Mark Shea Demonstrates Once Again That He Does Not Read What He Writes

Tuesday, August 23, AD 2016

12308267_10205055340449342_2514654047259129308_n

 

 

 

Socrates opined that the unexamined life is a tragedy.  The same goes for blog writing.  Let’s take a look at the lament by Mark Shea over the canning of Simcha Fisher:

 

 

Msgr. Charles Pope, has a piece warning us to prepare for persecution.

Prophetic considering that a very good Catholic woman named Simcha Fisher, faithful to the Catholic Church, a mother of *ten* children who has worked tirelessly as a witness to the greatness and goodness of our Holy Catholic Faith, a fine writer who could be making a million bucks somewhere but who is spending her prodigious gifts in the service of the gospel, has been kicked out of her job to the salacious screams of a mob, all for using the English equivalent of “skubala” (Philippians 3:8) now and then and for making a couple of bawdy dick jokes on her private FB page (you know, like when St. Paul remarks to the Galatians that he wishes the circumcision enthusiasts would castrate themselves).

Look, I *get* that I’m abrasive and I get the rejoicing over my losing a job.  Fair enough.  But don’t hand me a load of bushwah about how Simcha Fisher had this coming.  Somehow or other, the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife movement has mutated into a thing that eats its young and imagines that the unborn are being served by punishing a mother of 10 children with loss of her livelihood.

This. Was. Wrong.

Simcha Fisher is an ornament of the Church.  She has been such a gift to so many and I will be grateful to God for her till the day I die.  Punishing a mother of 10 with loss of income over something this utterly trivial is a judgment, not on her, but on the mob of bullies across St. Blog’s rejoicing over her humiliation.  She does none harm. She says none harm. She thinks none harm. Nevertheless, it is not for the bawdy jokes that this mob have sought her blood, but because she would not bend to the marriage of the Faith with a fraudulent disgrace like Donald Trump.

If you value her witness, check out her book and think about hiring this funny, earthy, humble, godly and orthodox woman to come and speak at your parish.

Let’s parse this out shall we?

1. Shea starts out by comparing the persecution of the Church with a writer losing a writing gig.

2.  He goes on to say that Fisher could be making a million bucks somewhere unnamed.  (I guess then that losing a minor writing job is not an immense tragedy for her?)

3.  Shea is unable to see why a Catholic publication would find it problematic to have a writer who makes “dick jokes” on her Facebook page.

4.   Shea utilizes the old pro-abort technique of condemning people who oppose abortion as not being pro-life.

5.  With no evidence other than his assertion he proclaims Fisher an “ornament of the Church”.

6.  Once again he laments the loss of what I assume was a fairly modest income to someone who could earn a million bucks elsewhere.

7.  Shea concludes by comparing Fisher to Saint Thomas More and Donald Trump to Henry VIII.

Continue reading...

67 Responses to Mark Shea Demonstrates Once Again That He Does Not Read What He Writes

  • In spite of all his protestations to the contrary, Shea is not not upset that Fisher lost a job, but that he lost a job. He is a brat spoiled by the adulation of the diabolical legions of liberal progressives who follow him.

  • Soon they’ll blame their problems on “false attacks from right wing groups.” A.K.A. “the vast right wing conspiracy.”
    .
    I only hope his children don’t starve before he lands that prison guard job.

  • . What’s missing too is that I suspect they received prior warnings which they simply ignored though it is possible that obscene language on facebook in the one case could engender a quick firing….as per the Olympic swimmer who is losing endorsements based on several days behaviour.
    A real non religious job for Mark could be a Godsend. He’d grow from it. The internet is not causing growth in him but writing on scripture might since I once saw him shine brightly in an essay on the phrase “my God”…as opposed to the distant, non owned “God”.
    I often felt he was verbally abusive to many but perfectly silent on criticizing any sitting Pope and that struck me as a money thing. The paid Catholic parish speaking circuit is impossible for Pope critics. If you can like Benedict and Francis with equal gusto, you just might have a motive. But he might have felt that income constraint as a betrayal of his self and then acted out by spending half his life sounding critical to everyone under the sun but the Pope while knowing he had what sailing people call “the no go zone” which direction stops the sail boat cold.

  • I find it interesting that Mark equates his, and Simcha’s, job loss with persecution. If you stop and think that one through, it probably says more than we can ever say. Especially since the agency that let them go is also a Catholic publication. Once again, the troubling part isn’t Mark’s assertion, but how many readers appear to agree.

  • Shea lost me on the “mother of *ten* children” statement, but perhaps that is just sour grapes on my part.

  • These two individuals seem devoid of all humility and charity.

    I do find it rather odd that someone looks at a Trump symbol and conjures up that image. Just a little unhinged. I’m sure she instructs her 10 children to be careful what they post on facebook; it can affect your employment status I’ve heard.

  • A worker is worth their wage, said who ? (Jesus)
    That being said, I’ve never been paid for pro-life work. Am I not worth much ? Or am I just more dedicated than people like Shea/Fisher and do the right things for the right reasons, not because I’m being paid ?

  • Did Fisher write those things on her “private Facebook page”, as Shea claims, or on her Simcha Fisher public fan page? I’ve seen several complaints that Fisher and Shea shouldn’t be held accountable for Facebook posting, as if they were just noodling around with a select group of “friends”, the way most of us do. And if that were the case, I’d tentatively agree, within limits, that those posts shouldn’t be grounds for firing. But unlike the rest of us, Fisher and Shea have public fan pages with thousands of followers. Of course they should be held accountable for their behavior in a public forum.
    .
    Note also the staggering amount of projection going on with these two and their horde of sycophants. They make their personal political opinions into a litmus test for orthodoxy, then claim that their opponents are blinded by their partisan political allegiances.

  • One of the many ways in which Shea expresses his contempt for detractors: He uses minimal care and craftsmanship in his writing.

    Thanks for this.

  • The publication in question is a private concern, and as such, pretty much “owes” none of its employees a job. Not sure how one has a moral right to employment at a particular business regardless of one’s actions. One may think a hiring or firing decision to be wise or unwise, prudent or imprudent, but to suggest that an opinion writer has a vested moral right to employment such that their firing is a moral issue is a stretch at best. Ironically (or nonsensically) Shea himself tacitly admits that his own firing was not an issue of right or wrong. Why then, if NCR had a problem with Fisher’s use of crude sexual language and how that might affect their readership, and therefore their bottom line, should they not feel free to fire both muckrakers equally?

    When you take a job like that, it’s understood, is it not, that if the Publisher does not like your point of view, or the way you put forth your positions (including lack of civility, smugness, imputation of all sorts of immorality and bad faith to your opponents, and finally, crude sexual references), you risk losing your job?

    Shea is just reaping what he’s sown; I imagine if one of his many opponents had been fired from a Catholic publication for using crude sexual references that might reasonably be expected to offend their readers and affect the publication’s reputation, he would bloviate about the opponent’s corruption, hypocrisy, and faux religiosity.

    I pity Shea, who seems a bit mentally and spiritually unhinged, and it seems a break from public disputations would be healthy for him. I’d suggest getting a job that requires getting out from behind a keyboard.

  • The thing that just irritates these two M*ppet’s is that they can’t live off that part of the Church that is actually profitable any longer. If they go over to the the Reporter, they will have to live off the Zombie church. And that does not “grow the heretical pie”.

  • “I often felt he was verbally abusive to many but perfectly silent on criticizing any sitting Pope and that struck me as a money thing.”

    It’s more than that, Bill. People like Shea and Fisher — and, sadly, far too many Catholics — worship the ecclesiastical bureaucracy as God instead of God as God. That’s where they placed their ultimate faith. That’s why they reacted in such a vile manner to anybody who dared challenge their opinions, especially with logic, reason and fact. The. Church. Can. Do. No. Wrong. It’s the exact same attitude that allowed clerical sex abuse to metastasize since before the days of St. Peter Damian and “Liber Gomorrahianus,” until it broke in Boston at the turn of this century.

    As I said on another thread on this blog, Shea and Fisher were con artists, pure and simple. They deluded sincere yet naive Catholics with their nonsense. Now that they’ve been found out, I hope they never get another job from a major Catholic client.

  • Wait. Does this mean two writing jobs are now open?

  • Good point. Let’s get the Register to hire both St. Corbinian’s Bear and Tim Capps!

  • We’ll it seems some at patheos are rallying around Mark .

    His description of Mark Shea’s engagement with others reads like it was dictated by Mark Shea to someone who’s been in a coma since 2004. Shea’s signature is deleting other people’s remarks while offering follow-up posts savaging the people who made them (albeit seldom by name). That’s a ‘happy warrior’?

    and it seems a break from public disputations would be healthy for him. I’d suggest getting a job that requires getting out from behind a keyboard.

    I once knew a retired faculty member from RIT who, past age 60, was hired as a security guard at the University of Rochester. He usually worked evening shifts. He said it was the best job he’d ever had. Shea’s going to need to get in shape in order to qualify for that sort of work, though.

  • If they go over to the the Reporter, they will have to live off the Zombie church.

    I’m afraid the Zombie church includes most parish priests, nearly all parish musicians, the bulk of the chancery staff, college chaplaincies, the entire academic community bar Christendom College and a half-dozen others, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, various Vatican dicasteries, the entire German episcopate, and the current occupant of the Airline Seat of Peter.

  • Art Deco….amen to the saccharine descriptions of the Shea problem as simply “anger” rather than a panoply of untoward choices and actions.
    Joe D’Hippolito….You’re a sports writer. Can’t tell you how mega thrilled I am over the UFC trilogy of fights of Nate Diaz (my fav) versus Conor McGregor…both champions in endurance….though Nate will have brain trouble in his latter years so he better save the millions he earned Saturday night.

  • Hahahaha. According to another Patheo$ clickbaiter, Mark’s anger is Christlike.

  • Murray….good one. Apparently some at Patheos feel that all anger is just and prophetic which would make ISIS even more Christlike than Mark.

  • Hahahaha. According to another Patheo$ clickbaiter,

    His previous gigs include Vox Nova, that collecting pool of quondam theology students (leavened with oddball Gerald L Campbell) looking down their noses at vulgar you. If it didn’t occur to you that Shea’s chronic incapacity to offer a minimally faithful summary of what someone utters and thinks is something other than ‘charitable’, well, the academy is here to set you simpletons straight.

  • Art…you might enjoy my appearing abruptly at Vox Nova in support of God actually mandating the herem massacre of the Canaanites AS A LAST RESORT which even Benedict missed when he ascribed it to men rather than God in Verbum Domini 42….while the Pontifical Biblical Commissiom said it never happened (distinct still from Benedict).
    https://vox-nova.com/2015/11/12/rene-girard-and-the-literal-sense-of-scripture/#comment-176424

  • Murray,
    I saw that. I actually commented on that post. I said after my one post that I wouldn’t say anything else but that pushed me. I can’t believe how many are rushing to his defense. They aren’t helping him , or Simhca, in the least. I wonder if they are just blind, or they really don’t think there is anything wrong with false accusations, or they don’t care and just want to keep Mark and Simcha propped up as shields and blockers to do their dirty work. I don’t know. But how can so many miss the obvious?

  • Well, we know that Shea and Fisher have their fans. It is not surprising to see them defended, rather than read a critique of what happened.

    In the end, I care little of what Shea or Fisher or their supporters say or think. I have my own messes to clean up, two boys to educate and raise as informed, knowledgeable Catholics. I do not need Shea or Fisher. I have the examples of my grandparents, pious Catholics all, the brave Catholic history of Clan Lamont, and my ancestral connection to the Deep Catholic faith of Poland.

  • I take absolutely no pleasure in the news that anyone has been “fired” from or otherwise discharged from an apostolate (paid or volunteer) to which they devoted a great deal of their life, even if the discharge was necessary or for good cause. It happened to me once, and it was a cause of great sorrow for me to this day. So, include me out of the piling-on brigade for people who lose jobs, speaking gigs, or other platforms because they said or posted or tweeted something stupid, wrong or rude. That’s punishment enough for most people.

    I liked both Mark and Simcha’s blogs for their quirky sense of humor and their open admission to not being Mr. or Mrs. Perfect Catholic Blogger. I have never visited either of their Facebook pages, however, so I probably missed the worst examples of the writings for which they were criticized. Political comments and memes on Facebook are a near occasion of many sins so I avoid them like the plague.

    Yes, Mark’s constant hammering on the evils of Donald Trump and “The Thing That Used To Be Conservatism” were becoming tiresome and some of his regular commenters were urging him to give it a rest. I would not have conducted the “Catholic and Enjoying It” blog the way he did. But I still got plenty of useful information out of it in between the political rants. No, I’m not trying to “prop them up as shields to do (my) dirty work”, simply taking note of the good that was intertwined with the bad.

    If either of them continues to write or blog somewhere else, I’ll still read them, and I’ll still politely disagree with them if they post something off the wall (I’ve done so on Mark’s blog and NEVER been banned for it).

  • Elaine, I’m sure many don’t take pleasure in seeing them fired. But as I and others have said countless times, it had nothing to do with being tiresome, or mean, or nasty, or angry. It has to do with making false accusations, slandering people, attacking their reputations or falsely accusing their relationship with God. Those are serious. And they represent the faith in a public setting. I know less about Simcha, but I became part of a case earlier this year where she got into an argument with a young woman about the Cincinnati Gorilla shooting. The young lady said something about the mother and Simcha immediately labeled her a racist. Then Simcha found out the young woman was a lawyer running for office. Simcha called upon her readers in the woman’s region to dig up what they could to wreck her candidacy and even encouraged some who said the young lady should be barred form practicing law. Over the gorilla story. We’re not inquisitors. That is a dark spot in Catholic history, not something to relive by social media. I don’t know if Simcha made a habit doing such things, but even one attempt to destroy a person’s career over a facebook dispute is one too many IMHO. That is what many are trying to point out. It’s far beyond obsession here or harsh language there.

  • At Art Deco: You write

    ” I’m afraid the Zombie church includes most parish priests, nearly all parish musicians, the bulk of the chancery staff, college chaplaincies, the entire academic community bar Christendom College and a half-dozen others, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, various Vatican dicasteries, the entire German episcopate, and the current occupant of the Airline Seat of Peter.”

    What you forgot to mention is this…. quickly approaching Perestroika and its very own Gorbachev moment.

  • “7. Shea concludes by comparing Fisher to Saint Thomas More and Donald Trump to Henry VIII.”

    Well, it is believed that Henry VIII died from syphillis and Trump did claim venereral diseases to be his own personal Vietnam. So Shea’s comparison is at least partly right.

  • Pingback: Mrs. Fisher, Mr. Shea And ZombieChurch | The Deus Ex Machina Blog
  • Just a quick point of reference, the gigs over at The Reg you all are referencing to are contract jobs. Not really full time employment; and with no benefits.

  • I completely agree that Mr. Shea should get a job as a prison guard, preferably overseeing all those poor, misunderstood murderers that he feels never deserve the death penalty.
    I read Fisher’s blog for a short while. I guess she was trying to be approachable and earthy, but it just came across as vulgar.
    But I’m sure there will be parishes who (foolishly) continue to pay them to speak. Michael Coren kept his speaking gigs for a year before anyone figured out that he wasn’t actually Catholic anymore.

  • This post and the bulk of the comments are disgusting.

    Only in a polarized culture that has seduced Catholics into its false dichotomies could Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher be declared progressive con artists.

    Shea and Fisher are the kinds of Christians who bring people into the Church. Y’all are the kinds that turn people away.

  • I’ll still read them, and I’ll still politely disagree with them if they post something off the wall (I’ve done so on Mark’s blog and NEVER been banned for it).

    I think o’er at Patheticos the same rules apply which applied at BeliefNet. He does not have the discretion to ban you. The site moderators have that discretion, but you have to violate a menu of p’s and q’s more involved than Mark Shea’s sensibilities. He can, however, delete your remarks, and he does do that.

  • AJGSyc has drunk his / her full of the venomous cocktail of Mark Shea’s vomitorium.

  • “Only in a polarized culture that has seduced Catholics into its false dichotomies could Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher be declared progressive con artists.”

    You have to be a member of the polarized left to believe that.

  • How about that? WSYIWYG or whatever he/she calls him/herself says that little ol’ me and the nice group of folks at Mr. McClarey’s keep people out of the Catholic Church. Damn, never knew that!
    Well, I never got paid by the Register or anyone else to badmouth Catholics I disagreed with.

    For the record, the people in the Church I have criticized the most here is the heterodox hierarchy. As for Shea and Fisher, they got what they had coming.

  • AJGSyc. You illustrate the problem. You’re basically saying what Mark and Simcha do is no problem, only those who are doing the same to Mark and Simcha (and possibly, not as bad as what Mark or Simcha have done), are the problem. You see the problem with that?

  • Only in a polarized culture that has seduced Catholics into its false dichotomies could Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher be declared progressive con artists.

    Shea and Fisher are the kinds of Christians who bring people into the Church.

