Mark Shea and the Brownshirt Smear

Thursday, February 9, AD 2017

As Mark Shea continues his sad journey to the looney left, he has developed the habit of calling those who disagree with him Nazis or seeking to associate them with Nazis.  A case in point:

Austrian Nazis to attend inauguration…at the invitation of Catholic congressmand Steve King.

God’s Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, Mr. King.

This will be today’s thing for Catholic Trump supporters to defend instead of the unborn and the Faith.

And so it will go for four long years.

Or you could just stop defending every filthy thing Trump and his toadies do and say and get back to defending the Faith and the unborn.

Go here to read the comments.  I was imagining brown shirted and lederhosen clad Austrian legions goosestepping through downtown Washington.  I was crest-fallen to learn that Shea was actually referring to the Austrian Freedom Party.  Founded by a Nazi in the 1950s, it is a rather conventional center-right European party.  Except for their opposition to immigration, the Freedom Party would on our political spectrum be moderate Democrats, and about as much Nazis as the members of a Rotary Club in our country.

Austin Ruse in a post at Crisis tells what happens when he pointed this out to Shea:

 

I recently came under a blog-swarm (though not on blogs rather on Facebook), but the swarmers were mostly bloggers who I will not name except to say they fashion themselves as Über-Catholic Defenders of Francis-Destroyers of Nazis-Creators of the One True Church of Pro-Life-and-Wrath of the Old Guard.

I forget exactly how it began except with a Facebook post nitpicking something Donald Trump had done. Never Trumpers still sit in the caves of the Pacific with their field glasses trained on the enemy and whenever Trump does even the littlest thing they judge to be wrong they shout, “See, see, we told you” or “Isn’t it interesting that Trump would (fill in the blank).”

In this situation I usually prefer to ask a question and have the unhappy fellow defend the silly nitpicking. But, in this case, from out of nowhere, The Thing That Used to be Catholic Apologetics lumbered through the underbrush and grunted “So do you defend Trump meeting with Nazis?” or something to that effect.

So, here we have Trump meeting with actual goose-stepping Nazis? I had to admit I had missed that and had to inquire, “Huh? Wuh?”

“So you defend Trump meeting with Nazis?”

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Mark Shea and the Brownshirt Smear

  • The course divisions of Austrian politics have since the beginning of the 20th c. been between Catholics, Socialists, and a ‘third force’. The third force during the interwar period was a miscellaneous collection of parties of which the largest was the Pan-German People’s Party. During the Depression, pan-German parties in central Europe were consumed by Nazi sentiment quite rapidly. It happened in Austria, in Danzig, in German Bohemia and the Sudentenland (much as Germany itself was between 1929 and 1933). After the war, Austria’s conventional camps re-assembled, including the 3d force (sporting it’s more conventional pre-Depression inclinations). Huge blocs of the population in Germanophone Europe had belonged to one or another Nazi organization – the Nazi Party itself, the Waffen SS, the Hitler Youth, or the more informal clubs for which Kurt Waldheim and Elisabeth Noelle Neumann were raked over the coals. So, you had quite a mess of people in the post-war period who had shady pasts joining the Freedom Party. The Freedom Party itself was not remarkable in its advocacy. It doesn’t seem to occur to Shea that anyone old enough to have joined the Hitler Youth would now be 86 years old.

  • The specific person Shea complains about is Hans Christian Strache, who was born in 1969 and has never had any Nazi affiliations. The Freedom Party’s signature for 20 years or more has been Euroskepticism. Maybe Shea thinks Nigel Farage is a Nazi.

  • Deliver us, O Lord, from the wrath of Mark-who.

  • To make it funnier, Mark recently linked that crisis magazine piece again with the words,

    or rationalizing the fact that Trump seeks ties with Austrian Freedom Party, an ethnonationalist party literally founded by a Nazi (and invited its head to the inauguration) is a stain and nothing but a stain on the honor of the Church.

    By that logic I guess all Christians are really Jews since Christianity was founded by a Jew, eh?

    It’s almost comical how sloppy he’s gotten in his thinking. He’s clearly never left protestantism, instead just replaced “sola scriptura” with “sola pope-a” and “sola Shea” – with a side dash of “sola bumper-stickeras.”

  • I’m sure that Winston Churchill would have been decried as Hitler in his day, that is if Winston were alive today.

  • Hmmm, Pope Benedict, way back when, was part of the “Hitler Youth”? Mark S ever complain about that?

  • I am sorry that I have nothing positive to say about Mark Shea. Giving this man publicity only worsens his unstable mental condition.

  • LQC: People need to know.
    Is Trump meeting with Mark Shea?

  • Father Jerzy Popieluszko and Saint John Paul II have been forgotten by academia.

  • Mark shouldn’t be listened to or referred to at this point. He is spiritually dangerous. He sins and advocates sin through slander and lies, and he boldly does what he has condemned others for doing. He misrepresents people and puts words in their mouths to justify his attacks and calumny. And he is grossly inconsistent, condemning or excusing and downplaying good or bad, right or wrong, blasphemy and immorality or orthodoxy depending on his personal opinions about the individuals in question. That is, if Mark likes you, you can pretty much advocate even the worst and most vile evils imaginable, but he’ll downplay, excuse or dismiss it. But if Mark doesn’t, you can agree with Mark and he’ll still find purpose to condemn. That is a dangerous person to have as a representative of the Faith, and it does the Church no credit that so many leaders and known voices for the Faith lift him up and cheer him on. Mark’s entire ministry has become a very near occasion of sin, and thus should be avoided at all costs. He needs our prayers, as do those who lift him up to buttress their own sins, and those who are led to sin by his methods.

  • Dave Griffey,
    Your description of Shea sounds a lot like our pope! Remember when Bergoglio compared Trump to Nazis after the inauguration? No wander Shea’s had a love affair with Begoglio since day one. Well said.

    Nate Winchester,
    I’ve often said that Protestant converts like Shea never really converted to Catholicism, just a Protestant Church with sacraments. The book “Forming Intentional Disciples” is a good example of this dangerous phenomenon.

  • Nate-
    There’s actually a much better case that all Christians are Jews– don’t we have a Jewish Mother?

    We’re all carpenters. 😉

  • It is hypocritical for those on the Left to insinuate Nazi sympathies in the Trump camp as their precious over-privileged collegiate youth squads reenact Kristallnacht in protest against free speech. How explain the violence in response to Trumps election? As the devils are cast out of the body politic, they writhe and shriek.

  • When everybody with whom Mark-who disagrees is a Nazi, nobody is. Rejoice and be glad when they shriek “Nazi” or “racist.” You are winning.

  • Remember when Bergoglio compared Trump to Nazis after the inauguration?
    Steve D.

    Nope, I recall no such thing. I do remember there was a lot of Fake News outlets claiming such a thing. Yet when I examine the reports for Pope Francis’s own words, I find that he didn’t mention Trump at all.

    Pro tip: The New York Times is not your Magisterium, Christians.

Mark Shea Celebrates March for Life

Friday, January 27, AD 2017

 

While hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers are marching in Washington, Mark Shea delivers this:

 

Fascist Scapegoating.

Jefferson bought the entire Louisiana Purchase for two cents an acre. It was an incredible steal. Smartest decision in American history.

Trump is buying the complete cooperation of prolife Christians even more cheaply. For the cost of a few words from Mike Pence and KellyAnne Conway at the Prolife March in Washington, prolifers will henceforth reliably go to bat for every evil he wants to do. Torture? Fantastic! Scapegoating immigrants? We are on board! Destroying access to health care for the poor! Great!

Christian Trump supporters have completely bought a false soteriology that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world.

Prove me wrong. I beg you.

Continue reading...

44 Responses to Mark Shea Celebrates March for Life

  • If a brazen kidnapper was caught but wouldn’t tell cops where Shea’s granddaughter lay bleeding in a basement, he should be tortured for the address…Proverbs 20:30 ” Evil is driven out by bloody lashes and a scourging to the inmost being”…” a rod for the back of fools”. Twentieth century Bishops condemned torture at Vatican II and St.JPII copied their list in section 80 of Splendor of the Truth. Prior to Vatican II, the Church backed torture for centuries…that is they backed Pro.20:30. Modern clergy approach the OT cafeteria style…tithing=good…torture=bad. The trouble with tithing is that the catechism says to give according to one’s ability…and tithing was part of a covenant that promised health, affluence, victory in battle IF the Jews obeyed hundreds of laws. Job was an exception.

  • Tell me one reason why I should give a flying hoot what Mark Shea says. He ought to go back to the left coast from whence he came and stay in the People’s Republik of the State of Washington.

  • Shea is desperately trying to be relevant. He is failing.
    Scrapping Obumblercare is not taking away health care from poor people. Stopping illegal immigration is not hatred of the poor.
    Shea has resorted to using leftist tactics to stay in the public square. He is irrelevant on that regard. Leftist bitching takes place in echo chambers.

  • Mark who?

    Has-been and unless he wakes up he might be never-more.

    Prayers for his mental health.

  • Personality strong dislike disorder.
    No matter what, Mark Shea must not be able to stomach President Donald Trump. I have seen this kind of reaction from people before to very strong D’s of DISC personality theory.
    Trump is definitely an over-the-top: https://www.discinsights.com/personality-style-d#.WIvE0hLkr5U

    Me being at least part D, I love Trump.. I’d love to work for him, even though it would be a 24/7 endeavor. Some people don’t trust DISC type D’s. Oh well. As they say, it takes all kinds. Hold on to your hat, Trump is just getting started. His type are interested in “results” 🙂

  • The only thing that scares me more than Trump is the anti-Trump hysterics. Mark has gone against his word that where Trump does right, he would support Trump. This is clearly breaking that promise. Simcha and Mark, who explained why it was proper to march alongside zealously pro-choice forces last Saturday, are now saying nothing done by the WH for pro-life counts because Trump. What can you say?

  • Anti-Trump Hysterics= the Trump/Pence 2020 Reelection Campaign

  • Off of the Shea for a moment.

    A remembrance of Holocaust victims today. Fitting to say the least.

    http://hmd.org.uk/page/why-mark-27-january-holocaust-memorial-day

    All holocaust victims be in our prayers tonight….please. Jews – Cambodians – Rwandans – Bosnians – Darfurians…..And American Holocaust victims…The aborted.

  • As they say on Family Feud: “good answer!” Donald McClarey.

    The plan for immigration laws affecting future possible legal immigrants to be reviewed and strengthened concerning anti-American ideologies does not amount to scapegoating.
    Also it is strange to accuse Christians of being bought and paid for by a pandering / power-sucking governemnt. What an example of projection.

  • BTW, I wonder if the one comment by Russel Moore is the same Russel Moore Mark has linked to from my seminary days. Any ideas?

  • Hopefully, this will cost Mark some readers. If enough of them rebel maybe Mark will be freed up to do other things.

  • Mark could apply for the Librarian position when Obama’s Library is erected in Havana. TR.

  • The fundament of the priority of the Divine gift of life is no hard to understand. The flattening of all the mentioned issues must be willed or the intellect could not take it.

  • He may be leading a pilgrimage soon…
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/question-reader-re-possible-pilgrimage.html

    Regardless of how well you think he’s know, Shea is well known enough to deceive too many.

    Though he is providing a fun game nowadays. ANYTIME he posts a link, follow it and find the line, paragraph, etc that completely contradicts what he posted. Every. Single. Time.

  • Nate, that’s the problem. It’s actually bothersome that he continues to get high fives and thumbs up from Catholics who present him as a credible example of Catholic teaching. And some of those Catholics are in positions to suggest that Mark fairly represents how Catholics should act and think.

  • I AM COMPLETELY surprised by Shea’s stand!! What was the January 21st March as opposed to the March for Life? Who was REALLY bought and paid for with a pink hat!! Give President Trump a chance!! A FEW words from our VP!!?? What anniversary is this march celebrating?? 44 years?? and this is the first…the FIRST and highest representative from the Nation’s Administration? Torture? Oh yea, bring it on if it works to get information to SAVE a nation!! Immigration halt? Oh yeah..if it saves the security of a nation…. Destroying healthcare?? Oh MY GOSH, Shea…have you your own healthcare so Obamacare doesn’t effect you?? I have friends whose company divided itself up just so it didn’t have to provide obamacare and now they scrounge for healthcare which for the husband and male children is it OVER $1,100/month and covers mammograms and pap smears for all…male and female members of the family WHAT?? Maybe…JUST humor me here, Shea,…Maybe just maybe President Trump is REALLY trying to make things better…….You have to have SURGERY first before you can get better!! Oh yeah, it will hurt, but in the long run maybe it will be better. But go ahead, Shea, with your big Catholic popularity, and keep openning your piehole about IMPORTANT issues that you evidently have a closed and blind mind to. YOU HAVE LOST THIS READER and all that I know.

  • Philip beat me to the “punch.” Mark-who?

    FYI, Mark-who running around wearing vagina hats and throwing F-bombs does not advance a dishonest cause. His and Fr. Martin, S.J.’s real religion is liberalism not Catholicism.

    I’m convinced Mark-who isn’t sufficiently intelligent or self-aware that he constantly politicizes and subverts Church Teaching.

    My wife’s liberal sister posted on Facebook a video by Fr. Martin, S.J. (Society of Judas) exhorting the masses of morons to oppose the border wall. He is so arrogant (dismissive of his asinine audience?) as to only politicize and subvert one each OT Exodus sentence and one each NT St. Matthew (not written in any of the other three Gospels) sentence to say that the wall needs to be opposed because illegal invaders and infiltrating Muslim terrorists are the embodiments of Christ. I kid you NOT.

  • He won’t be brave enough to say it, but I think Mark replied.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/cheaper-buy-louisiana-purchase.html

    Oh and for those curious, the country ban list seems to have came from Obama.
    https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

  • Pingback: SUNDAY MORNING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Nate, know what I noticed in that piece from Mark? He said Trump didn’t mention Antisemitism in his Holocaust Remembrance speech. And? How many times over 8 years did Obama fail to mention things near and dear to the hearts of Christians and people like Mark scoffed saying such things were trivialities? Now, of course, it can only mean one thing!

    Everyone screaming about Trump stood idly by for eight years while Obama, the Democrats and their surrogates in the press/pop culture did the same. We don’t like a list published of illegal crimes? We had no problem with the press stepping over the bodies of hundreds of white people killed by police in order to find those blacks killed in order to whip up racial divisions. We had no problem with the press digging into any dirt possible and publishing it to derail an opponent of liberal agendas. Where was the outrage then?

    It makes me think of that line from A Man for All Seasons:

    “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

    For eight years the left either supported or, in Mark’s case, said increasingly little about all the trees of law and principles that were felled in order to make way for the progressive agenda. And now the devil of their worst nightmare is in office, and they’re looking for cover and finding none. I get the feeling they won’t turn the mirror on themselves to see who is to blame. In fact, I fear they’ll use it to lay the groundwork for even worse once Trump is out of the way.

  • “This is (one reason) why I’m proud to be a supporter of the ACLU (and not the Catholic Church).”

    One of the comments on the post linked by Nate. On the few occasions when I read his blog, there are more similarly minded comments. More of the materialist Left and less true Catholicism. Pray for the man as he is moving towards love of the Kingdom of the World and less love of the Kingdom of God.

    And yes, mock his posts. This might help.

  • I also notice that Mark is referring to our country as “Amerikkka.” Perhaps in the same spirit we should refer to his politics as “Marksism.”

  • Re: Phillip. We should call him Marx Shea in honor of his leanings.

  • And we could call his materialist followers “Marksists.”

  • Phillip, Mark’s blog has become quite the haven for people who express their dislike of Catholicism. Was a time where Mark would have come down on someone like that, even if they were agreeing with his position. Was a time.

  • Yes. Thus his continued slide into materialism. He sells out the supernatural message of the Gospel for the pottage of salvation by the State. He begins to worship Mammon. Not the Mammon of money but the Mammon of government power, central planning and the wisdom of human elites.

  • Mark Shea
    Who could not stay
    Within the church
    Did leftward lurch

  • Why is Mr. Shea still being used as an authority on the “Catholic Answer,” radio show?

  • Brian, that’s been my point. There are plenty of credible outlets and individuals who lift him up as an authority on Catholic teaching.

  • Dave Griffey.

    Is there anything that could come from the diocesan authority, Bishop? Any action that could warn him of being in grave error..(? Cannon 915 for Catholic politicians who support abortion on demand.)

    Wondering aloud here.

  • Pingback: CATHOLIC HEADLINES 1.29.17 – The Stumbling Block
  • I don’t know. I’d think, but I also think Mark has referenced attempts by others to go to the Bishop. The thing about Mark is that he doesn’t say ‘The Church is wrong!’, he says there is only one way to be a Catholic, unless Mark says otherwise. So I don’t know how that would go.

  • Thanks Dave.

    It would be a good for all if Mr Shea took a sabbatical away from man and Internet.
    A silent retreat of sorts. 🙂
    Extended version.

    Yes. Prayers for him.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/montreal-bishop-tom-dowd-really-good-guy.html

    That is how Mark sees it. It’s common, especially on the left side of the aisle, to fire verbal nukes at people, only to have a meltdown if someone is so mean as to suggest they might be wrong. Mark says far worse than anything I’ve ever seen said to him, and that Mark put words in my mouth that I never said before banning me, which suggests Mark has entered that level of unreality so crucial to following a more progressive worldview. Also since, according to him, he continually gets assurances, support and even commission from various official outlets of the Church and Catholic sources suggests he won’t stop soon. Then again, the question is, should he? If what he does appears to be supported and affirmed by official outlets and representatives of the Church, why should he?

  • I was having to question a possible witness to a crime in “Johnson Place”, here is my Hometown where I later retired from the Police Department. Now, Johnson Pl is a large sub-division made up of homes for the extremely rich. A place where in-home elevators and indoor pools come standard. So, I’m asking this guy if he might have seen anything different. To which he responded, “Well sir, they sure got some fancy garbage there !” TR.

  • One of the comments on the post linked by Nate. On the few occasions when I read his blog, there are more similarly minded comments.

    Has anyone gone back and checked again? Here’s a random sampling of quotes, I won’t spoil contexts but each quote is from a DIFFERENT poster, no two are from the same person.
    * “The population is being numbed; atrocities are in the future.”
    * “Anyway I myself have lost my faith in democratic governance period.”
    * “The only sin of Hitler was that he lost. That will not happen again.”
    * “Every crazy thing Obama was going to do – FEMA Camps, Martial Law, invalidating elections … us what Trump et al will do and gave started.”
    * “Sooner or later, it will be our turn, as Catholics. The bishops and the pope have already had disapproving words to say about Trump’s immigration policy, and if I remember right, at least two bishops spoke out against his pet “pro-life” nonprofit’s grotesque, thinly-veiled campaign ad. It’ll be the Church or Caesar. America First, remember?”

    Ready for the punchline? On October 13th of last year, Shea posted this:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/10/its-getting-down-to-the-wire-for-obama.html
    Dinesh D’Souza, the adulterous Boy Who Cried Wolf in the false prophecy called 2016: Obama’s America foretold all this to a salivating audience of credulous sucker while he was betraying his wife. Now, of course, relying on the fact that the fathomless pride of his audience means never having to admit error, D’Souza is back, leading the Boys Who Cry Wolf with more dire prophecies of the horrors that await us in Hillary’s America.

    Well Shea isn’t adulterous so we can give him that. But otherwise I guess we know now that it’s only fear-mongering when the Right does it. When the Left does it it’s justified warnings.

    That is how Mark sees it. It’s common, especially on the left side of the aisle, to fire verbal nukes at people, only to have a meltdown if someone is so mean as to suggest they might be wrong. Mark says far worse than anything I’ve ever seen said to him, and that Mark put words in my mouth that I never said before banning me, which suggests Mark has entered that level of unreality so crucial to following a more progressive worldview.

    Spot on, Dave. I believe the term de juor is “crybully” or as my daddy used to say, “they can dish it out but can’t take it.” It was perfectly captured by South Park here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNl-Hydyxh0

    It’s interesting to watch someone who has been so hard on Protestants in the past (i.e. pretty much saying we’re all that’s wrong with the world) then go to the mat for Muslims. Here are posts that were put up just TODAY.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/usccb-condemns-lawless-executive-order.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/trump-promotes-racist-conspiracy-theorist.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/abp-vigneron-writes-letter-support-imams-detroit.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/mccain-graham-join-resistance.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/01/two-us-cardinals-condemn-trumps-assault-refugees-immigrants.html

    Oh and the tags he is using on some of these posts?
    * Life in the Banana Republic of Trump’s Amerikkka
    *Racism is a sin
    *The Least of These
    *The Thing That Used to be the Prolife Movement

    And of course will there be ANY acknowledgment about the actual executive order? Nope. A man who harps on seeking out what the church REALLY says can’t be bothered to see what the law really says. For a bonus game, watch this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM

    And see how many of Obama’s actions named in that video Shea called out. I think maybe 1. But Shea is welcome to come here and prove me wrong. Unlike his site where nobody’s welcome to prove him wrong.

  • Re: Nate, et al. Why not stop donating to National Catholic Register and EWTN until Mark Shea is removed?

  • Michael Dowd.
    Good point.
    Amen.

    I feel sad however, for the sheep who are lead astray by the wolf man Shea. They are going to need Nat, et al, to calmly corral them back to the fold. His big mouth may attract many flies causing him to choke on his own words…Until then we pray for his return to the Faith.

  • Watching this man circle the toilet is depressing.

    The state of discourse in the American Church is parlous.

  • Art Deco.
    Imagery….Your a master Art.
    Lol.

  • The progressive left reminds me of HAL9000.

    Michael Dowd: Mark Shea was let go by the National Catholic Register a while back. His name no longer appears on their list of bloggers.

  • GregB.

    HAL 9000…. Progressive Left?
    OK.

    Personally,
    the opening sequence of 2001, bone in hand and screaming at the top of their fuzzy heads….these ARE the progressive Left. 🐵

  • Philip: The progressive left act like they are foolproof and incapable of error. Their mission is too important to allow anyone to jeopardize it. HAL did go on a rampage against the crew.

