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 25, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Toni, Akron Ohio
Responding to Joseph D'Hippolito.
Joe, regarding your 12;27 am post. Tell me, if Protestants had organized schools where, for many years, Protestant teaching was taught and then that changed to where Catholics were allowed to attend and the Protestant teaching was diluted. Diluted to the point you no longer recognize it as Protestant teaching what would you say about that? I don't know what your allegiance is to Protestant teaching (being there are many different Protestant teaching) BUT, the Catholic church, for many years had (has ? I don't know) dogma. Now, I don't know what they have. Voris speaks to THAT.
Is it not true Protestants only have to ask for forgiveness to be saved? Catholics, whether you agree or not, believe it is through confession one is saved. Since all this watering down though even that's a joke. And from this watering down we see many In-name-only Catholic — lay, schools, priests, nuns, Knights of Columbus, etc., etc., And from that, Catholics are on the pill, aborting, not attending Mass on Sunday and when they do they receive communion. I could go on but why bore the reader. Oh, and they believe like the Protestants – just ask for forgiveness. Where did that come from !! ?
Voris is my kind of Catholic. No watering down from him. That's the problem with Catholics (leadership too) don't recognize Catholic Dogma any longer. Some of our Bishops are trying to correct a huge error in letting dogma stray. Problems is, enough Bishops are liberal and standing in the way of the Bishops trying to turn things around.
Reformation anyone ? ! .
July 25, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Richard,
The Church and thus all Popes cooperate with the divorce of unbaptized people in Pauline and Petrine privilege marriage cases. Technically those cases are supposed to go through the Vatican offices and always involve divorce.
Annullments also involve divorce and involve Church cooperation. Divorce is an intrinsic evil only for baptized, mentally healthy couples. It is a lesser evil in other cases of the non baptized or of the maturity deficient.
Obviously slavery can't be an intrinsic evil due to Leviticus 25 and by the way
"deportation" in the unqualified sense of section 80 can't be an intrinsic evil since in May of 2010, Pope Benedict allowed Italy to protect him by deporting 2 muslim students who had been planning to kill him.
Hence you're stuck with Benedict protecting himself by use of an intrinsic evil…deportation….unless Benedict rightly saw flaws in the unqualified nature of section 80.
Torture also cannot be an intrinsic evil unqualifiedly since Christ said, "The Scriptures cannot be broken" (Jn.10:35) which still applies to the book of Proverbs unlike Leviticus which Proverbs has several proverbs that include a rod being used on fools and it has this passage which prevents all torture from being evil per se:
Pro. 20:30 " Evil is cleasened away with bloody lashes and a scourging to the
inmost being."
So to sum up, we know that slavery is not an intrinsic evil from Leviticus 25; we know that deportation is not an intrinsic evil because Benedict cooperated with it to protect his life; and we know torture is not an intrinsic evil due to Proverbs in several places. Of course, all this is lost on you because you are an a priori person….ie evidence means zero.
July 25, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Fr Harrison writes – "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"
Mr Comerford says – And Mr. Shea himself angrily posted exactly what?
Mr. Comeford. Dunno. I don't read is Blog, and, he took down his unjust and vile attack but it is obvious, if words mean anything, that Mr. Shea angrily attacked Fr Harrison – a reaality you have denied in public in here.
“If Mr. Shea is so evil just stop visiting his website and pray for him.”
Mr Comerford. You appear to have difficulty with reading comprehension. I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog.
July 25, 2011 at 1:32 pm
"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." "I am not Spartacus"
You seem to be appointed to do the world a favor. Hum!
Looks more like an emotional upset to me. You have
said in your postings that you wouldn't post any more, and yet you carry on. Looks like an emotional upset to me. You attack Mark with your interpretations and no solid facts that I can see; looks like an emotional upset to me.
LarryD: " Man, I gotta make more popcorn…"
July 23, 2011 11:39 PM
Not only funny, but probably the best comment if reflected on.
July 25, 2011 at 1:34 pm
"I don't read is Blog, and, he took down his unjust and vile attack but it is obvious"
Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you did not read his evil writings?
"I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog."
Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you do not read his blog. Why do you stalk his name throughout the Catholic internet?
Do you not think that what you are doing is even slightly weird?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Why Can't We Be Friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE
July 25, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Comerford, can you please stop finishing your comments with "God bless"?. It sounds so trite. Like a smile following a sneer.
July 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm
"You seem to be appointed to do the world a favor."
I am volunteering my time and talent:)
"Looks more like an emotional upset to me."
Yes. I do get upset when I learn of the latest nasty, unjust attack by Mr Shea. I was raised that the masculine thing to do was to come to the defense of those unjustly attacked. And that is what I am doing.
" You attack Mark with your interpretations and no solid facts that I can see;"
I can not account for how it is you view and process information but it is simply not arguable that I have not produced any facts. I have posted quotes and links and others have reacted to those facts.
