...that I feel I should link to this (mostly) excellent video of one of his lectures.
One of the reasons I find Voris so frustrating is that he is so right about so many things, and his zeal is so admirable, that all the heavy-duty pugnacity just seems such a wasteful shame, obscuring his many good points.
A point he makes in this video-- that Satan only really moved against Our Blessed Lord after he revealed himself in the Eucharist-- is one that had never occurred to me and is fascinating.
I do, however, find his rhetoric about absolute truth, as demonstrated in this lecture, quite irritating. The point of pluralism is not that we claim truth itself is plural. The point is that we don't impose that truth on others. Please note that I say impose. I don't mean that we don't seek to persuade, to evangelize, to convince, to sway, or to awaken. We should do all those things, given the proper time and circumstances. But in a pluralist society, unlike a theocracy such as Iran or a totalitarian society such as North Korea, we don't impose our vision of the truth. (Except in some cases, like a parent imposing the truth on her child.)
And I think that this social philosophy should go further than simply not coercing another person to accept the truth-- it implies a certain respectfulness towards their opinions and beliefs, mistaken though they may be. We enter the dictatorship of relativism only when "you have as much right to your opinions as I have to my own" slides into "your opinion is just as good as mine". (Because if it's really your opinion, as opposed to your preference or your sensibility, you can't possibly think like that; it's a contradiction. Unless, perhaps, the opinion was so tentative that you have no great confidence in its rightness.)
Is it possible that a human being can seriously believe that two contradictory claims can both be true? Surely only if they mean that they are both true in different senses. It's true, people do sometimes talk as though there is no ultimate truth in philosophical or ethical or aesthetic matters; but what they are really saying is that there is no truth in those fields, rather than that contrasting truth claims can both be true. (I think it's quite possible for there to be no truth in a particular matter. There is no truth about what underwear Ebenezer Scrooge wore, for instance.)