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 7:27 pm
" 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."
Well that is the problem here is it not? Some guy or girl titled "I am not Spartacus" has anonymously posted about 30 times in a single thread. These posts attack on a real, third party named Mark Shea. The 30 or so posts allege that Mr. Shea himself has produced posts that are "vile" and "rancid". Yet whoever this guy or girl is, he or she has not quoted, in 30-posts, a single "vile" or "rancid" statement actaully by Mr. Shea.
And this guy or girl titled "I am not Spartacus" boast of posting attacks on Mr. Shea not only on this thread; but all over the internet. What is more this guy or gal has anonymously been doing so for years. Indeed he or she has built up a database concerning Mr. Shea.
This obsession with Mr. Shea is more than a little bit creepy.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Richard W Comerford said…This obsession with Mr. Shea is more than a little bit creepy.
——————————-
You would certainly know about that.
Happy day
Robert M. Leaverchevy
July 25, 2011 at 8:25 pm
"You would certainly know about that."
Sadly yes. I have watched people for 8-years waste their lives attacking Mr. Shea. Even going so far as to set up websites. And all for what?
Just think of what could have been accomplished if that time has been spent in prayer instead.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Yes, sadly indeed. Do you know that some of his self-identified "fans" have also made it a personal crusade to follow Mr. Shea around to the many different websites on which he appears daily in order to defend him? And they do this no matter how poorly he has behaved. And all for what? Website notoriety.
Just think of what could have been accomplished if that time had been spent reading about the life a saint instead.
Happy day
Robert M. Leaverchevy
July 25, 2011 at 9:02 pm
IAMS
"Whatever is hostile to life itself, … whatever violates the integrity of the human person, … whatever is offensive to human dignity: … all these and the like are a disgrace." Torture is a disgrace. Stop defending it.
July 25, 2011 at 9:04 pm
"Torture is a disgrace. Stop defending it."
Dear whatever. I have not written one word in defense of torture in here or anywhere else.
July 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm
"Do you know that some of his self-identified "fans" have also made it a personal crusade to follow Mr. Shea around to the many different websites on which he appears daily in order to defend him?"
Every day!!! Good for them! I wish I had the time to do that. It has been a good 2-3 months since I wrote a word in defense of the evil Mr. Shea.
Just think in this day and age of selfish individualism there are folks willing to spend the time and energy to defend a man's good name and reputation. A man who in turn has defended the weak and innocent from the intrinsic evil that is torture. I am inspired.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Richard
Catholic Answers merely used the word "natural" where I used "existential".
I and they both meant a real but not sacramental marriage. But thanks for copying and pasting an article that agrees with me.
July 25, 2011 at 9:55 pm
I cant read all these comments LarryD. Too many words! Just upload a video or something pleaaaase
July 25, 2011 at 10:12 pm
"Catholic Answers merely used the word "natural" where I used "existential".
I and they both meant a real but not sacramental marriage. But thanks for copying and pasting an article that agrees with me."
You are welcome. But the point is that the Church does not teach that the Pauline Privilege is a divorce – as you apparently do.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 25, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Richard
They are using the word "dissolution" for divorce. If a man's wife says to him,
"I am dissolving our marriage"….he doesn't say, " Whew….for a minute there, I thought you were going to divorce me."
July 25, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Dear Robert M. Leaverchevy,
I like your style.
Peaceful Bliss,
Rothschild E. Goerhonda
July 25, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Dear Mr. Comerford,
I too am inspired that there are such intensely focused individuals who will defend "the evil Mr. Shea" no matter how poorly behaved he may be on the topic at hand just because they have agreed with him on the topic of torture. They are so disciplined at this that they will almost certainly change the topic to torture even when all parties agree that torture is intrinsically evil in an attempt to vilify those who may disagree with "the evil Mr. Shea" on some other topic no matter how benign. It certainly is creepy and after eight years, I'm glad that you could rightly point this out.
Happy Day
Robert M. Leaverchevy
July 25, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Dear Rothschild E. Goerhonda,
Sir, I am honored to make your acquaintance. I can tell by the mark you make, that you sir, are a rugged soul that shares a certain bold outlook on life that you share in an almost Mr. Ernest Heminghway-esque manner as you recount your many adventures in life.
