23 Responses to Mark Shea Demonstrates How Not to Respond When a Democrat Fanatic Attempts to Murder Republican Congressmen

  • Mark Shea – MOLON LABE – come take!

    See if you can take my gun from me!

    I dare you!

    Come! Take!

    What a freaking nit wit! That murderous deranged Democrat nut case would have used a bomb or a knife or a bow and arrow or whatever were guns unavailable! Cain used a stone ot murder Able! It’s not gun which kill nor spoons that make people fat (looking your way, Shea!), but insane crazy self will run riot!

  • Mac, Did your confessor assign as a penance reading Mark-who? The Second Sorrowful Mystery, THE Scourging At The Pillar; I Desire A Spirit Of Mortification.

    It’s dishonesty/diversion/distraction.

    Only in America can a liberal unsuccessfully attempt to massacre lawmakers with whom they differ and the liberals scream that conservatives need to be disarmed.

    I took inventory. I have more guns than I have tightey-whiteys (you didn’t need to know that). I have as much cold steel – bayonets, K-Bar, kukri, etc. Unlike the typical liberal, I know how to use them and live to fight another day.

    Let’s Roll! Stay low. Move fast. Shoot first. Die last. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your planning was faulty.

    You bet that’s s call to arms: civil war. They started it.

  • FWIW, Rob’s comment was deleted. Others, including those yucking it up saying the GOP deserves what it gets, the NRA!’ are left up. A sad state for a once celebrated Catholic author who helped me into the Church. Mark is quickly giving voice to the worst of the radical alt-left.

  • Too true, Dave G. One commentator over there asked Mark if he was comfortable with the kind of commentators and discussion he was allowing and fostering.

    Mark’s reply:
    “Aside from jh (who I rebuked) who do you mean? The people who are rightly saying that gun cult rhetoric is false? That health care is good? I’m not interested in Tone Policing on behalf of a Gun Cult that has the blood of more Americas on its hands since 1968 than all of our wars combined.”

    “Blood on their hands” huh? Guess we know how happy his spirit will be when the next shooting occurs. And he was all about tone policing when an abortion clinic was shot up (twice!). I guess conservative lives and souls just matter less to him.

  • I’m not interested in Tone Policing on behalf of a Gun Cult that has the blood of more Americas on its hands since 1968 than all of our wars combined.”

    He manifests here three pathologies of prog-trash politics: (1) no sense of personal agency and (2) an affection for sociological nonsense in service to (3) sticking the bill for social pathology with a set of preferred bogies. In this case, hobbyists largely resident in exurbs, small towns, and the countryside (which have homicide rates around about 2 per 100,000) are held responsible for the fruits of the slum honor culture (which breeds homicide rates of 35 per 100,000). If you want to contain the social damage done by the slum honor culture, you might just…police the slums with ample manpower making use of best practices. You do that correctly, and Harlem has a homicide rate of 8.5 per 100,000 and a great many young people who might have ended up dead at 25 get to shuffle into middle age. However, it’s much more fun to cast aspersions on a gun collector in Greene County than to endorse addressing the problems Harlem has had.

    After some time reading the occasional blurts of a Catholic writer who fancies himself this generation’s Dorothy Day, it occurred to me that the man hated cops, and, indeed, anyone who defends himself with force and is capable of doing so. Mark Shea talks more an more like that man. What do you figure lies behind that?

  • If you want to contain the social damage done by the slum honor culture, you might just…police the slums with ample manpower making use of best practices.

    Nah if you REALLY want to contain the problem of the slums, you get fathers back into the homes. But how to do that is a big question that ain’t easy to answer.

    As for Mark & cops… it’s weird. One day he’ll post something against them, then the next day will post

    The three guys in London were dead within eight minutes of the attack and could only kill seven people for one reason: they lacked guns and were massively outgunned by cops who had them.

    So does he really hate cops or not? I get the feeling he’s really in favor of some platonic ideal of a cop that all the real flesh and blood ones keep failing to live up to and it’s those he really hates.

    Maybe. He’ll probably change his mind tomorrow.

  • “. . . .a Gun Cult that has the blood of more Americas on its hands since 1968 than all of our wars combined.”

    I’m old enough to remember when Hitler used that same argument to kill 6,000,000 Jews.

  • I think we should all borrow a trick from the left and each one of us make a donation to the NRA or a similar organization in Mark Shea’s name.

  • Nah if you REALLY want to contain the problem of the slums, you get fathers back into the homes.

    To which the Mayor of Philadelphia responds, “Who me? Oh, I’ll get right to it…”.

    We might just do something about violent crime in the slums (successfully addressed in New York) in lieu of twiddling our thumbs for six or seven generations until some spontaneous Great Awakening causes the problem to disappear.

  • “Maybe. He’ll probably change his mind tomorrow.”

    Nate, unfortunately inconsistency is one of Mark’s biggest problems. Part of it he’s ultimately an amateur, with no real accountability. Take those horrible days after Sandy Hook. He took a few days away from blogging – and that was certainly understood. But when he came back, it was NRA=Nazi and gun regulations now! all the way. And woe betide those who dared even think about asking him to unpack some of what he said, or critique his non-particulars. He said we must do whatever or else, and that was that. Except for some of his buddies, representing a more pro-gun rights viewpoint. Even though they were echoing some of what the rest of us were saying (and getting blasted by Mark and his more left leaning readers for doing so), Mark gave them great praise for their thoughtful questions and concerns. Because, well, they were buddies and pals. That was a key moment in my following of Mark. But then I find that those who wish to somehow compromise with the forces of modernity begin struggling in the consistency department.

  • The fact that I’m commenting tells you how bloody useless my life is.

    Do gun regulations work? Maybe, but the facts (guys like Mark-who are allergic to the facts) tell another tale. In the past ten years, national violent crime numbers declined 50% while private gun ownership numbers (Obama was the world record gun salesman) rose by 100%.

    Guys like Mark-who? climb on the broken, little bodies, and wave the bloody shirts, and throw hate at whole classes of people for the massacres.

    Look! I feel horrible about 23 little children being massacred. But, it wasn’t me.

  • “But, it wasn’t me.”

    Not sure if I’m reading you right, but you appear to be saying take comfort, at least I wasn’t massacred. Which, if that’s what you’re saying, I fear is all too true. I call it the modern golden rule: do unto others as long as you don’t do unto me. Of course when it’s applied is, like most things nowadays, radically inconsistent. Take unarmed blacks shot by cops. I have no reason to think it will happen to me – not being black – and yet I”m told to care and care passionately. But terrorism? That’s when it goes back to ‘as long as terrorists kill someone else, since nothing else matters but that it directly benefits me, it’s a sacrifice I”m willing to make.’ Altogether chilling, except for how many Christians are now jumping on the bandwagon.

  • Re Sandy Hook: preventing a Sandy Hook massacre would require mass gun confiscation or putting armed guards with almost nothing to do in exurban elementary schools. Nancy Lanza owned four guns and was in compliance with Connecticut law. They kept in a safe in her home. He murdered his mother in order to get hold of the key to the safe and then committed suicide after he’d finished his massacre at the school. Clayton Cramer’s complaints about free-range mental patients are not readily applicable. Unlike Cramer’s brother, Adam Lanza did not have a history of violence that anyone knew about and Nancy Lanza was in the process of attempting to have her son placed in an institution. The one recent case where a deficit of custodial care for schizophrenics seems spot on as a source of trouble would be that cinema shot up in Aurora, Colo.

    Trouble is, it’s a big country and any big country has a non-zero population of utter kooks you really cannot identify beforehand without a boatload of false positives.

  • The more he posts, the more he corroborates the National Catholic Register’s decision: http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/08/22/reports-that-mark-shea-has-been-fired-by-national-catholic-register/

  • Patheos ought to be driven into the dirt for sponsoring that blowhard windbag. Kellogg’s opened their mouths badmouthing Breitbart and it bit them in the rear end. Sponsor or peddle crap and you deserve to get clobbered in the wallet.

    ESPN is spiraling down the drain by being a bunch of SJWs instead of covering sports. The NFL saw its ratings plunge because a half black talentless quarterback named Colin Kapernick refused to stand for the National Anthem. Shea knows less about being Catholic than I do but some outfit saw fit to give him a forum for his crummy writing. Patheos deserves to bite the dust and Shea needs to find honest work.

  • David G. – It wasn’t me shooting.

    Art D. Immediately (as legislatures operate) CT and NY banned/confiscated all assault weapons. The day after the laws went into effect, approximately 800,000 CT and NTY residents were made felons. I believe the NY law (S.A.F.E. Act) specifically prohibits obtaining or maintaining statistics on compliance.

