Mark Shea: Worst. Person. Ever.

One thing about blogging at Patheos: you can’t choose your neighbors. It was a pretty quiet place around here when the Right Kind of Catholics made up most of the blogroll, but then they started letting anybody in.

I knew things were really going to hell when Mark Shea first showed up. As an author, blogger, and speaker, he’s used the Church to achieve worldwide fame and boundless wealth while leading the real faithful (ie, cradle Catholics) astray. It’s about time courageous people take a stand against laypeople with keyboards, and Fr. Peter West has bravely taken up the gauntlet in a relentless series of Facebook messages and comments aimed squarely at putting Shea in his place so no one will ever listen to him again.

It was good of Fr. West to perform this important task, since he already had a very full schedule that involved regular Facebook posts vigorously defending the Republican Party, as well as acting as Vice President of Human Life International.

Can anyone doubt that Fr. West first contacted Shea privately to counsel him as any good priest would do, and failing that, brought his concerns to Shea’s publishers and his bishop? After all, these were serious matters that needed to be addressed with a sense of pastoral care befitting a priest of the Holy Catholic Church.

Fr. West began his fraternal correction of Shea with an August 28th post declaring, “Something is deeply wrong with Mark Shea. I wouldn’t be looking to him for theological guidance.” This was in response to a serious and pressing issue, first raised in a May 1st post by Shea titled “A Gay Man I Consider a Saint.”  The post was little more than an apologia for rampant and unrestrained sodomy, masquerading as a charitable reminiscence of a chaste and pious homosexual who had recently passed away.

I mean, really! What else could Fr. West have done? Shea’s compassion and charity was grotesquely misplaced when we all know that sexual perverts are damned without exception. Shea even went so far as to officially canonize this unrepentant homosexual! As if he had the authority! By far the worst thing he did was to say he didn’t even care if the homosexual was chaste. That it wasn’t any of his “business”! As though the sins of each person, living or dead, are not the pressing concern of each and every Catholic. We are called, by virtue of our baptism, to render judgment on the sins of others. Obviously, Shea’s “conversion” is sorely lacking if he doesn’t understand such basics of the faith.

Shea pretended to be puzzled by Fr. West’s misrepresentation of his opinion fraternal correction, and attempted to “reason” with the good and holy priest.

Father: I have said nothing opposed to the Catholic faith. I said I knew a chaste gay man who lived and died with great love for the faith. I didn’t know (and still don’t) whether he managed to live with perfect chastity, but then I don’t know if you have lived with perfect chastity either, Father. However, I *presume* you have as I presumed Perry had, given what I saw of the obvious intensity of his faith and commitment to the gospel. I still have no reason to think he committed any sins in that department. And I did not and do not see it as my job to act as Inquisitor into either his sex life or yours, Father. I see nothing in any of that that which opposes the Faith, and you defame me to claim there is. What is more, you teach your followers to join you in that defamation. I implore you to stop.

I ask you, did you ever hear such utter rot? It was a good thing that Fr. West ignored Shea’s pleas for prayer and calm and continued to encourage his followers in their relentless (but, of course, always charitable and fraternal) corrections of Shea, until the conversation finally slowed down after about 800 replies. Sure, it was vicious and personal, with crass insults and messages from mentally ill people who had slipped their meds and started randomly lapsing into odd vaudeville routines, but passions were high, and Shea’s wickedness certainly warranted such harsh treatment at the hands of a shepherd of souls.

Yet this was surely not enough medicine for a reprobate like Shea, so Fr. West stepped up his attacks fraternal correction. He added a “Mark Shea Alert” to his Facebook page, castigating Mark for agreeing with something written by Zac Alstin for Mercatornet.  This was a long overdue antidote to one of the curses of the Catholic church: people agreeing with other people. At last, Fr. West was on the right track with the idea of a Mark Shea alert, which should become a permanent feature of all truly faithful catholic blogs, complete with a color-coded warning, such as this:

It was getting serious, however: Shea and his minions weren’t accepting the harassment fraternal correction–hard and personal, but obviously necessary–in the proper spirit, and Fr. West soon announced that he was under threat from diabolical Shea supporters. I have no doubt about this at all. They will stop at nothing, so Fr. West had no choice but to increase his character assassination fraternal correction, with further posts on Shea’s criticisms of Lila Rose’s use of deception in her anti-abortion efforts; Shea’s failure to love conservative patriots like Glenn Beck and Andrew Breibart; Shea’s criticism of John “Formerly Father” Corapi for defying and slandering his bishop, his employees, and the leaders of his order; and criticisms of Shea for criticising his criticism.

All in all, it was a very thorough effort at slander fraternal correction, which Shea neglected to accept in the proper attitude of groveling gratitude. All the while, Shea continued to deny he believed the things Fr. West claimed he believed, which is just silly. Who knows better what Shea believes? Shea himself, or a priest who, though he has never met him, has read a few of his blog posts?

I ask you, in the spirit of clericalism, to be honest with yourself here.

The ugly truth is this: Shea is a convert, and all good and faithful Catholics know converts may be nice to have around now and then to fill out the choir, but they can’t really be trusted. They’re not really part of the body of Christ, to be treated with love and respect like real Catholics.

It’s also clear that there is no room in the Catholic Church for people who express doubt about Republican political candidates and fail to hate Obama quite thoroughly enough. Fr. West’s proud and constant public support of the Romney-Ryan ticket is, in fact, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, and Pope Benedict himself has endorsed them for their unwavering commitment to talking about abortion once or twice a year, maybe.

I actually find Fr. West’s relentless pursuit of a layperson with a blog rather comforting, since it means the Church is not entering the period of persecution we all believed was ahead, and that we have in fact solved all our serious problems. This gives us the opportunity to gather in the circular firing squad and attack other Catholics. It’s even more encouraging that the leader of a pro-life organization can take the time to insult fraternally correct another tireless advocate for the pro-life cause, since it means that the scourge of abortion has vanished from the land. Bravo, Fr. West!

UPDATE: Follow-up post.

About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    Well, Thomas, I can take the rest of the night off, then. All you have left for me is Ditto. :-)

  • http://metabooleans.blogspot.com/ Nick

    I honestly couldn’t tell this wasn’t serious for quite a while, but I think that says more about me than you. I was cracking up by the end, though. Well done.

