Will He Next Point Out The Errors in America the Beautiful?
Yes, it’s been going on for a few days. Mark Shea has dared to criticize Michael Voris for this video:
I could keep silent on this. I’ve noticed several people, however, offering their own responses, and, truth be told, though I agree that Mark Shea can go overboard, I also see Mark at least understands things are not as simple as Pharisees often want it to be. Mark can admit he goes overboard, and apologize. He can admit he does wrong. I agree with Mark sometimes, sometimes I don’t, but one thing I do see, Mark is more honest than Michael Voris. I see him struggling to understand and not just assume he is always correct. Voris just wants to be a demagogue, and he consistently misrepresents others if it will make him and the people he supports look better.Voris is willing to engage all kinds of fallacies, such as guilt by association, in order to decree someone as being evil. Sure, Mark can sometimes do so — but Mark will dialogue with people, and admit he can be wrong. Michael? He will just find more excuses to criticize you, all the while complaining that people are not being too charitable.
Now, many of the people defending Michael Voris and the Vortex talk about how he is willing to “say it as it is” but they criticize anyone who “says it as it is” when Michael Voris get it wrong. They show, like Voris, they are willing to throw all kinds of excrement on people, all the while complaining that people point this out and are judging them! Michael Voris, as I have pointed out before, gets things wrong; he misrepresents the Vatican so as to try to create some sort of false schism between the US Bishops with the Vatican. He shows himself ignorant of theology and yet willing to judge others and condemn them for theological error — something which, of course, is not in his authority to do.
However, it is also clear. Behind his rants is an ideology. It’s a very Americanist one. It looks at doctrine in light of American political expediency instead of looking at American political positions in light of the Church’s teaching. If he moved beyond his Americanist center, he would find many of his supporters abandoning ship. It’s one thing to criticize “Amazing Grace,” because it has Protestant origins (guilt by association). But woe to him if he were to criticize “America the Beautiful.” What would his followers do? I don’t think Michael Voris is willing to risk that. After all, he almost lost many of them when he did his video questioning democracy.
Comments are closed.
I dress like a Protestant?!?
Of course, Protestants wear pants!
I’m wearing Calvinist underpants.
I wonder what Voris thinks about this prayer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E8EYTyACQk&feature=player_embedded
I echo another Jesuit’s sentiment about this dude: “I want his job” and his smokin hot wife!
Does anyone know if Voris has much following outside VN? I’ve never heard of him through any other source, and have to wonder why his “message” (which looks like a dumbed-down parody of Bill O’Reilly) should merit a notice by anyone? I find the NASCAR prayer a more worthy topic for discussion.
Meantime, the scourge cross-denominational half-breed music is everywhere,… While shopping at Safeway, I heard Mr. Mister’s Kyrie on the Muzak track… Seriously.
Sadly, he has a _big_ net following which has allowed him to receive a great amount of funding. I suggest reading the comments on the blog posts I linked to, so you can see the kinds of response he gets from the blogosphere.
I’ve always liked this Mr Mister song, btw…
Exactly how do you know that Michael Voris has “a great amount of funding”? There is almost no one on the RealCatholicTV.com staff, including Michael, whose income exceeds the U.S. poverty level. His operation breaks even. It seems that anyone we don’t like is always described as “well funded” without any ability to prove the allegation.
He DOES have a “big NET following,” but you don’t need “a great amount of funding” to publish things on YouTube, where he happens to get more traffic than any other Catholic presence. The “Amazing Grace” video is over a year old. There have been FAR MORE controversial Vortex episodes in the last 14 months, and it is a mystery why THIS particular video should have created such a stir NOW. As you should know from the now closed comments on Shea’s blog posting, Michael Voris’ opinion on “Amazing Grace” is shared by others. It’s an OPINION and, as such, can be criticized. Or supported. So what?
His support has continued to grow, even after his Vortex on democracy, which happens to be consistent with both Plato and Aristotle, so it’s not like what he said there is “crazy.” Exactly how is it “Americanist” to recommend a monarchy governed by Catholic principles? If he didn’t lose support over that, it’s not likely that he will lose support over his OPINION on “Amazing Grace.”
Cardinal Burke meets with and counsels Michael Voris on his work. What are we to make of that?
