Real Catholic Tv's Statement

[dominicansoul]

[Papist]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326819008' post='2370515']
If your comment is directed towards me, no, and that has not been my stance. Let me repeat yet again, as for Voris and company's guilt or innocence of the sin of disobedience I leave to the [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]ecclesiastical courts and canon lawyers to work out. Pointing out legitimate concerns, with evidence, that the law may not be fairly applied is rational and does effect the case. This does not mean I am arguing it is ok for Voris and company to be [/color][/font]disobedient (if in fact they are) because others are disobedient. That would be twisting what I have stated.

My most recent line of argument from last night is based on Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:3, and Romans 2:22-23. Because people here have seemly no problem with judging Voris and company guilty of the sin of disobedience when canon lawyers cannot agree (as well as character judgements of Voris), and when there has been no actual official statement on the matter from the AoD Archbishop himself. A strict reading of Can. 216 could apply to Phatmass, I wondered if everyone would jump on Phatmass the same way they have Voris, if it had not first received permission to claim the name Catholic which it does claim and use to identify Phatmass which is a community or association of lay Catholics. I thought it may get those that would quickly condemn Voris to think twice before continuing to condemn him. Judge not lest ye be judged.
[/quote]

No intended to be directed towards you personally. I do understand some people's inability to side with the bishop b/c they like Voris and/or what he does. I do not think it is valid to compare everything else to the Voris case. Each case should based on the facts of the case, not how others were/are treated.

Yes, Phatmass and RealCatholicTV may have similarities, but there is one key difference. RealCatholicTV uses 'Catholic' in its officially/registered org name where Phatmass uses 'Catholic' in is description.

And I do have permission from my bishop to call myself Catholic. He Confirmed me.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326788169' post='2370424']
No I'm not confusing calling oneself Catholic, and calling an organization a Catholic organization. Phatmass is a Catholic association or community of lay catholics which utilities many of the [i]Obligations and Rights of all the Christian Faithful[/i], and does claim the name Catholic. ie: "Phatmass Phorum - [b]Catholic [/b]Forum and Community", "Hardcore [b]Catholic[/b]", etc... Of the lay catholic members quite a few claim the name Catholic as a name, not simply stating "I am Catholic". And at even given time quite of few of those persons will write/publish on this site some form of apologetics, or defense for Mother Church. Like Voris and RCTV.



RealCatholicTV does not pretend to be a company that is ran by or officially represents the church. With that it mind
"Real Catholic TV" is not really that much different than "Hardcore Catholic" because both are used as branding. Both are used by their respected association to claim the name Catholic. Both by different means but the same end. Lastly, "Phatmass Phorum - Catholic Forum and Community", is not that much different "Ave Maria University - A Catholic College", both of which Can. 216 would seem to apply. Because both are claiming the word Catholic in a very similar way.
[/quote]


You are confused. Is Phatmass a Catholic forum? Yes. Is it called "the Phatmass Catholic Forum"? Nope. Catholic is a description of the sites actions, not of its name. Unlike realcatholictv.com Which is what? Yup a name. EWTN does not use the word Catholic in its title but it describes itself as a Catholic network. Notice the distinction?

Here is what Canon law states
[quote]“[i]Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’ without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority[/i].”[/quote] Claim the name. Not the concept. You can promote Catholicism all you want but if you are going to use Catholic in your name or website, you need permission from your bishop.

Huge difference. I hope this helped

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1326825022' post='2370542']
You are confused. Is Phatmass a Catholic forum? Yes. Is it called "the Phatmass Catholic Forum"? Nope. Catholic is a description of the sites actions, not of its name. Unlike realcatholictv.com Which is what? Yup a name. EWTN does not use the word Catholic in its title but it describes itself as a Catholic network. Notice the distinction?

Here is what Canon law states
Claim the name. Not the concept. You can promote Catholicism all you want but if you are going to use Catholic in your name or website, you need permission from your bishop.

Huge difference. I hope this helped
[/quote]

Using your reasoning Catholic colleges that do not use the word "Catholic" in their "official" name but claim the word to identify themselves as a Catholic College, IE "St. So and So University - Catholic College" are not subject to Can. 216. I do not agree. Claiming the name "Catholic" to identify a lay Catholic association as "Catholic" would seem to fall under the requirements of Can. 216.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326825747' post='2370546']
Using your reasoning Catholic colleges that do not use the word "Catholic" in their "official" name but claim the word to identify themselves as a Catholic College, IE "St. So and So University - Catholic College" are not subject to Can. 216. I do not agree. Claiming the name "Catholic" to identify a lay Catholic association as "Catholic" would seem to fall under the requirements of Can. 216.
[/quote]

First, there isn't a Catholic college that does not report and respond to the bishop of their diocese. In fact you can look at the board of trustees of these institutions and you will most likely find a priest that reports directly to the bishop, if not the bishop himself. In that regard, the colleges and universities have permission from the arch diocese. So can 216 is not an issue for them.