    Two things in conclusion re the Hodgkinson attack: It was a quick and easy transition from “Punch a Nazi!” to “Assassinate a Republican Congressman!” This is not about guns.

  • The top three nations for per capita gun ownership are, in descending order,
    the United States, Serbia, and Switzerland. The rates of gun-related homicides
    per 100K for each nation are:

    USA: 3.43 gun related homicides per 100,000 residents. (2014 statistics)
    Serbia: 0.61 per 100K (c. 2012)
    Switzerland: 0.21 per 100K (c. 2015) In 2014, that figure was even lower– 0.09.

    What to make of these statistics? Serbia is not a particularly stable country,
    but even with the high number of guns per capita, it has a markedly lower
    rate of gun-related homicide than we do. In Switzerland militia training is
    mandatory and reservists are encouraged to keep their government-issue
    weapon (usually a Sturmgewehr 90 assault rifle) in their homes. Guns are
    almost everywhere, and shooting clubs are common. That nation has about
    2.5X the population of Chicago, which has very strict gun control laws.
    Yet in Chicago last year there were over 450 gun-related homicides. And
    in all Switzerland in 2015 (the most recent stat I could find) there were… 17.

    What to make of all that? I’m sure there are many variables behind the
    differences in gun homicide rates between the three countries, but it seems
    clear to me that the relatively low rates of gun homicide enjoyed by both
    Serbia and Switzerland, despite their high number of guns per capita, means
    that our higher rate of gun violence has causes other than just the availability
    of guns. People (*ahem*, Mark Shea) who harp on the need to reduce access
    to guns are ignoring the actual causes of gun-related violence in this country,
    whatever those actual causes might be. Shea and his ilk would do well to get
    past their obsession with gun control and try to address the true causes
    of our nation’s gun-related violence. (And yes, as Penguins Fan stated above,
    Shea is a blowhard windbag).

  • We also have the fact that the most well-armed, per capita, regions of the country, invariably rural, have European levels of homicide rates. Death by homicide in this country is largely an urban problem and usually associated with drugs and gangs.

  • I have more guns than I have tightey-whiteys (you didn’t need to know that).

    Only 20 years late to the “boxers or briefs” question….

    *******
    A thing to look out for on statistics– not all countries figure homicide the way we do, and age is an important consideration. Guys between the ages of 16 and 30-something are involved in most crimes. (Which makes sense– it’s really dumb for, oh, a grandma to try intimidating people in a robbery!)

  • and usually associated with drugs and gangs.

    The homicide rate in my hometown is bad (20 per 100,000, or 35 per 100,000 in the core of the city) with little in the way of organized gangs. A great many slum homicides are inter-personal disputes between troublesome and impetuous people. (Or, as the disreputable Mr. Sailer puts it, “the Dominican guy shoots the Puerto Rican guy in a dispute over a plate of chicken”. The social control established by amply staffed police forces (including and especially incapacitation of a smalll selection of youth) cuts way back on this. Laws requiring registration of pistols and prohibiting licenses to juveniles or people with convictions for certain offenses are a component of these efforts at social control, because you can stop and frisk and then jail people you find with unlicensed firearms. This sort of thing is remote from mass confiscation. Also keep in mind that long guns are used in only about 3% of all homicides.

  • You look at the Democratic Party and you figure that one-third to two-thirds vote regularly but otherwise do not pay much attention to public affairs. As for the remainder, they make their voice heard here:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-scalise-alexandria-shooting-doctors-update/

  • Shea’s problem is that deep down, he’s still suffering from the Protestant heresy. Converts like him haven’t really completely converted to the Catholic Church, but rather a Protestant-like church with sacraments. He claims to know and accept all that the Catholic Church teaches, and that very well may be true, but that doesn’t mean he practices the faith. We should pray for the man, but also warn others that he is a danger to their soul.

  • Shea’s problem is that deep down, he’s still suffering from the Protestant heresy. Converts like him haven’t really completely converted to the Catholic Church, but rather a Protestant-like church with sacraments.

    His problem is that he’s emotionally disturbed, and has a portfolio of stock characters from outside the Church who are his hate objects. That he was once an evangelical is perfectly irrelevant to his problem.

Leave a Reply

Mark Shea v. Mark Shea

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011:

As you probably know, I’m skeptical of the Global Warming hype, not least because its marketers and packagers keep changing the name. First, it was “Global Warming,” then “Climate Change” (as if climate does anything besides change) and lately it’s “Global Climate Disruption.” I’m also skeptical that it is man made, and I think the dishonesty of some of the scientists in the field, not to mention the packagers and marketers, leaves me cold (clever pun, eh?). So, for instance, when I see evidence of rising sea levels that doesn’t always refer me back to the same remote island nobody knows anything about except that it might be a case of erosion and not rising sea levels, I will begin to take our melting ice caps more seriously.

Go here to read the rest.

 

June 1, 2017:

 

American Right Wing Id Monster joins Nicaragua and Syria in rejecting Climate Accord–just for spite.

And just days after Francis gave him a copy of Laudato Si, begged him to listen, and Trump lied that he would read it. (It’s longer than 140 characters and Trump’s name is not in it anywhere. Boring.)

Me: I boringly think wisdom lies with listening to the Holy Father. But of course, the kneejerk response of the revanchist Trumpified Catholic is “Francis is not speaking infallibly, you know! We’re talking about Prudential Judgment! You can ignore him on climate change! It’s not like he’s a climate expert!”

Go here to read the rest.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Mark Shea v. Mark Shea

  • Anyhow, it’s all virtue signal and no truth.

    That (Mark who vs. Mark who) sounds like a battle of wits wherein both antagonists enter the field unarmed.

    FYI – The climate models consistently have been wrong. In 2008, Algore shrieked, “The entire North polarized’ cap will DISAPPEAR in five years.” That would have been four years ago in 2013. FYI up there it is still frozen.

    Recent headlines on the net.

    8 May 2017: New study finds Earth has not warmed for the past 19 years.

    4 May 2017: Top physicist says, “‘Climate Change’ is no more credible than magic.” After studying 15 years of the lack of it, so-called climate scientists are more convinced than ever of global warming. because it’s religion not science.

    20 April 2017: Save Mother Earth! Screw The Middle Class. Instapundit: “Expensive power and gasoline disproportionately hurts poorer families and other lower-income groups since the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on “basic needs” like power.

    “When essential goods like electricity or gasoline becomes more expensive, the cost of producing goods and services that use electricity increases, effectively raising the price of almost everything. The higher prices are ultimately paid for by consumers, not industries.”

  • Mark Shea v. Mark Shea: The epic Battle of the Blowhards!

  • Mark Shea is a nice cautionary tale. He is one iteration of what you can become when truth no longer matters.

  • Comment of the week F7! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • I’ve often said that I would buy tickets to a debate between Mark Shea c. 2005 and Mark Shea today.

  • I’ve often said that I would buy tickets to a debate between Mark Shea c. 2005 and Mark Shea today.

    Promoted by Vince McMahon.

  • Mark Shea is a nice cautionary tale. He is one iteration of what you can become when truth no longer matters.

    I don’t think so. A dozen years ago, I’d have told you he was a satisfactory producer of magazine journalism when he had Brian St. Paul editing his work. Unmediated, he often said very ill-considered things, something Amy Welborn did not do. Shea’s more a cautionary tale about what happens to a man when his inner life has crucial features in common with Rosie O’Donnell’s. My mother used to say what happens to you as you age is that you turn into a caricature of yourself. Shea, like Rod Dreher, is an ’emotions-based’ writer. It’s just that his most salient emotion is rage rather than social anxiety. No clue what he’s so angry about at age 60.

  • He’s a sad guy who needs prayers. Totally muddled thinking, name-calling, and as this post points out, extremely inconsistent and often contradictory in his positions, Mark would have benefitted greatly from an education that taught him *how* to think, argue, and persuade.

  • Speaking of Mark, could someone please interpret this post for me:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/06/words-gop-favors-death-panels.html

    I pulled up the referenced doc, and couldn’t find what the tweet was referring to. Plus, I saw nothing in the tweet or the doc that suggested anything about race. If it was anyone other than Mark, I’d assume I’m missing something. But I still want to make sure.

  • Its in the March scoring footnote F:

    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact.pdf

    “f. Consists mainly of the effects of changes in taxable compensation on revenues. CBO also estimates that outlays for Social Security benefits would decrease by about $3 billion over the 2017-2026 period.”

    I assume lower social security benefits would be due to fewer baby boomers. I am 60 and in 26 I would be 69. A lot of boomers will have trooped off behind the Grim Reaper by that time. Of course none of this has to do with race and how Shea interprets this as the bill killing people off is beyond me.