RealCatholic Tv points out how expensive it is to make their videos and to keep their virtual tv station going. Therefore, I am taking them by their word. If it is so expensive, they must have funding from somewhere.
I agree there are a lot of problematic Vortex videos. I’ve pointed out many of his errors before, as have others on VN. However, as I pointed with links, people are talking about it now since Mark was shown it and said something about the video. One year is short in the life of the Church and responses to discussion points.
And I received communion from Cardinal Burke at a InsideCatholic mass. What are we to make of that? Seriously, guilt by association is a fallacy, but so is “justified by association.” Indeed, one of the ways many pseudo-Orthodox groups (non-canonical orthodox) try to portray themselves as acceptable is from any kind of association they can point to with the Patriarch of Constantinople (or Moscow). Association doesn’t make one’s statements valid. Many great saints were friends of, or teachers of, heretics, and many heretics teachers of saints.
RealCatholicTV is a for profit corporation and therefore not required to issue a Form 990. Real Catholic TV is of course not compelled to release their tax returns, but having chosen not they compel people to blind trust. St. Michael’s Media is a non-profit, but their Form 990 is not available online. I personally am not willing to go on your word that it isn’t a cash cow.
He has 8000 Youtube subscribers. If 1% of them have premier accounts, it amounts to $800/m. 10% would be $8000/m. That is just one revenue stream. I don’t know Voris’s speaking fee, but the honorariums for speakers typically run anywhere from $500 to $1000 on top of hotel accommodations, free meals, etc. Looking in the store, the margin looks to be north of 70-80%. But that is all speculation on my part.
The reason I bring this up is that you invoke the poverty defense for Voris’s operation. I personally consider it to be stealing to solicit alms when one isn’t in poverty. Voris is free of course to sell his product honestly.
I think it’s pretty easy to know what to make of the fact that Cardinal Burke meets with and counsels Voris.
“If it is so expensive, they must have funding from somewhere.”
RealCatholicTV.com has a combination of part and full time staff members, some of whom are volunteers, totaling 20 during the summer months and 16 once the school year begins. The overwhelming percentage of income is from premium subscriptions and sale of products. Even using your own estimates about honorariums, if Michael Voris spoke EVERY WEEKEND it would net him $50,000 of revenue, all of which goes completely into the “business.” Several staffers live with their parents because they can’t afford to live on their own, some even live with Michael Voris. That RealCatholicTV.com could ever be considered a “cash cow” is laughable. Their daily lives more resemble a community of religious than a “business,” with regularly scheduled times for prayer.
None of these “facts” have anything to do with whether what they do is good or even done well. It’s just too facile to dismiss people as “in it for the money” in the absence of any proof.
I know these people. Personally. They do what they do, every day, with the explicitly stated intention “to be used to save souls.” They have absolutely no financial support from the Church. Heck, their local ordinary won’t even meet with them personally but his staff regularly informs inquirers that everything Michael Voris does lacks formal diocesan approval due to “failure to comply with diocesan media protocols.” They have had access to ALL of his work from the very beginning and have not been able to find fault with his fidelity to the Magisterium or the Holy Father, and you can bet they would do so if they could.
I don’t mind ANY criticisms of ANY of Michael Voris’ content, but it is offensive to impugn his motives or to allege some kind of nefarious backing from “big donors.” You’re not going to find purer motives for doing what they are doing ANYWHERE. They can be wrong. They can be misguided. They can be delusional. But criticize their content, not their motives and presumed financial backers.
Christopher
Are you replying to two different people? Plus I said, he must have funding somewhere. From their own claims about how expensive everything is, again, they must have the funding somewhere. Seriously.
As far as I can tell, he does have a big following. He is by far the biggest Catholic presence on Youtube, leading Father Barron by millions of views.
Well, it’s interesting to find there are those who feel Mark is working for the Enemy:
http://throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com/2011/07/goodbye-to-knights-of-columbus.html
Liam
That was one of the posts I linked to if you click on the text…
Ah, I had not clicked on all of them. I didn’t think many people outside of Boston followed Carol M’s antics, that is, blog.
If you ever notice, I’ve been someone she has decided to consistently ridicule there. I see it when it happens, so I know of her nonsense.
