Thursday, August 25, 2016

Shea Just Proved His Theological Problems (One Last Shea post)

I know I'm encouraging others to leave Mark and Simcha by the side of the road and press the pedal to the medal in Christendom, but I think it's important to point this out.

The few handfuls of people in comboxes repeating the allegations that Mark and Simcha were innocent victims of Donald Trump supporters were practicing the terrible habit of encouraging others to jump off of the cliff.

When you encourage a person to continue their flaws on full speed ahead, eventually they self-destruct.

This isn't charity. You are doing that person a disservice.

Case in point: Mark posted an article in which he alleges that there are no scriptural prohibitions on vulgarity, the Church is only concerned with taking the Lord's name in vain, ergo please feel free to practice vulgarity because it's at best only a venial sin. He opines that people who do not say "fart' or 'sh*t' are puritans and thin-lipped little pharisees.

The man is clueless at how this practice leads the soul away from holiness, how it affects the company willing to subject themselves to it, how this leads to bad choices and more importantly, the lack of respect for the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament within our soul.

It's a bad case of mystical bankruptcy.

He actually uses a reckless moment of St. Thomas More to position the practice as saintly. And he doesn't even get the point of what St. Thomas More is saying, which in effect is, when one lieth with the doggies you will get up with fleas.

St Nicholas punched somebody in the nose.  This doesn't mean evangelists should promote pinching people in the nose.

Not every moment of every saints life bears an imprimatur.

This is Mark's theological downfall: He sees bad behavior, finds a way to defend its practice and the next thing you know he's writing a thesis on how saintly it is to light your farts on fire, shack up with your homosexual lover, talk like a putana in the public square or vote for a murderous tyrant - and promote these activities to readers as part of the Magisterium. When everybody else in Christendom has been doing the exact opposite for 2000 years.

Duly note: Shea's article is not new. He confesses its something he wrote 'some time ago'. Consequently, the article lays accountability for Simcha's behavior - and ultimate firing - squarely upon the stupid advice in Shea's article!

The moral of this story is, if you want your flaws and sins to be patronized as part of some kind of subvert magisterium, keep-a-reading his stuff.  Look how well it worked out for Simcha.

Ordered souls did not want their fellow Catholics strung along with perversions of Church teaching. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "Donald Trump".


Anonymous said...

Using vulgarity doesn't show class. It shows a lack of imagination. It bothers me that intelligent, educated adults will use childish synonyms for urine, excrement and relieving oneself, as if they think it's cool. Well, it's not cool. It's stupid.

I really don't care what St. Nicholas or Thomas More did centuries ago. Shea is merely defining deviancy down, as Robert Bennett would say.

Is this part of some sort of campaign to get Simcha and him back to the Register? If so, nobody should buy it -- not with sound currency, anyway.

I've always thought that when Mark fell, he would fall hard and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the smoldering ruins. It looks like I'm right. Good grief but this man will do anything to defend a position!

Michael Dowd said...

We can depend on Trump to get the job done. We need him to take down more of the theologically reckless. Maybe he can take a shot at Cupich next. And then---on to Rome. Go Donald go!!

Mark Docherty said...

Here I am agreeing with Shea... I guess there's a first time for everything.

"Early in my conversion, I swore off allthebadwords. I was oh so pious, and this was part of the piety, and this had to be the way. This went on for years, until a good priest explained to me my error. Actually he not so much explained it as he demolished it. He demolished it to the point of me realizing that honoring these non-curse words with the same or more ‘esteem’ as the real offenses was actually a sinful act in itself. Elevating man-made structures to the level of God. A violation of not the Second Commandment but the First."

TTC said...

Mark, you have been misled, which is often the case when we read clueless theological advisors or are attracted to priests who have spiritual problems themselves. Avoid such people.

Mark Docherty said...

TTC, mad respect for you. Can you please post your refutation?

Michael Dowd said...

To Mark:

Consider this verse from Ephesians:

4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
There you have it. The standard by which you judge the morality of your words – any words – is whether it edifies.

TTC said...

Mark, I learned from the best of the best so they deserve the credit. I am awed by my readers so this is a great place to learn!

I will post a little more detail later. Your challenge intrigues me!

Let me ask you a question?

I want to be sure I hit a bullseye in my response.

You mention that you were on a road of piety but others gave witness that this was a bad thing. Is that right?

Piety is holiness, so I'm trying to find out why they made you feel like holiness was not your calling?

My response is more comprehensive, but would love some feedback on this first.

Mark Docherty said...

TTC, I can't really lay it out any more clearly than I did on my blog post. The idea is that there are words which offend God and words that do not. Giving the same weight to man-made meaningless words as to words which we know factuly to be offensive to God is a sin against the First Commandment. What I had previously believed to be a pious practice was actually false piety.

Worse, polite society elevates the man-made 'naughty' words to be even more naughty than the real curse words. That's why in America you can blaspheme on TV all you want, just don't use the words society has falsely deemed the "real" curse words.

I also talk about (really the whole point of the post) that after prayer and deeds, words are the weapons we must use, and we must use them as best we can to win souls for Christ. It's truly all about the souls.

I also mention that what is true in English doesn't hold in translation. In French, for example, all the baddest words refer to Christ and His Church.

I'm open to correction!

Sal said...

Eph. 5:4
4 Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks.

So, not breaking the First Commandment, but still good advice from an apostle.

Mary MacArthur said...

I agree with Mark (Docherty, not Shea.) There's nothing intrinsically sinful about referring to bodily functions in Anglo-Saxon, but courtesy, respect and prudence dictate we not do so publicly, in polite company, or in the presence of children. Cussing is wrong not intrinsically, but because it's an act of discourtesy to those who hear you. Luther deserved no courtesy and had already brought the discourse down to that level, so I don't believe St. Thomas More did wrong in what he wrote about him. Mark Shea, however, acted against courtesy in using foul language publicly against those who were trying to defend Catholic teaching; and against prudence by using it in situations calling for professionalism.