Rorate Caeli

Editorial note: A matter of equity and justice

On the case of RealCatholicTV.

Code of Canon Law, Can. 216: "Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority."
_________________________________

Dr. E. Peters (via Fr. J. Zuhlsdorf) is right on the simplest interpretation of the Canon: "The plain text of this canon [Can. 216] unquestionably puts the burden on those behind an undertaking to secure consent from the competent ecclesiastical authority before claiming the name 'Catholic' for their project(s)."

However, even if one ignores the significant aspect of who has actual canonical competence in this case (or in any case involving online media based in several different canonical jurisdictions), he passes over one very, very relevant point, which is as important in Canon Law as in Common or Civil Law: Law and Justice must walk hand in hand. That is particularly relevant in Ecclesiastical Law since one expects a heightened sense of moral considerations in its application. Therefore, while it is true that the burden is on the side of "those behind an undertaking", there are burdens of justice on the side of the "competent ecclesiastical authority": if he wishes to proclaim loudly that A "cannot use the name Catholic", he must in justice do the same with every single enterprise within his jurisdiction, be it B or C or U, which must be under constant examination for whether they "deserve" to use or keep using the title "Catholic".

In this, as in most cases involving serious Catholics in the past decades, what irks people, even if they somehow do not know how to express it, is precisely this: the injustice in the application of the law by dioceses or even by Higher Authority. There is nothing in law more prone to abuse than an apparently "clear" or "plain" law, precisely because it demands great care in its application, that is not supposed to be simply uniform, but must be equitably just for all. Do all remember how the "clear" and "plain" "abrogation" of the Traditional Mass was defended by most Canonists for decades, and how abuses became norms in the Pauline Mass, while the Traditional Mass was persecuted with no quarter?...

Is stating that something that "claims the title 'Catholic' does not have canonical authorization to do so" a regular action of the Archdiocese of Detroit? Or does the Canon apply only to one particular enterprise? How about sending a "Defend the Catholic Name Inspection team" to every parish and "institution" in the diocese: we are absolutely convinced that a team composed of orthodox Catholics would be horrified at what is being said, done, and taught under the "Catholic" name from some pulpits and in classrooms. It is not even really hidden: for a very diminute example, the Catholic & Jesuit University of Detroit Mercy has never stopped linking to Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women in their website (and this is what is available in one single webpage, one shudders to think at what may take place in "Women and Gender's Studies" classes in the university.) Despite the appropriate behavior of the Archdiocese during the "American Catholic Council"/Call to Action conference last year (see 1, 2, 3), the canon on the prohibition of the word "Catholic" without "consent" was never invoked even then, when the actual integrity of Catholic doctrine was affected.

Let us be clear: the selective application and loud proclamation of this Canon for one case only, amidst the disastrous situation of the Church in general, looks ridiculous. It  does not make the Archdiocese look admirable and law-abiding, but petty and small. Finally, the fact that it is completely unenforceable in civil courts, since the Archdiocese does not have exclusive intellectual property rights over the name "Catholic", makes it look weak and toothless. "Dura lex sed lex" has always been a problematic brocard; it can also be dangerous when those guided by it are not informed by a keen sense of equity and justice. 

53 comments:

Catholic Tim said...

Attention Attention !

Let this Real Catholic TV episode
be an eye opener for Catholics and all people of good will.

Orthodox Catholics have been put through the ringer by these same diocesan apparatchiks for nearly forty years. Partisans of error?

The worst are those individual clergy, gangsters in Roman collars,
who have persecuted holy laity and religious unmercifully.

Second, those mini-Pope lay people
who site Vatican II but can never quote the beauty within the actual documents.

The Arch-Diocese of
'Destroy-t' (Detroit) just might
be the epi-center of the post Vatican II chaos.

Doubt it? Come to Detroit & see ...

Tim

'An ordinary CATHOLIC guy'

p.s. I didn't ask permission either

Tom the Milkman said...

The selective application and loud proclamation of this Canon for one case only IS ridiculous. The Archdiocese looks petty and small because it misbehaves in a petty, small, self-loathing way. The 'Justice and Peace' Church knows nothing of the justice of the Gospel. Robbers and thieves stole the Roman mass, they will take what they can, and threaten for the remainder. And Catholic people STILL put money in the Sunday coffers. It's unbelievable.