  • It seems Screwtape has taken to advising Wormwood on what to do to counteract effective blogger/apologists:

    One very promising avenue as of late is to divert the apologist – or for that matter, any Catholic who has effectively forced their false beliefs upon others – into a strong, even obsessive attention to mere politics and matters of government. This has recently been rather spectacularly successful. If we can achieve the result of getting these apologists to write more about politics, by far, than about what they call “the faith” then we have succeeded beyond our wildest hopes and aspirations.

    Beyond this matter of relative output, they even tend to start thinking that everyone who disagrees with them on political matters, is a sort of “enemy”: rather than us and our Brave Leader being their true enemy. They forget that they are more often than not fighting against their own fellow “Christians” within the dreadful and pathetic so-called “Body of Christ.”

    This can happen (another great break for us!) in any part of the political spectrum. “Political correctness” and a smug intellectual snobbery, or on the opposite side: extreme, paranoid semi-conspiratorialism and self-righteousness, are the fashions and fads of the day and conquer all.

Breitbart on Abortion

Wednesday, November 16, AD 2016

simcha-shea11

 

 

Mark Shea, fresh from his losing crusade to make pro-abort Hillary Clinton President of the United States, is now attacking pro-lifers who have no problem with President Elect Trump naming former Breitbart CEO Stephen Bannon as his Chief Advisor.  Go here to read Shea’s attack.  Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that Bannon is a racist or an anti-Semite, Breitbart has always been firmly pro-life.  Go here and take a look at the Breitbart articles on abortion.  I can understand of course why Mark ignores this.  As his support for Clinton indicates, the fight against abortion is now low on his priority list.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Breitbart on Abortion

  • “Go here to read Shea’s attack.”

    No. Don’t want to feed the beast.

  • Lesser Evil. Those who are arguing for the new pro-life approach spend more time with the distractions of other separate moral questions, than actually dealing with the thunderous moral question in question, Here is the list of things they think we should be so fearful of, the counter-weights ( they think) to concern about abortion:

    Trump Promised to deny shelter to refugees fleeing war torn Syria
    · Said he would register Muslims in America
    · Threatened the 1st amendment (loosening up libel laws)
    · Threatened the 14th amendment (stop and frisk)
    · Advocated for the use of torture
    · Promised to pull out of the Paris climate agreement
    · Promised to end funding to sanctuary cities
    · Promised to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

    These other issues are not continuously and grievously occurring. These are political ideas that are being discussed.
    I ask Mark and other alternative universe Catholics, does any one of these promises or threats , or all of them together, add up to the real ( not promised or threatened) murder of a child… or of a sick old person…,

  • “As his support for Clinton indicates, the fight against abortion is now low on his priority list.”

    As a true Social Justice Warrior, Mark has now made opposing intrinsic evils optional while making leftist, prudential political decisions morally binding.

  • Shea is a nothingburger to me.

  • . Jared Kushner, Jew, is Ivanka’s husband from a wealthy real estate family of Jews. Trump would vanish Bannon if he thought he was anti semitical….as Christie may…may have vanished because he prosecuted Jared’s father years ago on campaign donations.

  • If Trump were invited to be the guest speaker at Notre Dame’s 2016 graduating class commencement address, I would expect we would hear nothing but venom coming from Mr. Mark Shea. God forbid an elderly shaman spinning his prayer can be arrested on Norte Dame property while the new President prepares to speak…Mark might have a nervous breakdown. The social injustice of it all. 🙂

  • I just cannot get excited by the idiocy of a liberal progressive nit wit like Mark Shea.

  • Another case of a leftist projecting his own sins onto the other side. Mark Shea proudly supported Hitlary, the proud recipient of the Margaret “Abortion is the solution to the Negro problem” Sanger award. Also, you can bet he won’t oppose the purported nominee to run the DNC, Keith Ellison, a Muslim with ties to the virulently anti-semitic CAIR and ISNA.

  • Here’s what cracks me up. He goes on and on about “being totally whole life.” Ok, let’s grant his argument a moment.
    .
    Where exactly in the world is a society that’s principled around “whole life” like he describes? Would Belgium be a good example? And yet do we find any proof that they are, in fact, completely pro-life? Doesn’t look like it.
    .
    Yet he’s the one who often mocks others for living by theory and not reality. With his skill at projection, if the blogging thing doesn’t work out for him, it seems like Mark can always get a job at a movie theater.

  • Where goes Bannon stand on capital punishment?

  • Don’t know. I would hope pro the death penalty.

  • Some may find this link illuminating. (though, as always, I warn against the comments)
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.sk6Ldb4xl#.bvM6Q8M1r

  • From the Shea article justifying his support for Clinton:

    “I would actually feel bound by my conscience to do so, precisely *because* of my Catholic–prolife–faith.”

    It is unfair – perhaps “intellectually dishonest” to borrow a phrase from McClarey’s defense of Rush Limbaugh – to say that abortion is low on Shea’s priorities. He may be wrong but that’s not the same as not caring.

  • I can’t decide. Is Mark who dishonest or stupid?
    .
    Repeat after me: “false equivalency.” In what bizarre reality is one or any of the trivialities anzalyne listed (for us) equivalent to murdering in their mothers’ wombs 50 million innocent, unborn babies?
    .
    Mac, I love you, man! Without you I wouldn’t know a pundit could be so totally wrong with such a perfect degree of consistency.

  • I know this thread is not about this, but it is a thought I want to say 🙂 about the People’s concern about who Trump might appoint to his Cabinet, kitchen or otherwise: President Obama appointed Czars.

  • “I would actually feel bound by my conscience to do so, precisely *because* of my Catholic–prolife–faith.”

    If one is concerned about the almost million abortions a year in this country, at a minimum we should expect that person not to be championing the candidate for President who fanatically supports abortion:

    What would we think about a self-proclaimed abolitionist who supported a pro-slavery candidate for President in 1860, or a Jew in 1932 Germany who voted for the Nazis?

Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea

Saturday, October 15, AD 2016

12308267_10205055340449342_2514654047259129308_n

 

Dave Griffey at his blog Daffy Thoughts wrote this about the recent comments by Rush Limbaugh regarding sexual morality:

 

What Rush Limbaugh said is here.  What Rush Limbaugh didn’t appear to say in the least was that rape is defensible.  I’m no fan of Rush, and you’ll notice I seldom reference him.  Not that he isn’t right sometimes.  Sure he is.  My favorite reference is the time he observed that the Baby Boomers are the first generation in history that didn’t have to grow up.  Good observation there.

Nonetheless, he’s problematic enough for me to look to other sources for opinion.  Still, with that said, he doesn’t deserve to be falsely accused of something as horrific as defending rape unless it can be demonstrated that he unequivocally said rape is defensible.  What he appears to be saying is what many have said over the years, and what we are witnessing today.

Assume, just for a minute, that Donald Trump is innocent of the accusations being made against him.  And assume, just for a minute, as opposed to what Major Garrett on CBS said yesterday morning, that he doesn’t have to provide evidence to show he is innocent, but that the accusers have to show evidence that he is guilty.  Assuming this basic ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard that was so crucial in the late 90s, we can say that what Trump has said about and to women is vulgar, despicable, deplorable, wrong, bad, horrific, and anything else to drive home the point.  If, that is, we say there is such as thing as objective morality.

The problem Rush has is that those who are saying this are some of the same who stood idly by 4 years ago when similar things were said about Michelle Bachmann, 8 years ago when worse was said about Sarah Palin, her daughter, her children, and almost 20 years ago when more than one accuser of Bill Clinton was called a liar, a whore for the Republicans, and trailer park trash.  All while we were told that when it comes to sex, nobody cares, there are no real objective morals, it’s up in the air, it isn’t important, and it doesn’t even matter if we lie or commit perjury. As long as you have consent – and even that seemed to depend on who was saying there wasn’t consent involved – everything was fair game.

It’s a fair statement and a fair observation.  Perhaps he didn’t do the best job conveying that view.  But nothing in the complete statement suggests he was defending rape or in any way suggesting rape is not wrong or that there is a problem with being upset about rape.

Mark Shea showed up in the combox and, as usual, was the quiet voice of reason:

What he did was sneer that critics of non-consensual sex are “rape police”. Normal people just call them “police”. Because non-consensual sex is rape. And you defend it. Because you guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels defending the sex predator you have made your Dear Leader. Good job.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea

  • Mark Shea is an idiot.
    .
    Hillary Clinton is a murderous pathological liar.
    .
    Her husband Bill Clinton is a rapist.
    .
    Mark should shut the heck up before increasing his stanatd as an asinus maximus any more.

  • If any are undecided, let us look at the practicality or even the pragmatism involved. If Trump is elected President, and does something terrible, we can impeach him in a fortnight. If Hillary, forget about it. We are toast. Any questions?

  • Mark Shea is IMO quick to open his mouth and “remove all doubt”.
     
    (For the source of the modern aphorism referred to, see Proverbs 17:28)

  • “But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.”

    Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent. If Limbaugh were a more reasonable, magnanimous fellow, he would have said, the Left is right to insist on consent just as all good people do, and then made his point from there. But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.

    Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality? Sounds like ridiculous slander to me – much worse than the sort of libel of which Shea is being accused. But perhaps someone can link to credible evidence that most of the same people attacking Trump over consent are also approving of bestiality. Shouldn’t be too hard since the person everyone is defending on this site asserts that this is such a common liberal value.

    I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?

  • “I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?”

    Yes, as anyone who has read Mark, as I have, since 2003 could quickly discern. The way I phrased it was full throated conversion to the Left. His support this year of Hillary Clinton, a complete pro-abort Leftist, is a demonstration that his conversion to the Left is virtually complete. Mark used to refer to Democrats as the evil party.

    “Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent.”

    Nothing could adequately mock the contemporary Left:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11738202/Sex-consent-contracts-for-university-students-Would-you-sign.html

    “But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.”

    Leftists, by and large, are at war with normal human beings. Mockery is the mildest reaction that they should expect from people not members of their cult.

    “Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality?”

    Now you be honest Sancho. Thirty years ago the idea of gay marriage would have struck most Leftists as an absurdity. Ten years ago the idea that biological men have a right to use the ladies room would have struck most Leftists as equally absurd. When it comes to sex who knows what bizarre beliefs now will not be seized upon by Leftists as a sacred right? A political movement that views the slaying of unborn kids by their mothers as right and good is a movement that can embrace anything.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/13/a_legal_defense_of_donkey_sex/

  • You don’t suppose Mark is the beneficiary of some of that sweet, sweet Soros cash we’re all talking about do you?

  • No. I have no doubt that Mark believes every word he writes and his beliefs are honestly held and not subject to bribery. More’s the pity for him.

  • No. I have no doubt that Mark believes every word he writes and his beliefs are honestly held and not subject to bribery. More’s the pity for him.

    His beliefs, such as they are, seem to derive from a stew of emotion, much like Rod Dreher. The thing is, Dreher’s reflect his protean moods (and abiding anxiety) and, bless his heart, he does backtrack when he’s overtaken by events. Shea’s seem to derive from a consistent substrate of rage, as well as doubling-down on whatever intemperate position he’s taken previously. Shea isn’t right or left. He’s a man deeply confused about the relationship between faith and public life (a vexing question anyway), ignorant about policy choices (we all are to a greater or lesser degree), and given to highly partisan reactions (contra, for example, George W. Bush and anyone who might defend him). I suspect his real problem is a deficit of liberal education which would help him filter and assess what he reads in the papers, as well as an unfortunate decision many moons ago to make his work what should have been his hobby. Amy Welborn also did this, but she’s not much invested in political questions and not contentious by default. William Donohue is highly contentious, but makes it a point only to address a restricted portfolio of questions.

  • You totally lost me with that pic of the business end of a big bore revolver . . . I’m in dire need of a cold shower.
    .
    I agree. I haven’t read Shea in more than ten years and I’m enjoying it.
    .
    If Shea’s all-in for Hillary, it tells me three things. One, his true religion is leftism not Christianity. Two, he is a despicable excuse for a human being. Three, he has lump of excrement for brains.
    .
    Forget the shower. I’m rapidly running out to buy a couple hundred rounds of ammunition.

Mark Shea and Intellectual Honesty

Thursday, October 13, AD 2016

Mark Shea, in his full throated conversion to the Left, puts on display his current lack of intellectual honesty:

Today’s “Conservatism”: where there’s something weird and silly about having a problem with non-consensual sex. Mr. Limbaugh: the term for that is “rape”. And yes, for rape we do, in fact, call the police, you dolt. I’m sure that your moronic remark has nothing to do with the ongoing struggle of the freak show that is right wing media to defend their Sex Predator candidate.

Trump is gonna lose.  And it will be so satisfying to watch him and his team of professional liars and mob of misogynist racist followers trying to claim that he was robbed and blame everybody but themselves for the catastrophe for which they and they alone are totally and completely responsible.  It’s about damned time the Party of Personal Responsibility was forced to take some responsibility.

Go here to read the comments.

 

Notice that Mark did not link to Limbaugh’s site.  Here is what Limbaugh actually wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Standards, you stand up for moral standards, you’re gonna be mocked and laughed out of the room.  They’re gonna call you a prude.  They’re gonna call you a Victorian.  They’re gonna call you an old fuddy-duddy, an old fogy, and they’re gonna claim you want to deny people having a good time.  So a culture which rejects moral standards. In other words, anything goes.  You know what the magic word is? The only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is one thing.  You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything as long as there is one element.  Do you know what it is? 

Consent.

If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is.  But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.  But consent is the magic key to the left.  “How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they’ve judged Trump is found.”

If morality is relative to each individual — and believe me, it is today.  You try to define morality, and they’re gonna come for you and mock you and make fun of you, and, worse than that, it’s like you don’t have any right to define morality.  One of the Undeniable Truths of Life that I wrote back in 1987 is that morality has become an individual choice.  And, of course, it isn’t. 

Morality is what it is.  Virtue is what it is.  And you either are or you aren’t.  And the left doesn’t like that so they’ve obscured the lines and the definitions.  And the definition now is moral is whatever you can get somebody to do with you, consent.  You can do anything.  If you could get the dog to consent with you, if you can get the horse to consent, we got no problem with it.  And they don’t!  So morality has been boiled down to consent, is my point, and it’s true. 

So it’s said here, “If morality is relative to each individual — a purely subjective experience — by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a ‘standard.’ Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?”

Because, you see, morality is not subjective.  “Human beings possess the capacity for rationality and objectivity. We’re able to distinguish what’s good and what’s bad,” and we know it.  We know right from wrong.  We know good from bad.  We know what we should do and what we shouldn’t do and the left wants to not feel guilt when they engage in what you shouldn’t do.  And the way to get there is to simply erase the concept of objective morality.  There isn’t any.  You don’t get to define it.  Nobody else does.  You get to define your own.  And therefore you can’t criticize. 

Well, in this atmosphere, how does anybody dare preach to Donald Trump?  When we have spent the last 25 or 30 years obliterating the moral code, when we have blown virtue to smithereens, who are you phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers all of a sudden now sitting in judgment of Donald Trump? 

“Trump’s trashy comments do not uphold sex and romance as a beautiful and fulfilling, uplifting activity. But neither do Bill Clinton’s actions over the years, particularly with respect to his many, many dalliances with women. Bill Clinton is not running for president. His wife is. But his wife built her whole career off the springboard of his presidency. Without his presidency, she would not have become a U.S. Senator and later Secretary of State — a bad one,” but she wouldn’t have become either if it weren’t for her husband and her using that as her springboard.

Go here to read the rest.  I guess winning political battles by any means, fair or foul, possible is important in some quarters.  For myself, I like being able to look at my face in the mirror when I shave.

 

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Mark Shea and Intellectual Honesty

  • A dozen years ago, I’d have told you he was agreeable to read when he had an editor. Shea strikes me as one of the minority of men (Albert Gore is another) who just decay in every way as they grow older. I don’t think that’s the fate of most of us, who just have to cope with excess weight, arthritis, prostate problems, and, if our longevity is excessive, senility. In general, old men are great company, because they have perspective (and will humiliate you at cribbage or chess or dominoes or whatever their preferred board game is). Not always.

  • Some pigs just love rolling in the mud.

  • I was listening to Rush as I was traveling. I was impressed with his remarks as my wife and I saw them as an impressive summary by an untrained non-Cathoilc of Catholic moral theology and natural law.

  • Today’s Liberalism: Where yesterday’s serial sexual predator is today’s respected elder statesman. Where yesterday’s enabler of said serial sexual predator is today’s Democratic nominee for President.
    .

  • ” The rationale: consent is the sole criterion of the good. If marriage isn’t “working for me” because I feel stifled or want to run off and get my shakras aligned or any conceivable other excuse, then the Common Good simply counts for nothing. Generation Narcissus was handed a powerful license upon which to build the kingdom of the Imperial Autonomous Self.

    Of course, when we start talking about fornication, divorce and remarriage, we begin to move on to turf that Christianity does say something about. But this answer made less and less sense to many millions of our countrymen, because they can only understand “consent” as the sole criterion of the good. Therefore, once begun, the logic can only proceed to the demolition of the next ‘societal taboo’.”
    Mark Shea

    “But when you make consent the sole criterion of the good as our culture already has, there’s no particular reason to stop there.”
    Mark Shea

    Man who does this Rush think he is? Mark Shea? I’m so glad Mark Shea called him out. Rush should try harder to be more like Mark Shea, not Mark Shea.

  • But there’s nothing weird and silly about that!

  • I can’t help but feel a little pity for Mark. To go from explaining the Catholic faith to defending the Democratic Party; that’s like selling your birthright for a mess of pottage.

  • Comment of the week Nate! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • “THE COMMON GOOD” ? When a person conceived in original innocence, consents to a criminal act that person outlaws himself from the community, the state and the nation. Informed Consent may not be given without undergoing the consequences as in building up the common good or destroying the nation and our Founding Principles,” the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
    Informed consent to criminality may not be given without forfeiting our sovereignty, our discipline, over ourselves. The rejection of sovereignty over ourselves darkens the rational soul with the intellect to recognize the common good.
    Discrimination against vice is patriotism. Discrimination against virtue is a sign of a lost civilization.
    Hillary cannot take us to hell unless we choose.

  • ” For myself, I like being able to look at my face in the mirror when I shave.” Comment of the week from my perspective. “Take ‘er away Sam”!

  • I just went over to Shea’s page and provided the link to the full article from Rush in the combox. I am interested to see if that affects the discussion.

  • Mike’s, he did reply to you.

    The hell he isn’t. Yes, he *tries* to make fun of polymorphous perversity. But what he ends us saying is that people who objected to non-consensual sex are “rape police”. No. They are normal people. Because non-consensual sex *is* rape, dammit.

    So what Rush says in paragraph 2 of an 8 paragraph writing is what he “ends up saying”.

    Still proving he doesn’t read a thing.

  • Even from Mark’s truncated excerpt, you can tell Rush’s point was that anything goes with the left as long as it is consensual (euthanasia, drugs, homosex, pedophilia, orgies, you name it). He wasn’t saying that rape is not rape. Shea is a lost human being. Sad, considering how he used to be about 15 years ago.

  • Shea is beyond fraternal correction. Reasonable people should pray for him and otherwise ignore him.

  • I haven’t listened to Rush in some time now, but in reading that little snippet Shea quoted, it never occurred to me Rush was defending rape.
    .

  • Does Mark post under the name “chezami” or are there others who don’t read? I’m a glutton for punishment, so I tried again. Last time though: https://xkcd.com/386/ (“someone is wrong on the internet!”)

  • Chezami is Mark.

  • Yet another reason tio ignore Mark Shea. He has become a full blown leftist.

  • What I don’t understand about all of this is why isn’t Mark Shea ignored completely by The American Catholic as analyzing what he says causes anger or pity or some other negative response. But perhaps he serves his purpose by being a scratching pole conservatives. Maybe that’s important.

  • Good post. Wish I had something profound to say, but there is nothing profound about Mark Shea.

  • What I don’t understand about all of this is why isn’t Mark Shea ignored completely by The American Catholic as analyzing what he says causes anger or pity or some other negative response. But perhaps he serves his purpose by being a scratching pole conservatives.

    Why? Because of things like…

    In this same way, I found these infuriating words of Shea rattling around in my own head until I became comfortable with them, and eventually they became my own.

    See, here’s what a lot of people fail to realize: however crazy, insane, and stupid of an idea you think Person A has, there is SOMEONE coming across them for the first time. And that someone does not have your knowledge and experience so to them they have no way of telling that idea is crazy, insane and stupid. So how are they supposed to know that idea is crazy, insane, and stupid? Possess your knowledge and experience? But that’s impossible, you are you and they are them. The only way is for you to share your knowledge and experience. But you won’t, because you’re “ignoring” the bad idea.
    .
    So the crazy, insane and stupid idea gains another believer.

  • Nate W. You make an excellent point. And what you say is a spiritual work of mercy, too: counseling the ignorant. I’m more interested learning more from orthodox Catholic writers than liberal twits like Shea. There’s not enough time in the take to take them all on.

  • There’s also some portion of people who sincerely mean the “I read ____ from a major Catholic source, and nobody contradicted it” argument.

    So we’ve got to argue against the nastier stuff, and then even when someone is only saying “nobody said anything until now” shtick to be nasty, the old article can be linked. (Check out Jonah Goldberg’s ‘g-file’ articles, for a while there every single week he was linking to him doing what “nobody did when it wasn’t Trump” multiple times from the archives.)

  • There’s not enough time in the take to take them all on.

    Of course not, that’s why we take on those we can, when we can. And if you have to pick a target, the largest one (in audience, that’s not a fat joke) will be your best bet.

    There’s also some portion of people who sincerely mean the “I read ____ from a major Catholic source, and nobody contradicted it” argument.

    Exactly, that’s who I had in mind from earlier, though I guess some people could fall into one subset without the other.

    (Check out Jonah Goldberg’s ‘g-file’ articles, for a while there every single week he was linking to him doing what “nobody did when it wasn’t Trump” multiple times from the archives.)

    I’ve been subscribed to the g-file forever but I’m very confused on who is who in: “he was linking to him” in your statement as by my count there’s 3 possible guys in context with your statement.

