When Vox Nova was launched over a year ago, one of the first complaints received was that it was insufficiently diverse in terms of representing the fullgamut of Catholic opinion. Persistent critics called for more “conservative” voices, when what they really wanted was more of the same in terms of Catholic blogs–in other words, the tired old Republican talking points masquerading as authentic faith in action. That brand of opinion can indeed be made compatible with orthodox Catholicism under certain conditions, and here I exclude those who made excuses for the Iraq war and torture. But we should see the church as the global phenomenon that it is, and let’s face it– the narrow Americanist pseudo-conservative agenda that dominates the discourse on the Catholic blogosphere does not represent the Church. It does not even represent the church in the United States, for that matter. But according to this view, the Church must follow the secular partisan divide, and only one party is worth supporting.
Over a year later, we are still facing the same attacks, when we clearly have a broader range of orthodox Catholic opinion than any other blog I can think of. It would appear that the latest critic yet again fails to see beyond the dualism of the American political system, which in itself is a Protestant way of thinking (that’s de Lubac, by the way). While not fitting neatly into the Republican box (the form of the less sophisticated critic), he nonetheless seems to have problems with contributors who challenge the nostrums of modern nationalism, and point out the highly conflicted views of the Church fathers on the role of Christians in the military. You see, these topics are off the table in secular discourse, and so should also be in Catholic discourse. Divisions must fall neatly along the secular partisan divide– anything else is simply impolite.
I find little criticism of other group Catholic blogs that offer no diversity of opinion whatsoever. Consider Catholics in the Public Square, which is basically a site dedicated to rallying Catholic support for the Republican party. One contributor has a blog called “Catholics for Bush” (a bit out of date but we get the message) while the incomparable Oswald Sobrino adopts the most strident pro-war pro-military pro-American tone and reads Jeremiah as somwhow predicting the messiah McCain! And yet, we are the ones singled out? Talk about bizarro-world.
Bravo, MM – VN has indeed been a breath of fresh air.
I don’t think you got the gist of Mark’s complaint if this is how you are characterizing it.
And the “other blogs are worse” defense isn’t much of a defense at all, it’s just an excuse.
“Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”
Partisan blogs are partisan blogs and should be read accordingly. Your blog bills itself as proposing a fuller appreciation of Catholic teaching that takes us past ideology. Instead, its… turning into a partisan blog–and one remarkably thin-skinned and resistant to criticism. A shame. I had real hopes for it.
Shea-Meister,
I’ll try here, since thus very question got me banned from your blog: Why do you explicitly appeal for credit card donations on your site?
A few thoughts here
First how many Group Catholic blogs are there that really engages the political realm? Not many
I do enjoy VN and despite being a pretty mainstream Republican (that I guess since I support the Iraq war is your exclusion of Catholic Orhodoxy List).
I would say that Mirrors of Justice is a pretty well balanced blog that is Catholic but I understand to many Catholic some of the subjects they talk about is yawn ville to some outside the legal field and they might not be on mnay peoples radar.
However I do think you are perhaps downplaying the real diversity of opinion and indeed tension in the Conservative Catholic blogsphere. I guess after going through a bruising primary I was more tuned into that.
For instance you have a quite a Anti Bush and anti Iraq contigent full of Ron Paul types and Paleo Conservatives. I know I battle them all the time. From trade to immigration to State execution and other issues we have several lines of thought all of which are bring their Catholic faith into the public square
For instance I have a hard time seeing how the blog What is Wrong With the World is exactly pressing the WHite House talking points at all times.
I think partisanship and politics go hand and hand. After all, partisans are simply people who have convictions about the good society. And that’s OK. Faithful Catholics are allowed to be partisans, and to have differing political opinions. I think we would do better if we just admitted these simple truths.
Mark D. Why are you so concerned about the paypal button? Why don’t you read his blog? I think you can find out there. I know that would require you to learn about something before judging it but still I think you should try it.
Mark Shea simply needs to boost his readership every so often by calling people jerks. Typical. He’s done it before.
Right around the corner from where I now live in Germany, there is a statue of Josef Cardinal Frings. His peritas at the Second Vatican Council was Josef Ratzinger. Frings attacked the “Holy Office”–which his protege Ratzinger eventually came to head, as being too “authoritarian” and “arbitrary.” In the Church of Saint Quirinus in Neus high mass is said in Latin, and this doesn’t seem to bother the admirers of Frings, who stood up to the Nazis when he was Archbishop here.
I haven’t been here long, but it already seems to me to be possible that the Catholic Church in Europe, though small and perhaps beleaguered, is perhaps more vibrant and diverse than what I saw in America–where it almost always DID seem to me to be the “Republican Party on its knees.”
