Pro-Life Catholic's Deserve Better

[Amppax]

https://stream.org/pro-life-catholics-deserve-better-writers-national-catholic-register/

I saw the above article on Facebook today, and it has been provoking quite a bit of controversy among the people I know. The article is very critical of both Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher (bloggers for the National Catholic Register), accusing them of unfairly criticizing conservative Catholics, and especially of vulgar personal attacks. I'm not especially interested in defending or attacking Shea or Fisher, rather I'd like to use it to talk about crude and insulting language, which I am seeing more and more in Catholic circles. 

I think that both are certainly a flaw, and depending on the situation possibly (even probably) sinful. I'm interested however to hear other's takes on the matter. 

[LittleWaySoul]

I would agree with your assessment on this. More than anything, I'm struck by the anger and disregard for any attempt at civil conversation that are conveyed in such vitriolic comments. Charity is SO important in these conversations, and with that comes a respect for the other person and the benefit of the doubt that they believe what they believe because they honestly think it's the best option. Few minds will be changed by such sweeping generalizations and insults. Despite agreeing in principle with several things quoted in this article, I can't abide by the method in which they are communicated. 

[Luigi]

That Shea guy is one angry fella! 

I'm glad he has such laser insight into the motivations of the people he hates so desperately. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Shea and Fisher and the big voices in the neo-Catholic blogosphere have been rubbing me the wrong way for ages now. I will read this article tomorrow.

I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to the crudeness of usual discourse.

[truthfinder]

I've never actively sought out these two writers; I have enjoyed the occasional Fisher article, though.  I don't think I've come across a good Mark Shea post - although like I said I've never actively looked. But, yeah, those excerpts certainly don't reflect positively on the authors.  I can certainly put up with a crude joke or a little profanity, but that was really just unnecessary.  And they seem to be defending their crudity.  At the very least, profanity and crudity was never a sign of sanctity. 

[Ice_nine]

Meh, I don't think that using foul language is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe not the best choice when speaking to such a wide obvious. They seem to make sweeping generalizations, true, but there were no excepts where they took any particular person to task, except for maybe Trump. So I don't think it's technically calumny.

 

[Anomaly]

 When you're striving to have your opinion heard in the melee of online social media, polite reasonableness is ignored and dismissed.  It isn't polarized enough.  

They aren't rising above, they're engaging in the new normal for conversation.   Of course it's justifiable when you're so cocksure you are "right" by the power of a divine entitity or superior logic. There is no possibility for constructive disagreement to coexist. 

[KnightofChrist]

5 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Meh, I don't think that using foul language is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe not the best choice when speaking to such a wide obvious. They seem to make sweeping generalizations, true, but there were no excepts where they took any particular person to task, except for maybe Trump. So I don't think it's technically calumny.

 

What if Michael Voris made the same comments? How would you feel about him using foul language and making perverse sexual jokes?

[LittleWaySoul]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

 When you're striving to have your opinion heard in the melee of online social media, polite reasonableness is ignored and dismissed.  It isn't polarized enough.  

They aren't rising above, they're engaging in the new normal for conversation.   Of course it's justifiable when you're so cocksure you are "right" by the power of a divine entitity or superior logic. There is no possibility for constructive disagreement to coexist. 

I disagree. I think it's always preferable to have a civil and constructive discussion than one such as the examples given, regardless of the topic or religious beliefs of the participants. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I guess I have done a good job at ignoring those two recently, because the quotations in the article are even worse than I expected. These are not people to be emulated. And this is not how the Church teaches us to behave. I am disgusted.

[Anomaly]

5 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

I disagree. I think it's always preferable to have a civil and constructive discussion than one such as the examples given, regardless of the topic or religious beliefs of the participants. 

You can afford to behave with civility.  You aren't in the business to sell your opinion for Profit or Power.   But are you sure you aren't divinely compelled to Proselytize the Truth with vigor and conviction, excusing all impoliteness and offense perceived by the unrighteous, unconverted, wrong believers?

[LittleWaySoul]

3 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

You can afford to behave with civility.  You aren't in the business to sell your opinion for Profit or Power.   But are you sure you aren't divinely compelled to Proselytize the Truth with vigor and conviction, excusing all impoliteness and offense perceived by the unrighteous, unconverted, wrong believers?

Yes. As @Nihil Obstat said, Christ and the Church call us to much more than this. We are supposed to love our neighbors and model our lives on Christ's. Vulgarity and insults in His name are not what we are called to. 

Your posts today seem a bit different than usual. I hope all is well. 

[Maggyie]

I have a strong dislike for Shea's work although I know he's helpful to some people. He's very, very mean-spirited to gay people, traditionalists, the list goes on. And I'm a "neo-Cath" (eye roll) myself. Simcha is a very funny writer! I can't imagine having the pressures of churning out content constantly.

However her crass comments bother me more. I don't mind the occasional bad word but honestly, the very lewd sexual commentary, I was horrified by when it showed up in my feed. It almost made me wonder if she'd been watching pornography??? I'm not sure I've ever even mentioned that act aloud let alone written the words. And I'm not an oldster or a prude. To be honest none of my Facebook friends post like that, and most of them are not religious or straight out atheists...

To be clear I've discussed such things but I refer to it by its proper name, like a good graduate of public school sex Ed. 

[Ice_nine]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

What if Michael Voris made the same comments? How would you feel about him using foul language and making perverse sexual jokes?

Well I was off an overnight shift. Lol I used the word "obvious" instead of "audience." Oops lol.

I would think it would be strikingly out of character for Voris. Conservative types generally value more refined etiquette that excludes bad words and sexual innuendo. So I would feel surprised for anyone like Voris to say these things because it would be a betrayal of his character. 

I also don't think foul language and sexual innuendo are one in the same. The latter is probably worse, although I can handle the occasional off-color joke. What I find more annoying is the self-righteous, mean-spirited tone. Same with Voris. But I don't throw myself into a moral outrage for a few reasons:

1. I take a look in the mirror.

2. This is the internet we're talking about here.

3. I have bigger fish to fry.

Peace

[Amppax]

I didn't necessarily like the fact that the author of the article lumped Fisher in with Shea, as she tends to avoid the outright personal attacks that he so often makes. However, I think that as public figures who claim to represent the Church, there is a level of public decorum that I think ought to be maintained. It's one thing to act this way in private with one's friends (I still think that is wrong) it's another thing to showcase it in such a public way. Both have very public Facebook pages (I'm not friends with either, and pretty much every quote from that article was available to me), both work as "Catholic" writers. I think if nothing else it is scandalous.