Mark Shea and Donald Trump: Two of a Kind

Thursday, May 19, AD 2016

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

Festung Shea

 

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

 

Donald Trump, Mark Shea and the Facebook Generation

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • a sledgehammer taken to an irrredeemably corrupt political system

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

  • Brian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Birds of a feather flock together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Shea Hearts Hillary Clinton

Wednesday, May 18, AD 2016

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Mark Shea Hearts Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

  • (and I do)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • “The charge of misogyny is empty,”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I thought we all knew the modern definitions.

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

Catholics Who Support Bernie: You Are Idiots

Thursday, April 28, AD 2016

UD0X-DEB

 

 

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

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

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Catholics Who Support Bernie: You Are Idiots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Don L.

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

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

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

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

    Seen at “The Daily Gouge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Yes, Anzlyne, he is.

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

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

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

Only Four Billion and a Bad Toupee Separate Them

Monday, March 7, AD 2016

CWy3zCrUEAAvTQ0

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

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

  • Mark Shea is catholycism’s low rent Trump.

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

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

    Bingo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.”

  • Don the Kiwi.

    Beautiful.

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

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

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

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

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

    Dubya left the Iraqi Christians twist in the wind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Shea has no excuse.

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

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

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

    Both ran and both dropped out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “We need a new conservative political party”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or hanging out with Tech Billionaires.

  • Hey guys…Trump is winning.

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

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

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

  • Hence the “misdirected” part.

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

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

    The current Roman Pontiff always provides lots to discuss.

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

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

How to Vote Nazi With a Clear Conscience

Wednesday, February 3, AD 2016

58 million

 

 

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

Germany 1943:

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

 

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

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

Continue reading...

19 Responses to How to Vote Nazi With a Clear Conscience

  • The civil good.

    Masterfully accomplished Guy McClung.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Do we have a broken moral compass?

    Do we deserve the leadership in the Church and Nation?

    Depravity….The United States of Depravity.

  • One request please.

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

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

    Thanks.

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

  • Canon 915.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • RU 486 – Ella abortifacient – Plan B

    More signposts Don Link.

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

You Know, Hitler Was Pretty Good on the Environment

Tuesday, February 2, AD 2016

a5d67ecc34cdf373877a2b08b0436d44

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

Sez who? Sez Cardinal Ratzinger in the same letter:

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

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

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

Continue reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, amen!

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

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

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

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

  • Steve D: I agree with you about the Register. In general, really, and not just about Shea. The more I read the slant given by the writers, the more I wonder if they are trying to make it a Reporter and not a Register…

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

    Stephen, I wrote to Dan Burke, who was then and may stiil be, the head publisher at the Register about Shea. I got no response.

  • The title says it all.

  • There is no substantive difference between a national socialist of the German Reich and a democrat socialist of the American left. Elect a Bernie Sanders and open persecution of the Church will begin.
    .
    As for Mark Shea, liberalism is a mental defect or disease.

  • Thanks for the head up on Shea and the NCR. I will unsubcibe to both of them

  • Apparently, Mark-who? stopped taking his meds years ago.

  • Voting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin: 1938
    Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
    You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
    If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
    Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head Symbols, especially those Nazis who say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who they are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” or “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
    Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler or he is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate.
    If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know the Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
    Yours in Christ,
    German & Austrian Church Leaders

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

  • Guy:

    Your satire is biting! And…hard to distinguish from Shea’s position.

    Now Shea is just one guy who is devoid of even a theology degree. He has no credentials and is a guy just like most normal people, a guy with an opinion. So it is easy to discount what he says and draw the obvious direct connection between his bankrupt arguments and the satire you so masterfully present.

    What is horrific and truly demonic is the vociferous support for genocide that has been provided by Catholic Bishop after Catholic Bishop as they stand in “solidarity” with Democrat after Democrat and have for MANY years after the changes in the Democrat party erased all moral justification to do so. In fact, what we have in the USA is such a blending, such a syncretism, I long ago began calling the movement the “Democatholic Party” for it best describes the inseparable brotherhood of Catholics with the Democrat Party and the wholly ghastly union of what should be diametrically opposed groups. Democatholics have been using precisely your satirical reasoning but treating it as a legitimate defense for supporting abortion, the advance of the homosexual agenda and rank feminism for decades.

    I was very encouraged to see the USCCB voting recommendations this year as it shows some form of break with the past. However, not yet do we see condemnation of a truly meaningful form or what might better be called true catechesis on the issue of the butchery of millions and why one cannot support a party who promotes it and indeed has it as a permanent plank in its platform. Of course, Catholics are not supposed to do things such as “uncharitably” condemn anything it seems. You know, except “fundamentalists” who actually try to follow Christ and live according to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

  • Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.

    Rod Halvorsen,
    Look no further than Bernardin’s “seamless garment” argument to understand the mess we’re in today in AmChurch. This homosexual prelate did much to destroy the Church in America. Of course, Shea is a big fan of the seamless garment.

  • Steve D; Right you are about the seamless garment and Shea’s elevating it to his own personal dogma.

    But hey, don’t chuck all of us converts out with Shea’s bathwater! 😉

  • Here we have another neo jumping on board the Shea Wagon.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/02/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders.html

    Folks, seriously, what happened to the Catholic Church? So often I just plain have trouble finding it. Thank God for my FSSP parish…

  • Jahwohl, democratic socialism ist güt.

  • “Greg Mockeridge:
    Dan Burke is part of the problem at EWTN and the NCRegister, I’m not surprised you didn’t get a response from him. He’s just another part of the neoCatholic / establishment cabal infecting the Church these days. Most are converts to the faith, trying to make their living off the Church.”

    Steve, I am not surprised either. I have been railing about the behavior of people like Shea and have written to the powers that be within the”orthodox” Catholic Media Complex for about a decade only to be treated with indifference at best and downright hostility at worst.

  • I was permanently banned from Catholic Answers for stating what I thought were well-known and simple facts about Swedish Lutheran “Bishop” Brunne’s lifestyle and I being an ex-Lutheran, suspected Martin himself would have the lot of them gibbetted. It wasn’t meant to be a cut, it was meant to literally demonstrate how we have slid historically, to the point that now we are taking seriously what would have been simply rejected out of hand what…just a few years ago!

    So I don’t think the Register is alone in this passive acceptance of anti-Catholic culture.

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker gets in touch with his inner Mark Shea here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/can-a-catholic-vote-for-bernie-sanders

  • That one could vote for a Sanders or a Hillary in spite of their odious positions against the Right to Life because you like their other ridiculous ideas is wearing a soiled garment that won’t wash in the tub of my conscience.

  • I saw this article and I was also concerned. If I were less charitable, I would say Mark is now another ‘poster child’ for the labor unions who spew the same garbage. Marxism

  • Mark is attempting to meld the sacred and the profane and in the process has lost sight of the fact that some things are simply and objectively evil and can not be negotiated with for the simple reason that there is no “lesser” evil. Also, it should also be noted that Bernie Sanders is the typical 60s flower child gone to seed. While I am loathe to consign anyone to perdition, I will note that the devil need not have a long reach to snare this catch.

  • Like they do on Amazon.com when you buy a book, “Others who bought ‘If you liked How to Sin Mortally by Voting for Democrats’, you may also enjoy Voting For Nero,” – if you liked Voting For Hitler, you might relish:

    from Catholic Lane, 24 Apr 15:

    Prostitution Politics

    I live in a brothel,
    But I am not a whore.
    Personally opposed to impurity,
    I’m chaste to the core.

    I help with the auctions,
    But no slaves are mine.
    Opposed to such servitude,
    I try to be kind.

    Working at Auschwitz,
    Folks arrive every day.
    Personally opposed to holocaust,
    What else can I say?

    In a warm den of thieves,
    I spend most of my time.
    Opposed to all thievery,
    I commit no such crime.

    I party with death,
    But never would harm a child.
    I am personally opposed to killing
    And to all murder most vile.

    I dance with the devil,
    But I’m untouched, in the lead.
    Opposed to all evil,
    I’m not self-deceived.

    I live in a brothel,
    But no whoring I know.
    Opposed to defilement,
    I’m pure as the snow.

    Copyright

  • Another (internet) source of ignorant banter, Matt Yglesias, was quoted elsewhere as tweeting something like, “Aside from genocide and war, the Nazis had some good ideas.” FYI, some “good ideas” don’t make licit 58 million abortions. If you vote for abortion advancers, you likely won’t be getting into Heaven.

Mark Shea, Do I Have a Candidate For You!

Thursday, January 21, AD 2016

22 Responses to Mark Shea, Do I Have a Candidate For You!

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ah, but he still has his Facebook page which is a hoot!

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

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

  • “I would at least consider the democrats”

    The only Democrats who have ever run for President that I would have voted for would have been Grover Cleveland and Harry Truman. As my late Father often opined, the Republicans frequently look bad until you look at the Democrats.

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

  • c matt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mark Shea still blogs at the National Catholic Register.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin, Mark Shea and Imprisonment

Tuesday, November 10, AD 2015

untitled

 

 

“Gene Wilder and I went to do a film at Arizona State Penitentiary. I was up there six weeks. It was strange, because it was 80% black people, and what’s strange about that is there are no black people in Arizona. I’m not lying, they bus “motherlovers” in. I was up there and looking at all the brothers and it made my heart ache, all these beautiful black men in the joint, g-d d-mn warriors should be out there helping the masses. I felt that way, I was real naive. Six weeks I was up there, and I talk to the brothers, and I talk to ‘em. And thank god we got penitentiaries.

I asked this one, I said, ‘Why did you kill everybody in the house?’ He goes, ‘They was home.’ I mean, murderers. Real live murderers. I thought black people killed people by accident. No, these “motherlovers” was murderers.”

Late Comedian Richard Pryor

Hattip to commenter Nate Winchester who alerted me to this.

As is his wont of the past few years, Mark Shea eagerly has climbed aboard yet another Leftist meme of the moment:

When I contemplate the fact that the Land of the Free has a bigger prison population than Stalin, and I read about such Big Brotherism as this:

“The NIH inventors have developed a mobile health technology to monitor and predict a user’s psychological status and to deliver an automated intervention when needed. The technology uses smartphones to monitor the user’s location and ask questions about psychological status throughout the day. Continuously collected ambulatory psychological data are fused with data on location and responses to questions. The mobile data are combined with geospatial risk maps to quantify exposure to risk and predict a future psychological state. The future predictions are used to warn the user when he or she is at especially high risk of experiencing a negative event that might lead to an unwanted outcome (e.g., lapse to drug use in a recovering addict).”

I’m beginning to think that the American Experiment is winding up as a particularly spectacular display of Truth Cancer, whereby heresy winds up mutating into its diametrical opposite.

 

America started out as an anti-Catholic Puritan culture advertising itself as free of the legalism of papism. It is bidding fair to end as an apostate Puritan culture obsessed with an all controlling state attempt to legislate everything and jail everybody.

But at least it’s still anti-Catholic.

Go here to read the comments.   Shea as usual did not bother to research the statement by Adam Gopnik, that we are jailing more people than were jailed in Stalin’s gulags, in the New Yorker article that he linked to.  If he had, he would have quickly realized that although it is a Leftist buzz phrase, it has no foundation in reality.  As commenter Nate Winchester noted, before he was banned by Shea,  the actual figure is 2.2 million incarcerated rather than six million.  At its height Stalin’s gulags had about five million people incarcerated at one time, although this is only a rough estimate and the figure is almost surely higher.  Considering the mass murder that was part of the gulags, the exact prison population during a year in Stalin’s workers’ paradise  is often reduced to guess work.

The weasel phrase “correctional supervision” probably was included by Gopnik to encompass supervision, conditional discharge and probation in the US.  Most people who encounter the criminal justice system in this country never serve a day in jail.  Supervision is a sentence where a conviction is stricken if the defendant does not run afoul of the criminal justice system within a certain time period, usually six months to a year.  It is used routinely in traffic cases.  Conditional discharge is a form of non-reporting probation.  Probation often involves people who serve very brief sentences in county jails.  About half the people incarcerated in the US are in county jails serving brief terms, usually a few days or weeks and most first offenders, even on low level felonies, never see the inside of a jail.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Stalin, Mark Shea and Imprisonment

  • Liberal progressive Mark Shea is to Catholic blogging what liberal progressive Rod Adams is to nuclear blogging. They tout themselves as defenders of and expert in their respective arena, but underneath it is only liberal progressive ideology that matters. And interestingly, both have apparently favored Stalin over the US. The first asserts America is evil because it jails more people than Stalin did (a false claim), and the second has asserted in conversation that the Great Holodomor never occurred.
    .
    These liberal progressives are always and everywhere the same. I think they honestly believe the lies that they have conditioned themselves to spout forth. They are true believers, and their faith in unshakable.

  • The issue, I would submit, is not about the numbers of people jailed, but the number of “black” people committing true crimes against society (not as in the Marxist states–political resistance)
    The horror of the number of blacks in our jails rest primarily (but not solely) upon the shoulders of the liberal anti-God, anti-family establishment that sees but opportunity in this crime crisis that they insist upon perpetrating for their own power. Slavery comes in many forms.
    The rest must unfortunately be laid at the feet of the inner-city community that shuns fatherhood, discipline and responsibility toward self and society under the false allure of government supported victimhood, long proved to be largely a self-perpetuating self-inflicted wound.

  • The related meme of “nonviolent” imprisonment has been dealt with nicely by Heather Mac Donald and others, such as here: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_4_decriminalization.html

  • Why doesn’t Shea just retitle his blog “Marxist And Loving It!” Nate Winchester, congrats for being banned by Shea! It proves you’re a good person!

  • Mark-who can’t tolerate bitter fact-clingers.
    .
    I estimate I was banned three rimes before it dawned on me that life is too short to waste time and eyesight on unadulterated, over-wordy bullshit.
    ,
    Over years, my impression was that Nate W. is quite “liberal” and (uncharacteristically for libs) truth–bound. I guess not liberal enough, and too adamant for truth, for Mark-who.
    .
    Dose Mark-who retain his toady, useless idiots defending his crap? . . .

  • This is such a common refrain lately, that the US supposedly “over incarcerates” people. Just this weekend I encountered this complaint at a dinner party, “why does the US jail more people than any other country?”

    As a 25 year prosecutor, I would concur with Don who points out, and as anyone involved in the criminal justice field experiences, incarceration is truly a last resort and lengthy incarceration (> 1 yr) is reserved for violent criminals (sometimes) or grossly habitual, career non-violent offenders.

    You have to work hard, as a criminal, to get serious jail time. The reality is that all the players, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, know that incarceration is expensive and usually does little to nothing in terms of actual rehabilitation. Hence, there are many non-incarceration alternatives, especially for drug possession offenses.

    The exception to the above is perhaps federal court, where penalties are pretty draconian compared to what similar offenses would net in state court. There are too many federal crimes, and too many of these are punished too harshly. But thankfully, the vast majority of criminal justice occurs on the state, not federal level.

  • These liberal progressives are always and everywhere the same. I think they honestly believe the lies that they have conditioned themselves to spout forth. They are true believers, and their faith in unshakable.

    TM Lutas and I had that discussion on an earlier Shea post. He may not consciously make an effort to deceive, but he seems eager to buy into whatever claims are made by people who have deceived him before (plus his seeming inability to post proper corrections in his post). At what point is your repeated gullibility your own fault?

    That Shea repeatedly harps on truth and obsesses over the minutia of lying only makes it further ironic.

    Why doesn’t Shea just retitle his blog “Marxist And Loving It!” Nate Winchester, congrats for being banned by Shea! It proves you’re a good person!

    This is actually the 2nd time, does that make me a saint? lol

    This is such a common refrain lately, that the US supposedly “over incarcerates” people. Just this weekend I encountered this complaint at a dinner party, “why does the US jail more people than any other country?”

    So often by people that want to do away with the death penalty too, which makes it doubly ironic. Next time at a dinner party you hear this, you might ask them: “Well which felon would you have be your neighbor?” If they don’t want them jailed, they don’t want them killed and they don’t want them in the neighborhood, what is to be done?

  • Mr. TM Lutas was offering the nonsense that prisons are substituting for old-style insane asylums. Asylums housed people with schizophrenia, tertiary syphilis, senile dementia, retardation, and sundries of like severity. It’s a population that has been transferred to other sorts of institutions or is now dealt with as outpatients. He got the idea of prisons filled with asylum candidates from a government white paper which reported that so and so many inmates have a ‘mental problem’. Well, so does the guy in the next cubicle. My nearest and dearest works in an office with 8 f/t employees of which 3 admit to the use of psychotropics and one other is a reasonable wager. Them’s the times we live in. As for jails and prisons, they are shot through with aficionados of street drugs and heavy drinking.