Charlie said...

Well, the fact is that the chancery in Detroit has long actively supported the anti-Catholic catholics. Fr. Hardon spoke of this, saying the diocese funded organizations such as Call to Action, not just looked the other way.
What a shame.

Prof. Basto said...

A great editorial. Absolutely agreed.

Mike B. said...

For too many years the hierarchy has exposed its left side of the aisle bias. For generations now, we tell each other that the 'Call to Action' generation will be replaced.

In fact, the nepotism within the fundamental leadership structure of the Church consistently chooses its successors. The training and planning for this continuation of heterodox leadership is ingrained to evangelize its successors.

Archbishop Sheen told us it will take the laity to "save the Church", i.e. overturn the status quo. That cannot be done from a prayerful hiding place. God helps those who help themselves; those willing to pay the white martyrdom price.

Thank-you for your excellent essay on this travesty of justice.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Veritas said...

The very selective use of the crozier is not at all isolated, and reminds me of the situation in the Diocese of Rochester. Here, Bishop Clark used his mighty power to suppress the Catholic Physicians' and Lawyers' guilds when they, gasp!, publicly defended the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Meanwhile, his excellency Clark allowed the militant homosexual organization Dignity-Integrity to operate in his diocese unchecked, even to go so far as to appoint an official diocesan liaison to this organization! To this very day, diocesan employees/pastoral associates offer "Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest" services for Dignity-Integrity. Has he been made aware of this? Yes. Has he used similar justice like he did against the Physicians and Lawyers guilds? Nope.

Furthermore, Bishop Clark allows the Rochester-based dissident homosexual group "Fortunate Families: Catholic Families with Lesbian Daughters and Gay Sons" to use the word Catholic in their title. Not a peep about this from the chancery. Only those faithful to Church teaching on homosexuality are targeted for ecclesial justice in Rochester.

Matthew said...

New Catholic, thank you for formalizing the reaction of many.

I am ceminded again of Mr. (Dr.?) Mosebach in The Heresy of Formlessness lamenting the need for the average faithful Catholic nowadays to have so much knowledge about the technical aspects of these things because the faith of the average devout Catholic has been so persecuted.

Tradical said...

Hi Mike B,

I'm curious.

What is your plan of action?

Cheers!
A Catholic

Ecclesia Militans said...

How can anyone be surprised with the actions of the Conciliar Church anymore?

The only possible explanation of this matter is that to this bishop the word 'Catholic' obviously means something different than what it means to "RealCatholicTV".
Isn't this indicative of the mentality of the Conciliar Church, similarily as these words below are indicative of its value:
"By their fruits you shall know them."

Peterman said...

I grew up in Detroit during the peak of the implementation of Vatican II. I was born in 1970 so by the time I became coherent the Church of my fathers was already long annihilated and replaced with guitar strumming and dove banner hanging. I attended mass every Sunday, Catholic grade school and catechism and what did I learn about the faith? NOTHING. Mission accomplished Vatican II and Diocese of Detroit!

When I go back to visit family these days some don't even attend mass on Sundays. Now they've just announced another round of Church closings and consolidations and coincidentally many of the Churches closing are old, beautiful churches. How about shutting down some of the 70's high temples of bugninism?

Stop obsessing about Voris AOD and worry more about the souls you're responsible for!

M. A. said...

Yes, I agree that this editorial is magnificent. Thank you, N.C.

May I answer the following question for Tradical:

"What is your plan of action?"

I believe it will be something along the lines of rallying for a married priesthood. That's the cure-all for all problems with the hierarchy you know.

Forgive me, NC. If you don't post this, I understand. I just can't help myself.

TenkaiStar108 said...

I think the Archdiocese is just afraid that people like Voris, who actually knows what CATHOLIC means, will make the faithful eventually demand TRUE Catholicism from their so-called pastors.

P.K.T.P. said...

Much ado about little. We all know the real reason why the Archdiocese is objecting, so let's stop beating around the bush and just say it. Real Catholic T.V. is really Catholic; hence the title. The Archdiocese is truly conciliar and therefore really pagan.