  • http://tonylayne.blogspot.com/ Anthony S. Layne

    I tip my hat to you, sir. I call him “The Blogger Who Must Not Be Named” because naming him inevitably brings some well-meaning soul to explain to me that The Blogger is a commie (or a right-wing fascist, or a gay-lover, or a gay-basher, yadda yadda yadda). All part of the Catholic circular firing squad. Thanks for your doughty defense.

  • http://www.postabortionwalk.blogspot.com InfiniteGrace

    I’m so confused my head hurts.

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    I think Mark exemplifies precisely why it is impossible for mature Catholicism to be aligned with any particularly ideology. Catholicism insists on thinking, and nuance, and considering each question on its own. People hate that.

  • Mark Shea

    Shea sounds like a total jerk to me. I don’t blame Fr. Peter a bit.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I remember Fr. Groeschel’s standard response to the question of whether he was conservative or liberal: “Yes.”

    It seems like this was the week for devouring our own.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Neither do I. A man who swans around on the internet displaying the riches he’s accrued as a a professional Catholic deserves the most severe form of fraternal correction, perhaps involving a Catherine’s Wheel.

  • http://rpgcatholic.blogspot.com/ Eric M.

    I completely second Mr. McDonald on Mr. Shea’s criticism of Lila Rose’s use of deception in the Live Action sting operations of Planned Parenthood last year. After all, it’s not as if taking the view that we can’t do evil (intentionally telling falsehoods or lying) that good may come of it entails that we Catholics should also condemn the consequentialist reasoning behind torture and the intentional use of atomic weapons (or any weapon) against innocent civilians (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Clearly, Mr. Shea is not to be trusted in matters of Catholic moral theology… (BTW, Mr. McDonald, I think the Catholic view of lying that Mr. Shea defends draws from St. Augustine’s ‘De Mendacio’ and St. Thomas’s ‘Summa’ – clearly two untrustworthy sources.)

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    You are correct: Augustine was absolutely unyielding on the issue of lying. I believe the case could be made that Lila Rose’s actions fall into the less serious of Augustine’s 8 categories of lying, possibly in the 6th category: a lie that profits one but is not to the detriment of another. These are less grave forms of the lie, but still sinful, and he urges the “brave and faithful” to resist them.

    What, honestly, did Lila Rose achieve? We learned that people who murder children are also cruel and liars? This is news to whom? And we sin to bring this breaking news to the world for what real end?

  • Deacon Greg Kandra

    Tom, you neglected to mention Mr. Shea’s gratuitous and clearly biased (it’s red, isn’t it?) facial hair.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Him and Akin both. Commies.

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    Mark has red hair. That’s all I need to know about him.

  • Leo Schwartz

    Hey now, no hating on us gingers.

  • miki tracy

    That. Was. Awesome!

    Personally, I’ve lost all respect for Father West. He needs a spanking…and then a formal censure. What a terrible wicket he has created!

    Oh, and for the record: Father West, in case you’re reading this, I just want you to know that your spiteful, dishonest, completely rabid postings over the past week helped to answer a months-long prayer for me. Pat yourself on your bony back, Padre! Thanks to you, in great part, I have decided that the upcoming elections are *totally* corrupt, and I *won’t* be voting in the national elections for the first time in my adult life. Thank you for your influence!

  • Mark Shea

    I object! I have a red(ish) beard. My hair is dirty blonde. Akin, on the other hand: a total ginger.

  • http://rpgcatholic.blogspot.com/ Eric M.

    I think Mr. Shea once linked to the “Star Wars Holiday Special.” He must also be a Sith, since watching that special in its entirety can only lead to the Dark Side…

  • Mark Shea

    Mu, as they say, wahaha.

  • Daniel Collins

    @ Mark How DARE you act with charity and understand in the face of the concupiscence of others, the unmitigated gall. I ask you, WWJD? Yes I pulled the Jesus card. Everyone knows that Jesus publicly defamed every sinner he ever met. Not that he met very many, because he only spent his time associating with people as sinless as himself. Don’t you remember the on anecdote from the bible where Jesus got angry at sinners. We need to base every moment of our lives on the isolated incident of the money changers in the temple

  • Elaine S.

    “Him and Akin both. Commies.”
    It took me a few seconds of head scratching before I realized the reference was to JIMMY Akin, the Catholic apologist… guess I’m overdosing on political blogs lately.

  • Mary Alice

    I have a very challenging day ahead, but reading this and the comboxes made me laugh out loud. Thanks! (I guess I should admit that I’m one of THOSE Catholics who actually uses things that Mark has brought up, like torture or charity towards all or consistency in lining up the teachings of the Church with my potential vote as food for prayer at Adoration. I’m probably completely depraved and lost.)

  • http://www.accordeonaire.blogspot.com Gary Chapin

    We would expect a GINGER to say that. Consider yourself fraternally corrected.

  • Dale Price

    This is all very well and good, but it doesn’t spend enough time exposing the filthy lucre the spats-wearing plutocrat has made as a member apologetics-industrial complex.

  • http://yahoo Ginge Wheaton

    I’m at a loss to find the bit where Mr. Shea erred from the faith? His original piece was a rebuttal against the claim that he was himself a homo basher? You may need to think this through?

  • victor

    No doubt! Save some apologetics for the rest of us in the 99%, Shea!!!

  • JDH

    I hate to ruin this party, but I once saw Mark Shea lose his temper a bit and blog in a way that was less than perfectly charitable. Within 24 hours, he had posted again expressing his sincere regret and apologies to his readers. Now, obviously, this is grounds to condemn him because all True Catholics are always in the right and would never have need to issue a humble and sincere apology for anything!

    Bring in the comfy chair!

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Bearded Catholics should come with some sort of super-heretic warning label. Look at the evidence.

    Bearded, awful Catholics: Shea, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Frank Weathers, Fr. Groeschel, Steve Greydanus, the list goes on.

    Shorn, awesome Catholics: Michael Voris, Fr. West, Fr. Euteneuer, Robert Sungenis, and the entire staff of the National Catholic Reporter.

    Never trust a bearded Catholic, ginger or otherwise.

  • http://atalkindonkey.blogspot.com George Vogt

    Excellent post about an unfortunate (at best) incident. I wasn’t crazy about Mark’s article because of potential misunderstandings but what has transpired since is ridiculous. When anyone places politics or politicians before God (this is the root of this I assure you) it is a clear sign to stay away from THAT person.