  • I think one difficulty re federal crime is that contemporary jurisprudence is inspired by notions which render the distinction between commerce and productive activity and between inter-state commerce and local commerce factitious. I recently read about a case in which a man was prosecuted in federal court for trading in pornography. Why in federal court and not an Indiana state court? It seems the digital camera he was using was assembled from parts made outside of Indiana… Humbug begets humbug.

  • One problem with the federalization of criminal prosecution (and other issues) is that the media is always pushing the process, or at least never calls out politicians who push it. Federalism, it would appear, is nearly a dead letter.
    Yet there are situations where states’ rights and federalism do appear to produce unjust disparities between states. One would think that more frequent use of state legislator conferences and (for some other issues) interstate compacts would fix such disparities without trashing federalism. Media mavens, do your homework!

  • “ The reality is that all the players, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, know that incarceration is expensive and usually does little to nothing in terms of actual rehabilitation.”
    I did a three year stint as a prosecutor in Scotland (Advocate-Depute). If the panel was (1) in regular employment and (b) had a stable family background and (c) did not have a drug or alcohol problem, the courts would impose a sentence of immediate imprisonment only for the most serious offences. The thinking was that these were the people most likely to stay out of trouble in the future, if given a second chance and statistics appear to bear this out.
    The main exception was cases involving breach of trust or fiduciary duty, where a severe sentence was felt to be necessary to deter others, even though the panel was most unlikely to be in a position to re-offend.

  • I think the next time I hear the ‘mass incarceration’ humbug, I’m going to suggest some alternatives to incarceration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBMBVpsuwo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfuylkt4n0M

  • Stalin only imprisoned people “at his pleasure”–since the most conservative estimates are that he murdered 20 million ranging up to a more likely number, 60 million.

    But Mark Shea shows an appallingly uninformed viewpoint, which just a few biographers of Stalin (Simon Sebag Montefiore, “In the Court of the Red Tsar”; Norman Naimark, “Stalin’s Genocides”; or a check of even the official Russian archive’s position is 20 million—so given the typical Russian tendency for diminishing their state’s own crimes, we can safely assume it is at least 3 times that number) could have set straight. If Stalin imprisoned only million who actually survived—they were the lucky ones.

    The viciousness of the Stalin regime really is beyond comprehension: Naimark (a Stanford U. prof, hardly a right-winger) observes, “”In some cases, a quota was established for the number to be executed, the number to be arrested,” said Naimark. “Some officials overfulfilled as a way of showing their exuberance.”

    The brutality applied is beyond our present capacity of belief: In the case of the kulaks alone:
    “They were called “enemies of the people,” as well as swine, dogs, cockroaches, scum, vermin, filth, garbage, half animals, apes. Activists promoted murderous slogans: “We will exile the kulak by the thousand when necessary – shoot the kulak breed.” “We will make soap of kulaks.” “Our class enemies must be wiped off the face of the earth.”

    “One Soviet report noted that gangs “drove the dekulakized naked in the streets, beat them, organized drinking bouts in their houses, shot over their heads, forced them to dig their own graves, undressed women and searched them, stole valuables, money, etc.”

    “The destruction of the kulak class triggered the Ukrainian famine, during which 3 million to 5 million peasants died of starvation.” —Naimark
    ……………….
    Mark Shea is carving a memorial in granite to dedicated to his own idiocy. I really wonder if he is mentally losing his marbles.

  • “”n some cases, a quota was established for the number to be executed, the number to be arrested”

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago wrote of a woman who went to a police station with the young daughter of a neighbor who had been left behind when the neighbor was arrested for the camp quota. “What should I do with her?” the woman asked. Wrong question: the woman found the quota was not yet full.

  • By the logic of “correctional supervision,” wasn’t the entire population of the Soviet Union imprisoned?

    They didn’t call it a police state for nothing, you know.

  • Mark Shea -http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/11/a-reader-struggles-with-his-faith.html
    “The Church cannot alter the sacraments. The most that may happen is that the Church will face the fact that Caesar has decided to pretend that there is such a thing as gay marriage and that people involved in such arrangements require some form of pastoral care. Would you rather the Church simply reject them and their children? ”
    .
    Somebody is playing with fire.
    The first pastoral care the Church can give to those in so-called “Gay-marriage” relationships is to tell them to cease if they do not want to end up in a very unpleasant place.

  • Forget Mark Shea. This pope allowed himself to be draped with the symbol of communism and said he wasn’t offended. Liberals are always the same, ignorant or evil.

  • Anybody catch the oxymoron in that quote cpola posted?

  • Cpola’s quote of Mark Shea’s oxymoron:
    .
    “The Church cannot alter the sacraments. The most that may happen is that the Church will face the fact that Caesar has decided to pretend that there is such a thing as gay marriage and that people involved in such arrangements require some form of pastoral care. Would you rather the Church simply reject them and their children? ”
    .
    St Paul’s response in 1st Corinthians chapter 5:
    .
    Turn the sex pervert over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his soul may be saved on the last day.
    .
    St Paul devotes a whole chapter to this and admonishes the Church at Corinth to have nothing to do with sex perverts.

  • Pingback: Are Religious Kids Really Less Altruistic? - Big Pulpit
  • “By the logic of “correctional supervision,” wasn’t the entire population of the Soviet Union imprisoned?” As Solzhenitzyn once observed, the entire country was a prison. Some just had a little less supervision than others.

  • I have been called a global warming denier but that accusation fails to do me justice. I consider myself to be a liberal fantasy denier. So much nonsense. So much to deny.

Tom McKenna Schools Mark Shea on the Death Penalty

Friday, October 23, AD 2015

Council of Trent-Death Penalty

 

No Catholic blogger writes better on the traditional teaching of the Church regarding the death penalty than Tom McKenna, my worthy adversary on this blog on many a joust over the Confederacy.  In a post on October 22, 2015 he masterfully addresses Mark Shea who has become hysterical, (what a surprise !), in his anti-death penalty rantings:

On Shea’s blog, another attack on Sacred Tradition and a confusing conflation of arguments.  The first thing bothering Shea this time is that death penalty proponents supposedly place too much weight on the words of Dismas, the Good Thief, related in this passage from Luke 23:

And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.  But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.  And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. 

Now, I don’t know anyone who hangs their hat on this passage alone, or even as a mainstay of the obvious and overwhelming approval of the death penalty in Scripture.  It is, however, one more place in Sacred Scripture where the death penalty is either merely assumed to be moral or expressly stated to be so.

It’s significant, if not decisive, that St. Luke added this detail, and did not record any rebuke of Our Lord to the Thief’s claim that the two criminals were being justly executed.  In fact, the Lord right after the Thief’s statement assures him of Paradise.

And after all, when God Himself says in Genesis,

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image 

it’s pretty clear that He approves of the death penalty precisely because of the inherent dignity of man (almost the direct opposite conclusion drawn by our contemporary clerical class, which argues, against Scripture, that the dignity of man means that the death penalty is immoral).

 And while Shea smears those who cite this passage of Scripture in Genesis as “quot[ing] Scripture like a fundamentalist,” he may not realize that he is smearing folks like Cardinal Avery Dulles, not a noted fundamentalist as far as I know, and a man whose education, erudition, and judgment I certainly find more convincing than Shea’s.

Continue reading...

50 Responses to Tom McKenna Schools Mark Shea on the Death Penalty

  • Good Morning, Donald. I don’t know how to send you a “Tip” so I’m using this Comment box. Sorry. It’s 3:00am here in Chicago and I just got this from Michael Matt in Rome. Pretty bad…..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHXKqKo-GM&feature=em-uploademail

    I feel sick.

    Elizabeth Fitzmaurice

  • That’s really bad. I too feel sick. I’m watching this space.

  • Well.
    A new church.
    Why not new commandments?
    Why not a new drive thru Mass chain?
    Save money and time…kind of a McSacrament. Pull in and order your choices;

    1.) Mc ommunion.
    2.) Mc onfession.
    3.) Mc Word.

    Depending on the order you could be thru the line in five minutes flat. More time for the casino, strip club or Transgender parade.

    Endless possibilities in the “new Church.”

    All kidding aside, which report is more likely?
    I pray its leaning towards “The Catholic Thing.”
    Remnant Church report paint’s a sorid picture.
    Feeling sick? It could be the “New swine flu.”

  • There is this idea among liberal progressives like Mark Shea that no one deserves to die (except perhaps conservative Republicans) and everyone deserves to go to Heaven (again, except conservative Republicans). The fact of the matter, however, is that Ephesians 2:3 describes us as children of wrath and Ephesians 2:1 says that we were dead in our trespasses and sin. We all therefore deserve the punishment that Christ received. Fortunately for the majority of us, we have received His mercy. Some, however, by murder and rape and pedophilia reject that mercy and should thus be sent straightaway after conviction in a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers to the gallows or firing squad or electric chair or gas chamber or lethal injection stretcher. I do not like that. I do not want that. I do not advocate that. But I remember what my 12 step sponsor said to me when we visited Fishkill State Penitentiary in NYS on an outgoing 12 step meeting: “The only difference between you, Paul, and the inmates is that they got caught and you didn’t.” While I had not murdered or raped or done pedophilia, I had certainly done plenty of other things and what he had said thus brought to home in a real way what St Paul had written in his epistle to the Ephesians. Death penalty? I don’t like it. I’m not supposed to like it. But it is God-ordained as punishment for the unrepentant murderer.

  • @Philip: “Which report is more likely?” I was wondering the same thing. The two reports are rather different, aren’t they? Personally, I believe Mr. Matt’s report. Mr. Royal seems to me to be a big fan of Pope Francis, based on some of his writings. Last I read from him, he’s still in the mindset of the poor Pope is constantly misunderstood.

  • Elizabeth Fitzmaurice.

    Thanks for your observations.
    Regardless of the validity of each report, one thing is certain. The forces of culture are pressing the Church. Nothing new here.
    As we pray our rosaries we must take strength in knowing that the victory is coming. Christ’s Church will suffer, as Christ himself suffered, and the glorious resurrection, as He resurrected, will come for his own as well. Regardless of the enemies of Holy Church.

  • I always wonder if Hitler would have been captured after W W 2, and had been convicted at Nurenberg, would the Pope then have argued against his execution? The answer is NO !! And the same should have been applicable if Osama bin laden had been captured. Anything but the death penalty would been disrespect for the thousands of victims.

  • Philip: Amen to that. 🙂 And no disrespect intended towards Mr. Royal, by the way.

  • Mark who?
    .
    Question for Gospel revisionists like Mark who? and the gang subverting the Gospels in the synod against the family: Who gave you authority to rewrite the Gospels?
    .
    God is eternal and His Truth is eternal. God preordained that in order to redeem man, the Christ must suffer death (penalty). N.B. unlike ancient fertility cults, the Christ could not redeem man by engaging in sexual intercourse with a temple prostitute or by cremating His first-born (Melech). If death (penalty) were an intrinsic evil, why would God preordain that the Christ would save man through His suffering and death (penalty)?
    .

    If any of that makes me a bad person, make the most of it.

  • Meanwhile, back at the ranch; http://www.lifesite news.com/news/violent-mob-of-pro-abort-feminist-tries-to-burn-down-cathedral-attacks-praying

    Francisco’s back yard…but wait! Issues that are of greater concern, death penalty v. abortion, should give us reason to speak out less regarding the terrible war on women.

    Take a close look at this war. Notice the prayers being tragically thrown at the innocent bare chested feminist.

  • As he ages, Mark Shea takes on a remarkable resemblance to Rosie O’Donnell.

  • Mark Shea has become so far left, that he ought to have Pope Francis’s hammer and sickle cross decorating his blog page. And he ought to change the name of his blog to “Social Justice Warrior And Loving It!” As for Tom McKenna “schooling ” Marky, Tom would have to send Death Row Shea to the corner with a dunce cap on his head 90% of the time!

  • He’s more focused on who he’s arguing with– describing their features, real or imagined– than dealing with the arguments.
    That’s a good sign that someone doesn’t HAVE an argument.

  • Cardinal Dulles, for whom I had the privilege acting as an altar boy and sacristan during a small Mass in law school, had this excellent article in First Things:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

  • Jonathan,

    That is a great link. Cardinal Dulles ultimately found himself siding against the use of capital punishment. But it seems the take home message he has for us is when he writes:

    “Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.”

    When Scripture and tradition state something is acceptable, it should be with great trepidation that modern man abolishes it.

  • Art Deco, Bravo!
    .
    That is best comment of the day so far!
    .
    Brevity is the soul of wit.
    .

  • His Sheaness (The Pyromaniac Prince of Literary Straw-men) needs to wean his sullied political heart away from that steady diet of NeoCatholic hyperbole. If only he had a fraction of the faith in God’s immutable Divine Justice that he seems to have in man’s modern political fashions – maybe he would actually find the peace that his troubled angry head so badly needs.

  • Father George Rutler was a friend of Cardinal Dulles and both were of the same opinion on capital punishment. (By the way, Pope Pius XII urged hanging those convicted at the Nuremburg Trial.)

    Read Father Rutler: “Hanging Concentrates the Mind” in Crisis Magazine, February 2013.

  • Capitol punishment – less than 100 American executions; abortion – millions. Trials for the executed criminals; none for the innocent babies killed. Shea needs to get a clue.

  • Thanks, Don.

    I sometimes wonder whether it’s worth the effort to address Shea’s histrionics, since I sincerely question his intellectual honesty. He seems dedicated merely to throwing rhetorical bombs and demonizing those he has deemed outside the pale. Perhaps he likes to stir the pot just to get the clicks on his site; since he does not post anything about his background or education, I’m inclined to assume he’s probably not very well educated, at least in the sense that he seems not to know how to reason with someone with an opposing view, resorting instead to ad hominem as his first recourse. Discourse with such a person is, as you know, usually pointless. But it’s important that the record be set straight especially about this issue, concerning which there is plenty of confusion among the laity.

  • Pingback: How Does Pope Francis Force Me to Have Kids? - Big Pulpit
  • Confusion arises from equivocating terms used in careless or abbreviated speech with the full, exact terms. For example, many forget–or are wholly unaware–that the term ‘pro-life’ is an abbreviated way of saying ‘pro-innocent life’. Once these distinctions are bleached away by equivocation, the errors in thought begin. Sloppy thinkers conclude that pro-life means they must oppose the just imposition of the death penalty for deadly, dangerous justly convicted criminals. Or that they conclude that because defending oneself might call for the use of deadly force against aggressors, being pro-life must require them to be pacifists. Other examples of this error abound.

  • I must also call attention to the distressing tendency of those who oppose capital punishment to treat prison guards as if their lives are disposable. This is wrong. Prison guards are innocent people and being genuinely pro-innocent life requires us to show active and efficacious concern for their lives too.

    Besides the corporal risks to prison guards of death, maiming, and injury that dangerous convicted criminals pose, prison guards and their families are at higher risk of the moral and spiritual maiming and injuries of family breakup, juvenile delinquency, and other social pathologies. The calling to be a prison guard who protects the innocent from dangerous criminals who would otherwise be loose among us is a difficult one, a vocation that is grossly underappreciated by those who do not have relatives or friends who are prison guards or members of their families.

  • It’s not only prison guards, Micha. What about other prisoners who are in for lesser crime, perhaps including manslaughter who still have some regard for human life? They may not be completely innocent, but surely they aren’t to be subject to the whims of the most vicious murderers who are without any regard for human life. A murderer who is in for life without any possibility of parole—what has he to fear and (his thinking) why shouldn’t he create as much mayhem as possible?

  • I’ve also seen it used to argue that we shouldn’t eat meat.
    The tactic is called ‘equivocation.’

  • Micha and BPS, you’re exactly right. It can never be emphasized enough that even under the “new” “modified” teaching that we only may execute when there is no other way to render an offender harmless, we have to include a consideration of whether the offender represents a reasonably discernible threat to prison personnel and/or fellow inmates. Killing and wounding of guards, staff, and other inmates by “lifers” is relatively common. After all, these are people who have *already* a proven lack of self control and a disregard for life such that they have already murdered. Couple that with the lack of any incentive for *not* assaulting/killing (what will happen to them? They’re already locked up for life!), it is easy to conclude that in many cases there is a substantial threat to prison staff and other inmates, and therefore we cannot really render these offenders harmless.