P.K.T.P.

De Liliis said...

Selective enforcement has long been the tool used by those in authority to destroy actual Catholics.

Suppress the Catholics, and claim disobedience if they resist, and let their scandalous friends run wild.

It's a tool of ancient provenance.

Julian the Apostate used it liberally. So do his spiritual successors.

Ceolfrid aef Dealgancaester said...

Look, it's this simple:

If you're Catholic and want to take Catholic tradition seriously, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the ordinary diocesan hierarchy will simply not support you and, as this example shows, might actively 'persecute' you while remaining indifferent to or supportive of anti-Catholics using the name 'Catholic'.

This is why many good Catholics leave the ordinary diocesan Churches and seek refuge in societies such as the FSSPX.

If the Vatican were serious about ending the rift between the FSSPX and the rest of the Church, it would simply reinstitute Catholic tradition as the norm, and not the exception-by-permission.

I am not Spartacus said...

Dear N.C. Smashing commentary. You pack fair and square and you hit hard and fair.

This is Rorate Caeli at its Editorial finest and this is but one reason, among many other reasons, that this is, by far, the best Catholic Site.

Daniel Arseno said...

Real Catholic TV has been around for years. Why this sudden attack?

Could it be that the modernists are on the defensive and are panicking? It feels as if they're grasping at straws by using canon law to silence faithful Catholics.

Ever since the election of Benedict XVI, we've been constantly hearing modernists decry a wind of conservatism blowing through the church. They're getting edgy because they know that they're losing.

Kathleen said...

Thank you for this article, New Catholic, you have done an admirable job of cutting to the crux of the matter -- the injustice in this situation and others like it.

It is apt it follows on the heels of Côme de Prévigny's excellent articles on Saint Joan of Arc. While a direct comparison would of course be ludicrous, one can't help find an echo of the trial of Joan with its "Discarding the most elementary rules of justice, it heard only the accusers and grasped at the most irrelevant details" given the Archdiocese has ignored Mr. Voris seven requests to meet.

As someone that lives within the Archdiocese of Detroit I can provide a little more information that may, perhaps, help in understanding the situation.

I believe this situation with RealCatholicTV is one part of a larger counter attack being waged by entrenched sodomites, modernists, and their sympathizers within the Archdiocese.

Things have, very modestly, not been going entirely their way lately.

And they had it very, very, very good for a long time. They got their big break when John Dearden was given a red hat. Cardinal Dearden was not just a sympathizer or an enabler of those that sought to overturn God's Law on sexual morality -- he was in the vanguard. He was a key player in the revolution. And he didn't renounce his revolutionary positions when he was made Cardinal -- he simply became vague. And as we know, being vague often is the most effective way of leading large swaths of the flock astray. His appointment of the infamous Bishop Gumbleton and the rampant flourishing of the sodomites during his era capped off the damage.

Cardinal Dearden was followed by two Cardinals that were, to keep it as simple and charitable as possible, not strong.

That brings us to Archbishop Vigneron. Archbishop Vigneron is a marked improvement. He has shown kindness to traditional Catholics (unheard of here) and actually celebrated confirmations in the ancient rite here. He has strongly supported the pro-live prayer vigils, not just once but routinely under awful weather conditions. And he stood up strongly to the modernists on a recent incident. These are things that were unheard of previously.

But that brings us to the sodomites and their sympathizers. This was a major stronghold for them. And for every one that was upfront and vocal we must expect a number that were working diligently behind the scenes without identifying their agenda. While some key players among the upfront and vocal ranks have been cleared out we must assume that many of those exerting power behind the scenes remain.

Put succinctly, I believe, Archbishop Vigneron operates within a nest of vipers.

Which also, I believe, ties into what is going on with Assumption Grotto and Fr. Perrone. Michael Rose exposed the filth in Detroit and the antidote -- a handful of good priests including Fr. Perrone and what those good priests suffered, in his two books, "Goodbye, Good Men" and "Portraits of Ten Good Men Serving the Church Today." The revolutionaries did not crush Fr. Perrone. Instead the Grotto, under him is flourishing. And now it and the only other parishes using the ancient rite have been put on the list of parishes that are under threat of closure.

