Pewsitter v. Eye of the Tiber!

Tuesday, July 28, AD 2015

 

(Some down time before the family heads off for Indianapolis and GenCon tomorrow morning.  Had a great time in Kenosha visiting the mother-in-law.  Fascinating visit to the Civil War museum in Kenosha.  Details on Sunday.)

Well, Pewsitter and Eye of the Tiber square off!  From Eye of the Tiber:

 

After close to an hour of staring at the headline he had just written about Pope Francis, an employee at the news aggregation website Pewsitter has reportedly begun questioning whether or not to add an additional exclamation point or three, sources have revealed.

The unnamed Pewsitter writer reportedly told a fellow staff member this morning that after having written his most recent headline about the Pontiff, that he wasn’t sure whether or not the headline warranted a few additional exclamation points to help convey the possible lunacy of the Pope’s most recent actions.

“He told me that he was also considering whether or not to add one or a few more question marks sprinkled in between the exclamation points to help express the fact that Pope Francis was doing something that at best could be considered odd and something out of character for a pope to do, or at worst, something completely heretical,” the source told EOTT. “You can see the stress that this news aggregation Mozart has to deal with on a daily basis to put out the works of art that that he does.”

The source also went on to explain the importance of adding exclamation marks to headlines, saying that without them, “no one would ever know when to be outraged.”

At press time, the writer has decided go with the headline, “Francis Brushes With Same Brand Of Toothpaste That Planned Parenthood CEO Uses!!!?!!???!”

 

Pewsitter links to the article, as it always does for any post critical of it:

 

PewSitter gets Eye-of-the-Tibered?! – COMMENTS!

more
The comboxes are a riot!

 

 

And then Mark Shea showed up:

Avatar

Only the anonymous hysterics at Pewsitter can save the Church from the Pope!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
  1.  
     
    Avatar

    BTW your Sheaness – as I recall, in the past you most ardently rejected the left-wing nuttery of man-made global warming.

    So tell us your Sheaness, now that Comrade Pope Bergoglio has declared man-made global warming an immutable scientific truth and an official doctrine of faith – have you formally declared your new found discovery of this developed doctrine of thruthiness?

    After all your Sheaness – unless you’ve had a recent conversion to the scientific consensus of this new Katholic-Communism – you’re actually just another NeoCon Capitalist pig!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh my!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

    BTW have you gotten rid of all of that intrinsically evil air conditioning in your house?

     
     
  2.  
     
    Avatar

    Ahhh, there he is; the Yosemite Sam of the Patheos Posse (otherwise knows as CAI (Character Assassination Incorporated).

     
     
  3.  
     
    Avatar

    Says his Sheaness: the histrionic rhetorical-pyromaniac of the endless acreage of self-constructed strawmen!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

    Who BTW is posting under an anonymous name!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes – his hypocrisy does consume itself.

     

Continue reading...

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.

Boston Globe Opens Catholic Web Site-What Could Go Wrong?

Friday, September 5, AD 2014

15 Responses to Boston Globe Opens Catholic Web Site-What Could Go Wrong?

  • “Now is as good a time as I’ve ever seen to launch a site like this,…The pope is a champion of inclusiveness, openness and social justice, and he has reignited interest in the Catholic faith and faith in general.” (Brian McGrory)

    “We are going to explore traditional Catholic life within the context of modern day Catholicism, as well as give full voice to disagreements and challenges within the Church,” she said. (Teresa Hanifin, new editor)

    Is anyone else’s head also starting to hurt? Bayer, anyone?

  • Just what we need, another “crux” to carry.

  • The only person at the Boston Globe who has a good understanding of the Catholic Church is the wonderful devout Jew, Jeff Jacoby. The catholics at the Globe have a hopeless misunderstanding of Her. They hated Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict because they were Catholic. I do not know what Church doctrine Pope Francis has overturned which gives them such false hope that 2,000 years of Church teaching is now negotiable.

  • One hopes for the best but the rhetoric surrounding the launch gives rise to legitimate suspicion that this will be the voice of the Pelosi Magisterium.

  • The sinners Jesus ate with invited Him and listened to Him. These sinners Jesus ate with wanted to know God and conversion. These sinners paid attention to Jesus, attention, respect and love.
    .
    Inclusivness for the reprobate, blasphemer and the excommunicated, those without good will for the common good, only encourages their violence.
    .
    The floor of hell is paved with bishops’ skulls. Pope Francis is the bishop of Rome. So is Cardl. Dolan a bishop.
    .
    Does one believe that the CRUX will notice the difference between the soul seeking Christ and redemption and the soul seeking political power at the cost of his flock?

  • “The only person at the Boston Globe who has a good understanding of the Catholic Church is the wonderful devout Jew, Jeff Jacoby.”

    I have long been a fan of his writings Charlie.

  • “that this will be the voice of the Pelosi Magisterium.”

    Bingo.

  • I have long been a fan of Jeff Jacoby’s writings also, Donald. As an aside, a friend told me that William Bulger, the former President of the Massachusetts Senate, once said the Boston Globe always hires catholics to bash the Church.