    People like Shea do not want to focus on either the victims of these murderers, the terror of the crimes they commit, or on the relatively forgotten prison staff and inmates whose safety and lives are put at risk by daily, close proximity to murderers. It’s much easier to focus on a murderer who claims he’s been transformed, and who has that claim magnified and spotlighted by a complicit pro-criminal media and academe.

  • Micha Elyi writes”

    “I must also call attention to the distressing tendency of those who oppose capital punishment to treat prison guards as if their lives are disposable.”

    If women or children made up more than an insignificant number among the population of prison guards, society (which, unfortunately, includes the Church) would see the problem of the threat to innocent life that Micha raises.

    This is but one example exposing a false dichotomy present in society (which, unfortunately, includes the Church) holding that, since women and children by their relative physical weakness are deserving of special protection by society, the protection of men is deserving of no consideration at all.

    In the Church of late (the last fifty years or so) this has translated into the neglect of men also as having any particular human dignity. So, for example, the downplaying of a mother’s role in society is (rightly) recognized as an affront to the dignity of woman (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, Letter to Women, your typical American diocesan newspaper any given week, etc.), the downplaying of a father’s role, if it is mentioned at all, is…harmful to women and children.

  • Women are a significant number among prison guards.
    The guard that was killed up here in Washington a few years back was a woman, for example. (Not in a women’s prison, either.)
    There’s also no shortage of “female guards pregnant by prisoners” in the news.
    **************
    It’s not along the lines of the sex of those involved, it’s more along the lines of the prodigal son being given his inheritance over and over without ever having to come back to his father.

  • Judging by a quick search of prison guard statistics, it looks like you are correct: while men still significantly outnumber women, women are not an insignificant portion of the population.

    I think it still remains in the public consciousness, however, that prison guard is something that men do. I readily acknowledge the insupportability of this latter claim, as well as my suspicion that its bearing on public consciousness is a reason for the lack of concern for prison guards’ lives.

  • Just to point out that in 2014 and 2015 thus far, two (2) have been killed in assaults per the Officer Down Memorial Page. One perpetrator was a robbery suspect (in jail awaiting trial) and one was a lifer with several convictions for robbery, assault, and aggravated assault. Neither had previously killed anyone.

    In New York, the annual probability of death for inmates (who have a median age of about 33) was 0.0028 when assessed in 2013. That’s 87% higher than the norm for a man of 33 (about normal for a man of 46). That does not strike me as shocking for a collection of impetuous characters. There were 26 deaths from undetermined causes and 1 verified homicide. Were all the deaths in the undetermined category undetected homicides, the homicide rate in jails and prisons in New York would be similar to that in the Rochester slums.

  • Two (2) guards in prisons and jails have been killed. (btw “Officer Down” collates all deaths in law enforcement, not just deaths from assaults.)

  • I’d suggest this page as a source, over the memorial one:

    http://www.odmp.org/search/year

    It has three dead from assault, three dead from vehicular assault, 31 dead from deliberate gunfire.

    They list K9 losses but don’t count them towards the total, and those counts don’t include accidents even if they were in the line of duty.

  • Those would be patrolmen. I’m speaking of jail and prison guards killed.

  • I thought you were making a point about over-all ability to keep those who have posed a lethal risk from completing the deal, so to speak.
    Almost double of the normal rate isn’t that bad for a group of known bad folks, except that it’s in a situation where they’re known to be bad eggs, and are supposedly being kept under control, and the vast majority of accidental causes of death have been removed.

    (poisoning, suicide, car accident, murder and “other injuries” according to this: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender )

  • I think you’re confounding my point. There were on that page 2 guards listed as having been killed in jails and prisons over the course of the last two calendar years (not quite complete re 2015). The vast majority of cops who die violently are killed on the street. The death rate 87% above national means (roughly speaking) was for inmates in New York in 2013, and the vast majority died of natural causes (the breakdown was ~74% natural causes, 13% suicide, 13% undetermined and <1% verified homicides). Even if inmates were killing each other at alarming rates, that would be a modest driver of the elevated homicide rate. Most of these guys dying prematurely are just very unhealthy (from drug use, I would guess).

  • Arrgh “a modest driver of the elevated mortality rate”.

  • Death to the typo demon!
    ****
    I think you’re missing my point– that they’re in a by definition highly controlled situation. Homicides (nevermind the unrecorded attempted homicides) should be freak accident level events for BOTH the correctional officers AND the inmates.
    ***
    Where the majority of cops are killed would be changed by where they work– the number that deal with the public professionally is much higher than the number that deal with jailed prisoners.

  • Inmates wouldn’t be able to harm anybody if they were chained (think dungeon) to their cell walls and fed minimally above starvation rations of bread and water. Instead, they’re well-fed and provided gym equipment so that many of them could play linebacker in the NFL.
    .
    Re: the death penalty a famed Catholic theologian wrote that Catholics may disagree with JPII on that and receive the Eucharist – it’s a prudential judgment and the pronouncement was not ex cathedra. That famous theologian later served the Church as Pope Benedict XVI.
    .

  • I understand you. My point is that if you want to argue for capital sentences, you should do so on normative grounds. The number of guards and inmates whose lives you will save by executing someone is small enough that it’s difficult to detect.

  • Problem being that your own information shows that it’s not difficult to detect, and the argument is made to counter the claim that a life sentence would prevent the criminals from killing again.
    Not only do we know that people don’t actually stay in jail for their entire sentence, but they can’t even be kept from murder when they ARE in jail.
    *****
    Ah-ha! I found a national stat!
    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5341
    There’s a Death In Custody reporting program; nation wide, or less 3% of the deaths of those in custody were homicides. (roughly where suicide is for the general population over age 44)
    That is, optimistically, a quarter of what it is for the rest of the population.
    (page 17, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_10.pdf )
    Pessimistically, it’s more like a third.
    You can get bigger variations in homicide rate by moving.

  • Compare the number killed by murder to the number executed.
    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=495

  • NY prisons may be an outlier, Art Deco. Also, there are other crimes perpetrated by inmates
    See:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/prison_crime_rate_the_u_s_violent_crime_rate_is_falling_partly_because_the.html

    The money quote:
    “For comparison, there were 1.2 million violent crimes reported to the FBI by police departments across the country in 2012, and a little more than 5.8 million self-reported by inmates that same year, according to the BJS survey.”
    ” In a 2012 survey, a full 4 percent of the nation’s prisoners and 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized in the previous 12 months…rapes and sexual assaults in[U.S. generally] 2012 was 346,830, representing a rate of 1.3 per 1,000 people 12 years of age or older, or 0.13 percent.

  • NY prisons may be an outlier, Art Deco.

    Really? It has the largest inmate census bar 4 (the federal system, California, Texas, Florida).

    a full 4 percent of the nation’s prisoners and 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized

    What’s the plan here? Prison buggery is not limited to convicts remanded for murder. Are you going to start executing people convicted of robbery a la early modern England because some share thereof might bugger someone or are you planning to execute more people for homicide because people convicted of robbery and assault bugger people in prison?

  • Problem being that your own information shows that it’s not difficult to detect,

    My own information shows two guards murdered in a 21 month period, neither of whom were killed by a convict remanded for murder. That’s two perpetrators out of a prison and jail census in excess of 2 million.

  • Art, you’re not responding to the points I made, and your not making your own very well at all. You’ve also totally missed the rather major point that the criminals are VERY OBVIOUSLY NOT UNDER CONTROL, which is a required foundation for your argument that capital punishment is not licit in this situation.
    **
    Your own evidence shows that people in prison are SUCCEEDING in murder while they are behind bars, both of control officers and of other inmates.
    ….
    You haven’t even looked at the rate of murders outside of jail, by those who had been previously in jail for murder, much less ‘attempted homicide’ or ‘assault with a deadly.’

    When it’s pointed out that no, as a matter of fact murder of guards by inmates is detectable as shown by YOU DETECTING IT, you decide to ignore the successful murders of inmates, not even look at attempted murders, and start attacking strawmen.
    *******
    You limited your argument against capital punishment down to a ridiculously narrow point of murder of guards by convicts who were in custody, and that point still fails unless you additionally limit it to people with prior homicide convictions in the last 20-some months.
    ********
    ********
    A rephrasing of this argument.
    Original position: “Capital punishment is needed to keep criminals from hurting innocents.”
    Art’s counter: “It’s not needed because criminals in jail almost never kill anyone.”
    Foxfier’s counter-counter: “Two dead cops is not ‘almost never,’ and the murder rate for inmates is still over 25% of that for the national population.”
    Art’s response: “Those cops weren’t killed by convicted murderers.”
    ….
    They successfully murder other prisoners in numbers that approach the lawful executions, they murder wardens, they commit horrific physical abuse on other prisoners, they are very obviously not under control even when actually in jail.

  • Foxfier, I can explain my position to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

  • If I did not understand, I would not have been able to make the counter-points that I made when you finally did elaborate on your point.
    If I had attempted and failed, then you could point to where the mistake was– as I did with your focus on number of successful murders of prison guards by inmates.
    If the counter points do not correlate with what your position is, you might try explaining it, simply, in one location, possibly in the form of “Because A(, B and C), I conclude D.”

  • No one, not even Shea, has provided evidence that our prisons are able to protect the outside public from any further harm from capital offenders. Pope John Paul 11 only made an assumption that prisons today are so safe that the incarcerated can do no further harm to innocent people. No proof of that assumption has been provided by the Vatican or any other Catholic body. The truth is – hundreds of murders outside the prison walls have occurred because of criminals held in solitary confinement.

Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom!

Wednesday, September 30, AD 2015

5 Responses to Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom!

  • a pope who has done and said nothing heterodox

    That’s the rub right there, isn’t it? Because a lot of what he has said and done has some of us appending a yet to that statement, others of us pounding our poor heads like Pooh-bear trying to jog a thought loose, and still others not fully “us” anticipating a new orthodoxy.
    .
    Some of us are in for some profound frustration and disappointment.

  • Mark Shea is a manichean and divides the world into evil people and good people. Isn’t his entire theologocal education fundamentalist? He is always so eager to condemn and accuse as if his fundamentalism has found a new target for who’s going to hell, only now it is anyone who disagrees with his magisterium.

  • “For Mark Shea it is always let a thousand flowers bloom so long as they all smell like him.”

    And what a horrid stench that would be.

  • Mark Shea is basically a leftist. When you read his comments and postings on the subjects he blogs on, it’s obvious he has taken more and more of a leftist position on them as the years go by. Nobody who’s a traditional, conservative Catholic should take this man seriously as a commentator on the Catholic faith or secular politics.

  • Mark Shea should be ignored. I am not going to insult the man or his opinions, but I am not going to waste my time on them either. Mr. McClarey made an honest observation on the Holy Father’s visit and his speeches. Mr.McClarey insulted nobody, banned nobody and told nobody how to run their blogs or business. It is Mr. McClarey who behaved as an adult, not Mark Shea.

    Go to Mass. Pray. Go to Confession and do penance. Pray for the Holy Father, no matter what he says or does

Well What Do You Know, I Guess Shea Does Read The American Catholic

Friday, September 25, AD 2015

150710135158-pope-hammer-and-sickle-crucifix-large-169

 

It has long been a pretense of Mark Shea that he does not read The American Catholic.  That pretense slipped today:

 

So the Pope spoke to Congress yesterday and the righties of St. Blogs are going mad because, just like Benedict XVI addressing European Parliamentarians, he never mentioned the word abortion.  But, of course, since he’s Francis and not Benedict, we are to conclude that this makes him (I am not making this up) the worst Pope since Alexander VI as well as Che Guevara’s Pope according to the not-at-all-unhinged assessment of the Rightwingosphere.  Moral:  If you say, ““The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development” nobody will understand that the Church still opposes abortion.

And so the Rightwingsophere is awash with outrage today because the Pope, in the ear of the Right “failed to mention abortion”.

Yet strangely, the ears on the Left had no difficulty hearing his mention of abortion and are under no illusion that he has somehow changed the Church’s teaching on the matter.  Indeed, some on the Left are still furious at him for saying that there is any sin to forgive at all.

So why is it that Francis, doing the same thing Benedict did, is The Worst Pope Since Alexander VI?

Go here to read the rest.  Well, I’ll tell you why Mark.  Because Pope Benedict made this statement:

“protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;” while Pope Francis, in the middle of giving a big air kiss to every piece of the leftist  agenda before Congress, immediately segued into a rant against the death penalty:

The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.”

He could not expend even some hot air in defense of the unborn for fear it would offend his Democrat allies on issues obviously much more important to him than the defense of the weakest among us.  Imagine if he had called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood!  Pope Francis is the perfect leftist Catholic:  a man who cares deeply for leftist initiatives and will not even pay lip service when it counted, and when he had a national audience, on behalf of the unborn.  He is either a coward or he simply doesn’t give a damn about the unborn, at least in comparison to such monumental Catholic moral issues like global warming.   That is where his heart is and he will prostitute his papacy to advance the leftist agenda he so fiercely embraces. Bend yourself into a pretzel Mark in defense of Pope Francis all you wish, and I suspect that you will have far more contortions to do  before this pontificate is concluded.

 

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Well What Do You Know, I Guess Shea Does Read The American Catholic

  • You are correct, Donald.

  • Rightwingosphere is odd to me. I’m for the death penalty as a saver of thousands of largely poor peoples’ lives precisely in poor areas of the world where most murders occur….the two worst world regions by UN numbers being non death penalty northern Latin America and rare death penalty Africa. No death penalty = poor people getting killed. Affluent areas whether Greenwich Connecticut or Sweden or Luxembourg have few murders with or without the death penalty. Safest area on earth…East Asia…poor people plus the death penalty….1 per 100,000 murder rate similar but a shade better than Europe but includes a billion poor people unlike Europe. Second safest…non death penalty Europe…no large sectors of alienated poor though that will change with time perhaps. The black man in the US ghetto areas only …has a murder rate equal to that of Central America…32 per 100,000….32 times that of East Asia. Does the US have a death penalty when appeals average 10 years…20 in California. Not an very effective one. Our murder rate is 4.7 times that of East Asia.

  • Shea is a drama queen. He needs some stage for his unbearable personality to play out. I choose to ignore him.
    I can’t believe that his one sentence I thought was about abortion really isn’t- the sacred life he is defending is that of the criminal who committed a crime so heinous as to invoke the death sentence. Absolutely unbelievable! The #%&!**% death sentence! This is not Catholic teaching but an issue requiring prudential judgement.
    This pope may turn me into a drama queen yet! I’m beside myself…..Oy Vey.

  • I’m sure Mark Shea has his good qualities, but I find his view of the Catholic faith flawed and his style obnoxious. I don’t know why he’s all over the Internet, and so many people give him a platform.

  • I didn’t read the UN address but merely a summary. More or less the same. Save the environment. Materialism destroying the environment. Immigrants. Nothing about the UN seeking to promote abortion and gay “marriage” around the world.

    Apologists may say he sounds like Benedict or even JPII. But really, on this trip he seems to be talking about two or three things. Much like a politician’s stump speech.

  • Also, climate change and immigration are matters of prudential judgment which Francis is likely wrong on and Catholics in good conscience can disagree. Of course, leftists will deny this. Mostly because they are seeking to change Church teaching.

    The death penalty is among these matters which Divine command and Natural Law defend. The fact the Francis has been opposed to capital punishment from the “beginning of (his) ministry” highlights concerns about his understanding of these Truths.

    This opposed to the all out assault on unborn life and marriage by the administration is not a matter one can disagree on.

    This Pope is a politician arguing prudential matters, not the Vicar of Christ spreading the true Gospel.

  • PF certainly had no problem calling the death penalty out by name. No nebulous “allusions” there.

  • As pointed out by Don, Mark did not read Benedict’s address – an address truly befitting a Vicar of Christ. Let’s highlight points, clearly and charitably made, that Francis seems incapable of speaking. Likely because he has no notion of non-negotiable principles in Catholic teaching:

    “As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

    – protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

    – recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

    – the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”

  • It is understandable that faithful Catholics would want to defend the Pope. Catholic commentators have new busy from the beginning explaining, reassuring, excusing, this Pope. Some wrote him off some time ago, and their assessment seems correct. The calculated demoralization of pro-lifers during his Congress speech was demonic. He got his longest, sustainted applause when he started off about life at all its stages, then he gave his anti-death penalty spiel. Who this the applause was in anticipation of anti-death penalty sentiment. Boehner invited him, and got a speech Obama could have given. No wonder he bawled during, and resigned the next day.