Archbishop Vigneron stood up to the sodomites in California on Prop 8. That was no easy thing. This situation in Detroit is really, really, no easy thing. We need something extremely rare in the Church today -- we need a strong and true Apostle of Our Lord. We won't get it without prayer and sacrifice.

If any of the good souls here could keep Archbishop Vigneron in their prayers it would be no small act of charity.

PEH said...

There is one law above canon law - divine law. The institutional Church would do well to remember that. But, no, that will not be the case because the modernists are intent on destroying whatever remains of the divine law in the hearts and souls of faithful Catholics. This editorial is priceless!

Torkay said...

I think Daniel A. is on the right track: Miachel Voris & Co. must be getting too close for comfort. And/or, this is another move calculated to suppress the nascent Catholic sensus fidei and pave the way for untroubled and continued support for Comrade Obama, who is most likely still the clear voting booth choice of the hippy-dippy generation of clergy.

Ivan K said...

It's not just that the exercise of authority is selective. Even more scandalous is the fact that it is unprincipled. Heresy is tolerted and encouraged--e.g. Neocats, 90% of the "Catholic" professoriate, and so on--but orthodoxy is persecuted. Voris did not promote heresy, make false claims about doctrine--he did nothing that would warrant denying him the right to use the word "Catholic." He did not even--gasp!--question any of the treasures of V2. At most he claimed that V2 has been misinterpreted, misused. He has been very much in the "neocatholic" stream in that respect. There is, therefore, absolutely no doctrinal basis for this draconian action against Voris.

Ivan K said...

Someone at WDTPRS has pointed to this lovely group in the Archdioce:
http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/aboutus.html

Note their list of speakers, which includes 'Fathers' McBrien and Chittister.

jasoncpetty said...

It seems more to me like the AoD is simply trying to appear "fair and balanced" or moderate in its application of censures, minimizing griping from liberal or faithful Catholics (cf. Bp. Bruskewitz coming down on Planned Parenthood and the SSPX in his diocese at the same time).

Andrew said...

I'm no fan of RealCatholic TV, I often find Voris' commentary to be petty, that being said, your article is right. This is an injustice because it seems this harsh treatment is being applied only to those who are seen as "traditional Catholics". I may not like Voris style, but he is NOT a dissenter. He is a faithful Catholic. His channel does not preach any heresy. That cannot be said of many "Catholic" institutions that operate unmolested by the hierarchy. For example, the National Catholic Reporter is rife with dissent and outright heresy. It is never censored by the Bishops, rather it is often found in the back of Catholic parishes. I am sick of this double standard and hypocrisy by the Bishops. They are bullies. As they only pick on small groups of traditional Catholics (the very people who actually believe in this whole Catholicism thing) and then bend over backward to appeal to those who have no respect for the teachings of the Church. I am sick of the whole lot of them.

John said...

Veritas: You address your concerns about Bishop Clark's leadership in the Diocese. Thank you for mentioning his overwhelmingly leftist leadership. That being said, let me add by saying that his destruction a few years back of Sacred Heart Cathedral was disturbing. How does a Diocese spend 11 million dollars on relocating the organ behind the new free standing altar and rip tradition from its walls when parishes and schools are closing in the Diocese? How is the Cathedral perceived by people who visit the tomb of Archbishop Fulton Sheen? It's truly a disappointment and I do pray that a new orthodox bishop is appointed.

New Catholic said...

Dear Kathleen,

You are not the only one to view this charade through the eyes of what took place 580 years ago in Rouen. What a great coincidence... Naturally, like you, we were tempted to mention Saint John of Arc in the text itself, but it would probably be misinterpreted precisely because, as you recall, they are very different situations - and Voris, whom we do not know personally, would certainly be the first to admit that he is no Joan of Arc!

However, the situations have some (extremely mild) similarities; besides those you mention, we would add the pathetically condescending tone of Canonists regarding the "common people", the "webmasters" and "combox jockeys" (!?!?), in the word of one of these Canonists, who "are not the ones who are going to solve this", since this "will be solved exclusively according to Canon Law" by the "competent authorities"... Right... We know it: let us see how they solve it!

