Triduum in Toronto

Saturday, 31 August 2013

Open Letter to Father Dwight Longenecker


Dear Father Longenecker,

You have publicly written an article entitled, "Do we need Michael Voris." As someone who knows Mr. Voris personally, I am saddened that you, as a Catholic priest, would even begin to write something against a just man and to actually title it, as you did. 

The point of this letter to you is not to defend Michael Voris, that is not necessary. His faith, reputation, the people he has aided by his work and the comments in the Vortex segment you referred to speak volumes. This letter is about your action and words and those of Mr. Shea, Mr. Coffin and others who, for the last few months, continue to spew forth epithets of insult and defame the character of Catholics at every opportunity.

This is distasteful. It is uncharitable. It is not doing the work of Christ.

You as a priest have made a public defamation of Mr. Voris, by your unreasonable letter and title. I, as a Catholic layman, have every right and duty to publicly correct you.


With all respect Father, you owe Mr. Voris and others an apology for your imprudence.

As for Catholic Answers, they will see not one red cent from me to help them through their current financial dilemma brought about in part because of their radio program and use of derogatory terms. Good luck to them.

Yours in Christ,

Vox Cantoris

For the full account please visit "Connecticut Catholic Corner."

7 comments:

Barona said...

I read his strange "apologia" for professional Catholicism yesterday. To come on the offensive must mean they are worried. My understanding is this priest is a confidant of the professional Catholic, George Weigel, a liberal Catholic who supports an untenable perspective of Church-State relations and religious liberty that is, sadly, heterodox.

mgl said...

Again with the circular firing squads, Vox?

I listened to both the rad-trad shows on Catholic Answers. On both occasions--but especially the second--Coffin and Staples took enormous pains to define that they were using "rad-trad" to refer solely to extreme traditionalists who had broken communion with Rome; i.e. sedevacantists and (to a far lesser extent) canonically irregular groups like the SSPX. They stated this so often and at such length that it became tedious. They also reiterated their affection for "regular" traditionalists: those who remain in communion with Rome but prefer the 1962 Missal, or women who wear mantillas, or those who receive on the tongue, etc. I believe they're entirely sincere.

Which is not to say that the shows weren't problematic. They chose a term (rad-trads) that is often used disparagingly against traditionalist Catholics, and so invited confusion. Along the same lines, they have not done a similar "blanket" show aimed at modernists and liberals, though they often choose topics which address specific liberal errors. And their responses to traditionalist objections have sometimes made matters worse.

But seriously, Vox, please understand this. They're not talking about us. Are you a sedevacantist? Are you canonically irregular? Have you broken communion with Rome? If you can answer no to these questions, then this whole matter is way, way overblown, and the only people who benefit are our common enemies.

As for Voris/Longenecker, I like both guys. Both men are articulate and fearless spokesmen for orthodox Catholicism. Voris, like many gadflies, sometimes oversteps the bounds. Fr. Longenecker is guilty, on occasion, of poor aim. Sometimes they disagree, and that seems perfectly fine to me. But orthodox Catholics currently seem to have a far greater appetite for fighting each other than for dealing with the enemies of the Faith.

Finally, the "professional Catholic" jibe. Apparently this is now a blanket insult that translates to, "Someone employed by or on behalf of the Catholic Church who is less rigorously Catholic than me." So Voris is fine, but Karl Keating fails the purity test, and is therefore (gasp!) "professional".

You know who the real "professional Catholics" are? The ones who are really in a position to do serious damage to the Church and ordinary Catholics? Here's a brief but by no means exhaustive list:

- Diocesan bureaucrats who control access to the Bishop and ensure that he only gets pre-approved information.
- Catholic school teachers and administrators who mislead parents into thinking that their kids are getting a good Catholic education.
- CCCB/USCCB functionaries, often diocesan bureaucrats on a larger scale.
- Parish "liturgical coordinators" and music ministers who ensure that the NO Mass is a dreary, irreverent parade of bad taste.
- Along the same lines, OCP, the St. Louis Jesuits and everyone involved with CBW III.