  • “The pope is a champion of inclusiveness and … social justice.” His Church is open to all. People exclude themselves. Since justice accrues to individuals, I do not know what “social’ justice means.

  • I look forward to reading the “Catholic lifestyle” pieces, to find out what’s hot and what’s not.

  • “As an aside, a friend told me that William Bulger, the former President of the Massachusetts Senate, once said the Boston Globe always hires catholics to bash the Church.”

    Bulger and his murderer brother “Whitey” have their own problems, but that statement is accurate. All you have to know about the Globe is that anti-Catholic hysteric James Carroll is one of their star columnists. When even Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter is calling him to account, one can comprehend just how extreme Carroll is:

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/james-carrolls-silly-solipsism

    Here is James Martin of America attacking Carroll:

    http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/james-carrolls-stereotyping

    Carroll, an ex-priest, has “issues”. He never resolved his conflict with his father Joseph Carroll, an Air Force Lieutenant General.

    Here is a good review of Carroll’s self serving memoir An American Reqiuem. http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1147

    Carroll has spent his life in continual revolt against everything his father held dear. Pathetic is too mild a term for James Carroll.

  • Is there a new Gospel translation? Does the inclusive (read heterodox), post-modern (read make-believe) gospel quote Jesus saying, “. . . and take up your crux and follow me.”?

  • Thanks for the heads up, guys. 😀

  • Why not have a Kennedy cover the beat?

  • Can I guess you won’t be listing it on your blogroll?

Advice to Simcha Fisher

Tuesday, July 15, AD 2014

To Hell with You, PewSitter

Pewsitter v. Fisher

 

 

 

 

Picking a fight, go here to read all about it, with PewSitter is a really bad idea.

Update:  Mark Shea weighs in with the calm and charitable commentary that has made him famed throughout Saint Blog’s:

Update: some of my more charitable readers insist that “admit” is patient of a reading that is not as unfeeling as it sounds to Simcha, me and rather a lot of female readers (particularly victims of sex crimes). Okay. Summoning “love believeth all things” to its summit, I will buy that and apologize for seeing red. But I also don’t think Simcha was particularly wrong to see red. Pewsitter has a long record of saying odious things. The fact that this may have only been semi-odious is nothing to write home about.

Moral: a website written by anonymous cowards who regularly go out of their way to put the darkest possible constructions on the pope’s words should perhaps consider a bit more circumspection about throwing stones from their glass house when they themselves speak so recklessly. The best that can be said for their wording was that it was, ahem, “poorly chosen” and (what’s is it that those guys love to hurl at Francis? Oh yeah!) “sends a confusing message”. And the rest of the site remains a clearinghouse for contempt for much of the Church’s magisterial teaching and this pope in particular. Take the log out of your own eyes, anonymous Pewsitter cowards.

Patheos v. Pewsitter!  Pass the popcorn!

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Advice to Simcha Fisher

  • I’m guessing there’s a history here.

  • Has she never seen stock defences? – “The names and designations of the parties are admitted; the domicile of the Defender and the jurisdiction of the court are admitted; quoad ultra denied”

  • She has become the female Mark Shea. What a shame.

  • Well, Ms Fisher does appear to have gotten one thing right-she claims that PewSitter makes up headlines. Their headline states “To Hell with you, PewSitter.” She actually said “The Hell with them.”–which admittedly does sound kind of uneducated.
    .
    I’ve never before heard of PewSitter. May have to check them out.

  • On the other hand, “vast and trackless” seems a fair criticism.

  • So Pewsitter annoyed Simcha Fisher and riled up Mark Shea? Sounds like my kinda place!

  • I am so tired of this. Everyone needs to calm down. Fisher should have let it go. Pewsitter should have let it go. Everybody just needs to let stuff go on the internet – especially the Catholic part.

  • I am blown away that a Catholic blogger would tell anyone “the hell with them”. Was there this kind of division among the Catholic faithful before Pope Francis? If not, then what is going on now???

  • Neither side of largely conservative Catholics see what the Obama admin has done…divided us. The Admin has been for 4 years paying the dioceses to help illegals..getting them addicted to the fed money..and in so doing upset the more isoationalist/order focused Catholics. Well done Obama.

  • Mark Shea and his writings are puerile and inane, so who cares what he thinks???

  • In the end, the Pope is going to have to settle this stuff. And not with ambiguous statements made to atheist reporters.

  • Mark and Simcha have a long history of, shall we say, saying one thing and doing another. http://prolifecorner.com/a-luxury-four-star-pilgrimage-with-mark-shea/

  • So Shea proves once again that he is an ass. He and Simcha must have too much time on their hands. I really like Pewsitter. I do wish it warned when clicking on one of their links was going to to direct you to someone’s Patheos blog, as I don’t want to contribute to the traffic of these bloggers.

  • Pewsitter and Shea/Fisher can’t both be right at the same time. I hope Pope Francis picks a side and excommunicates whichever side he thinks is wrong. It really is a time for choosing.