I am surprised how often one of our most prolific contributors is ignored. Do people read Blackadder’s posts, most of which are intellectually challenging and–even to those who maintain other political vistas–force us all to rethink our stances? Mark Shea is obsessed with Michael Iafrate…Zippy is obsessed with MM…suddenly Vox Nova is reducible to Iafrate and MM? Please. The diversity sometimes limps and sometimes it hits full stride at Vox Nova, but it is definitely there. The problem is that there is a minority of our readers who wish characterize and dismiss the entire blog based upon their disagreement with one or two contributors. And those who wish to homogenize and stereotype tend to ignore diversity.
We have a contributor forum where all the contributors voice their ideas and concerns. The crowd at Vox Nova is hardly unified and, in fact, things can often get quite a bit ugly. What Shea takes as being “weak-kneed” is nothing more than a projection of his own disdain for Iafrate and his frustration that contributors here tend to keep our disagreements with one another private.
Could I please ask commentors to address Mark Shea and others on substance and not to get into petty name-calling? This is an important point I am trying to make.
Getting back to Sobrino: could you imagine the attack that would ensue if somebody talked about Obama in the messianic language he uses for McCain? And yet… no reaction.
MM,
Catholics in the Public Square is not a site even worthy of response; Oswald Sobrino’s presence therein simply eclipses all legitimacy the others do/could lend.
Christopher would do himself very well to boot that guy out if he has the power, or, leave himself.
Let’s let Mr. Sobrino speak for himself:
Back in the seventies (and even today), books describing the end times and the figure of the Antichrist were hot items in American popular culture. It is just a matter of time before the comparison begins to be made between the weird messianic hype surrounding Obama and those “pop culture” memories for many voters. I predict many evangelical voters and others will be reminded of the descriptions in popular books of the Antichrist as a smooth talking, seducing figure who pledges to unite the world (and with a European base, at that). I do not believe that Obama is the Antichrist, but he sure is strangely acting out the role that a certain genre of popular religious writing in the seventies imagined. If you freely choose to act weird, weird associations are inevitable. Here is some background at this link on the pop culture risk Obama persists in taking. It will be interesting to see if any pollsters decide to dare risk asking some probing questions in this area.”
[...] Morning’s Minion, completely oblivious to what Shea’s criticism is, misses the point entirely. It’s not so much that Vox Nova is left-of-center but that often that the blog hosts are much quicker to demean or chastise the conservatives on there who comment than the leftists. Yes, Blackadder trudges on bravely, but the overall tenor of the blog is to the left. Which is fine. Almost all of the contributors to VN are faithful Catholics, orthodox in their beliefs, who hold political opinions that I happen to disagree with. [...]
Poli, I think the reason conservative critics of VN miss BA is because of the ratio of “conservative” to “liberal” posts at VN, which give VN the impression of being a largely politically-liberal, orthodox Catholic blog.
And I think that’s true. Not that there’s anything wrong with it… again, as I’ve noted before, I enjoy reading things from other orthodox Catholics of differing political persuasions. But it *is* hard to regard VN as a politically-broad blog when so many of the posts fall center-left or left.
…smooth talking, seducing figure…
…If you freely choose to act weird, weird associations are inevitable…
So Obama in his political speech is a smooth talkingm seducing figure.
If it were an apt chacterization, how would it be weird?
Are other modern politicians not smooth talking and seducing?
Well, maybe not McCain, the affirmative action recipient of entry to the military academy..as a certain number of admirals’ academically undeserving sons positively must get in. each year..while Mr. Obama got elected to head the Harvard Law Review without mentioning that he was black on the application…..
Is it weird that Obama as a black man is smooth talking and seducing? Is this what is seemingly–potentially, at least,–devilsih?
Unlike many supposedly “conservative” thread contributours, Black Adder happens to know also how to think and can communicate that well in writing, without having to lash out whenenever challenged or questioned. He does not at all tend to act partisanly or overly accuse partisanship, even in pursuing a more conservative slant.
Notice the better treatment that Black Adder receives from even the crankiest of lefty commenters–bloggers and threaders alike.
I frequently disagree with jonathonjones02, but read him as well as blackadderiv. But they do not write poorly (and I do). And they are thoughtful. I am still digesting the “race” articles of blackadderiv.
Dialogue doesn’t mean everyone agrees. At all.
BA does do good work. Thanks BA! But
1) He’s clearly in the minority.
2) He’s polite. MM and Michael I., whatever else they are, are certainly not polite. They frequently engage in unhelpful ad hominem or needlessly vexatious partisanship, which creates a stronger impression than more civil discorse. When there is only one consistent, and relatively moderate, conservative poster, and several…flamboyant liberal posters, the site will be characterized as leftish.