You get the idea. Catholic Answers and the Patheos bloggers might irritate you, but any harm they do (and I think it's minimal at worst) is far outweighed by that done by professional Catholics in our parishes, dioceses, and bishops' conferences.

Apologies for the rant!

Vox Cantoris said...

Thank you for the rant, mgl.

You make sound point about "circular firing squads." Perhaps, anytime we challenge this group of people who use the slurs we are all guilty of it.

The fact that they use the words is the point. I know they are referring mainly to the SSPX and those sedevacantis out there but the problem is, as it had been, the main stream media and generally John and Mary Catholic, lump all who might prefer the tradtional Latin rites, practices and theology together.

Personally, I know one sedevacantist, his arguments are irrational. On the other hand, I know many in the SSPX and I would not describe them as Coffin and others have. The name-calling needs to stop.

Your points made about the "real" professional Catholics is most relevant and appropriate. The damage that these bureaucrats and educators have done is legendary.

Thank you for the rant, I'll put my rifle down for today.

S. Armaticus said...

Don't put down that rifle just yet Vox.

Your rant was spot on. The true villains in the Traditionalist camp are all those "professional community organizers" (read 5th columnists) disguised as trads who have taken it upon themselves to cause strife within the Restorationist camp. At first the phenomenon of these above mentioned muppets attacking people like the SSPX, people who don't really give a rat's rear end about debating the said muppets, seamed strange. I thought it weird since it seemed we should all be on the same side. After all, the SSPX and the sedevacantists (and I am not referring to the tiny marginal nut-jobs here) would like nothing better than to come into communion with Rome, that is once the silly season in the Church ends. And I think deep down we all know this to be the case. So I was surprised by this “trad on trad” hate emanating from the last place one would expect.

And then it clicked: Saul Alinsky. These afore mentioned muppets don’t really care about debating the trads, but rather their target are the people who have a problem with the novelties of the N.O., they’ve seen that there is an alternative in the LTM after half a century of brutal suppression and are thinking about returning to the proper liturgical rites. And it is the intention of these muppets to create a “environment of fear” to keep these wavering Catholics in line. If you don’t like the N.O., you are a “fill in the blank”. A good analogy to this is if you don’t like Obamacare, you are a racist. If you ask me, this is the game.

Proof of the above is the following: We see that the old VII liberals tolerate the Ecclesia Dei communities. The reason they tolerate them is due to their mission, which essentially is to “steal sheep” from the SSPX. The pattern is obvious. The SSPX open a mission in X, the FSSP are there a couple of weeks later doing a LTM. But by creating the ED, the old liberals got a bit too clever (by half, as the old expression goes), and the LTM started to spread outside the ED communities, think FFI, and what happened? Immediate suppression on the basis of a scurrilous letter written by 6 wayward monks in upstate N.Y. And the same fate is waiting for the ED if the SSPX returns into communion with Rome. If this happens, the ED along with the LTM will disappear without a trace within a matter of weeks, like the LTM at the FFI.

Therefore, if you like the LTM, pray that the SSPX don’t do anything stupid.

I think that I will end my rant here.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

Tom Ryan said...

There is a word for people who don't believe we have a valid pope: sedevacantist.
People who assist at SSPX chapels are treated the same by the Holy See as other Catholics. (Only neo-Cats demean them)

What use do we have for the terms RadTrad and MadTrad unless it is to paint with a broader brush? CAL wouldn't have to go through such pains to say who they aren't talking about if the term wasn't so fluid in its definition

Barona said...

Being paid over 100,000 per annum hardly seems in line with Pope Francis' vision of a Church for the poor.

Lynne said...

@S. Armiticus

"And then it clicked: Saul Alinsky. These afore mentioned muppets don’t really care about debating the trads, but rather their target are the people who have a problem with the novelties of the N.O., they’ve seen that there is an alternative in the LTM after half a century of brutal suppression and are thinking about returning to the proper liturgical rites. And it is the intention of these muppets to create a “environment of fear” to keep these wavering Catholics in line. If you don’t like the N.O., you are a “fill in the blank”. A good analogy to this is if you don’t like Obamacare, you are a racist. If you ask me, this is the game."

Brilliant!