts are more firmly established. Although, he's improved, I still think he has a tendency to do that sometimes.
This general subject (homosexuality and priesthood) is one on which I'm particularly sensitive because of a personal experience I had some years ago in my state. I hope you don't mind if I copy/paste an article I wrote about it below. The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that included an article I wrote for a local newspaper. My diocese also printed my story as their unofficial "response" the the Springfield Union News.
There is an erroneous report reiterated by [name deleted - he's a priest and former editor of a well-known traditionalist Catholic magazine] and which in turn has been quoted by at least one other Catholic publication. [The priest] wrote: "80% of priests in an east coast diocese refused to sign a petition that seeks to have the state legislature approve a ballot referendum which would legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
I live in the diocese referenced, the Diocese of Springfield, Mass. After doing some primary research, I wrote an article correcting this erroneous report in the local papers. However, the paper that printed this report (The Springfield Republican, part of Newhouse News Service) refused to print my initial letter to the editor. Instead they printed an inferior letter to the editor that only somewhat addressed the problem with their report. In fact, there is an eye-opening story directly related to this latter circumstance that I will relay at the end.
Below is a copy of the article I wrote that was published in other local and diocesan papers. Catholic Clerical Support of Marriage Petition Much Higher than Reported
Michael, I'm responding both places (FB and Musings), therefore, I will simply copy the content from one to the other place.
First, I appreciate your concerns generally. We're obliged to balance the demands of charity for our priests with the demands for truth and honesty. Sometimes it's a fine balance. We have examples on both sides. Fr. McGivney in standing up in defence of priests; St. Catherine of Sienna in holding the feet of popes to the fire.
Second, one has to read the times. One of the most pressing needs of our time is cleaning our own house, which is in many different ways in disarray -- from sex scandals to catechesis. One real danger in our own time is uncritical acceptance of everything "charitable" said by the mainstream conservative Catholic media that would divert us from just criticism of the catastrophic crisis we face today. There is a time and place for every purpose under heaven (was that The Birds, or Ecclesiastes?).
Third, I have posted my own criticisms of Mr. Voris in the past more than once; so I have no problem with what you say on that score. I wish everyone had as easy access to his hour-long "studies" of issues as they do to his "Vortex." The latter is relatively from-the-hip, as you suggest, and not always as careful a the latter. The latter, if you haven't ever had a chance to follow them, are masterfully-crafted detailed, balanced, and nuanced presentations. His hour-long feature on "Homosexuality" is well worth studying. It's very good.
For my own part, I would not hasten to say anything to damage the public image of Mr. Voris, for several reasons. He has already been unjustly criticized on many fronts (I cannot go into detail here for various reasons). He is providing a service to the Church that I judge to be invaluable. He is addressing, in his Jeremiad manner, problems in today's Catholic Church that most priests dare not even mention. That is why so many people come away from listening to Mr. Voris feeling like they get more from his talks than from homilies at church. There is an air of unreality about homilies in which the tires never hit the road. Voris is nothing but tires racing down the road. He speaks to what people know in their bones to be true. The Church is half dead. Some countries in Europe have stopped even pretending there is a Church. Voris know this, and says it, and scandalizes others by it, but people know it's true.
The most charitable interpretation of the things you say regarding Mr. Voris would be to say that he may be easily misunderstood in some details. When he cited a cleric who suggested that the percentage of homosexuals in the Church could be upwards of 90%, this wasn't Voris expressing his own view, but quoting another, for example. If you go back and revisit his episodes on the College of Cardinals, and the breaking news of the prostitution ring, for example, he used the term "rumors" in more than one place (I can't recall them all off the top of my head). He quickly admitted in a subsequent follow-up about Patrizio Poggi allegedly lying that some of the story might not be true, but held out on the flash drive allegedly containing recorded evidence, as well as on the two priests who accompanied Poggi to the police.
The verdict may still be out on this particular "little" story; and that may be your main point. At the same time, there is no end of incontrovertible details about the vast extent of the same-sex scandals in high places in the Roman hierarchy -- from Rembert Weakland to the coverups of the early 2000's, and more recently the red dossier left by Benedict to his successor, and his successor's admission of the existence of a "Homosexual Lobby" in the hierarchy. I personally don't think the numbers involved are nearly so many as some suggest; but I think that the extensiveness of the problem is huge, that there are clusters and informal 'cells' throughout the world. I am personally acquainted with more than one via correspondence.
