Showing posts with label Mark Shea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Shea. Show all posts

Monday, November 13, 2017

A Message to Catholic Bloggers About Mark Shea

Edit: the people who are his apparent superiors are really the problem. He doesn't seem to be recognizably Catholic, despite his claims and appearances on EWTN, the network gone wrong. Here's Andy Nowicki, who asks the Catholic hierarchy, anyone, to intervene:

Monday, August 22, 2016

NCR Purge: Simcha Fisher is Fired from NCR and EWTN

Edit: after years of attacking faithful Catholics and clergy, their reign at the Neoconservative news organ, The National Catholic Register, Simcha Fisher and Mark Shea have finally been dealt with.  They've been what's wrong with EWTN for a long while.  We've certainly been calling for these people's ouster for a long time. Now, how about Steve Graydanus.  Has anyone forgot that they fired the Cankerous?

There's nothing more despicable than these kinds of people who feed off the American Church.

What took so long?

Was Carolyn McKinley's post what did her in, after she went on a profanity laden rant attacking clergy and faithful Catholics who found fault with her effeminate man friend?

Also covered here...

Finally, remember when the fabulous John Paul Shimek attacked faithful Catholics in a blog which was quickly removed by the editorial staff of NCR?  Things are definitely moving for the better, especially if the comments section were any indication. They were chalk full of intelligent comments from faithful Catholics objecting to his awful blog.

Perhaps things ARE turning for the better at the network gone wrong?


Friday, August 19, 2016

Mark Shea Fired From NCR

Edit: in an official statement today at the National Catholic Register, professional Catholic, Mark Shea has been let go from his position because while his contributions to their paper met editorial expectations, his online presence elsewhere was not charitable. How about heretical?  It's still a good move and we applaud the Register for finally seeing the light after many long years.

Apparently, attacking John Zmirak, and slandering him was a bridge too far.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/mark-shea-would-lie-to-attack-pro-lifers-but-not-to-save-anne-frank-or-babi

Good job, Remnant, for giving him a platform to spew.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Ferrara vs. Shea Debate-- Mark Shea Must be a Feeneyite Now!

Edit: Argument of the Month is a monthly event where semi-edible food is served up for an increasingly formal debate format. It's cheap entertainment as it goes for 15 bucks, and a chance to meet new friends, or old enemies. The church hall basement at St. Augustine's parish in South Saint Paul was supposed to have provided room for 400 or more with a new "overflow room" provided to accommodate the interest brewing to see a Non-Denominational Apologist in the service of AmChurch, Mark Shea, and Remnant Regular, the ever articulate attorney Christopher Ferrara. The overflow room wasn't necessary to accommodate less than 300.

One of the weaknesses of AOTM is the hard to see line between good and evil. Oftentimes speakers who aren't even Catholic, as was the case for this  January meeting, will be invited to hold forth in defense of an erroneous position, or what appeared to be a Sedevacantist one on the part of Christopher Ferrara as noted by Novus Ordo Watch, recently.  And even if the position is discernibly erroneous, it might be so poorly or ambiguously formed that it's difficult to understand, and as simple as it was in this case, Chris Ferrara did some light footwork and included a wiggle word, "effectively" to cover the untenable position.  So despite having Shea admit  that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, it was really unclear just what church he was talking about, although for Ferrara never took him to task on this point, as Shea histrionically waved his hands about people listening to Relevant Radio and reading his books.

So, with all of the urgency and seriousness of an intramural  softball game, there's a vague suggestion of there being competition, but you can't tell who's in the winning side, much less the right side. Was it a victory for Catholic truth? We doubt that. There might've been some hard hits but there were no killer blows.  That's why we included this poll you can vote on it.

One way of seeing success is in looking for numbers, or possibly even the results of such initiatives. Sometimes large groups get together outside of their ecclesiastical venues to change events outside the bubble. This is apparent in France, where Catholic youth, though few in numbers, have given significant voice to their faith, disrupting Buddhist interfaith prayer ceremonies in Cathedrals or blocking events celebrating sexual perversion. These evenings may have brought some unfavorable comments from the effeminates in the chancery, but they seem to have done little else. Like the Remnant, a lot of whining, not much winning. Not to be too negative, for these events have been well-received with large numbers in attendance, sometimes close to 400 with a bowling alley, smokehouse atmosphere and some jocularity among the participants which keeps the men coming back for more, but after these hard working people go home, are they left with any palpable cause for their faith? Do they believe the faith? At least they know something is wrong, even if they don't know what to do about it.

For this year's Shea appearance, the video was  also recorded, and although the organizers at AOTM insisted that people don't want to be recorded saying controversial things, to let their hair down, the video has appeared.

Last year, the Voris vs. Shea debate was much better attended and the sides between the Neoconservative, aberrosexual friendly, AmChurch, Modernist position was more resolutely opposed by Michael Voris. Since then, Voris and the Remnant crowd have had a tiff, and Chris Ferrara couldn't be moved this year to admit that the Hut of Apologetics Mafia had been vanquished, while insisting that the winners were the men in attendance.  As usual, we're not really sure what the debate was about. Maybe we're just daft? Perhaps it was a victory for the Thrice Defined Dogma?Although several times, the dogma of Nulla Salus Extra Ecclesiam was raised, Shea offered no objection, qui tacet non consentire. Unfortunately, Shea's quiescent Feeneyism didn't stop him from invoking the charge of anti-Semitism, his trump ace in the hole whenever he attacks real Catholics. If anything, such fervent defense of the status quo with respect to the Jews is an especially significant uniting factor between Remnant and  Shea, so much so does Michael Warning suggest that now that Shea is no longer working for Patheos, he'll be working at the Remnant managing their comments section.  Let's not forget Michael Matt's betrayal of Bishop Williamson in 2009, when he published an especially cloying account of an interfaith prayer with a fellow traveller who just happened to be Jewish, on an airplane flight.  Never mind that, it's especially interesting to see on his part  the near approval for one of the most prolific, if not the most huge defenders of AmChurch in the apologetics world, their apparent unanimous agreement on No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church notwithstanding,  even though Shea probably believes that the Old Covenant is salvific and to say otherwise is anti-Semitic.



Anyway see for yourself at AOTM's site:

Monday, January 5, 2015

New Homophiles from Patheos Attack Austen Ruse: See Their Unholy Rage!

Edit: here's an essay by one of the more well-thought of Catholic writers in the blogosphere.  It's notable that he's been attacked by the usual suspects at Patheos.  The referenced essay which appeared in Crisis Magazine, offering well-aimed shots at a group of laicists all-too-outspoken  these days, the "new homophiles".
There is a group of Catholics who experience same-sex attraction. They accept the teachings of the Church on sexual morality. They do not act on their same-sex desires. They are chaste. They live lives of prayer, brotherhood and friendship, along with a sexual chastity that is proper to their station in life. 
You might think that I would loathe these people, hate them, despise them, and want to drive them from the Church. You might think that their desires alone are enough for me to want them to simply disappear from the Church and from society  
You might think this if you read Damon Linker on my recent column about the New Homophiles. You might think so if you read the comments of blogger Mark Shea, who said my column was “appalling” and much worse. You might think so if you read the comments by Maggie Gallagher who said my column was “vile.”
Some other prominent supporters of Neocatholic bloggers have even announced their disapproval on Facebook.


Their rage on behalf of the "love that dare not speak its name", may has also brought denunciations like the following.

Perhaps things are looking up?  We've often said that people in the Neocatholic blogosophere are some of our best allies if we only give them a chance to hang themselves.