As for Mr Shea's inability to control himself when other perfectly orthodox Catholics disagree with his personal opinions – I have concluded that he is unable to abstain from those nasty, vile, and personal assaults and that he needs professional mental health and spiritual counseling for what could it profit a man to earn such a reputation by those actions?
Mr Shea personally attacks those who disagree with his personal opinions even though the people he attacks maintain the Bonds of Catholic Unity in Worship, Doctrine,and Authority and not publicly confronting and condemning those attacks is not an option for me.
And I think his friends are doing him no favor if they are not taking him aside and telling him to stop this crap. What he does, whether he can control it or not, is ruining his reputation and it will lead to an ugly end for him.
July 25, 2011 at 2:35 pm
"Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you did not read his evil writings?
Dear Mr Comerford. Sometimes, they are posted in here. I mean, the thread you are currently participating in was posted in here; on this website.
"I have already said, more than once, that I do not read his blog."
"Then how do you know that the evil Mr. Shea is evil if you do not read his blog. Why do you stalk his name throughout the Catholic internet? "
You are a silly man, Mr Comerford. I suspected Mr Shea would come to regret that you are such a staunch supporter of his. I not only do not think Mr Shea is evil, I have never written or said that he is evil. However, as I noted once before, you have adopted his nasty tactic of making false accusations.
I do not stalk Mr Shea. I learn about his nasty actions on other sites because I am a reader of those sites- such as What's Wrong With the World? – or others that I read – such as E.Michael Jones at "Culture Wars" (I am a subscriber) or Mr Sungenis at his Bellarmine Theological Forum and I read their objections and responses to his nasty, vile, and personal attacks.
And I even read about it when others challenge him to debates after he has personally attacked them and called then unfaithful. But, he refuses those challenges to debate – even though Mr Sungenis, for instance, -offered to pay his expenses to fly him out for a debate.
"Do you not think that what you are doing is even slightly weird?"
Mr. Comerford. I do not think what I am doing is even slightly weird. I think it is masculine and Catholic. It is always a masculine thing to do to stand-up to a bully.
What I do think is weird is your habit of appending "God Bless You" to everything you write.
July 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm
..doesn't not?…
speaking of a college education 🙂
July 25, 2011 at 3:19 pm
"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. "
Dear Mr Athelstane. Why the need for Mr Shea to repeatedly publicly take back his angry words and become contrite?
Is it not because he can not control himself?
He has a long-established pattern of blowing his top and unjustly lambasting somebody and then comes the apology (but not always ) and then lather, rinse, repeat; again and again.
It is one thing to lose control in real time in a person to person situation but most men with a modicum of self control eventually learn to grow-up and stop acting with such angry self-righteous malice. That is, they learn to control their temper.
But it is far worse in the case of Mr Shea because he has to first write-out and then intentionally publish this crap on his Blog.
There is simply no excuse for this repetitious behavior and y'all have got to stop making excuses for him and get him some help.
It is quite clear he can not stop doing what he is doing. If he could stop he would have stopped long ago.
How many times are you going to make excuses for Mr Shea's nasty actions? How many passes are you going to give him?
At some point, even you will become fed-up with this repetitious pattern of abusive bullying of other orthodox faithful Catholics.
Mr Shea obviously has many many friends. They ought come to his aid and convince him to get some professional help before he completely ruins his reputation. The last thing he needs from his friends is a long train of excuses and rationalisations after one of his blow-ups.
We both know this latest unjust explosion will not be his last, don't we?
July 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm
"I do not stalk Mr Shea. I learn about his nasty actions on other sites because I am a reader of those sites"
Wait a minute. You mean that you are not working off primary denouements and sources? You are relying on the testimony of third parties: AKA gossip? And you say your behavior is not even a little bit weird? Indeed you claim that what you are doing is "masculine"?
Who would have thought it? In the 21st Century masculinity is now equated with gossiping.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 4:06 pm
"Annullments also involve divorce and involve Church cooperation"
No. Protestant are sometimes confused by this. An annulment is not a divorce. The Church teaches that it is simply a declaration that a marriage never existed in the firsts place.
"proverbs has several proverbs that include a rod being used on fools and it has this passage which prevents all torture from being evil per se: Pro. 20:30 " Evil is cleasened away with bloody lashes and a scourging to the
inmost being."
Christ came not only to fulfill the law but to also give us a new Covenant wherein we no longer lived by "an eye for an eye" but we returned "good for evil". Yesterday Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Christ, told us to: "Abandon the way of hatred".
If you wish to follow the way of hatred, torture and slavery that is your business. But I am a Catholic. My family and I pray for the grace to follow the path of love laid out by Jesus Christ.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Is there some kind of corollary to Godwin's Law that says the longer a thread grows debating Mark Shea's merits, the probability of Richard Comerford invoking the God Bless defense of Mark Shea vis-a-vis torture, approaches 1?