  • Larry Coty

    I am so thrilled that Elizabeth Scalia used the word ‘nuance’ here. This illustrates nicely why Fr West is right and Shea is, well, Shea.

  • Dale Price

    “as a member *of the* apologetics…”

    I’m so enraged by his greed that I’m omitting words now.

  • Pingback: Where’s the Love?

  • http://www.studentsforafairsociety.org Joseph

    It took me a while to get the satirical nature of this post. The line “In the spirit of clericalism…” is probably what caught my eye.

  • Blog Goliard

    I wish that this, and the explosions over Cardinal Dolan’s decisions, were the only examples of Internet insanity and vileness I’d seen lately.

    Have people gone completely mad…or was I just more successful at avoiding the vicious and the invincibly stupid up until sometime last month?

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I thought I tipped my hand at the beginning with the idea of the “worldwide fame and boundless wealth” of a Catholic writer.

  • Blog Goliard

    Dang. I thought that we in the League of Bearded Catholics were managing to fly under the radar–or, failing that, at least successfully passing ourselves off as a benign association rather than a liberal, crypto-Masonic plot against the Faith.

    But now we’ve been unmasked! Humph. We would’ve gotten away with it, if it weren’t for you meddling kids…

  • JG

    Am I the only guy going third party (I think Shea might like that) in thinking both men were guilty of exaggeration?

  • Jasper

    Further proof that Patheos is an absolute joke. They all shiver when they see a manly catholic; Voris, Fr. Corapi, Santorem, Fr.West, Fr. Pavone, Paul Ryan, who could forget Shea’s “killer for christ” column about Rick Santorem…

    you see, here at Patheos, they like the Bernadin types, you know… panty waist weaklings….tip toe, through the tulips…

  • Mark Shea

    It’s the only reason I’m Catholic. Well, that and the hot women who throw themselves at apologists.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Yes, that describes me to a T: a Bernardin girly man Catholic. Did someone forget to roll the rock back in front of the troll cave again?

  • Mark Shea

    …says the guy who defended Josef Mengele as heroic.

  • rakowskidp

    See, that’s news to me. I didn’t know it made one a panty-waist weakling to defend the teachings of the Church with actual citations from the Catechism. But perhaps that’s just me, and I’m sure I’m a panty-waist weakling for thinking it’s wrong to do evil such that good may result, it’s wrong to torture because the Church says so, and it’s wrong to advocate for the assassination of foreign nationals. Yep. I’m in bad company with those old dudes in Rome who wrote the Catechism. Guess that makes them panty-waist appeasement types, too.

  • Blog Goliard

    Apparently you can tell a really real, manly Catholic by how he admires people whose names he can’t spell.

  • rakowskidp

    Well, shucks. You’ve blown my cover. Now Father and my fellow parishioners know that I’ve only volunteered to teach our apologetics class for the babes.

  • Stephen Dalton

    Tom, I really don’t give a hoot whether Mark Shea is rich or poor, famous or not, he’s a vicious person who has dared to attack a holy priest who offered just criticism of Mark’s uncalled for attacks on individuals who’s only crime was to disagree with him on an issue.

  • wineinthewater

    miki tracy,

    Just because you aren’t voting for one of the major party candidates doesn’t mean you can’t vote. You can vote third party or write in anyone you want. Every person who votes for someone besides the major candidates lowers their vote percentage just a little bit. All those little bits combine to lessen the “mandate” the winner can claim for their candidacy.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Nah, the Catherine’s Wheel won’t work; he’s made of harder stuff.

    Cardinal Fang, fetch … THE COMFY CHAIR!!!

  • Carl

    The basic problem is the lack of courage Fr. West showed. Yes, that. If he was truly concerned, he would contact Mark privately and engage in conversation with him. Mark’s email is readily available, and I’m sure he would share a telephone # with Fr. West. But it takes more courage to do that than to toss out statements on Facebook, step back and let the crowds go to it.

    It’s all about getting attention for oneself.

    Not that I’m a Shea fan, either. Mark does the same thing. The desire to “comment on” the actions and words of living human beings rather than attempt to engage them directly in private, no matter what the issue is ego-driven, craven and ultimately cowardly. If Mark Shea has concerns about the “Liars for Jesus,” as he calls them, I’m pretty sure he could contact Lila Rose and engage in conversation with her directly. But to write blog posts and stir up controversy in that way is a lot easier, requires far less personal sacrifice, and gets one more attention.

    His posts on the gay guy were just silly, self-aggrandizing (who *cares* who Mark Shea considers a saint? I don’t. Why does he think I should care?) and disrespectful to the deceased and his family, whom I can’t imagine would be thrilled about some blogger deciding to make their loved one’s intimate life (spiritual and emotional) the subject of a blog argument. That was just weird.

    And back to Fr. West – he’s doing the exact same thing. It’s all about West and Shea ginning up attention for themselves, rather than being truly interested in working out the truth.

  • Thinkling

    This was unexpected and rather difficult. There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

    Mark makes his LIVING by writing blog posts. Fr. West does not.

  • Carl

    What does that have to do with anything? Does that mean one is justified in writing anything or taking any angle in writing because you have to make money? What?

    I’d rather make my living writing tech manuals for a, I don’t know – turbine company – than writing blog posts that comment on the actions and ideas of people I can easily engage with on a personal level, written in a way just to build up an audience and harvest blog hits for my blog host (because when a blog post is controversial, people come back over and over again…).

    Writing for a living has nothing to do with it. Or shouldn’t. If you really feel strongly that someone is misusing the Gospel and call to discipleship – that, for example, using deceit to expose Planned Parenthood – is wrong, then you should first contact those people who are doing it. Lila Rose didn’t live in Afghanistan. She lives in the US, and can be contacted. If someone is truly concerned about the morality of those actions, then his first responsibility is to make contact and express that concern and engage in conversation.

    But if that never occurs to the person, and he rather just fires off blog posts about someone, I can only conclude that actual truth and integrity is not the prime concern, but attention to the writer is.

    The point is, I think Fr. West’s actions on Facebook were really bizarre, and he is hugely political in a way that is inappropriate for a priest. But he is only doing to Mark what Mark does in his blogging – commenting on and judging the actions of individuals without personally engaging them first.

  • pjm

    @JoAnna: Really? How exactly does that work? Throw enough bombs on your blog to drive traffic in hopes of increasing book sales and getting more speaking engagements?