  • I love PewSitter. I visit it every day. I don’t wish to remain anonymous and would tell everyone exactly who I am — lest I be accused of being a coward who finds that website refreshing. However, I have a close family member who is a clergyperson and I do not wish my views to affect the way people view him. Obviously I only speak for myself, not him. But you never know, some people practice such a thing as “guilt by association”…

  • Tom M. wrote, “In the end, the Pope is going to have to settle this stuff.” That observation alone is enough to get you designated a “Rad Trad” by Shea and the new inquisitors. It is Pope Francis’ ambiguous and never ending stream of off the cuff and often disturbing comments, which is the source of all this division. Is it too much to ask him to explain his comments? The sycophants say, “yes”. Those who question must be crushed down and marginalized. The orthodox are now the heretics. It’s starting to feel like the 80s in here again!

  • Mark Shea and company should be threatened with excommunication. St. Thomas condemns the graduated income tax and gov’t handouts in I-II Q. 96 Art. 4 of the Summa when he writes that the burdens that gov’t puts on society must be “equal” and “proportionate”. Another translation uses the phrase “equal in proportion”. If all democrats were excommunicated, this country would not be in the trouble it is in.

  • I am a regular reader of articles which Pewsitter links to. I deny that I am an “anonymous coward”. My name is David Wendell and I do not disagree with the Magesterium of the Church and I will try to follow official pronouncements of the Holy Father. I think Mr. Shea’s characterization of Pewsitter is rather broadbrush.

  • I stopped checking in at New Advent (what’s in a name?) for news when I realized he censors bad news. Pew Sitter does not.

  • Shea’s link is broken in the main article.

    I also recommend David’s piece on this.

    How much longer until we can declare Shea to be officially self-parody?

  • This folks is the Catholic Church of Nice unless you don’t trip all over yourselves with your ridiculous adulation of the Greatest Pope Ever. Pewsitter is the Catholic Drudge in my honest opinion. They just tell it like it is. The fact is these who the Pope Emeritus called Professional Catholics can’t stand any critical remarks of Francis much less just question something he says or does. Its almost tragic because they did not hesitate to blast Benedict for everything from the Regensburg address to the Remarks about condoms. But now if you happen to think Francis is not the so called Breathe of Fresh air you are a hater. Oh well.

  • I don’t think Janet’s comment is fair to Shea. I remember him defending Pope Benedict very strongly on Regensburg and condoms. If anything, Shea seems to be one of those that strongly defends the Pope whoever he may be.

  • Never read Shea and do not like him. But there are things about him that come across in other places; he seems to be a perennial trouble maker and loves arguments and throwing barbs at others.

    Read Pewsitter all the time and will continue.

  • pewsitter.com > Patheos

    “anonymous coward!” – Hmm, doesn’t anyone wonder why the “pope” who isn’t anonymous isn’t strongly opposed publicly if he actually opposed sin in the world? The fact that the “pope” Francis is publicly tolerated as such suggests the Vatican is obviously compromised. Does anyone forget that Our Lord told his disciples “not to tell anyone of this” on a few occasions when he DID GOOD THINGS semi-publicly? That is because the world hates good and wants to crucify it like our Lord. This is why the Vatican today is the public face of apostasy from the faith and has lost it.

  • Ann Gray asks, “Was there this kind of division among the Catholic faithful before Pope Francis?”
    ‘T was ever thus. At the beginning of the 20th century, one finds Maurice Blondel writing, “With every day that passes, the conflict between tendencies that set Catholic against Catholic in every order–social, political, philosophical–is revealed as sharper and more general. One could almost say that there are now two quite incompatible “Catholic mentalities,” particularly in France. And that is manifestly abnormal, since there cannot be two Catholicisms” and again “[U]nprecedented perhaps in depth and extent–for it is at the same time scientific, metaphysical, moral, social and political–[the crisis] is not a “dissolution” [for the spirit of faith does not die], nor even an “evolution” [for the spirit of faith does not change], it is a purification of the religious sense, and an integration of Catholic truth.” (1907)
    Twenty years later, one has Catholics of Action Française and Le Sillon fighting each other in the streets.

  • Sleeper wrote, “ St. Thomas condemns the graduated income tax and gov’t handouts in I-II Q. 96 Art. 4 of the Summa when he writes that the burdens that gov’t puts on society must be “equal” and “proportionate”. Another translation uses the phrase “equal in proportion”
    St Thomas wrote, “puta cum inæqualiter onera multitudini dispensantur”
    Now, “inæqualiter” can certainly mean “unequal,” but it can also mean “unevenly” or “disproportionately.” Pliny plays on these two senses, when he observes, “nihil est ipsa aequalitate inaequalius.” (Plin. Ep. 9, 5, 3), which can be translated “nothing is more disproportionate than equality itself.”
    In the jurists, it means something like “inequitably” or “unfairly.” The Digest begins with Ulpian quoting a definition of law by Celsus, “nam, ut eleganter Celsus definit, ius est ars boni et aequi.” (Dig. 1.1.1. pr. Ulpianus 1 inst.)– Law is the art of the good and equitable and Paulus, in speaking of the different meanings of law, says that “uno modo, cum id quod semper aequum ac bonum est ius dicitur, ut est ius naturale” – In one sense, law is said to be that which is always good and equitable, as is the natural law. (Dig. 1.1.11 Paulus 14 ad sab.)
    One would imagine that, writing on law, St Thomas would have the Corpus Juris in mind, nor would he have been unaware that the jurists, like Cicero before them (cf De Oratore 3. 27. 107), often use “bonum et æquum” where his beloved Aristotle would have used επιείκεια, for which Latin has no equivalent.
    So far as the Latin goes, it would be hard to argue that the text unequivocally condemns a tax based on ability to pay.