    Well, you’re right, ‘progressive con artist’ is a bad description of Mark Shea. “Vessel of free-floating aggression’ is a much better description. Some people may find that attractive, people I’ll do my best to keep my distance from.

  • Shea’s not a con artist. As far as I can tell, he’s wholly sincere in his beliefs, and I even believe his frequent mea culpas (invariably preceding a swift relapse) are heartfelt. But social media–and perhaps political argument itself–is a near occasion of sin for him, and it betrays his poor judgment that he can’t stay away from it.
    .
    Mark’s rage issues, and his propensity to calumny and scandal long predate Donald Trump and Pope Francis, but have become far worse since they arrived on the scene. To make matters worse, he has driven away reasonable interlocutors during his long descent and replaced them with an echo chamber of those who appreciate his gutter rhetoric, and who seen to have great difficulty distinguishing their political beliefs from the Catholic faith.

  • If anybody believes that Mark Shea isn’t a con artist, read Matthew 7:18-20 and Galatians 5:22-23, then get back to me.

  • Murray,

    A charitable and accurate analysis of the entire situation reflecting my thoughts precisely.

  • Murray,
    My thoughts exactly. Mark wasn’t always what he became. And as I said on my own little post in the tempest, I blame those same followers who flocked to the echo chamber, urging him on and calling him out when he did apologize as much as, if not more than, I blame him.

  • I haven’t been in the loop, but as a point of general interest– if what you write on facebook is set so that someone who is not on your “friend” list can see it, it is not legally private. So if you set it so that friends of those tagged can see, it’s not legally private.
    I know there are folks who disagree with the legal definition of private speech, but thought it was worth pointing out.
    ****
    As far as Shea’s work goes– I think this might actually be pretty good for him. I haven’t read him in ages because he gets…. very heated, the longer a discussion goes, and more likely to confuse his judgement with binding teachings.
    But I’d imagine that there will still be “hire Mark Shea to speak at your church” fliers around, and he’s good at that, when he can keep it from becoming personal.
    *****
    Fisher I don’t know, I’ve had only a tiny bit of exposure to her and could sense a personality mis-match, so I didn’t pursue reading her.

  • I think it bears repeating that Mark Shea’s biggest problem isn’t his temperament, as bad as that is, but his repeated acts of calumny. Because of this, I believe he has absolutely no business making his living as a Catholic writer, speaker, or apologist until cleans up his act, which includes making amends to those he has slandered over the years. Not only do I think he should not be hired to speak any Catholic parish, any diocesan bishop who is aware of his conduct should forbid any parish within his diocese from hiring him or anyone who conducts himself in like manner.

  • Bravo, Greg! Well said.

  • Shea and Fisher are the kinds of Christians who bring people into the Church. Y’all are the kinds that turn people away.

    And with this statement we see further evidence that “conservative souls don’t matter” or at least that liberals are the only ones worth saving.

    In an ideal world, both would play to their strengths. Shea would sell to the liberals, TAC would sell to the conservatives and they would do their best to avoid stepping on each others toes. Instead we have Shea intent on living down to the worst stereotypes Americans used to believe about Catholics (which TAC has documented and discussed previously).

    Only in a polarized culture that has seduced Catholics into its false dichotomies could Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher be declared progressive con artists.

    A handy rule of thumb: If someone tries to claim their political position based upon other people they point out as further left than them? That person is a leftist/liberal. If someone claims their political position based upon a precise nomenclature (libertarian, neo-con, paleo-con, minianarchist, etc) then they’re rightist/conservative.

    Those who express honestly they never thought about it, are usually your independents/moderates.

    Really the evidence that Shea’s leftist is more a drinking game than debatable, the fact he disagrees with them only 2, maybe 3 issues doesn’t change his agreement with them on the other 97-98 issues.

  • Shea is the kind of person that drove my husband out of the Church, by teaching him that it was made in Shea’s image, rather than that of God.
    The folks here, for all of their flaws recognized and unrecognized, brought him back. They’ve nurtured his knowledge of the faith, as opposed to Shea and those like him who will give you good information– and then not mention when they switch to their own views.
    Even if their own views are piles of personal judgments.
    This gets especially bad if they end up promoting a flat-out fiction, like some of those in the Torture Debates that conflated waterboarding with a wide range of historic tortures which was less accurate than conflating a C-section and being drawn and quartered.

  • Take a wild guess how things shake out when someone of more than moderate intelligence and high curiosity discovers that what they’ve been taught is true is, factually, false.
    If it had been honestly taught as being Shea’s view or that of those like him, it would be savable; when it’s been taught as The Truth By The Church, then the Church is tarred.

  • If the Church is what Shea and his leftist kind teach, then I will leave with all alacrity. But it isn’t. As far as I am concerned, Shea and his kind are heretics who if they fail to repent must be purged from the Body of Christ.
    .
    And no, I am NOT a Trump enthusiast but I darn sure will vote for him if that is the only way to keep that murderous pathological liar out of the White House.

  • no business making his living as a Catholic writer, speaker, or apologist until cleans up his act,

    He’s 59 and too heavy for any sort of employment which requires stamina. Not sure what there is for him in today’s labor force.

  • He’s actually 58. There is the Huffington post, The Daily Kos, and even Al Jazeera.

  • There is the Huffington post, The Daily Kos, and even Al Jazeera.

    Heh. Shea’s always been dismissive of the gay lobby. As far as I can recall, the liberal opinion-mongers who’ve been inclined to flip off the gay lobby and gotten away with it have been Andrew Greeley ca. 1987 (not later), Andy Rooney, Robert Sherrill, and John L. Hess. AM Rosenthal supposedly was unimpressed as well and incorporated that into editorial policy, but not given to saying much in cold print. You’ll notice that all of these men were born between 1916 and 1929. Vociferous homosexuals are incensed when anyone critiques them (much less offers off-hand remarks on adolescent antics), and gay rage and status games on the left will make it a deal breaker for their editors. Clayton Cramer was kicked off a group blog run by law professors because they discovered some writings of his critical of homosexauals that he’d published eight years earlier. That particular blog is run by soi-disant libertarians, natch.

  • Now that I think about it, Al Jazeera won’t bother about that. However, I don’t think Shea cares much about Israel one way or another. Might be a red flag for Al Jazeera.

  • Not sure what there is for him in today’s labor force.

    Starbucks? 😉

  • Like most liberal blowhards, Shea does nothing useful and has no marketable technical knowledge. He caused this situation. Let him wallow in it. I got no pity for his kind whatsoever. Survival of the fittest is what he merits. Bombastic egotistical demogogue ranting and raving his left wing excrement everywhere.
    .
    But as I posted elsewhere, maybe the Huffington Post will pick him up for its religion section.

  • Starbucks? ?

    I think it was Christopher Fotos or someone in that circle who said the challenge for a supervisor with Shea working retail would be similar to that involved with Rosie O’Donnell working retail. Cannot really put him in front of the public.

  • Again, he could be a doozy of a prison guard. PS: my wife was rejected by the gestapo for cruelty.

  • I think an honest, 9 – 5 job in $15 minimum wage Seattle will be good for him. But probably not one where he needs to work with customers.

  • He’s near Seattle. Catholic school teaching or Uber driving. My Friday penance is to pray to various saints for both Mark and Simcha…every hour. I’m into the uncanonized Marks right now…I figure they’re less busy than the headline Mark of the gospel. Like Trump, I figure the realities of the deal.
    There are millions of uncanonized saints who would be glad to handle a request for intercession.
    Mary….I don’t know how she processes requests each day in the millions. She gets millions…the uncanonized get zilch each day.

  • Somehting I have not noticed in these posts…..I question the education in Catholic theology, history and catechesis that Shea received. I did notice that he began to snap over the torture issue after the Iraq War.

    Somehow, he ended up with writing gigs about the Catholic Church and Catholic issues….for which I do not consider him to be qualified. Know what? I’m not qualified for that either. Therefore, I don’t do it.

    Re: Trump vs. Clinton…..for some reason I consider Trump to be more redeemable than Hilary Clinton.

  • Actually Art, Shea is quite hostile toward Israel. So, Al Jazeera would be a fit. Or he could branch out on his own and found Al Sheazeera.

  • Greg, here are a couple of pieces I wrote for David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine about Shea’s attitudes toward Israel, the Middle East and American foreign policy:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/124627/catholic-writers-propaganda-iran-joseph-hippolito

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/129141/propagandist-strikes-back%E2%80%A6and-strikes-out-joseph-hippolito

    Shea’s rant effectively give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and Israel — most of whom wouldn’t blink twice about murdering Christians

  • t Shea’s attitudes toward Israel,

    That stuff’s near beer. There’s another example of Shea’s inability to render anyone else’s thinking with minimal precision. Whether it’s stupidity or its gamesmanship on his part, it’s not an indicator of hostility to Israel which extends above and beyond his baseline level of aggression. He also regurgitates palaeo rubbish about ‘Empire’. Hostility to Israel has been a feature of a strand of traditionalist opinion typified by Joseph Sobran and a strand of ‘social justice’ types in the Catholic Church who appear to loathe Israel because it has a non-ornamental military who carry weapons loaded with live ammo. Sobran was a literary critic at heart who had no rough-and-ready sense of social relations and it was reflected in his political writings (which careered into witless anarchism toward the end of his life). Others less sophisticated trade in social fictions which cannot survive half an afternoon of research (or half and hour of research) but which they find very attractive. (Some involving Israel today; others involving the Project for a New American Century, Leo Strauss, &c.; others involving the Rothschilds). (The current editor of Crisis was once employed at ISI Press and appears to have brought one such troll to work for him at his present locus, who conceives of his job as protecting other such trolls from being taken to task in the comboxes).

  • Art, not all such hostility has to be overt or obvious. By dismissing the military belligerence of a nation whose most public foreign-policy demand is the obliteration of Israel and by mocking Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense, Shea engages in de facto hostility toward Israel.

  • Just remembering an execrable internet character who in early 2003 stated that St. John Paul II’s opposition to the US invasion of Iraq was “traditional Catholic anti-Semitism.” That useless mess of human flotsam is Andrew Sullivan.
    .
    I apologize to Mark-who for any appearance of comparing him to Sullivan.
    .

  • Art, not all such hostility has to be overt or obvious. By dismissing the military belligerence of a nation whose most public foreign-policy demand is the obliteration of Israel and by mocking Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense, Shea engages in de facto hostility toward Israel.

    Paulbots fancy there are no foreign policy dilemmas by making the delusional claim that problems abroad are the result of placing foreign relations in the hands of fools and knaves like Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz rather than in the hands of savvy guys like Ron Paul. Since international engagement is a given, you can always point to some sort of friction or phenomenon as prior in time to whatever events are current. The causality is nonsense of and cannot be demonstrated by comparative study. Paul avoided ever getting nailed on such questions by forever saying what we should of done rather than what we should do, among other stratagems. Shea’s viewpoints on these matters is entirely derivative of this sort of discourse. It’s objectively antagonistic to Israel’s interests, but that is not the intent incorporated within it. Someone genuinely hostile to Israel whose entire worldview is composed of malicious fictions can be seen here

    https://disqus.com/by/billmulligan/comments/

  • “Someone genuinely hostile to Israel whose entire worldview is composed of malicious fictions can be seen here.”

    Art, I’m perfectly willing to admit that Shea is not a morbid anti-Semite. I also realize that Shea shoots from the hip so often that he has no idea about the consequences of his remarks or ideas — nor does he care. His response to his firing proves at least that much. Nevertheless, one doesn’t have to be a morbid, vicious anti-Semite to demonstrate hostility toward Israel. Whether that hostility is intentional or accidental is a secondary issue. In Shea’s case, it’s probably the latter because of his tendency to shoot from the hip without thinking. He might not show the same degree of hostility, but it’s still hostility.

42 Responses to Best Catholic Blogs

  • St. Corbinian’s Bear. The Bruin knows how to write in a most Catholic way. Bitingly honest.

  • “Charlotte was Both” is unique and testimony to a very intelligent and hard working, well known Catholic author/widow coping and succeeding as she brings up two remaining sons…one in home schooling. Small combox activity and its moderated.
    “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” is another good one because Catholic trolls with snarky one liners are never published which makes it the only site where I saw Fr. Brian Harrison appear and agree with my just previous post on St.JPII distorting wifely obedience by using one verse from Ephesians as the entire teaching.
    “Pertinacious Papist” is partly a Latin Mass fan doing incredible detail work on that and other topics.
    “The Catholic Thing” has good essays but combox turns me off…a group that is critical of Francis (good) but incapable of noting errors in his two predecessors (bad)…all three Popes will get thousands killed going forward with their bizarre anti death penalty regression in the magisterium.

  • Fr. Z of course. Rorate Coeli.

    And here, of course. Those are my 3 “every day” reads.

    Not really a blog, more a news aggregator, PewSitter.com. Kind of a Catholic Drudge.

  • I hope you’ll allow a podcasts under blogs: “Catholic Under the Hood” by Fr Seraphim Beshoner, TOR.

  • Ann Barnhardt
    St Corbinian’s Bear
    Father Z
    Father Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment
    Rorate Caeli
    Edward Feser
    .
    I usually comment only here at TAC and at St Corbinian’s Bear

  • Other than here, none. I don’t find them edifying.

  • Crisis magazine, SuburbanBanshee’s blog.

  • Tom! Tom! Tom!

    What about BigPulpit.com!

  • Dr. Edward Peters Blog
    Creative Minority Report
    The American Catholic
    Edward Feser Blog
    Rorate Coeli
    The Catholic Herald Blog

  • In no particular order:
    St Corbinian’s Bear
    Fr. Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment
    OnePeterFive
    Rorate Caeli
    What’s Up With Francis-Church (Hilary White)

  • The War Against Being
    OnePeterFive
    Barnhardt
    St. Corbinian’s Bear
    What’s Up With Francis-Church

  • I check in with all of these almost daily (other than Fr. Z just occasionally):

    Rorate Caeli
    Fr. Z, but only occasionally
    St. Corbinian’s Bear
    Restore DC Catholicism
    Vox Cantoris
    Mahound’s Paradise
    The Eye Witness
    What’s Up With The Synod
    non veni pacem – The Splendor of Truth
    Creative Minority Report
    Musings of a Pertinacious Papist
    Saint Louis Catholic
    Les Femmes – The Truth
    Eponymous Flower
    Mundabor’s Blog
    Barnhardt
    A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics
    That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill
    AKA Catholic

  • Hmmm. Blogs specifically working within the idea “Catholic” or related? Or those who include Catholic writers? A little of both:

    My own. (I should hope so!)
    The Catholic Thing
    Public Discourse
    American Conservative
    Ross Douthat
    Breviarium S.O.P.
    Daffey Thoughts
    Crisis
    Jennifer Fulwiler
    NRO
    Human Events
    PJ Media
    New Criterion
    Weekly Standard
    University Bookman
    Imaginative Conservative
    Distributist Review
    Ethika Politika
    The Catholic Geeks

    Of course, most of those make appearances on my own blog, from time to time (or more often).

  • Please peruse through not only the Blogroll but the entire RHS Sidebar of my blog THE WAR – The WAR that broke out in heaven | Our Time . In the Blogroll The American Catholic is listed. Please see this comment of mine at 1P5 for part of my reasoning in why some blogs have been listed.
    *
    I have sometimes stumbled upon excellent blogs from simple ordinary people but one can perceive from them a deep piety. They never make the “big-league” but they are known to God and are testament to the “holy” in the the holy catholic Church. Perhaps in another post I will list a few of these.

  • Rotate and One Peter Five.
    Used to always check out Fr. Z but there are too many pictures of food and his travels. I can’t relate. Lunch for me is a sandwich with lunch meat, some potato chips, fruit, etc and I make the same trip to work and home every day. Flying to NYC, Rome, etc…….ain’t happenin’.

  • Mahound’s Paradise
    St Corbinian’s Bear
    Mundabor
    Rorate Caeli
    Orbis Catholicus
    New Liturgical Movement
    Eponymous Flower
    Orwell’s Picnic
    aka Catholic
    Unam Sanctam Catholicam
    Chiesa
    Renew America
    LifeSite
    LifeNews
    Fr Z
    One Peter5
    Remnant

    Love American Catholic! In my top 5

  • Fr. Z
    Arise. Let us be going.
    Mundabor
    Fr. Hunwicke
    Eccles
    Crisis Magazine
    The Catholic Thing
    Connecticut Catholic Corner
    Fr. Rutler’s weekly column

  • Oh Oh.

    First Things.
    Spirit Daily.
    Eye of the Tiber.
    These Stone Walls.
    Fr. Z

    Ann Barnhardt too.
    She is a bundle of TNT and always in perpetual motion.

    EOTT to get a good chuckle. Thanks TAC for the introduction to its site.

    Fr. MacRae has a difficult life in These Stone Walls. Blogging from prison, he shares his insights and opinions as a falsely accused paedophile. Reading the history of this priest and the false accusations that landed him in prison, I for one truly believe he is suffering for countless souls as he imitates the sufferings of Christ falsely accused and imprisoned. Redemptive suffering at work.

