Thursday, June 3, 2021

So that's that

I was emailed this blog post, in which Mark Shea throws down the gauntlet.  It's time to destroy the GOP and set up the Democratic party as the sole political party of the United States.  That's some moxie, to admit you desire the eradication of your political adversaries setting up your own party to rule unhindered.  Of course the GOP is people, and we saw last century how that line of 'I'm only against the politics, not the people' thinking usually ends up.

For a bonus, I did something I almost never do anymore and actually delved into the the combox section.  It reminded me of that episode in Lavern and Shirley when the girls have to go into Lenny and Squiggy's bathroom.  They run in and run out screaming.  But it absolutely showed why this sort of fanaticism can't be reasoned with, and is the sort of thinking that those who would destroy liberty and life must have in their corner to accomplish the end of the Christian West.  

For instance, here is a response to a reader agreeing with Mark, but concerned that the evils of the Democratic party don't justify such support for them, even against something as bad as the GOP:

What enthusiasm? Seeing the obvious necessity of supporting the Dems is not enthusiasm. It is realism. And I deeply resent the comparison to Saruman. Here’s reality. One of the biggest lies conservatives tell is the Both Side Moral Equivalence Lie, which they use to try to posture about their moral aloofness from the catastrophe they helped create in their slowness to oppose the monstrous freak show of the GOP. When you compare people who had the guts to *act* while you stood back and lied to yourself that the Dems were no better than the GOP freak show, all you do is insult people who helped to stop the gravest domestic threat since the Civil War, and one responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in a single year. When you slander those people as being willing to do evil that good may come of it, you are simply bearing false witness against your neighbors. It’s ugly and you should repent it and apologize. One need not support evil to see that voting Dem is clearly the sane way to lessen evil. Your moral aloofness has one concrete effect: it helps the evil and it bears false witness against those who, often at great personal cost, have fought that evil.

Whew.  In other words, how dare you even challenge the purity of my motives, and the clear and obvious truth of my political positions - repent and apologize.  

Yep.  That is someone beyond all reasoning.  That he is a paid Catholic apologist who is able to be keynote speaker for Catholic ministries and a published author continuing to be referenced by Catholic leaders and clergy and publications goes a long way toward explaining the unchecked gushing of people making 'former Catholic' the fastest growing religious group in the world.  People want God, and a world unlike the crazy mess we're in, not just another version of the crazy mess world that has a crucifix dangling from the walls. 

For a bonus, I noticed he had a follow up post here, in which he tells people not to bother reaching out to even the elderly who may have fallen under Trump's spell.  Let God save them if He will.  To which already a few commenters have rejoiced at the thought of urinating on yet another demographic: elderly conservatives who refuse to see the light.

Remember folks, this:

Comes from somewhere.  It doesn't just happen overnight.  When you've reached the point of saying my politics is on the side of God, and the opposition party is evil beyond redemption and must be destroyed, it's not hard to believe there is no limit to where you will go.  This is especially true when you have the bulk of the power players of a given society at your back, egging you on. 

So with that, I return to my self-ban on Mark's social media sites and pray for the future, since just who will be doing what in the upcoming months is becoming clearer and clearer with each passing day.   

UPDATE:  I was informed that Mark made a little dig when someone informed him of my post being picked up by The American Catholic.  His quip: I can't get over him.  Here's the thing.  In my Protestant ministry days, we often told people about the goings on of Fred Phelps.  That's not because we couldn't get over Phelps.  It's because we felt it our obligation to help people see the difference between someone preaching the Gospel and someone using the Gospel as a club to bludgeon people with and advance personal agendas.  

27 comments:

  1. The revolution will always need more enemies.

    I'm sure of course Mark establishing a precedent of shutting down any challenges or questions will NEVER come back to bite him, no sir. /sarc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like Mark is safe, if for no other reason than he's good for comic relief

      Delete
    2. Because communists are well known for their love of humor. ;) Touche nonetheless.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, beyond reasoning. BTW, is it only me - and I could be completely wrong on this - but does that Jeff Palmer appear more to be a supporter of Mark who is trying to make opponents of Mark look bad? He writes more like I see those on the Left lampoon Trump supporters than most Trump supporters I know. Again, could be wrong and he could be just that sort of living stereotype. But I find it odd that Mark hasn't banned him (though perhaps Mark doesn't ban like than anymore - again, I never go there so I couldn't tell you).

