Monday, May 23, 2022

If Catholics insist on fighting to keep abortion legal

 Then at least avoid spreading lies for the cause.  


It seems damning, until you actually look up the story and find out she was convicted because it was determined that her drug use led to the unborn child's death.  I know, I know.  The headline doesn't say that.  Never read headlines.  Ignore them.  Read the story. Headlines are made for the old 'Oh, I forgot to mention that part of the story' approach to lying.   

The headline, and Twitter copies above, are purposefully false and meant to stir up the old liberal tactic of inevitable doom at the hands of non-liberals.  The whole 'they're putting a woman in the electric chair because she bought the wrong crib, that's why Republicans will kill black people!' hysteria is old media driven leftwing boilerplate.  

I've watched it for years.  Any time a leftwing agenda might fail, they scream that we're three steps from the Holocaust, the world blowing up, all women raped, all minorities gassed in gas chambers, all children murdered, all grandparents thrown off cliffs, and all rights stripped away for the survivors. 

The more you watch the Left reveal itself, the easier it is to hold to the historical Christian Faith. 

25 comments:

  1. OrdinaryCatholicMay 23, 2022 at 7:17 AM

    "The more you watch the Left reveal itself, the easier it is to hold to the historical Christian Faith. "

    It's much easier. The line between good and evil is becoming clearer and clearer. Soon there will no longer be "I didn't know!" excuse anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that ship sailed. I can't help but believe the amount of rage and unhinged behavior on the part of those who aligned with the Left is a way of balancing the obvious evils the 'Left' now promotes. When your ally openly declares itself evil, you either admit you were wrong or hunker down.

      Delete
  2. You know who came out arguing for it without arguing for it again.

    Remember sometimes when Catholics would actually criticize democrats too? When they would stand up and say, "Hey y'all have gone too far this time!" Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    What's even more depressing is how many - who should be older than me! - keep falling for these tricks. Yet no matter how many failed prophecies they make, these people seem to double down on believing them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Mark is beyond criticizing anything left of center. So many who glom onto the Left are there, fighting like mad dogs to avoid calling out anything leftwing anything. Others, like Dawn Eden are in the 'if I must criticize the Left, I'll make darn sure to always point out that conservatives are evil, too. I remember when some of those leftwing Catholics hit that stage in the years ago. I'll give Deacon Greydanus this much, he will still call out stupid or wrong on the Left and not have to drag conservatives into it. There is that positive.

      Delete
  3. "Read the story"? Because that will contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You know better than that; the body of the article itself is almost certainly full of mistakes, mischaracterizations, lies, and omissions, and so should be read with a hefty amount of skepticism. Anyone with detailed knowledge -- of science, of history, of religion, etc. -- knows how the media mangle the areas he knows well, and it should be assumed that they do the same with other areas. The can generally be counted on to get yesterday's temperature and the score of yesterday's game right, because those are simple and not worthy lying about, and some more complicated things, such as the landing of a new Martian rover, they are unlikely to lie about intentionally, because that seems pointless. For most other things, though, they have an axe to grind, and one has to be more careful. What is it they want to me to believe -- because many people will swallow that, hook, line, and sinker? What are they presenting triumphantly that should cause them shame? What is conceded by both sides in a serious disagreement? Is the "official" version of events changing without evidence being supplied to explain and support the changes? Why was this item selected to be in the national or even international news when the vast majority of similar events are ignored? If poll results are being presented, are we given the actual questions (we almost never are) or paraphrases and extrapolations; also, how was the sample chosen, how many refused to answer, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is all true, but it's an argument for not reading articles at all. It's still better to read the article to get some idea of what is being claimed and thus what can be verified, rather than just relying on the headline or the lede.