    @Carl: you nailed it.

  • Mark Shea

    Best Tolkien ref in history. I will be laughing about this all day.

  • Pingback: Idols Come in Many Forms; Facebook Feeds Them – UPDATED

  • http://wdmt.blogspot.com Mike

    …and thus God and the Machine starts down the slippery Catholic and Enjoying It slope. It’s been real.

  • http://www.mystagogia.net Kathleen Lundquist

    I’ve been smiling and giggling here and there reading through this post and the comments, but your phrase “spats-wearing plutocrat” almost made snort coffee out my nose.

    My thanks! Well done, sir!

  • Margaret

    I’m pretty sure I have a spare dishwasher rack lying around here somewhere…

  • Jim H.

    Wow. A Modest Proposal. Great stuff.

  • Mark Shea

    FWIW, the problem is not that Fr. Peter complained about something I said. As I told him, I don’t have a problem with arguing about what I actually believe. So he’s perfectly right, for instance, that I have stated that Mitt Romney is lying when he claims to have been a prolife governor. And I can document that that.

    No, the problem is not the Padre disagreed with me publicly. It’s that he strongly urged his readers to believe I said something I didn’t. I did not endorse gay sex or “marriage” or civil unions. His readers went to town claiming exactly this and he did not lift a finger to stop them. Indeed, he encouraged it. This is calumny. I did not calumny Live Action. It was their defenders who said that they were lying (for a good cause). I simply pointed out that, according to the Church, lying is intrinsically immoral.

    I have no problem with a good honest argument. I have a problem with his very calculated act of defamation and his claim that I have said something opposed to the Church’s teaching. I did nothing of the kind in that post about Perry Lorenzo. And I did not defame or saying anything false about Live Action. I critiqued their consequentialist reasoning. So, by the way, did a number of other people who, unlike me, are actual theologians and moral philosophers.

  • Chris-2-4

    “It’s that he strongly urged his readers to believe I said something I didn’t.”

    You poor thing. Tell it to Paul Ryan and the countless others whose words (or lack thereof) you twist into whatever you desire for a good post.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

    Fr. West is trying to destroy a man’s livelihood through vicious lies. If people hate Mark’s writing, they’re free not to read it. But disagreement does not justify calumny.

  • Warene

    Do either of you two think you will ever rise to the intellectual level of “First Things”?

  • Mark Shea

    Only when First Things finally gets hip to my extremely profound postings of the “Star Wars Christmas Special”. That was some deep stuff right there.

  • Carol

    Priests are forbidden from publicly warning the flock that there is something seriously wrong with Mark Shea’s theology. Wow. Shea is more important than the Pope himself. \

    Gross.

  • Carol

    And, for the record,Shea absolutely contradicted Church teaching in the post. Not only did he contradict Church teaching, he demands we do it also. And, nobody is to now question his authority.
    LOL.

  • http://www.thewordinc.org Kevin O’Brien

    Worse than that, Fr. West deleted comments by Shea supporters and blocked them from his Facebook page so that they could not comment again, or even see what else he saying in slandering Mark. This gave the rabid Shea-haters an open season.

    Mr. McDonald, this is a brilliant post. But in all seriousness, HLI needs to reign in Fr. West. HLI has not had the best track record when it comes to hiring or supervising their priests, and if this is any indication of how the organization continues to be run, their supporters should find other pro-life organizations to support.

  • Barbara B.

    Father West, Father West. Who the heck is he anyway? (Seriously!)

    As far as chastity is concerned, I think the presumption that someone could not practice it, says a lot more about the commenter than the person being criticized. I found Mark’s column to be inspiring. Guess that means I’m in need of “fraternal correction.”

  • Pingback: Charity Toward All…Even the Uncharitable

  • http://www.westchesterinstitute.net Daniel

    One of the most regrettable things is that the Fr. West, an executive of HLI and his minions are burning millions of electrons chasing a 100 day old story – where in the comments Shea repeatedly stated his same-sex-attracted and pro-life bona fides. At the same time, HLI is over $500,000 in the red. Of course the Church in general and the pro-life movement in particular delight in the combox sport of circular firing squads and here we have one folks, step right up the I got a box of 5.56 mm right here…
    Shea is an accomplished author and apologist and writes at a level Fr. West quite frankly can not approach. He is an astute observer of the world through an informed, Catholic lens. Fr. West’s facebook in contrast, has no observations – just headlines dangling in space like Drudge. The predictable red meat – without any analysis – to a predictable crowd of combox theologians all to ready to chow down the victim du jour with no context from the priest hacking the meat.
    Shea does what a good opinion writer does – provokes thought.
    On the contrary, Fr. West is not a very good writer. His writing is not compelling or interesting. He takes a long time to make a point. Which is why no one will ever hire him to write. I bet he is a great priest and intensely loyal to the Church. But his staunch political stances seem to be at odds with the priestly state and repels HLI donations – at least they repel mine because he is so far off message with respect to his actual job at HLI. His actions caused such a distraction that the office of the Bishop of Arlington stepped in. If I were a HLI board member, I would block his access to facebook so as to better focus his talents to the objectives of HLI which likely do not include chasing a 100 day old blog post so hard that the Bishop’s office says “shut up”. A first. Just sayin’.
    What Shea does best – and in this respect he is peerless – is he makes the comfortable uncomfortable. Starting with me. So, if you are a fat and sassy conservative daily communicant Catholic – Shea tweaks your nose on homosexuals v homo-sex, Mexican Catholic immigration, the intrinsic prohibition against lying, the intrinsic prohibition against torture and one’s relativistic, yet pious and all so holy opinion like (Romney is fine and wayyy better than BHO) in a manner that offends the comfortable – like the Fr. West crowd.
    I agree with Shea probably 60% but he compels me to think, pray and reflect deeper 100%. For this Shea is pretty secure and well established as a pundit.
    Hilarious posts like this are the perfect foil to the insanity that Fr. West started with a 100 day old blog post.

  • marjie

    First time reader here. I too took a while before I realized what you were trying to say. Bravo!!! I don’t know Mark Shea, or the controversy, but…. BRAVO!!!!

  • Anya

    Oh, Warene, there you are again jumping in with your mean little snipes. I thought you learned your lesson from the BSD debacle.