With "I am not Spartacus", I'm concerned that Voris is promoting the least charitable and most scandalous interpretation before the facts are more firmly established. Although, he's improved, I still think he has a tendency to do that sometimes.
Dear Michael F. My minor quibble was with the use of pedophilia.
That aside, I think Mr. Voris is one of the few who has the cojones to call a sodomite a sodomite and there are large nests of such vindictive vipers infesting ecclesiastical structures and I no not have one iota of belief that the Hierarchy has the courage or the capacity to undertake the titanic struggle that is necessary to purge these perverts from the Church
First, let me acknowledge that you've also voiced your concerns about Voris. We agree on that. We also agree that he has done some very fine work at times. I think we also agree that he could be a very important force for good in the Church.
You write, "The verdict may still be out on this particular "little" story; and that may be your main point."
That's correct. The last section I wrote on FB regarding the false reporting related to the petition to preserve the traditional definition of marriage is what it all boils down to for me. (Starting from the paragraph that begins with "I think we all need to be more careful in publicly reiterating information, even, or perhaps especially, information that fits well with our personal preconceptions.")
You write, "He is providing a service to the Church that I judge to be invaluable. He is addressing, in his Jeremiad manner, problems in today's Catholic Church that most priests dare not even mention. That is why so many people come away from listening to Mr. Voris feeling like they get more from his talks than from homilies at church."
From personal experience, I'm wary of those who set themselves up in such ways. He is, unfortunately, developing something of a cult of the personality. That's not bound to end well, imo. I know another Catholic individual who was similarly inclined - I used to volunteer for him, if you recall. If one is to engage the serious and dangerous battle Michael Voris wants to engage, one must be duly armed with a large dose of humility, wisdom and prudence. I don't see sufficient evidence those virtues at this time.
I'm not saying that Voris will ultimately go down that same road as my old colleague. But I do see some significant warning signs. Perhaps more importantly, I worry that others will be increasingly tempted to adopt his "ready, fire, aim" approach to such matters. He's doing important work that could just as easily turn detrimental to souls as helpful to them, imo.
But again, my comments were as much (or more) about how we should respond to accusations than it was about Voris.
Love your remarks. As to "sodomites," I remember Dale Vree, the former editor of New Oxford Review, being roundly condemned for his essay endorsing the studied use of the term "fag" when referring to those who embrace the Elton John school of "gay" life. Very funny, except to the overly serious Catholic mainstream, which is sometimes as inimical to laughter as the liberal left.
13 comments:
Mr. Voris does an excellent job but I do object to some of his rhetoric and how it is lifted from the categories of our enemies.
One such example is his use of pedophilia. The problem is not pedophilia and Poggi identified the sex crimes as being committed against adolescent males; and women, not children.
That is not pedophilia.
I also object to Christian Catholics using "Gay" when they., presumably, mean homosexuals.
As it is the case that the queers have taught the Church to call homosexuals, Gay, maybe we should, as Ralph wisely suggested recently, teach the Church to call the EF Mass the Gregorian Rite.
For my measly part, that is what I will do from now on; no more Ef this or TLM that; It will be Gregorian Rite.
I know what I have written can be seen as leaden pedantry but words do matter.
Dear Dr. THis will seem an odd aside (because it is) but were Mr. Voris to go into Saint Peter's and dip his fingers into a fount and then make the Sign of the Cross, would he be blessing his own self with Holy Water or Happy Water?
IANS has a Saint Michael the Archangel Holy Water Fount in his house and he gets his Holy Water from Christ the King Catholic Church in Sarasota (FSSP Apostolate) because the water in the Catholic Congregational Communities (CCC) around his house only have Happy Water; that is, due to the reformed Book of Blessings, the water in the Founts, or bathtubs, to be found in our Catholic Congregational Communities (CCC) ain't Holy as has even been admitted at the Brick By Brick Bund.
Happy Water does not call down from God a Blessing upon the person who uses it nor does it remit his Venial Sins; however, many of the bath tubs in our CCC gathering spaces have fountains in them which sound soothing to ears that itch; so, we've got that going for us, which is nice.
IANS,
I think Mr. Michael "Jeremiah" Voris is becoming generally more careful than he has been in the past, but some of these terms are used incautiously, I agree; and by many others besides him.
