I am a lunatic, quick to anger (and quick to forgive I might add) and always ready for a fight. Perhaps our readers may have picked up on these traits, I dunno.
But I have to laugh when I find myself to be the calmest guy in the metaphorical room, ’cause something must be screwy. Screwy indeed.
In this case, it seems that two fine Catholic gents have gone a little kooky. I can’t figure out which of these things is more over the top, Michale Voris’ commentary on Amazing Grace or Mark Shea’s reaction to it?
First Voris.
I like Voris, you guys should know that by now. But I think that his criticisms unnecessarily forces the worst possible interpretation of the lyrics. For instance, one of my favorite lines of the song is “how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed.” I have always interpreted that to be an exclamation of gratitude for a precious gift. As how precious a glass of water would appear to a man in a desert. His interpretation of the word “appear” seems strange and unnatural to me. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.
But for reasons I cannot really fathom, Mark Shea went ballistic on this video in a piece humbly entitled “Michael Voris Offers Unintelligent and Destructive Cultural Commentary.” Wrong maybe, but destructive? Mark drops a whole dumptruck of hyperbolic polemic on Voris. Some juicy excerpts.
Voris’ sole message is “I am the measure of Real Catholicism and those who agree with me have the right to call themselves Catholic, while those who disagree are liars and lukewarm fake Catholics”.
and
Dave Armstrong (who is, of course, not a real Catholic since he questions the infallible Voris) looks at Voris’ tissue of prideful, biblically illiterate and theologically stupid assertions
and then Mark unloads on those who like Voris (like me, I suppose)
Why does this matter? Because I am constantly hearing from fans of Voris who think that his method of perpetually sneering at brother and sister Catholics, tearing down anything that he deems to be not “really” Catholic, and endlessly complaining about and sneering at others for their alleged “impurity” (such as singing “Amazing Grace”) constitutes being a “bold voice of reform”.
and
I don’t understand what people see in this guy. You can get all the good things he has to say–without the sectarian self-righteousness and cloddish theological blunders and over-simplifications–from lots of other sources. So it would appear that precisely what people want is his distinctive contribution: sectarian self-righteousness and cloddish over-simplifications.
Here is the thing, I actually agree with Mark’s defense of Amazing Grace. But for the life of me I cannot understand why it bothers him that people like Voris.
Did Voris miss the mark on this one? I think so. Guess what, I miss the mark on some of my commentary occasionally and I think that Mark would admit that he blows it sometimes too. It is the nature of the beast. And I will freely admit that when Mark writes something I disagree with I like to give him a hard time, but I still like the guy and I hope that Mark still likes me. But I don’t get why Voris drives so many people crazy, I mean neck-vein-bulging crazy.
Even if we disagree and even if we completely blow it sometimes, can’t we all just get along?
(Actually, I am kidding. I really like the fighting. I just want to seem like I am reasonable. But then again, I am really just a protestant 😉
July 24, 2011 at 9:08 pm
The "torture" digression takes a fictional turn. The Church taught torture in its actions…ie…in the living Church. I don't think we ever should have had it for heresy but this mass murderer in Norway may have been deterred if torture existed as a penalty for mass murder.
We cover up many things…prior to our covering up sex abuse. That's why Pope Leo XIII wrote urging Catholic historians to be objective. He wrote that because Catholic writers were not being objective. Let's go to the new advent article on the Spanish Inquisition right near the bottom, which articles refutes the canard that Rome and Popes had nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition:
"
The Spanish Inquisition….. the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on."
July 24, 2011 at 9:28 pm
correction: article at new advent is titled: Inquisition….not Spanish Inquisition.
July 24, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University. With his appointment in the Department of Philosophy, he also teaches courses in the Departments of Political Science and Religion as well as the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, where he served as its Associate Director from July 2003 until January 2007. He is also a Resident Scholar in Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR)….
(His Bio is too lengthy to post, spiced as it is with numerous citations of awards honors, etc etc…
And here is Dr Beckwith weighing-in on Mr Shea:
"Ed is spot on here. The main reason for my own self-imposed detachment from this conversation–found on this entry and elsewhere–is Shea's apparent inability to entertain two possibilities: (1) that one can honestly disagree with him while attempting to be true to Church doctrine, and (2) that queries about definitions and distinctions are not Jesuitical inventions of the inauthentic sadist employed to excuse evil, but rather, serious attempts to advance the common good."
Posted by Francis J. Beckwith | May 4, 2009 6:09 PM
That is, both Philosophy Professors are quite familiar with Mr Shea's nasty personal attacks and his penchant for assigning malign motives to others who disagree with his personal opinions.
Dear Mr Comerford. People are not fools. These exchanges by Mr Shea are not made-up. Good, patient, kind, and highly intelligent men, like Dr Feser and Dr Beckwith, among many, many others, are fed-up with him being an angry our-of-control, abusive, bully, and more and more, men of education and honor are simply refusing to deal with him.