I can understand why you would want to disagree. If you'd agree you would have to admit that you are in error. Which you are. [i][b]The Name Catholic [/b][/i]that is what is being said in canon law. Canon law would never say "You can't describe yourself as Catholic" to an individual or to an organization. What it is preventing is the confusion of the laity that this organization has the full support of the arch diocese by using Catholic in its name. If Catholic Charities was not endorsed by the bishops, it would not have Catholic in its name. Let's say an organization called itself "Catholic Overseas Missions" and that caused you to give money to it. But it took that money and gave it to its employees and nothing went out to overseas missions. You'd be ticked and feeling like you were duped. That is the purpose of the Canon 216.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1326827059' post='2370554']
First, there isn't a Catholic college that does not report and respond to the bishop of their diocese. In fact you can look at the board of trustees of these institutions and you will most likely find a priest that reports directly to the bishop, if not the bishop himself. In that regard, the colleges and universities have permission from the arch diocese. So can 216 is not an issue for them.

I can understand why you would want to disagree. If you'd agree you would have to admit that you are in error. Which you are. [i][b]The Name Catholic [/b][/i]that is what is being said in canon law. Canon law would never say "You can't describe yourself as Catholic" to an individual or to an organization. What it is preventing is the confusion of the laity that this organization has the full support of the arch diocese by using Catholic in its name. If Catholic Charities was not endorsed by the bishops, it would not have Catholic in its name. Let's say an organization called itself "Catholic Overseas Missions" and that caused you to give money to it. But it took that money and gave it to its employees and nothing went out to overseas missions. You'd be ticked and feeling like you were duped. That is the purpose of the Canon 216.
[/quote]

I still do not agree. A Catholic lay community calling itself "St Michael's Apologetics - Catholic Community" would still be subject to Can. 216. Claiming the name "Catholic" in the secondary name wouldn't be a loophole around that 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."

There is nothing there about claiming the word "Catholic" as the official name of the group. Only that "no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic" which is rather broad and could apply to any Catholic Community that labels itself as "Catholic" be it in the official name or secondary branding.

[KnightofChrist]

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]

Edited January 17, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[dUSt]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1326788169' post='2370424']
RealCatholicTV does not pretend to be a company that is ran by or officially represents the church. With that it mind
"Real Catholic TV" is not really that much different than "Hardcore Catholic" because both are used as branding. Both are used by their respected association to claim the name Catholic. Both by different means but the same end. Lastly, "Phatmass Phorum - Catholic Forum and Community", is not that much different "Ave Maria University - A Catholic College", both of which Can. 216 would seem to apply. Because both are claiming the word Catholic in a very similar way.
[/quote]
Oh, well then, I guess my bishop just really liked the CD's he bought from the phatmass booth then.

[Laudate_Dominum]

When your bishop is replaced by Batman's evil doppelganger from a parallel universe who is here to ensure that Hitler wins WWII and you're the only one who knows and nobody believes you, you'll understand.

[MithLuin]

If [b]dUSt[/b]'s bishop told him to change the name of Phatmass....I'm betting [b]dUSt[/b] would do it. Just sayin'.


I [i]have[/i] been on an internet forum that was told in no uncertain terms to change its name. Not by a bishop, though. The webmasters of 'Tolkien Online' received a cease and desist order from the Tolkien estate for using Tolkien's name. They...changed their name, rather than risk legal action. What did they change it to? 'The One Ring: The Home of Tolkien Online' ( www.theonering.com ). Legally, there [i]is[/i] a difference between using a word in a name versus a description.

Go ahead and visit ' www.tolkienonline.com ' and see what you find. Oh look, it takes you to the website of the Tolkien Estate. Funny how that works.....

They sent the letter because they wanted the url. That's all. But...copyright law was on their side, so they got what they wanted. The fact that they didn't go after every single website in existence using the name 'Tolkien' was irrelevant.

Edited January 18, 2012 by MithLuin

[Laudate_Dominum]

Edit: quadruple post.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326871703' post='2370958']
If [b]dUSt[/b]'s bishop told him to change the name of Phatmass....I'm betting [b]dUSt[/b] would do it. Just sayin'.
[/quote]

Voris doesn't have the authority to change the name of RCTV. He doesn't own it. And yes, dUST would change the name if his bishop asked, because he is dope like that. But Voris doesn't even have authority to change the name of RCTV. Voris's bishop (NOT RCTV's), asked that the name of RCTV be changed, which means nothing. RCTV doesn't have to listen to some random bishop, as their bishop is fine with what they are doing.

[MithLuin]

Are you sure about that, FCC? He's the only name on the site, so I'd be very surprised to find out he's not on the board of directors.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326904790' post='2371028']
Are you sure about that, FCC? He's the only name on the site, so I'd be very surprised to find out he's not on the board of directors.
[/quote]
He doesn't own it, he is a host for some of their shows. He may be on the board of directors, but regardless, they don't actually have to listen to this bishop. Have any of you read the lifesitenews article? That's what changed my mind about this.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326871703' post='2370958']
If [b]dUSt[/b]'s bishop told him to change the name of Phatmass....I'm betting [b]dUSt[/b] would do it. Just sayin'.
[/quote]


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.