  • Some of the commenters on Simcha’s article raise a good point: instead of getting all tied up in knots about one word in the story’s headline, focus on what the story is about, which is the suffering that young Christian girls — our sisters in Christ — are enduring for their faith.

    That said, I would have interpreted “admitted” in this case to mean “reluctantly acknowledged that something terrible had happened to them” rather than “confessed to doing something wrong.”

  • I used to be friends with Shea on Facebook, until he kicked me out. Shea warned me not to challenge him, or say anything he didn’t like. Being the smartypants that I am I continued to mildly tweak him, and Shea unfriended me. What I leaned about my fat former Facebook friend (and since) is that he is very thinned skinned, and he fancies himself a sort of lay pope. He fits a certain profile of fat, insecure intellectual types I have met over the course of my life who love being in charge, and like to bully others into doing their bidding. Shea’s acolytes are a pathetic bunch, and they even have a t shirt called Viva Shea with him dressed as Che Guevara.

  • St. Thomas condemns the graduated income tax and gov’t handouts in I-II Q. 96 Art. 4 of the Summa when he writes that the burdens that gov’t puts on society must be “equal” and “proportionate”.

    Am I the only one who suspects there is something anachronistic about this statement?

  • I like to think that Samcha had a moment of irrational brain chatter over one word, a word that in context was perfectly usable. Had she waited, the whole thing would have become the non-issue it is.

  • Thank you, Michael Paterson-Seymour, for the linguistics lesson. Very informative!

  • Converts and reverts fighting it out on the internet all trying to out Catholic the other. Meanwhile cradle Catholics, you know, those old women and men that are saying the Rosary in Adoration Chapels? The same ones who survived the damage that liberals and the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II crowd did after Vatican II (and still are). My money is on them. 🙂

  • I believe the reason why the Dynamic Duo have it in for Pewsitter is that PS has in the past given links to articles that were not very complementary to them. The poor little dears have never gotten over having their bloated ego’s pricked. Ahhh….

  • PewSitter isn’t anonymous. Anyone who subscribes to the Twitter feed knows the name of the person who runs PewSitter. I admit, I cringe once in a while at PewSitters headlines — they can be sensationalized, without a doubt. However, it does a good job of aggregating a wide variety of concerns and events that are germane to being a well-informed Catholic. Some might not be able to discern where the slant begins and ends, but for most of us, I would imagine we can form our own conclusions, being endowed with a cerebral cortex and an intellect. Some Bloggers think we’re too stupid to understand click-bait versus straight-up reporting, which tells you all you need to know about the esteem they hold for their own readers.

    Meanwhile … the portal which is Patheos has become a circular firing squad. What’s scandalous is not the combox. What’s scandalous is the raw vitriol that has become characteristic of the posts of “some” of the Catholic Bloggers there. Usually, the real Pharisees are busy calling everyone else “Pharisees”. If you don’t fall in line with *their* infallible wisdom, be prepared for the smackdown.

    And this whole “blogging anonymous” complaint is hypocritical BS. These Bloggers sign up and use their name to promote their own financial considerations and book releases. As soon as I get paid by the comment, I’ll put my name out there for public humiliation at the hands of some of the most self-absorbed, self-important, self-assigned saviors of all that is New and Evangelical about the Catholic faith. Professionals don’t behave this way. They don’t get into flame wars with the public. They don’t slam other commentary outlets (and that goes for all Blogging parties on all sides of the issue). They don’t use Facebook like a mobile rocket launcher they can hide amongst innocent bystanders while lobbing mortars at their “enemies”. It’s just so distasteful in the Catholic Blogosphere, and whether you want to blame Patheos or Voris or Pewsitter, it needs to stop.

  • How did we get here?

    “St. Thomas condemns the graduated income tax and gov’t handouts in I-II Q. 96 Art. 4 of the Summa when he writes that the burdens that gov’t puts on society must be ‘equal’ and ‘proportionate’. ”

    “Am I the only one who suspects there is something anachronistic about this statement?”

    St. Thomas’ statement is not the only anarchonastic thing we need to recognize. The US Constitution had to be amended so that the income tax could be impoosed. Talk about anachronistic, unequal and disproportionate!

    The word “republic” comes from the Latin term “res publica”; the public thing. The public good is that good which benefits all citizens equally and proportionately. Pacem, it is not a public good when the government lays unequal and disporoprtionate burdens on some citizens to benefit other citizens.

    Income taxes and welfare come to mind.