    My favorite Catholic site is TAC.

    Donald McClarey and other contributors put their heart and soul into service through this blog. Thank you for timely history lesson’s and the years of education that all of you share so generously. I have benefited from this site. I do try to stay quiet and learn when subject matter and discussions amongst yourselves are, well….over my head. When I do wonder into the deep end of the pool, please be kind and forgive me for doing so.
    I appreciate your banter. All of you.

  • …wander…into the deep. But “wonder” into the deep is fitting.. sort of.

  • Alright, if I may, let me do a Tito Edwards and mention mine:

    Today’s Martyrs http://todaysmartyrs.org/

    The blog tab is not really a blog, just a running commentary. People who like history tell me they are up to 2 AM on it. There are 6500 pages up on it, most in PDF format.
    Can anyone recommend a good email subscription add-in for WordPress that has no cost or fees, including hidden ones?

  • TomD. Your Today’s Martyrs; People section is very moving. Your site is moving. I will visit it more often to pray for these souls still held captive. All their suffering for the name of Jesus Christ. Hero’s all.
    Thanks TomD.

    Saint Maximilian Kolbe pray for us!

  • 1Peter5

  • @FMShyanguya.

    Corpus Christi watershed.
    I’ll be visiting this site too.
    Thanks for the introduction.

  • RE: @bill bannon here on the Death Penalty. Quoting from this link I provided above:

    3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

    NB: Canon law has always forbidden clerics to shed human blood and therefore capital punishment has always been the work of the officials of the State and not of the Church. – Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Capital Punishment. Therefore to put or not to put someone to death belongs to the State and not the Church.

  • To get up to speed on orthodox answers to current questions, rumors and perplexing insanities and inanities: denzinger-bergoglio blog.

    https://en.denzingerbergoglio.com

  • @Philip Most welcome! And long time. Hope you are well. And thanks to @Donald R. McClarey for asking. I believe very good info has been exchanged. God bless you and yours and keep up the good fight.

  • @FMShyanguya.

    And good health to you as well.
    There is so much to learn.
    I love God and try everyday to love Him through service to my neighbor.
    It is a good relationship.
    He does speak to my heart.
    Sometimes it’s a dark night too.
    My (honeymoon) was 15 years ago when I was overwhelmed by His manifestations, but I realize the importance of being able to pray consistently and love always regardless of personal feelings or consolations.

    He has taken me out of His arms and has allowed me to walk on my own….always near, but not needing to hold me close.
    It is spectacular… a new birth….a new adolescence in a way. A new creation.
    I love God and thank Him continually… In the sunny weather and stormy….His love never disappoints.

  • @Philip when I was overwhelmed by His manifestations – something perhaps to share with us some time.
    Please allow me to humbly share mine, pieced together very recently.
    *
    His love … for us … God’s love for us and he being God had the Associate Pastor Fr. Bert , during his homily this past Sunday at my parish, exclaim to us

    ‘Just think about that!

    he himself clearly overwhelmed and in awe.

  • FMShyanguya,
    We disagree. When three Popes against the wording of their own faulty catechism article 2267…publicly campaign verbally in speeches for the ABOLISHMENT of the death penalty, they even contradict Benedict’s earlier words because abolishing means it’s not an option…words which you cite and they …these Popes…are responsible for murder victims where they have been successful….as they were in the Phillipines where the dp was probably not used well when they had it til recently since their murder rate is 8 times that of China and 24 times that of Japan.
    Google homicide by country wiki. You’ll notice where there are majority poor…that’s where the death penalty saves lives. Frankly Japan with or without a death penalty….would have few murders like Europe and Maine and Vermont….places with few radically poor as percent of population. But northern Latin America and Africa….no and few executions… are 1 and 2 in murder rates at the world level and East Asia excepting Phillipines is safest with a billion poor. Middle class nations is not the point except the US which has a 4.7 per 100,000 murder rate but a 32 per 100,000 rate ( same as Central America) in the ghettoes like Baltimore/rough and a death penalty in some states whose appeals process length disables deterrence to some effect. Yet even at that, SCOTUS found that it deters….after four years of comparing warring deterrence studies.

  • LoneStarParson…
    My only regular stop that hasn’t been mentioned.

  • God Guns Church and Country life in Texas..
    ExNOAAman. That blogspot reveals down to earth friendly folk. He mentioned Holy Trinity Sunday and fishing. I like that.
    We did okay for trout opener in Northern Michigan. Our camp landed three Brook Trout, one German Brown and one 24″ Rainbow Trout. I caught the Brown. Mass on Sunday!
    No matter where we are, we find a Mass. Of course we sit way in the back….camper is very rustic. Running water remains in the river.

  • Philip,
    I think Fr. LSP lived in the north for a time (Calgary). His place is a relaxing read after all the difficulties discussed here and elsewhere.
    24″ you say? Seems dang big for a rainbow. Congrats….

  • “Seems dang big for a rainbow..”

    It is. Tim Mulherin from Indy caught this monster dragging a crawler along the bottom of the Jordan river, sneaking it into the large dark holes. He said it was the largest trout he has ever taken from the river systems.
    A beautiful fish.

    I have been trying to paste photo on this site, without any good luck. Please feel free to view it at Instagram. Kolbebrother is my site.
    The other fish you’ll see is my 12″ brown trout.
    The sketch of “behold the man,” was done with charcoal. Aug 15th of 2002. I was shocked when he appeared. I’m not that talented, however He was guiding my hand.

    I just opened Instagram last week for the very first time. I’m a novice when it comes to social media.

  • Yeah, Brian.

    Denzinger-Bergoglio site is really great.

    I have the opportunity to work with them translating into Portuguese their article summing up the first 100 (how can I say?) errors of Pope Francis.

    They continue counting.

    Best,
    Pedro

  • I mean I had the opportunity of working…

  • One other…was AudioSancto.org , (now divested)

    just go there and it can send you to the 3 new sites where you can download podcasts of some great traditional sermons.

  • Also:
    Abyssus abyssum invocat
    1P5 Digest

Bear Growls: Lawyers as Bloggers

Friday, October 30, AD 2015

 

Alas, I must part company with our bruin friend in his most recent tongue-in-bear-cheek post at Saint Corbinian’s Bear:

Blogs are essential to the well-informed and motivated Catholic. Therefore, it is important to know which blogs are edifying, while avoiding the gimcrack offerings of slipshod shysters. To this end, the Bear offers the following qualifications you should demand from anyone who seeks your valuable time and attention. If you follow the Bear’s advice, you will avoid bloggers who are just sensationalistic click-prostitutes out to make a buck.

The kind of blogger you want must combine the following education and experience.

A blogger must be able to persuade people to follow the right course of action. Someone equally skilled in forensic debating and arguing before regular folks is required. To give an example of someone who should not be in Catholic media is a journalist. Journalists strive to maintain a detached objectivity. Is that who we’re looking for in these dark days? No. We need advocates!

A good blogger should be able to sort out competing claims using a well-developed instinct. He should be able to employ relentless questioning to wring the truth out of unwilling witnesses. He must have a razor sharp intellect.

A good blogger, it goes without saying, should be more than a pretty face. In fact, good looks are definitely not a requirement, because, after all, this is not television! He should be capable of writing his own material, employing all the tools of the wordsmith: interview, narrative, analysis, and even humor and irony. He must be persuasive, even as he remains fair and accurate.

A good blogger is capable of doing his own tireless research. He must be able to put together the jigsaw puzzle of complicated situations, and determining the means, motives and opportunities of the various actors.

If you look at these qualifications, you’ll see that there is really only one profession that should be allowed to blog:

Lawyers.

The blogger must have a JD. Lawyers are even licensed, so you know they’re legit. Are journalists licensed? No. Anybody can call himself a journalist and scribble for whoever will hire him.

But, still, something is missing. Not just any lawyer will do. Not even a good one. He must have an appeal that combines scary and cute.

When necessary, he should have the talent to employ the Old Razzle Dazzle. This requires extensive experience in secular show business:

It’s all show business kid,
These trials, the whole world, show business.
But kid, you’re workin’ with a star, the biggest!

So, unless your blogger combines all of these qualifications, he’s just in it for the money and should be avoided at all costs. 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Bear Growls: Lawyers as Bloggers

Rosica Retreats

Thursday, March 5, AD 2015

 

 

 

Well, well, well, Father Thomas Rosica has decided not to sue blogger Vox Cantoris after all.  Go here to read all about the original suit threat.  Here is Rosica’s graceless announcement that he is not going to sue:

 

Jeremiah 18:18-20

 The people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem said,“Come, let us contrive a plot against Jeremiah.It will not mean the loss of instruction from the priests,nor of counsel from the wise, nor of messages from the prophets.And so, let us destroy him by his own tongue;let us carefully note his every word.”
Heed me, O LORD, and listen to what my adversaries say.Must good be repaid with evil
that they should dig a pit to take my life? Remember that I stood before you to speak in their behalf, to turn away your wrath from them.
As the CEO of the Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation and Television Network, I am not a high-ranking Vatican official nor a member of the hierarchy of the Church as erroneously claimed in several recent blogs.  In addition to my work at Salt and Light, I have had the privilege of serving since 2013 in a volunteer capacity as English language assistant to the Holy See Press Office.  I relate on a daily basis to hundreds of English language journalists around the world.  I know that this daily service has been encouraged and appreciated by the Vatican and by hundreds of journalists all over the world.
I fully support the teaching of the Church and welcome Pope Francis’ invitation to the whole Church to reflect seriously on the foundations of our faith. The recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops has invited us to mature, honest dialogue and conversation and to find new ways and a new language to communicate the ancient story of the Church and our beautiful, unchanging doctrine to future generations.
Mature expressions of differences are welcome.  It is one thing to have differing opinions on church matters. However, there is fine line between difference of opinion and blatant destruction of person’s lives and reputations. Having been strongly advised to respond, as an individual and in no institutional capacity to the Vatican or to my place of work, to the continuous false, slanderous statements of a blogger over a long period of time that resulted in gross distortion, misinformation, many phone calls, letters and clear threats from callers based on the repeated false information contained in the blog, it was never my intention to sue, but rather to issue a letter to “cease and desist” the frivolous calumny. A legal firm, offering its service pro bono to us, issued a letter to cease and desist. No lawsuit was ever launched against the blogger! The matter is now closed.
Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have taught clearly that the Internet and blogs can be of tremendous service to the up-building of the Church and of humanity. They have never taught that blogs and social media should be used, in the name of fidelity, to engender slander, hatred, reviling and destroying.
In a world torn apart by hatred, terror and violence, often through the gross distortion of religion, we must be much more attentive to our use of social media and how it is used to unite rather than destroy humanity. Many in the Catholic blogosphere have contributed enormously to the spread of the faith, the defense of all that is good and beautiful about our faith and our Church, and the opening of dialogue among strangers. They are to be congratulated and encouraged. Others have chosen to turn the blogosphere into a black hole of vitriol, anger and profound sadness. As Catholics, the great privilege and freedom of expression and access to social media also have certain obligations of decency, integrity, honesty and charity that reveal who we really are as a faith community.
Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB
CEO, Salt and Light Catholic Media Foundation
Some comments about this statement:
1.  Note how Rosica is at pains to indicate that he is not a Vatican official.  Why he is just an unpaid volunteer, sort of like your local priest suddenly being asked to run an operation out of the Vatican! Uh huh, sure.  My guess is that Rosica was instructed to put as much distance between himself and the Vatican as possible over this hornet’s nest he stirred up.
2.  However, there is fine line between difference of opinion and blatant destruction of person’s lives and reputations.
He then proceeds to give no evidence that anything posted about him by Vox Cantoris fit into that category.
3.  Having been strongly advised
By whom?  An attorney?  A superior at the Vatican?
4.  A legal firm, offering its service pro bono to us,
Yep, I can tell you after a third of a century practicing law that high powered law firms are just begging to represent people for free in defamation law suits.  If such a firm has not offered such pro bono services to you, you might want to call up such a firm and inquire about the legal services they are eager to provide gratis!
5.   They have never taught that blogs and social media should be used, in the name of fidelity, to engender slander, hatred, reviling and destroying.
Once again, such statements would be so much more effective if any proof were proffered that Vox Cantoris had engaged in such conduct.
6.  Others have chosen to turn the blogosphere into a black hole of vitriol, anger and profound sadness.
Once again, no examples.  I rather suspect that Rosica views any criticism directed his way to fit into that category.
Vox Cantoris’ statement in response to the news that he will not face bankruptcy as a result of threatened litigation:
Dear Friends,

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Rosica Retreats

  • I wonder if this triumph of justice would have occurred once the USSCCB’s communication’s spokesperson and Obama take away truth and criticism by controlling the internet via “net neutrality?

  • One positive thing coming from this retreat, is that we are certainly seeing the wolves and Spirit of Vatican II clergy come out in the open. We can confirm many of our speculations on many bishops and priests now and give more attention by shining a spotlight on their devious activities.

  • The Jeremiah reference applied to Vox Cantoris, NOT Fr. Rosica. The hubris of these liberals never ceases to amaze me – “Look at me, how I am being persecuted by those mean and divisive and intolerant conservative bloggers. Look how holy I am am.”

  • Oh, the poor victim! That mean blogger and his mean blogger friends. Didn’t expect the firestorm after he took his shot and then got himself smeared by the excrement he’s been throwing out there as Catholicism, and then had his buddies smeared too. Well, the Vatican threw him off the cliff when they saw Vox Cantoris was not alone and the Truth shone too brightly on them as well.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - BigPulpit.com
  • Pingback: U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex 'Marriage' Saga - Big Pulpit
  • However, there is fine line between difference of opinion and blatant destruction of person’s lives and reputations.
    He then proceeds to give no evidence that anything posted about him by Vox Cantoris fit into that category.

    To be fair, his solicitors did, in a nine paragraph inducement and a three paragraph innuendo

    http://www.churchmilitant.tv/documents/spec-2015-02-19.pdf

    Whether it would survive a debate on the relevancy is another matter, but there is no reason why Roscia should not allude to it, brevitatis causa.

  • Vox Cantoris had nothing to do with my reevaluation of Fr. Rosica. Statements and public activities of his in the past led me to question his ethics, values and orthodoxy. His repugnant behavior toward Mr. Domet will live forever in my memory as the lowest form of clerical imperialism I have witnessed, and I’ve seen a fair amount of it, always from the heterodox. Why the lowest? Because it was shameless, vindictive and retaliatory. Fr. Rosica is himself responsible for this writer never to give credence to anything that comes from him or Salt and Light.

  • This just proves that a Catholic must be careful in conscience before attending to any specific priest. This is just another aspect of our God given freedom of choice.

  • Translation: we expected the little blogger to fold quickly, and never to have our bluff called. Once he called our bluff, we were told by higher ups to drop this matter asap. BUT IT’S STILL HIS FAULT!

  • One would hope that this Vatican back-off of descent suppression would be permanent but one, I think, would be wrong. Mr Domet is to be congratulated for his courage and his prayerful confrontation of the assault to his duty to truth as a Catholic, an American and blogger. As one who offered to help support his defense I was most pleased that so many others were willing to crowd fund him. This should give confidence to other bloggers to fight the good fight regardless of Vatican intimidation.

  • Kevin

    The issue of a “gagging writ” is a very old device. Dubious individuals raise an action for Injurious Falsehood (which they never intened to pursue), hoping to stifle discussion in the Press, on the grounds that the matter was “sub judice” and thatany comment was a contempt of court as tending to prejudice a fair hearing.

    Certainly in Scotland, the courts have said – and said emphatically – that a Summons is not to be used as a muzzle and that fair comment is not contempt. They also require pursuers to “put up or shut up” by leading a proof timeously. Despite this, newpaper editors tend to play safe. The Web, one trusts, will not yield to the same self-imposed constraints.

  • And One Wonders WHY “Salt & Light Television” is so IGNORED in Canada.

    Fr. Rosica is not even Canadian in origin, for as it turns out, he was born & raised in Rochester, NY, USA, across Lake Ontario from Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is as Canadian as Bob & Doug Mac Kenzie are from my native Brooklyn, NY, USA.

  • One would hope that the reason for Canadian Catholics to ignore S+L, if that is the case, is not the national origin of Fr. Rosica. Good people, bootlickers and scoundrels can be found from any nation.

  • The separation of church and state would require that secular courts resign their judicial authority to the church for church matters.

Cardinal Newman’s Rules for Blogging

Sunday, January 18, AD 2015

Cardinal Newman Icon Tall Pic

Blogging can be rough amusement.  I will attempt to keep the Definition of a Gentleman written by Cardinal Newman in 1852 in mind as much as I can and still keep the readers of TAC informed and amused.  It is almost as if Newman could perceive blogging over a century and a third before it began, as  his Definition of a Gentleman is, in part, almost a code of behavior for bloggers.  Here are some rules for blogging I have distilled from it:

Bloggers would do well to keep the following in mind:

1.    His great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd.

2.    He never defends himself by a mere retort.

3.    He has no ears for slander or gossip.

4.    He is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best.

5.    He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out.

6.    From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend.

7.    He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults.

8.    He is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice.

9.    He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles.

10.   If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Cardinal Newman’s Rules for Blogging

Nutcase Comment of the Month

Wednesday, August 20, AD 2014

Tin Foil Hats

 

One of the services your humble servant performs for readers of this blog is to send to the trash the insane comments which we receive before you have to be exposed to them.  However, for your amusement I will now reveal a comment we received under the Only Dead Christians post:

Of course, Israel and the U.S. are behind ISIS (which is not an Islamic group, but a satanist one hiding behind Islam to try to destroy it), and so they, the Anglo/American/Zionist Empire, and not Muslims, are behind the killing of Christians.

Once you realize that not one Muslim had anything to do with 911, rather, it was a CIA/Mossad operation, it all starts to make sense. The purpose is to demonize Islam, so Christians will go to war with Islam instead of its real enemy, Zionism.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Nutcase Comment of the Month

  • He forgot to include the black helos.

    Anyhow, that guy makes me look sane.

  • On 20 June, the fellow who signs himself “Thaddeus Kozinski” offered this post at The Last Crusade. Scroll down.

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/08/05/4027679.htm

    He makes use of the character string “Anglo/American/Zionist empire”. Dr. Zummo banned him here and Edward Feser told him to stay out of his comment boxes. Either the chap at Wyoming Catholic College is being traduced by an imposter or he’s circling the toilet bowl. He sounding more and more like Bobby Fischer.

  • There is a discussion thread in Crisis magazine filled with ridiculous comments like this. I think it is a fake name, someone who wants to blame Jews and get Muslims off the hook. Won’t work with me.

    Islam belongs with Marxism-Leninism, on the ash heap of history.

  • Different IPs all around. The real Thaddeus Kozinski, judging from his e-mail address, posted here once:

    “Art:

    I read your comment about the controversial comments made by “Thaddeus Kozinski.” If you would, please e-mail me if you see this happening again. Thanks. I can ask that they are removed. Wyoming Catholic is a good place, and I don’t want it to get a reputation for being a breeding ground for off-the-wall people. Thanks.”

    A nasty piece of work appropriating a man’s name to make loony comments.

  • This is the real Thaddeus Kozinski. If you’d like to know what I really think, please see my published philosophical writings.

  • Who among us hasn’t wondered whether ISIS is a satanic Mossad front organization designed to trick us into a war against Islam instead of focusing on our real enemies?

  • There is a discussion thread in Crisis magazine filled with ridiculous comments like this

    Several discussion threads. And about my participation therein

    http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=82559

  • Look, Charlie, let’s face it. We all know that the Islamic State is a big commercial racket. It’s run by a big eastern syndicate, you know.

  • I think it’s UniLever, actually. The Dutch are so inscrutable, and who’d ever believe it?

  • Killing Christians, threatening Israel and the United States, terrorizing fellow Muslims with slightly different beliefs, murdering women and foreigners – ISIS isn’t acting like the average Islamist group at all.

  • That picture you have of the family with “tin” foil hats is a government plot to enslave your mind – everyone knows common foil available in stores is aluminum not tin, and therefore has the opposite effect, actually increasing the government’s mind controlling potency. It was a deliberate plan of the government to replace tin with aluminum to snare the unwary.

Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

Sunday, June 22, AD 2014

Mark Shea has a habit of saying that unless people do x, x always being a policy he endorses, they really are not pro-life.  This of course is simply an attempt, at least among pro-lifers, to stop debate on x and says nothing about the merits of x as a policy.  His latest attempt to do so is on the issue of smart guns, technology that purports to prevent a firearm from being fired, unless the owner is the one pulling the trigger.  Go here to read one of his posts on the subject.  Blogger Rebecca Frech, at her blog Shoved to Them, relates an incident to describe why Shea is wrong as a practical matter:

The argument seems to center around smart gun technology. Shea reasons that if gun owners were truly pro-life then we would support all efforts to create guns which would only fire for their owners, and then the world would be a better place. People who don’t support such legislation and research, even if they support the protection of life from conception to natural death, are not truly pro-life because they participate in a culture which accepts the possibility of death by gun shot (Mark and his readers haven’t mentioned how they aim to prevent people from being bludgeoned with a rifle butt or pistol whipped with a handgun).

*********************

Continue reading...

124 Responses to Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

  • Thank God Rebecca Frech was able to defend herself and her child.
    .
    Unless you honor me, I will make of you a no-people.
    Sadly, self defense for an honorable people has become a dead issue in a court of law. The court decided that the victim must determine if the rapist was going to kill her (as the witness) or only rape her before she attempted self defense that might be lethal. The victim must remember to ask her assailant if he intends to murder her or only rape her. Of course, the assailant might change his mind. Equal Justice.

  • I do not own a gun but absolutely support those who do. I do not read Shea. I have met him. He likes to start arguments and be critical; that seems to be his bailiwick. I do not need it and do not care what his opinion it. He is not a boon to the faith with his attitude.

  • Shotguns will be the last to have smart gun tech and they are the best gun to have for the safety of nearby neighbors because they wreck criminals at close range but their pellets lose lethality with both distance and two walls far more so than bullets. Miss with a 357 magnum pistol and the bullet could go out your window and travel freely many many yards and kill a passerby on a sidewalk 20 houses away. The self defense shotgun shells will fade into 20 slow moving,far apart pellets in the same event. Shea’s making cheddar…436 comments…that’s cash per click…but as usual by setting one group against another while his followers think they are really about content. He’s an Irish barfight genius. The Swiss guard have armor piercing H&K submachine guns. Shea should point out the dangers of that. Those bullets could go through a bad guy and the good guy behind him but are necessary if terrorists arrived with body armor.

  • The greatest boost to my faith life was when I stopped visiting Shea’s blog (or following anything he had to say) years ago.

  • I agree. I stopped reading Shea at least a couple of years ago, because he was bitter and dismissive. I went back to read his rant against gun owners, and could not believe the arrogant stupidity. I can’t even listen to his little Mark Shea minutes on the radio anymore, and I refuse to buy his books.

  • it merely means that you have a different opinion from Mark Shea on an issue that doesn’t have the foggiest thing to do with abortion.

    Yeah, but you’re assuming that Shea’s political commentary (or that of palaeo types generally) has much to do with advancing a policy perspective rather than heaping contempt on certain political sectors which you despise as a subcultural group.

  • Mr. McClarey:
    Re: In defense of Mr. Shea:

    I enjoy your commentary. Thank you for defending the faith.

    I have not followed Mr. Shea for several years; but when I did he was utterly and heroically pro life. I do not know Mr. Shea; but I suspect that he is not a “gun guy”. I also suspect that most “gun guys” (and gals) would laugh at the idea that this techno-fix would save innocent lives; and in fact most likely put innocent lives at risk.

    I respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • “I respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls.”
    Well, this is an American-Catholic web site. It is focused on saving souls, yes, but also on how to live here on earth before salvation arrives.

    “I do not know Mr. Shea; but I suspect that he is not a ‘gun guy’. I also suspect that most ‘gun guys’ (and gals) would laugh at the idea that this techno-fix would save innocent lives; and in fact most likely put innocent lives at risk.”
    You are correct on all counts. Since you are correct, then the fact that the smart gun proposal would “most likely put innocent lives at risk” means that is cannot be characterized as pro-life. Consequently this means that Mark Shea can be criticized for attempting to make the proposal into a pro-life stance. At best the impulse and ideal and motive for smart gun technology can be characterized as pro-life, but it can’t seriously be taken farther than that given the technological limits.
    Here is another way to look at it. As long as the police refuse to endorse the technology for themselves it cannot be considered to be a serious proposal for the average citizen.

  • Mr. Tom D;

    Thank you for your reply: regarding your comment that this is an “American-Catholic web site” you are indeed correct; but my point is that the right of self-defense is, I believe, under natural law – universal. And in regards to your comment “that Mark Shea can be criticized for attempting to make the proposal into a pro-life stance” my point here is that bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question is a waste of time diverting our attention from saving souls.

    OTH I would like to see someone like Mr. McClarey address my belief of whether we possess under natural right an inalienable right to self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Richard Comerford,
    But are you here to protect Mr. Shea through this peculiar angle of speaking of him as a detraction from saving souls.
    You were a regular on a little website called “Coalition for Clarity” started by Mark Shea but moderated by a woman, Red Cardigan, dedicated to the issue of torture. It’s still there but with rare posts. You were always on Shea’s side of the issue which was that of St. John Paul II who had said torture was intrinsically evil but he also said in the same place ( VS, sect.80) that slavery is intrinsically evil which is proved false by Leviticus 25:44-46. Slavery is sad but God gave it in perpetual form to the Jews over foreigners because in nomadic and post nomadic settings, it processes convicts, debtors and captured soldiers of the enemy.
    I went to that site several times because I believe there is a place for rare torture as when a murderous pedophile is captured by police but will not tell where a dying child is hidden…as per Proverbs 20:30..” Evil is cleansed away by bloody lashes, and a scourging to the inmost being”…..Proverbs 26:3. ” A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!”

  • NOT bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question could be diverting our attention from saving lives which would be lost due to smart gun technology malfunctions. He is the one wrapping his gun argument in the mantle of the pro-life movement. What are we to write? Some people (who we should not name out of concern for their pro-life work in the salvation of souls) are using pro-life rhetoric to promote so-called ‘smart gun’ technology, but we disagree with them on the technical merits of their stance and therefore on their applicability of the pro-life label to this promotion? Read that over again – it just sounds silly.

  • Why is anyone paying any attention to Mark Shea?

  • Mark Shea – he who must not be named. Sounds like an anti-Voldmort.

  • I have a mini-14 rifle and ammunition. My wife knows where both are and has standing order to serve the discharge of the muzzle end to any invader. And she is a better Catholic than I.

    Mark Shea is an egotistical bombastic arrogant self-appointed apologist to whom I pay zero attention. What he says isn’t worth the electrons it takes to display his words on the computer screen.

  • Mr. Tom D

    Is the issue one Catholic blogger or what I personally believe to be an inalienable right under natural law to self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Edwards:

    I am not quite sure what “sophistry” means. But we live in an age where our rulers appear both to have a contempt for innocent human life and a desire to strip the citizenry of its right to self defense. And the focus of Catholic commentators appears to be on the personality of one media personality. Should our focus rather be on what the Church, established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, teaches on the right and even duty of self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • There is an inalienable right to self defense. Of course. The law also has held that there is a role foe government to promote public safety. Advocates of so-called smart gun technology believe that they are promoting both, or at least promoting safety without infringing on self defense. They are incorrect on both counts.

    What this has to do with pro-life issues is beyond me, other than the fact that self defense IS defending life.

  • So Mr. Comerford, is it your position that the promotion of smart gun technology is an attempt to infringe on 2nd amendment rights?

  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. This is not a 2nd Ammendment issue. Rather something greater. What the Constitution is based on. Natural law. Or if you will God given rights and duties. I believe that the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense. If such right exists is it enabled in the 21st Century by the bearing of firearms? If the bearing of firearms enables said right can any restrictions be placed on the firearms – like the various techno gizmos under discussion?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • I’m sorry, I asked a simple question. Dodging it smells like sophistry. Tito Edwards usually does not throw around such words easily, but I have to agree with him. I don’t mind if you elaborate your answer to my question with a natural law argument. I do mind being asked questions in return.

    This question, however, is very telling: “If such right exists is it enabled in the 21st Century by the bearing of firearms?” It is a hallmark of constitutional law that the nature of rights do not change from century to century. Your question implies that you think they can. I can assure you that if so you are wrong. Rights that can change are not rights at all.

  • Mr. Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. I think that the Church teaches we have a right and even duty to self defense. However Cain did not slay Able with a gun. Does the Church limit our self defense to broad swords in the 21st Century? If we can morally bear firearms can limits be placed on said firearms? Can I be prevented putting a hitch on my car in order to tow my very own 106mm reckless rifle? The Church seems less clear on these issues. I think said issues should be clarified rather than lighting over a Catholic media personality.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • I can think of some Christians in Iraq who would very much like to have their own 106mm recoilless rifles right now.
    http://www.aina.org/news/20140622032015.htm

  • Mr Edwards:

    Thank you for your definition. Please be assured that I strive to be honest.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Tom d:

    A very good point. Should we not be revisiting at this time the history of the Church’s military orders? IIRC the Church h approved the constitution’s of @ 100 military orders between the fall of Jerusalem and the Reformation for the defense of Christians.

    God bless

    Richard W Cometford

  • I wrote “Rights that can change are not rights at all.” You respond with “The Church seems less clear on these issues.” That is not an answer. It is a dodge.

  • Mr Tom d:

    I think k that the Church clearly teaches that we have a right and even duty to self defense. But I am unclear as to whether the Church teaches there are limitations on the tools we use for self defense. Can it be for instance immoral for I to possess a 10 -round mag rather than a government approved 9 – round mag? I suspect not; but I cannot cite any authority to back my thought.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Edwards

    Thank you for your reply. And from what issue do I detract. Have I not made it clear that I think the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense? Is there some other issue here you wish me go address? Kindly tell me and I will be happy to do so.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • It is immoral for a government to prohibit the lawful ownership of weapons that are widely available to unlawful actors who care little for the lives of others. It is therefore also immoral to support such a prohibition with blind appeals to Church teaching that imply no prudential dissent is permitted. You haven’t done the latter, but you are suggesting that you just might.

  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if I understand you. I do not mean to infer or suggest anything. As evidenced by my post on the military orders it is clear that I think Christian men should realize we live in very evil times and we should be prepared to defend the right and the innocents. I think the Church teaches we have both a right and duty in this regard. As we live in the 21st Century self defense can only be accomplished with firearms. However there is an open question as to whether a limit can be morally placed on the type, functioning and capability of firearms in private hands. I would be happy to be enlightened if there are any relevant Church teachings on this matter.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • OK, since you are being a bit clearer I can respond a bit more clearly.

    In a properly constituted modern democracy limits can be placed on private weapon possession and ownership, certainly. The American constitutional order provides two mechanisms for the private ownership of weapons: the Second Amendment for individually operated weapons, and the clause on Letters of Marque and Reprisal for crew operated weapons. Note that the Second Amendment addresses individual ownership as an individual right which exists for public purposes, while the clause on Letters of Marque and Reprisal does not. Lawyers will argue over the details, but this is the overall structure.

    My previous posts are not really about this structure. They are about principles from which constitutionally valid and practical legislation may be enacted under this framework. Certainly Church teaching may be referred to here, but that teaching is prudential and does not necessarily override other principles.

    One Church teaching that applies here is derived from Aquinas’ view on properly constituted government. This cuts both ways. Governments which interfere with their citizens’ self defense are to some degree not properly constituted. It is certainly within the rights of the citizens to work toward the repeal of legislation that interferes with their self defense, and it is wrong to suggest that it is wrong of them to do so.

    Finally, if government completely fails and is practically non-existent, then there is no valid constitutional way that the private ownership of any weapon can be enforced, and doing so is plainly tyranny. I find your idea of re-establishing “military orders” to be sectarian and therefore not applicable to the modern world. I would much prefer that people in failed states work to establish the social institutions along the lines of those in English law which led to the American constitutional order.

  • Pingback: Popes Should Resign More Often - BigPulpit.com
  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. Now I learned something. And no name calling. A potential convert seeing your post would be I think impressed. You know Mr V from the Vortex is pretty effective. He never replies to his Catholic critics by name. I think this is a good idea. We must spread the Gospel and save souls. Everything else is unimportant.

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Cometford

  • Richard,
    Mr.V from the Vortex broached the salary oddities at Catholic Answers regarding very specific people being very well paid while others were being laid off…then noting that he takes a specific much lower salary per year even as head. His being specific therein showed potential converts that money can be a problem in Catholic media and not all Catholics think one way on it.. Mr. Shea used sins of the tongue like demeaning insults against individuals like Deacon Russel on the Lying as always sin issue repeatedly…then Shea issues repeated but seemingly general apologies. It is very good that potential converts for the good of their souls see that he is rejected by other Catholics as a model for behaviour for this ungoing and repeated sin. His example actually reinforces in Protestants their complaint that in Catholicism, you can do the same sin forever but just keep confessing it til death and all is well. You til your last post are seemingly more interested in silencing the use of his name here at TAC than in this gun issue. The gun issue is a bit moot. The smart tech depends on batteries and not even New Jersey will make them mandatory til dead batteries are not a variable. I think you came here to control the name issue really and I think your use of “God bless” has a teleology that also involves controlling others through disarming them. I saw this behaviour in you years ago and I would think you are perhaps a relative of Mr. Shea because your defense of him stretching out so many years is either close relationship or some strange attachment to one person.

  • To some extent, I think this issue is, for some of the Catholic blogs, taking on a bit of a “Blind Men and the Elephant” quality in that both Shea and his critics are focusing relentlessly on ONE or a few aspects of an issue and ignoring the big picture.

    Rebecca Frech has an important point that should not be forgotten — when you need a gun for self defense you need it instantly; any restrictions or burdens designed to make guns harder to obtain or use, therefore, will end up hurting precisely the people who most legitimately need them. However, Mark Shea has also made some important points: there ARE some utterly tone-deaf gun nuts out there — like the Open Carry activists who tote assault rifles into public places and behave like utter jerks toward those who disagree with them — who are doing far more harm than good to the cause of 2nd Amendment rights. Obviously, Frech is no gun nut, and the vast majority of gun owners are not “gun nuts,” but that doesn’t negate the fact that “gun nuts” do exist and appear to have disproportionate sway over certain public policy organizations.

    Shea’s personally combative blogging style is not my cup of tea, and I do NOT agree with many of his approaches to certain issues (like voting), but, he often posts interesting and humorous items that one may not find anywhere else. (No, I’m not related to him.) I am going to keep reading his blog AND this one every day.

  • Richard W Comerford wrote, “I would be happy to be enlightened if there are any relevant Church teachings on this matter” Can 29 of the Second Lateran Council (1139), the 10th ecumenical council, “We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.”

    It is thought to have been directed against crossbows and, whatever its precise meaning, it shows some restrictions are permissible.

  • It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.

  • my point here is that bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question is a waste of time diverting our attention from saving souls

    Better to bring his name into it so that spectators can judge the merits of both sides fairly than to do the cowardly method Shea uses of referencing vague “somebodies” that, when questioned end up applying to no one. For example we have this post where even the commenters point out that they can’t find anyone who “complain about acts of private charity”.

    One gets the impression that if Shea would give up all the boogeymen his imagination invents, he might be a much happier man able to bring back the “enjoying it” of his blog title.

  • Winning the argument and losing the soul trumps any good that is done with that style of engagement.

  • Mr. Paterson:
    Re: Can only use crossbows to kill Muslims

    Thank you for the reminder. However I have watched a few friendly debates between very impressive historians online on this matter (which is often used in Catholic bashing). There seems to be more than a little disagreement among the experts regarding either the translation, the meaning and even the existence of the citation in question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Donald M McClarey wrote,
    “It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.”
    Le Roi Soleil was both more subtle and effective than the Lateran Counci; in the aftermath of the Frondes, that astute monarch made the wearing of swords at Versailles, not illegal, but unfashionable By the end of his reign, the sword, like wearing one’s own hair, had become the badge, not of a gentleman, but of a provincial.

  • If you believe that God will forgive your sins because you let kill you an evil man who manifestly hates God and man . . .

    For the rest of us, the thought process starts with, “What would Odysseus do?” It’s one resaon the classics were important.

    There’s nothing like the sound of a pump shot gun chambering a round. It says, “Kiss you @$$ goodbye, Jack!” And, unlike a .223 or .30/06, OO buck shot won’t tear into your neighbor’s bedroom. And, unless you’re practiced with a pistol, it’s too easy to miss even at close quarters.

    Roger that, bill bannon. Comerford, Bless your heart, you’re a tool.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    My primary motivation for posting the comment you cited is that there are several people who I pray will convert to the true faith; but I tremble at the thought of they stumbling on a Catholic blog, reviewing the comments section and thinking not “see how the Catholics love one another” but rather “see how the Catholics hate one another”. Issues of faith and morals can be vigorously addressed and hopefully clarified without bringing names and personalities into it.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Shaw:

    You wrote in part: “Comerford, Bless your heart, you’re a tool.” Then please pray that I ma a tool in the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Even discussing Mark Shea makes you look intellectually unserious. It’s the same phenomenon as endlessly reporting what some bitter leftist celebrity says about the Church. The more you report it, the more they spread their lies because they’re not looking for truth, they’re looking to glorify themselves.

  • Issues of faith and morals can be vigorously addressed and hopefully clarified without bringing names and personalities into it.

    Yes, Shea has done a bang up job of making at least one person (raise hand) feel unwelcome to your church by, instead of addressing an individual, lambasts a whole group. Yeah, it’s better to make entire groups (like gun-toting libertarians, or blue-state liberals) feel unwelcome than challenging one person head on in honorable debate (like Don here on this blog or Nancy Pelosi in the general). That’s why Paul didn’t call out Peter by name but made vague references to “some apostles”. Oh yeah, those previous two sentences should have been sarcasm.

    I’ve certainly grown far more appreciative of my uncle’s choice in joining the Orthodox.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    Thank you for your reply. All we have to do is look at the Gospels to realizethat this sort of intramural skirmishing is not new. What is important is Jesus Christ, not a blogger who, like us all, will be forgotten in a few years. What should you or I care about what one lone blogger (who has no teaching authority like a pastor or bishop) posts? We should not allow such stumbling blocks to become stumbling blocks to our faith.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • What is important is Jesus Christ, not a blogger who, like us all, will be forgotten in a few years. What should you or I care about what one lone blogger (who has no teaching authority like a pastor or bishop) posts?

    Then why did you post your first comment at all? Caring about what Mr McClarey posts a little?

    Next time might want to take that beam out of your pot before calling the kettle, wolf.*

    *(yes, I was mixing my metaphors for comic effect)

  • Don McClarey wrote “It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.” Absolutely correct. And the fact that the Church has not attempted since 1139 to pass another weapons ban demonstrates that the Church understands this full well.

  • “Even discussing Mark Shea makes you look intellectually unserious”

    That is, unfortunately, becoming an axiom for what’s wrong in the Catholic blogosphere.

  • T Shaw,
    Since a convict I fought and beat said he’d be back with a pistol to get me, we sleep here in the NY harbor with a shotgun and thorough motion detectors. But I think he’s over it. Cops arriving after the fight and entering our house said, “hide that pistol grip shotgun, the detectives will take it…get a stock for it in New Jersey.”
    N.J. is the most anti gun state because it is the most densely populated state ergo it is the state wherein distant passerbys to a gun fight are a greater concern. The pistol grip shotgun ban is probably to prevent guys carrying one under their longcoat….when young, I was approached by just that type of guy as I got off a bus. Pray for him ever since by name which I knew….baddo to the nth. Tough town in some parts…nice huge park on the harbor though where I cycle….thug free because it’s a very long way from rough neighborhoods.

  • This, I suspect, will be a long thread.

  • Phillip,

    Don’t ruin it for the rest of us!

    😉

  • That’s just me, I like to ruin things. 🙂

    Besides, a little voice told me this would go on and on.

  • I read Shea’s post, but not the 400+ comments. Did anyone get around to challenging him on the “30,000 corpses” statement he kept making? Last numbers I could find were 11,000 gun homicides per year. Is he including accidental deaths?

  • Richard W Comerford wrote, “There seems to be more than a little disagreement among the experts regarding either the translation, the meaning and even the existence of the citation in question.

    The canon is certainly genuine and can be found in the highly authoritative Hefele/Leclercq, Conciliengeschichte/Histoire des conciles vol V. Livre XXXIII p 733 (Paris 1912 ed)

    The original reads “Artem autem illam mortiferam et Deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus Christianos et Catholicos exerceri de cætero sub anathemate prohibemus.”

    That is all the Council has to say on the subject.

    Leclerq translates “ballistariorum” &c as « des arbalétriers et des archers »

  • but I tremble at the thought of they [sic] stumbling on a Catholic blog, reviewing the comments section and thinking not “see how the Catholics love one another” but rather “see how the Catholics hate one another”.

    A valid point. Have you informed Mr Shea of this insight?

  • Mr c matt:

    Thank you for your question. IN answer: Yes. Several of his regular correspondent, including myself, did about 3-years ago. We were deleted and our e-mails went unanswered. And this is the blog owners privilege. It shows his good taste too. I would not allow me to post on my blog if I had one.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you for your reply. I am a semi-literate knuckle dragger. I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • In Woodbury, Connecticut:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/19/jesus-republicans-and-nra-banned-on-school-website/?cmpid=NL_opinion

    Public education probably skips or rewrites the Dark Ages period in history.
    Save the pre-cyber encyclopedias and dictionaries from the downsizing rage!

  • Mr. Winchester:

    Thank you for your reply. In answer to your question I made the original post in part because of my gratitude to Mr. Shea for his heroic efforts in defense of life. also because IMO the Catholic Church in the USA has, in worldly terms, all but disappeared; and the remnant of late seems to be fractured and conducting multiple civil wars. And sometimes very uncivil civil wars at that. The issue of self defense should IMO be addressed in light of the deposit of faith and not in the light of one Catholic blogger’s personality.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • The issue of self defense should IMO be addressed in light of the deposit of faith and not in the light of one Catholic blogger’s personality.

    Then – as they say – do it. Blogs are free and easy to get. Leading by example is far more effective than back-seat steering.

  • Richard W Comerford,

    I misread you, with apologies.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    You wrote in part: “Then – as they say – do it. Blogs are free and easy to get. Leading by example is far more effective than back-seat steering.”

    Thank you for the suggestion. We all have different abilities. I am very mildly ill and right now I have the time to make an ass of myself while pontificating. Normally I would not have either the time or the ability to run a blog with justice and charity. The folks here do a very good job but I suspect they put a LOT of effort in it.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • c matt: “see how the Catholics hate one another”.
    .
    I do not buy into the concept of the death penalty inflicted by the state or the civilian as hate. It is Justice being imposed. This is why the homicide victim must be vindicated in a court of law.
    .
    Persons, souls, are created in love and damned in Justice and redeemed by Jesus Christ. The word “ord” in Latin means law. The word “ordinance” is English for law. The word “ordnance” are the ammunition and force needed to preserve the natural law that all men are created equal and deserve equal Justice.
    .
    The Second Amendment is for all people created equal. the militia is ordinary citizens. There was a time when citizens’ arrest, that is, a citizen might apprehend and hold a fleeing criminal, was incumbent upon everyone. Now, The true citizen will be arrested for assault and battery. Citizens’ arrest is no longer recognized by law authorities. People must ask the assailant: “Are you just going to rape and rob me, or are you going to kill me?” before self-defense will be extenuating circumstances in a court of law, for permanently preventing a criminal from plying his trade.
    .
    There was one case in New Jersey. The woman asked the intruder if he was only gong to rape her, would he wear a condom. His plea: “She asked for it.” Consent only works if there is free will, with out duress or intimidation, (he had the gun). Yeah, he got off. Eleven year old children incestuously raped were blamed for the crime in a court of law. After two such cases of “She ( a minor child) wanted it” I wrote the Start Ledger with a letter entitled: “Get your free rapes here.., just line up and get your free rapes here.” Forty year old men raping eleven year old children whose consent is held in trust for them by their parents. Oh, but sometimes the rapists are the parents.
    .
    It is incumbent for a citizen to protect a minor child, to give her food and shelter and an education if possible, even when she throws herself at him for sexual gratification, or any other human need. This is why “We, the people” have constituted government, and why “We, the people,”need our guns to preserve our government, liberty and peace.

  • Mr. Edwards:

    No apologies needed but warmly appreciated.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • bill bannon,

    I live in “Mayberry” just outside NYC. I can walk to Jamaica Ave., Couple weeks ago a neighbor’s car was broken into. A few years back a crew came in and stole a half dozen minivans, but were caught as they assembled to drive them out of the village. They were most upset that they would be tried in Nassau County court not Queens.

    In NYSSR, a high magazine capacity, a pistol grip and/or a bayonet lug (as if!) make a semi-auto rifle/shotgun an “assault weapon.” I have a mini 14 which has none of that (but I like it: small, light, easy to swing) and is not on the ban/register list.

    In any case, the solution is to emigrate to Amrica, if (financially) you can.

    One problem of the man and his tools is that all think that Shea’s prudential judgment/opinions are objective truth. They apparently much don’t reflect on the First Joyful Mystery: The Annunciatiion: desire the love of humility. Think of the humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary (my Mother) when the Angel Gabriel greeted her with these words, “Hail, full of grace.”

  • “Thank you for your reply. This is not a 2nd Ammendment issue. Rather something greater. What the Constitution is based on. Natural law. Or if you will God given rights and duties. I believe that the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense.”
    .
    A right and a duty to self-defense of ourselves and every other person. “to secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity”

  • Ms. De Voe:

    Thank you for your reply. I do not mean to offend but on these matters I tend to first look to the Church rather than the glorious documents produced by our Founding Fathers, in part because said documents are based on natural law; and in part because I do not think there is a rule of law anymore in our nation’s capital; rather a rule based on pure, raw power.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • T Shaw,
    Shea should be writing books on scripture …period. His essay on the phrase “my God” was top shelf.
    Blogging is an occasion of sin for him. I’m a stock trader. If I were a cop, I’d be arrested in the first year for excessive force…which I was almost in trouble for in a citizen’s arrest I made years ago. Shea is a book writer and outside that road…trouble follows him.

  • Mr. Bannon:

    I am sorry I have not responded to your posts. I remember you from somewhere else and your posts were usually serious, somewhat complex and required work to respond to. I am very mildly ill and too happy sitting here feeling sorry for myself to do actual work. I do remember your posts with some fondness because they were always so very honest. I pray that you are well.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls

    Having dealt with the people that they drive off with their consistent behavior, I must respectfully suggest you are very wrong.

    Shea is causing scandal– doing something wrong (equivocating the meaning of a phrase, claiming those who disagree are supporting the culture of death) that causes harm to others (both by blackening the name of those fighting to end abortion and euthanasia as being opposed to self defense, and by driving people away)– and as his actions are public, the response needs to be public; how many times have people asked you why “nobody” speaks out about this or that Catholic public figure’s falsehoods, if they are actually false?
    *****
    As usual, Shea is trying to substitute his prudential judgment for binding Church teaching, and is nasty about it. It gets old.

  • Last summer, one of the locations that I do volunteer-work at, had the Bishop of San Jose visit for an annual festivity. PJ McGrath has waxed eloquent on gun-control and the need to eliminate guns from society as the moral obligation of a Catholic.
    So, as the great Lord Bishop disembarked at our little establishment of mercy (a skilled nursing facility), lo and behold: he was accompanied by a uniformed, and of course, armed security guard. Never know when one of the CNA’s might go postal and beat him about the mitre, I say.

    I am so glad some of our very avid gun-control-oriented episcopacy has their armed security to protect them 24-7. Arent you? Meanwhile, all of you, hand em over.

  • I’m about the same height as Mrs. Frech; I carry a 38 special revolver because those who do evil do not fight fair, and I have an obligation to protect my children even if I had some sort of philosophical delusion that the life of someone doing no wrong is . I use personal defense rounds because they’re designed so that it’s much less likely they’ll go through the badguy– or a wall– and keep going.

    It’s not magic, but it is a tool, one that doesn’t care that I am short, female and (frequently) recovering from a c-section. Criminals do care that I look like I would be easy to attack, and shame on those who object to self defense, especially on the basis of cooked statistics!

  • Richard,
    As long as you were really deleted by Shea, St. Luke will watch over your health in payment thereof. Shea deleted and banned me when I pointed out that death penalty countries were not all neanderthals per his list. Japan has the death penalty, great food, great art, kind to each other on food lines after the tsunami and…makes great cars and is sixty times safer from murder than the two largest Catholic populations on earth who are non death penalty countries…Mexico and Brazil…sixty times safer.

  • Foxfier,
    Kudos…and never let them engage you in talk as they move closer. They want your wrist. Say “freeze”…and if they take one step toward you, you shoot….as long as your state’s protocols align with that which they should. And back up if they’re within haymaker distance. Women hesitate at unusual movement. Get past all merciful hesitation. Judith beheaded Holofernes in a flash…while looking like Joss Stone singing ” I put a spell on you”.

  • Mr. Foxfier:

    Thank you for your reply. You wrote in part: “you are very wrong”. I have head that before. Are you related to my wife?

    More seriously: you are right in our obligation to deflate the balloon of scandal; but by directly confronting an individual the more important underlying issue (in this case the right and duty to self defense under natural law) becomes obscured; and there is a danger, no matter how careful we are, of also being uncharitable to the person in question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Bill B– thanks.
    As my husband says: guns are not a melee weapon. Thankfully the Navy gave me a good basic understanding of how dang fast folks can move, especially if their weapon is already at hand. (be the weapon their body, a knife or a hammer)
    That said, I’ve still twice been caught in situations where I really should’ve had my weapon– once cornered by a crazy person at the grocery store, with my children, and once with a drunk or high psycho who literally thought he owned the road and could issue threats to those walking on the sidewalk. It’s really not nice to have to bluff your way through dangerous situations. (stupidity and ability to beat the heck out of him, respectively; problem with a bluff is that eventually it WILL be called)
    ****
    Richard W-
    You are ignoring the major, main issue in looking for an underlying one; your underlying issue is part of why Shea is wrong, but the over-arching issue is that Shea banks on HIS reputation and “authority” as speaking for the Church and pro-life groups in general.
    You also do not answer the points I made about Shea directly driving people off, and that only being able to be fixed by addressing the problem. Not broad statements of general correction, which all too easily (as he demonstrates in the source of this very topic) devolve into innuendo, passive aggressive attacks and a refusal to stand up for the facts, but “this person is wrong. Here’s why.”

  • Ms. Foxfier:

    Thank you for your reply. Mr. Shea, whom I admire for his pro life advocacy, is neither Pope, Bishop nor Pastor. He possess no teaching authority. If one disagrees with what Mr. Shea has to say one can in good conscience simply ignore him.

    You also posted in part: “You also do not answer the points I made about Shea directly driving people off”. It is his blog. He can drive off anyone he wishes to. I mean he showed great good taste in deleting my posts. After all it is only a blog. It is not like he is denying someone the sacraments.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Again, Mr. Comerford, you do not actually make any type of argument to support your claim that directly confronting Mr. Shea does more harm than good to the cause of saving souls; in fact, you change the subject to his blog, rather than sticking with the Catholic Church.
    If you are unwilling to support it, why on earth did you assert it?

  • MikeS wrote “I read Shea’s post, but not the 400+ comments. Did anyone get around to challenging him on the “30,000 corpses” statement he kept making? Last numbers I could find were 11,000 gun homicides per year. Is he including accidental deaths?”

    Accidental deaths are at an all time low thanks to vastly improved and mandated safety classes. The major number in the difference are the suicides. And of course, smart-gun technology will do nothing to stop most suicides.

  • Ms. Foxfier:

    I am sorry but I do not understand your question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • TomD- I think I found the source.

    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

    If you select

    1) All intents
    2) firearm
    3) Year of report 2011-2011
    you get Number of Deaths 32,351.

    That includes the ten-short-of-20k suicides, and the roughly 1k lawful-police-or-unknown-motive shots, and possibly the several hundred justifiable homicide (FBI caught 260, defined as shooting a felon during a felony by a US citizen)

    Obviously, the criminals don’t care about laws.
    Equally obvious, cases like Mrs. Frech’s “I HAVE A GUN AND WILL SHOOT YOU IF YOU COME IN” are the primary use of guns for defense– it’s a rather unusual criminal who will keep coming if he doesn’t have other advantages and isn’t out of his mind for one reason or another.

  • It’s Mrs.

    And I did not ask a question, Mr. Comerford; you made an assertion, and are steadfastly refusing to support it in anyway.

  • In late April, I was in Mr McClarey’s fair state and noticed the traffic billboard noting at that point that there were over 200 Illinois residents that had died in traffic accidents. When I returned back a week later to fly out of Mayor Rahm’s city, it was now over 220.

    So, Mr Shea must be equally concerned about traffic deaths and the outlawing of cars, because in the same year, 2011, there were actually more traffic deaths than gun-related deaths (32,367, Natl Hwy Traffic Safety Data), and the next year, the trend was up almost 5 per cent to around 34,000.

    Oh. He has never mentioned “violent” traffic fatalities? Humm.

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    I am sorry. I have lost you. Which assertion would you like me to support please?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • If you cannot be bothered to defend your assertion after multiple polite requests, I’m quite willing to accept that as you dropping your objection, though it wasn’t very gracefully done and has the added problem of misleading people.
    ***
    Goes rather far in proving the point of why problems need to be openly dealt with– if there is not a direct challenge, it becomes very hard for there to be a defense, let alone communication to find any sort of solution.

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    I simply do not understand what you want. I have made five requests for clarification to you. I would be happy to oblige. Please tell em what is bothering you. Kindly be clear.

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Comerford

  • …the Open Carry activists who tote assault rifles into public places…
    –Elaine Krewer

    It may not be true that Mark Shea and his minions don’t know what they’re talking about, but it’s a good working theory.

    (Like the media droids you and Shea parrot, you don’t know what an “assault rifle” is, do you honey?)

  • Mr. Comerford
    – that is objectively not true, as is easily found by looking at what you have written. That’s the nice thing about comment feeds like this– they make it clear when someone is trying to play games.

  • Until you can be bothered to find the manners to actually engage in conversation, rather than using the trappings and tossing out the essence, I’m not going to waste the time.

  • Mr. Elyi
    Re: Assault Rifle

    You know that is an interesting point. Just what is an assault rifle? The Germans titled their StG 44 a “storm” rifle. The Russians titled their AK 47 as an “automatic”. And the USA titled its M 16 simply as a “rifle”.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    OK. Whatever you want. If you change your mind let me know.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Micha-
    You might get a kick out of this recap of the “assault rifle” political phrase:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/

    If you use one definition, anything that was designed for military use is an assault rifle; by that definition, an AR-15 is not an “assault rifle.”
    If you ask the DoD, it’s automatic rifles, which… well, also not the AR-15.

    If you use gun control advocate’s definition, it means “scary looking, vaguely military gun.” Likewise “Assault weapon.”

    Like this pink trimmed 22lr:
    https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/tempest-in-a-teapot-22lr-edition/

  • Micha: I am aware that the definition of “assault rifle” varies considerably depending on who is using the term, and that in many cases it is simply a catch-all term for a “scary looking vaguely military gun”. I am also aware that attempts to ban so-called “assault rifles” often end up targeting weapons that have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses. That said, I still think that there are SOME (by no means most or all) gun rights advocates who overreact grossly to even the slightest percieved threat to their rights, and whose publicity stunts do more harm than good. Insisting that gun rights advocates can do no wrong is as counterproductive as making the opposite mistake of insisting that anyone who has any interest in owning a gun must be a bloodthirsty gun nut.

  • Elaine-
    you seem to be implying that the gun bans get some weapons that do not have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses.
    Would you care to describe what those weapons are?

  • Bill Bannon wrote, “Japan has the death penalty… and is sixty times safer from murder than the two largest Catholic populations on earth who are non death penalty countries”
    What you omit to mention is that the other eight countries with an intentional homicide rate below 1:100,000, (2010 figures) Austria (0.56), Norway (0.68), Spain (0.72), Germany (0.84), Denmark (0.85), Netherlands (0.87), Sweden (0.87) and Italy (0.97) do not have the death penalty. Austria, Italy and Spain have Catholic majorities and Germany and the Netherlands have large Catholic minorities.
    The rate in the US is 4.8:100,000, over eight and a half times the Austrian rate.

  • “You seem to be implying that the gun bans get some weapons that do not have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses. Would you care to describe what those weapons are?”

    No, actually, I don’t, because that is beside the point I was trying to make. My main point is that while most 2nd Amendment rights advocates are, to my knowledge, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens simply standing up for the right to defend themselves, there are some who go too far, like the Texas Open Carry group — which even the NRA and pro-gun groups thought stepped way out of line with some of their public displays:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/nra-open-carry-guns-backlash-texas

    http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/05/21/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-texas-open-carry/

    Yes, one of the linked sources is what Shea would call a “ritually impure” left-leaning publication and the other (from a pro-gun source) contains some bad language. Nevertheless, it is my opinion (not Church teaching binding on anyone) that sharing stories like Rebecca’s (of real people using guns to defend themselves and their families) is a far more effective way to convert people to the cause of 2nd Amendment rights than is walking into restaurants and stores openly displaying scary looking, vaguely military guns.

  • It does rather matter, since you characterize those you are objecting to as over-reacting to merely slight and perceived restrictions on their rights, so it does matter if you can show how the restrictions are slight and probably imaginary infringements of, per your choice of ground, legitimate defense and sporting purposes.
    .
    Mother Jones isn’t “ritually impure,” although I can see why Shea would like to attribute that to those he disagrees with rather than making any sort of rational argument. They’re known to be wildly biased with a tendency to ignore anything against what they want to support and to cherry pick their “facts.”
    The other is childish to the extreme– “didn’t get enough hugs as a child”? This is what you wish to choose to represent your arguments, someone whose point can only be made with nasty personal insults?
    That’s like building an argument that praying outside of abortion clinics with nuns in habits is a crazy thing, and linking to “flying spaghetti monster” about how symbols of the Church like nuns and rosaries are scary, and justifying it because a pro-life group argues that it’s easier to persuade the mothers not to kill their children if you don’t look too religious. (Example chosen because it’s that “reach them” argument is one I’ve actually seen in action.)
    *
    Why not just find the statement from the NRA? It was from the NRA-ILA in an email alert, incidentally, written by a staffer who was stating his own opinion in characterizing it, and which was disagreed with enough by the rest of the organization that it was removed.
    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/5/good-citizens-and-good-neighbors-the-gun-owners-role.aspx
    .
    If you’d like to see the specific quote, here’s a source that’s not crazy:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/02/nra-splits-with-open-carry-texas-amid-chipotle-beef/
    ***
    The NRA was objecting to a specific example of people making for bad optics in an area where open carry is fairly new and fights are still being had, because they know that the media will be hostile; see also, the people who bemoan how the Pope keeps saying things that are mauled and mangled by our media, not because he’s (some sort of insult,) but because he’s doing things that can be abused.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour-
    that argues that the death penalty doesn’t hurt– it may point to a confused cause and effect, as well. It’s much easier to get people to let the death penalty be removed if murder is relatively uncommon.

    When Australia has drug gangs and an equivalent of the Mexican army walking across their borders, they might be a good comparison.
    Also, without looking it up, I know at least some of those Catholic countries are graying– young males commit the most murders.
    And there’s the issue of how various countries define murder or homicide… I know that at least as of a few years ago, it wasn’t murder until someone had been found guilty.
    (see also, the death rate for newborn children in the US vs countries that don’t count every child that “showed signs of life” as a “live birth”; TOF has a post about these definition problems:
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-statistical-fun.html )

  • Michael PS,
    Europe’s present stability as to murder was partly formed by many centuries of the death penalty which was abolished only of late….Sweden 1921, Norway 1902, Denmark 1892, Austria 1968, Germany 20th century. They are safe now… partly because of centuries of the death penalty. Then add in that they do not have an ex slave underclass that the US has.
    Abolish it …the death penalty…tomorrow in Japan and Japan will stay non murderous for a very long time…unless a rich poor divide builds up.
    Several Catholic countries with the help of Pope Nicholas V ( Romanus Pontifex, mid 4th large par.) caused the crime legacy of Latin America but escaped that legacy and left it here…Spain and Portugal, the latter of which was last to leave the slave trade.
    Enter the US…which had both slavery and white indentured servants from European sources….whose descendants became our main violent criminals along with Irish and Italian etc. underclasses coming from Europe. The US attracts aggressive personalities also from all the world because to be poor here is not relaxing…it puts you in bad neighborhoods that can be lethal. Ergo we attract aggressives.
    The US needs a death penalty that does not have ten years of appeals ( Texas) or 20 years of appeals
    ( California).

    Back to Mexico. Read the ccc 2267 article virtually against the death penalty because prisons are so nice now…and then watch this tape of Mexican gangsters scaring prison guards into letting them open a cell and machine gun rival gang members ( the Mexican Human Rights Commission stated that cartels control 60% of the prisons)… you cannot turn this around with killing many if the 100,000 cartel members:

    http://youtu.be/Wt5Aw1rvVSc

  • correct last phrase: you cannot turn this around without killing many of the 100,000 cartel members.

  • Regarding assault rifle bans: HO HUM . . . I am of of those million in NY.
    .

    4/17/2014: “The SAFE Act, passed in New York last year, had an April 15 deadline for owners of assault-style weapons to register their guns with the state. Some 1 million residents have refused to abide.”
    .

    2/20/2014: Instapundit: “I love the people who say you could never deport all the illegals, but who think you could lock up all the gun owners.”
    .

    J. D. Tuccille: “This successful example of mass defiance horrifies the editorial board of the Hartford Courant, which shudders at the sight of the masses not obeying an order that, history, tells us, never had a shot at wide compliance. But compliance with gun registration would have been a historical aberration. Gun restrictions of all sorts breed defiance everywhere they’re introduced.”
    .

    1/27/2014: Irish democracy: CT scrambles for “amnesty” after masses refuse to register their assault weapons and high-magazine capacities.

  • Reagrding so-called open-carry: I was stationed in Ca when that great state was yet part of America. Ronald Reagan was governr. Then, it was legal to carry a sidearm if it was in plain sight. I think the concealed carry was illegal.
    .

    Now (last I heard), 33 (out of 57 if you’re an Obama-worshiping idiot) US states have not self-eliminated from America and have passed legislation allowing so-called concealed carry. My son in TN always has a .45 on his person, except when on post where he must needs be unarmed so that a terrrorist may safely kill him.

  • Foxfier
    I think you are confusing Australia (which I did not mention) with Austria. Australia’s 2010 rate was 1.16, more than twice that of Austria.
    You are certainly right about young males committing the most “intentional homicides” as we classify them in Scotland, that is both murders and those cases where provocation, diminished responsibility or excess in self-defence reduces the crime to Culpable Homicide. I believe the corresponding Anglo-American term is Voluntary Manslaughter.In 2011-2012, in Scotland, the young males (aged 16 to 20 years) were the most likely to be accused in homicide cases. The accused rate per million population was more than six times greater for 16 to 20 year old males, at 148 accused per million population, compared to the national average of 24 per million population In 2012-2013, it was males aged 21 to 30 years that were the most likely to be accused in homicide cases. The accused rate per million population was more than five times greater for 21 to 30 year old males, at 82 accused per million population, compared to the national average of 16 per million population.

  • “Now (last I heard), 33 (out of 57 if you’re an Obama-worshiping idiot) US states have not self-eliminated from America and have passed legislation allowing so-called concealed carry.”

    Actually, all 50 states now have (at least on paper) provisions for concealed carry by ordinary citizens; the last holdout, Illinois, approved it last year and thousands of state residents are now carrying or taking the necessary steps to obtain permits. The main difference between states at this point is “shall issue” — a permit must be issued to anyone who meets the legal qualifications — vs. “may issue” — permits are granted only at the discretion of a local or state official. At last count, 4 states (HI, MD, NJ and RI) were “restrictive may-issue” statewide; 3 (CA, NY and MA) had “may issue” laws that varied by locality; 2 (CT and DE) were classed as “permissive may-issue”; and 5 states (VT, AR, AK, WY and AZ) had no carry restrictions. The remaining 36 states are “shall-issue”.

  • Also, this animated graphic shows the spread of concealed carry laws across the nation over the past three decades:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Rtc2.gif

    As recently as 1986, only 8 states had “shall issue” concealed carry laws and 16 states — mostly in the South and Midwest — were still “no issue.”

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour –
    Yes, I read the second “Austria” as “Australia” and thought you were trying to draw a more equivalent comparison– a country that doesn’t have wooden houses older than the country’s culture, closer in population and cultural diversity, higher migration rate (Australia actually has a higher rate than the US, per 1k population, though raw numbers are something like 780k for the US and 129k for Australia) and so on– although it doesn’t have a land border, it does have a lot of “refugee” boats.

    In that case, it’s not a decent comparison at all; it’s a smaller, muuuuuuuuch more established culture, more homogeneous (over 90% ethnic Austrians), much older population that has a big population bulge at 40-60 rather than the US’s slight bulge at 60 to… well, hard to tell, because it’s a very gradual drop to 40, and then it bounces back up at 35 for another spike at 20-25. (Looking at the CIA’s World Factbook population graph.

    Additionally, it doesn’t have an equivalent of the Mexico border.

  • Elaine Krewer-
    Part of the push for shall issue laws was people recognizing that they could not trust those in authority to exercise basic sense as had been the traditional expectation, so laws spelling out exactly what would disqualify a person were put in place.

    Comments to the effect that fearing for your life is not a compelling reason to carry a gun had something to do with that…. (Chief Zavaras of Denver, ’88)

  • Foxfier
    But I was not comparing Austria, or any of the other countries I cited with the United States, which I agree would be absurd. I was comparing them with Japan.
    Bill Bannon had attributed Japan’s very low intentional homicide rate – in fact, the lowest in the world at 0.36:100,000 – to its having the death penalty.
    Now, in my submission, the other countries I cited, all with an intentional homicide rate below 1:100,000, can fairly be compared with Japan and none of them employ capital punishment.

  • It is not without interest to note that in Public International Law, those who carry concealed weapons are treated as franc-tireurs or unlawful combatants.
    The requirement that combatants carry arms openly was, I believe (I am not a Publicist) first set out in the proposed Brussels Declaration of 1874 and was adopted in Article I of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and repeated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.
    There does seem to be something sneaky about it. In both France and the UK, laws against carrying concealed weapons abounded, when the open wearing of swords or dirks was commonplace.

  • “There does seem to be something sneaky about it.”

    Not at all. It is a very good thing that miscreants be uncertain if their next victim may be carrying arms. Security for politicians around the globe invariably involves agents in plain clothes who are carrying concealed weapons. In Europe, with the exception of the Czech Republic which allows concealed carry, as is so often the case in many areas, it seems there is one law for the ruled and other for the rulers.

  • Donald M McClarey

    “In Europe, with the exception of the Czech Republic which allows concealed carry, as is so often the case in many areas, it seems there is one law for the ruled and other for the rulers.”

    The Brussels Declaration was based, in part, on the experience of French farmers taking pot-shots at Prussian troops in the aftermath of Sedan.

    The government of Thiers tightened up French gun laws considerably after the crushing of the Paris Commune, including the Law of 14 March 1872 abolishing the National Guard; whatever benefits it offered in time of war were more than outweighed by the threat it posed to internal stability (they kept their Tabatière rifles at home!). As a result, there has not been an armed insurrection in metropolitan France since.

  • “The Brussels Declaration was based, in part, on the experience of French farmers taking pot-shots at Prussian troops in the aftermath of Sedan.”

    As you might have guessed MPS, I am well versed in the military history of the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath. European governments routinely treat their people as subjects rather than as citizens, which includes France which has long demonstrated that democratic verbiage and ruthless centralization of power can walk hand in hand. The sheep like way in which, notable heroic exceptions to the contrary, the French lived under Nazi and Vichy rule from 1941-1944 demonstrates the advantages of a disarmed population for tyrants.

  • MPS, do you think there might be some utility to these sorts of regulations in a society which suffered repeated violent disorders between 1789 and 1871 and societies which did not? Re France, If the regulation is shopworn, can we repeal it?

    While we are at it, there are about 68 million people living in metropolitan France. I would think there would be some room for devolving police power, don’t you?

    You’re not quite getting the significance of chatter about ‘gun control’ in this country. Recreational hunting and target shooting are a class and subcultural marker. At the same time, violent crime is very unevenly distributed. The situation is a somewhat fuzzier down South, but where I grew up, the homicide rate in non-metropolitan counties is 1.14 per 100,000. In suburban zones and in the more agreeable inner-city neighborhoods, it might climb to 2.4 per 100,000. In the less agreeable sort of inner city neighborhood, it can range from 12 to 35 per 100,000. Fully two thirds of the homicides in the region where I grew up are in an inner city zone where live about 10% of the total population and nearly all unsolved homicides are in that zone. Please note that gun ownership is pervasive in small towns and rural areas in New York and if you do not process your deer you know someone who does.

    Sport hunters are not invading slum neighborhoods and putting a dose of lead in post-adolescent slum dwellers and gun regulations will be a weak vector in influencing rates of violent crime. Inner-city violence is the issue of what sociologists delicately call ‘social disorganization’ in the slums. Containing and ameliorating that (what’s been done very effectively) requires boots on the ground. The idea of fixed standards defined according to the general public’s dispositions and enforced by cops with the manners and sensibility cops have is repulsive to a certain sort of bourgeois. The objects of this enforcement are part of the Democratic Party’s clientele. How do you resolve this dissonance between social reality and the Vision of the Anointed? By sticking the bill with people you despise, and that’s Mr. Diehl who hunts deer and Mr. Tomaselli who bought a pistol when one of his neighbors suffered a home invasion.

  • Art Deco wrote, “Re France, If the regulation is shopworn, can we repeal it?”
    Certainly. If the National Assembly is minded to turn Saint-Denis, La Courneuve or Clichy-sous-Bois into a passable imitation of Gaza City or San Pedro Sula, there is nothing to stop them doing so.

    Here, too, shooting is a class marker; the typical charge for grouse shooting is £150 ($255) per brace shot, not including gratuities to loaders and beaters. Other driven game, partridge or pheasant is rather less expensive. For deer stalking one pays around £150 ($255) a day, including transport and a ghillie, which is not bad. Of course, most landowners and farmers will let anyone they know shoot rabbits and pigeons and, especially, Canada Geese for nothing. I had a Labrador I used to lend people. He enjoyed working, but, if anyone shot over him, he would come home.

    I own shotguns myself, a pair of James Purdey 29” 12-bores and a 31” pigeon-gun, all inherited. I keep them in the bank. At around £30K ($51K) each second-hand, they would be a magnet to thieves, rather than a deterrent. I keep a cheap Italian 410-bore 29” barrel at home for rough shooting. It is worth about £100 ($170). I keep it in a windowless tack-room with a steel door, along with my saddles. The ammunition I store elsewhere in an under-floor safe.

  • Here, too, shooting is a class marker;

    Different business here. It’s all up and down the social scale but tends not to include the salaried bourgeois, especially outside the South and the Plains and Mountain states. The go-to guy for hunting advice in my old office was the building custodian. Bow, rifle, muzzleloader season every year. The man could fill his freezer for the winter. Ironically, he doesn’t care for venison.

  • Unless they’re military. A lot of all flavors of (male) military– even the folks whose families have no tradition of it– pick up hunting.

    Oddly, the only group I’ve found that is less likely to hunt is the special forces and some of their support. My little brother accidentally made several big, tough, combat-tested SEALs physically ill when they found out that the jerky he was sharing was “bambi.”

  • Art Deco & Foxfier

    I love venison and I can gralloch one, too. A bit fiddly to prepare for roasting, but I have spent many a happy hour with a larding needle. Stewed is good, too.

    I am not a particularly good cook, but my dinner party dish is salmis de pigeon, roasted and finished in a game stock and wine sauce, something I was taught by an old French lady, when I was a schoolboy. She had been a cook/housekeeper in a noble, but impoverished family in the Auvergne. It is a good way to cook duck, too, teal or wigeon. Lapin a la moutarde I can do as well.

    In the winter, if I am in Scotland, I have game two or three times a week

  • the typical charge for grouse shooting is £150 ($255) per brace shot, not including gratuities to loaders and beaters. Other driven game, partridge or pheasant is rather less expensive. For deer stalking one pays around £150 ($255) a day, including transport and a ghillie, which is not bad.

    Sounds like an episode of Midsommer Murders.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0647491/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307058/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

  • The price of two days “deer stalking” is more than my dad’s new AR, including ammo.

  • “As a result, there has not been an armed insurrection in metropolitan France since.”

    I guess you don’t count the Molotov cocktails used by France’s North African youths against France’s Citroens and Peugeots and Renaults to be arms, MPS.

  • TomD wrote, “guess you don’t count the Molotov cocktails used by France’s North African youths against France’s Citroens and Peugeots and Renaults to be arms”
    No more than I would consider the OAS campaign an armed insurrection, despite such episodes of violence as the machine-gunning of the Communist Party headquarters in the Place Kossuth on 4 January 1962, the bombing of the Quai d’Orsay on the 22nd January (which I actually witnessed – I was just beside Voltaire’s statue on the rue de Seine, when the front of the building blew out), or the dozens of other plastiques around that period. In one night, 17 January (la Nuit Bleue) there were 18 in Paris alone.
    The attacks of the plastiqueurs became as frequent as they were inept. They bombed the wrong floor of Satre’s apartment-block on the Rue Bonapart and of André Malraux’s in Boulange-sur-Seine on 7 February, blinding little four-year-old Delphine Renard. The subsequent demonstration by 10,000 workers (banned by the authorities) on the following day resulted in the massacre of the Charonne Métro (the Soirée Sanglante), when eight demonstrators, including three women and a sixteen-year-old boy were killed by the police pitching demonstrators, iron tree-guards and marble-topped café tables onto those sheltering in the stair-well. On the following Tuesday, 13 February, the funerals took place at Père Lachaise. Again, demonstrations were banned, but that did not stop half-a-million trade unionists following the coffins, heaped with red carnations as the crowds sang the workers’ great anthem against fascism,
    « C’est la lutte finale
    Groupons-nous, et demain
    L’Internationale
    Sera le genre humain »
    – and not a policeman anywhere in sight.
    That day, Algérie Francaise was buried – by the OAS
    Terrorist attacks, public disorder, yes, but armed insurrection, no.

  • “Ms. De Voe: Thank you for your reply. I do not mean to offend but on these matters I tend to first look to the Church rather than the glorious documents produced by our Founding Fathers, in part because said documents are based on natural law; and in part because I do not think there is a rule of law anymore in our nation’s capital; rather a rule based on pure, raw power. God bless Richard W Comerford”
    .
    It appears Richard W. Comerford, that you reject our founding documents because they are based on natural law and our Creator, and you adhere to church teaching; obviously, because Church teaching is no longer respected and outright banned by our government, leaving ordinary citizens with no refuge, in harm’s way.
    .
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
    .
    Ratified by all the colonies July 4th 1776
    .
    Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    .
    Ratified by all the states 12/15/1791.
    .
    Citizens have a right to express their grievances. Citizens are entitled to a redress of grievances.
    .
    Obama writes Executive Orders and ratifies these orders for himself and declares that the citizens are his subjects when he bothers himself to remember the citizens. When Obama acts outside of the Constitution, he acts outside of his citizenship and takes nobody else with him, for this is Obama’s personal opinion and Obama is totally responsible for his actions, and may not take the USA with him into annihilation.
    .
    All free lands and waterways are owned in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen. You own it all and I own it all.
    .
    In the last days of Bill Clinton’s time in office, Clinton wrote an Executive Order making all free lands and waterways the property of the Chief Executive. Clinton wrote it and ratified it for himself. If Hillary gets into the president’s office, will she acknowledge the property that belongs to all citizens? Will she let us share our property? If the free lands and waterways become the property of the government, will these properties be used to pay off the national debt? Will foreign interest be free to violate our borders at will and take possession of property that was given over to them as debt holders by an illegitimate act of government?
    .
    Maybe the people will need weaponry to defend against intruders, usurpers invited by our government, our government which hasn’t the will of water running down hill.

  • Sorry to be late to the party: If homicide statistics from Detroit, Chicago, New York City and New Orleans are removed from calculations, the United States would rank near the bottom of country by country comparisons. The anti-gun rights people like to demonize the so-called gun culture of we hayseed hillbillies out in the sticks but it is the urban hell holes run by entrenched Democratic politicians that contribute the statistics the Left uses seeking to disarm us. Why do those gathered to the left seek to disarm the rest of us? I think it’s ideological at best and coldly practical at worst. God save us.

Blogging and Calumny

Saturday, June 14, AD 2014

blogging fists

 

Lifesite News has responded to the assault on Hilary White of Lifesite News orchestrated by some Catholic bloggers.  Go here to read Paul Zummo’s post on the controversy, and go here to read mine.  Here is the post of Steve Jalsevac, one of the two co-founders of Lifesite News:

 

 

Now and then various Church officials complain about deeply uncharitable and harmful discussions on some Catholic blogs. Facebook, blogs, Twitter and even email can each far too easily allow angry thoughts that cross people’s minds to be published for all the world to see without the sober second thought that would naturally accompany face-to-face or spoken communication.

There was a recent attack against LifeSiteNews from a very well known Catholic writer and another such writer and her husband. Using these means of unfiltered near-instant communications, they poured calumny and invective on LifeSiteNews and our talented and committed staff.

Critics who obviously know very little about us, how we function, and our editorial decision-making penned very harsh judgments about our motives and other aspects of our work.

Here are just a few samples of what was what posted on the Facebook pages of various well-known and prolific Catholic writers:

Criticism naturally comes with the territory of journalism and should always be expected. However, when this kind of crude assault is hurled so recklessly from fellow Catholics or other Christians, it does leave us unsettled. Moreover, when such vile language and character assassination comes from Catholics who are published at influential Catholic publications, it is also a concern for the writers’ own Catholic reputation and that of their employers.

LifeSiteNews does not claim to be a Catholic organization. We have many good and faithful Catholics on staff, but we do not claim to be a Catholic organization and our reporting is intended for people of all faiths and even no faith. 

Nothing written by LifeSiteNews ever remotely approaches the level of calumny in the condemnations and criticisms seen in the Facebook posts mentioned. We explicitly forbid our writers from making such comments and are constantly removing similar comments from readers commenting under our reports. That is not free speech. We consider it to be an abuse of freedom. We also have a policy of never responding in kind to such comments.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Blogging and Calumny

  • My vile invective reserved for King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. We know who they are. Interestingly those who pile the invective on Life Site News are invariable those who find an excuse for a godless King and his mooching wife.

  • Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me…

  • Hmm, Is it any wonder that we are at the crossroads of complete decay within our beloved Church. Why we have abortion on demand and pastoral immorality, and the many other abuses perpetrated against and within Her? No one will silence me in defense of the True Faith. Get thee behind me satan!

  • Funny, I see name-calling in both directions. Do that if it suits you, but don’t pretend to be any holier because “they deserved it!”

  • “Funny, I see name-calling in both directions.”

    Statements are so much more effective Howard if they are supported by those quaint items called facts.

  • Pingback: What if Pope Francis Surprises Us Once More? - BigPulpit.com
  • An obnoxious questions that occurs to me: sometimes can a personal attack be part of a reasoned debate? I’m not wondering that about Life Site News, which I read and appreciate usually 3 or 4 times a week.. but just wondering about debate, which I think is an important and wonderful part of life!

Satan and Blogging

Wednesday, August 7, AD 2013

Obama and Lunch

 

 

I have always been fairly indifferent to the hits my blog posts receive, possibly since blogging makes up 0.00000 % of my  income.  However, over the years I have noticed that certain topics usually do draw massive amounts of hits.  Here are the top ten:

1.   Anything with Satan in the title.

2.   Sarah Palin-A sure fire blog crowd draw since 2008, and I suspect she will remain so for the rest of her life.

3.   Ted Kennedy-The “lion of the senate” has been dead for four years, but he still ignites intense emotion.  (Overwhelmingly negative on this blog.  You leave one, just one, young woman to die in a car and some people hold it against you!)

4.   Obama and canine cuisine.

5.   Jimmy Carter and his senile anti-Catholic rants.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Satan and Blogging

My Humble Thanks

Monday, May 27, AD 2013

LarryMcClarey2009

 

 

I can’t thank enough all of you who extended your kind wishes and prayers for the repose of the soul of my son Larry after his passing.  Last week was the hardest week of my life and in the lives of my wife and remaining two children.  We would have found it impossible to endure but for the assistance of friends and neighbors, and just plain good people who came forward to rally around my family in our hour of need.  There is much evil in the world, but I think there is more good, something I will attempt in future to keep in mind.

My thoughts of my boy will always remain with me as a treasured possession, and prayers for him and  requests for his intercession are now a permanent part of the prayer life of my wife and me.  Going through this terrible tragedy has only deepened my faith that we are children of a loving God and that in this vale of tears our ultimate  purpose is to love Him and our neighbor to the best of our ability.  My Larry is now with Him, the source of all love, and I am content.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to My Humble Thanks

  • My deep sympathies, Sir. May our Lord bless you and keep you and your family now and always. He always welcomes us home. May your son rest in the arms of our Savior. Prayers for comfort and the repose of Larry. Peace to you.

  • This such sad news, I am so sorry for you, your wife and your family. A devastating event like this can be life-changing, you are right, but, if it’s any help, I just thank Almighty God for the years he gave me with my own dear wife, it’s enabled me to survive.

    The Lord giveth and He taketh away.

    I will offer my Holy Communion for your Larry this Sunday.

    In Domino,

    Ernie Todd.

    No reply needed.

  • I am deeply saddened by this news Sir. We offer our most heartfelt prayer for your son. Your son will be in my family’s prayers. I hope and pray that you and your family find strength and comfort in faith and prayer. God bless.

  • No death affects us the way we’d expect, because expectations are theoretical, and death is the least theoretical thing in the world. It’s the unambiguity of the experience that sets the mind reeling. There are no more if’s in this world for the person you’ve lost. As Christians, we understand that this world is only part of the story, a small part. At times like this, hope can be raw, almost feeling like despair in the level of surrender it demands. That’s only a feeling though – although it’s so intense that it’s unfair to call it “only” a feeling. Just as faith and love, when tested, can feel battered and bruised, without ever turning to hate or doubt, the hope is still there. This is the testing in fire, I guess.

    Read up about the five stages of grief. There’s a lot of stupid pop psychology out there, but the five stages of grief are real. They don’t necessarily flow one to the other, the way they’re often depicted, though. They can show up at times and in ways that’ll surprise you. And I know that six months sounds like an impossible amount of time, but don’t be surprised if it takes you that long to regain your footing.

  • Don, may our Lord bless and keep you. May He welcome Larry into His loving care and bring peace to your family.

Seven More Deadly Sins of Catholic Blogging

Friday, April 12, AD 2013

Blogging

 

Pat Archbold has a great post here at National Catholic Register about the seven deadly sins of Catholic blogging.  Saint Blogs is a wild and woolly place and there are blogs on a vast range of subjects and for all temperaments.  Here are seven sins that drive me away from a Catholic blog:

 

1.  Thou shalt not bore!-The cardinal sin of any blog, Catholic or not.

2.  Don’t you Dare Smile!-Too many Catholic bloggers give the impression  that their day job is bringing tablets down from Mount Sinai.

3.  Send in the Trolls!- Nothing ruins a blog quicker than allowing trolls to dominate the com boxes.

4.  Ignorance Isn’t Bliss-If you are bone ignorant on a topic, please do not attempt to blog about it.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Seven More Deadly Sins of Catholic Blogging

Dyspeptic Mutterings

Monday, October 15, AD 2012

 

I am happy to see that Dale Price has resumed blogging regularly at his Dyspeptic Mutterings.  I stop by every day to read some of the wittiest blog writing on the internet.  Here is a recent sample:

I am building a giant cybernetic war badger in my basement.
I love the music of Marty Haugen.
I am receiving locutions from Krishna.
I think Obama is the only permissible electoral choice for Catholics in 2012.
I don’t think women should ever wear pants or breastfeed in public.
OK–they can do the latter if they’re wearing only pants.
Janeway is way better than Kirk and Picard combined.
The Dallas Cowboys are going to win the next three Super Bowls.
Or the Washington Redskins–whichever you hate more.
Yes, that outfit makes your ass look fat.
The best Stooge was Shemp.
Only Anglican orders are valid.
–I mean, seriously–is this thing on? Traffic is allegedly going up, but I’m feeling like a performance artist here.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Dyspeptic Mutterings

Why I Am Friends With “Moderation” and “Ban”

Wednesday, September 5, AD 2012

Walter Russell Meade at Via Meadia, a blog I frequently read, is ending comments and here is his explanation why:

 

We apologize to the readers who participated in or valued the comments section on the blog, and especially to the well mannered and thoughtful contributors who never tried to hog the microphone, launch flame wars, smuggle hate speech into the comment page, rant about personal pet peeves repeatedly and predictably, let partisan or ideological animus run wild or otherwise abuse what at its best was a forum for reflection and thoughtful debate. To such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, and your insights were appreciated, your praise cherished and your thoughtful censure was a cause for reflection. You know who you are, and this would be a much poorer world without you.

For the rest, we wish you well, and are confident that you will find many opportunities both in cyberspace and in the meat world for the kind of exchanges and conversations you seek. Thankfully this remains a free country where all of us can pursue happiness along whatever paths look promising; enjoy the pursuit and may we all find our heart’s deepest desire at the end of the road.

I believe that comments add a lot to the blog.  They turn a monologue into hopefully an entertaining give and take;  thoughtful criticism can improve most posts;  the blogger gets immediate feedback on what he or she has written, etc.  I have found for the past few years however, that in order for comments to be useful, it is necessary for a blogger to be quite familiar with the terms “moderation” and “ban”.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Why I Am Friends With “Moderation” and “Ban”

  • I second this post as a co-blogger here at TAC.

  • Thank you Paul! I have often appreciated your expertise on nuclear energy which you have shared in the comboxes. Commenters bringing their different backgrounds and educational attainments into play on the issues discussed on the blog have added quite a bit to the blog over the years.

  • Comments to Mead’s blog were all moderated as a matter of policy. He had interns working for him reviewing the comments and seldom if ever had large quanta of commentary. He had one problem commenter, whose modus operandi was to issue verbose opinions which read like first drafts of DNC press releases. I suspect what he was actually telling his readers was that the grant money for stipends to the interns dried up. The thing is, it is atypical that a blogger’s posts are so engaging as a matter of course that he remains so without opportunity for reply and discussion. You have people who are habitually quite bland (Ross Douthat) or insufferable (Rod Dreher) who are nevertheless capable of provoking a discussion. Without comments, there is no point in reading them. If Mead is tired he can always return to scholarly publication.

  • Mac,

    I likely wouldn’t post that stuff if you weren’t 100% moderating me. The outrageous ones are generally brief, anyhow.

    It’s called, “Blowing off steam.” I’ll stop if you want. But, keep me moderated.

    Blog commenting is akin to showing baby pictures of your children to strangers in a saloon.

  • I wouldn’t change you if I could T.Shaw, which I doubt!

  • Without blog comments I would not have had the opportunity to meet and befriend several commenters, and that alone makes it worthwhile to keep comments open. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with Don. I admit to being overzealous on occasion with the delete or ban button, but overall it’s good that TAC keeps its trolls at bay.

  • Cattle Mutilators! That made me laugh.

    My favorite political pundit has this to say about the Trilateralists. . .

    Charles Krauthammer alluded to the conspiracy theories when he was asked in 2012 who makes up the “Republican establishment”:

    Karl Rove is the president. We meet every month on the full moon. . .[at] the Masonic Temple. We have the ritual: Karl brings the incense, I bring the live lamb and the long knife, and we began. . . with a pledge of allegiance to the Trilateral Commission.

  • The Illuminati? Those twits? They couldn’t conspire their way out of a paper bag… Templar all the way!

    /random geekery

  • The Templars have strengthened recently Foxfier due to their “secret” alliance with the Elvis impersonators from the planet Xenon.

  • It ‘s taken 62 years to get me like this . . .

  • If you are certain that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateralists, the Cattle Mutilators or (insert name of group) are behind the scenes pulling the strings, we will not keep you from sharing your insight on other sites.

    No explicit mention of the Bilderberg Group. Could it be true? 😉

Dyspeptic Mutterings

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

My friend Dale Price is posting again regularly at his blog Dyspeptic Mutterings after something of a hiatus.  Go here to have a gander at his blog.  Dale has long written some of the sharpest commentary on Saint Blog’s.   I stop in every day looking for blogging topics to steal borrow, and I rejoice that he is writing frequently again.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Dyspeptic Mutterings

  • And here I thought this was a post about the current state of politics.

    *rimshot*
    Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week, tip your waitress….

    Incidentally: curse it, I just got my “visit daily” list down by subscribing-via-email for a bunch of sites that offer it, and you point out a worthy blog. -.-

  • Ha! Your blog Foxfier, Head Noises, is also one where I frequently commit the blogging activity of idea theft!

    http://sailorette.blogspot.com/

  • They say to steal from the best– I guess stealing from those who steal from the best works pretty well, too. (I’d also accuse you of blarney if I wasn’t smiling too hard.)

  • LOL

    “Dyspeptic”: I think I know its meaning.

    However, my 678 page Webster’s New World Thesaurus ends the “D” section with “dysentary.”

    “Dysentary” surely describes Obama politics. The tragedy is that 54% of the people don’t see it for what it is: copious amounts of excrement produced by the male of the bovine species.

    “Stealing” is such a harsh term. I see it as “riding on the shoulders of giants.”

  • From my (wonderful!) high school English teacher, who really should’ve been in a college: “Stealing from one person is plagiarism. Stealing from many is research.”

  • Dyspeptic Mutterings is a great name for these days and today … Announcement pending from WH in DC on ” … controception controversy …”

    More dysentary.
    1. Just because the Sunday sermons are upon us – throw a wrench.

    2. It’s for people to think it’s about contraception, and cover up trying to force the Catholic Church to go against its teaching.

    3. It’s to keep minds on matters below the belt.

    4. It’s to deflect voters from being aware of their Religious Liberty.

    5. How about – will the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (HR 1179 S.1467) be mentioned? or that it’s not about pills etc.?

    Dyspeptic about waking hours preparing a contact list/nutshell notes msg. for bulletin insert only to now have to wait for edit possibility.

  • Thank you kindly, Don!

    It’ll be mostly quick hits and links until I get my writing legs back underneath me.

    Fair warning to those unfamiliar with me–I can be rather salty with my verbiage. Not often, but it’s there.

    For those curious about the picture, it’s part of my sidebar. It is the stunning Byzantine mosaic dome in Santa Maria Assunta, on the island of Torcello in the northern end of the Venetian lagoon. I’ve been there, and no picture does it justice. The foundation stone was laid by the Byzantine exarch (military governor) of Ravenna in 632, but the mosaics date from the 11th Century.

    Another fair warning–I’m capable of droning on about Byzantium at exceptional length.

  • I used to visit Dale’s blog several years ago before he stopped blogging.

    On checking his articles, had to chuckle at the post where he call Cardinal Egan a “sack of shit.” 🙂
    Then checked the link to find out why – he is dead right – about the sack of shit, I mean.

    We could, however, use latin, where it sounds more genteel – stercus tauri

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • “Another fair warning–I’m capable of droning on about Byzantium at exceptional length.”

    Yet another reason why I love your blog Dale, as Byzantium and its relations with the West have always fascinated me!

How to Lose Blog Readership

Monday, October 24, AD 2011

There are plenty of tips on the internet on how to build a blog audience.  Here are some tips on how to lose a blog audience:

10.  Be nitpicky-If someone deigns to leave a comment on your blog, make certain to correct their grammar, pick apart their argument ruthlessly over minor points and never, absolutely never, address the main point they are making.

9.    Never explain-If you want to post on the Albigensian Crusade, jump right into the subject and give no explanatory background.  If your readers are ignorant on the subject, tough.

8.     Ignorance Doesn’t Matter-Just because you are bone ignorant on a subject doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion!   Write what you want to, no matter how factually deprived it is, and let your readers sort things out.  Life is too short for research and fact checking.

7.      Use your blog as a substitute for therapy-Scream at your readers if you are feeling miserable, and lose your temper over small matters with your commenters.  You will feel better and that is all that counts.  If no one reads your blog, that is a small price to pay.

6.      Spellcheck?-Spellcheck and concerns about grammar are for dweebs.  If your readers worry about such things, who needs them!

5.     Humor is verboten!-Blogging is a deadly serious business and if what you write causes one of your readers to crack even the teeniest of smiles you have failed.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to How to Lose Blog Readership

  • #2 is possible? I have to force myself not to respond to absolutely everything, even when I have nothing to say….

  • As the cowboy said when asked if he believed in infant baptism Foxfier, “Believe in it? I seen it done!” Sadly there are plenty of examples of blogs where there is very little give and take between the poster and the commenters. Now, often times I cannot respond quickly in my threads due to being in court or otherwise snowed under at the office, but it is a rare thread where I do not eventually try to respond to most of the comments.

  • I’m pretty bad at number 2. The problem is if I see a comment and I don’t have time to respond at the time I see it, I tend to forget about it. Sometimes a commenter says something that I just don’t have anything to add to. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the feedback, but I have less and less time to engage people the way that I would like.

  • Don’t just invoke #9 for difficult or obscure topics. Use it for blog references, too. Start every article with something like, “Al’s response to Barbara’s analysis of Charles’s article misses the point as usual.” Don’t let people know who Al and Barbara are, and NEVER link back to Charles. Remember, it’s every reader’s obligation not just to read your blog, but to read every blog that you read.

  • Paul, I think you normally do a first rate job of responding to comments, certainly better than I do on my more arduous day at the law mines. 🙂

    Pinky, that is very true. Some blogs become unreadable over time because they become concentrated on inside blog baseball, and consumed with personalities. In small does that is not fatal to a blog, but when it takes up most blog posts it becomes intensely boring expcept for the blog regulars. Not giving links to articles under discussion is anathema to me, and is a guarantee that I will not finish reading a blog post.

How To Argue Online

Wednesday, December 29, AD 2010

One of Megan McArdle’s readers provides a guest post on useful tactics for “winning” online arguments. If you spend much time fighting on the internets, many of the items here will sound familiar. Indeed, I think I’ve seen all of these used here at TAC by various regulars at times, and there are a few where I found myself thinking “Oh, that would be so-and-so’s favorite tactic.”

Enjoy a chuckle.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to How To Argue Online

  • A good post could be done on tactics for combox warfare on Catholic sites. One popular technique is to cite a few passages from an encyclical by one pope to “win” a debate on a contentious subject. Never mind what other popes may have written on the subject, ignore the history of the Church on the subject completely, and certainly never concede that the pope perhaps was making a general statement that might not fit all situations. Throwing in a bit of Latin is always a neat touch. Then, when other commenters resist the fact that you have “won”, you can, more in sorrow than in anger, either imply, the best tactic, or state flatly that they are dissenters and that they are not now arguing with you but the Vicar of Christ.

  • And of course, don’t forget that no intra-Catholic-blogsphere throw-down is complete without accusing someone of engaging in a heresy at least 1000 years old.

  • Great link. I think remembering to use humor is essential to good commenting…humor can have drawbacks, but on the whole the worst comment threads result in denunciations and anger; well targeted humor can help get the discussion back on track more often than not.

  • no intra-Catholic-blogsphere throw-down is complete without accusing someone of engaging in a heresy at least 1000 years old.

    Ha. Well, there are only so many ways for people to be wrong; a dim analogy of one form or another to a heresy – like a mildly supportive papal statement – is nearly always easy to generate.

  • To further refine Donald’s suggestion, perhaps what is needed is a definitive guide to Catholic blog fallacies. Most will be genuinely recognized fallacies but just with a Catholic flavor, others will be somewhat unique to the Catholic blogosphere. The fallacies are interesting in that they work so well in conjunction with one another!

    Heresy Fallacies: Accusing your opponent of heresy without identifying the article of faith denied and usually basing it on something not even remotely dealing with heresy. Usually the charge is leveled at someone who doesn’t agree with your political policy prescriptions. i.e. Reductio ad Calvinism. “You disagree that every family making over $50,000 a year should be taxed at 80% which is a clear indication of Calvinism, something I have come to expect from people of your ilk”.

    Etymological Fallacies: Derailing a conversation or accusing your opponent of ignorance for either not accepting your excessively broad or an inappropriately narrow definition. Examples:

    …Fallacy of Relativistic Definition: “Not all anarchists are people who oppose governance, some, like myself are for an all-encompassing dictatorial state”.

    …Fallacy of Anal Nitpicking: “Ah ha! I got you now! You said that all people have a right to life. The Catholic understanding is that people are PERSONS and you just betrayed your inherent radical Calvinistic individualism! Heretic!” (Note how well different fallacies can be combined to work together).

    …Inconsistent Etymological Fallacy: (Yes, one can apply the above two fallacies at the same time, plus legitimate usage!). “The problem with you on the Right is that you don’t know what a conservative really is, this no doubt due to your radical individualistic Calvinism.” Words have meaning and they have context. It’s not uncommon for a word to have different meanings in different contexts. We are rational beings so we can use our ability to categorize to make good use of these things. In the above example, we have someone being rather anal and condemning the (legitimate) usage of a word being in a particular context (conservative as applied to the US political parties) all the while exercising legitimate context usage when he/she says “the Right”. Even though, the Right technically dates back to the French Revolution and refers to those, oddly enough, that would be considered “Conservatives”. Bringing in the “C” word has the dual effect of counting as a Relativistic Definition AND a Heresy Fallacy.

    These are just a few. Please add your own observations.

  • Don’t make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions you have no respect.

    If you must, conclude with one of the more subtle philo-theological insults like, “I am praying for you.”

  • Hmm. Funny how a certain blog provides us with most of the examples for fallacies.

Licensing Bloggers

Monday, August 23, AD 2010

The inaptly named City of Brotherly Love is attempting to license bloggers.  If bloggers make any money from their blogs, they will have to pay a $300.00 “business privilege tax” to obtain a business privilege license.  (I rather like the Orwellian term “business privilege”, as if the right to buy and to sell was some sort of gift of the State.)   Go here to read the details at the Philadelphia Citypaper.

Just how many things are wrong about this?  Let us count the ways:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Licensing Bloggers

  • I’m generally opposed.

    However, the government needs the money to provide for us.

    They could charge commie blogs, like vox nobrains, $3,000.00. Alternatively, they could impose an ad hominem tax – either payable by the word (VN’ers use 5,000 words to diss you – or some other measure. That could work.

  • Perhaps it could be a progressive tax. Those blogs seeking an even greater redistibution of wealth then currently occurs will be taxed. The more posts on increasing taxes the more they pay.

    Only seems just.

  • Why, Phillip, what a lovely notion!

    Let’s take it further, model it after the very progressive tax we have from the feds– charge the top earning blogs, but give rebates to the bottom…what….15%?

    /silly

  • Bloggers just move out of city limits.
    Surely Philly isn’t that hard up.

  • They’re scared.

    There would appear to be a lot of loopholes to get out of this, at least for bloggers that didn’t advertise that they were from Philly.

  • This is standard short sighted political action. T. Shaw above makes a valid point that government must be funded somehow to provide the necessary services. However, is there a specific blogger related service the government provides (other than comic fodder)? Beyond that, I imagine Philadelphia is suffering from the same problem Cincinnati has with urban flight. Many large municipalities like Cincinnati have incurred massive obligations (primarily overly generous pensions) after decades of liberal leadership. Who owes that money? Basically the tax payer. However, when it is local or state debt, the tax payer can escape the debt by moving. I live in a township around 25 miles north of Cincinnati. 25 years ago our population was less than 10 thousand people. Today it is above 60 thousand and growing. What is Cincinnati’s solution? Raise the price of parking downtown and increase other taxes. Sure that will get people to visit downtown and spend money shopping. Take a look at the wreckage left behind in Detroit. That is what other major cities have to look forward to. Detroit just took the expressway to that destination. Will the blogger license fee cause people to move out of Philadelphia? Not by itself, but it is a cumulative effect. I’m sure they are attacking their citizens wallets in many other ways to pay for the voracious growth of government.