  • Correction: “Who thinks the applause…”

  • Kind of dumb of Shea to keep doubling down.

  • The rightwingoshpere perceives something Mark Shea refuses to acknowledge. Francis has rendered the teaching of the Papacy perfectly superfluous, the credo of a second rate school administrator. We’ve heard it before, just not from clerics.

  • http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2015/09/now-we-know.html
    Wonder whether he will be forthcoming with an assessment of this situation, which may be found elsewhere, as well.

  • Like many former activists of the Democrat Party,
    who have become church activists and who believe
    the Catholic Church is the religious arm of their
    party, Shea attacks pro-life Catholics for their
    obsession with the single issue of abortion, when
    racism, bigotry, sexism, discrimination, poverty,
    environmentalism, etc. have the same moral
    importance as abortion, if not greater.

  • Shea attacks pro-life Catholics for their obsession with the single issue of abortion, when
    racism, bigotry, sexism, discrimination, poverty, environmentalism, etc. have the same moral importance as abortion, if not greater.


    That’s not a description of Shea, who is a much more idiosyncratic character. (He also has no history of association with the Democratic Party, unless I’m mistaken).

  • Art,

    I said Shea is similar to or like a former Democrat activist.

    Shea in his hit piece against The American Catholic
    used the term “Rightwingosphere” to smear this blog.
    Apparently, Shea has great disdain for rightwing or traditional
    Catholics and their unwavering loyalty to the teachings of the
    Church. Also, Shea, like a former activist of the Democrat
    Party, criticized The American Catholic’s obsession
    with abortion by comparing the statements of the traditional
    Pope Benedict XVI with Francis’ lack of statements on the
    issue of abortion to suggest that this blog is possessed by an
    anti-abortion fanaticism.

    Shea wrote his hit piece as an activist from the left.

  • “I am not a liberal…” PF.

    Maybe Mark Shea ( isn’t ) a liberal either?

    This fits with a bumper sticker I spied a week ago; “Jesus Christ was a Liberal.”

    Peace.

  • For centuries the catechisms , church doctors, Thomas Aquinas ,St Augustine, other Popes, have all said the state has the right and in fact said the DUTY to inflict capital punishment in situations where the proportional response should be the death penalty.Not until the mid 1980s did the emphasis (NOT church teaching) change to ” well, the bad guy can’t get out f the modern secure slammer, so no need for CP.” So….if the Allies had captured Hitler and tried him, we couldn’t have put him to death??? Tell that to 6 million Jews. No I can and will disagree with Pope Francis, and do so vocally!!!

  • I noticed that a lot of those “Catholics” who “convert” from whatever cult they come from or no cult at all, have liberal, leftists views. And they try to change the Church or manipulate the Bible to fit their views. Kinda like the Muslims who invade the West and want to change it to suit their Islamic way of life.

  • Nothing so brings a condemned murderer to repentance and conversion as the gallows. A truly repentant murderer will expire with grief over his crime. Since he has need of some assistance to repent, to deny him the death penalty is unmerciful. The Innocent victims, too, must be spared the death penalty. Equal Justice requires that if the innocent victim must endure the death penalty so must the murderer.
    The principle of separation of church and state requires that the Pope and Bishops of the church while being released from capital punishment by their vocation to serve God in the church, allow, without interference, the state to exact equal Justice for the innocent victim.
    It is this state of innocence that separates abortion from the death penalty. The unborn person, in innocence, must be given due process of law in any civilization,… and benefit of a doubt about his sovereign personhood, the absence of which is held by atheists.
    Technically, Pope Francis, in calling for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, has made priesthood of the laity of all persons alive on earth, but without their informed consent or choice. Some professed atheists may not want to be incorporated into the priesthood of the laity in the Catholic Church, even while being sponsored by the Pope.

  • The newly begotten, legally and morally innocent sovereign person is the standard of Justice, Perfect Justice, and the compelling interest of the state in protecting innocent, newly begotten human life procreated in the womb and in the test tube. Test tube babies, of whom there are 44,000 in Great Britain alone, and SNOWFLAKE BABIES, fertilized eggs who are frozen and then gestated have immortal souls and are persons. Test tube babies and SNOWFLAKE BABIES are proof beyond any doubt that the newly procreated life has sovereign personhood and free will. The will to live and survive is an act of the free will and is the human being’s civil right to Life. This act of the free will to live is an act of the soul in the one-celled human being. Test tube babies and SNOWFLAKE BABIES are now adults and teenagers and I highly recommend that they sue for the risk and damage that is caused them through this horrendous means of procreation.

  • Atheism denies God and man’s immortal human soul and makes beasts of burden of all people. Totalitarianism and enslavement of the peoples of the world. The crime of the United Nations. Finite freedom is all the state and the UN can give. Unalienable human rights are endowed by “their Creator”. And until the UN can prove that it is God, they have no legitimate leg to stand on.

  • Of course Shea reads TAC! He’s hypersensitive about anybody or anything that dares to criticize him or his pet ideas, causes, or persons. So he has to read TAC, Creative Minority Report, or any other traditional, conservative site, blog, or magazine to check out on what devious thing we’re up to.
    Some folks think Mark is an opportunist who changes his direction depending on which way the wind blows in his support of various causes (like the death penalty), but I believe, based on looking at his writings over the past few years, he’s a hardened leftist. Everything he says or writes seems to reflect left-wing rhetoric or causes. He acts like a leftist in the way he deals with people who dare to differ with him. I get the impression that he’s a stalking horse to see how far he can push things like gay rights, the abolishment of the death penalty, and other hot button issues among traditional and conservative Catholics.

  • but I believe, based on looking at his writings over the past few years, he’s a hardened leftist. Everything he says or writes seems to reflect left-wing rhetoric or causes.
    ==
    To me, it seems like a collage of the left and the alt-right, something uniquely his own and reflecting less an understanding of public life than the issue of his emotional self.

  • I know something about the alt-right, and based on what Shea has said in the past, I don’t think he likes them very much. However Art, I believe your comment about the
    “the issue of his emotional self” is the key to understanding Mark Shea. While we know the public Mark Shea, we know very little about his background, which would explain who he actually is. IMO, his public persona is a mask that hides the real Mark Shea from his fans, and probably all but his closet associates. And sooner or later, the mask will fall off, showing us the sad, pathetic man behind it.

  • I don’t think Shea is any more of a sad, pathetic person than the rest of us– he’s just got a different challenge, in that he’s got a LOT of people who are telling him he’s right when he lashes out at disagreement.
    (insert clip from Fiddler on the Roof about how it’s a challenge I’d be willing to face. 😉 )

  • Birds gotta fly
    Fish gotta swim
    Shea gotta shoot from the lip

    Mark Shea is the Yosemite Sam of The Patheos Posse and he is forever leading his followers into box canyons where they are trapped, forever missing their targets and shooting each other.

    If you haven’t been banned form his blog, you cannot identify as a Traditionalist.

  • in that he’s got a LOT of people who are telling him he’s right when he lashes out at disagreement.

    He helps with the atmospherics by deleting the comments of critics.

    Mark Shea is the Yosemite Sam of The Patheos Posse

    Not a bad metaphor.

  • Art- I know, and definitely don’t say he’s blameless. I just remember watching him start to…well…flip over, and part of why he GOT there is because he listened to folks who said he was doing the right thing, when he wasn’t.
    Some other reasons, and I’ve seen a few other folks flip over in similar ways; it’s sad, but I don’t think they’re inherently worse folks, just…didn’t rise to the challenge the way I hope I would.

  • It’s so nice and simple to use the shorthand of “they disagree with me, so they’re CLEARLY totally wrong.” And it’s something reasonable folks fight all the time, which is why jerks use it so often as a false accusation.
    Which leads, when it’s piled on top of “we honestly just disagree” things, to folks eventually ignoring it out of hand, on the boy who cried wolf theory.

  • and part of why he GOT there is because he listened to folks who said he was doing the right thing,

    I was never a regular reader of his, so there may be something I missed. He’d previously been aggressive online but grew intolerable around about 2005 or 2006. I do not recall him receiving much positive feedback for this and he had a great deal of criticism for it. He intervenes in his comment fora a great deal more than most moderators and his critics found themselves deleted en bloc so founded a counterblog. One was a fellow named Fotos and one a fellow named Victor Morton.
    ==
    It struck me a long time ago that he benefited from editors, as I could not reconcile the workmanlike articles he wrote for Crisis (a publication he now savages) with his much more bilious short commentaries online. I do not think he has a coherent politics (which would not bother me if he did not bother with political topics; I have nothing coherent to say about imaginative literature or Lincoln biographies). It’s more like he has a clutch of animosities. All of which is too bad.

  • Mark Shea isn’t worth the time or the bandwidth to read or to comment about.

    At the least, I expect Catholic priests, bishops, brothers and Sisters to uphold Catholic teaching and doctrine, and not to substitute their preferences in place of Catholic teaching and doctrine. Shea, in his verbose attacks, indicates that he is cool with said substitution. Shea’s blather is just that. Blather.

  • If I’ve got my timeline right, I was long gone by ’06– could’ve sworn he got BDS about the time I got in the area to be able to notice his view of Iraq didn’t line up with what I saw, which was ’05, and I know I stopped reading years before he started in on waterboarding being torture which was (from what I found trying to pin down a timeline) ‘08.

  • After 9/11 Shea wrote a very powerful and lengthy blog post. It was a great blessing to me and I’m sure many others. I wish we could resurrect that persona without the mean-spiritedness.

  • I spent the past three weeks in America: Tennessee and Louisiana, slumming and assisting our airborne ranger to PCS from the 101st to an airborne task force at Fort Polk, LA; and then we brought home his hound because his new duties don’t allow for him to care for dog.

    So, Mark who? Pope who?

    I think I’d faint dead-away if Pope who were to mention something remotely related to the Spiritual, as in repentance, confession, penance, amendment of life and good works for the greater glory of God; as in the four end things: death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell; as in Christ’s gaining for us by His life, death and resurrection the rewards of eternal life; as in Jesus forgiving our sins, saving us from the fire of Hell; taking souls to Heaven, and helping those of us most in need of his mercy; etc.

Himmler, Mark Shea and False Equivalence

Thursday, August 6, AD 2015

false-equivalence-jesus-and-hitler

False Equivalence-A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn’t bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.

 

Oh good.  I was afraid that we would miss on the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima Mark Shea’s usual histrionics:

 

Or the rhetoric of those who champion the incineration of thousands of civilians for the Greater Good:

If nuking these cities was a major U.S. war crime, illicit under international law and Church teaching, then we are put in the position of demanding a higher price in blood to salve our consciences. There are times in real life when one must commit a wrong in order to avoid an even greater wrong. These instances arise frequently in wartime. Another example: the terrorist who must be “tortured” in order to find out where the bombs are.

Jimmy, you’re right when you say that we were participating formally in evil when we dropped the bomb. Unfortunately, our participation in evil began almost four years earlier when we entered the war. This is the nature of war. There is much, much evil in it, and we do ourselves a disservice when through our well-meaning but futile efforts to mitigate its evil we prolong it and make it even worse.

What ties each of these stories together is perverted courage. For instance, note the sick logic at work in Himmler’s remarks: the willingness to commit murder is transmuted, in Himmler’s diabolical imagination, into a brave act of self-sacrifice. He consoles the SS soldiers by telling them they are tough men willing to do the dirty work of war. They don’t moralistically refuse to do acts that risk hell but bravely undertake the work of sinning gravely for a higher cause. They have the guts softer men lack to butcher thousands of innocent Jews and are willing to endure this hardship—the psychological trauma that goes with doing monstrous evil—for the sake of the love of country without looking for any loopholes.

Myers uses the same curious rhetoric of bravery to undergird his stirring defense of his Kermit Gosnell view of life – which also turns out to be a stirring defense of the Dr. Josef Mengele view of life. These men, like Myers, were “unafraid” to reduce millions of other, slightly older, human beings to “pieces of meat”. Once again, the language of “courage” and “bravery” is deployed to describe the embrace of grave evil.

And it doesn’t stop there. The Croatian butcher likewise speaks of his monstrous evils in tones indistinguishable from Milton’s Satan. As though the filthy charnelhouse he helped to staff was an act of noble rebellion against an unjust God whom he had no choice but to defy, what with His simplistic ideas of “just war” that get in the way of what Needs to Be Done to Win. He speaks of his participation in slaughter as a beautiful act of patriotism that none but the bravest could undertake. Sure, he’ll go to hell for it. God is unjust! But our brave soul will spend his eternity in Hell secure in the notion that He Did the Right Thing.

This is much of a muchness with our last quotation from an American who argues (like ever so many Americans) that God asks far too much when he imposes Just War criteria on us and seriously expects us to believe that not even we can directly intend the mass slaughter of innocent human life. This reader doesn’t mess around with pretenses that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t violations of Just War teaching. Instead he simply declares that God is wrong, we are right, and we have to have the courage to just go ahead and do monstrous evil because it’s the Right Thing to Do and God is a fool to say otherwise. You must “commit a wrong in order to avoid an even greater wrong.”

Continue reading...

40 Responses to Himmler, Mark Shea and False Equivalence

  • So Shea thinks we should have taken an additional million casualties so he can feel better about his countrymen? Do I have that right

  • The toughest thing the fat man ever had to do was push himself away from the kitchen table. Monday morning quarterbacks get paid zip.

  • Ken, he does not do the toughest thing you say he does for if he did, then he would avoid surrending to that one particular of the seven deadly sins that causes his condition. And having surrendered to one, surrender to others – wrath against Conservatives and Pride in one’s own flawed thinking – follows as surely as the night does the day. This criticism would not be leveled if a certain pompous blogmeister would at least acknowledge that he is not the divine dispenser of apostolic wisdom.

  • One of the problems with this whole you can’t do that! It’s immoral/atrocious/criminal line of thought (besides the whole isn’t war is organized immorality/atrocity/criminality question begging I mean) is that it renders ideas about just war and self defense futile. So, say Putin decides to take back everything that used be behind the Iron Curtain, and he’s prepared to use nuclear weapons to do it. Are we supposed to let him? Apparently yes. Because using nukes is always wrong/bad and you can’t do a wrong/bad thing, even to achieve a good end.
    .
    That’s not to say that A-bombing Japan was a good thing. Only that it was the least bad choice among a range of increasingly worse ones.
    .
    And if that seems too worldly, as perhaps it is, then it further seems to me that Ghandi had the right of it after all: All of Europe should have marched happily into that Nazi death camps and trusted in God to change the hearts of men.

  • Mark Shea is the Catholic blogosphere’s version of Jon Stewart.

    It is a waste of time to point out the militarization of the Japanese population. It is a waste of time to point out that the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities were deadlier than Fat Man and Little Boy. It is a waste of time to point out that President Truman’s job was to end the war as fast as possible with as few American casualties as possible.

    I don’t know this for sure, but I doubt Mark Shea has spent little or no time with war veterans from the Pacific Theater.

    the LAST think I want to hear from Mark Shea, given his distaste for traditional Catholics, is a lecture about Just War or anything else. St. Thomas Aquinas did not live in the 20th century and did not face the monstrorus evils that existed in the 20th century.

  • I would think that the surviving Jews of Europe would be insulted to be compared as equivalent to the Japanese who material supported their war effort. That is exactly what Mark Shea is doing with his word games.

  • I would argue that destroying a city to kill one soldier is immoral, but destroying a military base with one civilian among 100,000 enemy soldiers is acceptable(would Mark Shea agree with the second statement? ). Somewhere in between, a line is crossed. I think a debate about that line would be very illuminating for this argument. It would at least tell us a lot about Mr Shea.

  • Or to rephrase, what proportion of combatant/non combatant defines a location as a valid military target vs off limits/war crime?

  • For myself, I’d like for one of these titans of moral insight to tell us we should have done in 1945 instead of telling us why what we did do was wrong.
    .
    Just once

  • MikeS wrote, “I would argue that destroying a city to kill one soldier is immoral, but destroying a military base with one civilian among 100,000 enemy soldiers is.”

    Take the case of the Lusitania. She was carrying contraband of war (a small cargo of arms). Was topedoing her justified?

  • Penguins Fan said it. He’s Jon Stewart. What does anyone really expect from him? A wise professor once told me to always ask who’s ox is getting gored. If Mark Shea’s was the life that was spared by Truman’s decision, something tells me he would have a different view of the matter.