580 years ago, the greatest Canonists of the greatest University of the age, the University of Paris, each one of whom had more Canon Law in their minds than all Canonists of our age put together, did what they did to the poor Maid. Sometimes, the "lowly people" have greater common sense than entire chanceries, they recognize good fruits when they are there for all to see, and they expect their Shepherds to be just, because God is a just judge.

Regardless of that, and regardless of the civil courts, what else can a local Ordinary do?... Excommunicate the owners of an enterprise for the use of the name "Catholic" without consent, when no doctrine is affected and no schismatic organization is founded? Of course not: his hands are tied, the most the Archdiocese can do is release note after note clarifying that the enterprise "does not speak for the Church" (that is, for the Diocese), which everybody knows already. It all looks quite pathetic and sad.

NC

Anil Wang said...

Ceolfrid aef Dealgancaester, "If the Vatican were serious about ending the rift between the FSSPX and the rest of the Church, it would simply reinstitute Catholic tradition as the norm, and not the exception-by-permission."

UE does go a long way towards this, but if the SSPX accepts that preamble, they will have a Personal prelature. Effectively, this would make traditionalism the default and Mr. Vorbis and other traditionalists could go under their wing.

Carol said...

One of the most egregious and harmful examples of an organization using the title "Catholic" without consent and in defiance of the competent ecclesiastical authority is the Catholic Worker Movement founded by Dorothy Day in 1933. A recent study based on documentary evidence from archival sources shows that the so-called Catholic Worker was a Communist front organization whose aim was to bring Socialism into the Catholic Church. In this book (see http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Worker-Movement-1933-1980-Critical/dp/1452078424/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325783033&sr=1-1 for reviews), details are given of Dorothy Day's battle with the New York hierarchy and her refusal to comply with the Code of Canon Law which required permission for the use of the word "Catholic" both for her organization and newspaper.

Inigo_Hicks said...

Canon 221 also applies to this dispute: "the Christian faithful also have the right to be judged according to the prescripts of the law applied with equity." Is it an equitable application of law to a canon against a single individual when many other likely violators are ignored? For fuller discussion, please see http://inigohicks.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-dr-peters-overlooks.html

Jordanes551 said...

Uh oh, Mr. Wang, you said "personal prelature." You can expect Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins to set you straight shortly . . . . :-D

Samuel J. Howard said...

A recent study based on documentary evidence from archival sources shows that the so-called Catholic Worker was a Communist front organization whose aim was to bring Socialism into the Catholic Church.

A self-published "recent study" you appear to be the author of.

The Catholic Worker does in fact operate with the approval of the Archdiocese of New York, which has put forward the cause for the canonization of Dorothy Day. In doing so, Cardinal O'Connor wrote the following:

"It has also been noted that Dorothy Day often seemed friendly to political groups hostile to the Church, for example, communists, socialists, and anarchists. It is necessary to divide her political stances in two spheres: pre-and post- conversion. After her conversion, she was neither a member of such political groupings nor did she approve of their tactics or any denial of private property. Yet, it must be said, she often held opinions in common with them. What they held in common was a common respect for the poor and a desire for economic equity. In no sense did she approve of any form of atheism, agnosticism, or religious indifference. Moreover, her complete commitment to pacifism in imitation of Christ often separated her from these political ideologies. She rejected all military force; she rejected aid to force in any way in a most idealistic manner. So much were her "politics" based on an ideology of nonviolence that they may be said to be apolitical. Like so many saints of days gone by, she was an idealist in a non-ideal world. It was her contention that men and women should begin to live on earth the life they would one day lead in heaven, a life of peace and harmony. Much of what she spoke of in terms of social justice anticipated the teachings of Pope John Paul II and lends support to her cause."

Thankfully, erroneous political opinions and/or bad political judgment don't rise to the level of heresy unless they are actually heretical.

You can dissaprove of what they do, what they believe politically, or how they do it, but you're not entitled to libel them as a "Communist front organization whose aim was to bring Socialism into the Catholic Church."

