Are Followers of Taylor Marshall a Bunch of “Sheep”?

Are Followers of Taylor Marshall a Bunch of “Sheep”? June 24, 2019

These are interactions on my Facebook page, from 6-2-19, after my initial critique of his book: Reactionary Infiltration of Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration.


Currently 840 reviews are posted on the page (89% of them 5-star reviews from his rapturous fan club of wide-eyed “sheep”). My only objection is the leaving of an impression to the casual observer that 840 reviews in nine days’ time since a book has been published, are a spontaneous outpouring of the Catholic community as a whole, which is supposedly passionately responding en masse to this marvelous book that finally “tells the truth.” That is not true.

Benoit Meyrieux Dave; I fail to see why you call the reviewers of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s “sheep.” I do not think that this kind of posts are helping the conversation on bit. The book present a thesis, bring up facts, and attempts to explain the situation of the Church. One can dispute the facts and/or refute Taylor’s interpretation but the name calling and the “rad-trad” sobriquet do not change anybody’s mind.

You’re welcome to provide a substantive critique. No “name” I have called is remotely as objectionable as Taylor Marshall suggesting that Pope St. Paul VI was a practicing sodomite or that Vatican II was a thoroughly modernist, anti-traditional council, and that Pope Benedict cares more about traditionalist “aesthetics” than about doctrine? All that, and your concern is with my use of the word “sheep”?

[I] still do not understand the need to call the people who read/reviewed/liked the book “sheep.” Whatever your disagreements with Taylor’s assertions, there is a vital need for a robust debate on the situation of the Church and the causes of the disaster we are witnessing. I know this is something that is dear to your heart, so by all means let us debate this. But please let us argue opinions and interpretations instead of labeling people. You know full well how a famous Catholic blogger has made a poisonous habit to do so. There is too much at stake for this kind of rhetoric.

I’m not gonna debate whether Vatican II was good or not. It’s ridiculous. Nor will I bash popes all the way back to Pope St. John XXIII as supposedly modernists, or disagree with Pope Benedict XVI, that the ordinary and extraordinary form Masses are both good and on equal footing in terms of Church approval.

That is fine if you don’t want to go there. My initial reaction to your posts was simply to point out that, if the intention is to change people’s perception to at least help them to see another side of the issue, calling them “sheep” or any criticism of the pope or the Council as “ridiculous.” My two cents.

If you want to debate my positive take on Vatican II, then go ahead and critique what I wrote in my first long critique of Infiltration. No one else has been willing to so far, and Taylor Marshall doesn’t want to touch any of it with a ten-foot pole. He can’t and won’t defend his own position.

What is “ridiculous” is misrepresenting my stated positions. I just clarified yesterday that I am not opposed to “any criticism of the pope or the Council” in one of my dialogues. So if you’re so concerned with accuracy, please apply it to my position as well. I certainly leave no doubt as to what I believe.

I will continue to call 900 positive reviews of a book in one week as people being “sheep.” They all say basically the same thing. That’s what sheep do. The Bible calls us sheep of the Shepherd (Jesus), for heaven’s sake. All I’m saying is that these folks are following Taylor Marshall, like sheep following a shepherd. My point is that he is not their shepherd, and that he is teaching them serious error. And they (like him) don’t want to seriously interact with any criticism.

I guess I was not able to adequately put into words my reserve with your treatment of the book, of the author, and of the reviewers. I appreciate you and I try to promote your work any chance I have. I am not trying to pick up a fight. It seems that, once again, the discussion brings more heat than light. This is sad state of affairs.

Ivan de Avila Jealous?

I am never jealous of making money for teaching what is spiritual poison. I’d rather live in grinding poverty than to ever do that.

Related Reading:

Good Discussion: Back-and-Forth Dialogue vs. “Mutual Monologue” [1-21-01]

Why I am Fed Up With Internet Discussion [10-10-03; rev. 1-20-04 and 10-4-16]

On Misunderstanding Theology & Refusing Any Correction [7-8-07; rev. 3-21-18]

Is Facebook Beyond All Hope As Regards Dialogue? [6-2-14]

Clonish Choir-Preaching and Orwellian PC Groupthink . . . Rather Than Fair Dialogue [4-11-17]

Journalism is Dead / Dialogue is Dead (RIP) [6-19-18]


Photo credit: Keith Weller. These particular sheep belong to a research flock at the US Sheep Experiment Station near DuboisIdahoUSA Image taken from (Image Number K4166-5) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]



"Thanks for letting me know. I will stop following them from now on."

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, ..."
"Sorry, I just wanted you to react with that. Never expected it to be such ..."

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, ..."
"We didn't but Gnu Atheists need their argumentum ad hominem. Cheers brother."

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, ..."
"Time to channel some Fr. Brian Davies on my favorate topic..A Classic Theistic Concept of ..."

Problem of Evil & of Good: ..."

Browse Our Archives