    However, it makes perfect sense. “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

  • “As soon as I get paid by the comment, I’ll put my name out there for public humiliation at the hands of some of the most self-absorbed, self-important, self-assigned saviors of all that is New and Evangelical about the Catholic faith.”

    Quote of the day.

  • A blogger gets upset by one word, then a blow-hard hack tosses aside the industrial sized bowl of trail mix to protect the damsel in distress. How does their questioning the use of the word “admit” devolve into, “a clearinghouse of contempt for much of the Church’s magisterial teaching”?

    Mark Shea is an insecure loser who seems to thrive on cyber bullying. Every discussion eventually leads to his bizarre chest thumping. I have one piece of advise for the dynamic duo, if Pewsitter frustrates you that much, stop visiting. I stopped reading Shea years ago and I feel great. BTW, have no idea who Fisher is; perhaps she’s just attempting to draw traffic.

  • Who is Simcha Fisher? This is what is printed about her on the ncregister.com new site:
    .
    “Simcha Fisher, author of The Sinner’s Guide to Natural Family Planning writes for several publications and blogs at I Have to Sit Down. She lives in New Hampshire with her husband and nine children. Without supernatural aid, she would hardly be a human being.”
    .
    I am a little surprised the “several publications” publish her articles/blogs at this point.

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.

Disturbing

Thursday, March 13, AD 2014

Jesuit Inquisition

 

 

Father Z bring us a disturbing development from across the pond:

 

I want everyone to know about this.

This was posted at the blog Protect The Pope, which was run by Deacon Nick Donnelly.

Diocese of Lancaster’s statement about Deacon Nick Donnelly BY M DONNELLY, ON MARCH 13TH, 2014 The Bishop’s office of the Diocese of Lancaster has kindly sent Nick the statement they issued to the press about him and Protect the Pope which is copied below.

“After learning that a notice had been placed upon the Protect the Pope website on 7 March saying: ‘Deacon Nick stands down from Protect the Pope for a period of prayer and reflection’ the Bishop’s Office at the Diocese of Lancaster was able to confirm that Bishop Campbell had recently requested Deacon Nick Donnelly to voluntarily pause from placing new posts on the Protect the Pope site.

Meanwhile, it was also confirmed that the Bishop asked Deacon Nick to use this pause to enter into a period of prayer and reflection on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.

Deacon Nick has agreed to the Bishop’s request at this time”.

I, for one, can imagine that a lot of pressure was exerted on the Bishop of Lancaster to have gone to such an extreme as to command a cleric under his charge not to think aloud in public.

I see now, however, that “M Donnelly” is posting at the blog.  I take it that this is Missus Deacon.  Good for her.

Go get ‘em.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Disturbing

  • This is the first I have heard about that situation. As Deacon Nick took an oath to his bishop, I suppose he has to follow orders. Father Z has pointed out that a bishop can make a priest’s life a living hell – and the same would go for a deacon.

    As our bold, intrepid, fearless and beloved Mr. McClarey is no more a clergyman than I – I encourage Mr. McClarey to continue to boldly go where shrinking violets, Clown Mass participants, crazier than thou radtrads and Mark Shea dare not tread.

    Bravo!

  • Pingback: 25% Christendom Stdnts Skip Sprng Break 4 Mission Work - BigPulpit.com
  • “This is the first I have heard about that situation. As Deacon Nick took an oath to his bishop, I suppose he has to follow orders.”

    Penguins Fan,

    I may be wrong, but I think the bishop asked for his voluntary agreement because he cannot require it. However, prudence dictates the deacon’s cooperation, at least for a time. Refusing could easily be misconstrued as disobedience by his enemies.

    OTOH, I suspect you’re corect that the bishop can exert much pressure on the deacon. I will add: as much that has been placed upon the bishop by the forces of evil.

    I wonder if this sort of thing derives from liberals attempting to ride what they perceive as Francis’ coat tails into striking devastating blows agains orthodox Catholics, both conservative and traditionalists.

    Might be good for the two camps to remove the daggers from their mouths and begin to find common ground.

Archbishop Chaput and the Media

Friday, August 26, AD 2011

One of the most irritating aspects of life for faithful American Catholics over the past several decades has been how quiet most of our bishops have been in the face of outrageous attacks on the Church.  Too many of our bishops have acted as if they had their spines surgically removed upon consecration.  Fortunately there have always been a handful who have been willing to speak out and suffer the media attacks that then ensue, along with the ambushes of heterodox Catholics frequently eager to lend a hand to anti-Catholics in their ceaseless war against the Church.  One of the more outspoken bishops is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who has never been afraid to proclaim the truth, and to do so eloquently.  He is at it again over at First Things.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Archbishop Chaput and the Media

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    I think that’s true for some. I also think that for some on the Catholic Left the NY Times reflects their view of the Church or, perhaps more accurately, what they want the Church to become.

  • Well Phillip, over the years certainly some members of the Catholic Left have been far more faithful to the magisterium of the New York Times than they ever have to the magisterium of the Church!