      That being said, even with as dishonest as stories are today it is still rare for outlets to just outright make everything up (probably because they are worried about being sued for libel if they push things too far.) So if someone makes a claim that an article points some position it is usually worthwhile to read through it to see if it actually does; in many cases it will not. And in many cases where it seems to even in the full text, it will give enough clues about where it got its data for you to find the facts yourself. That's still too much work for too little valid information for when you are looking up things yourself, but it is worthwhile to go through if people are using an article to push an agenda.

      Delete
    2. It's an argument for skimming with a critical eye when it seems necessary to read the article. Many articles are worth skipping altogether. Why on earth should you or I care about the Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp trial, or the new dress some Kardashian wore? One MLB player called another "Jackie Robinson" in a way that it was supposed to be an insult -- OK, maybe, whatever, I don't really need the details. Knowing that the publisher of National Review is in a gay marriage is hardly any more necessary; I already knew that there was never any guarantee that the gates of Hell would not prevail against National Review. Come to think of it, most channels and print publications are worth skipping altogether.

      Maybe you think knowing the details of just who is doing just what is important because we can turn things around by voting for the right candidates and buying from the right sellers. I am convinced it is much too late for that; once the avalanche has started, it no longer matters if one is quiet and cautious. I watch the news just as a way of glancing at the oncoming avalanche, not because I think I can stop it. Whoever survives can try to dig out the survivors and the bodies, but it's guaranteed to be bad.

      Somewhere -- I forget where -- Chesterton wrote that to understand the news of today, we should read the newspapers (and other publications) of a century ago. And yes, he wrote that about 100 years ago, so it fits nicely. But it has a nice advantage, in that we can see how people were misinterpreting and deliberately twisting events, and we can see (at least at a gross level) how things actually unfolded. Since "there is nothing new under the sun", the news from a century ago gives reasonable insight into the ideas and sins of the present, even if the names and places are changed. Of course, one can do better than that and examine what was being said and done hundreds or even thousands of years ago. I'm expecting Caesar to cross the Rubicon any day now.

      Delete
    3. It depends of course. I don't trust the media as far as I can throw it, But it if mentions the war in Ukraine, there is still a war in Ukraine. In this case reading the articles showed the woman wasn't being jailed because she had a miscarriage as the twitter posts suggested. It's because her drug use allegedly caused the miscarriage. That's a big difference versus what the above posts were trying to suggest, which is meant to scare people into thinking the push against Roe will lead to women who have the hiccups being executed. In this case, turning to the stories to find out something is demonstrably false is completely appropriate.

      Delete
    4. Knowing that the publisher of National Review is in a gay marriage is hardly any more necessary; I already knew that there was never any guarantee that the gates of Hell would not prevail against National Review. Come to think of it, most channels and print publications are worth skipping altogether.

      Hadn't known that, but I discover he's quite public about it. I read the man's capsule biography and I recognize the name, though I do not think he and I have specifically met. The man who has been their managing editor since 2004 (Jason Lee Steorts) leaves evidence of that too. (He's the man who got Mark Steyn thrown off their contributors' list). Then there's Jay Nordlinger, about whom do the math. So, we have a publication that has about 30 people in salaried and hourly positions, among them a publisher and an editorial board of 12, and it's a reasonable inference that three of the thirteen are drawn from a demographic subset that accounts for 2% of the adult population. This is our premier 'conservative' publication.

      Delete
  4. Mark Shea from 2010:

    "Meanwhile, Archbishop Burke, who literally wrote the book on Canon 915, has been elevated to the No. 5 guy in the Church. Expect some changes on the whole Episcopal Spine Alert front. I’d love to see the day when Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi sashay up to the front of the line with that smug look on their faces and are given a polite blessing and asked to return to their seats."

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2010/09/leon-suprenant.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes perfect sense. Well into Obama's first term Mark still referred to the Democrats as the Party of Death, and Obama as a war criminal (because of his terrorism and drones policy). But it wasn't Trump who pushed him over. He was already at the 'Dems are evil, but so are Republicans!' stage where Ms. Eden appears to be now by Obama's second term. Eventually he dropped the Dems are evil part, well before 2016.