This guy is an easy punching bag.
This is pathetic.
Is Voris an member of the, um, Work?
No, he is not.
One way you can take an educated guess whether someone is Opus Dei or not is if they publicly criticize any Catholic cleric or the hierarchy in general. OD folks are sworn (or whatever they do) not to do this. Voris’ stock in trade is lambasting clerics so that’s (just one) reason it’s highly doubtful that he is OD.
Wow! Voris has an STB degree. Gosh what an intellectual giant! Just another right wing pseudo Catholic yahoo. That he has a “large” net following is probably ironic evidence of the usual conservative claim that american Catholics are ignorant in matters of faith. It must be true if they listen to voris’ dross. Of course, we cant take comfort in knowing that however large voris’ youtube folloing may be–he still lags far behind all the singing cats.
I haven’t had as much time as I once did to peruse the Catholic blogosphere, but when I first heard of this guy, I thought it was a parody. I really truly did. Then I found out that it wasn’t. My reaction is still the same.
I had the same reaction. Ugh…
Voris’ followers have really harassed someone that I know who published something critical of him. Do you get the same thing? It is so unfortunate. What we do to the Body of Christ.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how evil is so well represented in fear and in exclusion… and in fear of exclusion by some folks. Who will then use fear to exclude others. And then there were none…
I’ve had some hounding against me by some people who also follow Voris, but I don’t think it is because of criticism I did on Voris as much as they follow his kind of way with others…
P.S. I have developed a huge appreciation of Mark Shea over time, it did take me awhile, but I have come to see him through new eyes.He can be over the top, but he says a lot of really true things and ones that others who are more ideologically inclined a particular way, will not say.
I, too, have developed a deep appreciation of Mark Shea.
For one, as you allude to Fran, he has no ideological axe to grind.
More importantly for me, his writing and wit exude the patience and breadth of God’s love– far more than does much what passes as orthodox Catholic in the current blogosphere.
He is a fine and oftentimes courageous man.
People without ideological axes don’t call other people Nazi sympathizers..
I haven’t advanced that far in holiness. Shea has consistently and considerably slandered this blog and its writers. For the most part, I try to ignore him. So when I saw this latest brouhaha, I considered writing something myself, but decided I had better things to do with my life. As Henry noted, Shea is being unfairly maligned.
Voris is a vile opportunist. He isn’t a critic of the USCCB. He is a petty demagogue of them.
This just in:
http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/07/25/world-youth-day-michael-voris-not-approved-by-us/
WYD Madrid has felt the need to officially dissociate themselves from Voris who will be providing his own “catechesis” in Madrid during the event.
Thanks be to God.
Henry I have to agree with Voris – on this one at least. Words, which ones we use and the context in which they are used, are extremely important. As a lawyer and the husband of a lawyer and the father of two lawyers I have learned to be careful with what I say around the house since I know it can and will be held against me. I have always had a little bit of sympathy for Bill Clinton when he gets criticized for parsing the meaning of the word “is”. That is what lawyers do.
Words are also important to theologians. In religion disputes words and their use, even if the differences seem minor and unimportant, have been important. For example, the dispute over the simple title of “Theotokis” vs “Christotokis” for Mary or the use of the word “Filioque” in the Credo in the early Church. Protestants, and I am sure many American Catholics, view these as silly things to fight over, but they were things our Catholic ancestors fought to the death over and that the Church considered extremely important. More recently just look at the great dispute over the translation of “pro multis”. I have a feeling that there will be bitching and moaning among liturgists about that for many years to come.
Catholics in the pew are no longer caught up in words. Responses at Mass often seem like they are being recited by a group of drug induced zombies. Hymns are chosen not because of their theological content but because we like the melody or the words are inspirational (like the contents of a Hallmark card). Maybe some feel that this shows a growth in religious maturity, but some, myself included, feel that this just shows a Church filled with Catholics who are both uneducated and blase about their faith.
Marv
As one who is trained in theology and has done all kinds of study with words (linguistics) I know full well the value of words. However, there is also something that can be done with words which are wrong — he is forcing an interpretation of the word wretch here, and it is not a necessary interpretation of the text. If you study classic Catholic hymns or Catholic authors, many use the term wretch as well.