July 25, 2011 at 4:44 pm
"Ithe longer a thread grows debating Mark Shea's merits, the probability of Richard Comerford invoking the God Bless defense of Mark Shea vis-a-vis torture, approaches 1?:
Is there a possibility that Mr. Shea is not the font of all evil; but, rather, an Orthodox defender of the Faith; who publicly asks pardon for anyone he had offended and prays for his detractors.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Richard
You skipped Pauline and Petrine cases which involve divorce both legal and existential. Annullments involve legal divorce but not existential divorce.
An eye for an eye is forbidden to private persons not to the state. The New Covenant did not overturn the state being the minister of God's wrath with the sword. Perhaps your family Bible is missing Romans 13:3-4. Let's make up for that deficit from the NAB translation:
3
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer."
You've been shown this probably multiple times before but you have this delete key in your soul which confuses Protestants and Catholics.
"
July 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm
"Wait a minute. You mean that you are not working off primary denouements and sources? You are relying on the testimony of third parties: AKA gossip?"
Dear Mr Comerford. I have already explained to another, on this thread, that the links I provided included internal links back to Mr Shea's rancid rants. And I have also written that I was on other sites and witnessed personally the rancid rants of Mr Shea.
All of this is documented public knowledge; all of this is factual. It is not "gossip."
And now, I am done responding to you. You appear to have severe reading comprehension problems and I am not going to waste any more of my time responding to your non-germane inanities.
In addition to that problem, you have not once, not once, admitted error when I have proven your assertions false. Who desires to have an exchange with such a man?
Not me, that's who.
Good bye.
July 25, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Dera Chris2-4…LMAO Touche
July 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Is it not true Protestants only have to ask for forgiveness to be saved? Catholics, whether you agree or not, believe it is through confession one is saved.
For evangelical Protestants, salvation comes through making a committment to repentence and "accepting Jesus as one's Lord and Savior." I don't think Catholics believe they're saved. Otherwise, why would you think you were saved every time you confess to a priest? Yes, confession is necessary, either in a sacramental or non-sacramental context. But that's a process of sanctification, not "salvation." I think you're confusing the two but this is a digression from my original point.
For Voris to blame the surrounding culture for the decline of Catholic identity is a cop-out. The Catholic Church is responsible for creating and maintaining its own identity. The problem is that, for centuries, Catholicism in Europe has relied on a privledged relationship w/either the state or general society to thrive. As a result, it tends to rely less on the Holy Spirit. It's no wonder that, in societies in which Catholicism doesn't have such relationships, it withers. Catholicism has become far too co-dependent on the European model to maintain spiritual vitality.
It's one thing to support and defend Catholic dogma. It's quite another to look down the noses of other Christians because they're not members of "your" church, regardless of how "your" is defined. That's not solely a Catholic problem, obviously. But it's too big of a problem throughout institutionalized Christianity. It comes when people take Christ's sacrifice for sin and resurrection to destroy death for granted, and place confessional concerns ahead of that. Doing so, sir, is idolatry, pure and simple.
July 25, 2011 at 7:04 pm
"You skipped Pauline and Petrine cases which involve divorce both legal and existential."
Nope. Sorry, The Church does not teach that this is divorce. From Catholic Answers:
"A Pauline Privilege is the dissolution of a purely natural marriage which had been contracted between two non-Christians, one of whom has since become a Christian. The Pauline Privilege is so-named because it is based upon the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul gives instructions concerning problem marriages. In verses 10-11 he discusses sacramental marriages (marriages between two baptized people) and indicates that they are indissoluble. It is possible for a husband and a wife in a sacramental marriage to separate, but they cannot remarry. They must remain separated and not attempt to marry again, or they must reconcile with one other.
In verses 12-16 Paul gives instructions concerning the thornier case of a couple who have only a natural marriage. A sacramental marriage, one that communicates supernatural grace, requires that both partners be baptized. If neither is or only one is, their union is only a natural one. Sometimes one party to a natural marriage converts and becomes a Christian, which can cause the marital problems that Christians are expected to face (Luke 12:51-53, 18:29-30).
While natural marriages should be preserved if at all possible (1 Cor. 7:12-14, 16), they can be dissolved in some cases. Paul tells us in verse 15 that if the unbelieving spouse refuses to live with the Christian partner, the unbeliever can be allowed to withdraw from the marriage, leaving the Christian partner unbound, free to remarry. The Pauline Privilege thus may apply when the Church dissolves a natural marriage after one partner has become Christian and there is a just cause, such as the non-Catholic's refusal to live at peace with the Christian partner.
The Pauline Privilege differs from an annulment because it dissolves a real but natural marriage. An annulment is a declaration that there never was a valid marriage to begin with."
God bless
Richard W Comerford