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    They’re also upset that the Archbishop didn’t call out their own fave Catholic publications – Commonweal, America, National Catholic Distorter – as good sources for Catholic commentary. Thing is, they’re not good sources for Catholic commentary, and the Archbishop knows this. The Distorter especially – a vanguard for all that is opposed to Catholic teaching.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • An excellent resource on this subject is the Get Religion blog, which examines coverage of all religions and religious traditions in the media and points out gaps or inaccuracies. In many stories, Get Religion says religion is present only as a “ghost” — an unnamed reference to people doing works of charity or attending rallies or “vigils” without mention of the fact that a religious motivation was behind it.

    From reading the mainstream media, you would think that thousands of people feed the hungry, travel to disaster zones, spend long hours at a sick or injured person’s bedside (doing what? PRAYING, maybe?), devote themselves to improving their communities, etc. for no apparent reason, other than, perhaps, some vague reference to their “values.”

  • “We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith”

    and CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Wash. Post, Boston Globe, etc, etc, etc

  • We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Boston Globe, for reliable news about ANYTHING.

  • I would include as unreliable the Catholic News Service, which if I mistake me not, is a service of the USCCB. It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain. Another disservice of the bureaucracy of the USCCB.

  • “It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain”

    I take it you are referring to BROKEBACK Mountain?

    Aside from the movie reviews, whose suitability can and often will be disputed, whether or not Catholic News Service is a “reliable” source of Church news depends on how you define “reliable.”

    In the Catholic press, there is always going to be a tension between the need to promote and adhere to Church teaching and the need to realistically report what is going on in the Catholic world whether or not it is agreeable to Church teaching. I have to admit that I am somewhat biased in favor of CNS due to the fact that I once worked for a diocesan newspaper that relied heavily on CNS news, and some of whose personnel personally knew people from CNS.

    If you rely solely on traditional/conservative leaning publications, you may get the impression that conservative/orthodox/traditional Catholicism is a lot more popular and widespread than it actually is. On the other hand, if you rely on left-leaning sites like National Catholic Reporter, you get the impression that the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd still reigns supreme, which is also not the case. There still needs to be a reasonably middle of the road source of Catholic news which doesn’t actively promote dissent but doesn’t ignore its real-world impact, or ignore the fact that the Church still has a long way to go in getting most of its members fully on board with its teachings.

    While I understand the disillusionment many people have with the mainstream media, and yes they do often get things wrong, still, I think it is VERY dangerous to dismiss them completely and insist on getting ALL your news only from sources that agree 100% with your political or religious leanings. Balance is the key here.

  • Wow Elaine,
    It almost sounds like you should be writing for Vox Nova. 😉
    Well put.

  • Nah, Brett, if Elaine were writing for Vox Nova she would have to say something truly absurd like mentioning Chaput in mouth disease, and I doubt if Elaine would ever say anything like that. Finally, I doubt if Elaine could make it past the Vox Nova entrance interview:

    http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6987327/welcome-to-vox-nova

  • You’re right Don, I would not get past Rule #2. I certainly would flunk out by Rule #5 (“Paul Krugman is the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching.”)

  • Don’t worry Elaine. They let me write whatever I want and I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!

    Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” Elaine wouldn’t HAVE to say anything of the sort.
    😉

    All peace and good,
    B

  • “Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” ”

    That is good to know Brett. Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.

  • I’ve got to agree with Elaine — the Catholic News Service (and even the movie reviews, though I certainly don’t always agree with them) serves a useful purpose, and I’ve never found it to be an organ used for questioning or undercutting the faith.

    Brett,

    To not even know who Paul Krugman is, you’d have to be skimming MM’s posts pretty thinly. After all, in the very post linked to here MM chides Archbishop Chaput for not listening to Krugman more:

    Why does Chaput not mention any of this? Is he so insecure that he cannot handle criticism of the Church in the New York Times, and must instead run to those who use the Church for their political aims? Does he see no nuance and complexity? Is he not aware that he can learn far more about the economic mess from Paul Krugman in the New York Times than anybody on any alternative media source?

    I mean, I agree with those who knock people like Voris for bishop-bashing at the drop of a hat, but this is, if anything, worse.

    I will say, though, that I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, which are both fair and intellectually curious. (I just wish that you’d keep a separate blog like Kyle does, so that it isn’t necessary for those of us bullies who might be divisive pamphleteers of the verge of kicking off a new Reformation to wade through the main site to read your stuff.)

  • “Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.”

    “…I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!”

    Brett is clearly not reading Minion’s paeans to Krugman.

  • The quoted bit from MM on Krugman hardly tells me anything beyond the fact that he writes about economics for the New York Times and that MM thinks he has some insight. Surely that is not enough for me to know whether he is “the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching,” or even if MM considers him to be such.

    Perhaps the very favorable recent posts linking to the Distributist Review should give certain people pause before they announce exactly whom the Vox Novans think accurately represents CST (or is Krugman a Distributist?) or that all Vox Novans must be of the same opinion on such matters.

  • Brett,

    VN is well known for being disobedient to the Magisterium and for attacking orthodox Catholics.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.

    Brett,

    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributists.)