  • MPS,

    I believe the traditional answer would be if there were proportionate reasons. Sinking the Lusitania would likely not meet that criteria as the death of a large number of civilians could not be justified by destroying a small arms shipment. If there were a small number of civilians on a freighter carrier munitions, aviation fuel etc., that would be different.

  • Yesterday was Shea’s birthday. This was the perfect gift for that pompous fool!

  • For myself, I’d like for one of these titans of moral insight to tell us we should have done in 1945 instead of telling us why what we did do was wrong.

    Well, you can go on his site and ask. The following will take place: (1) one of his pet pit bulls will make rude and snide remarks in reply, (2) Shea himself will issue a denunciation of you in the comments section or a succeeding post, and (3) all of your remarks will be deleted. About the most patient description of the quality of his commentary on any subject was offered just the other day by a competing blogger: “Shea’s signal-to-noise ratio [has] long since dipped below the level I’m prepared to deal with”.

  • “I wrote about this some time ago (here) saying that I thought it had been a mistake for the movement against abortion to adopt the term “pro-life.” Not that it’s not accurate, and not that I don’t understand the rationale for it. But it invites the response which it regularly gets: “You’re not truly pro-life, because you don’t support [some other cause] in addition to your own.” The other causes can be anything that the speaker believes to be good for people, or for that matter for animals, or the entire planetary ecosystem.

    For reasons that are obscure to me, this tactic is used even by some people who are actually anti-abortion. I can only conjecture that they are so repelled by the right-wing associations of the pro-life movement that they want to distance themselves from it. A few weeks ago, for instance, I saw a link to a piece by Catholic blogger Mark Shea that appeared to suggest that insufficient concern about gun violence disqualifies one from calling oneself pro-life. I say “appeared to suggest” because I didn’t read more than a few sentences, Shea’s signal-to-noise ratio having long since dipped below the level I’m prepared to deal with; the link appeared on my Facebook feed because someone I know had commented on it. Then a few days ago he pointed out that you aren’t truly pro-life if you don’t consider illegal immigrants to be human.

    I dare say that almost all pro-lifers are opposed to the use of guns in settling disputes or committing crimes, and believe immigrants, legal or otherwise, to be human. But it doesn’t matter. The tactic is so tempting that those who use it often don’t even seem to care whether the charge is true. I.e., the thing they say pro-lifers should support (or oppose) is often something that many or most of them do in fact support (or oppose), although perhaps not embracing the specific solution proposed by the leftist who is the usual accuser. But it does seem to be an effective way of changing the subject, at least for those who want to change it, and of putting the anti-abortion side on the defensive.”

    http://www.lightondarkwater.com/2015/08/pro-life-vs-anti-abortion.html

  • “For myself, I’d like for one of these titans of moral insight to tell us we should have done in 1945 instead of telling us why what we did do was wrong.”

    And also explain why such an outrage against Catholic morality was apparently missed by the entire hierarchy of the Church.

  • Since I refuse to go to Shea’s website can someone give a brief description of how Shea brings Planned Parenthood into this? I remember reading on another blog a year or two ago the argument that there is a direct link between the bombings and Roe v. Wade, and I am wondering if Shea was trying that same historically ignorant approach.

  • For Brian English:
    It can roughly be approximated as, “it took false courage for the Nazis to massacre Jews, it takes false courage for PP to dismember children and it took false courage for us to drop the bombs.”
    He also sets up a straw man who says that all war is evil anyway, so the bombs weren’t any worse.

  • Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is once. Actually, not sure there is another.

  • Oh, and another logical fallacy is the agumentum ad hominem.

    I think Mark is a putz most of the times on most issues. That does not mean he is wrong this time. In fact, the responses I see are the same type of crazed bile that *Mark* is usually noted for. And still, none can square the bombings with Church teaching, and simply repeat the mantra that “a million” were saved, which, even if true (I do not grant it: the Pentagon only predicted 50k casualties, but we can never know), would not justify incinerating Grandma, Grandpa, and little Suzy in order to terrorize the Jap government into surrendering. It’s profoundly immoral to kill innocent people in order to get a bad guy to stop doing bad things. That’s what it all boils down to stripped of the verbal vomit.

  • (I do not grant it: the Pentagon only predicted 50k casualties, but we can never know),

    You continue to promote this fraud. There isn’t a judge in Virginia who should take a word out of your mouth at face value.

  • Tom, your last post was really crippled by that 50k comment. It is simply not true as a realistic estimate. Your inclusion of it shows you are in denial about the realities.

    And to repeat: do you think starving Grandma, Grandpa, and little Suzy to death in order to force (terrorize is a word reserved for the innocent) the ‘Jap’ government into surrendering during a 1945-46 blockage is not profoundly immoral?

  • Can someone point me to one respected moral theologian who has concluded that the bombing was morally right?

  • Judging from the attitude of the American people, I’d suggest that their “respected moral theologian” in this case is named Harry Truman. WJ, can you name any “respected moral theologian” who has written about the atomic bombings who was slated to participate in Operation Olympic? Oh, and I’d put Father Wilson Miscamble up against any “respected moral theologian” you’d care to name.

    Go to the links below to see an example of why I put “respected moral theologian” in quotes:

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/ctsa-considers-resolution-contraception-mandate

    http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/theological-society-backs-vatican-criticized-nun

    http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/3523/Prof-Explains-Controversial-History-of-Catholic-Theological-Society-of-America.aspx

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/sexuality-contraception/reluctance-among-clergy-to-speak-about-the-catholic-sexual-ethic/

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/08/in-the-wake-of-heroic-theology

    In practice the Catholic Theological Society of America is, in the main, merely a left wing pressure group.

  • “Can someone point me to one respected moral theologian who has concluded that the bombing was morally right?”

    The well respected (that is, before the KGB-inspired “Hitler’s Pope” calumnies) moral theologian Pius XII refused to say that the bombing was absolutely wrong. See
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/08/07/hiroshima-survivors/#comment-270117

  • Brevity is the soul of wit: Mark who?

  • Tom,

    In the past I would be inclined to agree with you. Given the information on the conscription of most of the population of Japan, one is inclined at least to give ear to those who would look at Japan as one large island fortress. The Church has never declared that there can be no civilian casualties in battles. Thus the poor grandmothers and babies line is subject to criticism.

    As TomD intimates, a blockade would also be immoral (JPII declared the sanctions on Iraq were immoral and asked they be lifted due to the effects on ordinary people.) An invasion would likely have cost huge numbers of casualties and at some level lend itself to the question of its morality. That leaves us with negotiating peace with a Japan militarized in a total war mindset and in control of foreign territories.

  • “That leaves us with negotiating peace with a Japan militarized in a total war mindset and in control of foreign territories.”
    And as Don McClarey has pointed out over and over, in control of the monthly murders of tens of thousands of civilian citizens of nations were had agreed to fight for. A failure of responsibility to force Japan to surrender would be seen today as complicity in these civilian deaths of our Allies. There is no denying it.

  • Tom D wrote, “A failure of responsibility to force Japan to surrender would be seen today as complicity in these civilian deaths of our Allies. There is no denying it.”

    We must not confuse foresight with intention, which is at the root of most of the moral dilemmas posed by consequentialists.

    Miss Anscombe details the result of such confusion, “Christianity forbids a number of things as being bad in themselves. But if I am answerable for the foreseen consequences of an action or refusal, as much as for the action itself, then these Prohibitions will break down. If someone innocent will die unless I do a wicked thing, then on this view I am his murderer in refusing: so all that is left to me is to weigh up evils. Here the theologian steps in with the principle of double effect and says: “No, you are no murderer, if the man’s death was neither your aim nor your chosen means, and if you had to act in the way that led to it or else do something absolutely forbidden.” Without understanding of this principle, anything can be–and is wont to be– justified, and the Christian teaching that in no circumstances may one commit murder, adultery, apostasy (to give a few examples) goes by the board. These absolute prohibitions of Christianity by no means exhaust its ethic; there is a large area where what is just is determined partly by a prudent weighing up of consequences. But the prohibitions are bedrock, and without them the Christian ethic goes to pieces.”

  • “But if I am answerable for the foreseen consequences of an action or refusal, as much as for the action itself, then these Prohibitions will break down.”

    Ah, but the Church has always taught that we are just as responsible for sins of omission as sins of commission. “For what I have done and what I have failed to do.” is not merely a string of words we recite at Mass. That is precisely the Hiroshima Dilemma that Ms. Anscombe attempted to “solve” by simply ruling out the potential sin of omission clearly involved. Clever, but ultimately unconvincing, at least to me, especially if we had chosen what she assumed was the moral course, ignoring the clearly foreseeable consequences, and millions more had died as a result.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Ah, but the Church has always taught that we are just as responsible for sins of omission as sins of commission…”

    But a sin of omission requires a positive duty to perform a particular act in all the circumstances of the case. Thus, St Alphonsus gives the case of a man who jumps to his death off the top of a burning building. His intention is to escape the flames; his death is merely the foreseen, but unintended consequence. Now, the prohibition of suicide is absolute, but the duty to preserve one’s life is not, so his choice is a legitimate one (S Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia moralis, lib. III, tractatus IV, cap. I, 367) Another example would be giving a dose of an analgesic to a patient sufficient to prevent his suffering, even though its foreseeable effect is also to terminate life.

    Cases where it is not permissible not to do x are very rare.

    Of course, the principle of Double Effect can be abused; thus, Miss Anscombe rejects several examples drawn from the Jesuit casuists, “that it is all right for a servant to hold the ladder for his criminous master so long as he is merely avoiding the sack by doing so; or that a man might wish for and rejoice at his parent’s death so long as what he had in mind was the gain to himself; or that it is not simony to offer money, not as a price for the spiritual benefit, but only as an inducement to give it.” All these were condemned by Innocent XI.

  • “But a sin of omission requires a positive duty to perform a particular act in all the circumstances of the case.”

    Indeed? If an assailant is killing my family, I doubt if I have a duty to intervene, but I have no doubt that it would be a great sin if I did not. Additionally, let us say that I kill not only the assailant, but also his friends who are cheering him on and might pose a threat to my family. I perhaps have committed a crime in doing so, but have I sinned? Under the circumstances I think not. This is not as clear a moral area as Ms. Anscombe mistakenly thought.

  • “We must not confuse foresight with intention, which is at the root of most of the moral dilemmas posed by consequentialists.”
    Thank you Don, for showing that the distinction between foresight and intention is not a clear cut as some would think. I could rattle off many examples of people and indeed nations taken to task over their intentions when the issue is really one of foresight. The philosophers’ distinction hardly matters to politicians and their supporters. It should, but it often doesn’t.

  • I”Cases where it is not permissible not to do x are very rare.”

    MPS, I would submit that the case of it being not permissible to not do the necessary acts to end the Japanese murders of Chinese and other civilians in 1945 would be one of the rare ones.

  • Estimates are estimates. There was a wide divergence concerning the potential casualty figures for an invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

    Obviously, it is impossible to know how many casualties would have been suffered, because there was no invasion. The 1 million assumes Don’s theory that the entire Japanese populace would have fought, a very unlikely occurrence in my opinion. Some would have, many or most would not have, or would have only done so reluctantly and ineffectively, like the boy soldiers of the Third Reich.

    In any event, it’s all immaterial, irrelevant, and beside the point, which is that under Christian moral reasoning, you cannot kill civilians as a direct war aim to attempt to induce surrender. That is doing a direct evil in order to bring about a good, something impermissible, for Christians anyway.

    The populace of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not combatants in any sense of the word. Their direct murder to compel Japanese surrender was simply immoral.

  • Tom D wrote, “I would submit that the case of it being not permissible to not do the necessary acts to end the Japanese murders of Chinese and other civilians in 1945 would be one of the rare ones.”

    That is far too widely framed. I am obliged to rescue a drowning man, but only if I can do so without imperilling my own safety.

    Again, a ship’s master is under a duty to pick up people in a lifeboat, but only if he would not endanger his own vessel, or risk the deterioration of his cargo or the loss of his market, by reason of diversion or delay.

    That is why I say that an absolute positive duty is so rare.

  • “Again, a ship’s master is under a duty to pick up people in a lifeboat, but only if he would not endanger his own vessel, or risk the deterioration of his cargo or the loss of his market, by reason of diversion or delay.”

    Probably under nautical law. I doubt seriously that the Church would look at it in the same way.

  • @MPS – Funny, when I read Matthew, I see that what separates the goats from the sheep and drives the former from the master’s sight is what the goats did NOT do, not what they did.

    Seems the Boss takes inaction as seriously as He takes actions.

  • “That is far too widely framed. I am obliged to rescue a drowning man, but only if I can do so without imperilling my own safety. ”
    No, it is not too widely framed. We were at war. it is impossible to equate a violent and implacable human enemy with a body of water. The safety of our servicemen was already imperiled. The only way to avoid the peril would be to agree to a cease fire that would have negated the war aims.

  • Tom D wrote, “The safety of our servicemen was already imperiled. “
    In absolving the government of the Netherlands for liability for the deaths of some 8,000 civilians at Srebrenica on11 July 1995, Larissa Alwin delivering the unanimous opinion of the International Court at the Hague on 16 July 2014, repeatedly stressed the paramount duty of military commanders to ensure the health and safety at work of the troops under their command and to carry out (and record) proper risk assessments to ensure that they operate in a safe working environment, “principals long enshrined in Public International Law and International Humanitarian Law.”
    By contrast and applying the same principals, the court found that, by cooperating in the deportation of some 300 men from the Dutch compound by Serbian forces, the Dutch acted unlawfully.
    Because troops are already, in some measure, “imperilled,” their government is not absolved from its duty of minimising that risk and every case will turn on its own facts.

Pewsitter v. Eye of the Tiber!

Tuesday, July 28, AD 2015

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

more
The comboxes are a riot!

 

 

And then Mark Shea showed up:

Avatar

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

 
 
  1.  
     
    Avatar

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

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

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

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

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

     
     
  2.  
     
    Avatar

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

     
     
  3.  
     
    Avatar

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

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

    Yes – his hypocrisy does consume itself.

     

Continue reading...

Mark Shea on Climate Change

Thursday, June 18, AD 2015

 

After the issuance of the Green Encyclical today I assume that Catholics will be debating global warming.  I thought we would kick off the debate here on TAC with Mark Shea representing both sides:

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.

2015:

I have always expressed ignorance of the science for the very good reason that I am not a scientist. I have always granted the premise that there is climate change for the very good reason that change is what climate does. Beyond that, I have always left the matter in the hands of experts to hash out because what do I know?

Go here to read the rest.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Mark Shea on Climate Change

Daffey Thoughts

Saturday, June 13, AD 2015

 

A blog I have been reading lately is Daffey Thoughts, run by David Griffey, a Baptist minister who converted to Catholicism.  The video above is from 2006.  He is a graceful writer as demonstrated by this recent post:

This year has been a struggle, as I work things out relative to the shifts that have happened in Catholicism since I’ve been Catholic.  The last vestiges of pre-progressive culture have been swept behind us, except for those sexual issues that would likely not impact celibate men.  Everything else is increasingly along the lines of modern, Western, progressive and even secular social and political theory.

That is enough right there.  Add to it the slammed doors on any hope that I will be able to act in the capacity of a minister of the Gospel, and it’s been tough.  What to give up?  What to sacrifice?  What to commit to?

Well, I decided, a few weeks into Lent I admit, that my penance will be a daily visit to Catholic and Enjoying It.  That may sound strange.  But here is why.

In my early days of looking at non-Protestant Christianity, I stumbled on CAEI largely by accident.  I was searching for some free downloadable articles by Scott Hahn, without success.  Then I found an article by someone named Mark Shea.  It dealt with the strange aversion many Protestants have regarding Mary.  It was direct, but nice.  Even respectful.  There were some clever zingers, making the point without offending.  But the point was solid, fair, and truthful.

I went back, found his website, and gobbled up the articles.  They were almost all wonderful.  Here was a conservative American Catholic, not afraid to point out when Conservatism wasn’t following the path of Christ.  He was also fair when liberalism was correct.  His blog was a little more raucous.  But those were usually the readers.  Mark himself was often the goalie, stepping in and stopping things before they went too far.  Even telling his friends to back off.  No personal attacks or accusations were allowed.  Those would get you the door.