Add the departures of several of the conservative posters over the past 12 months, and VN takes on an identity, and not necessarily the identity of a blog with lots of diversity.
MarkD,
I’ll try here, since thus very question got me banned from your blog: Why do you explicitly appeal for credit card donations on your site?
Since the question seems to bother you and no one is answering — Shea is a professional writer and apologist. He’s written a number of books (to my knowledge all of them on non-political topics — apologetics, spirituality, theology) and he writes articles regularly. Given that writing books for a primarily Catholic audience does not pay well, and he has a family to support, he takes donations on his blog and has a couple annual fund drives.
I’m not a fan of his blogging oeuvre these days, because I think it sometimes causes more heat than light, but several of my friends who are converts tell me that they read his books early on in their conversion process and found them spiritually helpful.
Poli,
I think the reason people often object to Michael I is that he is often intentionally abrasive. Blackadder is indeed a very good and prolific contributor — but he has an amazing store of patience and tends to respond to even very rude comments quite calmly and reasonably. Thus while some regular commenters clearly find his views deeply repulsive (and say so all the time) I’d be surprised if any people feel persecuted or attacked my him.
Michael, on the other hand, tends to be intentionally abrasive and sometimes refuses to engage with people who disagree with him. In addition, when called on that, he tends to claim that it’s actively _good_ for a Christian to be abrasive rather than charitable according to the traditional definition of the term.
Combine that with a few very abrasive left wing commenters who like to accuse everyone of being hypocrites, being paid hacks, hating the poor, being racist, etc. who are almost never told to stuff it by the proprietors of the blog, and you have an increasing lowering of the tone around here. (And yes, there some some abrasive and rude right wing commenters too — but they are routinely told to stuff it by the authors here.)
Which, ironically, is exactly the same complaint I’ve had about Shea’s blog for a couple years now…
How ironic, MM – You above all inject most of the partisan angles on this site.
Just three days from Oswald Sobrino’s post I sited above, he moves to accusing Obama of messianism…
In Obama, you see the false messianism, the false prophecy that all is well with a nation that has made killing of babies a legal right with the false aura of compassion, that all is well with a nation that celebrates gay “marriages” that further insult an institution already reeling from decades of heterosexual shacking up and fornication as an accepted way of life, that all we need is more of the same moral and logical fog so that we can all be part of One Happy World cheering a false messiah.”
Christopher’s father is a trained professional philosopher. I wonder how a man who passed comprehensive exams for a Ph.D feels deep down about his son’s associating with such intellectual thuggery.
‘
I’d like to revise & extend my remarks to include what Darwin said.
This blog had and continues to have great potential to fill a continuing lacuna in St. Blogs. And the comboxes *are* an important part of that role. But I think the bar needs to be raised in terms of the discourse if VN is going to fill that lacuna instead of dismissed even by those who want it to succeed.
DC,
I did not accuse you of being a paid political writer. I just asked you if you were paid, in order to understand your own uncharacteristic fuzziness whenever it comes to the Iraqi war.
Please do not mistate our past exchange.
Mark,
“Christopher’s father is a trained professional philosopher. I wonder how a man who passed comprehensive exams for a Ph.D feels deep down about his son’s associating with such intellectual thuggery.”
Why do you post something like this? How does this kind of closing ‘graph possibly advance your argument? It serves no purpose but to *needlessly* antagonize, and as such weakens your point.
“It’s not so much that Vox Nova is left-of-center but that often that the blog hosts are much quicker to demean or chastise the conservatives on there who comment than the leftists.”
There is some fault here, of course (mea culpa), but again I ask: why is VN being singled out? In the days when the Catholic blogosphere was dominated by the so-called conservatives, in the days when Bush was popular, in the days when opposition to the Iraq war provoked cries of treason, not so long ago, many of us who raised these topics faced far worse abuse than is typically meted out here. Even today, if I raised certain topics on certain other high-profile blogs (no names mentioned), I can predict the vitriolic responses. Try talking about how voting for Obama is a legitimate choice, for example. So no, I do not believe the issue is tone. The issue is substance. It’s not that Mark Shea has problems with Michael Iafrafe’s reaction to criticism; it’s that he does not like what Michael Iafrate believes in.
such intellectual thuggery
What exactly in that quote isn’t correct? Obama is in fact zealously pro-abortion and supports all sorts of gay “rights”initiatives.
Seems to me that Vox-Nova exists primarily to make people who call themselves Catholic feel good about voting for pro-death Democrats using esoteric, Pharisaical and Screwtapian arguments.
MM,
There is some fault here, of course (mea culpa), but again I ask: why is VN being singled out?
