Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 12:35am

Mark Shea, Do I Have a Candidate For You!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
22 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Thursday, January 21, AD 2016 4:57pm

I will wager that Mark Shea will vote for that commie pinko geriatric Bernie Sanders.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, January 21, AD 2016 4:59pm

Then he, Cruz, would oppose making a whip of cords and driving out the money changers from the temple….the use of pain to alter behaviour done by Christ. It’s de rigeur in pacifist Catholic circles to say “Christ never hit them really….prove it to us.” Can you imagine first century street merchants running because of feints…gestures of maybe I’ll hit you. Lol.
Ahhh…so….allowing them their feminized fiction, we may pretend to be about to hit you and that emotional manipulation is ok?
In short, I believe in using e.g. tooth root pain not major bone damage to torture a kidnapper who refuses to disclose the whereabouts of a child dying in a shack in the woods. Scriptures?….they abound….Proverbs 20:30..” Evil is driven out by bloody lashes and a scourging to the inmost being.”…”a rod for the back of fools” Proverbs 26:3….and John 2:15 ” He made a whip of cords…”. What about section 80 of Splendor of the Truth? Have you read it in tandem with scripture? It says in a non caveat manner that deportation is an intrinsic evil…looks like Christ was deporting the moneychangers and ? Largely Catholic Mexico must keep Pablo Guzman even though only largely non Catholic USA can hold him without escape. And ??? Italy never should have deported those two muslims who planned to kill Pope Benedict…yet Benedict didn’t complain a bit …apparently like me seeing logic problems in section 80. Section 80 called slavery an intrinsic evil even though unbeknownst to St. JPII, God gave perpetual, chattel slavery over
foreigners to the Jews in Leviticus 25:44. I think St. JPII is now in Heaven. I don’t have to think he shined in protecting children or in adult security matters. When he subtly and diplomatically denigrated the OT death penalties given by God in section 40 of Evangelium Vitae, he lost my attention in security matters. When Benedict denigrated the herem as not coming from God in section 42 of Verbum Domini but rather seeing them as sins simply, he too uncoupled me and him in security matters. He never noticed Christ announcing the absolute largest massacre of them all…70 AD…and Christ describing it as the direct result of Jerusalem not knowing the hour of their visitation.
Why then did those too young have to die in 70 AD like Christ foretold…”your infants within you”. Read Exodus 20:5…it tells you the reason. Did David’s baby with Bathsheba sin? No but God took him into death as punishment to David and Bathsheba.

DonL
DonL
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 4:56am

How to vote when there’s not a blemish-free candidate in the lot? Well I guess it’s time to evaluate all the blemishes out there–to tally and valuate–and then gulp, perspire, pray and vote. It would have been so much easier when just that Barabbas fellow was the other choice.

Father of Seven
Father of Seven
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 6:04am

Until Christ is on the ballot, I will always vote for the least imperfect candidate. So, no news there. As for Mark Shea, I stopped reading him back in 2002 for all the reasons known to TAC’s viewers. After a certain point, you just can’t take all the logical inconsistencies.

Stephen E Dalton
Stephen E Dalton
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 6:22am

Don, Shea shut down his blog three weeks ago! Why tempt him into firing it up again!?

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 7:19am

I suspect he still would have many problems with Cruz. He did state once on CAEI that “…if it weren’t for abortion, we’d vote Democrat all the time.” He has that distorted sense of social justice that plagues our society today and passes itself off as Catholic.

c matt
c matt
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 8:55am

To be fair, if it weren’t for abortion, I would at least consider the democrats. But then I would see SSM, contraceptive mandates, etc. etc. So they would still have quite a way to go.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 9:26am

Mark who?
.
Can’t agree on Truman. He was correct to cashier MacArthur. However, his characterization of Mac’s Congress speech as “one hundred percent bullshit” was wrong. Likely it was 60%.

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 9:28am

c matt,

Not just the contraceptive mandates etc. One has to consider the toxic effect of the Welfare State on families, the burdensome taxes required by such a state and its effects on individuals seeking to develop their gifts in work, the denial of subsidiarity in the ever increasing bureaucratic state and the continued denial of the transcendent end of man in the pursuit of the Utopian here and now.

Dave Griffey
Dave Griffey
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 10:32am

How interesting. Can’t say that I would support Cruz, but I find that interesting. John Kasich also came out against torture some years ago. Whether he still holds that or not, I don’t know. But I pointed out to Mark that he was giving quite a bit of free publicity to Mr. Sanders the other day. It wasn’t pretty. So I suppose Mark wouldn’t support Sanders either. But I’m almost certain he won’t support Cruz.

Foxfier
Admin
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 10:57am

Most of the problems I have with the Dems do boil down to the Abortion issue; if their philosophy was altered so that wasn’t a part of it, they’d be a radically different group and a ton of the moderate Democrats that are currently identified as Republicans would go back, and I’d probably be voting for Democrats all the time. (Not “all the time” as in 100%, but “all the time” as in “with great frequency.”)

That does irrationally suppose that the Republican party wouldn’t likewise have some major changes, but I really don’t have the time or resources to game out that alternate universe!

Foxfier
Admin
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 11:00am

Very short version: abortion is an extreme expression of the idea of having liberty without responsibility being possible and a good thing, and I’m honestly not able to think of anything the Dems do which I utterly oppose with that doesn’t fall into that category.

Ernst Schreiber
Ernst Schreiber
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 2:58pm

[Shea] has that distorted sense of social justice that plagues our society today and passes itself off as Catholic.