  • Art, I’m on my fast track “to decay in every way,” and enjoying every minute. The warden wants me to keep a pen and paper handy to memorialize every “senior moment.” zzzzz. I love you, man. I see you comment over at Marginal revolution, tweaking imbeciles with econ PhD’s.
    .
    Do not believe anything you hear, read, or see. Opinion and reporting are not separated. The reporting is distorted to the extent that it does not contain the modicum of truth found in the common lie.
    .
    For the filthy animals (including post-modern, so-called scholars) the truth is that which advances the progressive (replace the current elites, money and power, not reform) agenda. Any fact or statistic that contradicts the agenda is suppressed or distorted, no matter the residual factual truth.
    .
    All the gargantuan, derivative bull shit makes sense when you rightly assume that everything is propaganda and the truth is the last/least item on the agenda.

  • He linked to himself, in the past, doing what “never” happened. 😀

    Although I think a couple of times he linked to “editorial board” posts or some such… 😀

    I need to see what happened to the dang gfile, haven’t seen it in my box for a while.
    ****
    Exactly, that’s who I had in mind from earlier, though I guess some people could fall into one subset without the other.

    I kinda figured, but rephrasing things helps sometimes– oh! And there’s the folks who the second they HEAR an argument against X thing, it makes perfect sense, but for whatever reason they just never considered it before.
    That’s how it was when I first heard about “eye for an eye” being a RESTRICTION on the Hebrews. You just never know where someone has a blindspot.

  • Enough with these words – what’s at stake in this election is the Little Sisters and other such cases that the Supreme Court sent down to the Appellate Court to “work out.” Those cases are not over with. There is an empty seat on the Supreme Court that is going to be filled by the next President. If the Christians “vote wrong,” this election as Fr. Michael Orsi says in his YouTube Call to Action, the Little Sisters and other Christians won’t have a place to turn to if the Appellate Court can’t “work it out” for them.

    If the Christians “vote wrong,” that’s the end of our Freedom of Religion Constitutional Rights, and that is the end of our Constitution. Besides the empty seat being filled by the next President, there are at least 2 or 3 more seats that will be vacated in the next 4 years because of the ages of several of them, which means the next President, and Senate, will set the direction of the country and government for the next 40 years. We will be dictated to by the majority on the Supreme Court, and the federal government will have the physical force to back it up; our Pravda mass media won’t say a word against it. And Planned Parenthood will be ecstatic

    THAT is what the risk is in this election for those of us who love God with all are heart, soul and mind, and who pray for His “will be done on earth.” Don’t be fooled by the calumny of the other side and their fawning press.

  • Pingback: Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea – The American Catholic

Godzilla v. Bambi

Thursday, September 22, AD 2016

 

 

Philosopher Doctor Ed Feser takes on Mark Shea on the death penalty in the biggest mismatch since Godzilla tangled with Bambi:

 

As Pope St. John XXIII once wrote:

 

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians.  She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain…

 

[T]he common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.  (Ad Petri Cathedram 71-72)

 

What Catholic could disagree with that?

 

Well, Mark Shea, apparently.  For no sooner does he acknowledge the truth of what Joe and I wrote than he proceeds bitterly to denounce Catholics who have the effrontery actually to exercise the right the Church herself has recognized to hold differing opinions on the topic of capital punishment.  After acknowledging the truth of our basic claim, he writes: “So what?” – as if Joe and I were addressing some question no one is asking.  This is followed by a string of remarks like these:

 

When it comes to taking human life, the right wing culture of death asks “When do we get to kill?”

 

The Church, in contrast, asks, “When do we have to kill?”

 

The death penalty supporter looks for loopholes and ways to enlarge them so that he gets to kill somebody.  The Magisterium urges us to look for ways to avoid killing unless driven to do so by absolute necessity…

 

The term for that is “prolife”. You know, from conception to natural death. It’s what we are supposed to actually mean when we say “All Lives Matter”. Even criminal ones.

 

So it comes back to this: If you stop wasting your time and energy fighting the guidance of the Church, searching for loopholes allowing you to kill some of those All Lives that supposedly Matter to you, you find that you have lots more time and energy for defending the unborn that you say are your core non-negotiable. Why not do that instead of battling three popes and all the bishops in the world in a struggle to keep the US on a list with every Islamic despotism from Saudi Arabia to Iran, as well as Communist China and North Korea? Why the “prolife” zeal to kill?

 

Be more prolife, not less…

 

“I want to kill the maximum number of people I can get away with killing” is, on the face of it, a hard sell as comporting with the clear and obvious teaching of the Church and perhaps there are other issues in our culture of death that might use our time and energy more fruitfully, particularly when the immediate result of such an argument is to spawn a fresh batch of comments from priests scandalously declaring the pope a heretic, wacked out conspiracy theorists calling the pope “evil beyond comprehension“, and false prophets forecasting that “Antipope Francis” will approve abortion.  This is the atmosphere of the warriors of the right wing culture of death.  It does not need more oxygen.

 

End quote. 

 

Well.  What on earth is all that about?  And what does it have to do with what Joe and I wrote? 

 

Let’s consider the various charges Shea makes.  As to the “So what?”,  Joe and I are by no means merely reiterating something everyone already agrees with.  On the contrary, there is an entire school of thought with tremendous influence in orthodox Catholic circles – the “new natural law theory” of Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Robert P. George, and many others – that takes the position that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral and that the Church can and ought to reverse her ancient teaching to the contrary.  Many other Catholics, including some bishops, routinely denounce capital punishment in terms that are so extreme that they give the false impression that the death penalty is by its very nature no less a violation of the fifth commandment than abortion or other forms of murder are.

 

In our article we cited cases in which even Pope Francis himself has made such extreme statements.  We also suggested that the pope’s remarks should be interpreted as rhetorical flourishes, but the fact remains that they certainly appear on a natural reading to be claiming that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong – a claim which would reverse the teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and every previous pope who has addressed the topic.

 

Since Shea agrees that the Church cannot make such a change, to be consistent he would also have to admit that the more extreme rhetoric from the pope and some bishops and other Catholics is misleading and regrettable.  He should also agree that “new natural lawyers” and others who hold that the Church should completely reverse past teaching on capital punishment are taking a position that cannot be reconciled with orthodoxy. 

 

The late Cardinal Dulles, among the most eminent of contemporary Catholic theologians, has (in remarks quoted in our article) gone so far as to say that a reversal of traditional teaching on capital punishment would threaten to undermine the very credibility of the Magisterium in general.  Our primary motivation in writing our book was to show that the Church has not in fact reversed past teaching on this subject, and thereby to defend the credibility of the Magisterium.  Accordingly, Shea’s charge that Joe and I are in the business of “fighting the guidance of the Church” is unjust and offensive.  So too is Shea’s casually lumping us in with those who characterize Pope Francis as a “heretic” and “antipope.”  In fact we explicitly said that we do not believe that the pope wishes to reverse past teaching, and we proposed reading his statements in a way consistent with the tradition.

 

As to Shea’s other remarks, it is simply outrageous – to be frank, it seems as clear an instance as there could be of what moral theologians would classify as an instance of calumny – to suggest that Joe and I are really just “look[ing] for loopholes and ways to enlarge them so that [we get] to kill somebody,” that we “want to kill the maximum number of people [we] can get away with killing,” that we have a “zeal to kill,” etc.  There is absolutely nothing in what we wrote that justifies such bizarre and inflammatory accusations.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Godzilla v. Bambi

  • The death penalty supporter looks for loopholes and ways to enlarge them so that he gets to kill somebody.
    .
    Mark Shea is loathsome and unhinged.

  • At bottom, Mark Shea’s religion is liberal progressivism, and his Church the Democratic Party.

  • Shea knows no limitations to his waistline or twisted logic.

  • “The death penalty supporter looks for loopholes and ways to enlarge them so that he gets to kill somebody. ”

    Shea thinks the best way to debate philosophers and theologians is to start out by showing himself to be a completely ignorant a**hole?

  • LQC above, “At bottom, Mark Shea’s religion is liberal progressivism, and his Church the Democratic Party.” Truth, brother.
    ..
    Murray, Ken, Stephen: excellent.
    .
    Moron liberals (here I’m intentionally redundant) constantly project (Do shrinks call it “projection”?) on those with whom they disagree numbskull nonsense and heinous lies.
    .
    En fin, Bambi tastes better than Godzilla. You haven’t lived until you savored a venison back strap cut warm from the kill.

  • The striking irony in Shea’s calumny is that death-penalty opponents are the ones looking for loopholes, against the plain meaning of Scripture and the clear, consistent teaching of the Church.
    .
    If God commands the death penalty for certain offenses, it cannot be intrinsically immoral. It can certainly be immoral under one set of circumstances or another, and that’s where prudential judgment comes in, but “intrinsically” means n all times and in all circumstances, in which case God world have been commanding his people to sin.

  • I believe the new natural law theorists are promoting the perspective that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. One of the proponents of this perspective, Christopher Tollefsen, has written extensively to that effect. I cannot find a link but I believe it was Tollefsen who wrote that scripture was an obstacle to his conclusion.

    When a choice is between Scripture (not to mention tradition and the Church Fathers), go with Scripture.

  • It is apparent that Shea’s rhetorical device of choice is the one referred to as “poisoning the well”.

    He has a great gift for creating sentences that make simple statements, but contain numerous vile and fallacious premises. I suspect he takes inordinate pride in this particular approach given that he never seems to use any other.

  • ” Many other Catholics, including some bishops, routinely denounce capital punishment in terms that are so extreme that they give the false impression that the death penalty is by its very nature no less a violation of the fifth commandment than abortion or other forms of murder are.”

    More like virtually ALL bishops!

  • I’m surprised Germain Grisez sees capital punishment as intrinsically wrong. He must like many have a swiss cheeze approach to the Bible….which is the opposite of St. Thomas Aquinas who such each verse as inerrant…exactly like Christ…”…and the scriptures cannot be broken”
    . I don’t agree with Feser that the Church…read catechism ….as in ccc 2267 is not in fact circumventing traditional teaching on the death penalty via its use of the phrase…” Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”. Laughable….prisons in the largest Catholic population, Brazil are nightmarish…famous for inmate murders as is Mexico, the second largest
    Catholic population. Heavily Catholic Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras have no death penalty and sky high murder rates. And all mentioned are non death penalty and one or two…rare death penalty. The Cardinal who wrote ccc 2267 was thinking only of the rarer Catholic situation like Austria who had forty murders in 2012 while Brazil had 50,674 murders that year.

  • Well Shea apparently does not know his limitations as he had to keep going:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/09/reply-to-dr-feser-regarding-the-death-penalty.html

    Then I found this post from yesterday:
    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/53912.html#more-53912

    Not specifically aimed at Shea, but an amazingly apt rebuttal to most of what he writes.

  • Shea is not worth the effort to read, follow or engage in discussion. His followers are not worth engaging either.

    I am tired of Mark Shea and his fellow travelers. They add nothing to my life nor do they do anything to inspire my Catholic faith. Their ignorance, willful at that, of Catholic history puts me off.

    It is best to ignore him completely and treat him as the irrelevant blowhard that he is.

  • Mark Shea is as Catholic as Pope Francis, i.e., seldom. Neither should be allowed a Catholic audience.

  • “It is best to ignore him completely…” Well said. Liberals are either ignorant or evil. In Shea’s case, he has proven over time to be invincibly ignorant. So, it is best to ignore him.

  • The problem with ignoring them is that it does no good for those souls suckered into following him.

  • Father of seven: I’ve been ignoring them (Shea, liberal bishops, progressive priests, et al) for many years.
    .
    Years ago, I resolved to ignore their heterodoxies, extra-scriptural opinions, false equivalencies, distortions, omissions, fabrications, detractions, ad hominems. . . .
    .
    Nate, They won’t listen. And, I’ve been attacked for trying.
    .
    Keep deplorable my friends.

  • Robert T. George has the McCormack Chair of Jurisprudence at Princeton and is Pro-life, through and through. So, I am dumbfounded at his portrayal of the victim of homicide in the first degree as a non-existent disenfranchised individual.
    God does not contradict Himself.
    God gave men free will and God does not take His gift of free will away. ever….
    The capital one murderer in the first degree is brought to Justice and executed by his own citizenship in the state, the arm of God’s Justice. Every person had been in jeopardy of life when the murderer killed the first time. Now, every citizen is in double jeopardy of life as long as the murderer lives.
    Who? other prisoners, the warden, doctors, contractors and the possibility that the murderer might escape to kill more innocent persons who must be served in their innate human right to self-preservation and their civil human right to self-defense.
    The catechism of the Catholic Church was revised, had to be revised, to remove that error of the death penalty being practically non-existent inserted by Shoenborn. Priests, bishops and Popes do not execute the death penalty . The death penalty is the function of the state. As clergy, the priests are still citizens but are to serve the church…the principle of separation of church and state. The death penalty is executed through power of attorney of the condemned. Considering that the victim was denied his time to make his peace with God and was further scandalized by the murder. the murderer is given time to make his peace with God.

  • Think about this. If a person is on death row he knows the date of his death he has time to think of heaven and hell. Chances are he will be sorry for what he has done and be saved.
    I know it can happen. I sat on a capital murder case the young man was sentenced to death. during the trial he had no remorse. After the trial I found out he was worse then what we heard at trial. I pray for him and the girls daily . I was able to find out that he repented before he paid the price. He was saved!

  • “Robert T. George has the McCormack Chair of Jurisprudence at Princeton and is Pro-life, through and through. So, I am dumbfounded at his portrayal of the victim of homicide in the first degree as a non-existent disenfranchised individual.
    God does not contradict Himself.”

    George is one of the new natural law followers. Most (?all) followers of this hold that the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

  • Heavily Catholic Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras have no death penalty and sky high murder rates.

    What do they have in the way of a working police force, a prison system, and a functioning court system? I don’t think you find many students of crime and punishment who will tell you there research indicates that crime rates are more sensitive to severity of punishment than certainty of punishment or celerity of punishment. New York City engineered an 82% cut in its homicide rate with only minimal changes to the state penal law (but a trebling of the prison census, a trebling of law enforcement personnel, and revised police tactics and strategy).

  • Just me: Rehabilitation and repentance is the purpose of incarceration. The death penalty is the murderer being brought to Justice by his own citizenship. his own power of attorney executes him. The murderer in the first degree killed, taking God’s power over life and death. The murderer must restore the victim’s life to expiate for his crime.
    Philip: “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” The Declaration of Independence. Natural law cannot exist without equal Justice and acknowledgement of “their Creator”, God. The condemned can turn to the church for mercy. The victim is dead. The condemned must restore his victim to life. The condemned meets his own equal Justice on the gallows. The condemned does it to himself. The death penalty cannot be intrinsically evil unless there is no eternal life of the soul. Both the perpetrator and his victim have immortal souls with a heavenly reward and perpetual hell. If the death penalty is intrinsically evil, and the murderer has inflicted the death penalty on his victim and the murderer is allowed to live, there is no Justice and there is no hell.
    Art Deco: In third world countries they have the AVENGER OF BLOOD. The nearest relative has 24 hours to pursue the murderer, no questions asked.

  • To Robert T George: Do not put your hand to an innocent man. The death penalty banned as intrinsically evil says that the victim deserved to be put to death and the murderer acted as an agent of the state. New Jersey banned the death penalty. and released Jesse Timmendaquas from Avenel for sex offenders. Timmendaquas raped and strangled seven year old Megan Kanka. In solitary confinement for twenty years, with his own guard and his own recreation he is enjoying his life and his crime. The death penalty prevents the murderer from enjoying his crime and reliving his crime in his mind, and knowing that he got away with murder.

  • P.S. The death penalty is the temporal punishment due to sin. The sins in the Sacrament of Penance may be forgiven but the penitent must be willing to do the penance. The penalty imposed by the state for murder in the first degree is death.

  • It makes sense when you assume that their religion is progressivism not Christianity.
    .
    For Christians, it’s in Genesis: “Who spills man’s blood, by man shall his blood be split. For man is made in the image of God.”
    .
    On the carnal level, it’s punishment, prevention, and deterrent.
    .
    Next up in NYS is assisted suicide. Of course, it’s advanced by “pro-life” Democrats elected by (confused and doubtful) self-anointed “pro-life” Catholics.
    .
    Like they do to everything else, progressives subvert (distort, advance cognitive dissonances and false equivalencies, fabricate, misrepresent, willfully omit, etc.) Holy Scripture and Church Teaching to advance their vile agendas.
    .
    Regardless of political candidates’ stated positions (lies, anyhow) on Black Lies (intentional) Matter, capital punishment, the welfare state, open borders, peace, love, medical marijuana.(all matters of prudential judgment), if said professional liars support more than 1.5 million babies yearly murdered in their mothers’ wombs, those politicians are not pro-life and you are not pro-life, either.

  • If the death penalty is intrinsically evil, and the capital one murderer in the first degree has inflicted an intrinsically evil deed on his fellow, then in equal Justice, this intrinsically evil deed must be inflicted on the condemned.
    Homicide in the first degree, laying in wait for, planning and plotting the murder of another sovereign person in cold blood, the capital one murderer, brought to Justice by his own citizenship must expire with grief over his sin. Ex.21:14 “But should a man dare to kill his fellow by treacherous intent, you must take him even from my altar to be put to death.” “my altar” is human compassion and divine mercy (all Justice is predicated on intent)
    An unrepentant first degree murderer living and breathing without the good will to expire with grief over his crime is a threat to humanity and the community; an offense against God in the first degree and a violation of our Founding Principles “…to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) Posterity.”
    The first degree murderer, unrepentant and un-rehabilitated, is condemned and executed through his own power of attorney because he refuses to honor his citizenship and this would be by expiring with grief over his crime and by forcing another citizen to do his dirty work.

  • Wow! This is the first time I have heard of a “new natural law.” Can someone explain to me what that is vs what the “old” natural law is?

  • As to Shea’s other remarks, it is simply outrageous – to be frank, it seems as clear an instance as there could be of what moral theologians would classify as an instance of calumny – to suggest that Joe and I are really just “look[ing] for loopholes and ways to enlarge them so that [we get] to kill somebody,” that we “want to kill the maximum number of people [we] can get away with killing,” that we have a “zeal to kill,” etc. There is absolutely nothing in what we wrote that justifies such bizarre and inflammatory accusations.

    Yes well that’s how Shea argues–it’s his brand. Although strictly speaking it’s not argument, it’s just invective, and after all this time I think it’s possible he really doesn’t know the difference.

    I only recently discovered the news of his firing from the National Catholic Register, in part from reading this site’s post and comments section on the event, since I graze here from time to time.

    I could never fathom the thought process behind Shea’s going after learned authorities–people who often have devoted years of their lives to deep learning in specialized fields–armed mainly by his minor flair for creative insult. Granted such learning doesn’t perfect anyone against error, but you must at least be well informed about the work you’re challenging and an honest broker about where you and your adversary disagree.

    In the decade and half I’ve been acquainted with his writing, lesson never ever ever learned.

  • I guess in the new natural law, John Wayne Gacy is a hero, after all, he reduced the population by tens of minor citizens, who police found buried under his porch and in his back yard.

  • Hello, Mr. Fotos. Have missed your writings the last 10 years.

    “want to kill the maximum number of people [we] can get away with killing,”

    That’s almost word for word a line he’s used against Tom McKenna (who, to be fair, never elaborates on his preferred criteria for categorizing homicide defendants).

  • That’s very kind, Art Deco, thank you.

  • Phillip: Thank you. Here is my response: Jesus Christ is a perfect human being. Jesus Christ, in the Hypostatic Union, is a divine Person. Everything written here without the perfect human being, the divine person, Jesus Christ falls short of addressing the issue. All souls are created in perfection and are thereby deserving of perfect Justice, Jesus Christ. All souls created in perfection for our constitutional Posterity must be addressed in any political conversation.
    The married couple living and breathing conjugal love, sublimating their sexual desires to one another, transfixed in ecstasy over their conjugal act bring life into the world and into their lives and into themselves. SEE: The Kiss by Auguste Rodin.

  • Phillip: I read the links. This response is posted on the Open Thread of Sept. 27
    To disenfranchise the Blessed Virgin Mary of her membership in the human race is irreligion = atheism. The NEW Natural Law is slithering, insidious, calumnious, disingenuous and dis-value =evil atheism. The only benefit from dis-value=evil atheism is that there is none. Evil must be avoided at all costs. Dis-value denies the original innocence into which all men in the human race are created. The Virgin Mary willed to sublimate her whole being to the will of God from the very first moment of existence. Created in original innocence as were Adam and Eve, as are all human beings, Mary maintained her original innocence in humble acknowledgement of God, her Creator. All future generations, our constitutional Posterity, are created in original innocence and must be accorded the benefit of community to maintain their original innocence. The purpose of the state is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) Posterity.” The Preamble
    To disenfranchise the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the perfect human Person from gentile society is to bring forth brutes and bestial behavior. To disenfranchise God, “their Creator” from His Intellectual Property is the height of evil and is practiced by the devil.
    The devil is NOT an atheist. The devil uses atheism to seduce man into refusing to acknowledge God, “their Creator” and the perfect Virgin, Mary and the divine Son of God, Jesus Christ.
    With my apology to Professor Robert P. George whom I love and admire immensely. The New Natural Law theory brings to mind The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Jews For Hitler = Pro-lifers for Clinton

Tuesday, September 13, AD 2016

 

images

1933:  “Well, sure, Hitler really hates Jews, but he has a great policy of getting everybody back to work!”  2016:  “Yeah, Hillary is an abortion extremist, but she really loves the welfare state!”

 

 

Hmmm. the willingness of Mark Shea and other Catholic “pro-lifers” to endorse Hillary abortion-uber-alles Clinton has attracted the attention of a writer outside of Saint Blogs.  Tom Riley at The American Thinker dissects this movement of the absurd:

 

Now that the practical choice is between coughing Clinton and terrifying Trump, the Seamless Garment crowd is making new attempts to co-opt pro-life sentiment in favor of the vociferously pro-abortion candidate – that is, Clinton.  This New Pro-Life Movement is supposedly bolder, more sincere, more consistent, and especially more “prudent” than the old (and conservative) one.