  • http://www.grace-filled.net jen

    You know, you’re really *not* making Catholics look very good here. One of the most unappetizing things you could do is to rip apart your own. Kindly get a life.

  • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick

    I used to think Mark was a bit of a jerk… much like many think Rush Limbaugh is a jerk

    Then I started reading Mark regularly… as I’ve listened to Rush regularly…

    And lo and behold, they both make me think, they both make me stop and check my premises…

    As I’ve followed both regularly (Limbaugh since roughly 1990, Mark the last two years), I’m finding that Mark aligns much more with what I learned in RCIA, in my own reading of the Catechism, in my own reading of others I think to be Catholics worth emulating… Limbaugh has his appeal certainly and will always be someone who though flawed is worthy of my respect… Mark however, despite his ticking me off at times, is someone whose thoughts stick in the gut, to be chewed on and regurgitated until, lo and behold, he makes me see something anew, freshly, despite the fact that he usually first garners from me a more visceral reaction.

    I don’t know Fr. West at all… I’ll try to learn more about him… but I suspect he doesn’t read Mark regularly…

    I could be wrong.

  • Amy

    Jen,

    Based on your blog post on the subject, it’s clear you have completely misread this post.

  • http://catholiccinephile.wordpress.com/ Evan

    I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? CONFESS, SHEA! CONFESS! CONFESS! CONFESS! CONFESS!!

  • http://www.grace-filled.net jen

    Amy: I have made the necessary correction and would like to apologize to Thomas.

  • Shan

    Well said.
    As an Australian I have no idea who Fr West is, but I’ve been reading Mark’s blog for the past decade. I haven’t always agreed with him but I’ve learnt from him and he’s encouraged my faith. For that, and his generous humour, I am grateful to him.

  • Peggy Hagen

    Once?

  • Mary

    Yet, you engage in exactly the same nasty criticism that you accuse Father West of doing. Wow….pot calling the kettle black? And you join the anti religion progressives in calling on Father West to think of his priesthood and not engage in partisan politics. He is a priest but also an American and his faith informs his politics. I think Mark Shea is wrong to not see the danger that a second Obama term poses to religious freedom and the unborn, not to mention the economy. Don’t excoriate Father West for trying to warn you….we can disagree without sarcastic diatribes. You are free to support Mark Shea but I think you owe Father West an apology.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Re: Why Mr. Shea?
    In every Archdiocese in North America there is an ordained Catholic priest (in good standing with his Archbishop) who runs a “gay friendly” parish. (See http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=873) Presumably the Cardinal Archbishops of these Archdioceses have not yet been informed of these “gay friendly” parishes. Mr. Shea is a only humble layman who owns a blog. I cannot understand why the priest in question, if he was moved to publicly address this matter, did not instead address the Princes of the Church, Successors to the Apostles, who are directly responsible to God for the immortal souls of their flock?

    God bless
    Richard W Comerford

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com DeaconJR

    Dear Mark—

    I know you are aware that I’ve followed this tempestuous conflict fairly closely and have tried to tone down the heat and rhetoric that has arisen, and that I’ve even tried to articulate the correct view you hold re homosexuality in the face of those with little understanding of its nuance.

    One thing is guaranteed, in my view—either you or Fr. West will have to take a “higher road” in this: the road of “holy indifference”. I’m guessing you’re familiar with this concept in which we seek to detach ourselves from our own even-legitimate self-interest when it comes to things like defending reputation in the face of injustice.

    There is no doubt in my mind that it is much better spiritually to disengage from this altogether than to pursue Fr. West with charges of calumny, etc. , because there is so little to be gained: folks on social media following all this are, in great numbers, already immovably entrenched in their opinions and largely lack the perspective necessary to see where the injustices lie and thus change their views.

    Further, continuing to pursue this matter will, I believe, push things into the arena of Church teaching.

    I know you said this above: “I have no problem with a good honest argument. I have a problem with his very calculated act of defamation and his claim that I have said something opposed to the Church’s teaching. I did nothing of the kind in that post about Perry Lorenzo. And I did not defame or saying anything false about Live Action. I critiqued their consequentialist reasoning. So, by the way, did a number of other people who, unlike me, are actual theologians and moral philosophers.”

    And I know you may disagree with this assessment, but the truth is that there is very much an important element of your perspective regarding homosexuality that runs counter to the fullness of the Church’s teaching in this area: the concept of “gay couplehood” and the idea that a cohabiting “gay couple” is in itself descriptive of a “chaste” arrangement. This is a nuance apart from your steadfast stand with the Church on “homosex,” civil unions, etc. But it is clear that the Church’s teaching on human sexuality gives no room for exclusive gay couples, regardless of whether that couple is continent.

    And we definitely disagree regarding how you have framed the “lying” issue, but that, too, is an area of doctrinal ambiguity in which I think it could be shown that you mistakenly do not recognize the non-magisterial origin of the teaching on lying found in the Catechism and the historic plurality of views on whether lying so-called is ever permissible. That is a deeply important point because of the division that has arisen as a result of ignoring it and instead elevating the teaching in the CCC to “magisterial” status.

    I say this not to create more tension or controversy, but to offer some considerations that might well avoid future chapters in a saga that already fills the devil with great glee, I’m sure.

    God bless you, and be assured of my prayers,

    Deacon JR

  • Brian English

    What we learned, and now had actual evidence of, was that PP was violating its legal obligations to report statutory rape and coerced prostitution. That was a leading factor in several states defunding PP, and almost got it defunded at the national level before its champion threatened to shut-down the government to save it.

  • Brian English

    I completely stopped reading Shea over a year ago, so I can’t specifically comment on this issue, but based on the blurbs I see on New Advent, it appears he has no problem questioning the authenticity of the Catholicism of men like Rick Santorum (killers for Christ, classy) and Paul Ryan (apparently feigning Catholic faith so that he can attain power and then impose the will of his Dark Mistress). So why is what Fr. West did such an outrage, while Shea gets a pass from the bloggers posting here? Do you have to be a Patheos-Approved Blogger to be allowed to attack the Catholicism of others?