While I don't have time to go into definitions, it's important to realize that many such terms as "pederasty," "pedophilia," "ephebophilia," etc. have fairly specific definitions, even though they're not always used carefully. Another problem is with terms like "homosexual" and "gay," "gender" and "sex," as Young points out in this article, which have largely been co-opted by the left in their bid to change the culture through preempting use of the language for their ends.
I admit to using terms I don't even believe in, because they've become a sort of short hand in contemporary society. I suppose if we were all more careful, we would shun using "gay" and even "homosexual" as nouns, because there is no metaphysical basis for such beings. Rather, there are only human beings, just like you and me, but with disordered attractions. If I were consistent, I wouldn't even use the terms "they" and "their" as third person singular prepositions, which they aren't, in PC substitution for "him" and "his."
Fr. Z once had a post on the new rite of blessings, particularly for holy water, and raised the same questions you do.
Hi Phil -
I left the same information on FB - hope you don't mind. I don't know which you visit more often.
With "I am not Spartacus", I'm concerned that Voris is promoting the least charitable and most scandalous interpretation before the facts are more firmly established. Although, he's improved, I still think he has a tendency to do that sometimes.
This general subject (homosexuality and priesthood) is one on which I'm particularly sensitive because of a personal experience I had some years ago in my state. I hope you don't mind if I copy/paste an article I wrote about it below. The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that included an article I wrote for a local newspaper. My diocese also printed my story as their unofficial "response" the the Springfield Union News.
(continued)
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
There is an erroneous report reiterated by [name deleted - he's a priest and former editor of a well-known traditionalist Catholic magazine] and which in turn has been quoted by at least one other Catholic publication. [The priest] wrote: "80% of priests in an east coast diocese refused to sign a petition that seeks to have the state legislature approve a ballot referendum which would legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
I live in the diocese referenced, the Diocese of Springfield, Mass. After doing some primary research, I wrote an article correcting this erroneous report in the local papers. However, the paper that printed this report (The Springfield Republican, part of Newhouse News Service) refused to print my initial letter to the editor. Instead they printed an inferior letter to the editor that only somewhat addressed the problem with their report. In fact, there is an eye-opening story directly related to this latter circumstance that I will relay at the end.
Below is a copy of the article I wrote that was published in other local and diocesan papers.
Catholic Clerical Support of Marriage Petition Much Higher than Reported
(continued)
I put the rest of the information on your FB page, Phil. Too cumbersome in this comment box.
Thanks.
Dear Dr. Dang, here i am running off at my fingers about others using Gay while I am guilty of using Homosexual
Thanks for the link to that article. From now on, it is sodomy and sodomite when writing about Lust.
Michael, I'm responding both places (FB and Musings), therefore, I will simply copy the content from one to the other place.
First, I appreciate your concerns generally. We're obliged to balance the demands of charity for our priests with the demands for truth and honesty. Sometimes it's a fine balance. We have examples on both sides. Fr. McGivney in standing up in defence of priests; St. Catherine of Sienna in holding the feet of popes to the fire.
Second, one has to read the times. One of the most pressing needs of our time is cleaning our own house, which is in many different ways in disarray -- from sex scandals to catechesis. One real danger in our own time is uncritical acceptance of everything "charitable" said by the mainstream conservative Catholic media that would divert us from just criticism of the catastrophic crisis we face today.
There is a time and place for every purpose under heaven (was that The Birds, or Ecclesiastes?).
Third, I have posted my own criticisms of Mr. Voris in the past more than once; so I have no problem with what you say on that score. I wish everyone had as easy access to his hour-long "studies" of issues as they do to his "Vortex." The latter is relatively from-the-hip, as you suggest, and not always as careful a the latter. The latter, if you haven't ever had a chance to follow them, are masterfully-crafted detailed, balanced, and nuanced presentations. His hour-long feature on "Homosexuality" is well worth studying. It's very good.
(continued ...)
(continued ...)
For my own part, I would not hasten to say anything to damage the public image of Mr. Voris, for several reasons. He has already been unjustly criticized on many fronts (I cannot go into detail here for various reasons). He is providing a service to the Church that I judge to be invaluable. He is addressing, in his Jeremiad manner, problems in today's Catholic Church that most priests dare not even mention. That is why so many people come away from listening to Mr. Voris feeling like they get more from his talks than from homilies at church. There is an air of unreality about homilies in which the tires never hit the road. Voris is nothing but tires racing down the road. He speaks to what people know in their bones to be true. The Church is half dead. Some countries in Europe have stopped even pretending there is a Church. Voris know this, and says it, and scandalizes others by it, but people know it's true.
