The Tenth Crusade
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Austin Ruse takes Mark Shea to the Shed
This is delicious.
We are born with attractions to sin. We don't assume the identity of those attractions.
There's no premarital sex Catholics.
No stealing Catholics.
No lying Catholics.
There are no ministries in the Church to coddle the attraction as a creation of God's.
I've never understood how the Shea crowd intellectually processed the creation of a human person for the purpose of sinning.
Doesn't he ask himself why Catholics attracted to other sexual sins don't assume that identity?
Doesn't he wonder where the welcoming ministries are for Catholics attracted to porn?
Does he think that when God is finished with our nose, He gives each of us sinful sexual attractions?
Let's see. I'll give this one the overwhelming desire to have fellatio with everyone she sees. She will be a fellatio Catholic. Next!
Every single person who enters a Church deals with attractions to all kinds of sin. Every single day.
Most of those attractions are not sexual. God did not give those attractions to us. We did that on our own.
When we come to Church, we are debriding our souls of that identity through the Sacrament of Confession. We're filling our soul with the Divine Properties of Christ in the Eucharist to keep us from being attracted to sins again.
That's why the rest of us attracted to sin don't assume that identity.
We don't sit in the pews with our lovers and tell everyone around us about our sexual attractions, looking for affirmation of what we are doing.
When we want to sin, we surround ourselves with people who will give us affirmation. We know what 'friends' to go to, what priests will egg us on. We know what blogs to read.
Shea is doing a disservice to people with SSA. This is such a no brainer one is left to conclude that the truth just isn't in him. The fact that EWTN is using him as a cash cow is scandalous.
It's good to see Crisis vibrant again!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I remember reading a book written about St Gertrude the Great.....Our Lord told her "You are inclined to evil unless prevented by My Grace", that very fact has now been obliterated in the Apostate Vatican II church. This new year is going to be a time for those of us who believe, to continue to pray fervently our rosaries for the conversion of those who are in positions of authority in the church...as well as the clergy who are parotting the garble coming out of Rome. Our Lady of Fatima , Ora Pro Nobis !
The Church does have, as it always has had, ministry to those who fall short of God's glory .. in various ways, to us all.
Specific falls sometimes require more than general assistance - that just plain old fashioned moral reason at work.
After all, when a habit of sin becomes a habitual manner of life a different form of pastoral care because necessary; visiting the prisoner, admonishing the wayward, calling back the wrongdoer,all require handling in particular (as well as universal) ways.
This understanding is not Mark Shea's, or mine, let alone of Pope Francis, it is straight forward Liguori (who was, and is, berated for his nuances in pastoral reality). Its also fair basic Thomistic psychology, i.e. understanding of the soul. Indeed it is the Faith, for while alcoholic and thief, murderer and adulterer all sin, the wrong done is not the same, not the means of 'helping' rather than merely chiding them back to spiritual health.
No what many want to hear, I agree, but then:
Ho! Hum! And a Fiddle-de-dee!
God Bless Our Pope! Lord, help us all!
St Michael Defend us in the day of battle!
Papa Pacelli - Beato Subito / Santo Subito!
It's true that the Church can provide ministry with addictions to sin.
When an individual tells people they don't have to make judgments on attractions to sex, you're telling them to go ahead and do it. If you deprive them of the information and tools to make judgments or tell them Church teaching is the enemy of the Gospel and must be circumvented with 'pastoral' policies, that individual has no intention of leading the soul to the Sacrament of Confession.
Christ isn't complicated. There was no rope a dope. He startled people with the things he said. Most times, without making pleasant chitterchatter. He just dropped the shoe and moved on.
The idea that the Church needs to disintegrate Church teaching by bearing false witness in the public square and in the pews to lead them to the Sacrament of Confession on the subject matter is pathetic.
Elton John didn't proclaim Pope Francis his hero because he helped him understand Church teaching. Pope Francis is his hero because he gave him a license to get married. And he proceeded to do so.
The world is in love with Pope Francis because he's told them they can sleep around, he's going to change the practice of those teachings by making a mockery out of them through witness.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
And you definitely can't kid the kidder.
What if there is shown to be genetic reasons for homosexuality? How do you think the Church will respond to this? Would this change how you view those who consider themselves "homosexual-Catholics?"
I'm not sure what it is you're asking.
Your supposition is impossible. God is the Creator of life. As the Creator of life He equips for salvation, He is not the Creator of what drives us toward sin.
That is the antithesis of God so the Church would never accept such a principle.
