Thursday, September 16, 2021

Some people should never be allowed to teach Christian doctrine

To demonstrate, Mark Shea asks the big question: How is pro-abortion any different than not getting the Covid vaccine? Answer?  Aborting 65 million pregnancies might not be as bad! 

I won't even waste my time with the falsehoods and tortured logic needed to downplay evil and persecute political dissenters.  Read it at your own risk.  I will say, however, that if we do not begin applying the term heretic or blasphemer to the growing number of believers willing to twist, torture and throw out endless Christian doctrine in order to conform to the State, then the words heretic and blasphemer no longer have value or purpose. 


  1. His latest piece on GK Chesterton makes one wonder why we even need a church (of any denomination) since the Left is so available for defining sin and [lack of] forgiveness.

    He should really retitle his blog, "stumbling towards heaven on earth" - then at least he would be an honest heretic.

    1. It's a mighty self-righteous aphrodisiac to wake up and think what past sinners I can drag out into the sun today. And of course, based purely on the priorities and doctrines of the modern Left. If the left says something is no big deal, so it is. And if the left says something is the all defining sin with no pardon, so it is. The left has become the way, the truth and the life, and apparently nobody can achieve righteousness but by the left. I personally can't wait for them to apply the microscope of sexism, anti-Semitism and racism to Tolkien. That has to be coming around the corner.

    2. Yeah, I was skimming the post and it eventually hit me: So? Why does any of this matter?

      He tries to give an answer:
      "For my part, what strikes me most is the holy simplicity of Dawn’s moral demand in the last line I quote: Stop covering this up. Stop pretending this is not part of Chesterton’s legacy. Stop pretending that he did not commit this sin."
      . . .
      "The wisdom of the early Church was to forthrightly admit Peter’s failure. The folly of the modern Church has been to live in denial of the sins of Catholics admired by fanboi. I think it speaks to our failure to believe in the forgiveness of sins at some level. I pray for G.K. Chesterton to find the mercy of God he himself said he needed. Chesterton’s sins, like Peter’s, require forgiveness, not excuses and not defenses."

      And? The man's dead. He cannot repent or change his life. Whatever his fate before God, he has now encountered it. So what does bringing up his flaws now accomplish? How does constantly bringing up and repeating over and over a man's sin demonstrate any belief in the forgiveness of sins at any level?

      Let's flip it in another way to see if these people can get it: Do we have to bring up and discuss MLK Jr's sins every time we talk about the man? What about Malcolm X's? Harriet Tubman's? FDR's? The sins of native american tribes? The sins of african tribes?

      Seems like there's a whole bunch of people out there who's sins we don't bother talking about when discussing them. Ask yourself, why don't we talk about their sins? And whatever answer you come to, maybe it's time to ask why the same answer doesn't apply Chesterton.

    3. Oh heaven forfend we discuss anything but the unpardonable sin of white Christian men. And for my part, I'd like to see the likes of Dawn, Mark, and others in this kick lay out their sins for all to see. Their real sins, not those job interview sins we mention when trying to keep it humble.

      Oh, I know now racism and anti-Semitism from Christian white men are the only real and defining sins in the world, and most would assume other sins are no big deal. But I'd still like to see them air their own dirty laundry with the zeal with which they continually air the laundry of those who came before. And that includes the speed with which they're embracing the modern racism while spending all their time condemning the racism of the past.


    1. By Mark's standards, we may have to "de-saint" many doctor's of the Church for their anti-semitism.

    2. Tito, I'm beginning to believe that's the goal.

  3. The difference is fairly obvious.
    Abortion is the deliberate killing of a person and a sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
    A Vaccine is a medical device which can be beneficial or harmful, depending on how well developed it is.
    Calling Abortion a sin is basic Catholic Theology 101.
    Equating Anti-Vax with Pro-Choice means saying refusal to take a vaccine is equal to murder.
    The Question on whether Abortion is good or bad is a moral, philosophy, theological and scientific one.
    The question of whether a particular Corona Vaccine is good or bad is purely a scientific one.
    The Catholic Church claims infallibility on matters of Morality, Theology and and, to an extent, Philosophy.
    The Catholic Church has never claimed infallibility in the realm of Science.
    In other words, claiming that there is a moral obligation to not question the effectiveness of a vaccine is the same as calling Helio-Centrists and Round-Earthers heretics.
    In other words, Mark Shea is making the same mistake that the Inquisition made in the Galileo case.

    1. It wouldn't have been half as bad if he said they were the same. That would be bad. But he seems to argue that advocating and even pursuing abortion isn't nearly as bad. And he does that by ignoring reality (there is a push to say abortion is murder - who cares?, and of course judging motives and hearts. A hot mess.

  4. Something I forgot to mention, the fact that he's now using the term "Deplorables, " unironically is further evidence that he's officially jumped the ssf shark. The man is no longer mentally stable.

    1. In fairness, when Hillary gave her famous irredeemable deplorable, Mark jumped on her for that. But only the irredeemable part. He was fine with the deplorable part.


Let me know your thoughts