Here is another take on the same video put out by Voris (Again feel free to disagree with me, I am justing giving my thoughts on what is an old story now)
[My comments in Bracked Bold Red]
A
Reader Asks about Michael Voris’ Fusillade Against Pat Robertson
August 12, 2013 By Mark Shea 19 Comments
He writes:
I just finished watching the following video by Michael Voris that
I’ve seen posted by a few friends in various venues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8U4b6n-iRw&feature=player_embedded#at=352
I was interested in your reaction to it. [I wonder why they would approach Shea for his
opinion on the matter? Come on now it’s
obvious.]
I think there’s much that’s true in what Voris says in this video [ :-D, Well that’s more than Armstrong puts forth.];
however, like some of his other presentations, I found it unnecessarily
antagonistic/combative as well as being skewed factually in some ways [So what is to follow can be said to be mainly a
subjective take, which I am not opposed to, he has every right to his opinion
on Voris’ work.]. For example, early in the video, Voris said, “Robertson, in
typical Protestant fashion – meaning an answer made up out of thin air based on
nothing other than his own feelings and opinions and misreading of Sacred
Scripture…”.
Well, wait a minute. Sure, where Protestants differ from the
teaching of the Catholic Church, they’re wrong and they ultimately are left
appealing to their own personal (and non-authoritative) interpretation of
Scripture. In the specific case at hand, Robertson is wrong on
contraception. But, does that justify disparaging their entire approach to
searching for the truth as making things up out of thin air based on nothing
other than feelings and opinions and misreading Sacred Scripture? In
general, Evangelicals have far more *right* than wrong. [I much prefer Marks take on the issue so far, its
not a personal attack on Voris’ character necessarily. As I have pointed out in my take on
Armstrongs response this take presumes that Mr. Voris is coloring all
protestants the same, but he does give a qualification on the matter using the
word typical. Its fair to say that the
use of the word typical can be seen as saying the majority believe something,
but it also means that differing views are present as well, so people taking
this quote to mean more than its saying in a general sense goes may to far.] To
broad-brush Evangelicals like this in such a disparaging way seems designed to
merely provoke and incite rather than to edify and persuade. [Not necessarily.
It is provocative, and perhaps not the way everyone should go about
evangelizing, yet it is not anathema to evangelization. Many saints took the same approach, and where
successful with the approach. Not
everyone is made of glass and therefore can’t take criticism, many credit Voris’
approach will bringing them back to the faith, myself included. If it’s a matter ways in which the different
apostolates go about evanglizating, as long as they remain orthodox in their
teachings, should not be poo pooed, including Mark Sheas work.]
Also, laying central blame for the societal acceptance of
contraception today at the feet of Protestants seems, at the least,
unfair. After all, it was John Rock, a Catholic, who led the invention of
the birth control pill [Considering
that the birth control pill is only one form of contraception its hard to lay
it all at his feet as well. Again it’s a
vortex, a quick take, not a doctrinal dissertation. More context can be had at
his website and in past episodes.] (Ironically, his intention
was reportedly to comply with Church teaching, but he was still wrong.) He
campaigned for Catholic approval of the pill. He published a book, “The Time
Has Come: A Catholic Doctor’s Proposals to End the Battle over Birth Control”,
and was featured by Time and Newsweek. He also gave numerous interviews with
the networks. “The pill” was critical to the so-called “sexual
revolution.” [Which is
consistent with what Voris quotes from Pius V over and over again on other
Vortex’s that bad Catholics are at fault for all the evils of the world.]
Catholic priests and theologians effectively defected from the
faith over this issue and treated Humanae Vitae as DOA. The bishops didn’t have
the knowledge or fortitude to stand. [Which
Voris applauds Cardinal Dolan for being honest about in a homily he gave about
a year ago.] Now Catholics use birth control just as much as pagans,
Buddhists, Jews and Protestants. And, as many have pointed out, that’s a good
part of the reason we’re facing the immoral HHS mandate now. [That doesn’t excuse the way in which Bishops
approached the HHS mandate to begin with thinking that the best way to go about
this issue was to say its about defending our religious freedom, rather than
approaching it from the stand point that it is an intrinsic evil and we will
not comply and you government can pound sand, we serve Christ first and give to
Cesar only that which is Cesars. This
might be symantical to some, but if we don’t preach and Hold up Christ as our
King and the one who we follow first and foremost, then why do we think some
man made document like the constitution that needs a man made intreprative
staff like the supreme court will necessarly understand anything the way it was
origninally done.]
Catholics led the way on “the pill” and when presented with
“Peter’s” teaching, rejected it. That’s not the fault of Protestants who do not
have Peter. If anything, I would say that Catholics are most to blame for
society embracing contraception. We should have known better. We had the
teaching. We had Peter. We had the Sacraments. We had the One True Church
to which Voris refers in his video. We didn’t care. [Yet
because a Catholic went afar and actively dissented doesn’t create cover for
other protestants. Bad Catholics indeed
are at fault for all the evil of the world, but that people sin isn’t the fault
of the church, but of ones own choices, which I think Mark would agree]
I think Voris would have been better served by taking an approach
more like Protestant Charles Provan in his book, “The Bible and Birth
Control.” Provan does good job demonstrating for Protestants that they
had always been – and should have remained – opposed to birth control. He
presents historical examples and Scripture in a compelling but non-polemical
way.
I’ve used him numerous times and to good effect with Protestant
friends and family. In my personal experience, I’ve found that
Evangelical Protestants are largely open to hearing us on the issue of
contraception. In fact, “life issues” like this have played an important
role in leading some Evangelicals home to the fullness of the faith in the
Catholic Church.
I think approaching them with a hammer like this is unnecessary
and wrong-headed. I get the “hard truth” thing, but the “hard truth” at
least needs to be “the truth” as well as being fair. [Ok I was with Mark until the whole fair
thing. What exactly is unfair here?] Being
tough and unfair doesn’t typically persuade anyone that isn’t already in the
choir. Clanging gongs and all that.
I like
some of Voris’s work and he clearly seems to mean well. But I think he
missed the mark on this one. Your thoughts? [I don’t know
about you, but this commentary was much more enjoyable in that it didn’t
attempt to take every tidbit of the vortex out of its context, thereby riling
up readers. Thanks Mark!]
I hold no brief to Pat Robertson’s frequent crazy commentary (most
recently he was accusing video gamers of being guilty of ”virtual murder”
for blowing up stuff in games). I’ve commented in this space
several times that the guy needs to be taken out of media rolodexes and his
daffy ramblings taken as seriously as Grandpa Abe Simpson’s.
That said, I agree with my reader that Voris manages to pull
defeat from the jaw of victory with his absurd triumphalist commentary on
Robertson’s dumb remarks. All this video serves to do is tell Catholics
in the bunker “You are awesome and the Protestants outside Fortress
Katolicus are bad.” [This whole
attitude of we shouldn’t be triumphalistic when dealing with Protestants was
taken up by Louis Vorrechio here.]
That’s more or less what Voris’ schtick is. It’s not interested
in evangelism. [Ok, now we
are going to disagree. It is focused on
evangelism, just not the type that Mark or Dave are involved in, namely non
confrontational.]. It is, in fact, hostile to it. [False] It’s
interested in telling the denizens of Fortress Katolicus that they must at all
costs defend the Fortress from the unclean hosts besieging it–and keep a
wary eye on those in their ranks who may betray some sign that they too
are not pure enough to be allowed inside. [Be ye
perfect anyone?] Those beseiging hosts, in addition to all Protestants
indiscriminately, include such dangerous people as the bishop who investigated
Fr. Corapi, the Knights of Columbus, Catholic news agencies that look into
Michael Voris’ non-profit status, people who like “Amazing Grace”, the Knights
of Columbus and anybody else who is pre-emptively declared to be a liar whose
falsehoods are to be “trapped and exposed” [Which is
the same tactic Mark takes in the broad brushing toward the end. Each of these points can be defended with
ease because the context is available].
It goes without saying that when Michael Voris teaches that
Judaism is a false [Which the
one practiced today is], manmade religion in the teeth of Nostra Aetate
or when he declares that Catholic monarchy is the form of government Real
Catholics[TM] [Which is
an opinion he can take just as you would say democracy, or specifically
republic governance, as you would propose.
The point is there is no right answer on this. Many thinkers like Aquinas favored monarchies
over Republics, did that make them inherently wrong? Of course not] should endorse,
he’s not just “making things up out of thin air based on nothing other than
feelings and opinions and misreading Sacred Scripture”.
I hope part two of this commentary has been helpful. I do believe that Mr. Shea, though not a friend
of Voris, gives a fine take on the video.
We would certainly disagree on the things pointed out above, but the
civility in comparison to Dave Armstrong’s article is commendable.
I plan on writing one or two more quick takes on this matter
before I put together a longer video incorporating all these issues. By the way Dave Armstrong wrote a defense of
his criticism
here, I think it is worthwhile to read, and is generally better then the
all out attack he came with in my first commentary.
No comments:
Post a Comment