If the two different kinds of bodies on the planet are not a clue, if the reality that a man and woman is necessary to reproduce the species is not a clue, if chromosomes and DNA is not a clue, nothing the Church is going to tell you would convince you that you are not any different than the rest of us who have desires to misuse God's gift of human sexuality with our wild libidos.
Why should you have all the fun!
Reading Austin's original column, I concluded quickly that I would have written it with a somewhat different approach - less snark, for one thing - even while sharing most of Austin's basic concerns about the New Homophiles. (I thought the follow-up column was more balanced.) Even allowing for that, however, I wondered what about it justified a Defcon 1 assault - until, of course, I reflect on the mindset of the one making the assault.
I set aside Maggie Gallagher here, because she walked back her starchier comments and offered an apology, even while affirming that she regretted some of Austin's language. Mark Shea, on the other hand, is another story.
Mark Shea the human being is a warm and generous soul, one who will give you the shirt off his back. Mark Shea the catechist has a gift for making the teachings of the Church understandable to newcomers. Mark Shea the Blogger, on the other hand, is regrettably a man deeply captive of his passions and prejudices, positively eager to read anyone outside his camp out of the Catholic mainstream (as he perceives it). Perched in front of a keyboard, he knows no restraint, only volatility. And this extends to questions of gay rights as well: It's very, very difficult to take lessons in charitable discourse from a man who has employed the expression "gay brownshorts" more times than I can count. I could chalk it up to a desire to drive up page views, but it seems to go much deeper than that.
A fair number of people realize this now about Mark, and will filter his comments accordingly. Unfortunately, he has enough of a soapbox to ratchet up the temperature on this discussion rather than lower it.
I've just now read Austin's original piece. There wasn't a lot to disagree with, including the creepy pic with the dirty sox and bare feet on WaPo, but I see what you're saying.
Shea, Scalia and in fact the whole chorus at Patheos don't have enough of a handle on theology to handle a lot of the subject matter they do. Add the emotional rollercoasters they all seem to be on, for many of us it's like watching a fatal car accident over and over again.
Too many people in Christendom find mobidity entertaining. Apostolates are using that vulgar reality to make money off of them.
It wouldn't be so offensive if they could at least get the theology right When they derail, they're taking uncatechized people with them.
Seems to me the issue is that Pope Francis has legitimized the gay subculture thereby becoming a media hero. Under him sinning is somehow praiseworthy as it were while Catholics who take their faith seriously are castigated.
I think we were told these things would happen in the latter days.
Mike Dowd
The supposition is not impossible. The Church has accepted scientific findings even if acceptance has taken time. God would not create with a disposition to sin? Okay, but I think science will show that genes are responsible for a lot of human dispositions. And I' m not sure what you mean by "you should have all the fun." Do you mean middle aged married microbiologists?
Dan, you are looking at this as a scientist. The reasons it will never happen are in the spiritual substance you casually dismiss.
God does not create species that cannot reproduce and more importantly does not create adulterers. We take what is reserved for use between a husband and wife and use our free will to act on lust.
God doesn't create wives that cheat on their husbands, prostitutes, pedophiles. Science will never find matter that could substantiate that He does.
As a scientist you should have enough evidence before you that bodies created for sex have parts that fit ibi each other for that purpose.
I fail to see how Mark, the 'warm' human being. Mark the catechist, and Mark, the blogger can be separated from each other. To me, the 'warm' Mark is a façade. A man who has engaged in years long vicious on-line and printed attacks on various individuals because they dared to disagree with him on the death penalty, so-called torture, homosexuality, doesn't strike me as 'warm'. Rather, he comes across as a psychopathic sadist bully. And I'm convinced that his reputation as a catechist is highly overrated. He has no formal training in theology, his college degree is in English literature. I imagine he has to crib from the works of others to write his catechism books, and I suspect he has to get a lot of help from other people as well, for if he's only trained in English lit, he would have a tough time understanding other catechism works without formal training and expert help. Nope, the real Mark Shea is the vicious, illiterate, tin-cup rattling bully we've come to know and despise.
PS to Dan,
My comment about you having all the fun was my attempt to use humor to include myself and in fact all of us in the same predicament.
There is a tendency to suggest concepts that make virtues out of sin for just our homosexual brothers and sisters. For if God creates adulterers, He creates murderers, pedophiles, rapists and so on. You don't seem to be suggesting science is looking for substance in microbes proving this is a creation if God's which the Church may come around to accepting.
You might want to ask yourself why. Perhaps somebody you love is struggling and you are looking for answers. I don't know what is causing the blindness but please accept my humor as a humble attempt to not make people feel demonized.
