Voice of Unreason

This young man needs to get a grip

My readers and listeners/viewers may be aware of an internet personality who goes by the name “Voice of Reason” and is active in Catholic apologetics. His real name is Alex Jurado, and I will say nice things about him before I say things that aren’t nice.

He is, objectively speaking, a young man who demonstrates quick memory recall and good rhetorical skills. He certainly exudes confidence and even courage in his willingness to debate other apologists, mostly Orthodox and Protestant. I do not follow social media besides my time wasted on Twitter — I still cannot call it X — and I understand that he is very active on the other social platforms that are more popular with Zoomers and millennials with nothing better to do. I have seen the odd clip of his stuff reposted on Twitter wherein he will offer a quick “debunking” of this or that claim by an Orthodox or Protestant, and it is the standard fare we should expect from someone who came of age watching the likes of Trent Horn, etc. He has certainly memorized his points of historical factoids that are helpful while engaging in the typical arena of Catholic apologetics, and, I hope that the good things he has said are profitable to the Church and to the souls that hear him.

Okay, now I have to be not so nice.

We Canadians have the reputation of being friendly and kind-hearted, and this reputation has merit. However, if you have ever looked into why there are international conventions about what constitutes war crimes, you will likely find a link to the actions of Canola farmers from Saskatchewan and good ol’ boys from the Great Lakes region. We are friendly at times, but we historically enjoy a good dust-up. There is a reason our national sport is basically sword-fighting on ice. It is also playoff season, and I want the Oilers to win, even though I am a Canadiens fan, and am in a fighting mood.

Jurado Attacks Marshall

Recently, Jurado has been making the rounds speaking at various parishes and giving lectures, and clips from his presentations have been shared around on Twitter and YouTube. In one clip he went after Taylor Marshall — who is a dear friend and a man I will happily defend with all my strength if the occasion calls for it — and he had some very awful things to say about Taylor.

In the clip, he goes on a screed about how Taylor is the worst because Taylor is bad because he doesn’t like Taylor because Taylor said things he doesn’t like that didn’t make him feel good. Specifically, he says, “Stop listening to Taylor Marshall because Taylor Marshall is garbage.”

Let’s unpack this for a moment. Now, I did my best to say nice things about Jurado, and I have many not-so-nice things I would like to say, but is it ever acceptable to call another Catholic “garbage.” Does Jurado actually think it is appropriate to call another human being a name that insinuates he is worthy of being thrown into the trash, mixed with dirty diapers in a landfill and incinerated?

He goes on, “I promise you, if you keep listening to Taylor Marshall you are going to leave the Catholic Church.” Well, that is quite the claim, isn’t it? Knowing Taylor as well as I do, I know that I could provide a million examples of the complete opposite. In fact, when I started listening to Taylor before I knew him, and before he was famous, I found his podcasts to be edifying, and, when he blew up, his commentary on the Crisis in the Church was equally edifying. One only has to go through Taylor’s comment sections to find the myriad testimonials of former Protestants who came home to Rome because Taylor challenged them to pray the Rosary.

In any event, his insulting rhetoric about Taylor is revealing of Jurado’s own problem, which he admits in the clip. He adds, “I listened to Taylor Marshall for years, and I almost left the Catholic Church.”

Frankly, anyone who thinks of leaving the Church does so because they lack the virtue of faith. And, if Jurado believes it is bad to listen to something that is not, in his opinion, edifying, then the question remains; Why did you listen to Taylor for so long? Couldn’t you simply not listen to Taylor?

I don’t listen to Jurado because I don’t want to become an alcoholic, but if I did spend years listening to him and then began sucking back Crown Royal in order to drown out his words rattling around in my head, it would be my fault, and not his. Blaming someone for an interior crisis of faith is effeminate, weak, and stupid.

Jurado then makes himself look even more foolish by adding, “Most of what he says is proven false,” which he says is evident because after Taylor makes a video, other YouTubers make videos saying Taylor is wrong. Good grief, how can a man who lacks such basic reasoning skills even be qualified to pass a driving test?

What if a bunch of creators make videos saying Jurado’s views are false, does that make his views false? Well, in the land of stupidity that Jurado inhabits, that would be the line of argumentation.

In the same clip, he claims that Taylor is a material schismatic — quite a bold claim — and that he doesn’t think “you can call Taylor Marshall Catholic.”

This young man is going to damn his soul if he keeps this up.