  • Brian English

    Obama doesn’t need a mandate. He needs to win and have 50 votes in the Senate. Once one of the conservatives on the Supreme Court retires or dies, he will then have a 5-4 majority to overturn all of the Pro-Life legislation that has been passed throughout the country recently. Goodbye partial birth abortion bans; goodbye informed consent laws; goodbye parental notification; goodbye waiting periods; goodbye fetal pain laws. It alarms me how many Pro-Life Catholics don’t understand this.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    True, though I wish I could be more certain that a Romney pick for the court wouldn’t turn on pro-lifers the way other Republican picks have in recent memory. There’s at least a chance that his picks will turn out better than Obama’s, but no certainty.

  • Brian English

    Right, because anyone who concludes that one party is vastly superior to the other on critical Catholic issues is obviously an ignorant troglodyte. I mean, after observing the Abortionpalooza going on down in Charlotte, only an imbecile could conclude that it was vitally important to defeat that crew.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. English:

    “So why is what Fr. West did such an outrage, while Shea gets a pass from the bloggers posting here?”

    Mr. Shea is just a humble layman. He is not directly responsible to God for immortal souls placed in his care. On the other hand the Father in question is a priest of the living God. When every Cardinal Archbishop in the United States and Canada has a publicly declared “gay friendly” parish in his jurisdiction why does the priest in question take to task a layman on this matter instead of the successors to the Apostles?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Brian English

    That wasn’t my question.

  • Mark Shea

    I’m perfectly aware of the danger Obama poses and have urged people never to vote for him.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. English:
    “That wasn’t my question.”
    Did I note quote the following question from your previous post correctly and exactly?
    “So why is what Fr. West did such an outrage, while Shea gets a pass from the bloggers posting here?”

    And I say again. The good Father in question is a priest of the living God. Why should he get into a public kerfuffle with a humble layman over this matter when every Canadian and American Archbishops have publicly titled “gay friendly” parishes in their own Archdioceses? Why does the good Father waste his time publicly chastising layman Shea when Princes of the Church allow their priests (who are in “good standing” with the Archdiocese) to operate “gay friendly” parishes ?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Brian English

    Yes, you quoted my question correctly. But then you asked a different question. I am still looking for an answer to my question.

  • Brian English

    Souter is what you get when you have 55 Democrats in the Senate and poor vetting by Bush I. Alito and Roberts have both been fine (yes, despite the Obamcare decision).

    One thing that can be guaranteed, is that justices selected by Obama will be pro-abortion, and will remain pro-abortion.

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. English:

    “I am still looking for an answer to my question.”

    I am sorry that I was not more clear.

    A priest of the living God should not engage in a muddled, public disputes with a layman over a vague, 3 0r 4 month old blog posting regarding a third party who has successfully resisted temptation to serious sin (and Mr. Shea clearly holds with the Church’s teaching that sodomy is an intrinsically evil) when other priests of the living God publicly and clearly advocate for that very same serious sin while the only response from their Bishops is a deafening silence. Mr. Shea has not only frequently condemned the serious sin of sodomy; but he has also with equal frequency criticized its public (and often bullying) advocates. Something our good Bishops are loathe to do. The priest in question is, at best, wasting everyone’s time.

    If the good Father in question wishes to engage in a public debate on this matter perhaps he should address a public advocate of the grave sin of sodomy rather than a public opponent such as Mr. Shea?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Brian English

    All that is fine, but what does that have to do with my question? My question is directed at the bloggers who posted here who defended Shea and attacked Fr. West.

    You are asking me a question that should properly be addressed to Fr. West.

  • Pingback: Catholic shouldn't be fighting each other

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Bush I may not have been truly pro-life in the first place.

  • Aimee M. Cooper

    I’ll never forgive Mark for helping bring me into the Church. How dare he? Now I have to do things like eat human flesh and blood and share this bizarre cult thing with others. Horrid.

  • http://www.lewiscrusade.org John C. Hathaway, OCDS

    I’ve been a recipient of Fr. West’s “fraternal correction” myself: a couple years ago, he told me I’m not pro-life because I oppose contraception, the death penalty and war as well as abortion. I wonder what his superiors at HLI, which was founded because NRLC supports contraception, would think of that.

    In fact, in the conversation in question, I pointed out that his then-boss, Fr. Frank Pavone, has always insisted on a consistent life ethic, and what ticked him off and led him to “defriend” me on Facebook was when I directly quoted Fr. Frank Pavone–lo and behold, a few months later he’s at HLI. I couldn’t help but wonder if my post led to his departure from Priests for Life

  • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

    *citation needed…. because if you can’t cite said contradiction and juxtapose it with the Catechism (and you can’t) then you’ve managed to prove Mark’s point.

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Good satire starts off a bit ambiguous. The gradually clearing confusion is really part of the enjoyability of it. Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” starts off just the same, and when he gets around to suggesting that the poor (specifically the Irish) eat their babies when they cannot find bread, your eyes pop out. “Is he serious?!” you cry.

    Well, well done, Mr. McDonald. In a truly swift fashion, you had me following you with horror for several minutes, too.

    Please, God, nobody think that I, or Mr. Swift or Mr. McDonald, for that matter, actually want anyone to eat babies. For the record, I don’t, and neither did Mr. Swift. Mr. McDonald, though – well, is he a convert? :)

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com DeaconJR

    Hi, Richard–
    I have to say, doesn’t the question you pose (regarding why Fr. West might find Mark’s statement pertaining to a “chaste gay couple” worth commenting on) answer itself? If it’s self-evident that so-called “gay-friendly” parishes (meaning friendly to openly gay couples who deny Church teaching) are out there and that little is being done about it at the episcopal level, why shouldn’t other clerics seek greater clarity on the issue in the blogosphere? I mean, that’s certainly what I’m seeking to do, because while I accept at face value Mark’s steadfast embrace on Church teaching on “homosex” and civil unions, I still see an apparent contradiction contained in Mark’s comments regarding the concept of “gay couplehood” itself, and it would be *great* to have that cleared up entirely, especially given recent events.

    God bless you,

    Deacon JR

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Right, Brian. Abortion is evil. The Democratic Party is so gripped by it, that whether the Party can be salvaged is doubtful.

    But the souls! There are people in that party, and any stance that can be confused with hate or anger only distances them further from truth and love and Jesus.

    I have never voted Democrat in any election. Ever. For me, abortion is a deal breaker. So it, just under that, any taxes or debt to our children’s burden. But then, things like surveillance of citizenry and fighting wars without calling them wars and doing things to “non-uniformed combatants” (or whatever category has been invented for them) that I wouldn’t want done to me if I were accused of a crime, and creating hit lists (that even include citizens) are all deal breakers. And so is NAFTA and other international free-trading. And so are corporate and financial and union bailouts. But the problem is that both parties agree on a lot of this crap.