I suspect it’s because VN rejects being termed “left-of-center” or some similar label, while other blogs where someone with opinions like your own are likely to be attacked proudly call themselves conservative. In other words, if VN self-described as “liberal” (and no, I’m not advocating that it does), there would probably be less complaint out there, because you’d expect a liberal blog to focus more on critiquing conservative ideas than liberal ones.
Tony, I tend to strongly disagree with the political views of people here like MM, Michael I, and Mark D, but I just as strongly believe that they are orthodox Catholics who argue in good faith. There’s a reason (well, many of them) that most Catholics voted for Democrats (until the latter went wacky on abortion).
I’d like to voice my appreciation of Blackadder and jj02 as well; their work does not go unnoticed. And I don’t mean to exclude all the liberal bloggers, who can be quite interesting at times.
There’s a reason (well, many of them) that most Catholics voted for Democrats (until the latter went wacky on abortion).
Chris, of course there is. And I would have no trouble voting for a principled Democrat who was anti-abortion. Unfortunately, killing of the unborn is a deal breaker for a faithful Catholic. Especially for voting for a Democrat like Obama who advocates those babies who survive abortion be left to die.
Hearing support for that man from people who are supposedly Catholic sickens me. And the mental gymnastics! If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, morning’s minion would be a gold medal winner.
Hearing support for that man from people who are supposedly Catholic sickens me. And the mental gymnastics! If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, morning’s minion would be a gold medal winner.
Tony, I’m broadly sympathetic to your larger point, but referring to the contributors here as “supposedly Catholic” isn’t likely to incline them to to hear your out, as you can imagine. Listen, I’m going to vote for McCain this November, but I’ll do so holding my nose… I’m sure you know that he *also* supports killing the youngest and most innocent of human beings (ESCR). He’s no while lily. So while I agree with you in the end, I also recognize that *good* Catholics can find it *very* difficult to vote for McCain (and I think most of the kind of posts at issue here at VN aren’t so much pro-Obama as anti-McCain).
I think we need to remind ourselves (all of us) that orthodoxy transcends partisanship. In my first class for my MA in Theo our prof told us he never wanted us to use the terms “conservative” and “liberal” in any class discussion. They do not belong in Church speak.
Now, that obviously gets muddled a bit when you begin to talk about politics. Nevertheless, far too many American Catholics associated more strongly with this party or that one than they do with being Catholic. I know many on both sides of the political aisle who do this.
There is legitimate room for disagreement. However, in my experience many Republican Catholics tend to reduce Catholicism to the party line. It has suddenly become heresy to vote Democrat or to even criticize certain republicans. And, I think this “RepubliCatholicism” has, in a certain sense, bullied orthodox Catholics of different political perspectives to overcompensate.
Orthodoxy transcends both. Neither party comes close to accurately representing us. We should be able to have important and relevant political discussions and disagreements in charity and respect.
Chris,
Explanations have been given here to Tony many, many times as to how, according to Church teaching, a Catholic MAY responsibly reason to the conclusion that a vote for Obama is the more prudent vote this election. ”
Faithful Citizenship’ has been aptly discussed and explicated by a few different posters, and much, much clarification ensued.
But Tony has shown no real willingness to understand this. He keeps dogmatically (and wrongly) repeating his claim.
Tony,
In the light of the above, don’t you have something more ‘constructive’ to do? Aren’t there the many guns of yours to be cleaned, for example?
* Chris, Tony has reveled for us this past year his deep fondness for various weapons of destruction. I try to remember important things about the different commenters. ;0
Mark DeFrancisis,
A while back I wrote some reflections on the need to master the tongue. If I recall correctly, you once told me that this post had chastened you, and made you be more on your guard about what you write on this and other blogs. I believe that it may be time for you to start doing this again. You have shown yourself quite capable of offering insightful commentary here in the past, but lately, it seems like your comments have consisted of little but gratuitous insults. Please stop it.
What’s much needed in the Catholic blogosphere is some opportunity for actual extended dialogs. Even the best of blogs, as they are currently constituted, are almost always a collection of initial one-sided posts, followed by a haphazard set of comments. Nothing gets examined in detail or in depth; even simple follow-up points get lost, or ignored, or glossed over. Related issues and objections don’t get brought up. And in the face of such a diluted stream of thought, the attention span of the original poster, quite naturally, can be measured in minutes.
A place where an actual debate can take place is desperately needed.
Catholics for the Pubic Square, MM ? Freudian ? :D Of course, that IS a synonym for Catholics for Bush. Hehe.
It certainly is true that the Catholic blogosphere is predominantly Republican. But someone who’s pretty partisan in the other direction really shouldn’t complain. It is however true that Catholicism isn’t partisan – it combines highly conservative morals with highly liberal social policies :P
Paul,
You are correct, but the fact is that there is only so much time and energy people with day jobs and families can give to creating and maintaining such spaces on a volunteer basis.