Whenever Mr Shea errs by disagreeing with highly educated experts – E. Michael Jones, Robert Sungenis, Dr Feser, Dr Beckwith, Fr Brain Harrison etc etc – and it becomes apparent that they are far more knowledgeable about whatever topic is under discussion, Mr Shea resorts to his Alley Cat rhetoric and becomes highly and personally abusive.
Mr. Comerford, defend him to the bitter end but know that by defending his indefenisble actions you are undermining your own reputation as one who can think and act independently.
Mr. Shea if you are reading this, I beg you to get some mental health counseling and some spiritual counseling. I have no desire to see you lose your job but you are definitely on a course of self-destruction with your hateful and out-of-control behavior
July 24, 2011 at 10:11 pm
"Mr. Shea launched no personal attacks on the priest – scholar"
Dear Mr Comerford. I suspect that even Mr. Shea will regret your "help."
From Mr Shea's CAEI website
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010
CLARIFICATION BY FR. BRIAN HARRISON, O.S.
Fr. Harrison asks that I post the following:
On this website and elsewhere, my obedience to the Holy Father and overall fidelity to the Church's magisterium was angrily and extensively called in question last week, following some telephoned comments I gave to the New York Times (February 27, 2010, p. A15). I am therefore very appreciative of the Christian and gentlemanly spirit Mark Shea has now shown in deleting those attacks and posting instead an apology and partial retraction. ….
July 24, 2011 at 10:17 pm
"'ll just repeat what I said earlier: Members of the Body of Christ attacking other members of the Body of Christ is unbecoming of our baptismal call. This is turning into a circular firing squad…"
Dear Fr Bill P. Silence in the face of the long-established public pattern of personal abuse by Mr Shea is not an option. It must be confronted and condemned.
July 24, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Meh…you could have someone read from the Catechism and undoubtedly there would be Catholics squalling, throwing out labels such as "progressive" or "conservative".
Somebody's always going to find something to gripe about. The trick is not giving them the attention they're seeking.
July 24, 2011 at 11:49 pm
"On this website and elsewhere, my obedience to the Holy Father and overall fidelity to the Church's magisterium was angrily and extensively called in question last week"
And Mr. Shea himself angrily posted exactly what?
"I am therefore very appreciative of the Christian and gentlemanly spirit Mark Shea has now shown in deleting those attacks and posting instead an apology and partial retraction."
And what a gentleman Mr. Shea is!
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 12:13 am
"Mr. Shea if you are reading this, I beg you to get some mental health counseling and some spiritual counseling. I have no desire to see you lose your job but you are definitely on a course of self-destruction with your hateful and out-of-control behavior"
What is it with you guys and Mr. Shea? Do you not think that some of your posts are getting just a little bit weird? If Mr. Shea is so evil just stop visiting his website and pray for him.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 1:18 am
The "torture" digression takes a fictional turn. The Church taught torture in its actions…ie…in the living Church."
The Catholic Church is not the Church of Later Day Saints; but rather it is the Church of present day sinners. Since Judas Churchmen have betrayed Christ. But their betrayals do not constitute doctrine. Rather the Vicar of Christ, acing under certain conditions, defines faith and morals. Every Pope, and Council united with the Pope, who has taught on the matter of torture has defined torture as "intrinsically evil".
Jack Bauer is a fictional character.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 1:45 am
Mark Shea is the most mean spirited, arrogant, obnoxious, uncharitable Catholic I ever known.
Jasper
July 25, 2011 at 1:55 am
"Mark Shea is the most mean spirited, arrogant, obnoxious, uncharitable Catholic I ever known."
Is this the same guy who posts prayer requests almost every day on his blog; to include requests for prayers from his worst critics?
What a terrible man! Lets water him.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 3:11 am
Re:Lest we forget
For almost a decade Mr. Shea has been absolutely heroic; and brilliant, in both defending and explaining the Church's teachings regarding torture and just war. And this is at a time when other Catholic voices have been largely silent on these matters; with even a few actually advocating evil. Courage should be applauded."
And I have for years stood with Mark and applauded such efforts. But that is a completely irrelevant nonsequitur to the allegations that Mark's blogging often fails in charity, unless you're making the consequentialist argument that the allegedly uncharitable behavior should be ignored because it often has been utilized in furtherance of the greater good of debunking torture advocacy.
"He personally attacked … Christopher Blosser in an ugly and vile manner."
"Mr. Shea disagreed with the torture advocates."
Anyone who refers to Chris Blosser as a "torture advocate" is a liar and can rot with the rest of the liars.
July 25, 2011 at 3:34 am
"Mark's blogging often fails in charity"
Kind of like that Guy who was always talking about milestones around neck, hell and damnation?
"Anyone who refers to Chris Blosser as a "torture advocate" is a liar and can rot with the rest of the liars."
Who? The only person who has linked the words "torture advocate" to the name "Chris Blosser" in the same sentence is Jay Anderson.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 3:34 am
This is a few miles down the rabbit hole now, but: how did E. Michael Jones and Robert Sungenis become "highly educated experts?"