  • Of course none of this has to do with race and how Shea interpret this as the bill killing people off is beyond me.

    You do wonder if he’s blotto when he writes some of this stuff.

  • Ah, footnote. I didn’t notice that in the tweet that it was a footnote. Knowing Mark’s disdain for people who get hung up over things like footnotes when it comes to Amoris laetitia, I didn’t think to look there. As for the gist of it, I have no clue where the WaPo reporter or Mark came up with the spin. That has got to be one of the most false and meanest interpretations one could come up with.

  • Art: Many people are angry with God for creating them.

  • How does Mark think there’s ever going to be any kind of socialized healthcare without death panels? Money isn’t infinite. One quickly gets the impression he was never much of a math major.

  • How does Mark think there’s ever going to be any kind of socialized healthcare without death panels? Money isn’t infinite. One quickly gets the impression he was never much of a math major.

    I think you mean econ. Scarcity and cost are economic concepts. AFAIK, the biographical blurbs on Mr. Shea’s books are opaque about how he earns a living or ever earned a living and about what he’s studied over the years. Others who write vocationally or avocationally (under their own name) tend to be more transparent about that.

  • “Art: Many people are angry with God for creating them.”

    Yep, and for giving them free will.

  • Mark has now answered apparently. The popes did it.

  • I am surprised he acknowledged that he changed his mind because for Mark the past tends not to extend much beyond his last post on any subject. The idea that the opinion of a Pope on a scientific question is of any great significance is foreign to Catholicism. Mark appeals, with his reference to the discredited 97% of all scientists agree on global warming, to a scientific consensus that simply does not in reality exist:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#4cef5267485d

    The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion in that any facts which tend to argue against it are simply ignored or shouted down. The term “global warming denier” is meant to shut down debate and apes the term “Holocaust denier” thus implying that those who dispute Global Warming are to be treated with the same contempt as those who deny the Holocaust deservedly receive. The mantra that “the science is settled” is particularly disturbing since science is never settled being ever open to modification as our knowledge grows. Such aspects of the global warming/climate change movement are not the methods of science but rather the mode of heresy hunters, both religious and political, down through the ages. In regard to his comments about the withdrawal from the Paris Accords, that is precisely how Mark is sounding.

  • Mark from August 2014:

    Back before it was called “global climate disruption”, “global climate change”, or even “global warming” it was called the greenhouse effect and we were all assured 2000 was going to inaugurate the environmental Judgment Day:

    The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth’s mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.

    I am constantly struck by how the climate change argument perpetually arrays itself in the language of faith and not science. Priests in white lab coat vestments utter prophecies “with great authority”. Apocalyptic language abounds. People perpetually speak of their belief and disbelief in global warming. Indulgences called carbon credits are offered. As somebody who knows little of the science but something of the language of faith, I find it fascinating. Nobody ever asks me if I believe in hydraulics or jet propulsion

    https://quinersdiner.com/2014/08/19/climate-apocalypse-forecast-in-1986/

    Mark now holds as heretics the people who hold the same views on global warming that he held less than three years ago.

  • The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion

    Disagree. It has all the attributes of fashions among teenagers, like a great many things on the progressive laundry list. It defines in-groups and out-groups among a certain sort of bourgeois.

    I have no doubt there are serious scientists who think the data says this is a problem. The trouble is, academic is a social monoculture and among everyone they know it’s a mark of being low-class to dissent. Dissenters are people so prominent in their field other academics can’t touch ’em (Richard Lindzen), or are tarred by the media as oil-industry stooges (Willie Soon), or decide to leave academe (Judith Curry), or work in industry (Steve McIntyre). You’d think the scandals out of the University of East Anglia would give people pause, but they do not.

    Here’s an interesting question: who is paying Michael Mann’s legal bills? Very few people would ever file a defamation suit against an opinion journalist in response to a random insult. E. Howard Hunt once said after his one experience with a defamation suit, he would never get involved with another one no matter what someone said about him. My wager is that some portion of the sorosphere is bankrolling Mann’s lawyers for essentially political reasons.

  • As a left coaster and an eco-wacker, does Mark Shea support carbon free nuclear? He cannot even say or write the word! The only thing he merits is being ignored as an ignoramus.

  • The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion

    Disagree. It has all the attributes of fashions among teenagers, like a great many things on the progressive laundry list. It defines in-groups and out-groups among a certain sort of bourgeois.

    I don’t know that your two points are mutually exclusive, Don & Art. Religions can be fashionable.

  • My problem with the ‘consensus of good people’ argument is that, aside from sniffing of unchristian teaching, it defies common sense. I’m supposed to believe that all of the scientists who accept MMGW are pure of heart, while all who question it are necessarily rotten to the core? That’s just stupid. Who would believe that? Other than almost everyone who argues for MMGW, Mark, and, IIRC, Pope Francis. That, to me, is a problem.

  • “The idea that the opinion of a Pope on a scientific question is of any great significance is foreign to Catholicism.”

    True, but all too common amongst many Catholics today.

Teaching Hate

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017

 

Fifth rate comedienne grabs some cheap publicity by holding up a mock bloody head of Donald Trump.  Ho Hum, the deranged left always acts this way, and that is precisely the problem.

 

Mark Shea is his born again leftist mode had this post on his blog today:

So good white Christian Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter (a fact confirmed by dangerous Marxist network FOX)…

and the Party of Brownshirt Lovers of Threats and Violence loved it, which is why Mona Charen had the unenviable task of trying to tell this party of neutronium-skulled thugs that they must stop denying, excusing and defending it.  They are not listening, of course, because they are violent thugs and enemies of America.  But worst of all, it is Christian thought leaders who are now orgasmic for this crude thuggery and Steven Greydanus calls them out:

I write today neither to accuse Greg Gianforte nor the voters of Montanta, neither of whom I have much to do with.

I write to accuse those who excuse, dismiss or enable intolerable behavior like Gianforte’s, or who give ear and support to those who do.

I’m talking to you, Dinesh D’Souza. I’m talking to you, Laura Ingraham.

Most of all, I’m talking to you, all my friends who still regard D’Souza and Ingraham as voices worth listening to.

It pains me to say this, because the fact is that I not only liked Ingraham and D’Souza, I *respected* them. I feel betrayed by what the American Christian conservatism I once identified with has become. I feel like a fool for not having seen it sooner.

In this words of this article, “None of this is a gray area. You either uphold certain basic standards of decency or you don’t.”

And the answer is: We don’t. Obviously. Read what Ingraham and D’Souza had to say about a now-elected official body-slamming a journalist, and realize the truth of the world we live in: The Tribe Right or Wrong; The Tribe Über Alles.

With the appropriate incantatory words (depending on your sub-tribe and the situation, they may be “But Hillary,” “The Babies,” “Obamacare,” “Immigration,” etc.), people who pride themselves on decency and traditional values will not only look the other way, but actively *defend* bad behavior and harm as long as the right people are being defended or harmed.

That’s what most horrifies me: not simply that someone might say “Unprovoked assault is obviously terrible and unacceptable but what’s on offer on the other side is even worse,” but that people will say “It was our guy hitting their guy? Eh. He had it coming. He’s a crybaby. He’s a sissy for not hitting back.” (This is paraphrase but scarcely exaggeration. Read the piece.)

I shouldn’t have to say this, but experience shows that I do: If your first reaction to this scolding is to bring up punching Nazis or what happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

Tu quoque won’t help you here. First of all, because *I’m* making the accusation, and *I* neither punched Richard Spencer, nor joined in the Middlebury mob, nor have I defended those who did.

I’m against punching Nazis and mobbing out-of-favor academics on college campuses, and *I’m* telling you that if you listen to people like Ingraham and D’Souza who defend blatant thuggishness as long as the violence goes the right way, *you’re* the one being harmed. Tu quoque is no defense when both sides are sipping arsenic.

Some might be tempted to modify the tu quoque and ask me why I’m actively calling out defenders of Gianforte when I haven’t gone out of my way to call out defenders left-wing violence. There are many answers to that, but the simplest is that I USED TO LIKE AND RESPECT INGRAHAM AND D’SOUZA.

The people I’m talking to are still, in spite of my alienation from the conservative machine, very much my peeps. We agree on many of the things that matter most.

What it seems to me we haven’t yet managed to agree on is the spiritual danger of embracing The Tribe Über Alles.

To be sure, not all Republicans endorse this filth.  Some of them, known by the goons and thugs who now constitute the bulk of the Party of Trump as “fake conservative” and “wusses” still speak out on behalf of civilization and are shouted down by Real Christians and Real Conservatives:

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Teaching Hate

  • Mark Shea is a complete waste of time. More bloggers ought to come out after him and point out what a hypocrite he is.