It’s wise to wave aside some of this with a sneer – especially the tried-and-false dilution of the pro-life message with the goofy pretense that opposing capital punishment makes innocent lives safer.  But it’s also wise to take seriously a more profound falsehood:  that the way to advance pro-life goals is to throw our full support behind the welfare state. 

Oddly enough, one of the most prominent proponents of this viewpoint is Mark P. Shea, whose self-written Wikipedia listing describes him as “an American author, blogger, and speaker working in the field of Roman Catholic apologetics” and whose forays on behalf of broad pro-lifery display all the telling logic and rhetorical effectiveness of a banana slug in the noonday sun.  Shea is fond of telling us such things as that the invasion of Europe must be encouraged by pro-life Christians, maybe because Jesus was a refugee, too.  It’s pointless to ask him whether little German girls ought to be raped by Jesus stand-ins.  Indeed, it’s pointless to offer counter-argument to anything Shea says, since he never offers argument.  He makes assertions and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of defying the Magisterium.

But Shea refers us to Matthew Tyson, whose presentation of the New Pro-Life Gospel is more explicitly reasoned and cogent.  Tyson reasons thus: pro-lifers have put all their authentic plastic fetal models into the wrong basket.  They’ve been working to elect Republicans for years.  They’ve concentrated on changing the composition of the Supreme Court.  Yet time and again, the Court has handed them defeats, and legalized abortion has continued unabated.  Therefore, pro-lifers must address the “root causes” of abortion – by expanding various welfare programs so women will not feel forced to seek the destruction of their children.

Like all the most effective lies, this one has a limited truth behind it.  Efforts to establish a pro-life – or even a strict constitutionalist – Supreme Court have proved less than encouraging.  Tyson is right that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were decided by courts on which Republican presidents had appointed a majority of the justices.  (He’s certainly wrong, however, to characterize these courts as featuring a majority of conservatives.)  Why has this strategy proved a disappointment? 

One reason is that pro-life conservatives haven’t managed to place all their most favored nominees on the Court.  Please recall that Robert Bork was President Reagan’s first choice for the vacancy left in 1987 by the retirement of Justice Powell, and that Douglas Ginsburg was Reagan’s second choice.  (Ginsburg withdrew his nomination over marijuana use, arguably a necessary qualification for Democrat presidential candidates.)  Instead of Bork or Ginsburg, we got Anthony Kennedy – the “conservative justice” liberals love to flatter, and the deciding vote in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.  Why is it that we got Kennedy instead of Bork?  Because Bork was borked by just such Democrats as the “pro-life” Tyson proposes to vote for.  Let’s hear it for a progressive pro-life attitude!

Whole Woman’s Health is certainly the most extreme pro-abortion decision ever rendered by the Court – and it’s important to look at who, aside from Kennedy, rendered it.  We have Stephen Breyer (a Clinton appointee), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Clinton appointee), Sonia Sotomayor (an Obama appointee), and Elena Kagan (an Obama appointee).  One of the reasons the grand pro-life strategy for the Supreme Court hasn’t delivered is that voters like Shea and Tyson have labored to thwart it.  Tyson mocks conservatives for electing Republicans in an effort to influence the composition of the Court: supposedly, in conformity with the commonplace definition of insanity often attributed to Albert Einstein, conservatives do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.  Is Tyson saner because he intends to the same thing over again (that is, vote Democrat) and get the same unacceptable result?

Tyson boils the whole pro-life emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court down to a single question:  can pro-lifers overturn Roe v. Wade?  He concludes – reasonably, though not unassailably – that they cannot.  Yet is this the only question of importance to the movement that is likely to come before the Court?  Whole Woman’s Health shows that it is not.  Texas’s perfectly sensible restrictions on abortion mills could have stood without overturning Roe.  They didn’t stand because a Democrat-influenced Court is inevitably devoted to expanding Roe.  This is a process that will continue if the insouciant Mr. Tyson gets his way.  Will the Court overturn state requirements that only a physician can perform surgical abortions?  Following the example of California’s legislature, a Democrat Court almost certainly will.  Will the Court restrict even further the First Amendment rights of abortion opponents?  A Democrat Court will.  Will the Court lift restrictions on fetal tissue procurement and sale?  Yup – if the Democrats prevail.  Mandatory abortions for mothers deemed unfit?  Don’t count it out.  After all, Hillary is a big admirer of Margaret Sanger.

It’s all coming down that great big pro-abortion highway, folks, and “pro-lifers” Shea and Tyson are, in effect, cheering it on.  None of this stuff really matters, after all.  What really matters is “focusing on why.”  What really matters is “thinking deeper.”  What really matters is expanding the welfare state in every way imaginable.

An entertaining deficiency in Tyson’s argued thesis (and Shea’s unargued one) is the assumption that pro-lifers should practice something that can only be called vital utilitarianism.  Just as Jeremy Bentham thought ethics should focus on the greatest good for the greatest number, the new “pro-lifers” think our only concern should be the most lives for the greatest number.  In this assessment, questions of principle are mere distractions.  American law is establishing an expanding right to kill?  Who cares?  We can’t change that anyhow and shouldn’t even try.  The only question is, how can our heroes Shea and Tyson save the most lives?  Photos on their websites should let the critical reader know just what unlikely action heroes Shea and Tyson would be.  More important, utilitarianism of this sort, even if it’s not explicitly hedonistic, isn’t an ethical theory consistent with the Catholic faith.

Despite their ethical confusion, our new “pro-lifers” insist that the smart and prudent thing for pro-lifers to do is to support every state program for making lives easier, work less necessary, and businesses more likely to collapse.  Only that way – and not by maintaining pro-life principles – can we truly call ourselves pro-life.

This is the most offensive part of the argument because it is so hypocritical.  Expanding the welfare state too is the same old thing expected to produce new results.  Tyson indicates that aborting mothers are women in poverty who feel they don’t have options.  But why are there so many single mothers in poverty?  Shea and Tyson probably don’t remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan – although, as a liberal Democrat, he would certainly have won their vote.  Way back in 1965, Moynihan first began to assert that the expanded welfare state wasn’t good for poor people, and especially for poor blacks.  Experience since then has only tended to strengthen his distrust of such expansion.  Shea and Tyson like simplifications, so I’ll give it to them simplified.  Welfare programs contribute to the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the family contributes to the abortion culture.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Jews For Hitler = Pro-lifers for Clinton

  • We can overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow.

    1. Pass a law stripping federal courts of any jurisdiction over that question and a half-dozen others.

    2. Expand the Supreme Court and add five more justices – men drawn from the Federalist Society.

    3. Pass another law declaring that federal appelllate judges confirmed in office between 1992 and 2001 and after 2008 will henceforth be paid in potatoes – once a year.

    Of course, AM McConnell does not have the stones to do anything about the federal judiciary or about any other abusive federal agency.

  • “We can overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow.”

    If we had a President who wouldn’t veto the legislation and if we had a Supreme Court that would not find one and three unconstitutional.

  • Welfare programs contribute to the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the family contributes to the abortion culture.
    .
    This gets to the heart of Shea’s error, I think. His argument relies on a skyhook: the unargued assumption that welfare (and like programs) actually perform as advertised. In fact, they’ve proven to be devastating to individuals, families, and communities alike, achieving virtually none of their planners’ goals, but at titanic expense. Blacks, on the whole, are no better off than they were in 1968, and you could make a persuasive case that they’re in significantly worse shape.
    .
    But to deluded leftists (but I repeat myself) like Mark, the catastrophic failure of left-liberal social policies never prompts reflection or–God forbid!–a rethinking of their assumptions. No! We just need to elect the same people again to enact more of the same wretched policies, and eventually the indicators will start moving in the right direction.

  • Think while it’s still legal!
    .
    Art and Don, You both hit it out of the ball park. The vitally important reason to vote Trump is that Crooked Hillary will name two, three or four far-left Supreme Court Justices that will make Constitutional the sorry fact of abortion as the nation’s public, puerile sacrament.
    .
    Sycophant and lemming (I apologize to lemmings) Mark-who? exhibits a special strain of stupidity. Voting for the Welfare State does not qualify as a Corporal Work of Mercy. It’s like forcing someone else to do 50 push ups a day won’t build your strength and endurance.
    .
    ‘Stay deplorable, my friends.”

  • Note to Mark Shea: growing the welfare state does nothing to lessen evil because the welfare state is evil,

  • Our Founding Principles acknowledge “their Creator” and the sovereign person as created equal. The government denies the human soul and usurps the power, the unjust power, to declare that the sovereign person comes into being at birth. Being conceived brings sovereign personhood, free will and intellect. Being born brings the sovereign person into citizenship and the office of taxpayer.
    The newly begotten sovereign person brought into existence at conception (fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm), the morally and legally innocent sovereign person in the womb institutes the state by being the standard of Justice for the state, perfectly innocent at conception, with his own scientifically correct DNA. The newly begotten human being becomes a constituent of government at birth, a constituent of the President, a constituent of his Congressman and a constituent of his Representative, a citizen of his State and his Country.
    Roe v. Wade never bore the burden of proof that the newly begotten sovereign soul in the womb has no human, rational soul with free will, intellect and sovereign personhood. Roe v. Wade was predicated on the assumption that the newly begotten sovereign soul did not exist as a human being with personhood endowed by “their Creator” as an equal man. Justices Harry Blackmun and William Brennan through Roe v. Wade usurped the creative power of God to deny the human being his innate, that is, indwelling, human soul. In so doing the state through the court imposed atheism on the nation, the people who institute government.
    Violating the First Amendment’ prohibition against “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, to the newly begotten human person who has willed to survive, his civil right to life, the personification of God’s perfect Justice, the Supreme Court, through Roe v. Wade again imposed atheism on a child of God and the nation of his people, all Americans

  • It is pretty rich that it is Shea who is stumping for Hillary. He spent the last two presidential elections castigating anyone supporting Romney or McCain because they were not perfect on every issue.

  • Perhaps if he is around, Darwin Catholic can comment on his analysis further. But this by him refutes the claim that poverty and abortion are linked:

    http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html

  • “It is pretty rich that it is Shea who is stumping for Hillary. He spent the last two presidential elections castigating anyone supporting Romney or McCain because they were not perfect on every issue.”

    He has become the typical Catholic Social Justice Warrior. Reject a genuine defense of the truly poor and helpless (including those harmed by the evils of the welfare system) and go all out for statists solutions. Any dissent from such a solution is to act in defiance of God himself. For the expansive state is now his God.

    Shea now worships the Golden Calf of the State. He is an idolater.

  • Mark Shea has the intellectual strength of Miss Frothingslosh, Fatima Yechburg.
    I’ll post a link later. Till then, Google it.

  • Donald, I don’t think Shea has endorsed Hillary outright. If Iam not mistaken, he is still voting for some guy who nobody has heard of. He does say that Hillary is the lesser of the two evil vs Trump.

  • This got a comment of the week award back in Feb after the article re Shea shilling for Sanders:

    Voting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin 1939
    Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
    You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
    If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
    Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head Symbols, especially those Nazis who say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who they are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” or “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
    Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler or he is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate.
    If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know the Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
    Yours in Christ,
    German & Austrian Church Leaders

  • Guy McClung: absolutely spot-on.

  • Shea is more anti-Trump than pro-Hillary. That’s if we are to take what he says at face value. I would agree that the upshot of what he says is pro-Hillary. Of course, this has really been Shea’s view for the last ten years. He’s only more explicit about it now.

  • “The greatest of those evils is the fact that every single “prolife” Christian who supports him will invariably find that they must immediately abandon the fight against abortion and devote all their *real* energies to *his* non-negotiables of racism, misogyny, Mammon-worship, violence, and grinding the faces of the poor.”

    Wait, Shea left out “basket of deplorables” and “islamophobic.” He better catch up with the talking points

  • And it seems Shea has gone from condemning the “Debate Club at Auschwitz” to being a kapo at Auschwitz.

    Sad what idolatry will do to a man.

  • Comment of the week Philip!

    Take ‘er away Sam!

  • OK “Clinton” – you have piqued my curiosity: are you Billy Boy or Hilllary? or up-and-coming Princess Chelsea? Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • Guy, it’s my first name. I am absolutely no relation to any of that family
    of criminals, thank heaven.

Hilary White and Maureen Mullarkey Send Their Profound Condolences

Wednesday, August 24, AD 2016

55d405ce8b6feee7367d5981d08cf5c5

 

 

A little trip down memory lane.  Go here to see Mark Shea gloating over the axing of Maureen Mullarkey by First Things.  Then we have Simcha Fisher’s reaction, go here to see Paul Zummo’s report on that tempest, to Hilary White reporting accurately on Pope Francis at Lifesite News.  The wheel doesn’t always come round, but when it does it is hilarious.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Hilary White and Maureen Mullarkey Send Their Profound Condolences

  • I try to never read Fr. Longnecker anymore, Nate, but thanks for the link. Interesting that his blog no longer allows any commenting on his articles. I guess he doesn’t want to hear anything from us.

  • This comment on the Hillary White controversy thread pretty much sums it up, and it’s sadly as pertinent today as it was two years ago:

    “My sincere question for ALL Catholic bloggers lately, whether it be Simcha Fisher or this site or anyone in between, is why is Catholic media spending so much time focusing on the shortcomings of others? I wish to see more writing about the magnificence of Christ and his Church, and less about what Pope Francis/Michael Voris/the ‘nuns’ on the bus/’radical traditionalists’/Simcha Fisher/LifeSiteNews said or did this week. What on earth is gained by bringing up these hurtful words and boneheaded actions rather than letting them fade? I am young and naive, but from where I stand It seems as counter-productive as ripping open a scab. This site is by no means the only place I encounter this focus, but to see it here makes my heart hurt. I fear that blogs and Facebook threads are more and more frequently tearing chunks out of the Body of Christ just to feed them to the masses that live for online controversy. I would hate to ‘log off’, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to forgo Catholic media for a while to keep myself from getting sucked into arguments that cause a sinful curiosity in me. I challenge you gentlemen to avoid getting mired in this dangerous mentality. I enjoy reading and learning from you very much.”

  • Elaine, the issue is what mkfreeberg posted about once:
    http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/the-phony-apathy/

    Another little game that liberals like to play is, “Why are you wasting time arguing about X when there are all these far more important issues?”
    .
    But if their real concern was that public debate time is being wasted on trivial side issues, the solution would be simple: Give the conservatives what they want on this issue, and then get the conversation back on the important things. If you think the issue of who can use which bathroom is silly and not worth arguing about for 30 seconds, then great, stop arguing about it! If you think this debate is a waste of time, you can end it instantly by just conceding the point.

    While this instance is not strictly political, it is related in that a lot of people are getting frustrated with tone policing as they notice it only seems to come up not when the right people are “punching” in the first place, but when the wrong people start punching back.

    And let’s be honest, it takes a heart of stone when Mr. Banhappy ends up banned somewhere himself.

  • Maybe not every jot and tittle of blogosphere internecine shenanigans need be commented on, but much of the “debating” does center on the big issues – like whether a Catholic is obliged to vote for Hildebeast. Or when the Pope says cohabitation can be a more real marriage than a real marriage. When someone puts forth to defend such nonsense, they get the derision they deserve.

  • Nate, Eye of the Tiber. I find comedy can be used to speak truth to power. It can also be used to deflect just criticism and excuse the inexcusable.

  • I read the link to Fr. Longnecker’s article, and something he wrote deserves some attention.

    -“…. there is a tendency for religious people to stone the prophets and throw the Jeremiahs among us down the well, and we should be aware of that tendency and listen closely to those who speak out and criticize our faults. If a prophet calls us to a reckoning we should listen and examine ourselves–not blame the prophet.”-

    I’m sure there are those who think of Mark Shea as a “prophet” of sorts. However a true prophet, is has been said, serves to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted”. In his campaign against right-to lifers, at least those who vote in strict accord with non-negotiable principles in defense of life and marriage, it seems that Mr. Shea has forgotten who the afflicted truly are. They are the most helpless and innocent among us; those with no voice and not even the life-affirming love of a mother. Whatever else might be woven within the so-called “seamless garment” without unyielding advocacy for the poorest of the poor; the innocent and helpless unborn, the “garment” is nothing but a fancy looking rag. Further, those right-to-life activists and voters whom he so freely insults, hardly stand atop the power structure in our nation these days. In this morality play, who exactly are the “comfortable”? Certainly those at the top of our national political power structure who have cemented in place “rights” designed to destroy life and the family have never had it so good. Mark Shea’s words of encouragement to potential Hillary Clinton voters must be music to the ears of the politically well connected.

    Perhaps Fr. Longnecker and others of like mind, should reconsider their ideas of what a true prophet of the times should look like.

  • “I wish to see more writing about the magnificence of Christ and his Church, and less about what Pope Francis/Michael Voris/the ‘nuns’ on the bus/’radical traditionalists’/Simcha Fisher/LifeSiteNews said or did this week… I fear that blogs and Facebook threads are more and more frequently tearing chunks out of the Body of Christ just to feed them to the masses that live for online controversy. ”

    Perhaps I would disagree. I think what is going on now has been under the surface for many years. There is a terrible divide in the Church that the current pontificate has exposed by its actions. Or perhaps, the Holy Spirit is finally exposing it all. But such a divide will in fact bring out animosity. Christ himself taught this.

    This was clear when I was in the diaconate program years back. There was clear dissent and outright heresy in the courses but it couldn’t be called such – at least you didn’t let the program director hear you. The Real Presence was denied, teaching on sexuality ridiculed and any effort at orthodoxy decried. Matters related to questions of social justice were presented in a one-sided fashion. Particular solutions to social problems were presented as clearly and definitively decided by the Church. Teaching was thus turned on its head

    Add to this the fact that Shea ( I never followed Simcha) clearly set up Francis and the USCCB as idols. Prudential judgments of these (as well as more ambiguous and concerning positions taken by them) were swallowed whole. Any who dared point out that they were not morally binding pronouncements were damned. Just look at how far off he went on the matter of gun control.

    No, this has been the reality of the Church for decades. Its caused such a stir because a particularly partisan member of the Catholic left (which Shea is a part of) has suffered as a consequence of his hubris. He was fired not because of his political opinions or foul language but because he has placed idols before the true God.

    Now, many of his supporters point out, Shea has an acerbic and perhaps even “prophetic style.” Fine, so can we.

  • Whoa, what’s a Catholic blog doing talking about “karma” and posting a picture of a vampiress? Have you lapsed into syncretism or, God forbid, out right paganism? 🙂

  • I have looked at Patheos today more than ever in my life. What a waste of time.
    Supporting Shea, ripping Trump….might have been reading the Washington Compost.

  • Elaine Krewer,

    Well said. Especially the analogy of “ripping open a scab”. It’s fascinating at first, as you tear it off, and then the blood begins to flow. Then you realize it probably wasn’t such a good idea. Do over?

    This blog is one of the best. It’s one of four I still read. I’m almost completely blog free. Blogging can be spiritually unhealthy. Your solution: “I wish to see more writing about the magnificence of Christ and his Church”, is easily accomplished in the quiet space of a Holy Hour with Jesus. Do it! I encourage you: DO NOT get sucked into blog controversy. It is spiritually unhealthy.

    I am down to four blogs, including this EXCELLENT blog, TAC. I am generally disillusioned with blogging and bloggers and the medium that produces it. It encourages divisiveness and anger;, not unity and Love. Your instincts are correct: when you write:

    “…but I’m afraid I’m going to have to forgo Catholic media for a while to keep myself from getting sucked into arguments that cause a sinful curiosity in me.”

    Blogging can indeed be unhealthy and potentially detrimental to our Faith.

    Great comment on a controversial topic.

  • “The release of Mark and Simcha doesn’t have as much to do with their behavior as people, but with their behavior as writers. They’re both good writers…”

    Oh, please! This is nothing but unadulterated balderdash. How can they “good writers” when the only tools they have to deal with opposing opinions are snark, verbal abuse and lying?

    Shea and Fisher couldn’t use logic, reason or fact to argue their way out of a paper bag.

    Second, their behavior is precisely the issue! Engaging in vile personal attacks, deliberately distorting arguments and making crocodile apologies when caught are not, shall we say, good Catholic behaviors. They’re anything but.

    Shea and Fisher forgot that, as independent contractors, their behavior reflects their clients’ credibility. (So, apparently, has Longenecker; otherwise, he wouldn’t have made such a stupid statement). They represent their clients anytime they’re on the job in public — even (and especially) on social media, which is a prominent platform for writers to promote their work.

    Longenecker’s comments reflect the kind of blind group loyalty that’s all too typical in human nature, let alone among Catholics. It replaces moral clarity as a compass.

    Longenecker, Shea and Fisher also forgot some basic teachings from Scripture. You are known by your fruits. Your sin will find you out. God is not mocked.

    Shea and Fisher were con artists, pure and simple. They conned a lot of sincere but naive and puerile Catholics with their nonsense. Well, the jig is now up, and none too soon.

    The best thing that could come of this is that neither Shea nor Fisher ever write for another major Catholic outlet. Anybody who behaves in such an undisciplined manner would be a liability to any client — and automatically diminishes that client’s Catholic credibility and identity.

  • Maureen and Hilary are two of my very favorite bloggers because they have the guts to speak the truth about Pope Francis and what remains of the Catholic Church. Their motivation is to change the trajectory from the death spiral it is now in by using wake-up call language and logic. These ladies are our modern day Joan d’Arc’s and and Catherine of Siena’s. What they say is to be read, contemplated, and acted upon. Great progress would be make for recovery of faith in the Church if this were so.

  • We at the Banished By Mark Shea Facebook page are heartened by this event. We knew this day would come, but two get two firings of libelous nogoodnicks at the same time, priceless!

  • Michael, let me second your praise of Maureen (I don’t know Hilary nearly as well, so I can’t comment on her). I have been honored to call Maureen a friend for nearly 15 years. She is one of the most intelligent, perceptive people I have known and her writing is fantastic. Comparing her to Shea is like comparing Mickey Mantle (or Mike Trout) to a kid playing T-ball — and not very well, I might add. She, too, was fired but for telling a truth that her editors didn’t want to hear. That’s far, far different from the reasons for Shea’s firing. Maureen is an example of exemplary courage, unlike that lying coward, Shea.

  • Oh, please! This is nothing but unadulterated balderdash. How can they “good writers” when the only tools they have to deal with opposing opinions are snark, verbal abuse and lying?

    Agreed. Fr. Longenecker’s remarks is humbug. Mark Shea’s magazine articles aren’t bad. Or weren’t bad: Crisis hasn’t been issued in print in 9 years (and had the wind knocked out of it several years prior) and he hasn’t contributed columns to the web successor since 2011 (and occasionally insults them).

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

Tuesday, August 23, AD 2016

12308267_10205055340449342_2514654047259129308_n

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

This. Was. Wrong.

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

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

Let’s parse this out shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Hahahaha. According to another Patheo$ clickbaiter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • At Art Deco: You write

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Murray,

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

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

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

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

  • Bravo, Greg! Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Starbucks? 😉

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

  • Starbucks? ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • t Shea’s attitudes toward Israel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Mark Shea and Elderly Poodles

Sunday, July 3, AD 2016

 

 

I have described being banned from a site on the internet as being akin to being gummed by an elderly poodle:  it does you no real harm, but it does tell you that it is time to move on.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts has been banned by Mark Shea:

 

 

 

UPDATE: Apparently Mark has banned me from his Facebook page for good. We’ll see if there is more to say about that later.  For now, the link might not work.  Which is fine.  It wasn’t pleasant reading.  Anyway Happy July 4th.

UPDATE 2: Mark has now banned me from everything at this point.  My wife too.  Towards the end of the Facebook debate, Mark called upon his readers to join him.  No, he didn’t say he wanted them to join and gang up on me.  But I was pretty sure that was where he was going.  During the course of the development, his readers made it clear that they supported Mark’s approach to discourse over mine.  They were also aghast that I would post a link to his page and beg my readers to go over there.  Personally I wouldn’t have minded if a few readers came over and helped me out against the onslaught.

Now Mark has done that very thing more times than I can count.  I was shocked to find out it was a big deal.  Heck, back in the day I would follow links Mark posted about debates he was in on other sites and rush to defend him when he was being attacked.  I imagined that it was fine to do.  But Mark clearly had issues with it, and Mark is an honourable man.

Likewise, Mark made it clear he was outraged at the posts where I have criticized him, his styles, or that part of the Catholic blogosphere with which he associates.  Usually, those posts came after heated debates with Mark in which Mark either said something about others I felt crossed the line, or said something about me which I thought crossed the line, and either threatened to ban me or ordered me off of his page.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like being accused of wanting to increase human slaughter or not really caring about Jesus.  Especially when, in the course of debating, I’m forbidden from defending myself under threat of being banned.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that Mark has made his living by posting the writings and statements of others and criticizing them and calling on his readers to do the same, he was upset at the fact that I had done the same to him.  I didn’t see it as some hate thing, I’m sincerely worried about Mark’s spiritual pilgrimage.  Yet Mark was offended.  And Mark is an honourable man.

So from now on, if Mark stops taking the words of others and using them to attack those individuals or encouraging others to do the same, then I will refrain from further posts or criticisms of Mark or his tactics.  Quite frankly, if Mark stops doing that, I’ll have little to complain about.  When Mark actually writes about Church teaching or unpacking the Bible or day to day Christian living, there are few better.  What could I complain about?  So that is my pledge.  I will no longer criticize Mark or post references to him, unless it is to give a thumbs up regarding something he has written, if Mark also ceases the same approach that he criticized me of using.  After all, if he does that, then I could honestly say that Mark is an honourable man.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Of Mark Shea and Elderly Poodles

  • Mark Shea is like another blog meister with whom I hae dealt. This one is a supposed pro-nuclear activist and a self-appointed guru of all things nuclear, but in his own words he has proudly voted for only liberal progressive Democrats regardless that these are the very politicians who emasculate the industry which he says he loves so much. In this he is just like Shea: he says he supports one thing but he advocates principles and policies and people who are diametrically opposed to what he says he supports. And just like Shea, he bans those who dare call him on the carpet for his hypocrisy and lunacy. As far as I am concerned, such people are excrement fit only to be flushed down the tolet bowl of history were it not that while they have the smallest brains of any of the primates, they have the largest uncontrolled sphincters from which that odiferous and putrid effluvium ever flows. Truly I have nothing but contempt, disdain and disgust for these worthless excuses of human beings. I for one would treat them precisely as they have treated others.

  • Mark Shea is an insignificant Internet personality and should be treated as such. I have no use for Shea’s opinions, views or politics. Accordingly I spend none of my time reading anything he writes or caring about it.

  • I was banned from Shea’s blog long ago. Your yapping, toothless poodle analogy is perfect. There is the initial, “What the? …”. Then, the reality hits, this is not a man I wish to talk with or be affected by in any way. The ban I s fine. Yes. It’s his blog; his work, whatever. And it’s my time and my soul and I chose long ago to dump his books in the trash and want nothing more to do with the man.

    The adage about “throwing pearls before swine” applies here, I think, (figuratively speaking from an analogically scriptural sense). Bottom line, it is what they call PREVENIENT grace that convinces people to follow truth. It has nothing to do with knowledge or verbal skills. All that is good, all that succeeds, comes from God. Without that heavenly element at the center of any exchange it is a waste of breath and limited time.

    I ban blog authors who I think do not interact with their readers and/or myself in good will. It’s like watching an inappropriate movie; not good for the soul.

  • Mark Shea is an insignificant Internet personality and should be treated as such.

    I wish that were so; as internet personalities go, yes, he’s not a very big fish. Partly because nobody is. 😀
    The problem is that he has a large amount of borrowed authority that he is quite willing to abuse in the service of his own prudential judgements.
    Contrast his behavior with that of, say, Jimmy Akin, never mind B16.
    ***
    The biggest problem is that he’s misleading people; those who trust him to lead them to the truth, and those who don’t— and will be driven off from the truth because of it.

  • Foxfier, there are always some who are more comfortable with their ideological BS than with the truth. The editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times are evidence of that.
    Shea is not worth the time talking about him.

  • The problem is that he is promoting things as a teaching of the Church when it’s a teaching of the Shea, and we do have to answer those falsehoods when we run into them. I’ve mentioned before that most of the “I was raised Catholic” anti-Catholics I know were driven out because of exactly this kind of false teaching.
    No use going to his places to do it, but we can’t ignore the junk he says just because it’s from him when we run into folks promoting it, either.
    There’s also the issue that he’s either knowingly making false accusations or he’s needlessly presuming bad intent in those who do not agree with him, and making the Church look bad by the way he responds to those who do not accept his teaching authority as binding.

  • I like to post on sites that promote discourse. I especially like to opine on sites where I can learn something. TAC gets an A+ on both counts in my book.

    While I have learned a few things at Shea’s NCR posts, I quickly came to realize he does not promote discourse. I can’t say that I joined the ranks of “banned by Shea” because I didn’t stick around.

    I’ve written it before: No one is more wrong about so many right things as Mark Shea. And that’s the best that can be written.

  • TomD,

    Your post is tonic. Well said!

    I keep coming back to Catholc blogs because I am fascinated by the free flow of ideas and unique insights. I love the comments section because it opens up the room to a free for all among good-hearted Catholic souls. All very interesting.

    There are other blogs, (NOT referring to Mr. Shea here) that, although interesting and entertaining and frequently correct, are toxic to the soul no less than a violent R rated movie. Because of how they treat people. Just came from one of those, and I need a bath.

    Thanks for your great words of encouragement at just the right time for me. Blogging is great. So are opinions; especially if dissent is tolerated and engaged with a good will. Then it becomes enlightening. I look for those and keep coming back.

    And you are right. TAC, this site, is A+. Among the very best. No, THE best because it also includes such a wide variety of interesting ancillary topics and links ito accompany its educational orthodoxy.

    Mr. McClarey has disagreed with me. But it was civil. And he’s probably right.

Comments?

Saturday, June 18, AD 2016

Shea gun

 

Hattip to Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts.

 

 

The latest droppings from the mind of Mark Shea:

 

This mockery of gooey fake piety…

is currently circulating on the web.

When Christians offer “thoughts and prayers” not as prelude to obeying, but as prophylactic *against* obeying the fifth commandment, God’s Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

Not, of course, that I agree that thoughts and prayers are useless. On the contrary, I think them vital since I believe that the Gun Cult is a demonic spiritual stronghold just as abortion is. I think that conscious, deliberate prayer *against* that stronghold, undertaken by spiritual warriors at every Mass, will be an invaluable part of defeating and destroying this enemy of human life and this disgraceful and warping stain on the prolife movement and the witness of the Church. I believe Catholics must implore our Lord to send his mighty angels to break the grip of principalities and powers and spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places who hold people in thrall to fear and selfishness and blind them to the need to place the fifth commandment above their cultic devotion to the gun. But of course, such prayer will indeed be prelude to action, not studied inaction shrouded in pious goo.

 

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Comments?

  • Happily there are objectors to Shea that are not banned. When Mike Blackadder and several others appear, Shea tones down the histrionics yet perseveres in his ideology script….but they came out looking wiser than he on his recent equating of Trump and Hillary on abortion…and to his credit, he hasn’t banned that several yet. On violence, I suspect from past experience with confronting two priests who were all sweetness on the pulpit but both were ravenously angry in private…I suspect that Mark is preaching to Mark on violence. If anyone kidnapped his granddaughter and he found them, he’d put them in a rear naked choke for 80 seconds rather than the safe 8 seconds recommended by the UFC cage fighting owners.

  • The Bear is sorry, but his brain cells are currently maxed out spreading marmalade on piece of toast and has no time for fools. The Bear cannot understand this human insistence that “everyone has a right to their opinion,” when so many humans are manifestly incapable of landing a thought within a parsec of reality. The Bear shall miss your entertaining species. Try not to set fire to the woodlands on your way to extinction. Thank you.

  • ps…8 seconds is not safe for every bodily constitution.

  • Mark Shea is not worth paying attention to.

  • Another place to read or leave comments is the Banned By Mark Shea Facebook page. Give it a look, it’s a hoot!

  • What amazes me is that Mark-who earns a living making up stuff about God; and even more amazing that the idiots that listen to him have money to pay him for his nonsense.
    .

    If you never leave your house, you may be safe. Until, they come for you.
    .
    Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
    .
    I read that Mark-who has a history of mental illness, look it up.
    .
    Only reason to read him is that you’re not so far-gone that you’re shoving an ice pick into your eye sockets. He’s an imbecile, I’m being charitable: no sin in being a moron.
    .
    On the night He was betrayed, Jesus told us to “. . . sell your cloak and buy a sword.” St. John the Baptist did not condemn soldiers, he told them to act justly.
    .
    FYI. Today’s sword is an AR-15.
    .\

  • Favorite thought for anti-2nd Amendment types:

    Legal gun owners have over 200,000,000 guns and 12,000,000,000 rounds of ammo…if we were a problem, you’d know it.

  • Ken, Good point. I use it, too.
    .
    Americans had been fully-armed since 1609. Arguably, in the late 19th century, cowboys and big game hunters armed with 30/30 Winchester lever-action rifles may have been better armed (more rapid firing) than the US Army Infantry. I’ve seen You Tube videos with a good marksman shooting a lever-action 30/30 as fast and more accurate than a semi-auto, even a .223 cal. which doesn’t take any time to get back on target.
    .
    I’m no Constitutional scholar. But, here are two facts (I think).
    .
    One, the Bill of Rights (B/R) was a requisite for the ratification of the Constitution. For liberal idiots (I repeat myself again) like Mark-who, that means the states would have voted it down the rat hole without the B/R.
    .
    Two, more essential than number one, the B/R did not give the American people their rights. Rights are God-given and unalienable. The B/R denies the Federal government legal authority/power to infringe those rights.
    .
    Ergo, the regime cannot take my guns.

  • Penguins Fan, unfortunately, many do. I mostly stopped visiting his sites, but his immediate exploitation of the shooting was made known to me. I then decided to watch and see what he did with the attack. I couldn’t believe my eyes. If Mark was just some fluke out there, it wouldn’t matter. But he is a major figure in American Catholic apologetics. He posts for such venues as National Catholic Register and EWTN. Major figures like Pat Madrid and Dwight Longenecker give him kudos and thumbs up. He hosts radio shows, publishes for Catholic publications, and has thousands who listen to him, many no doubt of varying levels of catechesis. If a single person was encouraged to believe that it’s a sin not to vote the way Mark says, that’s one too many. Given the large number of followers and fans who listen to him and use his words to spread the message, that’s why it’s an issue.

  • Hey I think I have my Shea translator guide working again.

    When Christians offer “thoughts and prayers” not as prelude to obeying, but as prophylactic *against* obeying the fifth commandment, God’s Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

    Translation: “Guuyyyysssss… your actions are totally embarrassing me in front of my liberal friends!”

    Because whether his posts lead a different group to mock and laugh at the Catholic church as an institution only for women and pansies running on the fumes of past accomplishments is not considered by Mark at all. I guess because liberal souls matter more than conservative ones or something.

    On the contrary, I think them vital since I believe that the Gun Cult is a demonic spiritual stronghold just as abortion is.

    Translation: “Click this link to see the detailed instructions on how I built my strawman so I don’t have to actually refer to any real persons since I am a coward who can no longer bear disagreement. — Oh and if you for a moment happen to listen to the other side’s arguments and think for a moment they might have a point repeat to yourself that they’re lead by Satan, it’s all lies…”

    I believe Catholics must implore our Lord to send his mighty angels to break the grip of principalities and powers and spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places who hold people in thrall to fear and selfishness and blind them to the need to place the fifth commandment above their cultic devotion to the gun.

    Translation: “Stop disagreeing with me or I’m gonna sic God on you! Honestly I will! Because I’m his favorite and he’ll do whatever I tell him to.”

    Of I course for myself, I have to wonder how well the Lord will react when He sees shepherds He left in charge of His flock increasingly panic and flee from the wolves that approach, even tossing the sheep at the predators in the hopes the shepherds might be eaten last.

  • What difference does it make now?
    .
    Approximately one hundred percent of the imbeciles that “buy” his (complete) BS will vote for liberals, for abortion, and for the wrecking of America’s evil, unjust way of life with or without his distortions.
    .
    I have been highly successful at pretending he doesn’t exist.

    Here is a possible solution. Mock Mark-who. Express sincere contempt for his Presbyterian hysterics (you know he’s a Presbyterian infiltrator).

  • Luke 22:36: Jesus would own an AR-15, high capacity magazines, and ammunition. He would be an NRA (Eternal) Life member.

  • When Christians offer “thoughts and prayers” not as prelude to obeying, but as prophylactic *against* obeying the fifth commandment, God’s Name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

    What hypocrisy! Those guys are dead because of the policies he pushes, because their lives were so cheap to him and their free will so scorned that they were not just disarmed, but anyone who might defend them was disarmed, and he wants to accuse others of not loving their neighbors?
    Get the plank out of your own eye before you start theorizing about slivers in those of others.

  • The Bear cannot understand this human insistence that “everyone has a right to their opinion,” when so many humans are manifestly incapable of landing a thought within a parsec of reality.

    I for one would have thought a bear would appreciate that particular bromide. It’s like when humans hike through your berry batch saying “hey bear!” so they don’t accidently upset you at your supper and force you to defend your berry patch and claw their faces off. Telling Mark Shea he has a right to his opinion is a way for smart humans to give Shea the chance to amble off into the scrub and let the annoying people walk by before he back to his berry patch.

    Clint Eastwood put it much more rudely in The Dead Pool, but it’s the same general idea. Only foolish humans think “everybody is entitled to their own opinion” is some kind of virtuous sentiment.

Mark Shea and Donald Trump: Two of a Kind

Thursday, May 19, AD 2016

nbc-fires-donald-trump-after-he-calls-mexicans-rapists-and-drug-runners

Festung Shea

 

Oh, not in regard to having orange hair or in possessing several billion dollars, but rather in their mode of operation in matters of controversy.  Dave Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts nailed this back in March, and now that Shea has given his blessing to votes for the pro-abort Cruella de Ville Hillary Clinton in pursuit of his crusade against the Trumpster, I thought the readers of TAC would be interested in Griffey’s sharp observations on the subject:

 

Donald Trump, Mark Shea and the Facebook Generation

 

By that, I don’t mean Mark supports or likes Donald Trump. Quite the contrary.  Mark routinely takes on Trump and Trump’s supporters the way Mark does most things: in the same manner as Donald Trump.  In fact, that’s my point.  If you want to be brutally honest, you’ll admit that Mark Shea is simply a Catholic Internet version of Donald Trump.  If you visit Facebook or similar Social Media sites, you’ll see that Mark is far from the glaring exception.  Go onto most Internet sites, including major media outlets, read the comments and you’ll see Donald Trump all over.  And in some cases, such as Daily Kos or Salon.com or even such esteemed sites as the Huffington Post, you might find published editorials that aren’t much different.

I hate to say it, but my boys are correct.  Donald Trump is the candidate that the Facebook generation deserves.  And it isn’t because of a few radical exceptions to the rule.  It is the rule.  We are the generation that liberal society has been striving for over the decades.  From the 50s through the 60s and 70s and beyond, Trump is what we’ve been aiming at.

Just look at Mark Shea as an obvious example. Mark is familiar to most Catholics on the Internet and is highly regarded by many. And yet, not only does he resemble Trump in his approach to topics and interaction on his various sites, he does so as a representative of the Catholic Church.  At least Trump just represents politics.  And yet Mark is quite the hero for many Catholics.  For many non-Catholics, too.  Including those who are quick to attack and bemoan the Trump phenomenon.

How can I be so heartless and judgmental to compare Mark to Trump?  Or compare others on Social Media to Trump?  Easy.  I read.  I listen to Trump and what people criticize him for, and then visit various Facebook pages, including Mark’s, and I see no difference.   Trump, beyond the policies he advocates – when we can figure them out – is brash, crude, rude, vulgar, sinful, mean spirited, ill-informed and simply a lousy person because of how he interacts with others and treats others who dare disagree with him.

So how is that different than Mark, or even Mark’s own followers?  Or the followers on any one of a million sites?  For instance, Mark’s own lack of substance and knowledge of topics he comments on outside of Catholicism is legendary.  Even those who support him and agree with him have hung their heads over his approach to such topics as the Death Penalty or Gun Control.  The same is a common complaint about Trump.  Mark thinks nothing of using the same language Trump is condemned for using.  Mark attacks through name calling and condescension and scorn any who dare disagree, unless Mark happens to be friends with the violators.  Mark isn’t even above making false and slanderous accusations against people, even to the point of libel.

But Trump says horrible things!  He mocks people for things they can’t help.  He made fun of Carly Fiorina’s looks.  He talks about killing people.  He talks about destroying other countries.  So does Mark.  One of his Facebook followers recently said that things would be better off if America was burned to ashes.  Mark only disagreed because he said Americans, being the murderous barbarians that we are, would take millions of innocent lives with us.  Mark justified his view of America by reminding us of the millions of Indians and Slaves who fell to our murderous, barbaric ancestors.  Imagine if Trump or a Trump supporter produced the same dialogue about another country, like Mexico or China.  Imagine the outrage and anger.

And Mark not only uses death and suffering to advance his opinions, he even has begun to mock people murdered by guns – if those same people were hard right wing activists.  That might seem understandable to some.  But remember, Mark and many others were shocked at how many celebrated the death of Osama bin Ladin or Hugo Chavez, saying that the only appropriate Christian response was to pray for their souls.  Yet many of those same Catholics are rightly shocked when Trump appears so callous and cruel to other people in the world.  Notice a trend?   What about making fun of others like Trump does?  Last election cycle Mark was forced by his own readers to remove a post he had submitted that made fun of Michelle Bachmann’s eyes and facial features.  Sound familiar?

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Mark Shea and Donald Trump: Two of a Kind

  • Donald Trump
    Bernie Sanders
    Hiillary Clinton
    Jorge Bergoglio
    Mark Shea
    .
    The only substantive difference in that list is that Mark Shea is not (yet) as renown as the other four. And the truth is that I too can be a nasty SOB in my writings. Frankly, I am fed up with all this godless leftist liberal lunacy. I want the America that once was after victory in WW II and the Church that once was before Vatican II, not the Obama America and not the Bergoglio Church. But maybe we have gotten what we deserve and Mark Shea is but a reflection of ourselves as a society. The reality TV, Facebook generation. 🙁

  • . Trump though just faced Megyn Kelly on tv whom he called bimbo for months of tweeting and she called him on it wherein he smiled and said ….”excuse me” ….and she was charmed. But Trump has just given a list of Supreme Court judges which really were the work of the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation and Congressman Sessions. Keep the long run in view. His picks are largely young and will far outlast Trump who will want to return to TV after four years as President. Trump’s interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox won over many women though not at the New Yorker or the Times. Trump will counterpunch you and he’ll reconcile if you make the next move because you started it….as Megyn did start it and as Megyn made the big move into Trump Towers one day. It’s about the Court.

  • Now you’re hitting President Trump “below the belt” – equating him with Mark who?

    .
    Bill, the women (and men) of the idiotic left will never get it. It took years of high-cost education to imprint them with the moronic stuff that they believe.

  • The elevation of Trump by cheering, emotional throngs of my erstwhile, rock-ribbed, middle-American, small-town conservative fellow travelers is a clarifying moment for me. Constitution based conservative political ideology is dormant or dead. Something else now dominates. I recognize this new movement not.

    You, (channeling Mr. Griffey), nailed it. There is something quite sordid, vicious, nihilistic and immoral underlying a sociological movement that produces Obama, Sanders and Clinton on one side and Trump as the “conservative” response on the other; all sides of the socio-political spectrum using different code words, but essentially identical in nature. The social anger, aggression and empty immorality supporting these candidates’ elevation to power, at this crucial historical moment, is the true shame. This problem is systemic and will not be cured by a “better candidate”. I am shocked that the conservative movement is so bereft that it supports, cheers and praises this man. Tries to justify him, (“it’s all about the Supreme Court”).