Mark Shea in his blog incarnation is an apologist who wears his heart on his sleeve. Sometimes that redounds greatly to his benefit; sometimes he ends up posting things he regrets – and to his credit, he is quite contrite when he realizes it. The debate with Feser and Beckwith was not (I think) one of his finer moments. It's also true that he has had run-ins with some…advocates for torture who have not been so intellectually honest, or polite.
In the end, I think these debates about personalities just aren't very helpful. As Fr. Bill wisely observes, we look like a circular firing squad, not a helpful evangelism posture. On my scorecard, Michael Voris overreacted to the problems with one famous evangelical hymn lately popular in some Catholic parishes; and Mark Shea overreacted to his overreaction. But I'll continue to follow both, and remain confident that both will continue to grow and succeed as apologists in their unique ways.
July 25, 2011 at 3:50 am
Richard Comerford,
Cite us the Councils that called torture an "intrinsic evil". I know of none. Neither do you. You are imagining a history that never happened.
John Paul II cited Vatican II which had used the word "disgrace" about torture and he points that out in section 80 of "Splendor of the Truth" whose other sin categories he then also linked to the phrase "intrinsic evil". It …"intrinsic evil" used about these categories began with him….not in any Council. The problem was that he simultaneously called slavery an intrinsic evil which was news to God who had given chattel slavery to the Jews here in Leviticus 25:44-46
44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
Slavery is now unnecessary and thus contextually evil in non nomadic, modern economies which need paid workers to buy products…and it always was an existential evil…..but not a moral evil since God gave it to the Jews.
July 25, 2011 at 4:03 am
"The only person who has linked the words "torture advocate" to the name "Chris Blosser" in the same sentence is Jay Anderson."
Oh, spare me the sophistry: "… linked the words … in the same sentence." Never mind that you linked them in two sentences in one post.
And keep your insufferable "God bless" to yourself. Invoking the Divine Blessing is not something that should be so thoughless as to be just another piece of someone's signature line.
July 25, 2011 at 4:03 am
"Cite us the Councils that called torture an "intrinsic evil"."
Vatican II
"John Paul II cited Vatican II"
He certainly did. As does B XVI. And even Father Harrison has now submitted to Pope Benedict's teaching on this matter.
"which was news to God who had given chattel slavery to the Jews here in Leviticus 25:44-46"
Sorry. I am a follower of Jesus Christ who gave us a New Covenant wherein he raised us from the status of slaves to sons and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven. You know the Covenant with all of that "love thy neighbor" and love they enemy" stuff.
But if you want to stay and live in the Old Covenant with all that "eye for an eye" and slave owning way of living; well, good luck to you.
As for me. My family and I will follow Jesus Christ.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 4:54 am
Richard,
You actually lie in plain sight and depend on the majority of readers not researching your imaginings but also not following a plain sight thread. Vatican II called torture a "disgrace". John Paul II alone used the phrase "intrinsic evil" in a non infallible text. Generally drunkeness is a disgrace but Scripture urges it for some in Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;
Pro 31:7 let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more.
Ergo "disgrace" is not equivalent to intrinsic evil.
Secondly it doesn't matter that the OT has God giving slavery….that means that it can't be an intrinsic evil because God did not give e.g. real intrinsic evils to the Jews like bestiality and incest…regardless of the changes brought by the NT which by the way tells "bid slaves be submissive to their masters" Titus 2:9
Earth to Richard….God does not give real intrinsic evils in either the OT or the NT. Divorce which He gave for the unbaptized Jews was not an intrinsic evil because even now the Church dispenses from non baptized marriages in favor of
the faith.
July 25, 2011 at 5:11 am
“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”
Oh I get it! Things that cause disgrace, injustice, are offensive to human dignity or negate of the honor due to the creator are really good things which are NOT intrinsically evil. Silly me. And shame on JP II, the Vicar of Christ, for not figuring all this out for himself.
"Divorce which He gave for the unbaptized Jews was not an intrinsic evil because even now the Church dispenses from non baptized marriages in favor of the faith."
And divorce is another good thing! How could I be so blind? That is another one JP II missed.
Boy, this is wonderful. I am learning so much. Up is down and down is up. The Vicar of Christ is not guided by the Holy Spirit when he teaches on faith and morals. Who would of thought. I will listen to you any day over that idiot JP II.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 5:27 am
I usually agree with Voris but in this case, he is way, way out of line. His comments reflect not only the bigotry and air of superiority many Catholics feel toward Protestants, but the almost reflexive bunker mentality that renders even legitimate disagreements as "anti-Catholic."
If Voris is correct about the Church in the U.S. disintegrating w/o constant immigration, then what does that say about the Church's ability to teach and communicate the faith w/o an authoritarian (as opposed to an authoritative) approach? It really doesn't speak to that ability very well, does it?
Voris might not want to believe this but Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are his brothers in the faith, whether he likes it or not. That faith is in Christ, not in institutions that claim authority in His name while blaspheming that name…and having done so for centuries.