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

Tuesday, August 23, AD 2016





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



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

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

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

This. Was. Wrong.

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

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

Let’s parse this out shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks for this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Hahahaha. According to another Patheo$ clickbaiter,

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

  • Art…you might enjoy my appearing abruptly at Vox Nova in support of God actually mandating the herem massacre of the Canaanites AS A LAST RESORT which even Benedict missed when he ascribed it to men rather than God in Verbum Domini 42….while the Pontifical Biblical Commissiom said it never happened (distinct still from Benedict).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • At Art Deco: You write

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Murray,

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

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

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

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

  • Bravo, Greg! Well said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Starbucks? 😉

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

  • Starbucks? ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • t Shea’s attitudes toward Israel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Mark Shea and Elderly Poodles

Sunday, July 3, AD 2016



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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Of Mark Shea and Elderly Poodles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TomD,

    Your post is tonic. Well said!

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

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

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

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

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

Saint Blogs and Character Assassination

Thursday, June 2, AD 2016




I promised myself I would not post on the gorilla-gets-killed-because-of-kid story.  First, because it seemed to me to be a no brainer:  kid gets away from parents into a gorilla gage and a gorilla is near him.  Of course you shoot the gorilla.  Sad that it happened but nothing to raise a hue and cry about.  Second, because all the hullabaloo that it caused I took as further evidence as to the fact that all too many people have way too much time on their hands, and I thought that self-evident fact of modern life needed no commentary from me.  However, David Griffey at Daffey Thoughts brings to light a new facet of this story involving blogger Simcha Fisher :


Apparently Simcha posted a Facebook article in which she said that the parents of the boy whose actions led to the killing of a gorilla in the Cincinnati Zoo might not be guilty of any wrong doing.  Sometimes kids act out and it’s not the parent’s fault.

Fair enough.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they don’t.  For my money, a little accountability in our day and age might do us adults some good.  That does’t mean, of course, that the parents in question are guilty.  Most of the comments followed that line of non-accountability, a line not exactly uncommon nowadays.  But a couple bucked the trend, including Melissa Cox, the aforementioned judicial candidate.

Now my approach to Facebook is ‘don’t’.  It was Mark Shea’s page that broke me.  When he and some of his readers descended on me and mocked and belittled me because I agreed with one of them (yeah, I agreed with one of the readers who then turned and let loose with both barrels), I figured it was time to get a real life.

Apparently Ms. Cox is made of stronger material than me, or is more patient, or maybe even naive.  I don’t know. She stayed and tried to make the claim that yes, the parents might be guilty of wrong doing.  When pushed, she admitted she wasn’t there.  Apparently there were some bystanders who were there who frequent Simcha’s Facebook page.  In reaction to that, Ms. Cox explained that there could be many factors behind why a parent might or might not be guilty: Drugs. Alcohol. BAM!

That was what done her in.  By bringing up those examples, she was accused of falsely accusing the parents of being drug addicts and alcoholics.  Simcha and others swooped in and laid layer after layer of condemnation and contempt on Ms. Cox for being judgmental and sinning by bearing false witness against the parents.  I don’t know the full extent of the discourse, because eventually Ms. Cox left and deleted, or blocked, her statements.  Those I did see were kept by some of the readers:

As the comments continued to pile on, a growing number of readers shook their heads at just how much of a disgrace Ms. Cox was to the legal  profession.  Soon Simcha floated the idea that she might have brought the drugs question up because the parents are Black (and you know what that means). Naturally others ran with the race card.  During that time a bright light came on.   While Simcha stated she didn’t want to ruin anyone’s career, she and others  then converged and began shouting out to different individuals from Ms.Cox’s district; calling on reporters to dig up dirt and rake up some muck, calling for articles to discredit her and work to wreck her life, her career, her livelihood:

Simcha Fisher Rebecca Kavan If you are interested in pursuing this, Damien says you should contact the Detroit Free Press and let them know you have a tip, including screenshots, of some nutso stuff that judicial candidate and prosecutor Melissa Cox said on Facebook and then deleted. You could contact Charlie LeDuff, who is a muckraker and might be interested. This is stuff that should disqualify her to be a judge.    (Emphasis mine)

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Saint Blogs and Character Assassination

  • Re the race card, before the child was identified as black, I saw wild BS on the worldwide web concerning “white privilege” and the horrid murder an African gorilla.

  • This is why I no longer use my real name. When I as working at a previous nuclear place of employment, a liberal sent an anonymous email to my employer complaining about my non-work-related opinions made on non-work computing equipment on non-work time. I called into a meeting one morning at work and told that my views did not reflect the company line. So after a while I began using this pseudonym, not to hide but because in today’s liberal progressive environment, the virtue most lacking is tolerance. Imagine that – expecting tolerance for different points of view from the preachers of tolerance and diversity!
    Just imagine my fate were I to have written about the demise of a non-sentient animal!

  • I used to be a regular reader of Simcha’s, and she still has some enjoyable takes on family life, but she has indeed turned into a bit of a pitchfork wielder, along with her husband (whose “jerk” moniker turned out to be less of an act than I originally thought). Even on this issue, where I basically agreed with her primary take, she and her minions have decided that any contrary opinion is not to be tolerated, and is justification for social ostracism.

    Somewhere along the line social media deteriorated into the adult version of second grade. Actually, I take that back, because second graders are never quite as vicious. I won’t condemn all social media, but there’s something about Facebook and twitter and especially that turns people into petty jackasses.

  • Simcha’s still around? The Bear guesses he’s too insignificant to be controversial. (He’s waiting for Donald Trump to get elected so the U.S. will bring the Bear back from Syria.) This is the first thing the Bear has read on this subject. It shall be the last. We had one of our cubs fall out of a two-story window onto concrete. (Actually defenestrated by his twin brother.) Does that make us bad parents, or just unlucky, like the couple in that horrible Lars von Trier movie? Since he shook it off and just got out of the Army where he was a Korean linguist, it obviously didn’t hurt him none. Higher animals hate captivity. The gorilla would have killed that kid as a gesture of protest. This is a no-brainer. Shoot the gorilla and put him out of his misery. Save the kid. The Bear IS and animal, and HAS BEEIN IN zoos, and Bear pits. Then shoot the zoo director for having a crappy fence kids can fall through. Or, better, feed him to the brown Bears for a win-win.

  • Simcha has 10 children. I am sure she can keep them all out of the gorilla enclosure.

    However, I know how hard it is to type adult, meaningful, and fair comments on a blog with one teen around and a post teen who calls a lot. How hard is it with 10 around? I will be Christian and go out on a limb and suggest that Simcha is too quick to throw some posts into the gorilla enclosure.