  • This fellow Gianforte appears to have had a minor altercation with a member of the political opposition. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Shea why people might find it at least vaguely amusing that a member of one of the grossest and unethical occupational groups in America was issued a penalty by a fed-up member of the public.

    The irony of Mark Shea offering a vitriolic denunciation of someone else’s bad temper is lost on….Mark Shea.

  • Regarding “hate” in Lt Gov. Ralph Northam’s ad for the Democratic primary which aired today Northam said, “”Donald Trump is a narcissistic maniac and I will do all I can to keep his hate out of Virginia”.
    Predict that the word “hate” referring to President Trump and conservative values will be the liberal, progressive and Democrat buzz word for this election.

  • Mark has turned into a total apparatchik for the left. The type of unthinking political partisan he condemned for years he has become.

  • Some days I’m tempted to start a website that will just be quotes from old Mark Shea posted against the new Mark Shea. And of course he’s become a left-partisan. He’s become increasingly lazy intellectually and leftist politics excel at providing policies and narratives that hit you in the gut and don’t require any thinking (indeed thinking usually causes it all to fall apart so you’re discouraged from that). Now that he’s cocooned himself in an echo chamber, he needn’t worry about ever having to bother thinking or checking facts again.

    And what’s up with his new race obsession. It’s like reading one of those alt sites that insist on pointing out everybody’s jewishness – only it’s everybody’s whiteness.

  • The contemporary left, most of it, is just as race obsessed as a Klansman circa 1866. They have looked into the abyss and became what they beheld.

  • I’m still not sure Gianforte actually assaulted the guy. Not as in, “I don’t think he hit him,” as in “I think the guy was doing the usual pushy reporter violating personal space and came against a NORMAL FREAKING HUMAN BEING.”

    Has anybody actually seen a quote from the Fox lady about what she saw? I’ve only seen things where it says “the fox reporter said she didn’t see an act of open aggression” which, given the media, makes me suspect she actually said “I didn’t see what happened” or something.
    ******
    We’ve had people poisoned, folks run off the road, ROUTINE acts of violence against conservatives… maybe the English reporting style I’ve read about in all the old books is, ah, not the wisest option?

  • Foxfier what gets me (and you can try this on some of Dave G’s commentors if you want it demonstrated) is that numerous, repeated actions by the Left are always excused as “outliers” and “proof of nothing” while the much rarer action by the Right proves everything. Or they’ll use this to end that argument in a kind of “if you want to associate those dozen with the Left, then you have to associate this one with the right.”

    Oh hey, Mark went and provided an example! Let’s see… in the article he wrote:

    [facebook capture of Jeremy Christian praising Trump]
    Christian was much like [these racists] that take their inspiration from our white racist president and his white racist attorney general.

    Then in the comments…

    And he [Jeremy Christian]also supported Sanders for a while, which proves… something or other.

    So supporting Trump proves something, but supporting Sanders proves nothing? Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury, I present exhibit C in political hackery.

  • The audiofile and one witness account indicate the reporter fell over backwards. The witness just says she saw his feet in the air, not the point of contact between the reporter and anyone else. The conversation between the two is tense but civil until there’s a sudden crash and an enraged person (Gianforte) is rebuking the reporter at a high pitch and orders him to leave. The reporter is complaining of being ‘body slammed’ and complains that Gianforte broke his glasses. (My guess would be his glasses are a pair of over-the-counter cheaters as I have an identical pair). A calmer voice intercedes and says ‘you need to leave’. The sudden change of mood on the part of the candidate leads me to believe something inaudible happened which changed the tenor of the discussion. It sure makes no sense unless the candidate was hopped-up on something.

  • I have a suspicion that viewing M. Shea as a purveyor of political opinion as if he were Paul Zummo is in error. His conduct over the years has grown so peculiar that I have to believe that it is some other phenomenon expressed in political code. It certainly is puzzling.

  • While I don’t care to comment on this issue, I will defend Mark against the characterization of his blog as an “echo chamber”. I argue with him all the time, and he’s never tried to delete comments, ban me, or even responded with anything but respect.

  • Great, Illithid, now shall we go over the much larger number of people who have been banned?

    Or would you care for a scientific experiment? Say something even slightly positive about Trump. For example, I see you commented on his “2 heroes” post, be like Guest and ask him what a Trump tweet from 2015 has to do with the recent week. Or ask him why a post by the madman supporting Trump is indicative of something but posts supporting Bernie is not. Or wait, Mark is due to post the “prison pop > gulag” lie soon, correct him on that. Let’s see how long you last…

  • Okay, I’ll expand. Many commenters argue with Mark, at length, about every topic under discussion. They’ve been engaged with, not banned. This is not an echo chamber. It is true that some comments were deleted in that article. I don’t know what they said. But other comments by “Guest” remain, along with Mark’s replies arguing with them. Unless you’re claiming there is never a legitimate reason to delete a comment, I don’t think you’ve made your point. Have you been banned there?

    P.S. This combox is annoying! Can only see the line I’m typing.

  • Oh, BTW, except that someone with color vision seems to have corrected his spraytan and hairdye, I can’t think of anything positive to say about Trump. I’d be interested to know who he’s banned if you feel like saying, but I’m not debating anything at length in this program. I can’t even go back and edit if I mess something up. This is horrid.

  • P.S. This combox is annoying! Can only see the line I’m typing.

    Do you see the corner where there’s a pair of slanted lines? Click on that and hold and you can adjust the combox to any size you desire.

    Okay, I’ll expand. Many commenters argue with Mark, at length, about every topic under discussion. They’ve been engaged with, not banned. This is not an echo chamber.

    Arguing over who hates Trump the most and why is not any kind of “disagreement” – otherwise by that logical standard there is no such thing as an echo chamber anywhere even on the internet.

    It is true that some comments were deleted in that article. I don’t know what they said. But other comments by “Guest” remain, along with Mark’s replies arguing with them. Unless you’re claiming there is never a legitimate reason to delete a comment, I don’t think you’ve made your point. Have you been banned there?

    Yes I have been (more than once, actually), as well as Dave G., TM Lutas, PetetheGreek… those guys I knew personally. There was a whole “banned by Mark Shea” facebook group but since I’m not on facebook I’ll let those who are find that one. I’m sure some others around here have (like Art Deco) but I’ll let them confirm. You can have fun just googling banned by Mark Shea and finding accounts like here.

    I can’t think of anything positive to say about Trump.

    You don’t have to think of anything positive, just correct a dishonesty. For example, in the original post by Shea Don linked to, there is this bit from Mark:
    “And the anonymous bullies, KKK, and thugs of the Party of Trump have heard the clarion call to threaten a free press with violence too.”
    That line links to…
    http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article153236479.html

    So, be honest, what does some broken windows in Lexington, KY have to do with Trump? No really, go read the article and ask Mark that. No word on this suspect’s identification. And as the investigating officer notes: “there have been incidents in the last month of windows being shot out with pellet or BB guns on a school bus, a transit bus and at an elementary school in Lexington. It was too early to say whether those might be related to the damage at the Herald-Leader.” Now, it seems pretty clear to me that there is as much connecting those bus and school “shootings” to this incident as there is Trump. (indeed I’d wager money this whole thing is just some kids horseplaying with an air rifle) So go on. You don’t have to say something positive about Trump, just demand a fair trial. Even guilty men get that much.

  • Thanks for the tip, but it apparently doesn’t work on my tablet.

    As to the main topic: okay, I’m somewhat persuaded. I actually remember Dave G. (on whose blog I also comment regularly) saying he had been banned. I shall consider your points and pay more attention. I did read your links.

  • Oh. Yeah, sorry Illithid, I don’t know about tablets much. The combox isn’t great for them. (I do miss some of Don’s old site design, I’ll admit that.)

    And hey, you can make a fun drinking game of it. 😉 Every time the link Mark posts doesn’t quite match what he said about it, take a drink! (note I take no responsibly for any liver failure you experience)

History and Leftist Inconoclasm

Monday, May 8, AD 2017

He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression; and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy and a man without guile. He was a Caesar without his ambition; Frederick without his tyranny; Napoleon without his selfishness; and Washington without his reward.

Benjamin Hill on Robert E. Lee

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes that Mark Shea has embraced the leftist crusade of purging the nation of all things Confederate:

 

 

Why should we have a monument in our capital named for a hypocritical racist slave owner?  Or for that matter, why should our capital be named for one?  Mark Shea explains.  Mark isn’t advocating the eradication of Washington’s name from his home state, or the destruction of the Jefferson Memorial, or the closing down of Independence Hall, or moving the presidential residency from a building built on the backs of slaves.

Nothing in his post, however, could be used to condemn such actions.  In fact, the post could be used to defend such actions.   As a Believer, I’m a little bothered by the sudden emergence of the ‘erase the Confederacy and everyone in it’ movement that has gained steam since the Charleston Shooting.  Mark himself decried the sudden removal of Confederate symbols from museums and other historic locations.

Nonetheless, he seems fine with the removal of monuments for even such luminaries as Robert E. Lee, who often was compared to Erwin Rommel, a brave and noble man on the wrong side of the debate.   Sure, you could argue there is a dearth of high schools or statues celebrating Rommel, but that is because for the longest time, people actually believed that the American South, if not America, and Nazi Germany were different animals.  Now, of course, those differences are eroding.  Since there is typically good and bad in most people, places, and things, deciding to weigh all equally on the Nazi Comparison scale seems a dangerous trend.

In fact some could argue, as Mark appears to, that there was little moral difference between the North and South.  Perhaps the rest of the US was every bit as bad.  And if so, then why keep anything honoring it or those who fought for it?  No more God bless America?  Just God damn America?  Perhaps.  Given that in my lifetime I watched a concerted effort to stop seeing such historical luminaries as Attila the Hun, or such civilizations as the Vikings or the Mongols in purely negative ways, I have a hard time seeing the reverse trend when it comes to America.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to History and Leftist Inconoclasm

  • By erasing the memory of history we are condemned to repeat it. Paraphrase of George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

  • I think its time Mark should team up with Bill Nye as a new comedic duo. Kind of like Laurel and Hardy

  • This hysteria is a neo-Talibanic effort to enforce a vision of social purity on the part of zealots. There is no logical end to it that would exclude eradicating any street, town, city, or monument named after Washington.

  • Agreed. The Confederacy is merely a momentary stand in for the true leftist target: the United States of America.

  • I’m in favor of leaving most Confederate memorials intact for this simple reason: the men that Mark hates with an incandescent rage did something for which all Americans should be grateful: with almost no exceptions, they encouraged the South to accept the verdict of the battlefield and reconcile with the nation. If they had not–especially Robert E. Lee, who rejected guerilla warfare at the end–America would be a weakened garrison state. A few statues is a small price to pay for freedom.

  • Mark hates with an incandescent rage did something for which all Americans should be grateful: with almost no exceptions

    Good point.

    One problem is that some political figures have virtues expressed only in private life. That statue of Pitchfork Ben Tillman might properly be moved to a museum.

    Agreed. The Confederacy is merely a momentary stand in for the true leftist target: the United States of America.

    Half of it is black politicians (or passing-for-black politicians like Ben Jealous) who are bereft of ideas and have nothing better to do but mark territory. The other half is academic types like Wm. Chafe who wish to set themselves up as arbiters of value in American history and life. I’m inclined to tell both sorts to take a hike.

  • The only thing that really annoys me about The American Catholic, is the time it wastes complaining about nonentities like Mark Shea. Who cares?

  • Mark is not a non-entity. He is taken by many Catholics as a Catholic apologist and regularly appears before Church groups.

  • “One problem is that some political figures have virtues expressed only in private life. That statue of Pitchfork Ben Tillman might properly be moved to a museum.”

    That point is well-taken. I’m much more amenable to removing the statues of Confederate politicians as opposed to their soldiery and combat commanders.

  • The only thing that really annoys me about The American Catholic, is the time it wastes complaining about nonentities like Mark Shea. Who cares?

    About 15 years ago, he was one of the more widely circulated Catholic (non-fiction) writers in the country. By and large, magazine journalism has fallen on hard times in the intervening years and (I suspect if you examined the question carefully), the audience for that sort of thing is demoralized to a degree it was not at that time. Shea himself has been suffering from some sort of middle-age decay of occult origin, so has likely lost his audience (though gained an audience among a modest corps of cranky palaeos). I suspect he gets bookings from people who are familiar with some of the monographs he’s published in the past and just have not reviewed his online writings.

    One problem is (and you can see this looking at Ignatius Press catalogues) is that Catholic writers who are accessible to general audiences with work in print tend to be deceased (Regine Pernoud, John Senior, and, more recently, Ralph McInerney), very old (Peter Kreeft), retired and silent (Sandra Miesel), or on the cusp of retirement (Robert George). There does not seem to be anyone younger coming down the pipeline.

  • It galled me that students at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, where Lee presided after the war, campaigned and succeeded in removing Confederate symbols on campus. I never understand why, with all the colleges in the United States, why students attend a school and attempt to change their culture. Why not just attend another university?

  • I never understand why, with all the colleges in the United States, why students attend a school and attempt to change their culture. Why not just attend another university?

    You recall Sandra Fluke, against her economic interest, elected to attend Georgetown in order to pester the school administration.

    It’s doubtful the youths who engage in this sort of tripe (or the faculty and administration who are their collaborators) are the sort to attempt to appreciate the world around them as is.

    One thing I’ve noticed, now that Nat Hantoff has died, is that the progressive dispensation is occupied almost entirely by people who trade in sentiment (on the one hand) and people who are forever making accusations (on the other). Be nice if the vanguard of 50% of the population weren’t given to self-aggrandizement morning, noon, and night, but we do not live in that world.

  • Checking some data online, it would appear that about 50% of their matriculating freshman are not Southerners. The place is a swank and selective private college. They recruit from the professional-managerial bourgeoisie with a leavening of patrician types. To some extent, these are now status markers in that set.

  • I live3 and hour away from New Orleans. One of the most well-known landmarks is Lee Circle, with the statue of Gen. Robt. E. Lee atop a tall column, the column’s foundation an island that operates as a traffic circle for St. Charles Sreet and the iconic St. Charles streetcar line. It amazes me how the powers that be namely politically correct liberals have successfully garnered enough support for the dismantling of this and other monuments. In the case of Lee, who as the article correctly noted, was not a racist and along with his wife did what they could to help black Americans every way they could. It’s apparent those who advocate the removal of Lee’s statue are victims of their own ignorance and also the dishonesty of the mayor and others who are most certainly aware of the General and Mrs. Lee’s charitable work. This situation is also an indication of the failure of both our educational institutions for spending more time indoctrinating their student rather than teaching real history.

About That Apology

Monday, March 27, AD 2017

 

From the thread on the post where Mark Shea announced his apology to Ed Feser:

 

Trump remains, without any possible comparison, the worst and most dangerous crook to ever live in the White House. The issue is not how people voted. The issue is the massive scandal of Christians who still support, deny, and excuse every lie and cruelty this feckless incompetent commits at this hour.

 

######################

 

The Christian right, in huge percentages, voted for a lying sex predator who embodies the antithesis of the gospel in almost every way and has continued to defend him with silence and acclamation to this hour. They have killed my faith in their judgment and their honesty stone dead. Until I see some signs of repentance I will regard them with the same incredulity as I regard Catholics for a Free Choice. Indeed, *more* incredulity since CFFC at least have the honesty to state clearly that they are at war with the Magisterium while the Catholic Right has the gall to claim they represent the Church better than the Pope does.

And yes, I do deeply disagree with Feser about the death penalty. The one thing this world does not need is a Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to About That Apology

  • Shea’s issue is so obvious, even his remaining supporters have pointed out: politics! Considering that Jesus told us to cut off our arm and pluck out our eye to stop sinning, it seems like a bargain indeed that all Shea would have to do is shut up about Trump. And yet he couldn’t do it even in the main post, much less in the comments. It’s like listening to an alcoholic scream that THIS time he is definitely going to go sober… while standing in front of his favorite bar.

    In one of his replies, Edward Feser says,

    I noted that Shea’s claim that “4% of [those executed] are completely innocent” misrepresents the authors of the study from which Shea derives this claim.

    Indeed, if one reads the links Shea posts one can’t help but notice it’s not uncommon for him to misrepresent anything he has read if he read it (like the prison/gulag number comparisons he still harped on for awhile). Therefore the man has shot his own apologetics in the foot, for if he cannot read and understand that which was written for his time, and his ears, one has to wonder how well he can understand something written in a different time and context using a language not his own.

  • “And yes, I do deeply disagree with Feser about the death penalty. The one thing this world does not need is a Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty.”
    Has Shea read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

  • He took a perfect description of Bill Clinton and just subbed in Trump’s name.

    While he accepts the UCCSB’s documents on the death penalty, he hasn’t bothered to acquaint himself with what the Church teaches–the Catechism paragraph 2267.

  • At least Mark has come out and all but admitted he is now a passionate, hardcore liberal Democrat:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/03/to-win-again.html

    I don’t know if he ever will admit it in those words, since he seems to be a proud ‘non-conformer’ from his youth, plus his shtick as ‘the conservative Catholic who despises conservatism but loves liberalism’ has helped him garner quite a few followers on the left who enjoy the benefits that such a voice brings to the table.

    But at least in this post, he has more or less said that apart from abortion, he sees liberal Democrats and fealty to the Church’s teaching as pretty much one and the same.

    Perhaps that will help, because I’ve felt part of the reason for his rancor, personal attacks and at times slanderous approach to the debate has been rooted in the conflict between Mark Shea c. 2002 and Mark Shea c. 2017. Between the man who once declared Islamic aggression and liberal Democrats and their lust for government power to be serious threats to the Faith and liberty, but who now has become a vocal ally of those same forces. And all without admitting the change. By finally admitting where he stands on things, perhaps he will finally calm down.

  • I oppose the death penalty, in all but exigent circumstances.

    I acknowlefge that I am not competent to state a matter the Church has not spoke definitely on. I know many good people who fundamentally disagree with me about the death penalty. I listened. I considered. I remain convinced that I am right.

    There I this crazy idea out there that the Church’s teachings as a sort of moral and ethical baseline of mandatory beliefs, to which one can append one’s own beliefs and, so, paint them with the same moral certainty. I know y’all know this isn’t how it works but I see this impulse in Mark Shea’s writings.

  • Willing to make a wager on that, Dave G? 😉

    Actually you may be right. It’s a hellova thing to lie mostly to oneself. Maybe if he can finally face the truth about who he is there some hope he can find a bit of peace.

  • Mark strikes me as a man going through a conversion to the left. I suspect that he will eventually go whole hog and jettison his pro-life stance. His celebrating the ridiculous “New” Pro-life Movement, that seems to exist in order to give cover to voting for pro-abort Democrats, is a half-way house on that course. The adamant pro-abort stance of Hillary Clinton did not stop him from launching a crusade to elect her in preference to, cue evil music, Trump. Mark gives lip service to the pro-life cause now, but that is all he gives it, except for curses and calumnies.

  • Eh, I’ll bet against you on that, Don. :mrgreen:

    Mark seems to have given over to intellectual laziness whole hog. He thinks far more with his gut & heart than his brain any more. This makes him a natural prey for the Left who’s arguments innately appeal to reflexive emotion (conservatives have complained about it for years). But abortion is just too grisly for him to ever really embrace it. Although in Dave’s link we can see him using the emotional “innocent girls will suffer!” argument, babies dying is still too emotional for him to embrace. Instead he’ll probably remain on his current streak indefinitely in that if we had just a bit more welfare, one more government project, we’d finally be free of abortion once and for all.

    Ironically it’s the Democrat version of what he said the GOP do: ‘So every four years they say “Vote GOP or the baby gets it…”’ (i.e. “Support this program or babies will die!”)

    Shea’s life seems full of irony in that way.

  • Oh but he wouldn’t be embracing it. The way to fight abortion according to the “New” Pro-life Movement is to elect pro-abort Democrats and vastly expand the welfare state and the need for abortion will end. Overlooked of course is that abortion was legalized in tandem with a radical expansion of the welfare state. This is a prime example of the endless ability of humans to believe complete and utter rubbish in order to reach a desired end, which in this case is a mythical welfare state utopia.

  • ” I suspect that he will eventually go whole hog and jettison his pro-life stance.” I hope not. That said, I realized sometime around 2010 that reading his columns was a near occasion of the sin of wrath for me. No doubt this is partly due to the Internet itself, which tends to make people who use it, certainly not excepting myself, into bigger jerks than they were before. Maybe that’s all there was to it at the time, but there seemed to be something more deeply wrong. He may still have a blog entitled “Catholic and Enjoying It”, but he doesn’t seem to have actually had any joy from Catholicism for quite some time. Where there should be the Fruit of the Spirit, there seems to be bitterness instead. If I am right in sensing that — and again, the Internet is infamous for creating false impressions of this kind — he is not only useless as an apologist (no one needs an angry, bitter apologist) but is in need of our prayers (and not the kind of condescending prayers like those of the Pharisee when he prayed with himself, which we will be tempted to offer).

  • It’s worth noting that Shea didn’t write the passages you quoted. What he wrote was troubled but moving.

  • Mark strikes me as a man going through a conversion to the left. I suspect that he will eventually go whole hog and jettison his pro-life stance. His celebrating the ridiculous “New” Pro-life Movement, that seems to exist in order to give cover to voting for pro-abort Democrats, is a half-way house on that course.

    Something is odd. Since about 2005, he’s been a hideously angry man re the machinations of politicians, but not in any consistent way. The years between 47 and 60 are not typically years of hideous anger and politicians of all stripes will disappoint you. In Shea’s case, the causes of disappointment seem to be magnified and reduced 100x by whatever set of trick-lenses he’s using to look at them. I expect this from partisan Democrats, who aren’t the most perspicacious people in the world. The thing is, the term ‘partisan Democrat’ might apply to one-adult in eight in this country (and, you’d think, around about 0% of the serious Catholics). I also think few people noodle around with their worldview much past the age of 35. He is one curious piece of work.

  • It’s worth noting that Shea didn’t write the passages you quoted. What he wrote was troubled but moving.

    Wait… what? Yes, he did, Pinky. The quotes were written by chezami, who IS Mark Shea. Here’s his twitter. And his post from 2013 admitting that it’s him.

  • Nate is correct. Mark did write the passages quoted.

  • Gotcha. Didn’t know that.

  • Mark has, for the most part, all but pushed the whole ‘marriage’ issue to the side. About a year ago, he didn’t say he supported businesses being sued for not taking part in gay weddings, but hinted that it might be time for them to just buck up and go with the flow. And with abortion, he has embraced the progressive narrative that it’s mostly male pigs and oppressive capitalists who force most women against their will to have to have an abortion. Those are the only two areas left where Mark is remotely not in line with the modern secular left. In every other position I’m aware of, he echoes almost verbatim the narratives, policies, solutions, ideas, interpretations and priorities of modern liberalism. That he takes even the most radical, militant leftist publications as reliable sources is itself telling, especially since in the day a person who quoted Rush Limbaugh or Fox News was immediately smacked down by Mark as an automatic partisan.

    The irony is, in the early years, Mark was clearly the conservative who admitted the faults and flaws of secular conservatism, while conceding where he believed liberalism was correct. And yet he also stood firmly on the traditional values, morals and perspectives of Catholicism and Christian American and Western culture. He did this while pointing to the dangers to the faith of those who become partisan tribalists completely in line with one side and entirely condemning of the other. Now he has become everything he once condemned – almost blind to anything bad on the Left except a couple things that he almost dismisses a ‘blindness’, while finding almost no ability to find or acknowledge anything good to the right, except those who still say they are conservatives but spend most of their time trashing conservatives. All in all, a very unreliable source for almost anything at this point I’m sad to say.

  • A sadly accurate summary of what Mark has become Dave.

  • I have never been a fan or follower of Shea. I do know that he went ballistic over the accusations of torture allegedly committed by agents of the US Government and its allies in the war in Iraq. His smarmy description of “that thing that used to be called conservatism”, his anger at the Bush Administration and its supporters, many of whom were evangelicals, observant Catholics and pro-lifers, was the start of Shea coming unhinged. George W. Bush was a a lot of things but he was no real conservative. Since that time, most of what I have read about Shea’s rantings has been here.

    As for Shea’s Catholicism, he never has had much to say critical of liturgical abuses. He is a convert during the post Vatican II era. Catholics older than myself are quite aware of what the Church has lost since Vatican II and the implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass. Shea is unaware and doesn’t care anyway. Since Vatican II, the Church hierarchy has frequently and loudly supported the expansion of the welfare state and pacifism and little is said about sin during CCD or RCIA or at Mass during the homily. Well, Vatican II was not the start of the Catholic Church and everything that came before it does not belong in the landfill and if Shea can’t handle that then too bad for Shea.

  • Why is it important that Mark Shea be given this much attention? It appears that Mark is not even a Catholic, a believer in Catholic doctrine, but rather a another Progressive Democrat who has gone mad trying to reconcile the incompatibility of those beliefs with Catholic doctrine. Maybe an exorcism is in order for Mark.

  • I’ve come to know that the devil tempts us to despair in clever ways that allow some gap to try to pull us away from God and/or our Fellow brothers and sisters in order to pull us away from God. It can be anything, deceptively the person will not realize it. Please keep Mark in our prayers.

  • “Why is it important that Mark Shea be given this much attention?”

    Because he is taken as a solid Catholic apologist by all too many clergy and laity in this country.

  • Is Mark-who? insane in the membrane.

    To me, there’s a major problem with catholic Democrats’ and bishops’ so-called “pro-life” propaganda. They vehemently (I was going to use “violently” but the spineless squids couldn’t be) oppose several dozen (unjust?) death penalties and utterly ignore 57 million abortions. Plus, abortion is murder since the early Church. DP is prudential judgment, even after the radical re-write of the Catechism, which is the conclusion of Pope Benedict. That’s why I will not be lectured on charity or virtue by catholic Democrats like Mark-who?, who apparently believes his political opinions are ex-cathedra.

  • I believe Shea has always been a leftist. However, like a closeted homosexual, he thought it was unwise to come out. However, when the secular and religious left started to become more strident, so did he. Also, I suspect Mark has some very serious mental problems that drive his political radicalism. His cyberstalking of one individual for seven years,and his attempts to actually get people fired from their jobs because they offended him in some way seems to indicate this. Jesus said those who are sick need a physician. I think Mark is long overdue for some psychiatric care.

  • Michael, what Donald said. I stumbled on Mark years and years ago as I was on my journey into the Church. I was actually looking for Scott Hahn, but I found Mark’s webpage, or at least an article from it. I’m sure it still happens. Because he is published by Catholic publications, asked to speak at Catholic forums and parishes, interviewed by Catholics, referenced by Catholic leaders and clergy, and given a thumbs up by Catholics in the know, it makes it important and, IMHO, unfortunate.

  • Mark is not the evil himself but more like an “Everyman” character in a morality play.
    Very sad, and instructional.
    There many others who are struggling between truth and lie, not knowing g what to believe, assailed by all the tricks and snares

  • “Mark seems to have given over to intellectual laziness whole hog. He thinks far more with his gut & heart than his brain any more.”
    “I do know that he went ballistic over the accusations of torture allegedly committed by agents of the US Government and its allies in the war in Iraq.”

    Put these two statements together and you have exactly what went wrong with Mark Shea.

    Recall that the allegations of torture at the time had to do with waterboarding. Due to a fluke involving training, waterboarding was not considered to be torture under U.S. military law. Shea insisted that it WAS torture, and he had a valid point. Due to the military’s training history it was possible to say that waterboarding was ontologically torture yet not legally torture. If you accepted this then the solution was simple: change the law and define waterboarding as torture. In the end John McCain did this (though the law applied only to the military, the CIA was exempted).
    Mark Shea would have none of this. If the U.S. had painted itself into a corner on this subject, then Shea had no interest in knowing why this had happened. He maintained that waterboarding was legally torture, despite the ample legal precedent to the contrary. What was even worse was his desire to see that people who advocated this view (it’s not torture now, so let’s debate changing the law) as enablers of torture. It was the logical equivalent of calling Lincoln pro-slavery in 1860.

  • Ex. 21:14 “you must take him even from my altar (compassion and mercy). He must be put to death.” The Church, Holy Scripture and Tradition do not contradict each other.

  • Also, I suspect Mark has some very serious mental problems that drive his political radicalism. His cyberstalking of one individual for seven years,and his attempts to actually get people fired from their jobs because they offended him in some way seems to indicate this.

    I remember the d’Hippolito business. Who did he try to have fired?

  • “Who did he try to have fired?”

    I vaguely remember he tracked someone’s boss done and emailed them about their internet disagreement and tried to have him fired. But that’s as detailed as my middle aged brain can muster.

  • “Because he is taken as a solid Catholic apologist by all too many clergy and laity in this country.”

    Thanks in large part to an “orthodox” Catholic Media Complex that has enabled him for over a decade.

  • Phillip, they may be thinking of Simcha Fisher and her efforts against the lawyer & judge.

Congratulations Mark!

Sunday, March 26, AD 2017

 

 

I have to hand it to Mark Shea.  He has managed to get into the verbal equivalent of a fist fight with Ed Feser.  Ed is a philosophy professor, and runs a blog where he breaks philosophical concepts down to bite sized chunks for readers like me.  He is a loyal son of the Church and a true gentleman.  Getting him angry is rather like getting Gandhi to take a slug at you or being hissed at by Mother Teresa, but Mark managed that feat:

 

Not too long ago, Catholic writer Mark Shea and I had an exchange on the subject of capital punishment.  See this post, this one, and this one for my side of the exchange and for links to Shea’s side of it.  A friend emails to alert me that Shea has now made some remarks at Facebook about the forthcoming book on the subject that I have co-authored with Joe Bessette.  “Deranged” might seem an unkind description of Shea and his comments.  Sadly, it’s also a perfectly accurate description.  Here’s a sample:

 

Yes. This needs to be the #1 priority for conservative Christian “prolife” people to focus on: battling the Church for the right of a post-Christian state to join Communist and Bronze Age Islamic states in killing as many people as possible, even if 4% of them are completely innocent. Cuz, you know, stopping euthanasia is, like, a super duper core non-negotiable and stuff.  What a wise thing for “prolife” Christians to commit their time and energy to doing instead of defending the unborn or the teaching of the Magisterium. How prudent. How merciful. This and kicking 24 million people off health care are *clearly* what truly “prolife” Christians should be devoted to, in defiance of the Magisterium.  Good call!
“Prudential judgment” is right wing speak for “Ignore the Church and listen to right wing culture of death rhetoric”.
This book will be the Real Magisterium, henceforth, for all members of the Right Wing Culture of Death on this subject. It’s judgments, not that of the Magisterium, will be final and authoritative for the “prolife” supporter of the Right Wing Culture of Death.

 

It will do nothing but foster right wing dissent. It will be the New Magisterium for the entire right wing and give oxygen to the War on Francis.

 

The Right anoints a Folk Hero antipope who tells it it’s okay to reject the obvious teaching of the Church and do whatever they want and then the cry “Prudential judgment!” goes up.

 

Etc.  End quote.

 

No comment is really necessary.  Still, I can’t help calling attention to a few points:

 

First, the book has not come out yet, so Shea hasn’t even read it.  His attack is thus aimed at a fantasy target rather than at our actual claims and arguments.  In fact, all of the concerns Shea might have about our position are answered at length and in detail in the book, and in a scholarly and non-polemical fashion.  Hence Shea’s remarks are – to say the very least – ill-informed and unjustifiably vituperative. 

 

Second, the few substantive assertions Shea makes here – and note that they are mere assertions, completely unbacked by any argumentation or evidence – have already been answered in my earlier exchange with him.  For example, in the initial response to Shea I posted during that exchange, I noted that Shea’s claim that “4% of [those executed] are completely innocent” misrepresents the authors of the study from which Shea derives this claim.  I also there noted the problems with Shea’s use of the term “prolife,” which is merely a political slogan deriving from contemporary American politics and has no theological significance.

 

As to the bogus charge of “dissent,” in my second post in our earlier exchange, I quoted statements from Cardinal Ratzinger (then head of the CDF and the Church’s chief doctrinal officer) and Archbishop Levada (then writing in a USCCB document, and later to take over from Ratzinger as head of CDF) which explicitly affirm that faithful Catholics are at liberty to take different positions regarding capital punishment and even to disagree with the Holy Father on that particular issue.  Both Ratzinger and Levada in these documents also explicitly assert that abortion and euthanasia – which, unlike capital punishment, are intrinsically evil – have a greater moral significance than capital punishment.  Hence, when Shea mocks Catholics who are strongly opposed to abortion and euthanasia but who do not share his views about capital punishment, he is implicitly mocking Ratzinger and Levada – who, unlike Shea, actually have authority to state what is and is not binding Catholic teaching. 

 

Shea has, in several follow-ups now, given no response whatsoever to these points or others made in my earlier posts.  He simply ignores the arguments and instead reiterates, with greater shrillness, the same false and already refuted claims he made in his initial attack on Joe and me.

 

Third, the charge that Joe and I are motivated by a desire to justify “killing as many people as possible” is not only false and groundless, but a truly outrageous calumny.  Shea made this charge in our original exchange, and (as I noted in my second post in that exchange) when I complained about it he seemed to back away from it.  Now he is back to tossing this smear at us.

 

Fourth, if Shea insists on flinging calumnies like these, he ought to consider just how many people he is implicitly targeting.  On my personal web page I have posted the endorsements given our book by J. Budziszewski, Fr. James Schall, Robert Royal, Fr. Robert Sirico, Edward Peters, Fr. Kevin Flannery, Steven A. Long, Fr. George Rutler, Fr. Gerald Murray, Barry Latzer, Michael Pakaluk, and Fr. Thomas Petri.  This list includes some very prominent faithful Catholics and respected scholars, representing fields such as moral theology, canon law, philosophy, and criminal justice.  And unlike Shea, they have actually seen the book.  It is worth noting that Fr. Sirico, who happens to be opposed to capital punishment, does not even agree with our conclusions.  He graciously endorsed our book anyway simply because he regards it as a worthy and serious defense of the other side, which opponents of capital punishment can profit from engaging with. 