Dorothy Day was famously asked by the ecclesiastical authorities in New York what she would do if the Archbishop asked her to shutter the paper. To the horror of some of her comrades, she said, "If our dear, sweet cardinal, who is the vicar of Christ in New York City, told me to shut down the Catholic Worker, I would close it down immediately."

Mike B. said...

Tradical,
Your query opens a dilemma for me in St Petersburg. I find those wedded to Devotional Groups are the most knowledgeable, and the least valiant. As an old friend going back 30 years said to me when I came here four years ago: "Michael, these are my friends." The implication was evident on her honest face; to speak out beyond her devotional group friends was a 'No Go'.
We have a wreckovation process of our cathedral in progress here [to be entirely paid for by every parish]. I don't expect anything more than mumbling among the majority of diocesan parishioners.
We have had many an evidence (Bishop has his own radio show) of heterodox sympathies.

When Florida voted 62% for Traditional Marriage inside the State Constitution, it was without any public assistance by Catholic Pastors who were instructed to say nothing.
In addition when the strange one in Miami was replaced by the excellent Bishop Wenski, our bishop removed the diocese from the Catholic statewide newspaper.

All that said, I find this southern U.S. diocese more Christian/Catholic than my Rochester experience. Frankly I do not believe we will see real change until or unless the Devotional women rebel publicly. They are the inner core of Catholic holiness and the real power of Catholic Laity.

Pro-Lifers taught us that. The good priests would have the backing they need to speak out.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Florida

Xavier Rynne said...

Combox jockeys. Now there's charity and humility for you. Nothing like insulting your audience to make you sound smarter (in your own mind). I think everyone already knows that it is up to the competent authority to resolve this issue.

Amos Moses said...

Well, Mr. Voris et alia can just change the name of the program to something without "Catholic" in the title like "St. NAME TV" and the problem with be solved: He can keep doing what he does, and the Diocese can't do anything about it.

Long-Skirts said...

Kathleen said:

"We need something extremely rare in the Church today -- we need a strong and true Apostle of Our Lord."

We HAD one and he was rejected BUT...his Priestly Order grows and grows in the True Faith and they're hated & rejected even more!

SACERDOS

“They have abandoned the Fort, those
who should have defended it.” (St. John Fisher)

Who held the Fort
Till the Calvary came
Fighting for all
In His Holy Name?

Who fed the sheep
As the pastures burned dry
A few Good Shepherds
Heeding their cry?

Who led the charge
‘Gainst heresy’s Huns
Defending the degreed
To His lowliest ones?

Who battened down
The hatch of the barque
To warm cold souls
From shivering-seas dark?

“Who?” mocks Satan
Delighting in doubt
Fills you with questions,
Never lets you find out.

“Hoc est enum
Corpus meum…
…and for many…” who kept
The dead words – Te Deum!

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Jordanes551:

Yes, indeed, Mr. Wang should be taken to task for suggesting a structure which is not a particular church equivalent in law to a diocese (cf. Canon 368) and which, under Canon 297, requires the consent of the diocesan bishop to operate in his see. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see how that might present a wee problem.

That kind of a structure might delight the heart of Jordanes--I don't know--but, for real traditionalists, it would be like having a hole in the head. Perahps Jordanes needs to be reminded that the local bishops are entirely the problem, not the Pope. How would Mr. Wang and Jordanes convince, say, the Archbishop of Rheims or the Bishop of Las Vegas to allow such a personal prelature to operate in their respective sees? What do Mr. Wang and Jordanes have in mind? A bribe? I say this to answer sarcasm with sarcasm because some local bishops would rather die in battle than allow even one Latin Mass in their dioceses. In fact, one of them was ... Cardinal Levada, when he was Archbishop of San Francisco. How easily we choose to forget.

Moreover, under Canon 294, a p.p. is composed entirely of secular priests and deacons. So Jordanes might want to explain to the Dominicans of Avrillé, an affiliate of the S.S.P.X, why they are suddenly excluded from the arrangement. I'd love to hear their brilliant explanation.