      Delete
  5. In the comments Mark Shea is challenged by Father Lankeit for vilifying Archbishop Cordileone. Shea first pretends to not understand the charge, and then actually changes things (at least it seems he did; I can't find snapshots of earlier versions of the article but the words quoted from Father Lankeit are no longer present in the article.) But even the updated version contains:

    But Abp. Cordileone, diverging sharply from Francis, seems to be unable to curb his desire to punish somebody. So Pelosi is to be made an example of. He certainly is within the rights of his office to do it. But is it really going to help anything or is it just going to give a huge thrill to the “SOMEBODY MUST PAY!” zealots in the MAGA sect?

    I don't know if Shea is being cheeky in leaving that in or if he's so far gone that he legitimately can no longer see that he is engaging in calumny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether Shea is doing this out of delusion or not is the sort of thing God will judge. We are not to judge Shea as a person -- certainly we are not to judge his soul -- but we can judge his qualifications to give advice or commentary. Those qualifications are nil. We shouldn't pay attention to Mark Shea for the same reason we shouldn't pay attention to Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. At least Brittney Spears has a pretty good Guide to Semiconductor Physics (http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm).

      Delete
    2. Many ask questions about why Mark became what he became because they actually remember Mark in saner days. Many actually admired and liked Mark back then. I don't know if they question motives with intents to judge, or just to figure out what caused all five wheels to come off.

      As for ignoring Mark, however, that's a problem. Mark teaches in the name of the Church. I have no doubt that when he's at a school or parish or podcast he is not Social Media Mark. Nonetheless, he advocates teachings that are, if taken at face value, pure heresy. If we believe that what people choose regarding the Gospel could have eternal consequences, and knowing many of his readers appear to happily spit on the Christian Faith, and furthermore appear to see in Mark's posts a justification for continuing to do so, being silent while he leads them astray just isn't an option. True, we can't break the barriers he puts around himself on the Internet, but perhaps somehow the message of what he advocates and says on Social Media can get out.

      Delete
    3. Rudolph, I can't say since I didn't actually read the initial post. If it was changed, I can't imagine what it was to begin with, as his 'corrected' form lacks nothing in terms of judging and impugning Archbishop Cordileone's motives and purposes. A tactic Mark uses almost to the point of SOP.

      Delete
    4. "Pope Michael" also claims to teach in the name of the Church, kinda, as do all these "womenpriests", but you succeed in ignoring them.

      Delete
    5. Pope Michael? I'm unaware of who you're talking about.

      Delete
    6. David Allen Bawden. See https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/oct/17/gospel-pope-michael-kansan-stakes-own-claim-cathol/.

      Delete
    7. First, never heard of him. Second, I doubt too many people are going to flock to Mr. Michael's apostolic church, or even use him as a reason to justify whatever personal heresies or sins they wish to indulge in. Finally, I doubt if he were to do anything significant, the media would rally behind him and pull its strings to see to it his message was carried through.

      Someone like Mark, on the other hand, has the official blessings of bona fide Catholic organizations and parishes. He speaks on behalf ot the Church from these blessings. He aligns with the same narratives as the greater media/corporate machines of the day, and can use their duplicity to attack believers or even traditional Catholic teachings. And it's clear many who flip the bird to the Church see in Mark a justification for doing so as long as they seek the destruction of white conservatism.

      And, I've heard of Mark. In my Protestant days many of us warned churches about Fred Phelps, not to listen to him. I'm sure there were other Phelps types out there just as bad, but he's the one we had heard of and, thanks to the press, many in our churches had heard of as well.

      Delete
    8. I'm surprised you haven't heard of "Pope Michael". We all have our lacunae.