    But they do disagree on abortion and that is hugely important.

    Oh, wait. I voted Democrat for schoolboard – I grew up with the guy’s daughter. Conservative – Orthodox Jews, actually. Didn’t fit in with any Democrats. Would have in the 1950s, when they still allowed diversity. As far as I know, he opposed legalized abortion. Now he is deceased.

    But I won’t have Democrats thinking that I am at war with them because they are wrong; even because they hate what is right. Or their party. To heck with their party. Parties don’t have souls. The Church is immortal. They can’t hurt us if we don’t let them. They can only kill us, which, according to our Lord, isn’t as bad as losing our souls over hating them.

    But we have a duty to bring lost sheep and sheep from other folds, back to Jesus.

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Well, that makes sense. Is Rush Limbaugh a practicing Christian, even? Let alone a Catholic?

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    A lie cannot advance the cause of truth. It is telling that our Lord, who revealed the most important truth ever, never lied.

    The Catechism moreover, Brian, is unequivocal. Lying is always sinful. Always.

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Sandra Day O’Connor? Hello?

  • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

    Please be nice. Fr. West is still a priest, and if he weren’t, he’s a brother in Christ, and if he weren’t, he’s a person. As a (formerly) bony person, I can assert authoritatively that being called bony never made me more courteous, civil, honest, or kind.

    :)

  • Brian English

    “But they do disagree on abortion and that is hugely important.”

    But beyond that disagreement, there is only one political party that is actually attacking the right of Church-affiliated entities to follow Church doctrine. It is fine to have problems with actions of the GOP. I have some myself. But I think people have to realize that the crew down in Charlotte has an agenda in mind that we can’t ignore.

  • Brian English

    I was not debating the lying issue itself. Tom claimed Lila Rose and Live Action had not accomplished anything. That is clearly not correct.

  • Brian English

    “Sandra Day O’Connor? Hello?”

    Below are links to articles from The Public Discourse that talk about judicial appointments in general, and also place the O’Connor appointment in context.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6088

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6086

  • Peggy

    Elizabeth Scalia is right. Catholicism insists that we think through the problems, and consider each question on its own and against the truth that Catholicism teaches. Mark Shea makes me truthfully think and question why I have the opinions, and make the choices I do. I respect him immensely for that. While I don’t necessarily always make the final choices he does, (though sometimes I do!) I think I have a clearer reason for choosing to, for example, vote as I do. I should be such a clear thinking Catholic, able to question myself and wonder why I think “name problem here” is the right solution. Thank you Mark!! Please keep up your excellent work!!!

  • Peggy

    Woo Hoo! :-D

  • Richard W Comerford

    Deacon JR:

    “doesn’t the question you pose (regarding why Fr. West might find Mark’s statement pertaining to a “chaste gay couple” worth commenting on) answer itself?”

    No. The Father in question is picking a public fight with a layman who has no authority, is not ordained and is not a shepherd, while ignoring the very real dereliction of duty on the part of Deacon,s priests, religious and Bishops on this matter. Why is the good Father doing this?

    “If it’s self-evident that so-called “gay-friendly” parishes (meaning friendly to openly gay couples who deny Church teaching) are out there and that little is being done about it at the episcopal level, why shouldn’t other clerics seek greater clarity on the issue in the blogosphere?”

    Again why pick a fight with Mr. Shea? He never ordained men to the priesthood who lived openly unchaste lives, or assigned them to parishes and schools and promoted them. Why is the good Father doing this?

    “I accept at face value Mark’s steadfast embrace on Church teaching on “homosex” and civil unions”

    “face value”? Mr .Shea for at least the past 10-years has openly embraced the Church’s teachings on this matter and defended said teachings against all comers and in so doing received a lot of abuse from the advocates of sodomy. Why is the good Father doing this?

    “I still see an apparent contradiction contained in Mark’s comments regarding the concept of “gay couplehood” itself,”

    Mr. Shea has not advocated gay (or sad) “couplehood”; instead he has advocated chastity. Why is the good Father doing this?

    “it would be *great* to have that cleared up entirely, especially given recent events”

    Why? Mr. Shea is not a Bishop. He has no teaching authority. Indeed Mr. Shea has clearly stated that he holds and accepts what the Church teaches on this matter. Also Mr. Shea’s Bishop has neither corrected nor warned Mr. Shea on this matter. So why did the good Father, 3-4months after the event, take it upon himself to publicly pick a fight with Mr. Shea? Is the good Father in question claiming that Mr. Shea’s Bishop is inept? Why is the good Father doing this?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr .English:

    “All that is fine, but what does that have to do with my question?”

    Forgive me for being so obtuse. The answer to your question is simple. The good Father in question is neither Mr. Shea’s pastor or Bishop. It is their responsibility, not Father’s, to publicly rebuke Mr. Shea if they feel the need. Apparently they do not. Which is not surprising as Mr. Shea publicly embraces the Church’s teaching regarding this intrinsic evil. The good Father’s attack on Mr. She is untimely, uncalled for and unjust.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Richard W Comerford

    Mr. Hathaway:

    Did I read you right? You posted in part: “I’ve been a recipient of Fr. West’s “fraternal correction” myself: a couple years ago, he told me I’m not pro-life because I oppose contraception”

    Are you saying that the good Father is in FAVOR of artificial contraception?

    Thank you.

    Richard W Comerford

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com DeaconJR

    Hi, Richard—you wrote:

    ***No. The Father in question is picking a public fight with a layman who has no authority, is not ordained and is not a shepherd, while ignoring the very real dereliction of duty on the part of Deacon,s priests, religious and Bishops on this matter. Why is the good Father doing this?***

    I can give you my opinion: he’s not. I don’t think Fr. West was “picking a public fight” and I particularly don’t think he was doing so by way of “ignoring” other situations. I think your premises are invalid.

    ***Again why pick a fight with Mr. Shea? He never ordained men to the priesthood who lived openly unchaste lives, or assigned them to parishes and schools and promoted them. Why is the good Father doing this?***

    My opinion: he’s not.