 

Now, I imagine that Shea knows and respects many of these people.  Of course, they could be wrong, and the fact that they endorse our book doesn’t mean we are right.  But would Shea go so far as to label all of these people “dissenters,” or proponents of a “culture of death” who want to “kill as many people as possible,” etc.?  If not, then perhaps he will reconsider his rhetorical excesses. 

 

Fifth, the out-of-left-field stuff in Shea’s remarks about “kicking 24 million people off health care,” “the War on Francis,” etc. have, of course, absolutely nothing to do with the argument of our book.  Shea made similarly irrelevant remarks in our earlier exchange.  His seeming inability to refrain from dragging in his personal political obsessions shows just how very unhinged he is.  It also manifests his lack of self-awareness.  Shea accuses fellow Catholics who disagree with him about capital punishment of being blinded by their political biases – while in the very same breath bizarrely insinuating that our support for capital punishment somehow has something to do with President Trump’s health care bill (!) 

 

Sixth, Shea’s political obsessions blind him to other and more important aspects of the debate over capital punishment, in ways I have already explained in my earlier posts – where, here again, Shea simply ignores rather than responds to what I wrote.  For example, Shea appears not to realize that there is a very influential strain of thought within otherwise theologically conservative Catholic circles – namely, the so-called “new natural law” school of thought – which takes a far more radically abolitionist position than even he would.  Shea has repeatedly acknowledged in the past that capital punishment is not always and intrinsically immoral and that the Church cannot teach that it is.  But the “new natural lawyers” maintain that capital punishment is always and intrinsically wrong, and they would like the Church to reverse two millennia of teaching on this point – indeed, to reverse the consistent teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes.

 

One of the main motivations for writing our book was to rebut this extreme position, which has very dangerous theological implications that extend well beyond the capital punishment debate.  Indeed, our primary concern in the book is to demonstrate the continuity of Catholic teaching and rebut any suggestion that the Church has contradicted herself, with advocacy of capital punishment in practice being a merely secondary concern.  Among the many novel things the reader will find in our book is a far more detailed and systematic response to the extreme “new natural law” position on capital punishment than has yet appeared. 

 

Since Shea too rejects the extreme “always and intrinsically wrong” position vis-à-vis capital punishment, one would think he would see the importance of rebutting it.  Unfortunately, in his apparent desire to fold every Catholic theological dispute into his obsession with current American electoral politics, Shea seems unable to understand that some of us have much larger and less ephemeral concerns in view. 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Congratulations Mark!

  • Of course he’ll be back to his old tricks! In the long run, his leftist agenda is more important than showing Christian charity.

  • A friend of M. Shea’s in meatworld might do him a great favor and grease the skids to an ordinary wage-job (though not one where he has anything to do with the public). Something that would occupy his time and allow him to undertake a prudent (and penitential?) silence. This is just too much (though I’ve seen some of these tropes before, flung at Tom McKenna).

  • Sounds like Mark needs lots of prayer and lots of smart pills. Taking on Ed Feser proves it.

  • You cannot dialog with liberals like Mark Shea. Rather, you must either acquiesce to their irrationality or defeat, muzzle and emasculate them. Defeat so that they lose in the public eye, muzzle so that they cannot spread their lies and deceit, and emasculate so that they cannot reproduce their falsehood and heresies.

  • This:

    “That a man with his manifest issues is considered a worthy apologist for the Catholic Church in this nation is beyond belief.”

    Is the issue. Mark has issues. Serious issues. But who doesn’t? We all have our own issues. But Mark’s issues are antithetical to being a credible representative of any religious tradition, much less the Church. His use of slander and false accusation, his inconsistency and fusing the Gospel with his personal opinions, are the stuff that would keep most Protestants I know from being Sunday School teachers, much less paid apologists.

    It’s that Mark is given such a platform and supported by Church leaders, religious and Catholic organizations is the problem. He has issues that he should work through. But that he is given such praise for things that are so detrimental to the message says something is wrong with the apologetics world in the American Church at least.

  • For those curious, Ed had a third Shea post in between the two linked above.

    I will comment further on the latest topic Don posted.

  • The irony is that capital punishment is an effort by the state to protect the public and even prison populations from truly dangerous people. Further unlike war, there seldom is indiscriminate killing. It seldom happens except after a long legal process and seldom is done to innocent or incompetent persons. Finally, it offers justice that is commensurate with the crime.

    Compare this with abortion and euthanasia. A public execution is a cold-blooded thing. I shook me to the core to put down my family dog. I would hate to be the person who put down a human being no matter what his deeds. So many murderers are never caught, and with rare exceptions, his crime is lesser than those of many who escape justice. But abortion is the most callous act of which we are capable, because it denies the obvious: that the victim is a human being. Exactly the same as herding men and women into a gas chamber, made all the worse because it is the decision of those who ought to care the most. From the time of Cain, mankind became inured to slavery. But it could be justified in the name of expediency. Prisoners of war pressed into involuntary servitude;women taken to satisfy the lust of their captors. Mitigated by human compassion, but supported by customs and law as inevitable as other human acts of violence. Celebrated also as positive act by those who treated the enslaved as lesser beings. The same attitudes affect those engaged in abortion and euthanasia. Like “positive slavery” these practices rot society at its core and taint all of us who allow it.

  • Deny oxygen to aerobic bacteria and they die. I have never in my life heard a speech by BarrySoeotoroBarack Obama or by HR Clinton – I simply refuse to listen or watch-and turn them OFF. Ignore Shea and his public work dies. No audience = no paycheck. Remember Bogey to Peter Lorre in Casablanca: Ugarte: “You despise me , dont you?” Rick: If I gave yo any thought, I probably would.”. Give Mark no thought. Guy McClung, Sasn Antonio, Texas

  • ” It is worth noting that Fr. Sirico, who happens to be opposed to capital punishment, does not even agree with our conclusions. He graciously endorsed our book anyway simply because he regards it as a worthy and serious defense of the other side, which opponents of capital punishment can profit from engaging with. ”
    Capital punishment is executed through the power of attorney of the condemned. As a citizen of the state, the condemned is executed by the citizens of the state. Priests and consecrated persons do not engage any person without their consent, not even to execution. The first mission of the priest and consecrated persons is to serve God in the Catholic Church. It is the state of whom the condemned is a citizen who must execute the capital one murderer because the capital one murderer has not expired with grief over his crime.

  • Is the issue. Mark has issues. Serious issues. But who doesn’t? We all have our own issues. But Mark’s issues are antithetical to being a credible representative of any religious tradition, much less the Church.

    What’s odd is that he wasn’t a particularly troublesome figure ca. 2003, though his voice was much improved by editing. No clue what happened.

    It’s that Mark is given such a platform and supported by Church leaders, religious and Catholic organizations is the problem.

    I don’t know that I’d call Sherry Weddell, Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin ‘church leaders’. Catholic Answers had about 20 employees at one time. A diocese of ordinary size might employ 2,000. People who were once his patrons (e.g. Crisis, and, again Karl Keating) have ceased any dealings with them. I’m not sure who the progenitors of Patheos are, but it’s not a specifically Catholic apostolate.

  • AD, it’s not just them. I know Fr. Longenecker, who emerged as a pretty popular voice in some circles, spent several years giving Mark a thumbs up and defending Mark against critics. I don’t know if he still is. I don’t know if Bishop Barron is aware of Mark or not, but Mark seems linked to some who have worked with him. Certainly Mark’s own bishop has been made aware of him. I know some have contacted his diocese. Mark frequently gets visits and support from deacons and priests, both on his blog and FB page. Or at least he was. And he’s regularly asked to speak at parishes and dioceses around the country, esp. Washington. It’s enough to say that the casual net surfer, stumbling through wanting to know a Catholic who can explain the Faith, might just stumble across the name Mark Shea. And seeing a priest here or an apologist there give him a stamp of approval, that’s enough – in the world of Catholic apologetics – to warrant official endorsements.

  • You cannot dialog with liberals like Mark Shea. Rather, you must either acquiesce to their irrationality or defeat, muzzle and emasculate them. Defeat so that they lose in the public eye, muzzle so that they cannot spread their lies and deceit, and emasculate so that they cannot reproduce their falsehood and heresies.”

    As far as I can tell, this is the approach we must take with all Leftists–or waste our time & energy.

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.