Friday, July 20, 2018

Running tackle for the sake of decency and common sense

One reason I end up posting on Mark Shea so often is that several readers are among that growing demographic known as 'Banned by Mark Shea.'  Mark will allow any instinct evil or mortal sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance to be advocated on his blog, as long as you join in his attacks against Christian conservatives and the GOP.

It's true.  I've seen late term abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, state mandated termination of children, gay sex, gender fluidity, radical feminism, anti-Catholic bigotry, hatred of Jesus, Hitler's Pope, and just about everything that a sane Christian - including Mark c.2005 - would consider grave evil and a threat to all that is good and sacred in the world.  These are sometimes debated by Mark but, as often as not, are allowed to be posted with impunity.  The only cost is that the individual come to trash Christian conservatives, Christian non-liberals, the GOP, Trump or anyone who dares challenge the dogmas of the political Left.

Mark's sites are also a repository for the last few decades' worth of Leftist propaganda and talking points.  This includes the idea that pro-life Christians are hypocrites who hate children and poor people and only use the unborn as, in Mark's words, 'human shields.'  That last part about human shields is actually a Mark distinctive.  To be honest, I don't remember most pro-abortion activists suggesting pro-lifers don't care about the unborn.  They might say it's about controlling women or such (ignoring women pro-lifers in the process), but they usually at least concede care for the unborn on the part of pro-lifer.  But not Mark.  To Mark, to the right of center is all wickedness and void of goodness.

If their actions suggest otherwise, it's no problem for Mark.  They may say they love Jesus, attend church and Mass, give to the poor, feed the hungry, donate to charity, and generally insist they care about all people.  But Mark knows their wicked hearts and souls for what they are, based on the fact that they dare challenge the gospel of liberalism.  That's a benefit of liberalism today:  The John Lennon principle.  It's not what you do in your life or how you act, it's that you speak the words of the Left.  That's how he knows that, whatever they do, they are truly evil at heart.  And he does this much to the glee of so many of his regular progressive followers.  Especially the non-Christian ones.  After all, it isn't every day that, as a non-believer, you can get Christians to admit that [those] Christians are a wretched and evil lot.

But those who dare challenge the dogmas of the political Left?  Those who still defend conservative views, or dare suggest that there could be problems among some to the left of center?  Such will get you banned by Mark faster than you can say Bob's your self-identifying aunt.  As a result, there are folks here on the blog and over at Facebook that will feed me the rage, the dumb, the calumny, the Leftist propaganda and talking points that make up the bulk of Mark's literary output today.  After all, they can't challenge Mark since he has banned them.  And they are often desperate to get the word out that this source of toxicity and leftist partisanship should be warned against, however meager my little contribution might be.  Especially since Mark continues to get accolades and high-fives from so many prominent Catholics, Catholic ministries and Catholic religious leaders.

So this one came across my table.  It's basic Mark 101, c 2018.  He vomits all the rhetoric and stereotypes about those who don't conform to liberalism.  There's nothing anyone who has read Mark would be surprised by.  It's just worth an explanation why, even though I avoid his blog like the plague, he is so often referenced.  My blog is merely one outlet for those who have been banned by Mark since Mark has little stomach left for debating those who challenge his devotion to the Democratic party and the talking points of the Political Left.  So there you go.

Fun note: It's already been brought up that a commentator on the post compares the tactics of the right, including Evangelicals, to the Communists of Lenin and Stalin era.  They've also been compared to fascists and Nazis on his blog.  In all cases those making the claims are, at best, not called out.  At worst, Mark condones the comments.  Anyone remember when Mark spent months mocking Glenn Beck for his famous Communist/Nazi dig?  Yep.  Mark in a nutshell.


  1. One thing I've noted about Shea -- and about liberal Catholics more generally -- is how inconsistent his attitudes towards other are. For example, when talking to homosexuals, women thinking of having abortions, people living in adulterous relationships, and suchlike individuals, we all have to handle them with kid gloves, because a single unkind word might drive them from the Church forever; but, when talking to corrupt, selfish, power-hungry Republicans (and I know Mark's views of anything right-of-centre are totally unhinged, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he's correct), we should just let rip and call them every name under the sun. Why the difference? Does Mark think that the souls of right-wingers are less worth saving? Or (and I suspect this is the real reason here), does he simply not think that adultery, abortion, and so on are very serious sins, and uses the "But we might drive people from the Church" line simply as an excuse to ignore them.

    1. I think it goes back to the old late 20th Century liberalism, when there were no criminals, only victims of oppressive, unjust societies. It's changed a bit since then. Today we're in sort of a bizarre bi-polar era, where some sins (like racism, sexual assault, molestation, rape) will get you no mercy, wrath, and eternal judgement and condemnation with no real outlet for forgiveness. Other sins, like those of sex, abortion, suicide, or just about anything advocated by progressives, must be the result of someone else's fault. So Mark takes the fact that some - perhaps many - women reference finances as a key factor for having abortion. Therefore they have to because they're poor. And why are they poor? Because of Capitalism, or at least not supporting the policies of the Left which, ostensibly, would make things right for the women. And since it's that clear, why would anyone ever oppose such a solution to help women; women who are not so much sinners as much as victims of an oppressive and unjust (and in the case of women, misogynistic) society? You condemn them for obviously being evil or stupid (or both - since why else would they oppose helping people?).

  2. I have noticed most of the well known Catholic apologists have quietly distanced themselves from Mark. Only the few lesser known apologists still associate with him like Simcha Fischer and Scott Alt who think by association with Mark that will make them more known. I don't know what his deal is but for someone to be filled with as much venom and rage as he is must have some mental issues is my guess.

    1. This is true. Mark banned me some time ago, so I can't see his FB page unless someone copies it to me, but I haven't seen Fr. Longenecker on it or his blog for some time. I'm sure there are others. Sadly, there are still those who cheer him on, by appearing with him on radio or interviews and the like.

      Mental issues or not, I don't know. In the end, he's just a bad minister. In my Protestant days, we wouldn't have let him teach Sunday school. He seems to want everything he values to be the same as Jesus. Likewise, if he doesn't value it or opposes it, it's the stuff of Satan. He also seems to want that which he associates with to be beyond reproach, and so doubles down on those who challenge his latest loyalties. All in all, not what you want teaching a Sunday school class, much less representing the Church to the wider public.

    2. I really hope to God that it is true, and that Catholic apologists will continue to distance themselves from him. I have heard that in the past, Mark has done things out of the public eye to actually damage people's careers, get people fired, etc.

      WRT Simcha Fischer, while i generally dislike her, she has pointed out some pretty profound things about Pope Francis recently that I appreciate since she generally belongs to what I call the Francis fanbase. Opposite this camp are the Francis detractors; and I try to avoid both groups to be honest. I realize that the fanbase probably thinks I'm a "Francis-hater" while I lost a friend for refusing to criticize him on my blog.


Let me know your thoughts