Saturday, December 24, 2011

Archbishop Vigneron's Manipulative Use of Canon Law 216

The Bishops have sunk to a new low.

Catholic parents have been trying now for decades to have our concerns addressed. Bur rather than correcting the errors, apostasies, heresies, crackpot theology being taught to our children, our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, Catholics have been slandered, threatened, bullied and now, told not to use the word 'catholic'.

Meanwhile, back at the good old boy ranch, the Kennedy's, Kerrys, Pelosis, Catholics for Free Choice, National Catholic Reporter, America Magazine, the Jesuits and all other kinds of heretics and apostates - and even the pedophiles they ordained - are permitted to use the word "Catholic". Moreover, they are given the funerals of a saint in the public square.

It is not the time to say much more about these things, but I will have more to say after our return from Bethlehem.

Meanwhile, I sent the below to Michael and cc'd the bishop and his cronies. We're not done with this one fellas - we'll be back! Have yourselves a blessed Christmas.

To: michaelvoris
Cc: infodesk ; NuntiusUSA ;
Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2011 5:16 am
Subject: Archbishop Vigneron's Application of Canon 216 to Real Catholic TV

December 23, 2011


Dear Michael,

I have read with dismay Archbishop Vigneron's attempt to apply Canon 216 to Real Catholic TV. The situation and all involved will be in my prayers.

I write to you as a Catholic mother to express my deep concerns in the battle for the soul of Christ's Church in this situation, and to encourage you to give careful consideration to the message to the faithful when responding to Archbishop Vigneron.

Those who promote heresy and dissent have robbed a generation of truth and our faith while using the name Catholic and they have done so without any intervention from Archbishop Vigernon (and in fact most Bishops).

Now that we are rising to feed the truth the sheep they have abandoned to the wolves, they are applying Canon 216 to an apostolate that faithfully adheres to doctrine? It pains me to say it, but with this act, it is faithful adherence to the deposit of faith Archbishop Vigneron is caricaturing as fringe which the faithful are not to believe.

I prayerfully urge you to consider the consequences of any public reaction that would witness the silencing truth as obedience "to Christ" and His Church. It is not. It never has been in all the history of Christendom.

I would ask you to prayerfully consider using the situation to bolster Canon 216 by pointing out Archbishop Vigneron's omissions in its proper use and ask him to apply Canon 216 as it is intended to be applied.

Before responding, I would invite you to take a month to prepare an "Exhibit A" to your response, which would enumerate dissent which has operated in Detroit - Catholics for Free Choice and other formal gatherings of apostates for which he has not used Canon 216. Index problems with speakers brought into parishes, promiscuity the children in Catholics schools are being indoctrinated into from kindergarten through college, public activities and facilities misleading faithful Catholics, which Archbishop Vigneron's does not apply Canon 216. Obtain the number of subscriptions to the National Catholic Reporter in the Archdiocese of Detroit, go through a year's worth of articles, indexing the glaring doctrinal errors and include it in Exhibit A.

After a robust list has been put together, I would then send the canonical response respectfully pointing out how the name Catholic is being used to teach doctrinal errors to hundreds of thousands of Catholics under his guardianship without his intervention and appropriate use of Canon 216. I would explain to Bishop Vigneron how his refusal to use Canon 216 appropriately, grants constructive permission and confuses the faithful and how this has led to the impairment of their judgment, to sin and a loss of sanctifying grace. I would point out how this affects their salvation and his accountability to the loss of the salvation of the souls in his charge.

Given the grave consequences of the loss of immortal souls to Christ for which he does not use Canon 216 to cure, his use of Canon 216 in an apostolate doctrinally faithful to the Magisterium gives the appearance of manipulative use of religious law to impair and impede an apostolate which has risen to relieve the sheep of the consequences of episcopal misfeasance and malfeasance (including his own).

To avert any scandal to be brought to the faithful as a result of the situation and still respectfully obey the Canon, one could add an 's' and an apostrophe to the name - ie "Real Catholics' TV". This changes the context of the use to of the name Catholic to the people involved in the project and those whom you target as an audience. Any Catholic faithful to doctrine who is fully participating in the life of the Sacraments of the Catholic have the canonical right to use the name Catholic. It is the Canonical check mate to the situation.

This would put the onus on the Bishop to attempt to prove the people involved in the apostolate are not Catholics in good standing. At the end of the day, this is really what he attempting to accomplish. He needs to be called to the table of accountability for it. Pin it on him. Let him wear it as a badge for the sake of his own soul, for I am sure that he does not recognize the intellectual dishonesty of applying Canon 216 when he ought not and not applying it when he ought.