John Paul II was far from great but he did come up with the solution. It's called a personal particular church, under Canon 372.2. He even created the first one so that people such as Jordanes would have a precedent when they get confused in the night. It's called the Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney. Unlike personal prelatures, personal apostolic administrations and personal dioceses ARE particular churches, completely equivalent in law to dioceses. Sounds good to me. But then I'm intelligent enought to get it.

Another solution would be the personal ordinariate structure given twice now to Anglican-Catholics. While these are not particular churches, their governance is equivalent to that of dioceses. Their ordinaries sometimes need to inform and consult local bishops but never to gain their permission for anything.

Permission, Jordanes, that's what it's all about, eh? Every time one of us suggests the p.p. structure, he helps to pave the way for its acceptance. I merely suggest that, guess what?, that would be a baaaaaad thing. It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

Well, in all truth, and we are not being disingenuous, it is not called "Real Catholic TV', but "RealCatholicTV", a new word in which the letters c, a, t, h, o, l, i, c are together. It seems they use the word separately in some of their videos, though (we would not know).

NC

Canonical Legal Disclaimer: This web log comment mentioning the word 'Catholic' was not previously submitted to any diocesan authority. The word 'Catholic' is used here without prior consent of a diocesan authority.

Anonymou said...

Along those lines, New Catholic, can I post comments here under this moniker?

New Catholic said...

Anonymou? LOL. Sure, but, along those lines you should rather use "RealAnonymousCommentator", for instance.

Canonical disclaimer: The nom-de-plume "New Catholic" includes the name "Catholic" but it has not received prior consent of a diocesan ordinary for its use. The author is a Catholic - but this last use of the same word has not received prior consent of a diocesan authority, either. This whole comment was not submitted to any diocesan authority for approval.

Jordanes551 said...

Mr. Perkins, I wasn't being sarcastic, just a little jocular. I know you are diligent to explain why a personal prelature would not at all be a good canonical structure for the SSPX, and I think you are entirely correct about that -- so I expected you to correct Mr. Wang whenever you saw his comment. You might say I was bringing his comment to your attention and inviting you to explain once again why it would be a bad move for the SSPX to accept a personal prelature.

Joe Potillor said...

The diocese has bigger fish to fry, like heretic Bishops and priests...why they're worrying about a lay station beats me...

I sympathize with the SSPX more and more.

Mike B. said...

Dear Tradical,

This lady is the scholar who with enormous research explains our most serious ongoing problem, which [in my opinion] needs Devotional Groups to publicly speak out against. From 12/17/2011:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/111217

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, Florida

Tracy Hummel said...

From what I understand, they did receive approbation from the local authority. Real Catholic TV is based in another diocese and the bishop there gave them his OK.

New Catholic said...

Dear Marie,

Sorry for deleting your comment; we saw Peters's last text, and our answer to Kathleen above was already made in reference to it. We repeat it below:
______

Dear Kathleen,

You are not the only one to view this charade through the eyes of what took place 580 years ago in Rouen. What a great coincidence... Naturally, like you, we were tempted to mention Saint John of Arc in the text itself, but it would probably be misinterpreted precisely because, as you recall, they are very different situations - and Voris, whom we do not know personally, would certainly be the first to admit that he is no Joan of Arc!

However, the situations have some (extremely mild) similarities; besides those you mention, we would add the pathetically condescending tone of Canonists regarding the "common people", the "webmasters" and "combox jockeys" (!?!?), in the word of one of these Canonists, who "are not the ones who are going to solve this", since this "will be solved exclusively according to Canon Law" by the "competent authorities"... Right... We know it: let us see how they solve it!

580 years ago, the greatest Canonists of the greatest University of the age, the University of Paris, each one of whom had more Canon Law in their minds than all Canonists of our age put together, did what they did to the poor Maid. Sometimes, the "lowly people" have greater common sense than entire chanceries, they recognize good fruits when they are there for all to see, and they expect their Shepherds to be just, because God is a just judge.

Regardless of that, and regardless of the civil courts, what else can a local Ordinary do?... Excommunicate the owners of an enterprise for the use of the name "Catholic" without consent, when no doctrine is affected and no schismatic organization is founded? Of course not: his hands are tied, the most the Archdiocese can do is release note after note clarifying that the enterprise "does not speak for the Church" (that is, for the Diocese), which everybody knows already. It all looks quite pathetic and sad.