      Delete
    4. With regards to Jeff Palmer, who even knows? he's not the only strange one in the group. That whole conversation reminded me of social media pages I've seen where people genuinely believe yheir neighbors are keeping them awake at night with MICROWAVE WEAPONS and bike racks on cars are part of a human trafficking conspiracy. In other words, it was very strange. Who is even promoting Mark? What Church does he even attend? I remember reading his blog four years ago and I'm amazed by just how much more insane he's gotten in just that short amount of time.

      Delete
    5. He was recently a key note speaker at some parish conference out west. He still gets cited by the likes of Steven Greydanus, a deacon and well known Catholic film critics (though in fairness, I don't remember when last he referenced Mark, it's been a while, but then I don't follow the good deacon much anymore either). He's a published author, and his latest book received much press across Catholic publishing circles, and Catholic ministry websites. I know Bishop Barron's site gave a shout out. In short, he's treated as anyone speaking for the Church would be treated - except those cleaving too close to the political right that is. And that's a huge problem IMO.

      Delete
    6. "What Church does he even attend?"

      He used to attend Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. I know it from when I lived there. Don't know where he goes now. Blessed Sacrament had some very good Dominicans and some very strange ones. Wonder if the strange ones won in his mind.

      Delete
  2. He "Deeply Resents," the comparison to Sauruman? Why the heck is he bringing his personal feelings into this? He should be asking "is the comparison acurete, or not?" Not asking "how does this comparison make me feel?" People in both parts who do that are a big reason I don't talk politics with my family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the early signs that Mark would have problems if not corrected was his tendency of blasting people as sinful bastards because they called someone a sinful bastard. His 'of course it's wrong when *you* do it' ethic couldn't go anywhere but where it went. And I blame those who could have said something but didn't.

      Delete
    2. That Jeff Palmer guy raised one Valid Question, is Mark even in his right mind? 4 years ago I would've said he was a well-meaning but pretentious intellectual who hadn't quite recovered from the stress of a heated election season. Now his posts, and especially his statements in the comment section, remind me somewhat of social media pages where paranoid schizophrenics meet to discuss their neighbors using microwave weapons and FBI agents putting chips under people's skin. He's not quite there, but he seems to be headed in that direction

      Delete
  3. There is some hope out there.

    Back at the beginning of the year, I clocked Mark at 100 patrons for $1,603 a month.

    Today he's at 89 patrons for $1,425 a month.

    So some are realizing what they support.

    His twitter followers are also going down.
    https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/chezami

    (Can't find his facebook on socialblade so no way of measuring that currently)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That says something. I only see copies of his tweets, not the whole thing - since I don't have twitter. Likewise he banned me from his FB pages ages ago. I can access his 'blog' one, but not the other one he apparently has. I don't wish ill on people as a general rule, but I'd like to think as many would leave Mark when they realize what he's become as those Protestants who had never heard of Fred Phelps did once they discovered what Phelps was all about.

      Delete
  4. Meh. I stopped listening to Shea years (10+) when we disagreed on a point and he call me a KKK (Krazy Katholic Kook).
    He disagrees w someone/something and he obliterates it. He hasn’t changed any IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it were only Mark, but I'll follow up with why I chose to break my ban on not linking to his blog in a few.

      Delete
    2. Crazy Katholic Kook? That's not even creative. What is up with that guy? If you're going to be a jerk, at least be entertaining about it

      Delete
    3. My take on the KKK was a double insult considering he knew I was from South. Maybe he was really ahead in the CRitical Race Theory. But yeah, when names and insults start flying, there is no rational discussion. He hasn’t changed I see.

