While you make some good points, I still think you are trying to look for a snake under every rock. Indeed, political labels such as conservative or liberal are best kept out of discussions of religious orthodoxy. My point was that you seem quick to light into RealCatholic TV for their sometimes-sharp comments, yet you had no problem shouting “anti-Semitism” when that was not the case. I was simply holding up the mirror.
Fair enough, but perceptions do matter. I and other orthodox Catholics I know have experienced these reactions to “Real Catholic TV,” and we don’t even disagree (most of the time) with Voris’ content!
The kinds of rhetorical moves he executes and names he gives his videos will immediately turn people off. To take my example from below: it doesn’t matter that technically the
content of the video “Hate IS good!” is correct - people who erroneously think that the Catholic Church hates gay people, for instance (and I know people who sadly insist that this is the case), will take one look at that, not watch the video, and leave the website thinking their views have been confirmed.
That is an absolute disaster - a train wreck. I
don’t object
in principle to what Voris is attempting - prefacing his theological and cultural explanations with shock-value openings and rhetoric that grab his viewer’s attention. But that can backfire drastically.
When you read the words of Jesus in the Gospels, in which He says many similarly crazy things (“I have come not to bring peace but a sword” or “Whoever looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her” or the part about how you must hate your father and mother to follow him or “let the dead bury the dead”, etc.), it
doesn’t backfire, partly because of our Lord’s reputation even among secularists today, partly because the rhetorical moves are genuinely well-executed.
It
does backfire when you frame these shockers in ways specifically tailored to correspond to the impression that the Church is hateful, oppressive, etc. I’m sorry, but a nonbeliever isn’t going to get far enough to get the nuances Voris describes in “Only Catholics in heaven!” No, they’re going to look at that, smirk, and think that all Catholics are arrogant. Damage done.
The Jewish people are the people of God in that they were the chosen channel to have God speak to the world, and eventually come into the world and open the gates of Heaven for all. In that sense, yes, they remain the “people of God,” but your assertion about their covenant still being valid was, I believe, not in line with other passages of the Catechism.
Thanks; I appreciate the clarification.
The “social justice” label certainly encompasses many areas, but the point is that those who cling to the term as a rallying cry are very often using it to rally around solutions that one can legitimately disagree with. We cannot disagree about abortion or so-called gay “marriage,” but we can disagree about immigration reform and the death penalty, right? Hmmm, which issues do self-proclaimed social justice advocates talk more about? Immigration and the death penalty, most likely!
Agreed, but how is this problematic? To take a pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage position is incompatible with the demands of the Catholic faith and life. To take up whatever stance on immigration or the death penalty you believe is true (within limits, of course) and to argue that your position is the one most consistent with Catholic teaching is not problematic. On these areas, the Church doesn’t
require uniformity. So why should you or I or Michael Voris?
Again, fighting back against heresy and lax attitudes is a good thing. But it’s counterproductive to this very objective’s theological and social credibility to lump in people who validly disagree on issues to which one can apply Catholic social teaching with actual heretics. That tactic
only confuses the matter further and thus exacerbates the problem.
So again, I’ll agree with you that we need to take back the true meaning of social justice. But you can’t call RealCatholic’s tone inappropriate when so many dissenters regarding non-negotiable issues have created their own code language around what should be a very Catholic term.
The day their code language implies supporting legalized abortion itself, gay marriage itself, embryo-destructive research itself, or other gravely immoral matters themselves, I’ll agree with attacking their code itself.
But if we attack a code that simply means “pro-immigration reform, health care for all, etc.” then we’d better not do it with the same strokes with which we attack heresy and dissent. That unacceptably blurs the line between what Catholic teaching demands and what Catholic teaching is diverse enough to include, and
if non-Catholic viewers pick up on that, then we make it look like the Catholic Church in this country is just a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
But by all means, criticize politically liberal Catholics for prioritizing incorrectly (i.e. ignoring the life issues’ magnitude so they can vote for those who support their
other positions), or just argue politics with them on those other positions if you disagree. That’s different.
We have gotten fund raising requests in the mail from the Ann Arbor Dominican sisters and their growth is amazing according to their letters. And the nuns seem mostly very young women.
)