NC

Marie said...

Oh, my comment just pointed out that Peters had a second post on this topic. I just saw Father Z had it up where it can be discussed

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/01/more-canonical-stuff-on-archd-detroi-v-voris-real-catholic-tv/

New Catholic said...

Thanks, Marie.

As said above, there is no way to hide outrage regarding Peters's incredibly condescending comment about the fact that the matter "will not be decided" by "webmasters" and "combox jockeys" (?!?!). Yes, we know it. If it were for the "little people", this whole question would not exist, because it is a false problem, a made-up problem, created by the usual adulators.

But have you all noticed how the "Council" exists only when it suits its defenders? The little lay faithful, the "webmasters" or "combox jockeys", or whatever disparaging name Peters may wish to use, have every right, in justice, in law, and certainly according to the letter of the Council, to ask questions about, and disagree with wrongheaded and unjust decisions of the hierarchy and their canonists. The little people have no need of Canonists pointing out to them what is obvious, i.e., that they have no deciding power in such a matter, but they can speak up about what they see as unjust, whatever might be the decision in such a case, a problem that did not even need to exist.

Peters's main point in using this condescending language is clear, a thinly-disguised argument from authority: you are not competent to decide, so be quiet. No, no, and no: nobody needs to listen, but, unless the integrity of Catholic doctrine is menaced by doing so (which is certainly not the case), there is no reason for the lay faithful, wherever they are in the world, not to speak up.

NC

Xavier Rynne said...

Yes. And didn't VII declare that we are all "the People of God." Or did it call us plebes and combox jockies whose opinions carry no weight.

what a joke.

Marie said...

Thanks NC

Now, I didn't take "combox jockies" quite the same way. I took it in a more humorous light.

Anyway, count me among the proud combox jockies!

Ladybird said...

What "power" do we "little people" really have? Do we have any? The Bishops it seems can do whatever they want. Roman authorities only intervene in few, egregious cases...and even then not! Consider the case of Fr. Frank Pavone! 3 1/2 months in Amarillo, without even a "trial." Must we trust that God works through ecclesiastical authority, even if it is heretical (although subtly or not so subtly)? Are we supposed to be quiet and submit? And does speaking out do anything anyway? To whom can we speak, if the very Bishops are against us? I suppose that at best -- and this is best -- that suffering these persecutions, as Jesus did from religious authorities in His day, we, as Mr. Voris, Fr. Pavone, will be purified and rendered more like Him, so that we shall be ready to see Him as He is, as St. Joan was and is...

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Jordanes:

Well, I fear that the matter of the structure for the S.S.P.X is moot anyway: there will apparently be no reconciliation and no canonical structure. Still, nothing at all is considerably better than a personal prelature.

So, what is coming for the S.S.P.X? Perhaps a recognition of some sort. Perhaps even a recognition that the Society's judgement that there is a state of necessity is honest, thereby having certain canonical effects ....

The Pope surely must do something as he weakens and approaches his 85th birthday.

P.K.T.P.

I am not Spartacus said...

We have a wreckovation process of our cathedral in progress here [to be entirely paid for by every parish]. I don't expect anything more than mumbling among the majority of diocesan parishioners

Dear Mr Brennan. I live in Wellington, Florida and if you provide me with chains and a lock, I will chain myself to any Altar the iconoclasts seek to destroy and you can alert the media which loves controversy.

I'd love to have your Bishop order the Police to cut my chains and drag me from the Cathedral while I am being filmed by the media describing why I will not let The Bishop destroy the Altar because it represents Christ, etc etc.

Do not for a moment think I am joking; I am as serious as a heart attack.

The good folks at Rorate Caeli have leave to give you my email so you can contact me.

Ed Peters said...

This has been an illuminating thread, if not quite in the way that several posters probably intended it. Anyway, I thought "combox jockey" was funny, even self-deprecating, as I am one myself, as it evident! Best, edp.

New Catholic said...

Thank you very much, Dr. Peters. I think the discussion can be closed now.

NC