Mark Shea is a bully to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. He uses the high school bully tactics of public ridicule and ganging up far more frequently than a Christian blogger should. He does not represent the Catholic Faith and should not be given any credence.
Mark Shea's tactics should be well-known, but I'm finding that some are blind to them. The man has a habit of blatantly ignoring arguments, then creating false paraphrases of what someone actually said and flailing against that. Then, when the person against whom he's arguing (and he almost always argues the man and almost never the ideas of his opponents) gives a particularly cogent point, Mark deletes the comment and bans that individual from posting again. He blocks people by the dozen for doing nothing more than disagreeing. This is the "warm" man who is leading the new evangilization?
Mark is a warm human being?
I will never forget what the Pantheos crowd did when the Fr. Corapi news broke. That told me everything I ever needed to know about Mark and Company.
Mari
ok, I think we have established what TTC readers think about Marko.
I am not sure what you mean when you say,
"There's no premarital sex Catholics.
No stealing Catholics.
No lying Catholics."
Obviously such distinctions aren't "real," whereby we might distinguish a "stealing Catholic" from, say, and "Irish Catholic," but there is a sense in which the distinction is real. Some Catholics do have premarital sex. Some do steal. Some lie. To be sure, they're not living the faith in the act, nor might they be before or after. They are, however, baptized Catholics and could just as well return to the fullness of life that has awaited them from baptism.
But, that is, I think, not even the important point. Rather, I think there has been a confusion between potentiality on the one hand and actuality on the other; indeed, our language betrays the distinction nicely. "Stealing" and "lying" are present participles and thereby entail current action. But, so far as I can tell, the group Ruse takes issue with are explicit that their identity isn't bound up in the action of homosexual lifestyle or sex. Instead, they seems to suggest that they are gay insofar as they are attracted to people of the same sex, but refuse to act upon that attraction. If that is so, then they are no different, it seems, from the manifold Catholics who have struggled with lusts of various sorts, whether lying, stealing, or any other kind. Thus, suggesting that there aren't any "stealing Catholics" seems to miss the point the objects of Ruse's disapprobation mean to make at all.
Or, perhaps I've missed something. (It wouldn't be the first time!)
It seems either I haven't conveyed my point or you did miss it.
Catholics having premarital sex don't don't innocate themselves from accountability for the sin by saying who we are attracted to have sex with is a human species created by God.
If a heterosexual man is attracted to the wife of his friend, it doesn't then become who he is. That is why there is no pride parades in the city for them. There is no colorful flag for his attraction. There isn't a priest in the history of the Church who operates a ministry welcoming men attracted to other people's wives.
There are no sermons from a Pope implying the Church mustn't make judgements about the attraction and treat the man according to that judgment.
If a Pope finds out a man is sexually attracted to his friends wife and doesn't apply the judgment of the Church, he doesn't pastorally treat and cure the man of what we all know it is. It's lust gone awry.
Lust gone awry isn't a human condition, it is a spiritual matter dealt with privately in a Confessional. There is no cultural movement to make sleeping with your fruends wife an acceptable moral choice. There are no television shows that portray him a straight eye for the other guy's wife.
It wasn't listed in Fr Maddens sexual oppression list. No priest or Bishop ever had a Mass to attract men who are sleeping with the wife of a friend. That's the way we like it.
I understand the nobility of Eve's ministry. Helping other Catholics remain celibate is a worthy cause. But she has taken her sexual attraction as an identity. For the same reasons the rest of us do not take our sexual attractions as a human condition, her presentation has too many flaws.
Does that help?
Please let me know,, I want it to be clear.
"Mark Shea's tactics should be well-known, but I'm finding that some are blind to them. The man has a habit of blatantly ignoring arguments, then creating false paraphrases of what someone actually said and flailing against that. Then, when the person against whom he's arguing (and he almost always argues the man and almost never the ideas of his opponents) gives a particularly cogent point, Mark deletes the comment and bans that individual from posting again. He blocks people by the dozen for doing nothing more than disagreeing. This is the "warm" man who is leading the new evangilization?"
So true. I found that if you dare question him even on trivial matters he will profile you and then if you don't kiss up to him you'll end up blocked. He doesn't seem like a confident person at all. If you get close to proving him wrong, that's all she wrote, you're gone, cast out of his world as quickly as he let you in. I don't think that type of behavior will work out in the long run for him. It as if he now builds his own cult. He has become as bad as those he rails against. Too bad. I really liked him.
Post a Comment