It is an inherent limitation, especially in an ephemeral medium like this.
I see Zippy called VN the Auschwitz debate club, writing
I think there is something basically wrong with the implicit notion that just because the slaughter is happening right now, not 60 years ago, it is not of at least equal gravity to the slaughter of 60 years ago.
You have to be a moral retard to compare ESCR or abortion to the Holocaust. Sure, eg, a blastocyst is human, but it doesn’t suffer. There is no consciousness, no families torn apart, people screaming in horror, and so forth. He probably thinks taking the pill is like Auschwitz, too.
Mark Shea is obsessed with Michael Iafrate
Two posts constitutes an obsession? That’s lowering the bar a bit, innit? Don’t I have to build a bedroom shrine of Iafrate photos culled from the web, dress like him, spam his office with fan mail, call his girlfriend and tell her I’m him, phone him in the middle of the night demanding he play “Misty” for me?
We must not allow an erosion in the value of obsession! Two posts is not nearly enough to constitute obsession. Work with me, people!
We must not allow an erosion in the value of obsession! Two posts is not nearly enough to constitute obsession. Work with me, people!
I don’t think you’ve established yourself as a moderating voice of reason in this debate. In those two posts on Michael I., you’ve spoken volumes as to your personal animus against him and his ideas. An obsession need not manifest itself concretely. Your obsession simply found itself concretized twice. Combined with the absence of a shred of reasoned criticism of Iafrate in your posts, I find your attacks on him purely gratuitous and self-serving.
Zippy is obsessed with MM
ROFL! Have I ever even linked to one of his posts from one of mine? I’m frankly not sure.
You have to be a moral retard to compare ESCR or abortion to the Holocaust.
I’m getting the impression that being called a moral retard by you is something that should be taken as a compliment, Gerald.
Policraticus
Another problem is the inability of people who respond to posts to understand the posts themselves. For example, many people have acted like I was talking about the need for “welfare programs” on my post on Bruce Ivins. Why? Because I said the “pro-life” movement is not consistent on issues of life. That does not equate with “welfare programs.” But that’s how they read it, then start adding more and more supposition to my words and make me a “partisan.” This tells me much of the problem is not what is said on VN, but what goes on in the mind of the reader which adds to what is said, assumes all kinds of things to what is said, and then complains.
Henry, the nature of the blogosphere is Pavlovian. Certain keywords trigger certain reflexes.
As far as ‘Zippy’ is concerned… a person arguing against the legality of life of the mother exceptions, or of morning after pill for rape and incest victims etc. really has no place in decent society. Thankfully, such opinions will never become law. Not to mention that the entire abortion one-trick-pony act is rather tiresome.
“Combine that with a few very abrasive left wing commenters who like to accuse everyone of being hypocrites, being paid hacks, hating the poor, being racist…”
“being racist…” Does this have to do with an insistence that race was at play in one or two McCain ads? Or, challenging a person who tried to goad the whole VN blog to sing God Bless America, after the racial rifts in our country came to the surface in the Democratic primary? If so, notice the astounding logical leap the charger then makes.
“hating the poor…” Who are these commentators, DC? I? G Alkon? digbydolbein? What particular blanket comments. Evidence please. Our responses to the typical Teutonic Tim antics around here, accusing those who know CST of being socialists?
“being hypocrites..” .Is this pointing out once the irony of those crying foul about a VN blogger’s political treatment of a series of McCain ads, whenever the very ads accused treason; invoked messianist imagery; and performed the move that caused the deserved Paris Hilton sad but apt response of exposing of the current vacuity of that candidate’s general campaign?
Gerald
Yes, I would also say the self-contradiction of people who blog (I am sure I have mine, too; where, I don’t know) would get Derrida quite interested. So there is a Pavlovian response allowing for a deconstruction of what is said.
But you must admit; much of what is said in response on VN comes from people who assume views for the post which were not said in the post and often have no relation to the post itself; thankully, there are some who hold legitimate differences to VN posters and don’t fall into that error, and won’t argue that way.
I mean — you had to admit, my saying don’t call Bruce Ivins pro-life because he killed should have been a no-brainer. Instead, you get people arguing all kinds of things, including “welfare” from that one post. All the while I have been talking about the taking of life, and how the political movement (as you say, a one-trick pony) is all about abortion, ignoring even some abortion concerns (IVF).
As a side note; the Catholic Church, through double effect, does allow work to save the life of the mother which indirectly kills the child (cancer treatment, for example). It did not always respond in this way, to be sure; and it can seem like “double talk” I am sure to many, but the nuance is valuable and looking to it in abortion will help people understand the nuances of all moral theology.
Because I said the “pro-life” movement is not consistent on issues of life. That does not equate with “welfare programs.”