    But as you say, look around; the public spaces are filled with the anger and sociopathic nihilism of Trump. Patriotism? What is that? Hail Trump!

  • There is something quite sordid, vicious, nihilistic and immoral underlying a sociological movement that produces Obama, Sanders and Clinton on one side and Trump as the “conservative” response on the other

    In large part, Trump’s rise is precisely because of the sordid, vicious, nihilistic and immoral political class. Had you forgotten the GOP “establishment” detests Trump? He is the protest vote, and has demonstrated there is sufficient protest that the establishment now has to put its collective tail between its legs and lick his feet. Had he not entered the race, Cruz would likely be the nominee as the most non-establishment candidate. He only lost because Trump came across as more non-establishment.

    If the Shea’s true goal was to defeat Trump, why not just advocate voting Libertarian, which is far more in line with Catholic teaching than the current Demoncrat party? It may likely still result in a Hildebeast win, but at least you would not be directly supporting the Hildebeast.

    For the record, I always thought Ms. Bachmann rather attractive; what would there be to mock?

  • Mark-who, and the rest, ought to consider where Hillary and Trump, respectively, stand on the question, “Does Christianity have a place in American culture?” For decades, both Dem and GOP rulers have acted as if Christianity has no place here.
    .
    “But as you say, look around; the public spaces are filled with the anger and sociopathic nihilism of Trump. Patriotism? What is that? Hail Trump!”

    .
    4 May 2016, Bookroom Room: “Thomas Lifson, one of the smartest men I know, is on to something more profound when he says that Trump represents a sledgehammer that voters have taken to an ‘irredeemably corrupt political system’:”
    .
    You say you won’t vote for Trump. Don’t worry. I think the last (as in there will never be another) Republican was President Reagan. Because no Republican since has done what we elected him to do. I’ll happily vote Trump, thank you kindly.
    .
    “Hail Trump” indeed. The middle class is being destroyed. The US is no longer a constitutional republic. The free market has “gone west.”
    .
    I am 100% confident that President Trump will be better for preserving our way of life; resuscitating the Republic, fixing markets than Hillary or any (aside from Cruz who the establishment, even more than Trump, fears and loathes) GOP quisling.
    .
    Some time during Dubya’s two terms, they silently allied with the liberals and decided that America wasn’t being sufficiently pillaged and raped, and it needed to be fundamentally transformed. Obama simply did it a little harder to the left.

  • c matt: The failings of the political class are not new. What is new is the active participation of Middle America in their failings. This surprised me. We are becoming fully complicit in this evil as a historical fact before God (there is still time). But almost all segments of our Body Politic are rallying around these three detestable candidates as the best of America. There is not a dime’s worth of realistic difference, politically or morally, between any of them regardless of what they say to win power. I am stunned at the rapidity of how fast this American implosion occurred. It mirrors the far graver changes in the Catholic Church from which Western Civilization draws life.

    No, the establishment does not detest Trump. He IS the establishment. His trick was to snooker Americans into thinking he was anti-establishment, a man of the “people” ready to stick it to the “Man”. Such people then willingly enable him in his Trumpish, establishment cause, giving him the power of a movement. He did this by giving the “people” what they wanted and deserve: angry, nihilistic, immoral emotives that have nothing to do with our stable, non-intrusive, non-personal, eminently just, foundational Constitutional form of government. We are stepping over the brink into fascist dictatorship, mark my words.

    We need a Head of State. We will get an angry, orange mouth; an icon for this generation.

  • Had you forgotten the GOP “establishment” detests Trump?

    Only because they’re afraid that 1) he’ll lose so badly that they’ll go back to being the minority party (and lose the good offices and staffing perqs) and 2) he’ll make them look bad to the Washington press corps.
    .
    They’ll make their peace with him pretty quickly once it looks like (as it is now beginning to in the polls the GOPe -—sorry Don— lives and dies by) he can win, or at least not get slaughtered like Goldwater.
    .
    For myself, I expect they’ll have no trouble either coopting him or at least accomodating themselves to his agenda. But that’s beacuse, like our host, I don’t expect Trump to do anything to advance the cause and goals of conservatism, except perhaps by accident.

  • “Mark’s own lack of substance and knowledge of topics he comments on outside of Catholicism is legendary”

    You could have easily left out the “outside of Catholicism” clause. His version of Catholicism would have been news to many saints and popes.

    But, I think the analysis is a bit excessive in regard to Trump. Trump is (at least appearing to be) championing the causes that grass roots republicans and blue collar democrats have been complaining about for many, many years – the same causes that republican candidates have been lying about for years. He is at least as much a product of the growing vacuum of what used to be American Conservatism as he is a product of Facebook. Republicans created Trump without intending to, and they paved and planted flowers along the path that he is walking to the nomination, and likey the presidency.

    Shea, on the other hand, is feverishly working toward an ever increasing obscurity.

  • I recommend an article, by Robert Kagan, titled “This Is How Fascism Comes To America”.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

    What Trump represents is what our Founders feared most: the unreasoned passion of a mob infecting the delicate balance of a Democracy with its populist anger combined with the magnetism of a strong, ruthless personality at their head. What worked for us, and made America great, did not work for revolutionary France and tore it apart. I fear what infected France is now upon us.

  • Kagan is now a Clinton supporter. I think his judgment is suspect if he seriously believes that Trump is a harbinger of fascism.

  • Donald Trump is a billionaire. Mark panhandles with his tin cup rattle campaigns. One earns money, the other begs for shekels. No comparison.

  • The world stage is set for transformative, violent change. All the ingredients are there. Donald Trump, placed in the ultimate seat of world power, at this crucial moment in time inspires a sense of dread in me. I have seen no evidence whatsoever, none, that he respects, understands or has even read the Constitution or respects the power and significance of the Office he seeks. There is every evidence that he merely desires access to that power for his own sake. He is building a dangerous movement in a time of great emotion and gathering violence, rising to power by stoking those flames. Not a harbinger of fascism? Why? Just because this is America? Just because we’ve not personally suffered such things? Well, we are unique in that regard. It may well be our turn. It’s interesting to study history and read about tragedies and triumphs from the past. Much more difficult to extract lessons and apply them to the complicated now.

  • Fascism’s already arrived here under the guise of anti-fascism (take what’s going on in Academia, for example).
    .
    Anyway, I happen to agree with Roger Kimball, so I’m already predisposed to the fascist comparison.

  • Brian, I just want to let you know that your posts here on what is happening to America, and where she is heading politically, were encouraging. Not because I am glad about the current state of affairs, but rather I infrequently run across comments on the web by people who seem to really see through the conditioning and manipulations of our population who express their concerns so well. Keep it up and may more people know the truth when they hear it.

  • Brian, in light of how you perceive what a Trump administration might be, how do you view the Obama administration, and do you think Hillary would be better? The choice this time around is Trump or Hillary. Mind you, I don’t necessarily disagree that we are screwed, but in the world of perpetual choosing of lesser of evils, Trump, to me, seems the better option.

  • Brian and Daniel,
    .
    It wasn’t Trump that killed the republic and the free market. He hasn’t been elected, yet. It was guys like Obama, Dubya, Clinton, George H. W. When we elected them, they did the opposite of what they said.
    .
    This massive travesty was engendered by the corrupt, incompetent political (both parties) establishment, not Trump.
    .
    Jefferson did not fear the common man. He feared that which killed America: people voting for demagogues that promise them more-and-more free stuff paid for by other Americans whom the ubiquitous Obama-types have taught to hate – eat the rich.
    .
    Do you have actual evidence for your accusations? Fascism – now not 2009? Violence – where outside drug cartels (armed by Obama and Holder), the religion of blasting innocents to smithereens, and Bernie bums?
    .
    My wife will be 69 years old in October. She and many of our years mates are for Trump. She is a retired ICU nurse with not a violent bone in her body. Conversely, I (as old) remain capable.
    .
    Repeated from above, “4 May 2016, Bookroom Room: “Thomas Lifson, one of the smartest men I know, is on to something more profound when he says that Trump represents a sledgehammer that voters have taken to an ‘irredeemably corrupt political system’:”
    .
    If that’s fascism, hand me an arm band.
    .

  • You gotta love this website and you gotta love the Internet; because Mark Demo Shea can say what he wants and I can say” “It is a mortal sin for a Catholic with a well-formed conscience, ‘well-formed’ as taught by Holy Mother Church, to vote for HillaryDemon or for any Democrat.” [see Hell Vote Yourself In at sinvotedemocrat.com]. I can also say that Democatholics across the country are now publishing “You cannot vote for Trump” becasue although they believe it – It is an act of virtue to vote for HillaryDemon – they cannot say it. Rejoice in all things, esp since M Demo Shea is making a public record and will not be able to deny it. Unless of course he adopts – which will be no surprise – the Demo and liberal truth std of NonNonContradiction – which says for him Yes, I can be a good Catholic and vote Democrat at the same time. And Jitler was a saint[trains run on time] and a sinner [a little holocaust], simultaneoulsy. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • a sledgehammer taken to an irrredeemably corrupt political system

    I’m fairly sure that’s just what the Italians thought they were doing when they marched into Rome with Mussolini,in the Twenties; or the Germans when they voted for the National Socialist German Workers Party in the Thirties (The Argentines & Peron in the Fourties).

  • Brian,

    How is Hildebeast any better? Trump at least says he would rather work with Russia than antagonize them and wants to put American industry back on its feet. Whether Trump will follow through on anything he says is another matter, but if he doesn’t, that only makes him like every other single politician ever. No worse.

    Hildebeast has an allergic reaction to the mention of God, and as SOS has failed miserably in everything she touched. The few policies she supports that are not incompetent, are pure evil. She has been bought and sold more often than a Vegas hooker. So the person in charge of Benghazi is a better bet in control of the most powerful seat in the world? You say Trump doesn’t understand the power of the office he seeks. I say Hildebeast understands it all too well, and is licking her chops at getting it for her own destructive ends. I much prefer the former – at least if he doesn’t fully comprehend it, there is a possibility he won’t wield it as effectively to our detriment.

    So choices are: absolute certain disaster vs. slim sliver of hope things don’t get much worse.

  • c matt-you have just insulted every whore in Las Vegas

  • Trump has yet to travel to Europe to specifically bad mouth the people of Poland and Hungary, like Bill Clinton just did.

    Until Trump does the same thing, and until Trump runs classified State Department data on his own server, and until Trump does nothing about Americans under attack as in Benghazi, and until Trump pulls the garbage in office Bill Clinton did, I find it stupid to say Trump is the equivalent of the Clintons. Trump’s faults are his own but he is no Bill or Hillary Clinton.

  • Trump’s faults are his own but he is no Bill or Hillary Clinton.
    –Penguin Fan

    Birds of a feather flock together.

  • The irony of the pro-gun control Mark Shea so proudly pointing a gun into the face of his viewer rich indeed.

  • Micah Elyi, I am not into guilt by association. Trump has committed no criminal negligence or criminal acts.

    I pointed out Clinton’s remarks about Poland and Hungary. Haven’t heard that from Trump. I don’t care if it does not matter to you. It matters to me.

  • “The elevation of Trump by cheering, emotional throngs of my erstwhile, rock-ribbed, middle-American, small-town conservative fellow travelers is a clarifying moment for me. Constitution based conservative political ideology is dormant or dead. Something else now dominates. I recognize this new movement not.”

    Conservatives have not been in charge of the Republican Party since I have been old enough to know anything about it (1980s.) At the national level they have participated in the centralization of government & loss of Liberty in one area or the other since Ronald Reagan left office. Even Reagan agreed to millions of illegals becoming citizens. Th Rs at the national level have given or allowed Obama to get every single thing he has wanted despite the continual, ongoing efforts of the conservative base. Barbara Bush was the first person I ever heard say that you could define a “family” any way you wished (at the behest of the LBGT crowd without actually mentioning them.) GHWB, GWB, Dole, Romney, etc. never were conservatives. GHWB is one of the biggest new world order folks around and was avidly pro choice until he decided to run for president. GWB Planned to allow an international court tell the state of Texas that Texas could not execute a murderous illegal alien until Ted Cruz, as solicitor general of TX, argued the case before the SCOTUS & won. The Bushes & Cheneys have always been pro-gay rights & gay marriage behind the scenes and/or quietly–if you doubt me, read the book by Carl Rove written about his service in the Bush admin. You notice that Obamacare & Planned Parenthood are not defunded. Please note that the current speaker of the US House, Paul Ryan, claims to be Catholic. You notice after Boehner, who resigned in shame for giving Obama everything he wanted as speaker of the US House of Representatives, that Paul Ryan who is now the US speaker is continuing to give Obama everything Obama wants including busting the federal budget. The Rs at the federal level passed an unconstitutional agreement allowing Obama to make an illegal agreement with Iran that enables Iran to increase their nuclear proclivities–I have told my US Senators that they have violated their oath of office on more than one occasion. Our junior senator, Tom Cotton, has no practical recognition of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. I have shared with Cotton that his insistence that the NSA & other federal agencies would not share info, collected under the extra constitutional Patriot Act without the constitutionally required duly issued warrant, nor use such info against individual citizens for law enforcement purposes–was a bunch of Bologna. And now we know that it is–that info is being used against individual citizens in the manner I told him it would be. Has he done anything about these violations? No! You notice the Rs have done nothing that effectively protects our borders despite their claims that they are concerned about terrorism/national security. Jeb Bush as a candidate for president openly stated that he was going to win the nomination by completely & deliberately ignoring & excluding the Conservative base. The brother and son of R presidents despises people like me, conservatives, so much that he actively planned to eliminate any possible involvement & relevance in the party’s presidential politics. Jebb Bush, Mr. Communist Common Core, and his brother, GW-the “Compassionate Conservative” who allowed the federal takeover of public education through NCLB, proved to all of us that they will advocate & enable the Feds to run our public schools from the USDOE.

    I could go on & on & on. I faced the fact a while back that the R party, except for some very extreme & few exceptions, is the Democratic Party-lite.

    Jebb Bush and his crowing about deliberately ignoring & not needing the base of the R party [i.e. Me & folks like me] to win the R presidential nomination, and the resultant $100 million plus the party elite gave him to actually do it, convinced me that the R party needs to completely implode and a new party needs to arise–for people like me.

    Also, let me point out that while Newt Gingrich was US speaker, he was having a behind the scenes affair with his current wife, and only child to divorce his first wife & marry his 2nd wife, after he left office. This timing conveniently kept reality from impacting his political career.
    My former US Senator, Tim Hutchinson was running all over the state & nation, while campaigning for his 2nd US Senate term, talking about “family values” while he was having a blatant, raging affair with his young campaign manager–stabbing his wife of 29 years & mother of his children in the back. And don’t get me started on the moral lapses of our state R candidates. I am not impressed by those who make self righteous claims re: Trumps sins.

    We could write a book about the moral failings of people in leadership of the R party–yet folks act like Trump is the only R candidate who has ever sinned. What a joke!

    I could go on & on & on. I faced the fact a while back that the R party, except for some very extreme & few exceptions, is the Democratic Party-lite. Their only reason for existence is to manage the continued centralization of government and the continued loss of our freedoms. They certainly give us no reason to believe that they intend to ever change course.

  • Barbara, a while back I posted somehting just like this (but much shorter) about the Republican Party. There was a suggestion – to “take back” the Republican Party. Conservatives never had it in the first place. Reagan was an anomaly. The GOP has always had a liberal streak in it. Dewey and Neslon Rockefeller were two of these. Even after defeat after defeat by the Democrats, the GOP was more interested in keeping their little group of East Coast wealthy “country club”types together than grow the party to actually govern the nation. The Bushes are just such people. When the Philadelphia suburbs voted Republican, they were Rockefeller Republicans.

    Social issues conservatives have gotten their asses kicked. Be it by election, regulation or judicial fiat, social issues conservatives have LOST for now and the forseeable future. Our Catholic bishops and clergy have been little help in opposing the moral decline in this country and the GOP is apparently just fine with it.

    Trump? Loud, boisterous, uncouth, nasty and I don’t give a damn. He can go ahead and be nasty in public to Hillary and Bill Clinton, which will make him the first to do it in public.

    Whether Trump gets elected or not, his winning the nomination is a major humiliation to the GOP insiders in the Beltway and elsewhere and if Trump does succeed in blowing up the Republican Party then conservaties can be convinced to start their own party and leave the spineless, weakling, snobbish GOP behind.

    No conservaive, no Republican elected to the Presidency is going to stop abortion, gay marriage, gay adoptions or transvestites demanding to use public bathrooms for the opposite sex.

    This country has to return to God, realize right from wrong and start acting morally.. As long as a majority of Americans worhsip at the altar of Popular Culture and care more about Big Entertainment than their own families, we will continue to sink.

  • Barbara, I did not reference Republcans. I referenced conservatives. I referred to people, not a Party.

    I could not agree with you more on everything you said. I am as frustrated as you, believe me. I am not looking to the “Party” for solutions but to people; communities of people compelling the powers to respond.

    And we get …. Trump; to popular acclaim by my fellow “Conservatives”, throughout bedrock Middle America. That is stunning to me.

  • Penguins Fan: exactly. I hope the Republican Party dies a most miserable, ignominious and well deserved death. May they be remembered someday like the Whigs (who?). They have sucked the life out of the Conservative movement and led good-hearted people into a Trumpian ditch. I will not vote R for a very long time

Mark Shea Hearts Hillary Clinton

Wednesday, May 18, AD 2016

 

Well, Mark Shea has restarted his old blog and is giving a big thumbs up to Catholics who want to vote for the complete pro-abort Hillary Clinton in order to stop Donald Trump:

 

you do not have to say a word in praise of Hillary’s evil policies.  You can bash them all you like (and I do).  Her support for abortion is evil (just like Trump’s).  Her cynical ease with lying is repellent (just like Trump’s).  Her bellicose ease with violence and war is wicked (just like Trump’s).  Her shady  associations are creepy (just like Trump’s).

But if you support Trump, you also are supporting evil she does not advocate such as torture, racism, misogyny, mockery of the disabled, mockery of POWs, and fiscal fantasism.  You have to, like Mike Huckabee, say stuff like “We’re electing a President, not a pope” and chuck overboard your claims to be thinking with the mind of Christ in order to pretend that Trump has “grown in virtue” and “evolved” on abortion when the reality is that he has not changed a bit.  You need to back him on *his* “non-negotiables” while abandoning your own.

I will be voting third party since Hillary won’t need my help to win Washington and the goal is to stop Trump, not help Hillary.  But I will not fault any Catholic who takes Benedict XVI’s permission and votes to lessen the clearly greater evil posed by Trump.

The greatest of those evils is the fact that every single “prolife” Christian who supports him will invariably find that they must immediately abandon the fight against abortion and devote all their *real* energies to *his* non-negotiables of racism, misogyny, Mammon-worship, violence, and grinding the faces of the poor.

 

Go here to read the comments.  Now as faithful readers of this blog know I am not going to be voting for Trump because I view him as a liberal Democrat in Republican disguise.  However, I can understand people who decide to support Trump in order to stop an unprincipled crook like Clinton from running the nation, especially due to the fact that while I am dubious about Trump’s conversion to the pro-life cause, I have no doubt that Clinton is an ardent pro-abort.  However, it is truly laughable for an ostensible pro-lifer like Shea to champion Clinton.  His arguments in her behalf are delusional.  She revels in anti-white racism in order to whip up the black vote;   she supports partial birth abortion which is torture as well as murder;   in regard to misogyny, anything Trump has done on that score pales in comparison to her rapist hubbie Bill, who she has assiduously shielded from such charges;   she supports abortion for unwanted disabled kids;   she was partially responsible for our men in Benghazi being left to die and then lied to their parents about it;   and as for fiscal fantasism, I guess Shea has been asleep for the last eight years in regard to the administration that Clinton was a proud part of.  Shea’s arguments are rubbish and he is intelligent enough I trust to realize they are rubbish.  The simple truth is that Shea has gone hard left, and on that score, and only on that score, Clinton would be preferable to Trump.

 

Back in 2009 Shea referred to the Catholic leftists of Vox Nova as the debate club at Auschwitz, because of their downplaying of the fight against abortion in order to support Obama.  Go here to read that post.  Well boys and girls, welcome the newest member of the Catholics Who Don’t Really Give a Damn About Abortion Club.  Give a big hand for Mark Shea!

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Mark Shea Hearts Hillary Clinton

  • So-called Catholics like Mark Shea are frankly an enigma. He exemplifies the fact that libralism is a mental defect or disease.
    .
    And PS, I am not a Trump supporter either, but while thieves like Trump may merit incaceration in a saner society, murderers like Hillary who advocate open infanticide were tried for crimes against humanity at Nuremburg and hung by their necks till they were dead.

  • His equating Hillary and Trump on abortion….the very day that Trump gave the names of his Supreme Court picks…all conservative…is classic fast talking salesman. This is not the real Shea that his wife knows. This is the click getting Shea…stir up the clicks ergo money ….attract the old followers who give to his tin can collections.
    A zen master said that one had to find the face one had before one was born. We would equate that to surmising who we would be had original sin not happened…and we’d tell the zen man, God through the sacraments can help you in that search. Only his intimates ever see part of that real person in Shea. On the net, he is often an act. He starts a bar fight with shotgun sprayed assertions too many to check completely then is off writing the next post while the clicks are being counted financially at Patheos et al.

  • No…Shea was two days ago but in February, Trump stated he would defer to the Heritage Foundation on SCOTUS.
    So Mark is still speed thinking his accusation.

  • (and I do)

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, since when? Oh just then? (though still taking time to beat up on trump I see)

    Let’s see here… blog’s been back since may 11th. Oh and we have a category!
    Never Trump which has… 6 posts in it.

    Let’s see… is there a category for “never hillary” or something like that?

    NOPE! 3 pages of archives and ONE other article about her. Wow yes, you have written 1 third the posts on her than Trump (and even 1 of those 2 is half him anyway, so it’s more accurately 1/4th of the amount) AND one of those 2 posts is POSITIVE.

    So yeah, Mark, STFU and quit it with your spin and *****.