      Maybe Mark Shea is a go-to source for the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or NPR. I have no way of knowing that. If not, he's visible only within the Catholic sphere. You say he has "the official blessings of bona fide Catholic organizations and parishes". If you say so; I do not bump into him except when you or a few others bring him up to criticize him. It seems inevitable that people involved in these "bona fide Catholic organizations and parishes" will not be bumping into your personal blog, even when bigpulpit.com links to it. These people are presumably involved in THESE organizations and THESE parishes precisely because they already agree with Shea -- why should they care if a blogspot blogger thinks otherwise? Most of them will be as unlikely to pay attention to bigpulpit.com as I am to pay attention to the Washington Post.

      To make an analogy between the Catholic sphere and the world politics sphere, Shea is roughly equivalent to a local talk show host, like Hoppy Kercheval in West Virginia. He's not a president or a prime minister; not only is he not a primary source, he's not even a secondary force, he's at most a tertiary (pronounced as at https://youtu.be/UpelIgwoUKw?t=255) source. Yes, some people will get all their news from that source. There's nothing that can be done for people who choose to limit themselves in that way.

      I fear you are falling into the same trap as Cueball. https://xkcd.com/386/

      Delete
    9. Mark has been interviewed by news outlets, but I don't think of the big national type. In terms of blessings, sure he does. He's published in several Catholic publications. He's often invited by Catholic schools, conferences and even a college or two. He's spoken at many parishes over the years, though I don't know how many in recent years.

      As for whether such people come to my blog or not, I don't know. Nor can I account for many others out there who may make someone like Shea look like St. Francis. I just know what I know. Usually I ignore him, but I still receive emails and FB hits from people who do the dirty work. If he seems to have gone over the edge or is actively pushing something that is heresy, is impugning someone's integrity when I know it to be false, or is in some other way advocating sinful measures to promote a twisted spin on Catholic teaching, I'll say something. Again, like Fred Phelps, I commented on him because the people in my circles knew of him, but maybe not everything they needed to know. If there were others just as bad that I didn't know of, what could I do?

      FWIW, the post above doesn't mention or reference Shea. It's a fellow who was in his day a Catholic blogger and involved with a few Catholic orgs that were into the whole Catholic fantasy world fanboy thing. Because it was not just false, but a lie meant to stir up panic about those trying to save the unborn, I felt that, too, was worth commenting on.

      As for falling into this or that, we all do what we we can. I lost almost everything to become Catholic. So I take it seriously when paid apologists push a form of Catholicism that, if true, shows how much of a fool I was for giving up anything, since it's obviously something that I could do without as long as I support the right politics.

      Delete
    10. It is not seemly for you to congratulate yourself for your unique sacrifices to be Catholic. If you are graced with the martyr's crown, that can be brought up in your cause for sainthood. Otherwise it sounds like you think you are the only one who was called to take up his cross, or the only one who responded, or are unique in the world in having a heavy cross to bear.

      Delete
    11. Not really congratulating myself for anything, nor suggested my particular sacrifice was somehow unique beyond anyone else. That's a bad reading of what I wrote on your part. What I was doing was answering your question about why some focus on Mark. Others no doubt focus on others. But Mark because I know him and because of my own journey, I take seriously those who, in the name of the Church, and with the Church's permission, teach and spread a false gospel. For if Mark is no big deal, it suggests proclaiming false gospels is no big deal. Which in turn suggests the Gospel as historically understood is no big deal, if not outright wrong. And if that is the case, not only I, but all who sacrificed much more than I ever could imagine, did so in vain. Though I don't believe that is the case, I put out what fires I can. And if it helps even one person realize you can't be a Satan worshipper happily blaspheming the Gospel and endorsing grave evils and still get to heaven as long as you hate the right political groups, then I consider the effort a success.

      Delete
  6. Why does anyone give Mark Shea lip service?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As several have said, to draw attention to someone sanctioned by Catholic organizations to teach Catholic teaching who nonetheless teaches very false teachings. Plus, as one reader said, as a cautionary tale.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts