The Tenth Crusade
A blog for rabbits.
The Tenth Crusade
If you're referring to Mark Shea then the answer is, "Why, yes - yes he is.
No comment. I've already said all that I have to say about this man.
Mark Shea may claim to be a Catholic, but his politics are liberal/leftist. Read his rants on the death penalty. they are absolutely leftist1
He fits in with all the other Catholic Answers' superstar converts. And they influence not a few young Catholics who think that they are all (including Shea) bastions of orthodoxy.We have a lot of work to do.
I am flabbergasted. Really, it is disconcerting. Keep the guy in your prayers during Advent.
Carol: What exactly are you flabbergasted by? That I think rich and poor should both be treated with justice? Or do you share the view of the blogger you link and think it shocking that I would allude to the Servant of God Dorothy Day, whom good men like Cardinal O'Connor thought should be canonized? You allude archly to "lying down with dogs". Do you mean "referring in passing to OWS"? Where do you stand on the question of eating with tax collectors and sinners? Does one get up with fleas if one does that too? I'm genuinely puzzled about what you find so amazing.Adrienne, Veronica: I have no idea who you are, nor why you loathe me so much, but if you'd like to drop me a line and tell me what I've done to offend you, I'd be happy to chat. scotju: Sorry to report that I already have both a bishop and a God. The former has not declared me excommunicate or even heretical. The latter has not mentioned anything to me about your competence to judge my soul. So your false witness is duly noted and round filed. Hope you get back to the good folks at American Catholic and apologize for your crude racist remarks that prompted them to boot you. That log in your eye must be killing you.Anonymous: People who gossip anonymously are not in a very good position to yak about themselves as Paladins of the True Faith. For myself, I think anybody who imagines I am a bastion of anything is a fool who needs to quite, once and for all, anointing Celebrity Folk Heroes. I'd bet the good people at CA would say the same of themselves.Mark Shea
Happy Advent Mark,Well, since you ask, you seem to have fallen into an urban legend. Most Catholics and in fact any other persons of good will all believe that the rich and poor should both be treated with justice. You seem to imply the unemployed criminals and thugs rioting, raping, beating, stealing, shooting at the white house in an attempted assassination of the President, urinating, defecating in the streets -etc- are somehow crusaders of equality and justice. OWS does not want equality for the rich and poor. They are out to rob the rich of money and rights. They are making boogeymen out of ambitious people who studied and worked for the money. That isn't equal justice for the rich and poor, it is budding communism. Your judgment when linking these animals in the streets ruining our country, to justice, is what is disconcerting to me. I thought your discretion and discernment was much better than this - and I am surprised.I'm afraid my comment about lying with the dogs is worse than you think - it's about the hodgepodge of dissent and poor judgment congregating at patheos.I don't see where scotju is judging your soul and I disagree that those of us who imply faithfulness should not expect readers to pin the characterization of orthodoxy upon us - and have the right to gripe when we fall beneath the standard of service we owe to Our Beloved.
Mr Shea, the piece to which Carol linked is mine. It seemed to me that you were ascribing to statements of Ms Day authority that is due to Church-defined dogma only. As I stated in my piece (and need not repeat here), the "afflicted" thing, as a purported mission of a Catholic, has no basis in theology. The unspoken assumption that her statements are dogma, simply because she is a candidate for sainthood, is fallacious. We are at liberty to disagree with Ms Day.
For the benefit of those who are wondering what Shea meant concerning my alledged 'racism', I had the chutzpah to criticize Martin Luther King Jr for being a scuzzy person who was not worthy of the statue that was erected in his honor in Washington DC. The American Catholic blog commentors were offended by my criticism of King's crookedness, immorality, and his stirring up violence by so-called peacefull demonstrations. For this I was accused of being a 'racist' by Donald McCleary and his knee-jerk compadres. Not once did I criticize King because he was black. All of my criticism were about his politics (socialism,communism) his lack of Christian faith, his gross sexual immorality, and his stirring up violence whereever he went. But the more I threw the facts at them, the more they accused me of the false charge of racism. Finally, McCleary banned me from TAC because I wouldn't budge from my position on King. Being banned from TAC is no great lose for me. People who can't think logically have nothing to offer me. McCleary and his parrots condemn OWS, yet the OWS crowd acts just the way the 'non-violent' civil rights demonstrators did back in the 50's and 60's. They are even motivated by the same ideology that King and his followers had. So why does Mc&Co. condemn OWS but defends MLK&Co? Aren't both 'noble causes'? I guess not!
Carol:The faults of OWS have not escaped me. However, you still don't seem to have made a coherent response to my questions, since nothing I wrote in the piece in question was even a defense of OWS. It was, rather, a defense of condemning the sins of the extremely powerful as much as we eagerly defend the condemnation of the poor.As to writing at Patheos, you seem to be laboring under the illusion that I'm even particularly aware of what other patheos bloggers are up to, if not the even greateer delusion that we are all in cahoots. I read Lizzie Scalia's thoughtful blog every few days and I check up on the Deacon's Bench every week or so. Beyond that, I have no idea what other patheos bloggers are up to, except for former Marine Frank Weathers who is, no doubt, a Communist and a coward in the eyes of chickenhawks like scotju. The strange illusion some people have that there is some cabal where patheos or Register bloggers (or, in the case of anonymous, Catholic Answers folk) get together and synchronize their thoughts is one of the odder features of conspiracy minded folk. So I have no idea what "fleas" you imagine I am picking up from patheos. Instead of reading between the lines of what I write, why not just read what I write? You will find that I haven't changed very much. I still am a Chestertonian who still generally sympathizes with the poor and the common person (without forgetting their capacity for sin), who still thinks the rich are shielded from the consequences of their sins by wealth, who still believes all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims is revealed by God, and who still doesn't think it shocking to say, as Chesterton did, that the rich cannot be trusted, as a general rule. So, you still haven't explained to me what you found so flabbergasting about what I wrote. I appears to me you basically think it flabbergasting that I don't issue a blanket denunciation of the OWSers, or that I don't think them nearly as big a menace as giant corporations who steal millions, or want to cannibalize millions of babies. I regard it as common sense to fear gigantic and unaccountable corporations and governments with guns, spy tech, and a presidential self-granted 007 against American citizens more than I fear a small handful of disorganized, unarmed people living in tents, and beating on drums. Given that many of the OWSers are open to Catholic teaching, I'm open to giving it to them. That you think I will get cooties from eating with tax collectors and sinners does have biblical precedent, but I nonetheless decline to respond with horror to them. Still less do I think that blogging over at patheos somehow taints me. Till you can give even a scintilla of evidence for your strange and baseless assertion, I will continue to do so.Mark Shea
restore:Rubbish. I nowhere say Day's remarks are "dogma". They are, however, perfectly orthodox common sense, as I discussed in answering "stillbelieve" in the comboxes on the blog entry. However, you want to slice it, the New Testament has some shockingly stern things to say to the rich, beginning with Jesus. You and Carol responding as though I am on the verge of insanity or apostasy for noting what the NT says is one of the more obvious demonstrations of my point.scotju:Right. Donald McClarey is just another bleeding heart librul like all them other pantywaists and commie sympathizers at TAC.
Oops. That was me above.Mark Shea
Mark, I think you made some cogent points in your post. I agree with some of them. But the conclusion the reader walks away with, and which you seem to be repeating here, is you think the OWS thugs are crusaders of Church teaching. You actually opine that this communist movement unraveling in front of our eyes to Marian theology and worthy of inclusion at our prayers of Thanksgiving. It is positively frightening. Poverty is rooted in dysfunction and addictions, immorality,mental illness. These same problems manifest themselves in the rich in different ways. Neither is worthy of nobility. As Catholics, our fiat is to serve both with equal respect and zeal, not join the ranks or make heroes out of Obamas Marxist goon squads. It is the beast positioning itself to devour Christianity and our country. Your post left me with the impression you have joined the ranks of the useful idiots as our country is being threatened with communism. I don't understand your confusion over Patheos. You seem to imply that whether you join the national catholic reporter, or you join the national catholic register, it is a conspiracy theory to make sound judgements about the general tenor of faithfulness of the group gathered. Or we somehow oppose evangelists working with the spiritually sick. Forgive me if I decline the invitation to join you in that delusion.
I have a great deal of respect for your writing, and hope and pray this is a blip on your radar screen. We all have them. God knows there are plenty in my archives. As hard as it is, I am grateful when a reader of good will points it out. We only want to serve. I know how much you love our Lord. I love your fire for him and for souls. It all comes from good, but we occasionally derail. The piece is a dog.Patheos is a mishmash of writers who are not sound. Not always a bad thing to accept the invitation too evangelize among them but you have to acknowledge what it is. You are out of place there. It is under the leadership of estrogen going haywire. Be on your guard. Move them. Do not let the tenor erode you.
But the conclusion the reader walks away with, and which you seem to be repeating here, is you think the OWS thugs are crusaders of Church teaching.If a reader does that, it is a spectacular feat of reading into the text something I never said or implied. Rather, I made the case that God's justice ought to be given to rich and poor impartially. I *do* know that OWS is a place where Church teaching can get (and has gotten) an interested hearing, but that's because it's news to OWSers, not because OWSers know or champion it. Church teaching supplies (as the various leftisms and kooky theories do not) a really satisfying answer to the question, "Now what?" after the general bleat of disgust at incestuous relations between Caesar and Mammon has been sounded. In short, I think it a worthy field for Catholics to evangelize, relying on the great social encyclicals of the past century (including Caritas in Veritate). Will all listen? Of course not. But since when was that a reason to not try?You actually opine that this communist movement unraveling in front of our eyes to Marian theology and worthy of inclusion at our prayers of Thanksgiving.No. I don't. Not in that piece. I do have some kind (and very qualified) things to say about it elsewhere (see my blog today, for instance). But that piece wasn't about OWS. It was about the fact that God judges justly, for which I give thanks.As Catholics, our fiat is to serve both with equal respect and zeal, not join the ranks or make heroes out of Obamas Marxist goon squads.There are no goon squads. Just a rather disorganized bunch of people in tents, with the normal assortment of crazies and criminals one expects among anarchists, idealists, and disgruntled freeloaders. Goon squads require organization, a trait sorely lacking in the relentlessly consensus-based, anti-hierarchical, unbearably PC, rigidly egalitarian OWS movement. Their crimes (and yes, I'm aware of them) tend to be the crimes of individualist anarchists, not of collectivist totalitarians. Obama and the Dems certainly hope to exploit this unfocused energy and turn it toward their gain, just as the GOP successfully exploited the unfocused Tea Parties. But the notion that these people (many of whom despise Obama as the corporate tool he is) are just about to don brownshirts and go goosestepping and cracking skulls for the Great Leader is not in touch with reality. That would require a modicum of organizational ability. These guys have no idea what they want, just what they don't want: incest between Caesar and Mammon. In that, they are remarkably like the Tea Partiers. So I don't especially fear them. Like the Founders, I fear a powerful and unaccountable state much more than I fear largely peaceful assemblies. Like Chesterton, I fear a powerful and unaccountable rich man much more than weak and disorganized poor ones. That seems to me to be common sense.As to Patheos, I thank you for your kind words about the stuff I write, but I would again point out that I have virtually no contact with most of Patheos' writers. That's due largely to my extreme busyness. We have no cyber meetings where we all coordinate our ideological campaign for the week. I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of estrogen done haywire. I get zero instructions, suggestions, advice or pressure from anybody at Patheos on what I can and cannot blog. If your unkind and unjustified remark refers to Lizzie Scalia, I can only say I have not got the slightest clue what it could refer to. But I can tell you that her "leadership" is almost entirely hands off as near as I can tell. There's no program and no conspiracy. Indeed, I think her charitable and sensible and not given to ideological agendas.Peace,Mark
gastoCarol and Mark,I have been debating about whether or not to comment here, but for what it's worth and just a thought...Is the ongoing back and forth here still about genuine differences in both of your Orthodox views (and I have no doubt that both of you are Orthodox), or has a bit of that vainglory that Carol spoke about a few posts ago seeping through?If I happened to be someone passing through here who was truly trying to learn about authentic Catholic teaching OR on of those Catholyc lites, I would leave more confused (if I was the former) or be given more fuel to criticize Orthodoxy (if the latter).Mark, Carol has aquiesced to some of your points, but you do not appear willing to accept her critique. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I hope that you at least consider what Carol and other commenters have said. I give you both credit for evangelizing as it is a awesome responsibility that takes courage to undertake (I could't do it!), and hope that you try to discern the point at which you views will be dismissed because it starts to look like something else.Prayers for you both!
Sorrt, that 'gasto' was my word verificatio - I don't know how that eded up in my post!
Mark Shea is your typical left wing snob. He will throw around the racist charge at any chance. He has mocked and smeared good pro-life pols like Michelle Bachmann (who rasied and adopted a bunch of kids), Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorem, Sarah Palin. He has accused W Bush and Cheney as war criminals. Then he'll post his stupid Steve Colbert nonsense. He fits in well with the Patheos crew. He always mentions that Frank weathers is a Marine and anybody who disagrees is a chicken hawk, like Frank is the only one who served our country. Not to mention the 'torture' nonsense he spouts on a daily basis. Just look at how he treated Fr. Corapi or Michael Voris.
Karen, Mark Shea is only nominally 'orthodox'. His writings on his blogs and his comments on other peoples blogs show he's a leftist. For solid proof of his leftist creds, go to http://seeking4justice.blogspot.com/ and put Mark Shea into the search engine. Read all the articles, but pay very close attention to the one posted on 11/17/11 called Strike Out. Shea oozes with sympathy for people who are obvisiously leftist and lawless. Oh, btw, he's against the death penalty too, another mark (pun intended!) of leftism.
Karen:Thanks for your irenic spirit. The post here and at and the link made various claims/suggestions that what I wrote was scary, that I was going insane, and that I had "fleas". I'm not clear on how I'm supposed to address these contentions in such a way as to say, "You've got a point." I can see "scary" if one misunderstands what I'm saying to mean "OWSers are champions of Catholic teaching". But since I've clarified that I meant no such thing, I'm kind of stumped about what to do next. I am grateful the Carol is willing to talk and says such nice things to me even when I have such a knack for saying things that rub her the wrong way. :)Jasper:God bless you.Mark
For serious (contemporary,lay) analysis of the social teaching of the Church look to someone like Thomas Storck.For ideology disguised as religiosity seek out a Doug Kmiec in waiting like Mark Shea.
Carol, did you delete my response to Mark or did it disappear by itself?If it disappeared by itself, just as well. I've had all I can take of contentious Catholics of any stripe - left, center, right and the extremes.
Michael:I like Thomas Storck. I'm not sure what ideology you think I have, nor why you think I'd sell my soul like Kmiec did. I will never vote for Obama, nor for any other pro-abort pol. If you can explain to me the ideology I have and, more important, how I'm saying anything much beyond "Listen to Holy Church" I'm all ears.scotju, veronica: God bless you.Mark
scotju,Thanks for your thoughts. I have to confess that, though far from being a leftist (I think), I am against the death penalty, but FOR life without parole in many types of criminals. I've spent a career in human services (odd for a conservative, I know), and believe that people can be redeemed. At any rate, I prefer to leave it to God to decide.Veronica, as is often the case, I'm with you on contentious types, of any kind really. As an aside, I hope that things are getting better for you - you are still in my prayers.I do not purport to know the answers here and actually, I tend to be more of a cynic than a pollyanna but...I've got to believe that we are all on the same side here. At least I hope so!
God bless you too, Mark!But I do think that it is high time we stopped fighting one another and focused on the real enemy.Let us pray for each other. Only the good Lord knows how much we need it!
Dear Karen, please keep up your good prayers for me. There have been improvements coming from unexpected sources the past week or so, but there is still much more needed.I am counting on your prayers, and God will reward you for your charity.God bless you!Veronica
just give Shea a day or 2, he'll be back to his old ways, smearing pro-life conservatives. Count on it.I spoke too late, here is the smear merchant once again attacking a pro-life conservative and weeping for Al-Quedahttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/11/sen-lindsey-graham-lying-liar.html
" I am grateful the Carol is willing to talk and says such nice things to me even when I have such a knack for saying things that rub her the wrong way. :)"LOL. Well, since you come to talk to me given my knack for saying things that rub you the wrong way, your gratitude is enthusiastically matched!I've read your piece now several times and I draw the same conclusions incorporated herein by reference. There is nothing about the group of OWS thugs that is "open to Church teaching". Your gratitude for marxists and communists is frightening. Your characterization of what they are doing as 'Marian' is crackpot.You say you didn't intend to convey the conclusions people are drawing from what you write. That happens to all of us from time to time. Knock yourself out trying to discredit their conclusions but when a pack of people have the same conclusions, they probably have a valid point. You say you don't know what to do? When I am concerned something I've written is misleading readers, I'll go back and reword it. Sometimes the readers here still aren't happy and I have to go back a third time. Give it a whirl. I don't know how to respond to your lack of knowledge about what other readers are writing at Patheos, including Elizabeth. I wouldn't want you to get baited into something scandalous. Would you like me to tee up a list of websites to decline?For starters:Huffington PostPoliticoVox NovaAmerica MagazineAnyone else want to help Mark out?:)
Help Mark out? Sure! Avoid The American Catholic!
Scotju,I was sorry to hear about the kerfuffle at TAC. Blogging isnt as easy as it looks, especially managing the comments section. What little I have read there, they seem like an orthodox group of men. Sounds like it got a little out of hand. Forgive us when that happens!
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "Mark, I've read Thomas Storck. I've admired Storck's work for years. Thomas Storck is an inspiration of mine. Mark, you are no Thomas Storck."
Carol, the reason why the kerkuffle at TAC happened is that American conservatives have moved leftward since the 1950's-1960's. Back in those days most conservatives were opposed to the tactics of Martin Luther King. The main reason why they were opposed to him and his tactics is because they had abundant proof that he was in the communist orbit. Yet today, many conservatives hail King as a fellow conservative, even though his leftist credentals are glaringly obvisious. Why? The answer is simple. Many conservatives moved leftward and many leftists moved rightward from the 1950's on. These new conservatives are called neo-conservatives, the traditional conservatives are called paleo-conservatives. Neoconservativism basically promotes the welfare state and liberalism at home and an aggresive, interventionist forneign policy abroard. The welfare state at home means support for any so-called civil rights legislation, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. For further information on neo-conservatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism is a good place to start.
I could never understand the fascination with Marin Luther King today by Catholics who should know better. If he had been white, he would have been but a dim memory by now.I'm with you Scotju - the center of today is the far left of sixty years ago. Scary.
Veronica, MLK is an idol to many of the silly liberals in the church hierarchy. I can't count the times since I became a Catholic that I heard his name and his commitment to social(ist)justice mentioned in the Sunday before MLK day. Heck, if you go to this website, one Catholic Church has even put him in a stained glass window along with some saints of the Church! http://dymphnaroad.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-history-day-trip.hmtl
A stained glass window??!!Yowza!I don't know..I have always cut MLK some slack. To me the rising in the 60s over bigotry in this country is different than the OWS whackadoos.
Carol, King's agitations and so-called fight against bigotry didn't advance the cause of the Blacks in this country. It set them back big time. The civil rights legislation that was passed in the 60's was a part of the welfare state that was being erected back then. Since then, the black communities in this country have disintagrated into hellholes of violence and sexual immorality. The welfare state mentality promoted by the legislation took the responsibility of keeping the community together away from the Black Man and gave it to the government. It should be no wonder why violence, illegitimacy, drug and alcohol abuse, and unemployment soared in the black communities since then. Sadly their was another approach to building the Black commnities that was effective, but dispained by the NAACP types. It was the Booker T Washington plan. He told his followers to practise basic hygiene, build strong families, get an education in book learning and a skilled trade, and stay away from political agitation for equal rights. he felt (and time has proven him right IMO) that to demand 'equality' before you have done any of these things was sheer foolishness. The Blacks who followed his plan succeeded in life. The ones who listened to the MLK and NAACP types ended up in the mess they're in now. if one wishes to do some reading on this, I'd recommend "SCAM" by James Lee Peterson. He tends to give MLK a pass, but he explains why the Booker T Washington approach works better for the Black Man than the NAACP way.
Pardon me, Mr Peterson's first name is Jesse, not James.
If there are any lingering illusions that the OWS crowd isn't being manipulated by progressives, be advised that "Occupy DC" is both promoting and participating in an "abortion rights teach-in" this coming Saturday. See http://occupydc.org/schedule/ You'll need to scroll down a bit.
mark shea has a particular gift for insulting others. If they are Republican politicians his mean spirited name calling soars. Yet he is so quick to take offense,as Is typical with arrogant bullies.
There is a silver lining to the cloud: the average American Catholic doesn't know who Mark Shea is.
Post a Comment