Happy Day
Robert M. Leaverchevy
July 26, 2011 at 1:10 am
You know,
This situation reminds me of this.
Why Can't We Be Friends?
July 26, 2011 at 1:49 am
"They are using the word "dissolution" for divorce."
No. You are using the word dissolution for divorce.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 26, 2011 at 2:08 am
"no matter how poorly behaved he may be on the topic at hand"
Well, that raises the question as to whether Mr. Shea, in the eyes of his many critics, ever behaves properly.
"they will almost certainly change the topic to torture even when all parties agree that torture is intrinsically evil"
Sadly this is not true. In this threat alone one of Mr. Shea's critics openly and clearly advocates for torture.
Indeed it seems that all of Mr. Shea's long time critics advocate for torture (or like the Pre-WW II Nazis call torture "enhanced interrogation") and/or unjust war. As entire websites have been devoted to Mr. Shea's alleged bad behavior the question must be asked: Are Mr. Shea's many critics motivated by Ms. Manners and her rules of etiquette or a perverse political ideology and a Jack Bauer like lust for violence?
Maybe the answer is that Ms. Manners inspires hatred for Mr Shea among the well bred tea drinking class? But over thirty posts from one anonymous yet professional Shea critic in a single thread crosses teh line into fanaticism.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
July 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Because Mr Shea is at liberty to assign malign motives to faithful Catholics he disagrees with –
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". –
it would seem fair that an observer could take a stab at the psychological disorder that so frequently causes Mr Shea to unjustly attack perfectly orthodox Catholics he disagrees with; Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority.
My guess? Well, because Mr Shea has a long-established pattern of losing control and lambasting others, and then later coming to, in many cases, expressing regret he has lost control,only to repeat that pattern, again, and again, and again, one possible cause of these hateful outbursts is –
Explosive personality disorder: Persons with explosive personality disorder may show outbursts of rage and aggression not in keeping with usual personality, often in response to minor provocation: These persons with explosive personality disorder may lose control over a situation and then regret it later.
That sure does seem to fit his long-extablished pattern but even if I am wrong in my stab at what lies behind his sick and twisted pattern of personally savaging others he disagrees with, over things that do not even rise to the level of minor provocation, there is one thing everybody on this thread can agree with-
He. Will. Do. It. Again.
Unless he gets treatment, in the not too distant future, there will be yet another explosive loss of control by Mr Shea directed against some other Orthodox Catholic who disagrees with his personal opinion and Mr Shea will spill enmity and invective all over that individual and assign malign motives , and seek to speak for that person so as to cast that person in the worst possible light etc etc etc.
The past is prologue.
July 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm
IANS, I don't know if your "stab" at figuring out Mark Shea is the right one, but I do know this: when a person repeats the same dysfunctional behaviour expecting different results, he's nuts! Scotju
July 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm
"Because Mr Shea is at liberty to assign malign motives to faithful Catholics he disagrees with"
Has Mr. Vorris complained of being maligned? Indeed what faithful Catholic in full communion with the Bishop of Rome has ever accused Mr. Shea of maligning him?
"Catholics who maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority."
Catholics who promote torture, the inhumane treatment of prisoners and unjust was tear the "Bonds of Unity".
"Explosive personality disorder: Persons with explosive personality disorder may show outbursts of rage and aggression not in keeping with usual personality, often in response to minor provocation"
You mean like some guy or gal who has spent a decade of his or her life making dozens of daily, aggressive, anonymous, public complaints of a person he or she has never met? Of course that kind of sounds liek cyber stalking to me.
"but even if I am wrong in my stab at what lies behind his sick and twisted pattern of personally savaging others he disagrees with"
Maybe you are suffering from "Explosive personality disorder".
"He. Will. Do. It. Again."
You. Will. Do. It. Again.
"Unless he gets treatment"
Or, unless you get treatment.
"The past is prologue."
It certainly is. Do you not think that a decade of this obsession is enough?
God bless
Richard W Comerford