Real Catholic Tv's Statement

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1326336509' post='2367332']
I have to say my favorite part of the article was the graph that stated his site "has become relatively well known in the pro-life and pro-family world due to Voris’ straight-talking defense of the right to life and sanctity of the family." I didn't know that advocating for the abolition of democracy fell under the category of pro-life or pro-family! Wow I learn something new every day.

I'm sure everyone can understand why a guy who puts out a video advocating dictatorship as the best form of government, and who headlines it RealCatholic TV, would draw some negative attention from his bishop.
[/quote]
The Church has no special knowledge in determining the best form of government. There is nothing especially Catholic about democracy.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326909152' post='2371052']
Technically speaking using the strict interpretation of AoD Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters the canon law in question is broken/violated when a Catholic association uses the name Catholic without first acquiring permission from the competent ecclesiastical authority to do so. On that [u]premise[/u] a Bishop wouldn't have to make a statement but the law would still be broken and the act would still be an act of disobedience.
[/quote]

So then you are changing your position on realcatholictv.com and accepting the fact that you were originally wrong?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1326909539' post='2371054']
So then you are changing your position on realcatholictv.com and accepting the fact that you were originally wrong?
[/quote]

Your question is invalid. My postion remains the only wise postion imho on the guilt or innocence of Voris and RCTV. Which is I await for the Church to clear up the confusion over which Bishop has authority, if the law is being applied without prejudice, among other matters. My use of Dr. Peters premises was show how Phatmass could also be in violation of Can. 216. Because there was so much condemnation of Voris and RCTV when there is still confusion and uncertainty over the case. It seemed unwise for so many here to make such absolute judgements on the guilt of Voris and RCTV, when Phatmass could just as easily be guilty of breaking/violating Can 216 as well. This reasoning is based on Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:3, and Romans 2:22-23.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326909152' post='2371052']
Technically speaking using the strict interpretation of AoD Canon Lawyer, Dr. Peters the canon law in question is broken/violated when a Catholic association uses the name Catholic without first acquiring permission from the competent ecclesiastical authority to do so. On that [u]premise[/u] a Bishop wouldn't have to make a statement but the law would still be broken and the act would still be an act of disobedience.
[/quote]

Of course. Which is why it doesn't matter which bishop has jurisdiction - you can't just call yourself 'Real Catholic TV' without [i]first asking permission[/i], which they failed to do. However, if no bishop points this out to you, you can claim ignorance of canon law - seriously, many lay Catholics would have no idea about this. So, then, when it is pointed out to you, you rectify the situation. You ask a bishop for permission, or...you do what you're told.

You change your name from "St. Mary's Catholic School" to "St. Mary's: A School in the Catholic Tradition"

Etc.

All legal and above board.

Since this is "Phatmass" not "Catholic Answers", there's no real charge against [b]dUST[/b]. I don't know anything about the people who run Catholic Answers, so you'd have to ask them if they obtained permission from the local bishop to use the name. Maybe they did; I wouldn't know. Likewise with the difference between "Ave Maria Singles" and "Catholic Match." There is no expectation that the former obtain permission to use the name.

[dUSt]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326917189' post='2371082']
Your question is invalid. My postion remains the only wise postion imho on the guilt or innocence of Voris and RCTV. Which is I await for the Church to clear up the confusion over which Bishop has authority, if the law is being applied without prejudice, among other matters. My use of Dr. Peters premises was show how Phatmass could also be in violation of Can. 216. Because there was so much condemnation of Voris and RCTV when there is still confusion and uncertainty over the case. It seemed unwise for so many here to make such absolute judgements on the guilt of Voris and RCTV, when Phatmass could just as easily be guilty of breaking/violating Can 216 as well. This reasoning is based on Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:3, and Romans 2:22-23.
[/quote]

I think you're getting too legalistic. It's obvious that Voris' bishop doesn't like his message or the way his message is presented. That's the bottom line. Thats why the "law" was invoked. My bishop bought CD's from me. I'm under the assumption that if he didn't like phatmass' message or the way we present our message, I would have heard something. I guess there are certain benefits of sticking to the rule of not openly and publicly criticizing the hierarchy.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326928598' post='2371164']
Of course. Which is why it doesn't matter which bishop has jurisdiction - you can't just call yourself 'Real Catholic TV' without [i]first asking permission[/i], which they failed to do.

...

Since this is "Phatmass" not "Catholic Answers", there's no real charge against [b]dUST[/b]. I don't know anything about the people who run Catholic Answers, so you'd have to ask them if they obtained permission from the local bishop to use the name. Maybe they did; I wouldn't know. Likewise with the difference between "Ave Maria Singles" and "Catholic Match." There is no expectation that the former obtain permission to use the name.
[/quote]

Jurisdiction matters. Canon Lawyer Fr. Mark Gurtner, believes jurisdiction resides with the Indiana diocese. Which does make a difference. Again, using Dr. Peters strict interpretation, Phatmass's use of the word Catholic could be a violation of Can. 216.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326830328' post='2370575']
According to Dr. Peters, one of the AoD's Canon Lawyers. Claiming the name "Catholic" for projects is also a violation of Can. 216. Therefor according to this Canon Lawyer, Can. 216 does not just apply to Catholic associations using the name "Catholic" in the official name but other ways a lay community may claim the name "Catholic" to identify as Catholic.

"But sentence two of Canon 216 is another matter: “Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’ without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.” The plain text of this canon 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). Voris/RCTV expressly (indeed, pervasively) use the word “Catholic” to name their undertakings. They repeatedly proclaim that theirs is “Real Catholic TV”, that theirs is a “Catholic Investigative Agency”, and that theirs is “The Catholic Critic”." - [url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/the-first-thing-to-understand-about-the-aod-vs-vorisrctv-dispute/"]Dr. Peters[/url]
[/quote]


[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326928598' post='2371164']However, if no bishop points this out to you, you can claim ignorance of canon law - seriously, many lay Catholics would have no idea about this.[/quote]

Evidence. Ignorantia juris non excusat.


[quote]Canon 15

§2. Ignorance or error about a law, a penalty, a fact concerning oneself, or a notorious fact concerning another is not presumed; it is presumed about a fact concerning another which is not notorious until the contrary is proven

=====


Second paragraph (§2) concerns the qualifications of the person effected by the law. [b]The presumption is that every person understands the laws, the penalties for violations of the laws, is responsible for his own actions[/b] and is aware of any well known facts concerning another involved party, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. Unfavorable is not presumed but is a matter of fact which can be verified.

Source: [url="http://www.catecheticsonline.com/wiki/index.php?title=Canon_15"]http://www.catecheti...?title=Canon_15[/url][/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1326932388' post='2371191']
I think you're getting too legalistic. It's obvious that Voris' bishop doesn't like his message or the way his message is presented. That's the bottom line. Thats why the "law" was invoked. My bishop bought CD's from me. I'm under the assumption that if he didn't like phatmass' message or the way we present our message, I would have heard something. I guess there are certain benefits of sticking to the rule of not openly and publicly criticizing the hierarchy.
[/quote]

Two canon lawyers of the AoD state that there is no problem with Voris' message. Archbishop Burke liked Voris' message enough to fully endorse a 3 part DVD mini series. A lot more than buying some CDs. Perhaps Voris assumed in like manner to you. Which leads to more confusion over the case, one Archbishop fully endorses his work while the press office of another tries to stop him from using the name Catholic.

Edited January 19, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

If you're looking up Voris, don't accidentally replace the "i" with an "e".