.
Maybe somebody should send him a copy of Novack’s latest.

paul coffey
paul coffey
Friday, January 22, AD 2016 8:12pm

Don, God bless your Dad – evidence is he was a very astute man !

Tom
Tom
Saturday, January 23, AD 2016 10:13am

Interesting… I didn’t know this about Cruz. So much of the “torture” debate is a problem of definition. The Church has both a moral definition and a legal definition they’ve endorsed; the Geneva Convention and international law generally has a definition; and of course there are a multitude of subjective definitions held by different individuals.

I suspect Cruz condemns “torture” understanding the term in some subjective sense he has in his mind, thinking about his father’s ordeals. I wonder if he’s really against the kind of methods that are *not* torture under law, but offend some people’s subjective idea of what constitutes torture.

In any event, I would far prefer Cruz to be in the position to make those calls than any of the other contenders, including Trump, whom I suspect would roll right over the Catholic objection to torture (rightly understood, not as deformed by some pacifist Catholics, such as Shea).

Tom
Tom
Saturday, January 23, AD 2016 10:26am

Wow, and since I stopped reading Shea’s blog, I did not know he’d given it up. Although with all due respect, his Star Wars theme exit post, which portrays him as a Dark Lord, is all wrong. I think he’s less Dark Lord, more Jar-Jar Binks.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Saturday, January 23, AD 2016 11:46pm

Mark Shea still blogs at the National Catholic Register.

Micha Elyi
Micha Elyi
Sunday, January 24, AD 2016 3:01am

The Democrat platform in brief:
Our idol is covetousness. We covet our neighbor’s goods, our neighbor’s wife, and our neighbor’s life.

paul coffey
paul coffey
Monday, January 25, AD 2016 11:16am

using andrew Cuomo, the knuckle dragger, as a bench mark- Donald Trump is heroic in virtue – pls consider- so perhaps Don, Michael it is our baseline frame of reference measurement that distorts our view of this character – i have an image of Arlen specter ever before me , not exactly beatific: here goes

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has imposed substantial portions of the Bathroom Bill upon the State of New York by fiat.

On January 20, the New York State Division of Human Rights adopted a new regulation-known as 9 NYCRR 466.13 – relating to “gender identity discrimination.” As Albany Update has previously reported, this regulation was proposed in November 2015. New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, along with hundreds of like-minded New Yorkers, submitted comments in opposition to this wrong-headed proposal. Not surprisingly, the Division of Human Rights (DHR) paid very little attention to those comments; the DHR made only minor changes to the regulation before adopting it.

The new regulation states that existing laws banning sex discrimination and disability discrimination also prohibit discrimination based upon gender identity. This means that New York’s shopping malls, stores, universities, restaurants, and recreational facilities-along with many other public places-are now required to accommodate crossdressing and so-called gender transitions. New York’s employers are also required to accommodate employees who wish to dress and identify as members of the opposite sex. A failure to accommodate “transgendered” behavior will be grounds for a lawsuit.

Everything about the Governor’s new regulation is wrong. The substance of the regulation is wrong, as the Governor’s action places onerous new burdens upon New York businesses and compromises the privacy and safety of women and girls by allowing men who identify as “transgender” to enter women-only space. The process used to adopt the regulation is wrong because the DHR has, in essence, rewritten the law. Gov. Cuomo may be frustrated that the Bathroom Bill was blocked in the State Senate for the past eight years; however, his frustration does not give him license to bypass the Legislature. As every student with a rudimentary understanding of government knows, it is the executive’s job to enforce the law; making law is a legislative function. The DHR has feebly attempted to justify its “end run” by claiming that the regulation only codifies existing practice; if that is, in fact, the case, the DHR has been adjudicating complaints of “gender identity discrimination” without legal authorization.

The Governor and his allies will no doubt laud this new regulation as an effort to protect vulnerable New Yorkers. In reality, this regulation makes New Yorkers more vulnerable. Parents, when men who identify as women claim a legal right to use ladies’ changing areas at public pools, and when those men undress in front of your daughters, you can thank the Governor. Employers, when an employee demands that you address him by a feminine name and allow him to crossdress in the workplace, and when your attorney informs you that you could be found liable for discrimination if you do not comply, you can thank the Governor.

paul coffey
paul coffey
Monday, January 25, AD 2016 11:20am

one more example of the theory of Relativity making Trump look good –
The centerpiece of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s legislative agenda for 2016 is his proposal to increase the minimum wage in New York to $15 per hour. While NYCF empathizes with our neighbors who struggle to support their families due to low wages, we oppose the Governor’s proposal. NYCF believes that a $15-per-hour minimum wage would hurt low and moderate-income New Yorkers more than it would help them.

How would Gov. Cuomo’s minimum wage proposal affect a worker currently earning less than $15 per hour? It depends on the situation. If that worker continues to work the same number of hours following the minimum wage increase as she did before, that worker will make significantly more money. However, if that worker’s employer responds to the minimum wage increase by closing, downsizing, cutting employee work hours, or moving out of state, that worker will actually be harmed by the minimum wage increase. According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, the Governor’s minimum wage proposal would likely result in the loss of at least 200,000 jobs in New York.

For unemployed workers, the outlook under Gov. Cuomo’s proposal would be sobering. Workers seeking entry-level jobs are likely to find it extraordinarily difficult to find employers that will to pay $15 per hour for unskilled labor. A $9-per-hour job is better than no job at all.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top