  • Oh, the Bear has a Facebook Page. It was quite a shock after the gentle woodlands of Blogger. Fortunately, Captain Ernest has volunteered to keep trolls in check until the Bear can call in a Bearstrike and eliminate them. Atheists and Protestants who take a curiously unhealthy interest in other people’s religions.

  • P.S., I just noticed a couple of the lines that detailed why Don’s head is spinning. So I partially retract my first post. I’ll say now that it applies to how a trickle starts on Simcha’s pages. It doesn’t explain or condone the avalanche.

  • oops, David Griffey’s head is spinning. Mine too – this post has as many flashbacks as Casablanca

  • Sadly, this kind of overwrought personal, ad hominem against someone posting a differing view is all too common on the net. It’s a function of the anonymity and distance involved. If the dialogue were taking place in person, face to face, much of this digital detraction would evaporate.

  • Mark shea actually showed up at that post to comment. I don’t want to spoil it for you all, just seriously click over and scroll down.

  • Good to see you back Nate

  • second graders are never quite as vicious

    That’s because they have to physically face their interlocutors and risk a punch in the nose.

  • Simcha has an insatiable appetite for vicious slander.

    The time she spends on the computer exercising this hobby does not leave a lot of time for mothering and supervising her own children. Perhaps Ms Cox struck a raw nerve.

  • Seems to me you’ve got the basis for a 21st century morality play along the lines of The Scarlet Letter meets The Oxbow Incident.

    If somebody’s brave enought to stick up for Melissa Cox, you can throw in a dash of Twelve Angry Men.

  • The time [Fisher] spends on the computer exercising this hobby does not leave a lot of time for mothering and supervising her own children. Perhaps Ms Cox struck a raw nerve.

    That was as unfair to Fisher as Cox was to the mother of the four year old boy, and as Fisher’s facebook lynch-mob have been to Cox.

    If a four year old managed to get into the gorilla enclosure, it’s because the enclosure is poorly designed. (It happens.)

    Either that, or it was built back in the day when any self-respecting mother would have spanked her child just for thinking of swimming with the gorillas.

    Me? I always try to encourage parents brave enought to have their toddlers in a harness and on a leash –just to offset the looks of disapproval from the self-righteously ignorant.

  • Ernst, my observation was not limited to this one incident. The time she spends in com boxes defending her flaws and errors with character assassination is irrational and inconsistent with the time a mother of ten children has available.

    The world is not suitable for children to run free but agree a child can make a run for it even with the most vigilant helecopter parents.

    On the other hand, if a mother has a history of convicted criminal boyfriends and is at a place where a child could be kidnapped, how he got any more than ten feet away from her raises legitimate questions. Adults can outrun a four year old. My gut instincts were not drugs but social media.

    Thank God for the quick action of the zookeepers and the safe return of her son. Gods abundant blessings upon them.

  • My gut instincts were not drugs but social media.

    Or four year sees mom dealing with a sibling and seizes once in a lifetime chance to swim with the gorillas.

    I think every parent has their own there-but-for-the-grace-of-God moment with their kids. Most of us are fortunate enough to not have ours wind up on the 6′ o’clock news, and thus grist for the internet gossip mill.

  • Paul Zummo –
    I think Nate and I are the two youngest here– I’m 33– and I’m afraid your memory of school is out of date.
    They behave like a modern high school. And they are that vicious.
    Counter to C Matt’s memory, there is no serious risk of being punched in the nose, and they know it. Even the myth of “bullied kids become school shooters” didn’t slow anything down. (I was voted most likely to, euphemistically, bring a gun to school; does anyone actually think they believed there was any sort of risk and yet still added that vote in? They flipped out when I slammed my hand down on MY OWN PAPERS to keep them from scattering them around the room.)

  • Ernst Schreiber-
    I’m with you.
    Kind of ironic that the Fisher lady made a good point, then went nuts on insulting people with her buddies; this post points it out, and…. people are going nuts insulting people.

    There is no way that even a cow should have been so easily accessible as would be required for anybody to get in without people stopping them.
    The main thing that I’ve noticed coming out of this is massive anti-multiple-child bigotry– and a little bit of reaction to that. I always get teased about shopping with four kids; yesterday it was a nice Veteran guy who asked where I’d fit the groceries, since ALL of the kids wanted in the cart. (I laughed and said I was wondering the same thing.)
    He ended up tracking me down to apologize, because that was “kind of disrespectful.” I didn’t have the heart to tell him that compared to being randomly lectured about destroying the world, it was a pleasure.

  • Touche, Foxfier.

    One thing I’d note is anonymity is not a factor. This all took place on Facebook, so people are not using pseudonyms. You can’t really hide who you are, and yet the language is no less vicious.

  • Ernst, I wholeheartedly agree. The likely innocence of this particular Mom was subject to scrutiny because of her boyfriend’s past history. The boyfriend sounds like he turned his life around and I am sure could use some prayers.

    Sumcha’s conduct is a separate issue. This is just one if the many times when the amount of time spent in wild overreaction on the Internet puzzled me as a mother. With one 2 year old, one would not have the time to invest in responding as she does without a magician, housekeepers, a cook and a child are provider to keep the child healthily busy to keep out of self imposed mischief. Children under 7 are a constant suck on resources of a mother.

  • You can’t really hide who you are, and yet the language is no less vicious.

    Why hide it, when they’re sure that they are righteous?
    It’s not like they have to worry about someone taking offense and destroying their lives and the lives of those they love, as LQC told of. (They are, actually, but many don’t realize swatting is A Thing. That will change as their area of influence includes more young and self-righteous that don’t agree with them.)
    The main reason I even bring up the age thing is because I see this division a lot– my mom ran into rather normal facebook behavior by some relatives, a nephew of hers vs her daughter, and was horrified– both at how he behaved, and that I actually responded. In her mind, the behavior he’d shown was an instant end-the-conversation– and it took a while to get her to accept as a possibility that is exactly why the behavior was coming up over something so incredibly stupid. She just could not accept that it had gone from exchanging comments about cute kids to nuclear.

  • Here you go foxfier.
    I swear I wish you would document the stuff u go through because I still can’t hardly believe people treat u that way – though I know you’re trustworthy. For me I’m trying to figure out the right joke to convey to parents blessed with a bounty that they have my sympathies, and jealousy.

    TomD, I’m usually visiting, I just don’t comment much unless Don makes some huge blunder like claiming star wars is better than Trek (the law mines have addled that brain I tell u what).

    I think this all proves people need religion so they at LEAST fight and tear each other over something just a little less stupid.

  • Oh and here’s a link related to the first comment by T.Shaw in case some people thought he was making it up.

  • “I swear I wish you would document the stuff u go through because I still can’t hardly believe people treat u that way”
    Nate, it IS bad out there, and it is worse elsewhere. I have neighbors with four children who are from Germany. They came here in part because of the anti-large family bias in contemporary Europe, and would rather put up with our bigots than theirs’. They are a beautiful Christian family. We are better for them being here, and Germany is (again) the loser.

  • Nate– Whoof! the Catholic Register just had an article that pointed to similar studies– the more time you’re in non-maternal care, the more you’re likely to have some issues– and KABOOM! went the page.
    That might explain the change in school, too– a daycare worker generally can’t do good parenting, because BOTH sets of parents are customers– so you just punish everyone involved.
    if you’re the one attacking, you get the first hit AND they get punished for it.

  • Ernst makes the most salient point of the discussion. The design of the enclosure was probably inadequate. Some where I read that the height above grade on the public side of the wall was just 36 inches. That would be allowed only on porches stairs and landings in single family dwellings. Elsewhere, the standard requirement is a minimum of 42 inches above grade or floor level in buildings and at retaining walls. I recall also that there was a planting of bushes or shrubbery of some sort adjacent to the wall. This feature may have allowed the attempt to climb atop the wall for a better view on the part of the small child to be obscured from view by his parents. This is not to say that there was anything unlawful on the part of the zoo. The requirements of building codes are not ex post facto. Nonetheless it would be sensible to apply adequate guards according to the latest standard. As to the zoo’s decision to shoot the gorilla, that was imperative. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their priorities scrambled.

42 Responses to Best Catholic Blogs

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

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

  • Fr. Z of course. Rorate Coeli.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Crisis magazine, SuburbanBanshee’s blog.

  • Tom! Tom! Tom!

    What about!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Love American Catholic! In my top 5

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

  • Oh Oh.

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

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

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

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

    My favorite Catholic site is TAC.

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

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

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

    Today’s Martyrs

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

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

    Saint Maximilian Kolbe pray for us!

  • 1Peter5

  • @FMShyanguya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • @FMShyanguya.

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

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

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

    ‘Just think about that!

    he himself clearly overwhelmed and in awe.

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

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

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

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

  • “Seems dang big for a rainbow..”

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

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

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

  • Yeah, Brian.

    Denzinger-Bergoglio site is really great.

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

    They continue counting.


  • I mean I had the opportunity of working…

  • One other…was , (now divested)

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

  • Also:
    Abyssus abyssum invocat
    1P5 Digest

Fox Escorted From Chicken Coop

Thursday, April 14, AD 2016





The editor-in-chief and director of the U.S. bishops’ official news service resigned Wednesday at the request of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference general secretary.

Tony Spence, who had worked for Catholic News Service since 2004, had publicly criticized religious freedom and bathroom privacy legislation on his Twitter feed.

The news comes mere days after the Lepanto Institute issued a report highlighting Spence’s controversial tweets, wherein he had called religious freedom laws “pro-discrimination” and “stupid.” LifeSiteNews ran an article on the report Tuesday.

“The far right blogsphere and their troops started coming after me again, and it was too much for the USCCB,” Spence told the National Catholic Reporter Thursday.  “The secretary general [of the U.S. bishops’ conference] asked for my resignation, because the conference had lost confidence in my ability to lead CNS.” 

NCR’s Dennis Coday writes:

Bloggers from websites of The Lepanto Institute, The Church Militant and posted stories in the last week that accused Spence of issuing “public statements decrying proposed legislation in several states that would protect religious freedom and deny men pretending to be women the ‘right’ to enter women’s bathrooms.”

According to the newspaper, following a meeting with Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield, the general secretary of the bishops’ conference, “Spence was escorted from the conference office building without being allowed to speak to his newsroom staff.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Fox Escorted From Chicken Coop

  • Interesting but not surprising. Leftists have been colonizing institutions like C. difficile colonizing an immunosuppressed octogenarian’s gut in a 3rd world hospital.

  • The left has been effectively attacking the Church from the outside and by way of infiltration for decades.

  • Not decades, centuries. I presume the feckless USCCB had to be pressured to get rid of this dolt.

  • I am surprised he wasn’t promoted or received a gentle slap on the hand. His thinking would line up with my bishop’s anti-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-illegal immigration stances, and several others I’m sure. “Mr. Spence said some things some find objectionable. They have called for his resignation. But in this year of mercy, we forgive him for speaking publicly. His punishment is 5 days paid leave to think about what he has done.”

  • There was a time many decades ago when I might have naively believed the bishops were actually trying to clean house of the diabolical inclinations within…but I can now only assume that this was closer akin to an embarrassment that needed a transparent Band-aid.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

When You’ve Lost Amy Welborn…

Wednesday, February 24, AD 2016


When I first began to comment on blogs circa 2003, one of the Catholic blogs I frequented was Open Book run by Amy Welborn.  I liked her blog because she always struck me as fair-minded and attracted a diverse and entertaining crowd of commenters, many of whom went on to illuminate Saint Blogs with blogs of their own.  She seemed to me as being near the sensible center of Catholicism.  I did not always agree with her, but I always respected her well-reasoned opinions that reflected a deep love of the Church.  Therefore I was intrigued by a recent post of hers entitled Against Popesplaining:

Before I move on to specifics, I want to say something about discussing these issues.

It’s okay.

And it’s time.

Well, it’s been time for a while – it’s never not been time, but, well, it’s really time now.

And it’s time to do so without the spectre of  being caricatured as a a “Francis-Hater” or that you must consider yourself “One of the Greatest Catholics of All Time.” Ignore that kind of discourse. It’s lazy.

It’s time to do so without the discussion-silencing claim that any critique of the current papacy must – must  – come from a fearful identification with American capitalism rather than an embrace of Catholic social teaching.

There’s also no reason to feel guilty about engaging in this discussion or – honestly – not liking Pope Francis very much. It is awesome to be in the presence of the successor of St. Peter, and it is a great gift that Jesus gave us, Peter, the Rock. But it is just a matter of historical fact that not all popes are great, popes make mistakes and sin.  Respect for and value of the office does not mean we must feel caught up in emotion about any pope, even the present one.

Years ago, I was in intense email discussion with someone who was considering leaving the Church, so scandalized was he by the sexual abuse scandals.  He was not personally affected, but he had intimate knowledge of it all and had to write about it. I absolutely understood his pain, because it’s pain anyone would  – and should – feel.  But I made this argument to him over and over:

Look. The Church we’re in is the Church that is not confined by time or space.  The Church we’re in in the present moment is the Church of 42, of 477, of 1048, of 1684, of 1893. The institutional sins and failures of the present moment are real, but no less real are the sins, failures and general weirdness of the past 2000 years.  Look at the history of the papacy in the 9th and 10th centuries. If you can hold onto apostolic succession after studying that chaos, then nothing else is ever going to shake you. 

(Oh, it didn’t work. He left the Church. For another church, no less scandal-ridden than this one, but oh well)

This applies to the discussion at hand, as well. Frantic, defensive fear that critiquing any aspect of any recent papacy would call into question one’s faith in Christ’s gift of Petrine ministry is silly. Our discussions should be grounded in humility and an acceptance of our limited understanding, but wondering if a Pope is doing or saying the right thing does not make one an unfaithful Catholic or a sedevacantist.

The inevitable  concerntrolling respone is going to be, “Sure, you can say all that, but you know that a lot of the people speaking about Pope Francis are…”

Hey, guess what?

I don’t care. 

Continue reading...

18 Responses to When You’ve Lost Amy Welborn…

  • Her commentary was excellent. And as Don mentioned, she’s not someone you would necessarily expect to come out with something hard-hitting against the Pope, although I guess her commentary is aimed more at the apologists than the Pope himself.

  • Gracias. He never “had” me. I’ve been biting my tongue (sort of – I have had a couple of posts here and there.) for three years. It’s still difficult to comment without imposing meaning and motivation because he’s so opaque.

  • Ok, the PF-amorists will accuse me of piling-on (even though it is now Pitchers-and-Catchers time in baseball season, not football—explanatory comment for Michael Peterson-Seymour)… but like Amy W., I smelled foul odors from the start when the US media tried to claim he had an exceptional Ph.D. from Frankfort’s theologate. I thought: Wow: a Jesuit priest-friend of outstanding intellectual caliber went there, and I know it’s a thorough training.

    Of course, I could never get a “copy” forwarded to me of his Ph.D. thesis. After some time doing some “forensic thesis” research, I finally obtained confirmation from direct sources, later even publicly and notably, the southern German news source, Die Tauber-Zeitung, that PF had in fact failed to complete his thesis and didn’t even pass his comprehensive exams. Sorry, not recommending for the highest positions in the church.

    Pish-posh, say the Francis-Guard: we don’t need an “academic” pope. So that means we have a man whose last objective academic qualification was obtained about 1969, a licentiate (e.g. advanced master’s) at the Buenos Aires theologate, San Miguel. Other Jesuits have commented to me that “In those days, if you just sat there in the classroom, you would get a licentiate by the end of summer semester.” That makes one feel good.

    In all our fields, we have not just objective education requirements, but licensing, CPE (continuing professional ed, NOT clinical pastoral ed). California law requires a certain person to have about 60 hours total, after one’s degrees and fairly difficult exam-qualified licensing, annually.

    And in the case of the world’s largest organization, based entirely on a profound knowledge of systematic philosophy and theology, we have a GED running things. Would that wash at Harvard? Columbia? Stanford? But that is fine for us.

    And now you know yet again how the Visionary Pope can foul up contraception, marriage, abortion, and relativize climate-change and wealth-redistribution, all in about 3 short years. It is all simple to him. Yes. Very very simple.

  • From Sixtus V, who died in 1590, to Leo XIII, who was elected in 1878, we had a virtually unbroken succession of popes, who had risen through the ranks of the Vatican bureaucracy and who were, by habit, taste and training, administrators. Good men, pious men, of proven ability in a lifetime of administration and with their energies stultified by a Byzantine bureaucracy.
    It is not unfair to describe the result as one of assiduous mediocrity. Even in Catholic countries, they had the same impact and the same popular appeal, as the average Secretary-General of the United Nations or President of the World Bank.
    Thirty popes and not a Leo or a Gregory, a Hildebrand or an Innocent III amongst them; the very suggestion seems absurd. Benedict XIV (Prospero Lambertini) can fairly be ranked with Innocent IV as a canonist and with Leo X and Clement VII for his learning and he appears as a giant in that age of pygmies.
    Meanwhile, we had the Church riven by the Thirty Years War, the Quietist controversy, the Jansenist heresy, the Gallican controversy, Josephism, the suppression of the Jesuits, the French Revolution and its aftermath, and the Risorgimento, in none of which can the Holy See be said to have distinguished itself.
    Popes who leave a lasting legacy are very rare indeed.

  • Well, count me amongst the Catholics who absolutely LOVE Pope Francis. And no, I don’t agree with everything he says, and yes, I sometimes wish he had phrased this or that comment a bit differently. But I believe he is exactly the right person at the right time. Future Church historians will mark his reign as the moment when the current long decline of Catholicism ended and the coming period of explosive growth began.

  • At first, I thought BobInMaryland was serious.
    By the 3rd or 4th sentance I guessed him sarcastic.

  • Good job to Amy.
    Apparently fantasy land is Democrat Maryland which gave us the likes of Catholyck Martin O’Malley.

  • ExNOAAman,

    I was totally serious.

  • Amy is right.
    I have considered our good Pope Francis as being “confusing” from within months of the start of his papacy. Yes, when his written word is published days after his loose comments, we can see that in his considered thoughts he is orthodox; but in his off-the-cuff comments, he is confusing and sometimes seems heterodox.
    In recent time, I have stated in a couple of my homilies”……often what comes out of the Vatican is perplexing…….” We may have to obey the pope in any of his ex cathedra statements, but we certainly do not have to agree with the pope in his rather nebulous and often disconcerting positions WRT – for example – “Donald Trump is not Christian” , or, that capitalism has exploited the poor etc.

    It appears to only make sense to other Latinos. 😉

  • ‘The relative formality of apostolic Christianity – for that is what Catholicism is – is about safeguarding the Faith against the temptation to allow the priorities of one particular age or individual from having too much influence and for allowing “space” as it were, underneath that highest level for various movements, influences and emphases to arise, dialogue, be refined, embraced, discarded and take their place.’
    ‘ … for allowing “space” as it were, underneath that highest level for various movements, influences and emphases to arise, dialogue, be refined, embraced, discarded and take their place.’
    ‘ … safeguarding the Faith against the temptation to allow the priorities of one particular age or individual from having too much influence and for allowing “space” …’
    The Synod of embarrassing machinations revealed the enormity of the ‘space’, as well as the empty speeches at visit venues around the world, have, and will have, no regard for what was ‘temptation’.
    Apostolic Christianity is important to God. He said so.

  • Amy does excellent work in demystifying the cult of Pope Francis. Pope Francis with his vulgar displays of humility, his insulting remarks to faithful Catholics, his political people- pleaser personality, his confusing and ambiguous statements about the faith qualify him as one of the worst popes in history. And that’s not the worst of it. Two-thirds of the Cardinals elected this guy. God help us all. And let us say a prayer that Pope Francis reign will be short.

  • Patricia

    There is an important distinction to be made, as the quotation you cite indicates. As Bl John Henry Newman puts it, “Revelation sets before it [the mind] certain supernatural facts and actions, beings and principles; these make a certain impression or image upon it; and this impression spontaneously, or even necessarily, becomes the subject of reflection on the part of the mind itself, which proceeds to investigate it, and to draw it forth in successive and distinct sentences” That is Newman’s doctrine of development in a nutshell.

    “Apostolic Christianity” is summed up in the Apostles’ Creed. Its articles are (1) categorical, not argumentative; (2) concrete, not abstract; (3) concerned with facts and actions and, above all, with a Person; not with ideas or notions or reflections.

  • To Bob in Maryland, ah yes, the “Francis effect”. I’ve been waiting for that too. Unfortunately, I think the actual “effect” will be more of the same, an even more rapid decline. Why would anyone listening to Francis think it necessary to enter the Catholic church? As his January prayer intention makes quite clear, there is more than one path to “love”.

  • Here in Cajun French South Louisiana the most frequent comment I hear about the Holy Father is, “Cher, he just has the ‘hot blood!’ Bless his heart!” (Translation: “He’s a hot-headed, blowhard knot head, just like PawPaw Henri; but we’ve got to love him, since he’s family.) In the Catholic South, “Bless his heart” can mean anything from “If he drives up in the front yard, turn off all the lights, lock all the doors, and be quiet until he goes away,” to “What an idiot!” YMMV

    Incidentally, I accidentally **exited** our cathedral through the Door of Mercy after attending the Rite of Election for my catechumens last Sunday. I notice that I have been feeling particularly merciless ever since! Should I worry? What should I do?!?

  • Michael

    That distinction is a help to explain further explain my worry.
    When you mentioned the three hundred years of thirty administrative popes and those heresies that went around the Church with no pope distinguishing himself, I wondered at the difference in this 2016 world. ‘Popes who leave a lasting legacy are very rare indeed.’ This is the main eventuality (legacy in the making) facing the Church. What I see are more and more impressions on minds which may find developmental challenges due to the lack, even derision, of definitive teaching about the Holy facts and actions which the valuable Creed can offer to do what Blessed John Henry Newman tells us about development of faith and love for God. It is more than leaving interested ones waiting for a surprise from an unknown or intangible stranger. Further, I think young and old, especially young though, could benefit from being given a Creed for their lives, as opposed to pop culture influences. Gangs offer more facts and actions to which young hold.
    It seems that our Lord is hearing a lot of the dreaded ‘crucify him’ that we will hear during the Triduum.
    It is the legacy of wayward and groundless actions while the western world degenerates – so far, anyway.

  • Hey, Don the Kiwi, your use of quote marks around the phrase Donald Trump is not Christian is incorrect. Those were not the words of Pope Francis. It’s bad enough putting up with foot-in-mouth remarks that he really did say.

    By the way, I notice that when popes wore the traditional red slippers that Pope Francis has refused to wear there was a lot less foot-in-mouth disease among pontiffs. Please, Pope Francis, wear the shoes! (I hear the red dye tastes really, really bad!)

Larry D Summarizes His Experiences at Patheos

Wednesday, February 3, AD 2016

Trek 1



Trek 2

Trek 3


Larry D, who blogs at Acts of the Apostasy, one of the most intentionally funny Catholic websites not named Eye of the Tiber, summarizes in Trek Speak his parting of the ways with Patheos, or, as he calls it, The Blorg.  Go here to read all about it.  When it comes to Patheos, Catholic bloggers need the spirit of Commander Eddington:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Larry D Summarizes His Experiences at Patheos

Bear Growls: Voris to Bloggers: Drop Dead

Thursday, October 29, AD 2015



Our bruin friend over at Saint Corbinian’s Bear has been on a roll lately:


Michael Voris is once again under the Bear’s scrutiny, because once again he has done something noteworthy. Since the Bear is not a Professional Broadcaster, he will go with an easy-to-understand, lawyerly chronological outline at the risk of burying the lede.

Voris’ Premise

Voris’ premise is that the bad guys are playing a game of pointing fingers of blame at conservatives when conservatives criticize Pope Francis. This is a welcome clarification of his recent “Failed Papacy?” Vortex, which the Bear found impossible to understand. Voris’ premise depends upon the idea that ordinary folks follow ecclesiastical politics and care. Voris gave three examples of how this has been tried.

First: “The Letter.” The letter circulated by some prelates was spun into an attack on the Pope. Some of them who had supposedly signed it, denied signing it. Voris apparently supposes this had traction with the man on the street.

Second: “The Tumor.” There was some speculation that the story released by an Italian newspaper was planted by evil conservatives to undermine Pope Francis’ papacy, although there were never any names suggested to the Bear’s knowledge. Again, Voris imagines that people follow this sort of “inside baseball.”

Third: “The Pope’s Enemies.” Cardinal Wuerl speculates about the Pope’s enemies. Once again, people are supposed to hear this, know who Cardinal Wuerl is, and agree with him. Thus we, the good guys, take heavy damage, according to Voris.

Liberals and Modernists use these tactics because they know they work, Voris says. In secular politics, criticize President Obama and liberals will call you a racist. Similarly, criticize the Pope and Modernists will say you, well, criticized the Pope. (A quibble: America has a built-in race factor bubbling under the surface that liberals can tap into in a way Cardinal Wuerl can’t in ecclesiastical politics.)

Now the reason we should not attack the Pope is because it is a bad tactic. For this reason, according to Voris, we should attack the evil men around the Pope.

Voris’ Solution: Ditch Blogs and Rely on the Professionals

This is where it gets interesting. It reminds the Bear of the scene in Ghostbusters where Venkman tells the guy at the library, “Back off, man. I’m a scientist.” Except now it’s “Back off, man. I’m a Professional Journalist.”

First, you have to have a real theological education to detect “subtleties and nuances.”

Second, you have to have professional, secular media experience.

Why, what do you know! We’re in luck! Michael Voris has both of these qualifications. In case you have failed to connect the dots, Voris actually states Church Militant TV has these ingredients. And they’re no fly-by-night blogs sensationalizing things for a few extra clicks.

And then he immediately asks for money: to buy a Premium Membership.

So do you get this? Don’t bother with a bunch of amateurs who will hose it all up. Stick with professionals, like, why, me! It’s like the famous 1975 Daily News headline, “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.” Except this time it’s “VORIS TO BLOGGERS: DROP DEAD.”

The Bear’s Reaction
The Bear can’t help but observe that if you allow the other side to control the debate, you’ve already lost. When the Bear practiced trial defense, he would always pick the prosecution’s most shocking piece of real evidence, maybe the murder weapon, to pick up and use before the jury. It showed everyone that the Bear was not afraid of anything the prosecution could present. It also desensitized them, thus eliminating the shock value.
The other side is going to do their thing, period. There are givens. You can’t let that dictate your strategy.
So the Bear is not sure he even agrees with Voris’ premise. This just sounds like the same old lyrics of “don’t criticize the Pope,” set to a different tune. The Bear is not convinced that most people are attuned to ecclesiastical politics as are we visitors, friends and woodland creatures, or Michael Voris’ Premium Members.
But that’s not even the main thing that moved the Bear to put paws to keyboard.
In case you missed it, unless you’re Michael Voris, you bloggers should take your cheap quest for clicks somewhere far from Catholic news. You don’t have a degree in theology? You don’t have extensive secular broadcast experience? Then you don’t have what it takes to be in the big boy’s game. You’ll miss the subtleties and won’t know how to present the story. And you don’t even have a rich backer to send you to Rome where you can look like a journalist, “live from Rome,” even though you have said you don’t act as one. (Which makes one wonder what the use of that formidable professional experience is, since Voris apologized for acting like a journalist in the “Harming the Pope” incident with Cardinal Burke on October 22 of last year.) 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Bear Growls: Voris to Bloggers: Drop Dead

  • Voris has put himself into a “Never speak any unkind truth about this pope” box, so he has first, he blamed the Kasperites only, then when the synod final report failed, he tried to blame previous popes, then he tried to blame his bloggers and catholic parents for the failures, and even uttered this gem; never fail to tell the truth.
    He would provide a great service to truth if he didn’t ignore his own advice, and play the game Adam played. “Lord, it was that woman You made…”

  • Michael Voris never seems to tire of shooting himself in the foot – or even a little further up. The first place I go to for Catholic News: TAC, Father Z, Toronto Catholic Witness, One Peter Five – NOT the Vortex. I like Father Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment too now that I have stumbled on it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t watch the occasional Vortex or like some of the things that Michael Voris says. But save us, Lord Jesus, from ourselves, I do wish he would stop shooting himself in the genitals! Arrrggghhh!

  • PWP: I only read TAC for Catholic news. Without YAC, I may read the NYT or “America” (not our Country). If I did that, I may wind up blind. Luckily I own only one ice pick . . .

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!

The comboxes are a riot!



And then Mark Shea showed up:


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


    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?


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


    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...

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

Vox Cantoris Is Not Alone

Saturday, February 21, AD 2015



Something for Father Tom Rosica and his legal beagles to contemplate:


Vox Cantoris posts links to the blogger articles that have rallied to his support:

Blog post collections
The Radical Catholic: Fr. Thomas Rosica Threatens Catholic Blogger
Everyday for Life: Careful what you say about the clergy: you may get sued
Jonah in the Heart of Nineveh: Rosica’s Conflicts of Interest, and Other Problems (Video from ChurchMilitant.TV)
An Editorial from SCCB, totally siding with Father Rosica (wink wink).
Anglican Samizdat: Vatican priest threatens to sue Catholic blogger
Kitchener Waterloo Traditional Catholic: Really, Rev. Rosica?
Mundabor: Father Rosica Tries To Silence A Catholic Blogger
The American Catholic: Sue ’em!
Ex Magna: Vatican Spokesman Father Rosica Threatens To Sue Vox Cantoris Blog

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Vox Cantoris Is Not Alone

  • Pingback: Rosicagate: The Wave Is Now A Tsunami! | Mundabor's Blog
  • Pingback: First Sunday in Lent is now renamed “Litigation Sunday” |
  • What if suing Father Tom Rosica is what Pope Francis intends? What if Cardinal Wuerl’s proclamation that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter is what Pope Francis intends?

  • In Canada, the 2008 version of the Criminal Code prohibits extortion as set out at §346(1):

    “Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.”
    Vox Cantoris should call the authorities immediately about this extortion attempt by Rosica against a Canadian citizen. We should start a Go Fund Me for Vox. Please read below and share widely.

    In R v Davis, Chief Justice lamer of Canada’s Supreme Court wrote, in 1999:

    “Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, through threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. Threats, accusations, menaces and violence clearly intimidate. When threats are coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim’s freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do.”

  • Renew America posted an article dated today, 2/22/15.

  • So what if there were a class action suit brought by Catholic bloggers against Fr Rosica for harassment and intimidation by threat of a frivolous lawsuit contrary to 1st amendment rights? The Vatican Secretary of State could be named as a co-conspirator.

  • The claim that the words complained of in his solicitors’ letter were defamatory of him would, dpubtless, constitute “reasonable justification or excuse” within the meaning of §346(1)

    Payments made under threat of process, founded on a mistake of law are not recoverable with the condictio indebiti, otherwise actions, pending or contemplated, could never be compromised.

  • Separation of church and state would kick in so fast. Father Tom Rosica must be sued as a private citizen wherever he committed his offense, in the same way that sexually abusive clerics are tried as dispossessed priests, which indicates that the Church has also made a judgment. (“Who am I to Judge?” will fall flat.) (Rabbis accused of sexual abuse are tried in synagogue, also from Catholic League. The Catholic Church never took the settlement money off the table and trying a priest in house was acceptable, then as now. There is no money that can change the status of victim).
    This scenario runs parallel to using secular courts to obtain secular power to promote one’s agenda. The secular courts deny the Person of God, support human sacrifice and promote sodomy. Rosica will now search the courts for Justice? Perhaps in an insane asylum, if he is lucky.

  • I wonder, Paul, if the Holy Father or Fr. Lombardi knows of the ‘tweet’ from Fr. Timothy Scott today? He is the Director of Catholic Media in Canada, and the Head of the Canadian Bishops Conference. ……. Here it is in all it’s GLORY!……..

    ” Just some advice for Cardinal Burke………..STFU” Oh yes, he has apologized for the obscenity and taken the ‘tweet’ down, but so many people have by now have webcamed it that it’s online forever.

    If people don’t know by now that the Church is infested with filth, they aren’t looking, or maybe they’re burying their heads in the sand.

  • Gee, you ripped off my list of blog, you could have at least linked to my blog. I`m not too upset, but I would have liked a link.

  • I would have linked to your site Suzanne if I had got the list there. I followed a link from PewSitter to Vox Cantoris where I got the list that I used. I am adding your site to our blog roll however, since your blog is solidly pro-life with coverage of Canada and that is not well represented in our blog roll.

  • I ask this question quite seriously: Is Rosica a Freemason? By his actions, I suspect him of being one.

  • Don’t know if Rosica is a Freemason, but I do know the Vatican has it’s share.

  • I hope you print this comment. A few years ago, Catholic Canada was asked to remove libellous posts by Domet. You now know the truth about this case.

    The chickens are coming home to roost for Domet.

    I am no fan of Father Rosica. However, David Domet has had this nasty uncharitable exchange with Father Rosica for years; and not only with Father Rosica.

    Without any justification or provocation, Egoist David Domet has harassed, threatened, spread lies, slandered and posted malicious and libellous comments about young Catholics, their parents and siblings, I know, on World Wide Web.
    His evil libellous actions, has harmed the reputation and livelihood of these young Catholics he is envious, jealous of.

    David Domet and his so called priest friends and the President of Una Voce International, the President of Una voce Canada, know who these young Catholics are.

    Father Rosica’s lawyers may want to get in touch with them. Some of the comments on the site below are very interesting.

    Jesus said, “Don’t scandalize the young…” especially in our day and age when these young Catholics are striving to do what is right, frequently with much opposition and great hardship to themselves.

    I have seen Domet’s (facsimile), authentic/original blog pages where he slandered and maliciously posted libellous comments on the web. Fortunately, these young Catholics have photographed and saved these blog pages for future use.

    Domet should come clean and humbly admit the truth to his supporters who may have to pay his legal bills should Rosica’s lawyers lay hands on the above documents.

    If Domet’s advisors have seen what I have seen, they would be urging him to get a proper lawyer (not cannon lawyer). Domet seems to be digging his own grave with the stupid advice given him by people like himself. I guess birds of a feather flock together.

  • We have seen what Fr. Rosica is intending, but before we believe that David Domet has been ‘slanderous’ we need proof. It’s not enough for ‘someone’ to post these actions on the part of David Domet. The proof will be in the pudding and nothing else. So far, you have just given us here say.

  • Linda,

    Do you have a link to those libelous comments of Domet?

  • To: TLM,
    David Domet is the “pudding.” He is and has the proof.


    Wouldn’t it be very stupid to provide proof of Domet’s libellous actions to anyone at this stage? Would you do so if you were in a similar situation?

    Those documents are guarded and will be available at the appropriate time and place, as they are needed in the future by the persons who were relentlessly and directly maligned, as were those young Catholics.

    I am giving you information as to where you can get this information:

    – Ask David Domet the author of those malicious, slanderous and libellous posts.
    -Ask the past President of Una Voce International or the
    – President of Una Voce Canada in Vancouver.
    – Ask Domet’s, “priest friends.” It would be pretty scandalous to pit priest against other priests. Wonder how many will still remain as Domet’s friends?
    All the above know this case and who these young Catholics are.

    Here’s another link regarding the interaction of Saint David Domet with the people of Kinkora and what they have to say:

    “Yes, David Anthony Domet, if we need to consult a fraternal organization, it will be one that deals with libel and defamation…”

    Saint Domet’s chickens have come home to roost.

  • No Linda, you do not get to make allegations on this blog and then refuse to back them up. I am banning you from this blog since you have made serious accusations against someone and offered no proof to substantiate them.

  • Who is this Linda List, she sounds like Wendy List over at Lepanto Institute with her own soul-destroying hate on for the blogger. I went to the vox pobuli slander piece – they can’t even spell “populi” right there is no such word as pobuli! It was quite evident that the slug who wrote it hated the Latin Mass and the Pastor. That is even more obvious if one follows the link from there to Canada Free Press – the muck is on the POBULI of Kinkora, not on Domet and this Linda or Wendy or whatever her name is comes on blogs and accuses a man of all kinds of thing and commits calumny, libel and defamation in the process. It’s a one post blog clearly intended to defame and Linda or Wendy and the List family is of the same calibre.


  • For those who want to check out unlinked references:

    Renew America article:

    S. Fortin’s “Big Blue Wave”:

    And here is another blog that supports Vox Cantoris:

  • Christ “came to bring the truth, and now His shepherds will protect their helpless sheep with lawyers who care….

    Not to worry modernist clergy. The USCCB apparently has chosen to align its support with “net neutrality?” That ought to quickly eliminate that “truth” and uppity laity problem.

  • Don Lord: “That ought to quickly eliminate that “truth” and uppity laity problem.”

    Enjoyed your comment immensely, except that Vatican II begot the “uppity laity”. LOL. I had chicken for breakfast so that one did not come home to roost.

  • Don’t tell any plaintiff’s attorney these magic word$s: class action

Mash Note

Thursday, September 18, AD 2014

12 Responses to Mash Note

  • I suppose my own reaction to the pope is just as wrong as M Shea’s – mine is certainly as visceral. It is not reasoned and I always have to remind myself of charity.
    I know I am angry about the weasels in the church who will not stand up for Church teaching. So many of us poor naive Faithful believed that teaching with all our hearts, suffered social and familial consequences because of that belief.
    And now the pope and many bishops seem to be saying – “silly child- we never really meant that!” “We have to fudge the lines here – we can’t stand against the tides of public opinion for Heaven’s sake! We have to think for our own sake.”
    My sense of betrayal gets deeper daily.
    God bless Cardinal Burke. I wonder how B16 feels now.

  • The guy is shameless.

  • Speaking of careerists.

  • I have nothing but love for Francis also. That’s all I can have. No respect for the philosophical depth like JP II or the theological erudition and profound love of the Liturgy like B XVI. Not even the respect I might have for someone who can express himself in terms that aren’t loaded with ambiguity or outright nonsense.

    I love Francis because he is the successor of Peter. I love him because the Holy Spirit is working through him even if it seems to be in spite of him. I love him because he is a man, and thus immensely prone to fallibility in matters not of Faith and Morals and certainly not in matters of prudential judgment. I can love him even if he is horrifically wrong in these prudential matters which he shows himself so capable of being. I love him because he is God’s creation and needs my prayers for his true good. And only that.

  • Pray for the Pope!
    Your right Phillip.
    We must continue to pray for him.
    He needs our prayers.

  • “I have nothing but love for Francis also.”

    He is a wonderful priest. But that doesn’t mean he can’t also be a lousy pope.

  • +2 Anzlyne

    Cardinal Burke, as was Bishop Bruskewicz, and before them the late Cardinal Wyzynski (sic) and Pope Pius XII (a true hero of the Church and of WWII) were churchmen who I look up to (either them or their memory). Brave men all, who do/did not back down from Church teaching.

    We will survive this pontificate. We will survive Kasper the Friendly Cardinal traversing the Western World seeking to wreck Catholic teaching on marriage. Most of all, Pope Francis dares not reverse Summorum Pontificum, at least not openly.

  • Mark and Timmy are in a dead heat to see who can be the biggest brownnoser!

  • Anzlyne is now up to +3

Crux with John L. Allen Jr., A New Catholic Website Published by The Boston Globe

Tuesday, September 2, AD 2014

John L Allen Associate Editor of Crux MagazineJohn L. Allen Jr.’s name came up during an introductory meeting between the new owner of The Boston Globe, John W. Henry, and the editor of the same daily, Brian McGrory.  It was an auspicious meeting because it was taking place one day after the Boston Red Sox winning the 2013 World Series, which Henry also owns.

Taking note of the popularity of the new Pope and wanting to capitalize on it, Allen’s name was floated to anchor this new online Catholic magazine named Crux.  Crux would be an addition to the online publishing niches that the Globe operates.  Considering the large Catholic population of the Boston area and the appeal of Pope Francis, it was a natural fit.

Henry was a self made man in financial trading and also successful in breaking the ‘Curse of the Bambino‘ by winning the 2004 World Series.  Looking back at Henry’s track record, it can be said that he took bold ventures in unfamiliar territory and did well.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Crux with John L. Allen Jr., A New Catholic Website Published by The Boston Globe

Advice to Simcha Fisher

Tuesday, July 15, AD 2014

To Hell with You, PewSitter

Pewsitter v. Fisher





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

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

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

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

Patheos v. Pewsitter!  Pass the popcorn!

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Advice to Simcha Fisher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mark and Simcha have a long history of, shall we say, saying one thing and doing another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I also recommend David’s piece on this.

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

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

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

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

    Read Pewsitter all the time and will continue.

  • > Patheos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How did we get here?

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

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

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

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

    Income taxes and welfare come to mind.

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

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

    Quote of the day.

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

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

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

Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

Sunday, June 22, AD 2014

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

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


Continue reading...

124 Responses to Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

  • Mr. Tom D;

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

  • Why is anyone paying any attention to Mark Shea?

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

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

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

  • Mr. Tom D

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Edwards:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

  • Mr Tom d:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

  • Mr. Tom d:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • I can think of some Christians in Iraq who would very much like to have their own 106mm recoilless rifles right now.

  • Mr Edwards:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Tom d:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Cometford

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

  • Mr Tom d:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Edwards

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

  • Mr Tom d:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Cometford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr. Winchester:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Shaw:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

  • Mr. Winchester:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Phillip,

    Don’t ruin it for the rest of us!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr c matt:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Paterson-Seymour:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • In Woodbury, Connecticut:

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

  • Mr. Winchester:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

  • Richard W Comerford,

    I misread you, with apologies.

  • Mr. Winchester:

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

  • Mr. Edwards:

    No apologies needed but warmly appreciated.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • bill bannon,

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ms. De Voe:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

  • Mr. Bannon:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr. Foxfier:

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

  • Ms. Foxfier:

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

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

  • Ms. Foxfier:

    I am sorry but I do not understand your question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • TomD- I think I found the source.

    If you select

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

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

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

  • It’s Mrs.

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

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

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

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

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

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

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

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

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Comerford

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr. Elyi
    Re: Assault Rifle

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

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

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Micha-
    You might get a kick out of this recap of the “assault rifle” political phrase:

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

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

    Like this pink trimmed 22lr:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Donald M McClarey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Here, too, shooting is a class marker;

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

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

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

  • Art Deco & Foxfier

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

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

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

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

    Sounds like an episode of Midsommer Murders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogging and Calumny

Saturday, June 14, AD 2014

blogging fists


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Blogging and Calumny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Vicars of Bray

Tuesday, December 17, AD 2013

I have been roaming around Saint Blogs since 2003 and have become familiar with the work of most of the major Catholic bloggers.  Since the election of Pope Francis I have noticed a curious phenomenon, especially among Catholic bloggers who make their livelihood by hocking books, speaking before parishes, etc:    A  swift reversal of long held positions, combined with a sudden desire to denounce “reactionaries” and a new found respect for liberal Catholics.   No doubt such conversions are heartfelt and not merely time serving, transparent attempts to stay in lockstep with the powers that be.  However, if any such sudden conversions are not heartfelt, I dedicate this poem to them:

“In good King Charles’s golden days,

 When Loyalty no harm meant;

 A Furious High-Church man I was,

 And so I gain’d Preferment.

 Unto my Flock I daily Preach’d,

 Kings are by God appointed,

 And Damn’d are those who dare resist,

 Or touch the Lord’s Anointed.


And this is law, I will maintain

 Unto my Dying Day, Sir.

 That whatsoever King may reign,

 I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!

When Royal James possest the crown,

 And popery grew in fashion;

 The Penal Law I shouted down,

 And read the Declaration:

 The Church of Rome I found would fit

 Full well my Constitution,

 And I had been a Jesuit,

 But for the Revolution.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Our Vicars of Bray

  • It’s interesting how politics and religion were always so closely tied together in England. One could become high church or broad depending on what was politically expedient. What a wonderful tradition we’ve inherited in America: freedom of religion enables us to own what we believe and believe what we own.

  • There is a a little village outside Oxford called Hinksey. The church is St Peter’s (and the pub is the Cross Keys)

    It has a list of its rectors on the board inside the church and one of them was the incumbent from 1529 (Four years before Henry VIII’s Act of Appeals that marked the breach with Rome) until 1563 (Four years after Elizabeth i’s accession) In other words, he retained his living under Henry’s Act of Supremacy and the anti-Protestant Act of Six Articles, the Articles and First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI, the Reconciliation with Rome under Mary and the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity under Elizabeth I

    That certainly rivals the Vicar of Bray.

  • Pingback: Jesus Was Born on December 25 -
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | iwannabeasaint