There you had it.  You could be conservative and Catholic.  The stereotype of Catholicism and Liberal Socialism voting Democrats as the sacramental calling of modern Catholicism was not universal.  You could love America, admit it sins, but not emphasize them (which Mark pointed out was often a very un-Christian thing to do).  You could respect the heritage of Western Civilization. You could evenly boldly declare “Why We Must Fight” following 9/11.  He even liked Tolkien, and the books I liked.  And his humor and mine were not too far off each other.

Perhaps it was my own fault that I saw in Mark’s rather balanced approach as what Catholicism was, rather than looking further.  But that was well over ten years ago.

Today, the Church has changed in just the time since we came into it.  The generation that had welcomed Protestant Clergy Converts into the fold have passed to retirement.  With some exceptions in the priesthood, most now in charge (Boomer age) seem to want little to do with us, unless we can design webpages or raise money.  And it isn’t hard to see that Oprah style liberalism and the growing pronouncements about reality from Church leaders sound increasingly the same.  The Bishops’ willingness to almost in one voice support the Democrats in all things, as long as they don’t screw the Church, and the shift toward accepting the Secular narrative are hard to miss.

True, Pope Francis is a horse of a different color.  But those who have studied liberation theology and the Marxist influences in South American Christianity will recognize at least some influences there, even if what he is willing to take a stand against other forms of radical leftist morality (again, usually where sex is concerned).

On CAEI, the change is even more pronounced.  It’s almost an entirely different world.  An entirely different blogger.  Most regulars of old have long since moved on.  The readers are either post-modern non-conformists cheering on their own superiority over all those loser “tribal Catholics”, or clearly hard to the Left progressives, with varying degrees of anti-abortion and non-gay marriage support.  In fact, opposing gay “marriage” is about the only thing that separates much modern talk about homosexuality in the Church from your average LGBT rally. And CAEI echoes this.

CAEI is a strange mixture now of Jack Chick, Glenn Beck, Huffington Post progressive thought, and a reminder that Catholics are, whether we want to admit it or not, heirs of the Inquisition.  For a couple years, many regulars tried to warn that there was little to do with enjoying anything on CAEI, and a growing discrepancy between a man who claims to be conservative, and a man who increasingly seems to love liberalism but hate conservatism.  One by one, those readers have apparently given up and moved on.  Only a handful remain.  God love them.

For me, who has been accused of horrible things by the stock readers and by Mark himself – including not caring about murdered children at Sandy Hook and desiring to increase human slaughter – there is little joy or happiness now.  The anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Traditional and anti-Conservative narrative fully embraced has made me more of an outcast there than I was at the Huffington Post.  And to be honest, I’ve been called far worse on CAEI than I was at the Huffington Post.  And it was leaving HP (as well as being banned for not being liberal) that was one of the reasons I started my blog!  Which is always a possibility at CAEI, since the thing that gets you banned now is pretty much defending traditional and conservative viewpoints, with rare exception.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Daffey Thoughts

  • Mark Shea follows the man who is Pope instead of the Man Whom the Pope is to follow.

  • As a convert since 2008, I too was initially drawn to Mark Shea but, upon reflection, he now seems to be too acerbic and too willing to blast those who disagree with him. Boy, is he hare line and hard nosed. I, too, join you in being puzzled as to why a Episcopalian or Lutheran convert can become a Catholic priest but a Baptist convert cannot. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is still the True Church of Jesus Christ and I am heartened by the witness of Catholics like Fr. Neuhaus, Thomas Howard, Scott Hahn and many other Catholics I encounter in our parish and on our Catholic journey. The happiness, joy and peace of being Catholic far exceeds any concern about the Bishops and the Pope, of which there is a good deal, on certain issues.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EDITION: – Big Pulpit

Gennarini, Archer and Shea

Tuesday, June 9, AD 2015

population%20control,%20copenhagen,%20china,%20abortion,%20save%20the%20earth%20abort%20a%20child-thumb-250x236-8013

 

Faithful readers of this blog will recall the interview that Stefano Gennarini conducted with Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, go here to read all about it.  The interview has developed into a larger controversy following a First Things article by Gennarini.  Go here to read it.  Mahound’s Paradise sets the stage for us:

 

 

The President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS), appointed by Pope Francis in 2014, just publicly dropped the “H” word on a pro-life writer at First Things.

The full saga involves the First Things writer, Stefano Gennarini, the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo and Margaret Archer, the president of PASS. It was in the context of initial criticism by Gennarini of the Vatican working closely with “population control” advocates Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs.

Lifesite News sums the whole thing up well here. But I wanted to excerpt (with a few annotations) some of the worst parts of the letter written by Ms. Archer. The letter is extremely nasty–completely out of proportion to Mr. Gennarini’s initial calm criticisms–and often bizarrely off-subject, as when she accuses Mr. Gennarini of ignoring mass graves in Malaysia.
 
Keep in mind that this is a Vatican official appointed by the Pope, not some non-Catholic or squishy Catholic academic. And it was posted on an official Vatican website, not Salon or the Huffington Post:

Is your sole concern with human dignity confined to the period between conception and live-birth?…If so, this is a travesty of Catholic Social Teaching. [Gennarini of course never says anything of the kind, but this is a standard move.] 

Why are you so totally uninterested in vicious practices, such as human trafficking that are an offence to the human dignity and right to life that you purport to defend? [Ditto.] 

In the last two weeks of April in question, mass graves were found in Malaysia and Thailand of those killed by their intended traffickers; tens of thousands were set adrift at sea without food or water by those intending to traffic them before they feared for their own lives through the ‘civilized’ solution of a ‘blockade’. Is this of no concern to you? [Ditto again.] 

Of course, your comments imply that you are a climate change denier… [Burn him!] 

Why do you direct a hate message to Bishop Sánchez Sorondo alone? [There’s that H-bomb.] Various Cardinals were present at different meetings. Instead, blame me, blame PAS. [Well, yeah, but Sorondo is the Chancellor.] We are respected academics who take full responsibility for our actions and have, according to our Statutes, the duty and privilege of advising the Church on matters of Social Doctrine and its application. I am appointed by the Pope and responsible directly to him. I’m afraid that leaves you and your cohort out in the cold. Moreover, we work pro bono and are therefore are (sic) self-supporting, which makes me wonder which lobbyists meet your salary bill? [You dare to disagree with us? Who’s paying you?]  

Why are we not allowed to speak to Jeffrey Sachs or the Secretary General of the UN? [It’s a bit more than that.]…Well, that was not the attitude of Pope Francis who invited him to a private Audience, immediately prior to our joint PAS/PASS meeting on 28 April – to discuss climate change and human trafficking. Do you really have a higher moral standard than the Pope? Or is your own minimalistic version of the Creed, consisting of the single item: ‘’We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion’ considered to be an improvement? [Ditto for the third time.] 

It seems as if abject poverty, malnutrition, no schooling, and the prospect of no employment are of little concern to you after (children) have been born. [Well, personally, I also deeply care about employment opportunities for the unborn. But that’s just me.]

Who is Margaret Archer? As well as being the President of PASS, she is the Director of the “Centre for Social Ontology” at the University of Warwick.
Go here to read the rest. I find it rather odd that the President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences would engage in pro-abort rhetoric rather than address the moral problem with the Vatican getting into bed with pro-aborts.  (Yes, Hitler has a terrible policy regarding the Jews, but we can work with him on ecological issues.)  Mark Shea has chimed in, and his opinion is that the controversy is all the fault of the nasty pro-lifers:

There have been a number of pre-emptive strikes against Francis and his imminent encyclical.  So…

This time, they messed with the wrong woman – Margaret Archer, world-renowned social theorist and president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In the context of an all-too-typical hit piece from First Things, she issued a defiant response. She asks a sequence of questions, starting with this one:

“Is your sole concern with human dignity confined to the period between conception and live-birth? If so, this is a travesty of Catholic Social Teaching, whose concern is not confined to the newborn but extends to the development of all those potentialities and powers that exist only in potentia at birth (such as walking and talking) that develop or can be irreparably damaged throughout life.”

I’ve had people get mad at me when I’ve pointed out that things like the death penalty gun violence, unjust war, torture, or poverty are prolife issues too.  One reader furiously demanded to know why prolife activists were expected to drop everything and go protest some shooting in Detroit that killed a couple of people while a million and a half were dying from abortion, etc.  I was, I was told, placing an impossible demand on people with limited resources to do everything and be everywhere.

But that’s not what I’m saying.  I get that people have their focuses and can’t be everywhere doing everything.  Well and good.  If you are devoted to working against abortion full time and can’t fit anything else into your schedule then thank you for your hard work and may God bless and prosper it.  You are one of my heroes.

Yet here’s the  thing.  An awful lot of the “prolife” subculture, protesting that it has no time to expand its energies beyond protesting abortion, *does* have a huge amount of time and energy to work *against* the clear and obvious guidance of the Church on the issues I mention above.  Indeed, they often give every indication of having more time and energy for working against the Church on such issues than for actually doing prolife work.

Go here to read the rest.

Continue reading...

54 Responses to Gennarini, Archer and Shea

  • It is difficult to guard the village when our own guards have their matchlocks pointed inward at their own people, even as the enemy transgresses the walls. and dismantles the barricades.
    When truth is the target, much wailing is certain to follow.

  • Mark Shea is a liberal progressive Democrat through and through. But I suppose that comes with living on the left coast. I should stop now. Anything further I have to say would be truly yet fairly derogatory. I can’t stand him and his kind at all.

  • Lol….not having a rigorous death penalty gets thousands murdered in the Phillipines per year. 8000 murdered there in a recent year with a murder rate of 8 per 100,000. China’s murder rate of adults is one eighth of that…1 per 100,000…. with a billion poor people. Ergo conceivably, 7000 murders per year in the Phillipnes might be caused by not having Chinese severity…affirmed in the New Testament in the now unquoted Romans 13:4….unquoted in Evangelium Vitae and in the catechism
    death penalty sections. Abortions in China? About the same as New York City which has no death penalty operative for adult murder.

  • Mark Shea is a liberal progressive Democrat through and through. But I suppose that comes with living on the left coast. I should stop now. Anything further I have to say would be truly yet fairly derogatory. I can’t stand him and his kind at all.

    But, Paul! He says himself that he’s just thoroughly conservative and has a mostly conservative readership! 😉

    Then again in Seattle, I guess anyone to the right of Stalin is “conservative”…

    I’ve had people get mad at me when I’ve pointed out that things like the death penalty gun violence, unjust war, torture, or poverty are prolife issues too

    BECAUSE YOU’RE INCREDIBLY STUPID ON THEM, MARK!
    Death Penalty – You know what, I would gladly compromise on abolishing the DP if it meant outlawing abortion.
    Gun Violence – All time low. I guess pro-lifers won? (of course there’s also the very thorny issue of gun violence correlating to certain races and immigrants – I wonder how much Shea is really ready to travel down that road?)
    Unjust War – So nebulous in its meaning it is not even worth discussing.
    Torture – Catholic church fans might want to be wary of getting too attached to this particular petard.
    Poverty – The poor in the modern western nations have greater wealth than the rich man from Lazarus’s parable. Seems like pro-lifers have won there too.

    We live in an age of miracles and blessings our ancestors didn’t even dare to dream about. Yet people like Shea insist on complaining and constantly focusing on that last, unsolved 5% of several problems, rather than realizing that maybe it’s time we turned our focus to challenges that are 80% unsolved. At some point one wonders if he could ever go to Heaven because he would mad from having nothing to complain about.

  • Cancelled my subscription to the National Catholic Register because of Shea. In reality he isn’t much different than some of our leaders; e.g. Dolan, Wuerl and on and on!!!!

  • The problem is one of cooperation. Different types of cooperation with evil though only under one circumstance can one do so and if there are proportionate reasons. Formal cooperation where one agrees with the act (in this case promoting abortion and population control) and immediate material cooperation (one’s actions directly contribute to the act even if one does not agree with the act) are always wrong. Mediate material cooperation can be proximate or remote depending on how direct or causally related to the act. Proximate mediate cooperation is also illicit. Remote cooperation may be licit if there is proportionate reason to do so and other options have been tried. Also, scandal must not be given.

    It would seem that at a minimum, given the conditional state of climate science, that there is little proportionate reason to cooperate with the UN and other agencies that promote abortion etc. Even if there was, there is concern that the Vatican stand with these groups at some level would provide at a minimum proximate mediate cooperation and would be wrong. Better for these groups to be excluded even if one accepted the science.

    Whatever the case, neither Archer nor Sorondo argue from this traditional Catholic understanding. Rather, they fall back on tired, leftist arguments. This leads one to believe they either think their cooperation is not licit remote mediate cooperation or they don’t know the arguments about cooperation. Neither bodes well.

    The problem for Mark is, how close is he willing to tiptoe up to evil in order to achieve a very questionable good.

  • Shea is a high profile troll. I wish people would just stop reading him, like I did years ago. The only reason I know anything about his writing is from articles like this one and the blurbs that appear on New Advent. It seems that he has actually gotten worse since Francis came in, which is not surprising. They both appear to dislike the same people.

  • Well said, Brian English.
    Two reasons to never click on a link to a Mark Shea post:
    1) He gets money based on traffic to his site.
    2) He just bans anyone who disagrees with him from his comment box. I can’t believe the obvious sycophants following the gospel according to Shea.
    Really, I’m just fed up with the whole “I converted, therefore I am more zealous than thou, and am the only one who can understand the real truth that you ignorant cradle Catholics are missing. You are all so filled with self-righteousness and hung up on liturgical abuses. And a pox on all your houses for not agreeing with me.”

  • Is Mark Shea still writing?

  • I met Shea a few years ago and was not impressed. An now, because of views, vitriol, and argumentative writings, I simply avoid anything by him. It seems he is always attacking someone. I do not like him.

    Anyway, as an active pro-life advocate, I can tell you that many who witness for the dignity of the unborn ARE involved in other things. Many also volunteer at pregnancy centers, some help at maternity homes, some with Gabriel project—all of which are concerned with mothers and children after birth too. Many are concerned about sex trafficking and do what is available to do. Some work in soup kitchens as I have done. Some visit the elderly as I do also. But it is true that a person cannot embrace every aspect of pro-life work. And nothing takes more lives and SOULS than abortion,

  • Good comment, Magdalene.
    .
    What does Mark Shea do about the immigrants?
    .
    What does Mark Shea do about the homeless, and the drug addicts and alcoholics in inner cities?
    .
    What does Mark Shea do about the imprisoned – does he visit them?
    .
    What does Mark Shea do about the hungry, poverty-stricken people in Appalachia?
    .
    What does Mark Shea do about the family whose bread winner has lost his job and can neither pay the mortgage nor feed the children?
    .
    What exactly does Mark Shea do except mouth off about what he accuses us of not doing but he himself refuses to get his hands dirty by doing?
    .
    Drink that Star Bucks coffee and eat that fancy pastry while criticizing people for not doing what you refuse to do!
    .
    Liberal progressive social justice Democrat. Arrggghhh!

  • Drink that Star Bucks coffee and eat that fancy pastry while criticizing people for not doing what you refuse to do!

    Yeah, I’ve often wondered that if everyone complaining about a living wage, actually went out and hired someone to work for them at what they think a living wage should be, we wouldn’t have anybody making minimum wage any more.

    Certainly Shea and many of his commentators reinforce the stereotype about Catholics and economics.

  • There once was a blogger named Shea,
    Who thought pro-life Catholics weren’t great.
    So he made it his cause
    to point out their flaws.
    Now he thinks, “I’m better than they!”

  • The newly begotten human being is endowed with sovereign personhood from the very first moment of existence. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Suarez. If Pope Francis follows Aquinas in that the human being comes into existence at ensoulment, what of Aquinas saying that the soul is the form of the bod? How does the human body get to ensoulment without his soul? God creates and ensouls the sovereign person simultaneously when man procreates the human body.
    Who can determine how the new human being, our posterity, worships and loves God in his relationship with his Creator? As a member of homo sapiens, he has a rational, immortal soul and is a member of the Church militant on earth. We know that the sovereign personhood of the new human being constitutes the human race, his nation and his government. We know that his civil rights are held in trust for him by God, by his parents and by the state, and therefore he must be given due process of law and may not be put to death for the crimes of his parents, or of overpopulation. He may be given up for adoption to parents who can afford to help him. Many childrens’ funds allow people to support children in other countries via mail and even support the aging.
    Any law can be broken to save a human life is the unwritten rule of thumb. The death penalty is not only a deterrent, the death penalty save lives.
    “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…” in moral and legal innocence, the standard of Justice for the human race. Our vocation comes with our soul. Mary Immaculate said “YES” to her vocation. Test tube babies, frozen Snowflake babies, the product of rape all start life, with free will and intellect, with innocence.
    The effort to silence innocence makes one wonder where in hell Bergoglio is taking us.