No, you said that they “neglect” people who are “not in the womb.” Are you really unfamiliar with the fact that you were repeating pro-choice verbiage by which pro-lifers are always condemned for failing to support enough government programs? The pro-choice argument (not that it makes sense) is, “Oh, what a hypocrite, to be against abortion, when you’re neglecting to help out these babies with welfare, food stamps, healthcare, childcare, etc., after they’re born.”
If you didn’t intend to use phrasing identical to that of pro-choicers, fair enough, although I’d suggest that you read more pro-choice literature so that you might recognize it when you make their same arguments.
Henry, most definitely, I used to do it all the time :) It’s the dittohead syndrome and it especially affects partisan people. Everyone’s biased, some more so than others. What I’ve found to be helpful on the internet is that one sees one’s views portrayed by others, which can serve as a corrective.
I don’t buy the dual effect, btw – the infamous ectopic pregnancy solution of the Catholic church can actually endanger fertility and is more dangerous. But, I’m not an absolutist, I’m a pragmatist.
Btw, it’s not true conservatives don’t care about people once they’re born. When it comes time to enlist in the military, they care again ;o)
I think there is something basically wrong with the implicit notion that just because the slaughter is happening right now, not 60 years ago, it is not of at least equal gravity to the slaughter of 60 years ago.
I think they are distinct historical acts. I earnestly desire to see social protection for the unborn. Should that be achieved, I do not wish to see Nuremberg-style trials for women who have had abortions.
In the light of the above, don’t you have something more ‘constructive’ to do? Aren’t there the many guns of yours to be cleaned, for example?
Actually Mark, I cleaned my guns immediately after my wife and my last trip to the range.
* Chris, Tony has reveled for us this past year his deep fondness for various weapons of destruction. I try to remember important things about the different commenters. ;0
It’s only an “important thing” if you are a bad guy with plans to hurt me or my family. Other than that, it’s an enjoyable (to me) hobby.
It is not easy to argue from substance, but I hope that we would all do so – especially if we seek to take our Catholic faith seriously. There is no need to assume motives, or to get at the “personal” – if clarification is beneficial, ask. Not that hard. The “blog war” mindset is not only silly it is counterproductive to living a life of Christian charity.
But it *is* hard to regard VN as a politically-broad blog when so many of the posts fall center-left or left.
It’s just hard to find those in the right who don’t let their love for the Republican party get in the way of their posts, ha!
The words I gave are the words of John Paul II in The Gospel of Life. Indeed, for all those who criticized my post yesterday, saying it is too vague, I put in the post itself a link to the encyclical. And in that encyclical, the concern for life is as I explained.
So what if people who are pro-choice criticize some in the pro-life movement for an inconsistent ethic for life? Does it make the criticism wrong? The criticism is right or wrong, no matter who said it; such ad hominems, however, are typical in blog discussions.
The criticism is right or wrong, no matter who said it; such ad hominems, however, are typical in blog discussions.
1) Learn the definition of “ad hominem.” I didn’t say that the argument was necessarily wrong, nor did I attribute its wrongness to any defect in your character.
2) What I do say is that IF you mean the argument in the same way that pro-choicers do (and this is a point that you have yet to clarify), then it’s wrong — not because of any defect in your character, but because the belief that killing should be prohibited obviously doesn’t require one to believe in any particular level of government spending.
And once again, your post didn’t just talk about an “inconsistent ethic for life,” which would be a fair point. You spoke of “neglect” for people outside the womb. I’ve asked several times for clarification as to what this meant. Are you directly refusing to say what you meant? Or was it just a mindless phrase that didn’t really mean anything in the first place? Or what?
One last time; read the link.
And SB, your sophistry continues to show.
I think they are distinct historical acts. I earnestly desire to see social protection for the unborn. Should that be achieved, I do not wish to see Nuremberg-style trials for women who have had abortions.
Obviously different things are different things, tautologically. What I addressed in the quote of mine being bandied about is the gravity of the wanton slaughter of 50 million unborn, versus the gravity of the wanton slaughter of six million Jews.
Vox Nova is a great place to be if you want to see tergiversating minimization of the former. One need look no further than this thread.
Interesting . . . you love pulling out the word “sophistry.” A better term would be “arguments that Henry can’t answer.”
The reason I asked for that clarification, Henry, is because in a prior debate, you did make the same (wrong) argument that pro-choicers make, i.e., accusing pro-lifers of being hypocrites for failing to support (if I recall) enough health care spending, and thereby supposedly causing born people to die. If you mean to use that same argument here, then, again, it’s plainly wrong. The fact that I’m obliged not to bash your head in does not imply that I’m obliged to give you $1,000 that you need; it’s possible that I might be so obliged, yes, but not by virtue of the former.