So, according to the “Voice of Reason,” Taylor Marshall isn’t Catholic largely due to the fact that he makes videos other people don’t like and because of this he is a schismatic.

Adding fuel to the fire he started, Jurado hammers home his view that Taylor isn’t Catholic because Taylor doesn’t accept Vatican II, and he says that if you reject any Council of the Church you aren’t Catholic.

Of course, Taylor does not reject Vatican II as a Council of the Church, but only questions certain disputed elements of some of the documents, which is standard Traditional Catholic operating procedure. If Jurado was as reasonable as his stage name suggests, he would know that this sort of attitude is perfectly acceptable according to Catholic theology, because disputed questions — some of which are occasioned by less-than-clear statements from Vatican II — are, in fact, disputable. In any event, I won’t give Jurado a lesson on the levels of theological certainty, because, he is obviously so reasonable that he will know all that already.

In addition, Jurado not only maligns wrongly and unfairly the good Dr. Marshall, but he also kicks himself out of the Church by his own logic, or whatever he thinks logic is.

Jurado the Nestorius Defender

Orthodox writer — and former Catholic — Michael Davis wrote an article called “The Nestorian Moment,” wherein he catalogued various Catholic apologists who seem to support the heresy of Nestorianism. Before I continue, I will focus only on his exposé of Jurado’s claims, and I will take what Davis says with a grain of salt about Catholic apologists in general because he has demonstrated that he has a bit of an axe to grind against his former correligionists. In any event, he cites Jurado word for word and here is what he said:

Nestorianism is the heresy that splits Jesus into two, that there’s a Divine Jesus and there’s a human Jesus. And the orthodox view is that Jesus in his divinity is also fully man, and Jesus in His humanity is also fully God. And [Nestorianism] was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. They condemned the heresiarch Nestorius. But it turns out now, the consensus in the scholarship is that Nestorius wasn’t actually a Nestorian. And it was the Council Fathers that misunderstood him. So, they wrongfully condemned Nestorius, but they rightfully upheld the orthodox Faith.

Blessed day, I must say “Thank you” to Jurado because I am going to have fun showing how idiotic he can be using his own words and logic if we can say he understands logic. Also, please note that the mean things I say about Jurado are not about him as a person, but about his moronic words and ideas; I wouldn’t go so far as to call him an idiot the way he calls other people garbage and anathematizes them from the Church because his favourite TikTokers disagree with them.

So, let’s break down his statement in light of his other statements.

After giving his explanation of Nestorianism, he rightly acknowledges that Nestorius was condemned by a Council. Remember, you can’t be Catholic if you reject a Council according to Jurado. He then says that the Council fathers were wrong in condemning Nestorius because “the consensus” of scholars is that Nestorius wasn’t actually a heretic.

Hold on a tick. I can’t seem to find in Catholic theological literature where it says that the consensus of scholarship changes what has been declared by a Council. Granted, if Jurado were making a nuanced statement about the difference between a juridical declaration from a Council and a binding statement on faith and morals, perhaps he could flesh out his argument.

However, Nestorius wasn’t only condemned by one Council, but two!

Davis writes:

Firstly, the Council of Chalcedon—the next Ecumenical Council following Ephesus—renewed the condemnation of Nestorius:

“Moreover, the exposition of their faith, of the illustrious Cyril of blessed memory set forth at the Council of Ephesus (in which Nestorius was condemned) is received. And in the third place the writings of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, show what the true faith is. Likewise, the holy Synod holds this faith, this it follows; nothing further can it add, nor can it take anything away.”

Now, Nestorius died after the Council of Chalcedon. Why would the Council Fathers not have mentioned that Nestorius was reconciled to the Church?

So, Nestorius was condemned again after his death for heresy, which was the second time he was condemned for heresy by the Council Fathers of both councils because they rightly viewed him as a heretic. And, Davis demonstrates that Jurado makes the same argument as Protestant James White, who may be the most vicious anticatholic preacher in the business. The irony!

And, as Davis rightly observes, if Nestorius reconciled himself to the orthodox Catholic faith and rejected the errors associated with his name, why is there a Nestorian schism?

Well, my friends, shouldn’t we agree with Jurado’s logic and kick him out of the Church as he does to Catholics — rather, men he doesn’t believe are Catholic because of his own judgement — because he rejects not one but two Councils?

And, if we are being particular, Vatican II defined nothing and anathematized nothing or no one, so the various Councils aren’t even really comparable when we consider the binding character of their statements.