I will be posting this the content of my letter on my blog and circulating it to other bloggers. I want the Bishop to know that I and others see what he is doing and moreover, Christ sees what he is doing. Worthy is the lamb.

A very blessed and Merry Christmas to all.


Lynne said...

Have a blessed Christmas yourself (and your family!) Carol! <3

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

This is an outrage! The Archdiocese of Detroit is sinking in debt and heresy, and this archbishop has nothing better to do than to perecute a sincere orthodox layman!? Pray that God gives Michael Voris the wisdom to deal with this situlation, just like he dealt with the Simon Rafe scandal. And pray for the Archbishops conversion, too.

Anonymous said...

The Archbishop's appeal to Canon 216 is interesting. Somone should ask His Emminence what about Canon 915, and applying that canon law to pro-abortion "Catholic" policician John Dingell. David S.

Maria said...

But, the dissent at America Magazine that is on display 24/7 is A-OK. We have developed a way of splitting the Bishop from his behavior, such that, for e.g., we love Bishop Dolan, yet, never do we hold him accountable for his silence on the in-your-face heresy at America Magazine. Sometimes, I think, only a lack of faith would leave such men as Bishop Dolan silent on such matters. It is just not possible to espouse orthodoxy in the public square, on one's own terms, when tt suits one, and then reamain silent on blatant heresy at America Magazine. Speaking out against heresy comes at a cost. Disclipleship is a costly undertaking. Few there are who want to pay that cost. This is the story of Catholicism since it began. Press on Mr. Voris! And, good for you, Carol.

May the love of the Christ child be with each of you. Merry Christmas.

Anonymous said...

God bless you Carol, have a joyous Christmas and thank you for your work.


Carol said...

Thank you Lynne - Tom - Maria - and ALL - much love and a Merry Christmas!

threehearts said...

Do not worry the Bishops did not like Mother Angelica either.

Mickey said...

Lest we demonize Archbishop Vigneron without all of the facts (and Lord knows there are plenty of bishops that can be demonized), let's not forget that at an archdiocese there are a good many people at work, and while we can hope that they would uphold matters of faith, there is considerable diversity in their ranks in terms of Catholic orthodoxy. It is easy to imagine that someone might have an axe to grind with Mr. Voris due to his style - an arrogance that you either love or hate. But to be effective, he HAS to elicit those sorts of emotions. As such, there could be someone at the chancery that is pushing all the buttons on this matter.

I don't know His Excellence personally, but from what I can gather he is a good man. Is there heresy going on under his nose? Hard to find a diocese where it isn't, the heretics have infiltrated unabated for 40 years now. No matter what you might think of other groups and their heretical views, the fact is, any that use the word "Catholic" in their name while promoting views that are in direct opposition to Catholic teachings have been disavowed (e.g., "Catholics For Choice"). The Church has been slower to respond to those using the word "Catholic" in their name that have fallen into error (Marist College had its Catholic moniker officially stripped by the Archdiocese of New York just a few years ago - the school president didn't even blink; and Bishop Olmsted in Phoenix removed the "Catholic" status of St. Joseph's hospital earlier this year while declaring just a couple of weeks ago that the nun hospital administrator who he had previously declared as excommunicated for permitting an abortion at this same hospital is back in good standing).

The point is, let the events run their course. Let Mr. Voris and RealCatholicTV meet with the appropriate ecclesial authority - and I am sure that will happen before long - to gain permission to use the word "Catholic" in their organization's name. Or, they can continue to use the name and defy the ecclesial authorities, much as Catholics For Choice has done. But does he really want to be identified with that organization?

Fight the good fight, Mr. Voris. I will indeed be praying for you.

Carol said...


I understand you are trying to give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt. The man prays in front of abortion clinics, has at least had the decency to warn the faithful not to attend a heretical event - but I am trying to calibrate your message.

Are you trying to say the Archbishop may have a staff member who is abusing Canon law because he doesn't personally like the way Michael delivers the authentic teachings of the Church - and do not see the Archbishop as accountable to stepping in and disciplining his staff member?

I don't agree with you on this one. The Bishop needs an error to apply Canon 216. To the best of my knowledge, staff members of the Bishop do not have the authority to discipline with Canon 216. It has to be the Bishop. If there is no error and/or a staff member simply has the pins for Voris, if the Bishop is so out of control in what is happening underneath him, refuses to intervene and discipline - we have a safety problem in Detroit as this was the problem with pedophile priests.

It would be all the more critical for lay Catholics to act if this is a staff member of Ab. Vigneron and he has lost his authority over his Chancery.

Does that make sense?

We don't allow a staff member of an Archbishop to us our Canons to discourage a faithful Catholic. That is the spiritual abuse of another human being and we can't 'let it all play out'.