  • Embarrassing.
    Archbishop, Archer and Shea.

  • The cases of Archer and Shea are stretching what it means to be a Catholic beyond recognition and that includes those who support them like Bishop Sorondo. This is just another example of the Vaatican goings-on which are a travesty, an embarrassment, and a scandal.

  • A person that places gun confiscation, illegal immigration and the death penalty (leftist/secular humanist-fabricated crises) on a level with 50,000,000 abortions is a moral bankrupt and not worthy of an iota of your attention.
    .

    PS: Social Justice! Recent NBER study revealed that democrat, progressive policies destroyed, duh, fundamentally transformed the American middle class.

  • Is anyone REALLY shocked that He Who Should Be Ignored has embraced the leftist meme that pro-lifers only care about people until they get born, at which time said pro-lifers suddenly lose interest in caring for others? We ALL know that meme is a LIE. Yet Mark has embraced it.
    ***
    I ask you: Is there a dime’s bit of difference between what Shea writes today and what he once criticized at Vox Nova as being the “debate club at Auschwitz”?
    ***
    He now has more in common with the hard-left commenters who now haunt his comboxes and Facebook page as his biggest fans.

  • NOTICE that the Commonweal [COMMONWEAL !!!] piece to which Mark links is a piece by Morning’s Minion.
    ***
    Shocker.

  • Shea is the Tony Campolo of the Catholic blogosphere.

  • Yeah, I can imagine Mark doing an about face on gay marriage in a year or two depending on who has the upper hand at the Vatican:

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/tony.campolo.calls.for.full.acceptance.of.gay.christian.couples.in.the.church/55718.htm

  • I’ve been in the pro life movement all my life . Since 19. These pro lifers have gone the extra mile in all areas of ministry . Adoption, foster care, pregnancy help centers, provide shelter for the homeless, prayer ministry, homes for unwed mother’s all area of care. Most of the time we have had very little help from the church, especially at the beginning. Legislation, education., hands on non stop help for all races, creeds and color. That’s along with our families and many activities family centered around our pro life activities. Social justice my patootski If the thousands upon thousands of pro lifers had not been doing what we have for the last 43+ years I dare say this country would have been casting shell already

  • Hell can you believe it won’t record HELL.

  • “If the thousands upon thousands of pro lifers had not been doing what we have for the last 43+ years I dare say this country would have been casting shell already.”
    .
    Again I ask, “What exactly has Mark Shea done that remotely resembles this.”
    .
    Has he gone to a State Penetentiary, regularly meeting and talking with prisoners to help them get to a normal life without drugs and alcohol? What an experience! So don’t talk to this right wing pro-lifer about caring for the imprisoned.
    .
    Has he taken two Filipina immigrants into his apartment free of charge until they could get on their feet? So don’t talk to this right wing pro-lifer about caring for the immigrant.
    .
    Has he worked with drug addicts and alcoholics? Has he ever paid for a month’s worth of housing for a drunken dope fiend, or counselled a manic depressive alcoholic, or gone to the beach to pick his sorry freaking behind up off the sand at 11 pm at night to get him some help? So don’t talk to this right wing pro-lifer about caring for the drug addict or alcoholic.
    .
    And I will wager that the overwhelming majority of readers here have done far more than what is mentoned about. But what has that bombastic Mark Shea done? What besides pontificate on how evil right wing people are? I despise, loathe, abhor, detest and hold in utter contempt and disdain liberal progressive humanism.

  • Catholics should know where the word “pro-life” came from, and what it means. “Pro-life” was a word coined to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice” soon after Roe v. Wade. It was a spiritual word, not political. What was political was the second part of what pro-life meant. It meant support for a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment. To get that required having at least 70% of men and women elected to Congress who were pro-life and would support a RTL Constitutional Amendment. It also required having at least 3/4 of the state legislatures to have men and women who were pro-life and would vote for a RTL Constitutional Amendment. So “pro-life” meant being against abortion and for a RTL Constitutional Amendment.

    There was a second means of providing protection for the unborn and that was to have justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v Wade. That required having Presidents elected who would nominate such persons who would overturn R v W, as well as required men and women elected to the U.S. Senate who would vote for such presidential nominees. .

    That all changed when Cardinal Bernardin got the U.S. Conference of Bishops to redirect the “pro-life” movement to include so called “social justice” issues which were prudential judgment issues, not intrinsic evils. Nor did any of them require passing a Constitutional Amendment to rectify them.

    In essence, Bernardin and the U.S. bishops quietly abandoned the fight to pass a RTL amendment for the unborn in favor of providing Catholic Democrats a “religious” means to remain in their beloved Democratic Party from which they get their self-identity. All the issues the bishops added to the name “pro-life” just happened to be issues the Democratic Party supported.

    I believe those Catholic Democrats and their supporting clergy are going to be in for a surprise when Jesus returns and directs them to stand on his left side – just as they have chose to do in this life.

  • Hey now, living in/around Seattle doesn’t make you a liberal…. although my husband and I lost a friend who’d also been a shipmate because we’re too “extreme.” You see, he considered himself right-wing because he regarded Obama as a centrist, rather than being on the Right, as all his friends do. So we were clearly far-right extremists, and thus hateful Nazis.

    That said, the Church over here is pretty good. Compared to what I had growing up on the other side of the state, it’s awesomely good– even the retired hippy priest preached against abortion, with no wiggle words! I had NEVER HEARD THAT before moving over to the damp side.
    ***
    I’ve had people get mad at me when I’ve pointed out that things like the death penalty gun violence, unjust war, torture, or poverty are prolife issues too
    That’s because they are not.
    The death penalty is a licit way to protect the lives and rights of the innocent– you happen to believe there are other routes for it, and lash out viciously when people don’t instantly agree.
    Gun violence is no different than any other violence– I like the idea of gun violence that prevents my kids from being tortured to death, as has happened in our area. Gun violence is just a type of violence that’s much more accessible to those who are not large, strong, healthy men.
    Unjust war– problem, you use that for any war with which you do not agree.
    Torture– same thing.
    Poverty– define it, and then try to prove it, rather than making assertions.
    What have they got in common? They all are prudential judgement issues where you want them to be binding ones.
    Contrast with actual killing people.

  • The Tony Campolo story is a cautionary tale about the whole idea of leading with mercy.We should not be separating mercy and justice- now that they have kissed (at the Cross).
    As I may have mentioned before, I wonder why Vatican 2 even gave us two separate Constitutions! (Pastoral and Dogmatic)
    .
    There is a danger to the evangelist who may want to, as a measure of mercy, in some way validate the lifestyle. We begin to say, it’s not so bad- nothing like the raunch parades of 10 years ago…and, really, these two- they are such nice guys!
    .
    We Christians are losing people by attrition– people are “evolving” convinced within their own families and circles of friends. And priests have a hard time calling their brother priests to conversion to Christ
    It is harder and harder to speak the truth when sin is so disarming. The evangelizer begins to feel a certain guilt for “judging”… Surely Jesus would be more loving than…..He was …
    He would surely couch HIs words softly with a certain aquiesence- being able to thoroughly understand people’s deepest needs and all.
    .
    Michael Coren too.

  • @Anzlyne: Have you not read from the Pope, referencing Ps 51:11-16, that God’s justice is his mercy? [Cf. Misericordiae Vultus, 20]

  • Thank You @FMShyanguya – I did read that.
    Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one “- doesn’t just refer to the fact that there is only one God, but also to the inner unity and wholeness- the Integrity, if you will, of God. Mercy is not in oppositon to justice but they are two attributes of the Holy God….in Whom there is no contradiction, no shadow of change.
    God became man- Body Blood and Soul, and with perfect Mercy atoned or offered satisfaction for our sins. Justification is a mercy He won for us. By Grace perfectly fulfilling the Law. Yay!

  • Psalm 85:11-12 has caused us to ask how can this be? Just and Merciful at the same time? but remember it is a coming home psalm 🙂 a hopeful song and a prophetic one.
    11 Love and truth will meet; justice and peace will kiss.
    12 Truth will spring from the earth; justice will look down from heaven.

    It is prophetic in that Justice and Mercy met at the Cross, Jesus in His Mercy SATISFIED Justice, offering Himself, Body Blood Soul and Divinity. ‘by His stripes we were healed’
    Perfect Offering, perfectly fulfilling the Will of the Father. Making all things new, setting things right,
    Our poor efforts to be mericful /just must be better than to simply ignore or be apathetic about sin. We can’t just wave people off, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” not caring abut the consequences they will suffer Mercy requires telling hard truths. For us to be merciful requires sacrifice, getting involved…even proselytizing 🙂

  • “God’s justice is his mercy “[cf. Ps 51:11-16]. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. I am scratching my head. I have tried to reconcile this with what is on Catholic Encyclopedia [New Advent], St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. John Paul II’s Dives in misericordia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., and I can’t. Please may someone explain this to me? For starters, if God’s justice is his mercy, if they are the same, what then is justice?

  • http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco_bolla_20150411_misericordiae-vultus.html

    Reading over it, starting with the opening paragraph of #20, I’m guessing he’s pointing to how Jesus dying for our sins (that is, mercifully paying the price Himself that must be paid for justice to be served) was where Mercy and Justice combine as aspects of love.
    ****
    I don’t think it takes much to recognize that a lot of people want to be dispensing mercy, without bothering to deal with the price that justice requires. Or even the consequences of that “mercy.”

  • Thank you @Foxfier. To be honest, I do not get the whole paragraph …
    *
    PS In my earlier comment I forget to add I can’t even reconcile the statement with the reference given of Ps 51:11-16.

  • I’m guessing, here, honestly; if my reading is right, then the last phrase is needlessly obscure– should say something like they’re two sides of the coin of God’s sacrificial love.
    Something to reiterate the early line about two dimensions of a single reality that unfolds progressively until it culminates in the fullness of love.
    It doesn’t do a very good job of looking at the really hard part of mercy– the price. Well, it’s hard if you’re the one paying it, anyways; cheap mercy where the person imposing the mercy doesn’t pay the price, and the one receiving it isn’t open to the idea that they did anything wrong, feels entitled to the mercy…that’s not good for anybody.

  • “then the last phrase is needlessly obscure” – Thank you!

  • Zowie, check out this article by the boss of the guy who had the Social Sciences head attack him with pro-abort rhetoric:
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/bullies-for-francis
    Quote:
    He refers repeatedly to Archer’s mocking tone, though approvingly, and says more Catholics and all people of good will should do the same and in the process “reclaim Catholic Social Teaching from those who have spent decades hijacking it.”

    I call them Bullies for Francis.

    You see them large and small. You see them among the major and minor bloggers. You see them in the comment boxes. You see them among the academics and among the ordained. You even see them among the non-believers for even they have waited for a Pope they could use as a stick against their enemies.

  • Someone we might recognize is in the comments. 😀

  • Shea recently was trying to resurrect the “Seamless Garment” argument, promulgated by that heretic, Card. Bernardin. If I could think of one person and philosophy that was more destructive to the Catholic Church in America than anything else, it would be this. Why do you think Obama was elected twice by a majority of Catholics? And as many people here have pointed out, Shea is a bomb-thrower who loves to stir up his critics. He enjoys hunting down the most extreme examples of conservative / traditional Catholics on the Internet and then generalizes it to all, which is nothing more than lying. What is sad in that this neoCatholic cabal of Evangelical converts like him, have managed to seize considerable control of EWTN / NCRegister. Just wait until they move into the offices of that atrocious Christ Cathedral in Orange County, CA. Also look for their “Forming Intentional Disciples” movement to come to a parish near you. Here we will be instructed that catechizing Catholics will not work until we first have a “personal relationship with Jesus”. Can you give me an alleluia?

  • About justice and mercy:
    A clip fro a meditation on the Sacred Heart by Cardinal R. Burke who quoted Cardinal Ratzinger
    “In a wonderful reflection on the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, expresses the profound significance of the references to the Heart of God and the Heart of Jesus in the Holy Scriptures. He writes: “The pierced Heart of the Crucified is the literal fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the Heart of God, which overturns His justice with compassion and precisely in this way remains just. Only in this concordance between the Old and New Testament can we behold the full extent of the biblical message concerning the Heart of God, the Heart of the divine Redeemer (‘The Paschal Mystery as Core and Foundation of Devotion to the Sacred Heart’ in Towards a Civilization of Love [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985], p.159).

  • I read this blog AND Shea’s nearly every day and usually find something good or interesting in both. So there must be something wrong with me, right? 🙂 Or is there something wrong with the incessant Shea-bashing that takes place on this site?

    Yes, I realize that Shea is harsh to the point of obsession on what he calls “The Thing That Used To Be Conservatism,” and he seems to think that any attempt to rein in or reduce the growth of expensive entitlement/welfare programs is “punishing the poor.” His regular commenters, however, generally contribute some helpful insights on these issues. Some of them, including me, frequently disagree with him but do NOT get banned. Also, he posts interesting and humorous stuff on non-religious and non-political issues (e.g. science fiction writers, tributes to actors such as Christopher Lee). Finally, he often posts prayer requests from readers, which I incorporate into my prayer intentions regularly.

    There are some blogs, and some Catholic blogs, that I have pretty much stopped reading because I don’t get enough useful or edifying information out of them to be worth it. “Catholic and Enjoying It” is NOT one of them. Your mileage may vary, however, and if you don’t get anything out of it just don’t read it. If you feel he has said something egregiously wrong that merits correction, by all means feel free to post something about it. But don’t assume that he and everyone who reads his blog are, ipso facto, bad Catholics or actual/potential heretics.

  • Mark Shea is as leftist as the folks over at the NC Reporter. I’ve watched him slowly advance stuff like the anti-death penalty movement, his crazy obsession about what he calls torture, pro-gay sympathies, and defending welfare moochers. Why any sound Catholic would want to take this man seriously is amazing to me. But sadly, EWTN, Catholic Answers, and several other organization do take him seriously. Hopefully, his growing extremism will push him into well deserved isolation so he won’t be heard from anymore.

  • Elaine,

    I understand that there may be some useful kernels of information reported by Shea, but at some point a man can only get away with spreading malicious information and impugning the character of those he disagrees with for so long before he should be shunned. Take Andrew Sullivan, for example. Sure, he could still write lucidly and even convincingly on certain subjectsl, but he had so poisoned his reputation that he could no longer be taken seriously on anything of substance. I’m not suggesting Shea is as bad, but he is longer a reliable source.

    Also, I think the “just don’t read him” suggestion, while a good one, misses that he has a little more pull in the Catholic media world than others. This is a man who can still be heard on ETWN radio, after all, and thus has a wider audience than most.

    Finally, here’s what really bugs me about Shea, and I realize this is a bit personal, but so be it. This is someone whose vocation is ostensibly to be a writer who spreads the faith, makes converts, etc. It’s a noble vocation, if not outright admirable. But that means he’s drawing a paycheck to spread the faith, and in a sense be a representative of our faith. The rest of us are doing this as a hobby. Would you say he’s really justified that position? Don’t you think that someone who has a vocation as a professional writer has a greater responsibility to be more reasoned and refrain from invective? How does blogging every single uncensored thought that comes into his head fulfilling his vocation?

    Shea has outright slandered people. That’s not the mark of a Catholic apologetic. He should be shunned, if not ignored.

  • Good point Elaine. While outrage is the fuel of most blogs it does one well to take a break from criticism to make an effort to see the other side’s point of view. But this, of course, is most difficult as trying to understand the ‘other side’ requires a level of forbearance few of us possess. But we should try nonetheless. And I do very much like Shea’s including prayer requests in his column.

  • Or is there something wrong with the incessant Shea-bashing that takes place on this site?
    Yes, I realize that Shea is harsh to the point of obsession on what he calls “The Thing That Used To Be Conservatism,” and he seems to think that any attempt to rein in or reduce the growth of expensive entitlement/welfare programs is “punishing the poor.”

    Hardly incessant when people occasionally object, with substance, to what even you describe a a near-obsession with attacking them. I run into Shea’s stuff more on facebook than I do here.
    He is paid for where where he represents the Catholic Church, and has a nasty habit of conflating his prudential judgement with binding teaching, combined with a tendency to be vicious when challenged on it. This is especially noticeable because when he’s actually on firm theological ground, he doesn’t (mis)behave the same.