The most charitable interpretation of the things you say regarding Mr. Voris would be to say that he may be easily misunderstood in some details. When he cited a cleric who suggested that the percentage of homosexuals in the Church could be upwards of 90%, this wasn't Voris expressing his own view, but quoting another, for example. If you go back and revisit his episodes on the College of Cardinals, and the breaking news of the prostitution ring, for example, he used the term "rumors" in more than one place (I can't recall them all off the top of my head). He quickly admitted in a subsequent follow-up about Patrizio Poggi allegedly lying that some of the story might not be true, but held out on the flash drive allegedly containing recorded evidence, as well as on the two priests who accompanied Poggi to the police.
The verdict may still be out on this particular "little" story; and that may be your main point. At the same time, there is no end of incontrovertible details about the vast extent of the same-sex scandals in high places in the Roman hierarchy -- from Rembert Weakland to the coverups of the early 2000's, and more recently the red dossier left by Benedict to his successor, and his successor's admission of the existence of a "Homosexual Lobby" in the hierarchy. I personally don't think the numbers involved are nearly so many as some suggest; but I think that the extensiveness of the problem is huge, that there are clusters and informal 'cells' throughout the world. I am personally acquainted with more than one via correspondence.
Kind regards in Our Lord and Lady, PB
With "I am not Spartacus", I'm concerned that Voris is promoting the least charitable and most scandalous interpretation before the facts are more firmly established. Although, he's improved, I still think he has a tendency to do that sometimes.
Dear Michael F. My minor quibble was with the use of pedophilia.
That aside, I think Mr. Voris is one of the few who has the cojones to call a sodomite a sodomite and there are large nests of such vindictive vipers infesting ecclesiastical structures and I no not have one iota of belief that the Hierarchy has the courage or the capacity to undertake the titanic struggle that is necessary to purge these perverts from the Church
Thanks, Phil. (I replied on FB as well)
First, let me acknowledge that you've also voiced your concerns about Voris. We agree on that. We also agree that he has done some very fine work at times. I think we also agree that he could be a very important force for good in the Church.
You write, "The verdict may still be out on this particular "little" story; and that may be your main point."
That's correct. The last section I wrote on FB regarding the false reporting related to the petition to preserve the traditional definition of marriage is what it all boils down to for me. (Starting from the paragraph that begins with "I think we all need to be more careful in publicly reiterating information, even, or perhaps especially, information that fits well with our personal preconceptions.")
You write, "He is providing a service to the Church that I judge to be invaluable. He is addressing, in his Jeremiad manner, problems in today's Catholic Church that most priests dare not even mention. That is why so many people come away from listening to Mr. Voris feeling like they get more from his talks than from homilies at church."
From personal experience, I'm wary of those who set themselves up in such ways. He is, unfortunately, developing something of a cult of the personality. That's not bound to end well, imo. I know another Catholic individual who was similarly inclined - I used to volunteer for him, if you recall. If one is to engage the serious and dangerous battle Michael Voris wants to engage, one must be duly armed with a large dose of humility, wisdom and prudence. I don't see sufficient evidence those virtues at this time.
I'm not saying that Voris will ultimately go down that same road as my old colleague. But I do see some significant warning signs. Perhaps more importantly, I worry that others will be increasingly tempted to adopt his "ready, fire, aim" approach to such matters. He's doing important work that could just as easily turn detrimental to souls as helpful to them, imo.
But again, my comments were as much (or more) about how we should respond to accusations than it was about Voris.
Pax Christi, Michael
Regarding Michael Vorris, he positively fulfills the gist of two quotes that come to mind from the evangelist Dwight L. Moody:
"I prefer the way I do it to the way they do not do it."
and
"Most peoples prayers need to be sawed off at both ends and set on fire in the middle."
tempagp
JM, IANS,
Love your remarks. As to "sodomites," I remember Dale Vree, the former editor of New Oxford Review, being roundly condemned for his essay endorsing the studied use of the term "fag" when referring to those who embrace the Elton John school of "gay" life. Very funny, except to the overly serious Catholic mainstream, which is sometimes as inimical to laughter as the liberal left.
Post a Comment