Also, if we would like to have a bit more fun, could Jurado make a video explaining that if Catholics reject the Fourth Lateran Council’s declaration that Jews and Muslims are required to dress differently in Christian lands, this would constitute rejecting a Council and make someone a former Catholic. Now, I am not even arguing Lateran IV was wrong, because I understand the difference between disciplinary canons and matters of faith and morals, and I understand the context of that Council.

In any event, please, Mr. Jurado, make a video and put it on YouTube showing why Catholics cannot reject a Council’s declaration that Jews should dress differently in public; I am sure that video would go viral, but, I bet this wouldn’t bode well if you would like to be invited back to the longhouse at Live Action.

Jurado Excommunicates the SSPX

In keeping with other influencers of his ilk, Jurado likes to set his sights on the SSPX. Before I make my point here and show what he says, I would like to challenge Jurado to a debate on this topic. My only stipulation is that it be in person, and he has to find an impartial moderator to host it. I would prefer if he came to Canada because it is hard for me to find time to repeatedly leave my wife and soon-to-be seven children, but if he can make it professionally viable for me, I will debate him somewhere else, and I will utterly wipe the floor with him if he is foolish enough to accept. It would have to be in the Spring after the New Year because I am booked up for the rest of the year.

If he does agree to the debate, and I hope he does, maybe he can explain why he venerates Gregory Palamas, who lived and died a schismatic and condemns Archbishop Lefebvre. After all, the consensus of scholars, at least the scholars I like, is that Lefebvre was a saint, and there are also YouTube videos that agree with me and disagree with Jurado, so this must be a sign that Jurado is wrong about Catholicism. That’s how it works, right, Voice of Reason?

We could also ask him why he calls Photius a saint, considering that he died in disgrace and was a central figure in creating the Great Schism between East and West.

In any event, he says in one of his lectures, “… we have the SSPX church, we can look at them and say ‘you’re not Catholic.’”

Exactly who isn’t Catholic at the SSPX chapel? Are the faithful non-Catholics? And if so, why? What about the ones who were married by an SSPX priest with the explicit recognition of the local bishop? What about the children baptized in the trinitarian formula by Catholic priests?

Are the priests non-Catholics, you know, the priests who have recognized jurisdiction to hear confessions from Rome? Or, in Jurado’s mind that is so full of reason, can priests with jurisdiction from the Catholic Church also be, at the same time and in the same place, priests who are not in communion with the Church that grants them permission?

We could go on and rip apart his stupid comments on the SSPX, which I would of course love to do. But, I wrote a book on the topic because it is exhausting to play theological and historical whack-a-mole and constantly address and refute every stupid thing that is said about the SSPX by ignorant people online.

At any rate, let’s summarize what we have learned about Jurado, who is the self-appointed voice of reason.

• People who say things about Catholicism that he doesn’t like are not Catholic

• Videos he doesn’t like are the reason he wanted to leave the Church, and it wasn’t his fault that he lacked the virtue of faith

• If people on YouTube disagree with other people, this is proof that the person disagreed with is wrong and against the teachings of the Church

• The consensus of scholars — whatever that means — means that he can reject two Ecumenical Councils that did explicitly define doctrine, bind Catholics and condemn heretics… but, if you dispute disputable points of doctrinal expressions in a Council that did no such thing, then you are not Catholic and a material schismatic

• If you don’t like someone you can call them garbage for hundreds of thousands of people to see

• Wicked heresiarchs and schismatics are saints but the SSPX isn’t in the Catholic Church

• Also, the Church is presently wrong about the SSPX but Jurado is right

• And, it is okay that Jurado disagrees with Church authorities on the SSPX, because he has the right to disagree with the authorities, but other, real theologians don’t have that right, and if they do, they are no longer Catholic

Did I miss anything?

Finally, I will address the elephant in the room regarding Jurado; his baritone timber. Personally, I don’t mind the sound of his voice, because I love Rocky, and if someone sounds like Sly Stallone, I don’t mind. People shouldn’t make fun of how he sounds. However, the verbal diarrhea that emanates from his vocal cords should be mocked and ridiculed.

If Jurado is the Voice of Reason, then Ozzy Osbourne is the Voice of Sobriety and Sean “Diddy” Combs is the Voice of Chastity.

Please, someone who knows Jurado needs to hook him up with someone like Dr. Ed Feser to learn how to actually use his reason before he spends the next years of his life finding reasons why he is the only true Catholic left.

*** Here is the iCatholic Mobile link ***

https://www.icatholicmobile.com/