    Especially when he says stuff that falls right in line with the attacks from those opposed to binding Church teaching, he needs to be countered.

  • Foxfire: “He is paid for where where he represents the Catholic Church, and has a nasty habit of conflating his prudential judgement with binding teaching, combined with a tendency to be vicious when challenged on it…”

    Yes, exactly. For instance: if you claim to be a pro-life Catholic yet dare to own a handgun, don’t support raising the min. wage, or worst of all you accept the Church’s centuries old teaching on the death penalty, why you are really nothing but a pro-death Protestant hiding behind your precious feet-pins. He’s using the same methods to attack faithful conservative Catholics as Bernardin did decades ago. This destructive seamless garment ideology wreaked havoc on the Church….and still does to this day.

  • @Anzlyne: Thank you for throwing some light re: justice and mercy.

  • @FMShyanguya
    Re: Justice=Mercy.
    Seems difficult to reconcile doesn’t it? How the ‘Our Father’ where we will be forgiven as we forgive. In others words God’s justice towards us will equal our mercy towards others.
    Does this help?

  • @Michael Dowd: Thank you [and all trying to assist here]. Seems difficult to reconcile doesn’t it? Yes it does and to me, this is the first time in the Church that this equation has been made.
    *
    Mercy presupposes justice; God treats us better than we deserve, etc. but never God’s justice is his mercy … If it was, to me, no consequences after the fall, no need for repentance, no hell, no need for Christ to come for us men and our salvation …

  • @FMShyanguya

    Understanding divine perfections, which are identical with other, requires mystical knowledge according to St. Albert the Great. This is possible thru divine contemplation that shows us how infinite justice harmonizes with infinite mercy, without ceasing to be justice and the same with mercy. To understand this on earth requires infused contemplation, a gift from God, and most difficult to obtain. Please see the book ‘Christian Perfection and Contemplation’ By Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. pages 322-23.

  • @Michael Dowd Thank you!

    Thus, as applied to creatures, goodness and justice, for example, are distinct from each other and from the nature or substance of the beings in whom they are found, and if finite limitations compel us to speak of such perfections in God as if they were similarly distinct, we know, nevertheless, and are ready, when needful, to explain, that this is not really so, but that all Divine attributes are really identical with one another and with the Divine essence. – The Nature and Attributes of God | New Advent.

    Still I am not getting Misericordiae Vultus, and I can’t shake the feeling that the formulation God’s justice is his mercy is there to serve some purpose …
    *
    Please note from the heavy reading of New Advent, to us, is helps us make the distinction precisely because in us, the perfections are varied and distinct.

  • “Or is there something wrong with the incessant Shea-bashing that takes place on this site?”
    ***
    If I thought for one moment that there was something wrong with my criticism of Mark as voiced in the comments on this site, I would abjectly apologize to him and vow never to say another negative word about him.
    ***
    There’s not. So I don’t.

  • “God’s justice is his mercy “[cf. Ps 51:11-16]. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. I am scratching my head. I have tried to reconcile this with what is on Catholic Encyclopedia [New Advent], St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. John Paul II’s Dives in misericordia, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., and I can’t. Please may someone explain this to me? For starters, if God’s justice is his mercy, if they are the same, what then is justice?

    .
    Let me take a shot at that. I’m fond of westerns. In fact, I’d like to write a Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned from Westerns type book. But that will never happen because I’d die before I secured all the permissions. Anyway, for those of you who’ve seen Kevin Costner’s Open Range, (and if you haven’t, you should) there’s this, in my opinion inspired scene in which Costner’s character kicks the innocent youth character (played by Diego Luna) out of his saddle, dropping him into the middle of a river. “What did you do that for?” Luna asks. “Cheatin’ at cards,” Costner replies.
    .
    When I saw that. I thought something like what a service that was that Costner’s character did for Luna’s. Because other men will literally kill you for cheating at cards. Dying is a hard lesson, particularly because you don’t get to benefit from what you’ve learned. And that, to my mind, is what’s meant by “God’s justice is his mercy.” We don’t escape punishment (kicked into freezing cold water) for our transgressions, but, we don’t necessarily have to die (in the sense of suffering eternal damnation) for those transgressions either.
    .
    Granted, we can choose to refuse His grace, and continue to cheat at cards….

Shea Plays Race Card on Death Penalty

Wednesday, March 11, AD 2015

 

Mark Shea has been trending left for quite a while and now he is using the favorite tactic of the contemporary left in this country:  race baiting.

 

but it’s totally not about race or anything and if you notice that it is you are “playing the race card”. The Death Penalty: Because the Magisterium is incompetent to teach about faith and morals when American white conservative sacred cows are involved.

 

Have you no sense of decency left Mark?  Of course, it has long been known around Saint Blogs that in the heat of controversy Mark Shea will use any stick to wield against those on the other side, no matter how dirty and unfair the stick is.  Back in 2013 Shea offered a public apology for his bad behavior and I congratulated him on it.  Go here to read my post.  One aspect of apologies is amendment of behavior and, regrettably, since that apology Shea has gotten worse in his public behavior, and the above putrid insult by him of Catholics who hold to the teaching of the Church for almost 2000 years as racists, is beneath contempt and is about as low as one can go in American contemporary discourse.

For 33 years I have engaged in adversarial relationships every day of my professional life as an attorney.  I have always tried to never use unfair arguments and I have always attempted to treat my adversaries with respect.  Sometimes I have felt that this has put me at a slight disadvantage occasionally with attorneys who have a win at all costs mentality.  However, my success record in litigation has been rather good, and I have the added bonus of being able to look at myself in the mirror when I shave.  I think that what I have done as an attorney is a good rule to follow in blogging, whether other bloggers do so or not.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Shea Plays Race Card on Death Penalty

  • Here is a simple line of reasoning: if more capital crimes are committed by members of one race versus members of another race, then more people of the first race would and should receive capital punishment than the people of the second race. But the imposition of capital punishment is being done not because of race but because of the commission of a capital crime. It is sad that more members of one race may commit more such capital crimes than another. I do not say that that is for certain the case. I have not done a statistical study. But nevertheless, the punishment is done for the crime, not the race.
    .
    Now here is the thing: if we want fewer people of that particular race to receive capital punishment, then we have to find a way of ensuring that fewer people of that race commit such capital crimes in the first place. So the right question to ask is this: why do so many more people of that race commit capital crimes than people of other races? Find that answer and fix that problem, and then the supposed inequitable imposition of capital punishment on members of that race will decrease.
    .
    BTW, does Mark Shea pray and work for the cessation of criminal activity which would obviate the need for capital punishment in the first place, or would he prefer to show mercy to the criminal instead of justice for the victim?
    .
    PS, I am NOT a racist (unless you count the fact that I love the human race of which I am a member). Indeed, while by accident of birth the melanin of my skin cells is white, that of my wife, being Filipino, is a light brown.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - BigPulpit.com
  • Mark who?

    FYI, in 2004, there were 1.3 million US abortions of innocents and 59 death-penalty executions each after numerous years of appeals and other delays.

    .
    Liberal catholics’ enthusiasm for forcing on the USA Catholic (recently rewritten) death penalty teaching would be commendable. Except, where is their zeal for forcing an end to the most pressing pro-life issue: abortion?

  • The death penalty is slanted even further in its application against men than any racial or ethnic minority Mark Shea cares to name. Yet Shea commits an act of omission regarding that obvious-to-the-most-casual-observer misandristic sexism. Truth doesn’t fit Shea’s feminist-driven narrative.

  • I think the race obsessives would argue that makes you the worst kind of racist Paul.

    And if Shea is going to play the race card, he should do so proudly, instead of sulkingly. Either it’s about race or it’s about playing the race card. Make an argument and defend it.

  • “I have the added bonus of being able to look at myself in the mirror when I shave.”
    ***
    Is that an explanation for the size of Mark’s beard?

    😉

  • PS: The number of US black unborn babies aborted each year is disproprtionately high in relation to the percentage of blacks in the US population. If that isn’t racism I don’t know what is racism.
    .
    Mac,
    .

    Growing a beard was my solution to having look at myself in the mirror.

  • Unlike you Donald, I was once removed from a courtroom by the judge in a citizen’s arrest case…and I made the arrest and was on the state’s side. But the defense lawyer accused me of strangling the defendant…whereupon I went into him verbally because I sensed an inaccuracy….strangulation varies from country to country and I spent time in foreign jungles where what I did meant hello.
    Be that as it may, Shea knows who pays him into his tin cup and how to keep on the Catholic speaker circuit. That John Paul II audience wants total catechism and Pope adherence….with any creative sensationalism left outside those two venues….ergo the Shea endless ad hominems outside those venues while having endless submission to the CCC and each Pope. Creativity here…submission over there. It results in pan infallibility of each Pope and catechism article which is kind of rampant anyway….though Francis has begun to end that in traditionalists. Both John Paul II in EV and Benedict on preemptive war quoted the catechism as though it was the Bible which neither of them did as to the actual Bible on the death penalty as to Romans 13:4. Lol….maybe Protestants are not 100% wrong about us and the Bible.
    If Shea goes against the CCC or the sitting Pope, he’ll be working for money at something else as time goes on. I sense he doesn’t want that. Corapi went against Canadian Bishops…never against the catechism or the sitting Pope…ditto Bill Donohue…the money came in.

  • Shea’s leftism is becoming more obvious with each new blog post. In the past few years, he has shown he’s a radical on immigration, the death penalty, and homosexuality. How long can the Catholic organizations that use his talents(?) continue to employ him in good faith?

  • A sure sign that Mark and those who pushed the editorial line are losing the debate. Comments on those sites are clearly against abolition. Generally they are well argued and consistent with Catholic teaching.

    I see that in my Diocesan paper also. There have been numerous editorials against the death penalty. Letters to the editor have been reasoned and persuasive others in the community.

    Truth is a powerful thing. Just as those who have pushed the anti-family and homosexualist positions in the last Synod are losing ground, so those that push for the abolition of the death penalty. That because it is a position that is contrary to natural law and Revelation.

    The Holy Spirit is moving. Just not the way many would like.

  • If you read Shea’s facebook posts on an regular basis (and I don’t recommend it if you value your sanity), you’ll discover the guy has always been a flaming Seattle lefty. Yes, he likes to hide it because of the pro death stance of Demonrats, but he’s on record saying that he’d have no problem voting for progressives if it wasn’t for their prochoice views. And yet he claims to be conservative? Laughable. The guy regularly posts links from the DailyKos, HuffPo, Salon, Media Matters and the like to trash conservatives, and if you point out the unreliability of these sources, he’ll cry genetic fallacy! His regular commenters or even more looney….by their fruits ye shall know them.

  • “Mark Shea has been trending left for quite a while and now he is using the favorite tactic of the contemporary left in this country …”
    ***
    I haven’t read Mark’s blog in years, but I do catch glimpses of his Facebook posts from time to time. And Don’s assessment (as well as Steve D’s assessment in the previous comment) seems about right. Mark’s Facebook page paints the picture of his leftward lurch far more tellingly than does his blog. Mark does little more than parrot talking points of the political left, trafficking in the left’s usual character assassination, guilt by association, and simplistic caricatures (often based on lies or misrepresentations) of those with whom they disagree. These days, his most ardent followers and commenters on Facebook seem to be fairly limited to such left-Catholic ideologues with axes to grind as Morning’s Minion and Dan Conway. Mark’s commentary is virtually indistinguishable from theirs.

  • *shrug* I stop listening to folks when they feel the need to lie to make their case. So he added another lie– it’s sad, and rather embarrassing since he is a public face for Catholicism, but he’s not going to persuade anyone who wasn’t already on his side.
    So it’s just… sad. Lies with fallacies piled on top.

  • Mark does little more than parrot talking points of the political left, trafficking in the left’s usual character assassination, guilt by association, and simplistic caricatures (often based on lies or misrepresentations) of those with whom they disagree.

    Yet another sign of how left he is. As the saying goes

  • Allow me to play the very real race card: Since Roe, tens of millions of dead babies. Of those over 55% were babies of minority mothers. Over 17,000,000 dead Black babies. Over 12,000,000 dead Hispanic babies. Planned Parenthood Mega-Death Center in Houston TX most days killing a majority of Black and Hispanic babies; and the new Death Center of Planned Parenthood being built in San Antonio [and currently with inadequate zoning certificate] somedays will kill 20 Hispanic babies. These are not white American sacred cows-these are God’s own precious infants. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • I met Shea some years ago and was not impressed at all. And he has indeed been turning left and more than that, he just likes to have someone to attack and have controversy. I do not like him. Never read him. Not impressed years ago and have nothing to do with him now.

  • Comments on those sites are clearly against abolition. Generally they are well argued and consistent with Catholic teaching.

    You mean he did not delete them and insult the posters?

    I’d have told you a decade ago that Shea needed an editor. The regrettable demise of much of the Catholic press since then has deprived him of the services which were once provided by Brian St. Paul.

    I suspect that seeing his utterances as the work of a political intelligence is mistaken, except insofar as one can regard portside politics as the miasma of the inner life of troubled people. Political language can be a mode of expression for the problems of aging, or failures in daily life, or for long-standing character and personality defects. (Something more manifest in feminism than in other sorts of discussion). It does not have to be, but it often is. It can also be an exercise in status games and a reflection of anxieties in those games (Rod Dreher, I’m looking at you).

  • I met Shea some years ago and was not impressed at all.

    There are stories of him having rude confrontations with vendors at book fairs and the like. That would make an impression.

  • “You mean he did not delete them and insult the posters?”

    I was referring to sites promoting the editorials. However, I am sure he deleted comments, insulted posters and banned them. I don’t read Mark anymore. Don’t want to cooperate with evil.

  • All capital one murderers must be put to death. If some racially counted murderers escape because of skin color they must be put to death, too.

  • Shea’s point is wrong, as usual, race really is not a factor in the death penalty: http://seeking4justice.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-study-race-of-defendants-no-factor.html
    Many such race-baiters mention a numerical discrepancy between a race’s proportion of the population and that race’s representation in the criminal justice system; but such a crude metric only tells us there is a different rate of incarceration and sentencing, it does not explain why there is a difference, and without evidence of the “why” there can be no rational claim of racism as the reason for the disparity.

    It’s all simple logic and basic reasoning, but sadly Shea is not a thinker, he’s a mere agitator, hence the rapid descent to ad hominem when he is challenged.

  • If you read Shea’s facebook posts on an regular basis (and I don’t recommend it if you value your sanity), you’ll discover the guy has always been a flaming Seattle lefty
    .
    Can confirm. If you think Mark’s extreme on his SJW And Hating Life blog and you haven’t seen his Facebook, you haven’t seen anything yet. He’s an absolute fanatic there, with discourse about on the level with Bill Maher, though with more SJW hypersensitivity and even rarer moments of common sense or logic.
    .
    The guy regularly posts links from the DailyKos, HuffPo, Salon, Media Matters and the like to trash conservatives, and if you point out the unreliability of these sources, he’ll cry genetic fallacy!
    .
    Which is ironic, given how fond of he is of using guilt by association himself, and how often he smears writers for articles that he turns out not to have even read.
    .
    My favorite is when he accused Ben Stein of advocating eugenics, by embellishing on an embellished Rawstory article about an embellished Right Wing Watch article about an article that Ben Stein had written. When people linked to the actual Ben Stein article and showed how ridiculous the claim was, Mark suddenly deleted his post like a coward, without any comment or apology for his libel. And he learned nothing, as he has continued to do the same thing repeatedly (eg. libeling Matt Walsh for his article on suicide, which he also didn’t read. I’m sure there are more recent examples, but Mark’s blog is worthless as anything other than a near occasion to sin, so I don’t read it anymore).
    .
    His regular commenters or even more looney….by their fruits ye shall know them.
    .
    Had one far-left fanatic named Andy Simons (who Mark says goes to his parish) insist at length that Catholic teaching does not say that abortion is murder. Mark came in to agree with him on that claim and insisted that “Andy is fully pro-life.”
    .
    The same whackjob also argued against anti-abortion laws, absurdly bemoans that pro-lifers “refuse to work together with Democrats stop abortion,” etc. But try to argue that more welfare isn’t good for lowering the abortion rate, and Mark will accuse you of literally murdering babies. Mark isn’t really pro-life himself, imo, and he’s trying to deflect his shame by loudly and frequently accusing others.