Poli,
I think the reason that people ignore BA is because it feels like the vox nova posters ignore him. I have many times read posts by BA expecting some sort of interesting debate between him and other posters, but generally that doesn’t happen. It appears that he is tolerated for the sake of diversity but not really a part of the group. Instead of debating his posts, I generally sense that they were deliberately ignored by some of the other more prolific posters to make a point.
Mike Enright
It’s not that Mark Shea has problems with Michael Iafrafe’s reaction to criticism; it’s that he does not like what Michael Iafrate believes in.
This is 180 degrees wrong. I don’t much care what Iafrate believes in. I disagree with a lot of it, but from a theological perspective it’s largely within the pale of Catholic social thought so I chalk it up to “It’s a Big Church.” What irritates me is his hectoring abuse of guys like Feddie, which alienates the very people this blog is aiming to reach with its attempt to present a full-orbed discussion of the breadth of Catholic social teaching. I’m also irritated by your “zey hate uss bekuss ve zo beautiful” response, which continually overlooks this plain-as-day problem with self-justifying prattle. And I think it’s absolutely silly (and telling) about the growing bunker mentality that the instantaneous response to criticism of Iafrate’s bullying is the bizarre claim that I am “obsessed” with him when my entire history consists of one (1) previous post on my blog in which I registered my eye roll over his weird attempt to construe celebration of Independence Day as an insult to St. Elizabeth. That’s what you call “thin-skinned”.
But, as I say, it’s your blog. If you want to indulge your denial you can.
I think the reason that people ignore BA is because it feels like the vox nova posters ignore him.
I’m not sure about this one. I, for one, have frequent personal conversations with Katerina over the content of Blackadder’s posts, and often the elements of these conversations end up becoming comments left by us on his posts. I assure you, Blackadder is not merely “tolerated,” and I consider him a valuable part of what we do here.
An obsession need not manifest itself concretely. Your obsession simply found itself concretized twice.
Hah! That’s great! My soul has been read!
Poli:
I can likewise tell all about your inmost feelings about squirrels and Roman gladiators. Oh sure, you are careful to hide your obession by not actually posting on these things. But that’s the dead giveaway that you are consumed with them! Everybody can tell from your frequent use of the word “Rome” what you are *really* thinking. Just admit it and you can find freedom!
Ah me! Thanks! Great way to start the morning, dude! “Your obsession simply found itself concretized twice.” That’s great!
The problem with Vox Nova is that it doesn’t have much, if any, posts about music and art. It is the arts that will change culture. When I want to take a break from work, I want to go to a post on Vox Nova and click “play” to listen to music. That’s a problem guys!!!!
Other than that, I don’t see anything wrong with it. As for Michael I. being a jackass, is that even a good argument against him? Frankly, although I think he **is** a jackass, it’s that quality which makes me like him. I mean, St. Paul could be a jackass sometimes. Do you see how he bullies those heretics, those communities like the Galatians? Plus, he says that he has “toiled harder than” all of the apostles! What attitude! Of course, he then says “by the grace of God.” It’s like saying, “I’m better than you! ….by the grace of God.” I love it.
Apolonio
You get the irony of the discussion. What is more is that only a few people are singled out, but when other people, like SB, TeutonicTim, heck even Feddie, act rude and nasty — not a peep. Looking at deconstructing the situation, it becomes quite apparent what is going on. Can’t discuss the issues, so some people have to say something critical on something petty — and something common on the blogosphere; indeed, ignoring the log in their own eye.
BA.,
I will behave better.
As to Mark Shea, I owe him a personal apology. As he may happen to come by, please allow me the space to do so briefly here .
Mark Shea , after putting aside my way sometimes too ‘spirited’ impulse to defend a few bloggers I feel a loyalty to only because I have gotten so much out of their many origibal posts, I see that I have been completely unfair in my characterization of your overall online activities, and committed the ugliest of offenses in bandying about the phrase “paid partisan hack ” in reference to you.
While I do think you have overgeneralized in your way that thread contributors are dealt withy here, I understand your desire, like mine deep down, for a blog that is able to overcome the debilitating effects of partisanship–which is invitably everywhere, in order that the fullness of Catholic truth may shine threw. I guess each of us picks different ‘pressure points’ to act out our frustrations in this regard.
I have given myself the liberty to read more and more of your stuff this last overnight, and am quite impressed by the breadth of your understanding, and, particularly and most relevant here, your willingness to call any political party or figure–Democrat of Republican– to task whenever apt.
My slide into making an issue of your certain practices at your blog was most unfortunate, as I have come to understand that your means of earning a living for yourself and your family is writing, and, mostly, amidst the situations you have laboured to create for yourself in the web-sphere, in your service to the Church.