Remember, the Bible itself is full of words, which people use to interpret all kinds of ways. Shall we deem the Bible wrong because Protestants understand grace one way and the Bible speaks of grace? Not at all. You will also note that many misunderstandings come out of the forced use of one word over others; the debate between homoousios and homoiousios was finally overcome by admitting both could be used if interpreted properly. The same, of course, is true with the filioque controversy and why the Church recognizes the creed without its use and even Augustine had to show how the filioque did not overcome the Father’s position in the Trinity.
This is an interesting dust-up. I have mixed views about Voris. On the one hand, he (and RealCatholicTV) are right to insist that the Church is more and deeper than the hierarchical offices. I have had enough experience with clericalism and diocesan administrative bureaucratese to make me appreciate any successful effort on the part of the laity to act for the Church without going through the burdensome process of working with diocesan staffs and (often) incompetent bishops. This all seems very “Spirit of Vatican II” to me, and I think it’s good and necessary.
On the other hand, the content of Voris’ presentations is sometimes one-sided, tendentious, and even simply false, while the tone of his presentations is always juvenile, sarcastic, and condemnatory, and both these aspects of his show I find problematic. Let me say clearly why Voris sometimes utters false things, since often his defenders will claim that nothing he says is in contradistinction to the Magisterium. Voris will often so oversimplify an open-area of theological investigation that he creates dogma where there is none: for example, in his episode on apokatastasis (universal salvation), Voris conflates a perfectly legitimate and orthodox position, “possible universalism,” with “universalism” per se, leaving his audience with the impression that the “few are saved” teaching of Augustine and Aquinas is the only orthodox position on the table. This is simply false. Voris narrows orthodoxy all the time to fit his own views of what form orthodoxy should take. The latest controversy over “Amazing Grace” is a case in point. This is why it is not unhelpful to view him and his followers as modern day Donatists.
So I’m in the position of appreciating the form of Voris’ ministry while finding the content and tone off-putting and dangerous. I wonder, though, if we’re not missing what is, from a sociological standpoint, really fascinating about Voris and RealCatholicTV (and what also helps explain the Corapi phenomenon). We have here a curious melding of American protestant distrust of ecclesial structures (the USCCB is the bete noir) combined with an oddly deferential regard for the Pope, a generally right-liberal “Americanist” outlook on economics and social problems, all put in the service of what claims to be “orthodox” catechesis. It is really a strange bird, one that could only fly in America.
Very well said. Vorris does eventually touch on some valid critiques once he gets to the theology in “Amazing Grace” (e.g. a negative anthropology and a weak ecclesiology), but unfortunately the valitidy of these critiques are buried under an avalanche of sectarian overgeneralizations. So while there are sometimes theological pitfalls to beware of (whether our hymns are written by Protestants or Catholics), I would venture to say that, more often than not, interchurch hymn borrowing can show us what we already have in common – not because we’ve accomodated to the “merry heretics” but because we all confess the same Lord.
“…but unfortunately the valitidy of these critiques are buried under an avalanche of sectarian overgeneralizations.”
Sort of like claiming everything about America is evil Calvinism.
OK, I confess. Voris gets some of his money from me. I’m a premium subscriber, and I generally like his work. Yeah, some of his work I take exception to, but overall I like it because the other blogosphere Catholics are too wimpy and reserved (not referring to Mark Shea, Bob Sugenies, or E. Michael Jones–oops, guilt by association, sorry Mark). I’ve met Voris at a Lagatus meeting and found him to be a good fellow. Voris is aware of the criticisms, but doesn’t care too much. He feels duty bound to tell the truth.
For the record: I like Mark Shea.
Sam
Certainly Voris’s arguments here aren’t very good. But I found this utterance by Shea rather surprising:
Voris’ sole message is “I am the measure of Real Catholicism and those who agree with me have the right to call themselves Catholic, while those who disagree are liars and lukewarm fake Catholics”.
What does Mark Shea see when he looks in the mirror? Every one of his sentences attacking Voris could equally well be directed against himself. I got tired of his polemics long ago.
Another link to this topic:
http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/world-youth-day/on-the-event-not-approved-by-the-wyd-office