    ***“face value”? Mr .Shea for at least the past 10-years has openly embraced the Church’s teachings on this matter and defended said teachings against all comers and in so doing received a lot of abuse from the advocates of sodomy. Why is the good Father doing this?***

    My opinion: he’s not. I sense a pattern here…

    ***Mr. Shea has not advocated gay (or sad) “couplehood”; instead he has advocated chastity. Why is the good Father doing this?***

    My opinion: he’s not. But I must assert that Mark has quoted the CCC’s teaching on homosexuality and after quoting it has said this: “I do not see anything in this which declares that a chaste gay couple cannot love one another or spend time together, or have a fulfilling non-sexual relationship.”

    This is why I ask for clarification regarding the concept of “chaste gay couple,” a concept I believe can be easily shown to be inconsistent with Church teaching on human sexuality.

    ***Why? Mr. Shea is not a Bishop. He has no teaching authority. Indeed Mr. Shea has clearly stated that he holds and accepts what the Church teaches on this matter. Also Mr. Shea’s Bishop has neither corrected nor warned Mr. Shea on this matter. So why did the good Father, 3-4months after the event, take it upon himself to publicly pick a fight with Mr. Shea? Is the good Father in question claiming that Mr. Shea’s Bishop is inept? Why is the good Father doing this?***

    My opinion: he’s not. My further opinion is that there remains a certain element of ambiguity on *this* point (the chaste gay couple) while I wholeheartedly acknowledge Mark’s embrace of Church teaching against “homosex” and civil unions. And now seems a remarkably great time to clarify this aspect of what Mark has said.

    God bless you,
    Deacon JR

  • Richard W Comerford

    Deacon:

    “I don’t think Fr. West was “picking a public fight”.”
    Did not the good Father in question launch a very public and very personal attack on Mr. Shea regarding a blog posting that is 3-4 months old?

    “This is why I ask for clarification regarding the concept of “chaste gay couple,” a concept I believe can be easily shown to be inconsistent with Church teaching on human sexuality.”
    Why? We are all called to chastity on pain of (objectively speaking) mortal sin. What more do you want?

    “while I wholeheartedly acknowledge Mark’s embrace of Church teaching against “homosex” and civil unions”
    Mr. Shea for at least the past 10-years has advocated for chastity for all souls, in perfect conformity with the Church’s teachings on this matter.

    “And now seems a remarkably great time to clarify this aspect of what Mark has said.”
    Mr. Shea is not a Bishop. He has no teaching authority. However Mr. Shea does have at least a 10-year in published record wherein he publicly holds and embraces the Church’s teachings on human sexuality.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com DeaconJR

    Hi, Richard–re your most recent post to me–

    You seem to be a slightly repetitious fellow! :-) And slightly redundant…But you are failing to address the core of my concern, aren’t you?

    Well, let me ask you, then–do you believe the concept of a “chaste gay couple” is to be found in harmony with the teaching of the Catholic Church?
    In all seriousness, isn’t it important to address this question?

    God bless you,

    Deacon JR

  • Richard W Comerford

    Deacon JR:

    “do you believe the concept of a “chaste gay couple” is to be found in harmony with the teaching of the Catholic Church?”

    What I believe is unimportant. What the Church teaches is all important. I pray that I will believe all that the Church teaches on faith and morals. The Church clearly teaches that we are all bound to obey the 6th and 9th Commandments and live chaste lives. However the Church to my knowledge does not define or categorize or or title people as “gay” or as “couples”. The words “gay” and “couples” are modern, ill defined, secular words that have not only entered; but have become firmly entrenched in our 21st vocabulary. I suspect the roots of these worlds were first planted in our modern culture by the apostles of the Frankfurt School which promoted modern Western Marxism.

    As evidenced by the record Mr. Shea promotes neither Marxism nor sodomy. He does promote, in perfect conformity with the Church’s teachings, chastity and charity.

    “In all seriousness, isn’t it important to address this question?”

    Is that not the duty of our Shepherds? Mr. Shea has no teachings authority. Attacking Mr. Shea in public because he used secular words like “gay” and “couple” which mean different things to different people is at best a misguided tactic. Sadly our Bishops in the main appear to be largely silent not only regarding the concept of “chaste gay couples” but on the virtue of chastity.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • LoneThinker

    I had first -hand experience of Fr West in our parish two years in a row, the pastor was a typically conservative priest and he did not invite Fr West back. It is sad when zeal becomes a form of fanaticism that undermines the cause we espouse.

  • elizabeth

    Brilliant. An absolutely apt description of the current state of charity!

  • Marie

    In the aftermath of Fr.West thread

    It seems EWTN has lost support from a few of Fr.West posters.

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/bannedbymarkshea/#!/groups/bannedbymarkshea/permalink/407540355973799/

    One of the comments that caught my eye.
    Amy Ivsan
    EWTN values money and reputation. Material agenda profiting over marketing and prostituting the church.
    Friday at 10:03pm…

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/222489151183380/#!/groups/222489151183380/permalink/313612688737692/

    Marie Steine
    EWTN has lost some donations due to him.
    Saturday at 11:41am · 3..

    Sandy Gray
    I can verify that, as they’ve lost our support and in my email to them, I stated that was the reason. Until they get writers and speakers on board that are 100% orthodox, I’m gone…See More
    Saturday at 12:01pm · 4..

    Maybe someone could inform Fr.West that his supporters are posting comments like the one’s above. I have no idea why anyone WOULD say something so offensive >> ( Amy Ivsan
    EWTN values money and reputation. Material agenda profiting over marketing and prostituting the church.
    Friday at 10:03pm..)

  • Pingback: First Things Indulges in a Little Gratuitous Chesterton Bashing

  • Pingback: Nudging the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism Toward Treating with Reality

  • Raj

    You sound like a demon from hell, spreading division and hatred among brethren, an accuser of the brethren. May God have mercy on your soul and all our souls. Your comment that “we all know that converts cannot be trusted” was the most disturbing! For your kind information, all the 12 Apostles and St. Paul were converts! ALL the first Christians and then many for the next 4 centuries were converts! It is your “words” that actually resemble words coming from hell.

    P.S. I do not agree with all of Mark Shea’s thoughts or his attitudes (he is not infallible by the way), but his book was instrumental in bringing me back to the Catholic Church.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    It was satire in defense of Mark.

  • Sergio

    I subscribe to Fr. West just to hear is dribble.
    Father Peter West doesn’t know the difference between Americana and Catholicism.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X