    But to be fair, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.

    Brett,

    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)

    To be fair, though, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then — in regards to contributors at least. (Oddly, the comboxes seem to have gone even further off the deep end — though perhaps that’s just a matter of the “other side” not bothering to show up much anymore. I suppose in some ways we’ve had an equal and opposite history here. Given the natural affinities of belief, it may be that political sites natural sort themselves into either right or left with few dissenting voices bothering to show up.)

  • Darwin,

    I wasn’t aware that killing children in the womb was part of Catholic teaching.

  • I’m not either, but I was giving them credit for the fact that Gerald L. Campbell hasn’t posted there in a very long time. (Though I agree it was disgraceful that everyone at the time defended his claim that being pro-choice was a legitimate exercise of subsidiarity.)

    People like MM and MZ do everything possible to support pro-abortion candidates, because those candidates happen to also be leftists, but they insist that they are not in fact pro-abortion themselves (and would vote for anti-abortion leftists if they existed) so I figure it’s fair to categorize them as unwise rather than dissenting.

    Ditto on the tendency to attack pro-lifers far more often than pro-aborts while at the same time claiming to be pro-life.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to defend them. I just want to be precise in my attacks. 🙂

  • OK, I’ll back track.

    Certain bloggers are disobedient.

    The rest of the bunch are essentially good guys and it would be nice to share a beer with them because it would make for interesting conversation(s)!

    😀

  • Precision is always appreciated. As is beer.

  • As for a personal blog, here you go:
    http://vox-nova.com/category/brett-salkeld/

    I’m only tempted to set up something a little more formal because I think “Ein Brett Vorm Kopf” would be a great name.

  • Can’t let a name like that go to waste!

    I guess I should just bookmark the category link. For some reason, it’s not possible to put the category links into an RSS reader.

  • It would be helpful though if those bloggers on Vox Nova who are not in dissent do correct those who post comments who are. That would make it appear less likely that they are dissenting.

  • “MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)”.

    Yes, as regards “economic theory”. But economics in practice? A good antidote to Keynes [Krugman is not worth the effort] is J.K. Galbraith’s ALMOST EVERYONE’S GUIDE TO ECONOMICS. He makes the point that economics is not that difficult to understand. Thus, in the controversy about raising the debt limit, it is not difficult to understand that you cannot keep writing checks on an account without money. Belloc understood this; GKC understood this. Even B. Obama as a senator understood this.

    In May 1939, shortly after learning that unemployment stood at 20.7%, Henry Morgenthau, the secretary of the Treasury, exploded: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Morgenthau concluded, “I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  • From the other side of the pond, I rate the orthodoxy of your bishops according to extent that they are excoriated by the liberal media – Burke, Olmsted, Chaput et al. The fact that none of ours has yet to be targeted by the Tablet, the English equivalent of the National Catholic Reporter, is cause for concern.

Catholic Blog Argument Fallacies

Wednesday, December 29, AD 2010

Thanks to commenter RL for  a truly inspired idea!  Most Catholic bloggers and commenters would like to think they argue like Saint Thomas More in the video clip.  Unfortunately we, and I include myself in that “we”, more often argue like Norfolk, Cranmer and Cromwell.  In hopes perhaps of improving the quality of Catholic combox debate, here is a list of Catholic blog fallacies taken from comments made to Darwin’s post here:

1.  I have the biggest encyclical!-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.

2.  You heretic, you!-(Dawin Catholic contributed this):  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.

The following are from RL:

3.  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”.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Catholic Blog Argument Fallacies

  • Not many, Don, could exhibit the qualities that
    More practiced in the face of the fate he knew
    was his.

    His legal brilliance, in the judgement of this
    nonlawyer, was upstaged by his charity.

    How heartbreaking it must have been to those
    who saw this travesty unfold, in person.

  • And let’s not forget the surprisingly popular “You d***** b**!”

  • St. Thomas More provides evidence that even exceedingly sharp lawyers can make it into heaven. If I were a lawyer, I would be very heartened by that 🙂

    Etymological Fallacies: Would you say that the following two charges (both of which have been leveled against me by people on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum) are examples?

    “First, we have to define what torture is. Is it torture if it does not cause permanent physical dam-”

    “Ah, another member of the Rubber Hose Right!!!”

    “I believe government should be much smaller than it is now. However, I am still in favor of a safety net for the genuinely needy and weak – ”

    “Ah, another RINO! You’re no better than those Dem socialists!”

    *Sigh*

    (Not that I am any model of logic either, once I get my dander up.)

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • You forgot about “You’re a consequentialist!”

  • Deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact; “an a priori judgment.”

    I think (dangerous) that this is addressed by a two part response. Identify the opinion/speculative. Provide facts.

    1. I know you hate torture. Who doesn’t?

    2. Torture saved innocent lives.

    Plato: “Opinion is not truth.”

  • Hmmmm. I wouldn’t exactly classify these as fallacies, but here are a few more tactics that spring to mind:

    – “Can you imagine Jesus/Mary/Joseph doing X?” This is, at certain points in life, a useful question, but in many other cases it’s simply a way to project one’s own preferences. Can you imagine Mary wearing pants? Can you imagine Jesus buying life insurance? Can you imagine Joseph negotiating wages?

    – “Go read this whole book, then we’ll talk.” This is an indirect way of trying to assert authority. Example: “I don’t think I can really talk with you about just wages if you haven’t read Sneed’s book on the guild system of 11th century Aburwundal. Besides, it’s just such a delightful read. Come back when you’re read that, and I’m sure we can have a very fruitful discussion.”

    – “I won’t research for you!” This is a variant of document quoting without having to provide the quote or name the document. The key thing is to pick a fairly broad topic and refuse to name the specific work that you think someone should have read, much less quote it. “If you can’t be troubled to read what Boetheus wrote about trade balance, I’m not going to do your research for you? No really, it’s a major theme through all his works. Oh, well, sure, you can pick that one quote out. But that’s really very out of context, as you’d understand if you’d read all of Boetheus’ thought deeply.”

    – Apply theological terms to whatever topic is being discussed. “I think in deriving that correlation coefficient, you’re engaging in some pretty egregious eisegesis rather than exegesis.”

    – Assert that if you had a “Catholic sensibility”, you would agree with me. (And if you can’t see how that’s the case, it’s because you’re so far from having a Catholic sensibility.)

    – Accuse someone of having a hermeneutic of something. (suspicion, rupture, bi-metalism, etc.)

    – Using Latin as a conversation winner. (You can trump this by trying to use Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic back. Ideally, this is combined with vocabulary insights which are un-backed-up and make your argument for you: “Ah, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and the Aramaic word he must have used is ‘ipstftuh’, which is never used in any work anywhere except to designate an Albanian investment banker — which as you can see clearly shows that the recession was caused by greed and mortgage derivatives.”)

    – Simply classifying everything you don’t like by it’s being before or after Vatican II.

    – Decide to be for or against theologians versus “ordinary people” and define every argument around whether it’s theologians or ordinary people who believe that.

    – And last but not least: Explain how whatever you don’t like is the root of The Scandal.

  • Here’s one:

    Characterize your list of argumentative fallacies in such a way that they only appear to be used by those who disagree with you.

  • I suspect that most people imagine that they use argumentative fallacies less than they disagree with. Feel free to go and do likewise. 😉

    Though some of these are pretty equal opportunity. For instance, both progressives and traditionalists tend to classify things as good and bad by whether they’re pre or post Vatican II — it’s just a question of which they consider good.

  • “Go read this whole book, then we’ll talk.”

    Particularly annoying when you *do* read the whole book and then they aren’t interested in discussing it anymore.

  • Ah, here’s an equal opportunity one: “It doesn’t matter what you or any documents say — ordinary Catholics in the pews agree with me on X.”

    This is wonderfully flexible, as “ordinary Catholics” is a group anyone you disagree with can be ruled out of.

  • “Characterize your list of argumentative fallacies in such a way that they only appear to be used by those who disagree with you.”

    WJ I cast the list open to suggestions from all sides. Feel free to note fallacies in argument that I have engaged in or that my co-bloggers have engaged in.

  • “It doesn’t matter what you or any documents say — ordinary Catholics in the pews agree with me on X.”

    I’d call that the people in the pews fallacy, a term, “people in the pews”, I’ve used in debate more than once.

  • Donald,

    Please excuse my joke–I just couldn’t help myself from going “meta.” I think the most common fallacies are shared by all alike, thus providing another proof of the wonderful Catholicity of the Church. Merry Christmas to all. 🙂

  • Merry Christmas to you WJ and a Happy New Year!

  • Since displaying a hermeneutic of rupture is possible as well as other hermeneutic classifications why should that and others be on the list if you can show it to be true?

  • This is a great thread 🙂

  • Outstanding post and comments.

  • My favorite:

    “you sound like a protestant”

    as if the Church were defined in opposition to Protestantism rather than the other way around.

  • Protetantism is not defined solely in terms of opposition to Catholicism. In fact, as a Protestant myself I consider myself simply Christian. I recognize that the Catholic church was the only church for most Europeans throughout most of European history. Perhaps that’s what led to the problem which confonted people like Luther and Calvin. They realized that the Roman church had experienced quite a development during that timespan. In some ways that was good. But many other things were aquired along the way that came to be seen as superflous if not downright unorthodox. For example, there was a certain view of merit that had evolved. Then there was the new vision of Mary. Also, church leadership had become very complicated in its various roles and assignments. There was the scholastic corpus that tended to obfiscate rather than clarify things. And the list can go on. So the idea arose that it was high time to clean house, to simplify matters, and to reform the church. It was often wished that this could occur without schism. True Christians should never be fond of division. Unfortunately, when certain people spoke up they were silenced and had to begin anew outside the traditional framework. They did this with heavy hearts, usually. I believe Luther, Calvin, and the true descendants of such men would consider it glorious to see the Roman church renewed and Christians institutionally united. But until that happens, many will settle for spiritual unity, which is enjoyed by the church universal regardless of time and space.

    Peace