    Shea’s arguments are rubbish and he is intelligent enough I trust to realize they are rubbish.

    I question if he is. I think he has given so over to emotionalism that sloth has overtaken his mind and his mind has become anthropoid and lazy.

    Once he may have realized, but no longer. And I challenge him to prove otherwise. But then he’d have to step out of his safe space, and we all know thin skinned crybullies can’t do that.

  • Give a big hand [or finger]for Mark Shea!

  • If (may it please God) the next set of cardinal-electors sees fit to elect an orthodox pope, it will be immensely entertaining to watch Mark Shea instantly revert to being a stalwart, pro-life Defender of the Faith.

  • If it hadn’t been for this blog post, I wouldn’t have known “Catholic and Enjoying It” was up and running again, nor would I have known (or cared) what Mark Shea thought about Hillary Clinton. So why are we calling attention to that blog, and generating more hits for it, if it’s so heretical and pernicious? If, as Bill Bannon states, Mark is just saying outrageous stuff in order to generate page hits and make money, why “enable” him to do that?

  • From the outside looking in on the USA, I can’t even imagine how any faithful Catholic would advocate voting for la Hilary to keep Trump out, irrespective of their dislike of Trump.
    As I have said previously, I think Trump is malleable due to his “wanting to be a Republican”, and will be putting together – I believe – a good and acceptable team, as he has done with his business ventures.
    If la Hilary becomes president due to so called faithful Catholics voting for Hilary, or even voting third party, or supporting a split in the vote, then the banshee-Harpie will be able to change the USA as we know it along the lines that Obama has been partly successful in.

  • “So why are we calling attention to that blog”

    A good question Elaine. Time permitting in my prep work for posts on this blog I read widely. I could have quite a few blog posts on any number of liberal Catholic blogs, but I don’t bother because they are obscure blogs with little influence. That is not the case with Shea. He has a column with the National Catholic Register. He has published a stream of apologetic books. He is hired by parishes and dioceses for appearances to speak. In short he is taken as a serious Catholic commenter by many. That he is now a drum beater for the radical left is a newsworthy matter and I intend to publicize that fact and attack him for it.

  • Mark Shea isn’t worth anyone’s attention.
    Like a bad book, movie or TV show, he is best forgotten.

  • Penguin Fan – True – Mark who?
    .
    Apparently, himself is a moral defective. How could a person with a speck of discernment support such a corrupt, incompetent liar? I believe that she murdered two of her unborn babies – women’s health!!! Trump never murdered anybody.
    .
    Mark could not support her if he had half an ounce of Christian morals . . .
    .
    Here is my primary Trump/Hillary debate question ‘Does Christianity have a place in American culture?” I’d like to see her spin and twist on that.
    .
    She and her old man are crooks. So says Harry S Truman (D). “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” And, anybody that supports them is as bad.

  • Shea Truth Standard: The Principle of NonNonContrdiction: A thing can be and not be at the same time. A vote for Hillary Demon can be a mortal sin and not a mortal sin at the same time. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • I’m sad to hear he started back up, and I wish he hadn’t, but it is important to know what he’s doing now– I can’t counter his damage if I don’t know it’s going on.

  • The charge of misogyny is empty, both against Trump and, unfortunately, as employed by Mr. McClarey in this post indirectly against Hillary Clinton via her husband.

    At the heart of the charge it is still the rabid and irrational feminist demand for equality. Lecherous fellows like Bill Clinton or Trump show their disdain for humanity differently in the case of women than men, and because their disdain for women is not manifested the same way as their disdain for men, the charge is Misogyny!

    But is it misogyny because Bill Clinton singled out women for groping and didn’t do the same for men? If the answer is yes to this, are we also prepared to call the treatment of the men in Benghazi by Mrs. Clinton misandry? I, for one, would rather not, but would also rather see much more limited and judicious use of the term misogyny also.

  • More to Donald’s point, Mark Shea is but one example of a scandal orthodox Catholics are in large part loath to address. And that is the orthodox Catholic media has become as integrity-deficient as the mainstream secular press. And Catholics who ignore the former have absolutely no moral right to talk about the latter.

  • “The charge of misogyny is empty,”

    Certainly not against Bill Clinton who has a history of forcing his unwanted attentions on females, up to and including rape. That is treating women as less than human. Trump is a boor when it comes to women, but as far as I know there have been no claims that he has forced himself on any woman.

  • Depends on how you define “misogyny,” I suppose.
    I don’t think any of the three hate women because they are women; I do think they all respond to women’s inherent weaknesses in a way that is both more obvious and less culturally approved of than similar treatment of men’s weaknesses.
    (Using a “honey trap” on a guy in a movie is amusing; having a guy fake that he loves a gal is a way to show Gold Plated Monster status.)
    ****
    Trump is an utter ass and probably a cad– a user; Bill Clinton is a predator, and Mrs. Clinton at the very least enables it, in addition to both being users.

  • “Certainly not against Bill Clinton who has a history of forcing his unwanted attentions on females, up to and including rape.”

    Yes, but the charge of misogyny is the treatment of women particularly with something less than their human dignity. That Clinton repeatedly treated women worse than they deserved doesn’t provide evidence in itself of misogyny unless he treated men as a matter of course properly according to their manly dignity.

    From my view Clinton treated both men and women with less than their human dignity required, offending against manly or womanly natures of both without the partiality that would be required for the charge of misogyny.

  • Yes, Foxfier, I think I agree with your assessment. I’d say further that I think the way we typically define “misogyny” is sentimental and ultimately irrational.

  • “Yes, but the charge of misogyny is the treatment of women particularly with something less than their human dignity. That Clinton repeatedly treated women worse than they deserved doesn’t provide evidence in itself of misogyny unless he treated men as a matter of course properly according to their manly dignity.”

    You have a unique view of the term misogyny buckinky, and when people have non-standard interpretations of words, I long ago learned it was a waste of time debating the word in question with them.

  • Well, for what it’s worth, misogyny is one among many terms that I suppose I have non-standard definitions if by non-standard you mean the way it is used by most people in our day.

    Thanks anyways – tis truly difficult not to come across as a troll when discussing this issue, and in fairness to you, it’s not the main thrust of your post.

  • I didn’t take your comment as trolling buckyinky, and there are certain words and phrases where I have unique interpretations. Don’t ever get me going, for example, on the term mendacious and its many shades of meaning!

  • I thought we all knew the modern definitions.

    Misogynist – Male conservative winning an argument.
    Racist – White conservative winning an argument.
    Fascist – White male conservative that has conclusively proven his point.

Catholics Who Support Bernie: You Are Idiots

Thursday, April 28, AD 2016

UD0X-DEB

 

 

Either that or you don’t give a damn about fighting abortion:

Sanders stated, “I think we should expand funding for Planned Parenthood. And it is no secret, that in states all over this country, in a dozen different ways, there are governors and legislatures who are trying to make it impossible for a woman to control her own body. I will use the Department of Justice to go after those states, in every way that I legally can.”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Catholics Who Support Bernie: You Are Idiots

  • Stalin never tolerated dissent. Neither will the “pacifist” Bernie Sanders who has no qualms about using force when it suits him to do so.

  • But Bernie is the Pope’s man and that is the problem.

  • I would expect that Catholics who knowingly support the slaughter of God’s precious unborn might indeed, “feel the burn!”

  • I remember Mark excoriating Paul Ryan for being willing to vote for legislation that limited abortion to all circumstances except rape. No amount of reasoned arguments could dissuade him from his diatribes against conservative Catholics. It didn’t help pointing out that even JP II allowed Catholic politicians to vote for such legislation that limited abortion even if not completely outlawing it. Here’s some commentary on this episode:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/08/23/has-ryan-softened-his-pro-life-views/

    Now he’s willing to make excuses for an aged hippie who promotes a radical pro-abortion agenda. Goes to show what a blind, “social justice” ideologue he is.

  • Every Pope since Pius IX to Benedict XVI taught that socialism was evil. It is an ideology which proclaims government as god, robs the person of his individuality and dignity, and deprives humanity of God’s wondrous gift of free will. As such there can be no surprise that abortion is a virtue under this treacherous and perverse world order. I agree with those Popes.

  • Don L.

    No kidding Don.
    For how many years have the innocents felt the saline, the forceps the burn of being ripped apart. How freaking many more will feel it?
    If we have a cataclysmic eruption of the Yellow stone caldera, which I hope never happens, it will be divine intervention as far as I’m concerned.

    Blood spilt cries to Heaven. The innocent blood is the loudest and most violent of screams that pierces the clouds.

    Sanders is sick. An sick man with a sick agenda. Sick meaning mentality ill!

  • In addition to their willful ignorance of millions of murdered unborn “least of my brothers,” the imbeciles are completely absent-minded regarding the global crimes liberals have caused.

    Seen at “The Daily Gouge.

    And, D/G regarding the deadly effects of liberal superstitions,

    “Costing thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. Deaths directly attributable to the hopelessly misguided policies of modern Liberalism over the last hundred years, from malaria in the Third World resulting from the totally unnecessary ban on DDT to support for Communist “liberation” movements around the world, total not in the millions, but the hundreds of millions!

    “Hey, at least Progressives can sleep at night; but only because ignorance is bliss!”

  • He is proud of his 100% support of the blood sacrifice of unborn children to satan. Nuff said.

  • Bernie’s Pope. John Cornwell, call your office!

  • “Catholics Who Support Bernie” is the pope one of those?

  • Yes, Anzlyne, he is.

  • Whether it is Bernie or Hillary it doesn’t matter. Both are doing the work of the evil one.

    Liberalism is the political philosophy of the devil. It is built on lies and self delusion. It is a form of mass suicide. See James Burnham’s ‘Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism’

    This is why the great Mundabor recommends Donald.
    “I think Trump will still be the by far better choice. And I think it will be far easier to bend him to the will of the Republican majority than to force Hillary to appoint the right judge at the Supreme Court.”

Only Four Billion and a Bad Toupee Separate Them

Monday, March 7, AD 2016

CWy3zCrUEAAvTQ0

 

 

David Griffey at his blog Daffey Thoughts, notes the similarity between Mark Shea and Donald Trump:

 

By that, I don’t mean Mark supports or likes Donald Trump. Quite the contrary.  Mark routinely takes on Trump and Trump’s supporters the way Mark does most things: in the same manner as Donald Trump.  In fact, that’s my point.  If you want to be brutally honest, you’ll admit that Mark Shea is simply a Catholic Internet version of Donald Trump.  If you visit Facebook or similar Social Media sites, you’ll see that Mark is far from the glaring exception.  Go onto most Internet sites, including major media outlets, read the comments and you’ll see Donald Trump all over.  And in some cases, such as Daily Kos or Salon.com or even such esteemed sites as the Huffington Post, you might find published editorials that aren’t much different.

I hate to say it, but my boys are correct.  Donald Trump is the candidate that the Facebook generation deserves.  And it isn’t because of a few radical exceptions to the rule.  It is the rule.  We are the generation that liberal society has been striving for over the decades.  From the 50s through the 60s and 70s and beyond, Trump is what we’ve been aiming at.

Just look at Mark Shea as an obvious example. Mark is familiar to most Catholics on the Internet and is highly regarded by many. And yet, not only does he resemble Trump in his approach to topics and interaction on his various sites, he does so as a representative of the Catholic Church.  At least Trump just represents politics.  And yet Mark is quite the hero for many Catholics.  For many non-Catholics, too.  Including those who are quick to attack and bemoan the Trump phenomenon.

How can I be so heartless and judgmental to compare Mark to Trump?  Or compare others on Social Media to Trump?  Easy.  I read.  I listen to Trump and what people criticize him for, and then visit various Facebook pages, including Mark’s, and I see no difference.   Trump, beyond the policies he advocates – when we can figure them out – is brash, crude, rude, vulgar, sinful, mean spirited, ill-informed and simply a lousy person because of how he interacts with others and treats others who dare disagree with him.

So how is that different than Mark, or even Mark’s own followers?  Or the followers on any one of a million sites?  For instance, Mark’s own lack of substance and knowledge of topics he comments on outside of Catholicism is legendary.  Even those who support him and agree with him have hung their heads over his approach to such topics as the Death Penalty or Gun Control.  The same is a common complaint about Trump.  Mark thinks nothing of using the same language Trump is condemned for using.  Mark attacks through name calling and condescension and scorn any who dare disagree, unless Mark happens to be friends with the violators.  Mark isn’t even above making false and slanderous accusations against people, even to the point of libel.

But Trump says horrible things!  He mocks people for things they can’t help.  He made fun of Carly Fiorina’s looks.  He talks about killing people.  He talks about destroying other countries.  So does Mark.  One of his Facebook followers recently said that things would be better off if America was burned to ashes.  Mark only disagreed because he said Americans, being the murderous barbarians that we are, would take millions of innocent lives with us.  Mark justified his view of America by reminding us of the millions of Indians and Slaves who fell to our murderous, barbaric ancestors.  Imagine if Trump or a Trump supporter produced the same dialogue about another country, like Mexico or China.  Imagine the outrage and anger.

And Mark not only uses death and suffering to advance his opinions, he even has begun to mock people murdered by guns – if those same people were hard right wing activists.  That might seem understandable to some.  But remember, Mark and many others were shocked at how many celebrated the death of Osama bin Ladin or Hugo Chavez, saying that the only appropriate Christian response was to pray for their souls.  Yet many of those same Catholics are rightly shocked when Trump appears so callous and cruel to other people in the world.  Notice a trend?   What about making fun of others like Trump does?  Last election cycle Mark was forced by his own readers to remove a post he had submitted that made fun of Michelle Bachmann’s eyes and facial features.  Sound familiar?

If you want to be objective, there is little difference between how Mark Shea approaches the modern debate and the way Trump does.  Unless you blindly follow and agree with Mark, you see some glaring problems in his approach and his stances that are not unlike Trump’s.  Ah, but that’s the rub.  How can people honestly follow Trump despite his views and behavior?  I give you Mark Shea.  More than one Catholic on the Internet has railed against Donald Trump for multiple reasons, while at the same time endorsing and loving Mark Shea and similar individuals who approach.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Only Four Billion and a Bad Toupee Separate Them

  • Mark Shea is catholycism’s low rent Trump.

  • I don’t know what’s a greater endorsement of DaDonald, the attack speech from Mitt Romney or a fatwa from OSheama Bin Libel?

  • We are the generation that liberal society has been striving for over the decades. From the 50s through the 60s and 70s and beyond, Trump is what we’ve been aiming at.

    Bingo.

    The decent folks get brow-beaten down or– if they won’t be beaten and are too persuasive– ignored.
    The loud, angry, nasty ones get attention.
    I think that may be why I use to like reading Shea– and then I noticed that he was actually doing some of the things that had driven me over to read him. I’m not cool with someone doing a bad thing just because they say they’re on my side, so I left. (and that was before the various big, obvious lies got out)

  • A really brilliant satirist could get a lot of mileage out of a Jerry Springer-Bachelor/Bachelorette-American Idol mash-up of a Presidntial Election reality TV show

  • I’d be willing to wager that the number of people who like both Donald Trump and Mark Shea is not zero.

  • Devil’s Advocate – It’s possible to expect a president to be better than we are. It’s possible to even regret one’s own occasional sinking into the muck and still expect a presidential candidate to appeal to our better angels. It’s not even unreasonable to look for the best among us to be our leaders, and to be discouraged when we don’t choose among our best.

    Less Devil’s Advocate – We are responsible to the extent that we elevate or degrade our culture. It’s hard to be like the person I described above if you’re in other respects making things worse. Maybe you just don’t see yourself that way.

  • It occurs to me that a fella might could blow Shea’s mind by pointing out the ways in which his own activities prove Judge Bork’s thesis from Slouching Towards Gammorah.

  • I’m not really a Trump supporter, but this attack piece on The Donald is below the belt. By the way, that’s not a bad toupee it’s his own hair.

  • “By the way, that’s not a bad toupee it’s his own hair.”

    So I have seen it claimed Father. If it is, its the fakest looking head of real hair I have ever seen.

  • Mark Shea = Donald Trump
    .
    Hmmmmm…….I would still vote for Donald Trump over Mark Shea any day of the week.
    .
    😉

  • Me too Cincinnatus and then I’d exit the voting booth running & flailing my arms like a lunatic.

  • *looks at the facebook screenshot* So has anyone tallied how much of Shea’s complaints there do NOT apply to Bernie Sanders? So far I’ve… not found one.

  • Our world has descended into a range of personality cults. Some of those who have not fallen for the extremism and invective do their best to look for the good in people, while acknowledging their faults .
    The “personalty cult” that I follow has a leader who says has a Leader who says, forgive one another.
    Some advice all can follow, particularly in an election year:
    “Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
    As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

    If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

    Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.

    Take kindly to the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

    Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

    Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

    With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.

    Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.”

  • Don the Kiwi.

    Beautiful.

  • I think that comparison is an insult to Donald Trump.
    I applauded Trumps comments on ‘water boarding’ which I don’t consider torture.
    P.S. Mark Shea wears a toupee?

  • I am staying out of politics here for a while, at least as far as it concerns the GOP candidates. Reason being that (my opinion) the worst of Donald Trump is better than the should-be convict Clinton or the communist.

    Should Trump end up destroying the GOP, then so be it. The most he can destroy is the Washington Establishment, the quislings who talk tough on the Sunday morning political shows almost nobody watches and then cave to the Democrats.

    I am sick and tired of the Republican Party. For decades, they have sent out junk mail asking for donations while pledging support for lower spending, less regulations, lower taxes and greater economic opportunity. We have seen none of this. This nation would be in almost complete economic collapse due to the obscene regulations banning coal fired power plants and choking the nuclear power industry, had it not been for the Marcellus Shale natural gas.

    The GOP allowed Obumblercare to proceed. The GOP did not put an end to the mortgage mess that the Democrats started under Carter and accelerated under Clinton and that should be convict Barney Frank. Bush Senior gave us Souter. Dubya gave us the nincompoop John Roberts.

    Dubya left the Iraqi Christians twist in the wind.

    Mittens spent more time trashing Trump than he spent smacking around that putrid, pathetic race-baiting little snot in the White House.

    That’s just a sample. So, if Trump wrecks them, trashes them, destroys them (the McConnells, the McCains, the Mitten Romneys and their syncophants), more power to Trump. When they are finished, I’ll be happy to bring a shovel to help bury them.

  • “I’ll be happy to bring a shovel to help bury them.”

    The Democrats will be happy to help you PF. By the way, how did the Republicans “allow” Obamacare to proceed, when not a Republican voted for it.

  • Penguins Fan,
    Thank you for that comment! FWIW, I agree with you.

  • Spot on analysis, and Shea’s facebook post highlights his bone dry ignorance. National Review dedicated an entire issue to opposing Trump. Virtually all of its regular writers have consistently written against Trump, so much so they are subject to constant scorn on social media from Trump acolytes. And yet the Archie Bunker of the Catholic blogosphere rips into National Review as “whoring” for Trump because it posts one op-ed that speaks non-negatively of him.

    The tragedy of Shea is this is someone who supposedly dedicated his career to preaching the Gospel of Christ and yet he has devoted most of his public time writing virulent political screeds.Christianity would have died 2000 years ago if St. Paul eschewed epistle writing for writing treatises on the Roman Empire.

  • Mr. McClarey, the GOP controlled Congress passed that sickening funding bill led by Paul Ryan that did nothing to stop ObumblerCare, or Planned Parenthood for that matter.

    True, not a single GOP member of Congress voted for it, but the House controls the purse strings. Yet, they are so scared of being called racist and having Obumbler label them as obstructionists that they have done nothing to stop it. Crybaby Boehner and Paul Ryan did what the Establishment wanted them to do and to hell with the voters.

    The Democrat Party is in no shape to end the GOP establishment. Their presidential candidates are a convict in waiting and a socialist and both are two years older than dirt.

    Shea is, to put it charitably, a twit. Shea is not worth a fraction of the effort that so many have taken to write about him, his views and those he disagrees with.

    For years, the GOP has had an opportunity to identify a successful governor (Scott Walker? Rick Perry?) who has cut taxes and spending and grown his state’s economy. Instead we got Jeb.

    I repeat, with a little more clarity. If Cruz cannot pull ahead of Trump – and he should never have been behind Trump – then I hope Trump destroys the GOP establishment in Washington right to its foundations. The State GOPs, who have sought out, nominated and elected conservative candidates, can bulldoze the wreckage left behind. I am just as sick of Romney, McCain, Graham, Thad Cochran, Boehner, Ryan and the entire K Street bunch who enables them – no, more, than I am of Obumbler, the Clintons and their organized crime syndicate known as the Democrat Party.

  • Referring to Shea as the Archie Bunker of the blogosphere is an insult to Archie Bunker. Bigoted, but at least honest, and an invention by lib TV producer Norman Lear to smear the working class. Lear is the same twit who had the Maude character get an abortion.

    Shea has no excuse.

  • “Mr. McClarey, the GOP controlled Congress passed that sickening funding bill led by Paul Ryan that did nothing to stop ObumblerCare, or Planned Parenthood for that matter.”

    We tried shutting down the government before, it didn’t work. The only way to get what you want is for the GOP to have both the Congress and the White House.

    “For years, the GOP has had an opportunity to identify a successful governor (Scott Walker? Rick Perry?”

    Both ran and both dropped out.

    “– then I hope Trump destroys the GOP establishment in Washington right to its foundations.”

    Of course that would not happen. Trump would merely disgrace everyone who supports him, either by being defeated or being elected. I do not like no win scenarios, just as much as I do not like an ignorant blowhard Democrat in Republican clothing like Trump.

  • Have you thought through the whole “hope he destroys the GOP” thing?
    Your complaint with the GOP is that they weren’t sufficiently successful in stopping the Democrats, so you’re hoping…that only the Democrats will exist?

  • I’m sympathetic to Penguins Fan’s desire that the GOP stop playing the part of the Washington Generals. As a long suffering Minnesota Vikings fan, the GOP brain trust, whomever they are, remind me of Denny Green: they play so as not to lose, and that’s not the same thing as playing to win.
    .
    So I get the attraction of Trump. And if the GOP’s base sells the party down the river for a mess of pottage, it’s really no more than the GOPe deserves. After all, they’ve been in the pottage selling business for most of this century.
    .
    If I seem sanguine about the fate of the GOP, it’s because I am. I’m a conservative, not a Republican, and I’ve come to feel about the GOP the same way Reagan felt about the Democrats –they’ve left me.

  • I have $10 that says Mark-who will never write anything ne-er so vile about Hillary or Joe Biden (please God, Hillary is in prison). Because social justice and 53 million aborted babies are “chopped liver.”

    .
    BTW: Read a “The Nation,” February 15, 2016 article on the Clinton’s (how she commands $625,000 fees for Wall Street speeches) first, eight-year regime, which was great for stock market wealth/fat cats, but not so good (lost ground on most measures) for working class Americans.

    .
    PS – that bet is a win-win for me. I’m happy if Mark-who goes “straight” (someone will have to post it here) and happy if I win $10 Bitburger bier!.

  • After all this time, what I’m greatly shocked about is that Patrick Madrid does not correct Mark Shea. Patrick seems to be oblivious to Mark’s rantings and support of socialism. I keep waiting for fraternal correction, but it never comes.

  • Well, Missy, some of us have tried to get prominent apologists like Madrid and others to fraternally correct Shea for about a decade now with no avail. When push really comes to shove, the Catholic Media Complex is no better than the left-wing secular MSM.

  • I will repeat it again. The GOP establishment needs to go. They have failed us.

    Leave us with only Democrats? Well, to me it feels like that is the case now and has been for a long time. Look at the bang up job Boehner did as Speaker. Look at the miserable results of the 2012 Presidential and Senate races. Need I go on? I see NO hope for reform of the GOP due to the Washington establishment.

    The GOP has left me. Voters have embraced the pompous Trump because Trump has dared to say that the illegal aliens should be deported…something our Catholic bishops want no part of. Trump has talked about jobs and lowering taxes and gone after the should be convict Shrillary.

    I am not endorsing Trump. It is that I despise the GOP establishment. We need a new conservative political party, not a bunch of Democrat Lite weenies. The GOPe has foistered losers and they couldn’t even stop Trump.

  • “Look at the bang up job Boehner did as Speaker.”

    Yes, let’s look at the job that he did. Since 2010 has anything like ObamaCare passed, anything like the billion dollar stimulus package? Imagine what Obama would have pushed through if the Democrats had Congress since the 2010 elections.

    “Trump because Trump has dared to say that the illegal aliens should be deported…something our Catholic bishops want no part of.”

    Trump is already backpedaling on this, heading back to his old pro-amnesty position. He is simply lying and only a fool would believe anything this conman says.

    “We need a new conservative political party”

    No, conservatives need to stop moaning and crying, grow up and take back the Republican Party.

  • When was the last time Congress fulfilled its duty to pass a budget and how much culpability is on Boehner for the tripling of the national debt?
    .
    I’ll grant Boehner gets some credit for arresting the rate of growth of the debt, but that “one-time” “don’t let a crisis go to waste” stimulus is part of the baseline now and it’s been re-spent every damn year since 2009 which, if memory serves, was the last year we passed an actual budget instead of a continuing resolution.

  • [C]onservatives need to stop moaning and crying, grow up and take back the Republican Party.
    .
    What makes you think the Republican half of the new elite/ruling class/establishment would let them? After all, it’s not the Democrats threatening their rice bowls.
    .
    The proof is in all the anybody but Trump (except Cruz) maneuverings.

  • When was the last time Congress fulfilled its duty to pass a budget and how much culpability is on Boehner for the tripling of the national debt?

    How on earth are the Republicans both responsible for Reid refusing to allow a vote on the bills they passed, and responsible for not moving stuff even further away from what the Democrats want? The only way he would have allowed a vote would be if they’d done even more of what he wanted.

  • “What makes you think the Republican half of the new elite/ruling class/establishment would let them?”

    Yes because the Republican establishment is omnipotent. Just ask Trump or Cruz!

  • It’s not Trump or Cruz’s people talking about rewriting the rules Romney’s people rewrote four years ago, is it?

    Or hanging out with Tech Billionaires.

  • Hey guys…Trump is winning.

  • How on earth are the Republicans both responsible for Reid refusing to allow a vote on the bills they passed, and responsible for not moving stuff even further away from what the Democrats want?
    .
    I’m not saying the Republicans are responsible, just that they were complicit. Boehner’s House was never under any obligation to save Reid’s bacon by signing up for the whole continuing resolution charade. But then, explaining why the government is “shut down” and Christmas is cancelled until further notice because the Senate can’t fulfill it’s Constitutional duty on the Sunday shows is hard work when you’re a peter-principaled drunk I guess.
    .
    All this anger and mistrust that Trump is channeling is neither irrational nor misplaced; just misdirected in the sense that Trump isn’t suited to redressing the grievances that the GOP has over promised and under delivered on for the last three election cycles.

  • “All this anger and mistrust that Trump is channeling is neither irrational nor misplaced…”

    Yes a lot of it is, and a good writer named Ernst Schreiber said so a few days ago on this site when he wrote that people were looking for a Deliverer. At least that’s how I understood that comment (Deliverer Donald, along with Deliverer Hilary and Deliverer Bernie).

  • Hence the “misdirected” part.

  • But then, explaining why the government is “shut down” and Christmas is cancelled until further notice because the Senate can’t fulfill it’s Constitutional duty on the Sunday shows is hard work when you’re a peter-principaled drunk I guess.
    Forcing people to listen to something they don’t want to hear is quite hard. Especially when you don’t have any power to make “the Sunday shows” air what you say, and when you do give the detailed explanation it’s either ignored, misquoted or the objection changes.

  • I’m going to attempt to stick to my original goal and stay out of presidential politics here. Mr. McClarey is a gracious host and I am a guest here. We disagree on the GOP and I would rather not get in arguments about it.

    The current Roman Pontiff always provides lots to discuss.

  • Sorry Ernst, anyone looking for a Deliverer in American politics is more than misdirected. Their faith is misplaced, they are immature, many if not most are to at least some degree irrational.

  • I see Shea more as having the less pleasing aspects of Pope Francis: loving to shock us via harsh scoldings based only erratically on facts.

How to Vote Nazi With a Clear Conscience

Wednesday, February 3, AD 2016

58 million

 

 

Commenter Guy McClung takes the Shea voting advice in regard to pro-abort Bernie Sanders to its logical conclusion:

Germany 1943:

Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.

 

 
You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.

 
If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to How to Vote Nazi With a Clear Conscience

  • The civil good.

    Masterfully accomplished Guy McClung.

    The civil good is killing us.
    The foundation of a once remarkable and blessed Nation has eroded due to civil good.
    George Orwell couldn’t of foreseen the future more accurately than he did in 1984.

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” G.Orwell (1984)

    The diabolical has gained control of inteligencia. Not all, but most. Especially the liberal elite. This global experiment, human existence, is nearing a result that will eclipse the holocaust of the Nazis. I have over 58 million examples to prove my point.

  • Had the late Archbishop Joseph Cardinal Bernardin consulted a Topologist of Moral Theology, he would have learned that there is a seamless garment that fits Cthulhu.

    When will our bishops renounce the seamless garment excuse and all her works?

  • Well, you know, the policy of killing Jews isn’t going anywhere. Some 20% of Germans oppose killing Jews, and about 20% favor it, and the middle 60% have some problems with it but don’t want to talk about it. So let’s not fool ourselves that “not killing Jews” is a real option this election.

  • There’s enough of a conscience left to want to try to justify wrong doing- just not enough left to see how you are really a collaborator, and misleading others

  • “Be careful not to hitch your wagon to the wrong horse.” Seems to me the conformity of ill-formed consciences is status quo today.
    To participate in genocidal practices or condone such activities is nothing short of horrific. Collaborator’s Anzlyne! This is a nightmare. A killing fields in our own backyard. God has mercy on repenting souls.
    What about the non-sorrowful abortion practitioner and pregnant women?

    Do we have conscience free murderers sipping Latte’s and running for public office’s?

    Do we have a broken moral compass?

    Do we deserve the leadership in the Church and Nation?

    Depravity….The United States of Depravity.

  • One request please.

    Can you spare a prayer for Sandra “Susan” Merritt? Houston Criminal Court reduced charges from felony to misdemeanor.

    To shift the spotlight from Planned Parenthood to Susan Merritt is ludicrous.
    Part of her defense team is staffed by Chris Downey and Dan Cogdell. Please say a prayer for them tonight as the grotesque DA team tries to beat up and hang the heroes, the undercover video journalists.

    Thanks.

  • I like the association of the Democrat Party with Nazi’s. It fits. Now if we could only get our Bishops to seriously take them on by name instead of kowtowing to this party of evil for government largess. The problem with the Catholic Church is that they are way to beholden to the government when they should be calling it to a higher moral standard as our Constitutional system requires to make it effective.

  • Canon 915.

    We’ve had clear teaching and clear consequences for so-called Catholics who present themselves for Holy Communion, yet our leadership is weak in enforcement. Burke excluded. So guess what? Nazis welcome!

  • I could not read Shea’s long diatribe. It makes me sad that people support him, especially after what he posted. I’m reading the comments and my favorite so far is this one: “Pithy, you are not, as you took over 30 paragraphs to answer a one paragraph question. I believe you protest so much to quiet your own conscience. Also, the CCC, paragraph 2240, states it is morally obligatory to exercise the right to vote.”

    I would like to say, my 15 yr old went to the youth rally in DC on the 22nd. He was very moved. He’s always been pro-life, but this took him a step further. He said to me yesterday that he thinks he’ll live to see the end of abortion in our country. Please pray for him that he never loses his zeal or his faith. Oh, and while in the train station, waiting to leave DC, he saw a homeless man with no socks. He sat next to the man to chat, then took off his socks, and gave them to him. Turns out, you can be 100% pro-life and still care for the homeless, all at the same time. Strange that a 15 year old knows more than Professional Catholic Shea.

  • Missy. You are correct on Shea. Folks with little to say take many words to say it. This is often a product of the confused Liberal mind where truth is covered up and nonsense proclaimed, e.g., Pope Francis.

    Good for your son. Perhaps he has a religious vocation which should be cultivated.

  • Remember the “Catholic case for Obama” from some allegedly Catholic professor 8 years ago? I can’t remember his name now, probably because no one has heard from him again. He was featured on a show on the Catholic channel at that time and what he peddled then so frustrated me that I had to call in and challenge his “Obama is pro-life” theme. The host was less than helpful and never challenged the fantasy painted by this gentleman. Plus ce change….

  • Was that Douglas Kmiec ?
    I heard he may be hoping for position as VP

  • I will be much less flowery..but the reasoning in this argument is baloney, period. I have long taught my children to avoid such thinking. Shame on the author. Shame on the Church if this is what “we” have become.

  • The article is a satire as to the arguments used by some Catholic commentators to justify voting for candidates who support abortion.

  • EXcellent! I’ve had to avoid Mark Shea and his followers as an occasion of sin. Your point is well made in this piece and I’ve been sharing it freely – let the fireworks begin!

  • We all knew what we were getting with Obama. After all, he voted against the born alive after abortion bill when he was in the senate. Yet, almost none of our clergy opposed him on moral grounds and a good many of them actively and vocally supported his election to the presidency. I am certainly not in a position to define who is on the road to perdition but I will note that the signposts are quite clear and we ignore them at our peril.

  • RU 486 – Ella abortifacient – Plan B

    More signposts Don Link.

    The antechamber of Hell is a never ending waiting room in an abortion mill. Pray for conversions.

You Know, Hitler Was Pretty Good on the Environment

Tuesday, February 2, AD 2016

a5d67ecc34cdf373877a2b08b0436d44

 

 

Over at National Catholic Register Mark Shea carries water for socialist pro-abort Bernie Sanders:

 

Sanders?  The pro-abort?  But, but! Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2004:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Yes. He certainly did. And he’s absolutely right. And if my reader were in any way indicating he supported Sanders because he supports abortion, he’d be in exactly the pickle Cardinal Ratzinger describes. But my reader is obviously not trying to support abortion. What he’s trying to do is support the other things Sanders advocates, many of which are obviously and immeasurably better than what Trump advocates. And in a contest with a GOP candidate such as Trump whose views on abortion are indistinguishable from Sanders, there is therefore a case to be made that my reader can do so without incurring any sin at all.

Sez who? Sez Cardinal Ratzinger in the same letter:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

In other words, if you vote for somebody who advocates grave evil (abortion, euthanasia, torture, etc.) because of the grave evil they advocate, you are guilty of advocating the grave evil yourself and therefore are unworthy to present yourself for communion.

But! If you vote for somebody, not because you support their advocacy of grave evil, but because you are trying to prevent an even graver evil, or because you think there is some proportional good supporting them will achieve, you are not committing a sin and are only offering remote material cooperation with evil. Bottom line, the Church says that you can, under certain circumstances, vote for a pro-abort candidate. Meaning it is on the cards that, under certain circumstances, my reader might be able to vote for Bernie Sanders. That’s not me talking, remember. That’s the future Benedict XVI talking.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to You Know, Hitler Was Pretty Good on the Environment

  • Does seem inconsistent to say the least…. but to break his stance of purity for Bernie?!?! Richard Rich at least got Wales.

  • Mark Shea is clearly in need of prayers. It’s been said that the more influential a person becomes, the harder the devil tries to corrupt him. Reading his recent work, I fear for his soul.

  • The Register published this trash!? I hope the NCR and Shea’s comment section is flooded with demands for his removal!

  • Ironic from the guy who yelled “consequentialism!” every time it was suggested in the torture debates that it might be a just and proportional thing to inflict some pain on a terrorist who knows where the ticking bomb is hidden. Now he discovers that mirabile dictu!– the Church does in fact condone the use of reason and making judgments about proportionality when faced with imperfect moral choices.

    It’s a sign of his pride and insecurity that he can only admit this principle when it suits his urges, in this case, his urge to support a candidate who embraces not just every social immorality, but also the evil of socialism which has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. I can’t think of a candidate *less* worthy of a Catholic vote than Sanders. Even Hilary is not as unabashedly anti-property and openly socialist.

  • In the NCR article Mark Shea is quoted, “… as well as the preposterous nomination of pro-abort Harriet Miers …”. Now I was no fan of that nomination and there were concerns that she didn’t have much of a track record on Roe vs. Wade or most other legal issues. However, I have never seen any indication that she was pro-abortion and quite a few suggestions that she was actually anti-abortion. This is disgraceful. He is falling for the typical liberal fallacy, A is bad, person B believes things that I don’t like, so therefore B must believe A.

    I think the biggest problem is that Shea seems to understand politics less than any commentator, left or right, who regularly comments on it.

  • Hardly surprising. The Shea of today would have fit right in writing for the Vox Nova of 8 years ago. He’s distinguishable from Morning’s Minion et al only in being slightly less overtly partisan, but even that appears to be changing. Say hello to the new guard at the “Debate Club at Auschwitz”.
    ***
    The people commenting on his blog and /or his Facebook page in days gone by would have been a who’s who of orthodox Catholics from around St. Blog’s and elsewhere. Today, those venues are filled with a veritable freak show of hard left Catholics whose views are more in line with the DNC platform than the Catechism and with an amen corner of malleable Catholic sycophants who can’t think for themselves without having Shea tell them how to do it.

  • Is Bernie saying that PP only murders male unborn babies?

  • It seems Shea’s clinging to the term “conservative” exists for one reason and one reason only; to convince those who love the Lord Jesus and the teachings of the Church that they should sit still and quiet while he promotes unrestrained progressivism.

  • Ironic from the guy who yelled “consequentialism!” every time…

    Thanks, Tom. I prepared and deleted about 3 possible comments of the same thing and you up and expressed better what I was trying to articulate.

    So, amen!

  • Why are you even dignifying anything written by Mark Shea?

    He is a rabid dog. You are best not going near him.

  • RodH: DING, DING, DING we have a winner.

    I’ve been saying it for years: Shea simply uses his supposedly orthodox Catholicism to give cover to his rabid progressivism. And in the process, leading many gullible Catholics astray. Something is terrible wrong at EWTN and its newspaper the NCRegister, that they continue to allow this man a voice. Mother Angelica would have given him a good old-fashioned tongue-lashing, and sent him packing a long time ago.

  • Steve D: I agree with you about the Register. In general, really, and not just about Shea. The more I read the slant given by the writers, the more I wonder if they are trying to make it a Reporter and not a Register…

  • “The Register published this trash!? I hope the NCR and Shea’s comment section is flooded with demands for his removal!”

    Stephen, I wrote to Dan Burke, who was then and may stiil be, the head publisher at the Register about Shea. I got no response.

  • The title says it all.

  • There is no substantive difference between a national socialist of the German Reich and a democrat socialist of the American left. Elect a Bernie Sanders and open persecution of the Church will begin.
    .
    As for Mark Shea, liberalism is a mental defect or disease.

  • Thanks for the head up on Shea and the NCR. I will unsubcibe to both of them

  • Apparently, Mark-who? stopped taking his meds years ago.

  • Voting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin: 1938
    Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
    You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
    If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
    Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head Symbols, especially those Nazis who say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who they are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” or “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
    Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler or he is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate.
    If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know the Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
    Yours in Christ,
    German & Austrian Church Leaders

  • Comment of the week Guy! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Guy:

    Your satire is biting! And…hard to distinguish from Shea’s position.

    Now Shea is just one guy who is devoid of even a theology degree. He has no credentials and is a guy just like most normal people, a guy with an opinion. So it is easy to discount what he says and draw the obvious direct connection between his bankrupt arguments and the satire you so masterfully present.

    What is horrific and truly demonic is the vociferous support for genocide that has been provided by Catholic Bishop after Catholic Bishop as they stand in “solidarity” with Democrat after Democrat and have for MANY years after the changes in the Democrat party erased all moral justification to do so. In fact, what we have in the USA is such a blending, such a syncretism, I long ago began calling the movement the “Democatholic Party” for it best describes the inseparable brotherhood of Catholics with the Democrat Party and the wholly ghastly union of what should be diametrically opposed groups. Democatholics have been using precisely your satirical reasoning but treating it as a legitimate defense for supporting abortion, the advance of the homosexual agenda and rank feminism for decades.

    I was very encouraged to see the USCCB voting recommendations this year as it shows some form of break with the past. However, not yet do we see condemnation of a truly meaningful form or what might better be called true catechesis on the issue of the butchery of millions and why one cannot support a party who promotes it and indeed has it as a permanent plank in its platform. Of course, Catholics are not supposed to do things such as “uncharitably” condemn anything it seems. You know, except “fundamentalists” who actually try to follow Christ and live according to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

  • Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.

    Rod Halvorsen,
    Look no further than Bernardin’s “seamless garment” argument to understand the mess we’re in today in AmChurch. This homosexual prelate did much to destroy the Church in America. Of course, Shea is a big fan of the seamless garment.

  • Steve D; Right you are about the seamless garment and Shea’s elevating it to his own personal dogma.

    But hey, don’t chuck all of us converts out with Shea’s bathwater! 😉

  • Here we have another neo jumping on board the Shea Wagon.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/02/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders.html

    Folks, seriously, what happened to the Catholic Church? So often I just plain have trouble finding it. Thank God for my FSSP parish…

  • Jahwohl, democratic socialism ist güt.

  • “Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.”

    Steve, I am not surprised either. I have been railing about the behavior of people like Shea and have written to the powers that be within the”orthodox” Catholic Media Complex for about a decade only to be treated with indifference at best and downright hostility at worst.

  • I was permanently banned from Catholic Answers for stating what I thought were well-known and simple facts about Swedish Lutheran “Bishop” Brunne’s lifestyle and I being an ex-Lutheran, suspected Martin himself would have the lot of them gibbetted. It wasn’t meant to be a cut, it was meant to literally demonstrate how we have slid historically, to the point that now we are taking seriously what would have been simply rejected out of hand what…just a few years ago!

    So I don’t think the Register is alone in this passive acceptance of anti-Catholic culture.

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker gets in touch with his inner Mark Shea here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders

  • That one could vote for a Sanders or a Hillary in spite of their odious positions against the Right to Life because you like their other ridiculous ideas is wearing a soiled garment that won’t wash in the tub of my conscience.

  • I saw this article and I was also concerned. If I were less charitable, I would say Mark is now another ‘poster child’ for the labor unions who spew the same garbage. Marxism

  • Mark is attempting to meld the sacred and the profane and in the process has lost sight of the fact that some things are simply and objectively evil and can not be negotiated with for the simple reason that there is no “lesser” evil. Also, it should also be noted that Bernie Sanders is the typical 60s flower child gone to seed. While I am loathe to consign anyone to perdition, I will note that the devil need not have a long reach to snare this catch.

  • Like they do on Amazon.com when you buy a book, “Others who bought ‘If you liked How to Sin Mortally by Voting for Democrats’, you may also enjoy Voting For Nero,” – if you liked Voting For Hitler, you might relish:

    from Catholic Lane, 24 Apr 15:

    Prostitution Politics

    I live in a brothel,
    But I am not a whore.
    Personally opposed to impurity,
    I’m chaste to the core.

    I help with the auctions,
    But no slaves are mine.
    Opposed to such servitude,
    I try to be kind.

    Working at Auschwitz,
    Folks arrive every day.
    Personally opposed to holocaust,
    What else can I say?

    In a warm den of thieves,
    I spend most of my time.
    Opposed to all thievery,
    I commit no such crime.

    I party with death,
    But never would harm a child.
    I am personally opposed to killing
    And to all murder most vile.

    I dance with the devil,
    But I’m untouched, in the lead.
    Opposed to all evil,
    I’m not self-deceived.

    I live in a brothel,
    But no whoring I know.
    Opposed to defilement,
    I’m pure as the snow.

    Copyright

  • Another (internet) source of ignorant banter, Matt Yglesias, was quoted elsewhere as tweeting something like, “Aside from genocide and war, the Nazis had some good ideas.” FYI, some “good ideas” don’t make licit 58 million abortions. If you vote for abortion advancers, you likely won’t be getting into Heaven.