The ‘dentals’ stuff was just an adolescent laying it on on my part. I hope you found it at least slightly humorous, even though the jest was directed squarely at you…I did chuckle at the intended humour in your responses, even when directed at your opponents.
As I ask your forgiveness, allow me to only reiterate that all of us be more sensitive to how easily we can use the ‘desire to see the fullness of Truth’ to be a means of actually partisanly going about and actually partisanly and viciously destroying others. We need to read what people actually write. This is particularly so whenever someone has worked on original blogger posts–in which much more time and consideration was probably and hopefully put, in comparison to our ephemeral and sometimes only flee(t)ing and jerk (y) responses.
Henry, you might want to watch out on posting about art and music ;o) Soon people will swoon over an archbishop in a 20 ft. cappa magna ;o)
I like VN, esp. since some of the people have calmed down a bit. In the early days, the self-righteousness was often comical. I find it useful to hear arguments of people with whom will frequently disagree. As a ‘lapsed Catholic’, it’s pretty much the only site I still visit, since it, for better and worse, offers ‘applied Catholicism’ and not just fire & brimstone.
Mark:
You refresh my heart! Thanks for your apology! All is forgiven! I don’t know if you saw my blog this AM, but I also put up a mea culpa for my name-calling at Michael. I *like* Vox Nova and I want it to succeed. That’s why I felt obliged to speak.
Anyway, thanks!
Mark S:
No, thank you (and imagine, if you will, my terrible DeNiro impersaonation :)) for your deep kindness and courtesy. It is very liberating. I’ll go to your blog and check your comments out….
Pax
For what it’s worth, I certainly don’t feel like I’m ignored by my co-contributors. In fact, sometimes I wish my posts didn’t attract so much of their attention. :)
Damn, people got holy all of a sudden. Very nice. Christ works in weird and mysterious ways. I like it. A bunch of idiots are in communion somehow. That’s the essence of the Church!
Apolonio,
You could not have described it (and me, whenever I finally yield to grace) any better…
Mark,
When I came back from Mass, eating my McDonalds and checked to see what weird things people are saying here, I saw your apology and Mark Shea’s and I was like..”What the f***?!?” The great thing about Christianity is that it is always surprising and always keeps us in wonder! The better question (than “what the f”) is, “who is this Man? who did this?” :-)
Blackaddder: I’m watching you! :)
“It’s not that Mark Shea has problems with Michael Iafrafe’s reaction to criticism; it’s that he does not like what Michael Iafrate believes in.”
BINGO!
Wow! The charism of reading souls is all over the place on this blog!
When I want to take a break from work, I want to go to a post on Vox Nova and click “play” to listen to music. That’s a problem guys!!!!
[...]
As for Michael I. being a jackass, is that even a good argument against him? Frankly, although I think he **is** a jackass, it’s that quality which makes me like him.
Apolonio, be careful what you ask for. Want to see me really act like a “jackass?” Get me started talking about music. :)
Mark Shea – Apology accepted.
As long as we have posters who place their secular political ideology as superior to the Church (or synonymous with) there will be severe problems.
And that is why we have an “Us against them” mindset, just like the topic of this post indicates. And then our nameless “they” opponent can easily be vilified.
This happens on the left and on the right. But more on the left than on the right, mostly because the left has drank more of the secular liberal kool-aid and wants the Church to conform to modern trends.
As long as we have posters who place their secular political ideology as superior to the Church (or synonymous with) there will be severe problems.
I couldn’t agree more.
Quick clarification, when I wrote, “As long as we have posters…” I was referring not just to vox nova, but St. Blog’s in general.
Perhaps the comments, “Persistent critics called for more “conservative” voices, when what they really wanted was more of the same in terms of Catholic blogs–in other words, Republican Talking Points” has more to do with the observance of every day life for the average homosapien in this year of our Lord 2008, than some organized oppressive Catholic republican monopoly onslaught. See last time I checked I can get leftist talking points, left of center talking points, slight left of center talking points with a bow on it, a subatomic particle to the left of center and even leftist revisionist Christian talking points from the following organizations every day ALL day: The mainstream media including, Print News, Magazines, Television, Film and Music, The Public School and University System, including a great number of our private catholic universities. Do the writers of this blog actually believe they are “Different” because their frequent left of center editorial slants make them unique in the medium known as the “Blogosphere”? What, do you need a niche that bad? Grow a goatee or something.
P.S Do you get together with the other oppressed and meet in dark allies and draw fishes in the dirt to identify yourselves in secret? Or maybe you can identify one another by simply opening your local newspaper in the morning, or perhaps walk over to the Social Studies department at Boston College, I dunno. I could be wrong though so thanks for providing that “Other Much Needed” Voice.
LOL