Also, check out Heresy Hunter's jab at them.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Once Apologetics Was an Honorable Pursuit

This is what a Catholic
Apologist Looks Like
Edit: Once upon a time lay apologetics was somewhat respectable. There were men of the stature of Joseph de Maistre, the sincere convert Orestes Brownson in the 19th century, and in the 20th century there were some lesser lights, but there was much volume, if not actual brilliance. Then we have those who have attempted to fill, or have been nominated by someone to fill, their shoes.

So, after being treated graciously by Michael Voris.  (Voris even recommends Shea's books, which is something we'd never do)  Shea goes on in his slandering, lying, dishonorable habitude.  This man just can't help but lie:

(Mark Shea): "Bah. Voris attempted to complain that prayer, fasting, almgiving and the works of mercy were "too vague" (and here he got in the sneer "like Vatican II"). Precisely my difficulty here is that so much of what he does is not admonishing sinners. It is expressing rage and often (as last niight) accusing innocent people like Fr. Robert Barron of being sinners and ginning up a mob against them. Poison."


1. Voris never says prayer, fasting and almsgiving is too vague.  This is yet another lie from Shea.

Also, Voris doesn't sneer at Vatican II, he might disagree with many of the interpretations employed by evil Lefty academics, but agree or not, Voris accepts the documents of Vatican II as a valid act of the Church.

2. Notice how Shea doesn't really discuss Voris' very legitimate criticism of Father Barron. Our guess is that Shea is incapable of addressing the problem because he's not only an intellectual lightweight, but also unwilling to admit he's wrong, and so resorts to making personal attacks on Voris.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of low information Catholics who hang on Shea's word.  It doesn't matter if Shea is disrespectful to priests, as he often is, directing his rather voluminous quantities of digestive fluid on them or whether he's slandering various lay Catholics, many of whom aren't traditionalist by the way.

Here's basically what Voris said about Father Barron, who is everything that's wrong with Catholic education:



 If you want to go to the Apostle of Dollars and Cents website, here:

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/10/back-but-super-busy.html#disqus_thread






Friday, March 15, 2013

Mellow Out Subcaths, Free Speech is a Democratic Virtue

Update:  Mark Shea has apologized for slandering Michael Voris, who was simply reporting the news and not making any negative statements about the Holy Father at all.  Well!

Edit:  after reading a blog post recently urging a non-descript group of intransigents, integralists, seminarians, mothers of five at home and people of the remnant, to “calm down”,  I thought it would be interesting to address the subject of public browbeating typical of certain people who attempt to vilify that group known as “Traditionalists”,  loosely described as a group of individuals who embrace the rites and doctrines of the Catholic Church as they have been practiced throughout the ages.  First off, assuming that most of the people are firm advocates of the Second Vatican Council, we should perhaps step back from vilifying a group of people and consider the importance of free expression, religious freedom of speech and  assume that we're supposed to be adults capable of forming our own judgments, even if they are incorrect.  But hey, it's a lot easier to kick a dog we think won't bite!

Part of the problem with these rushes to judgment, even if we're criticizing people we think no one regards as human beings, is that the individuality of each one is forgotten.  This is important, for there are almost as many reactions to this papal election as there are different members of the alleged "trad" group being vilified.  The responses range from palpable anger, despair, grief, resignation, cautious optimism, joy, legitimate concern,  to outright enthusiasm for this Pope.  Of course, it also helps that bloggers are so vague in their accusations, this enables many others, even self-identified traditionalists who proceed to beat themselves up with recriminations, can join in with their own particular image of the fire breathing, unfriendly, mean spirited traditionalist that they've learned to despise.

Ultimately, this kind of attempt at public shaming has the intention, whether expressed or not, of silencing legitimate criticism.  You're kicking the barking dog, or even giving him sleeping pills so a thief can get in and out undetected with the goods.

This sort of thing brings to mind a certain kind of cliquey blogger, but one blogger in particular, some blogs are more passive in their appraisal of traditionalists, but there are other blogs who shrug off not only any pretense of restraint, factuality or a love for persons, but they go right for good old fashioned slander, like Mark Shea does.

But in addressing this issue of individuals and groups, let's not assume that the people offended don't have a legitimate point to make.  Let's not blame the victim of bad behavior for calling out as so many have before only to suffer this:
And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?


Indeed, rather than blaming those who are suffering and recognize the familiar signs of the things which have scandalized them, why not blame the agents of such crimes?   Is there really anything wrong with having a "questioning faith" if your name isn't Hans Kung, Roger Cardinal Mahony or Sister Joan Chittister?

Just to point it out, most people in the world are deliriously happy about the new pontiff, but in some areas it seems that he has profoundly distressed a section of Catholic Church who has made extensive use of the Pope's opening up of the Mass of All Ages to the entire world with his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum in 2007 in Argentina.  There have been numerous responses to Rorate Caeli's expose on the situation in Buenos Aires, most of them are as hysterical and uncharitable as the post accusing intransigents of doing.

In fact, according to Rorate Coeli's journalist, the Holy Father did not implement the legislation in his See and even went to extents to suppress it by refusing to allow his priests to say it.  This goes against what else we've heard from Giuseppi Nardi at Katholisches, that the Institute of the Good Shepherd has a Mass location in his See, but we have been unable to confirm that at present.

But then there are other "trads" like Father Gruner, who believe that we are on the eve of a Fatima Papacy.  Father Gruner has been in contact with the Holy Father in the past and is beside himself.

Of course, focusing on the alleged problem of people with legitimate or perhaps, ill-formed and misplaced grievances in good will, we should be considering where the true problems lie instead:

Friday, September 7, 2012

When I think of Catholics, That's When I Get My Gun

More Anarchist than Son of the Church
Edit: picked this beautiful and very descriptive photo of Mark Shea, up from Est Quod Est, and while Father Peter West has called off the blogwar, we feel no need to do so, especially as we fully expect not to be disappointed that Mr. Shea will continue doing what he's done in the past, at some point, if not presently.

He just can't help himself.

We also fully expect a full-out attack from Patheos bloggers demanding the resignation of the conservative bishop Finn, coming to a theater near you.  [NOTE: I would not include Australia Incognita among them, but strongly disagree with their take on the abuse "crisis", which is a media generated blitz on the Catholic Church resembling other such campaigns.]

I think you can count on patheos bloggers to do three things when it comes to sex abuse:

1. They confirm that it is a "Catholic" problem.

2. They confirm the hysteria surrounding it by overreacting to certain priests and laity who've committed these crimes.

3. Typically ignore the magnitude of the problem when the abuse happens, as it most often does, outside of prescribed targets.  (While the Nazi government focused on the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, it was unwilling to address its own problems with it.)

Top Tips for the Faithful!

Indeed, the uncritical comments regarding Bishop Finn in this blog who won't challenge the presentation of the "facts" is breathtaking. Considering that prelates far more deserving of this kind of treatment escape without even a critical appraisal from the various media organs indicates that there is a real problem with people, as if they can't think between compartments, individuals and situations, or maintain the same principles all the time as if they were mentally diseased.

One commenting in the above mentioned blog post suggests, quite accurately, that Opus Dei won't take this sitting down.  They have hoards of attorneys at their disposal.  I hope they rake anyone attempting to instrumentalize this event in the service of propagandists alien to the Catholic Church over the coals.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

El Paso Diocese Attacks Priest With Catholic Message

All Are Not Welcome

Edit: Some may remember a few gallant priests who have  preached  in a very uncompromising way the truths of the Catholic Faith a little while back, in addition to Father Marcel Guarizo, who was not only reprimanded publicly but attacked by Quasi-Canon Peters and fired from his job.  Defending the Catholic Faith can be a perilous business in places like Portland, Maine, Washington D.C. and El Paso, Texas, just to name a few.  You're not even safe on the internet.

Along with approved bloggers like Mark Shea, there are several Bishops in the United States, who are sending a message that seeks to relativize the long-standing condemnation of sexual activity outside of marriage for the sake of false charity. These 'defenders' of niceness waste no time viciously attacking, or just walking away from, Catholic priests who defend Catholic teachings, however.

Mark Shea looks like he's taking a very familiar trajectory, like Gerald Augustinus of "The Cafe is Closed" who underwent a dramatic (or contrived?) shift from defender of orthodoxy, to cafeteria Catholic in about two short years. You'd think men like Mark Shea would treasure courageous priests, but they don't, they just shill for the Archdiocese. Why are these people attacking those who defend Church teaching?

It is just possible that a Diocese would love to have a fervent, zealous priest at the helm of a big parish, nope, not if he's preaching sexual chastity.  Fr. Micheal Rodriguez is doing just that.  He's actually too inoffensive and makes too many concessions to political correctness in our opinion, but that doesn't matter.  Not to the Diocese.

Not surprisingly, the Diocese insists that Father's message isn't the Catholic Church's message, but they don't specify how that is.

It's stories like this that reinforce the impression there is a group within the Church that will no suffer to hear the Catholic truth of the ages, as Lifesite reports:


“Without question, God loves all of His children, regardless of sexual ‘orientation,’” he continued. “We Catholics must show charity, respect, and understanding towards our homosexual brothers and sisters. Above all, we are to show love and compassion towards homosexuals by leading them to the truth, and helping them to reject sinful homosexual activity.”

In the final essay, Rodriguez faults modern culture in harsh terms for framing the breakdown of the family as an advancement for society, and criticizes El Paso officials for “acting immorally” by promoting gay domestic partnerships.

“Here in El Paso, certain City Council members have remained obstinate in promoting public recognition and legitimization of homosexual unions,” he wrote. “Whether they realize it or not, their actions are objectively immoral and gravely harmful to marriage and the family. It should be obvious to all Catholics what our duty is with respect to these members of City Council.”

Meanwhile, in Liberal Maine, the usual kinds of people are out advocating "change", more of the bad kind, as they attempt to redefine marriage outside of the Church's teachings. As you can see in the photo, most of them are elderly baby boomers out to cause trouble. In their self-adulation, it probably never dawned on them that their personal views are at variance with the Church's actual teachings and that if they were right, there would be no point in being Catholic.
Baby Boomers




Meanwhile, is there any response from the Bishop of Maine?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

A Note in Response to Mudslingers on Father Corapi's Military Service

Muckraker


Edit  GMT 0.105 June 22, A lot of interest in Father Corapi's military records, again since Mark Shea, a non-soldier if I've ever seen one, has decided to continue his dark Crusade.   First, bear in mind that military records are notoriously inaccurate and that a lot can happen, especially given the irregular nature of Special Forces units in general.  Father Corapi may have also served on a B-Team [which doesn't require the intensive training of A-Team members] and trained at an SF Training unit which was actually at Fort Knox during the time he was assigned there as an Infantryman.  It may be possible to belong to a B-Team without having jump wings and it's also understood that you can move up to advanced  parachute training, and the like, later on.


I'll also point out that I'm confident that most of the people commenting are rear-echelon, non-serving, failed mainstream journalist types who have no special knowledge of the Special Forces or the historical time period being discussed, the height of the Vietnam War just before Tet, when the demand for men and material was high.

Linked from here on the blog, the Post initially made with some comments, here

Ht to the Pewsitter who infrequently links to us, here

Just a personal anecdote, a dear departed friend of mine was in a Special Forces unit "deployed" to Cambodia.  He didn't talk much about his experiences there, save only to offer vague anecdotes related to our wargaming.  He was a Medic by training, but there was no indication on his DD form that he was anything but a Paratrooper.  His DD form described a 003 designation and that  was It, no unit of assignment or even Fort Bragg, whether he was a B-Team guy or not I don't know, but he got to clear the scum off the water of a river to get some water out when he drank it, and talked about their unit's pet rat.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...