      Delete
    4. My take on the KKK was a double insult considering he knew I was from South. Maybe he was really ahead in the CRitical Race Theory. But yeah, when names and insults start flying, there is no rational discussion. He hasn’t changed I see.

      Delete
  5. Meh. I stopped listening to Shea years (10+) when we disagreed on a point and he call me a KKK (Krazy Katholic Kook).
    He disagrees w someone/something and he obliterates it. He hasn’t changed any IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When I read Mark's latest screed, I think if a song from a movie I like a lot. "Springtime For Hitler!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only Mark would allow reasoned discussions with him, he could avoid this. Instead he responds with personal attacks and false accusations, and worse, is encouraged to do so by his followers. I've long said it was his followers and enablers who are the true villains in the story.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Dave, I don't buy that about his followers, though you're right about his enablers (Barron, Greydanus etc>). Shea's a big boy, at least chronologically, if not emotionally or psychologically. If he needs demented followers to egg him on, then he's in worse shape than anybody realizes.

      Delete
  7. When personal attacks from one side occur it usually means they have no arguments left in their quiver, so insulting the opposition is the only recourse. It's obvious (to me anyway) that there is something seriously wrong with Mark for him to have turned the way he has in recent years. It was too fast a change. I'll keep praying for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read many try to figure out what went wrong with Mark. I wish I knew. I try not to psychoanalyze since I'm not his therapist. I do remember one thing though, and it always buzzes around in my head when Mark comes up. Back when he was on his way to the Left, a growing number of his old readers were calling him out on what was obvious. For the longest time, he denied any such move at all, insisting he was just a conservative at heart. But then, I can't remember when, he began to distance himself. One thing he said once, and I think it was the only time I remember him saying it, he said in response to someone that once upon a time he foolishly thought American conservatism and Christianity were the same. I thought on that then. That was foolish to think. But perhaps, it's just that type of person who has to believe wherever he is and whatever he does, that's where God is manifest. If I like baseball, then by golly so does God. And if I hate rugby, then rugby is of the devil. I ran into folks like that in my Protestant days. I think Lewis wrote on something similar. It might just be that. Only this time, a movement based at its foundations on the idea that the Gospel is wrong, Christ was not, and all the blasphemies, evils, and heresies he once condemned are almost sanctified is the side he's now trying to square with the Gospel. I could be wrong, but it's a guess I have.

      Delete
    2. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (NKJV)

      It concerns me how little these are manifest in Mark. At the very least, anyone who wants to represent himself as a Catholic apologist should strive all the harder to better possess and manifest these fruit, not just for the good of his own soul, but because without them it is impossible to lead others to Christ, which must be the goal.

      Delete
    3. Mark isn't alone. I've posted on other Catholics who seem to have set some of that Spiritual fruitfulness aside as they've swung to the Left. Of course there can be plenty not on the Left who can miss those qualities. But the consistency I've noticed among various Catholics who used to say what you say, but then abandon it the more leftwing they become, is something I've paid attention to.

      Delete
  8. Dave, somebody on "The American Catholic" blog said that he went off the rails when he lost the torture argument. He has a point. Shea got worse when the National Catholic Register fired him. Frankly, the man takes no responsibility for his own behavior. He never has. If he ever did, he would be a different person. He would repent seriously instead of issue these false apologies. But he's a spoiled toddler throwing food around when he doesn't get his way trapped in a 60-year old's body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not trying to take responsibility away. And it's his own fault for going over to a place like Patheos, which is where he really began to fall. To be honest, among the earliest times I noticed him beginning to waver was after I saw him post about this Catholic mom named Simcha Fisher. I don't know how long he knew he before, but I didn't noticed a definite difference shortly after I first saw him blog about her. Ant hat trend continued. More and more he would say 'here is this awesome gay guy, liberal, atheist' or whatever, and the more he did so, the more he went down the rabbit hole. That's still on him. But as he went that way, more and more of his readers - and other Catholics - enabled him, and they bear their own share of the responsibility, as all who encourage others to sin do.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts