Mark has once again gone off the deep end and has attacked not only Robert's character again, but the character of a priest, Fr. Brian Harrison! It is one thing to argue against someone's position with conviction, and another to attack their character. Mark wrote on his blog recently,, "Fr. Harrison never really bothered to check in on the consequences of his dangerous argument were playing out in the blogosphere over the next six years. He was too busy defending Robert Sungenis right to be anti-semitic crank in defiance of his bishop, as well as running around making cranky defenses of literalistic flat-footed readings of Genesis 1-3." People like Mark Shea need to learn their place as lay Catholics. Mark seems to think that he can attack fellow Catholic's characters anytime he chooses, never reflecting on the possibility that he may be committing the sin of calumny, by rash judging the people he disagrees with.
I for one am sickened by these types of personal attacks. Now Shea is trying to label a priest as being an ignorant, stupid anti-Semite. Shea also implies that Fr. Harrison has no business addressing moral issues like torture in public, calling him irresponsible for doing so. Yet, who has been called to speak for the Church? Who has the proper education to address the fine points of moral theology? It is not as if Father Harrison totally endorsed a heresy that is in complete opposition to the Church. He simply addressed a fine point of moral theology that was never really addressed by the Church. Father attempted to address such a theological question that many people were genuinely curious about, and the penalty for his action is being labeled an anti-semitic stooge who doesn't know how to interpret Scripture. I wonder if Fr. Harrison wanted to openly defend his character in a public forum, if the arrogant Shea would would give the courtesy to him to defend himself, or if he would do as he has done in the past and just insult him further and continue to assassinate a priest's character from his keyboard?
Guys like Shea are big tough guys when they get on their blogs, but when the rubber meets the road, and the person he attacked wants to defend the accusations leveled against them, he simply will not man up and act in Christian manner and allow them to do so. He is content to pontificate from his blog and defame fellow Catholic's characters. I don't know about you, but I have had enough of this guy. Catholic apologetics would be much better off without the likes of Mark Shea.
Update:
It seems that some people on Shea's blog agree with my thoughts on Shea's personal attacks. One blogger wrote in reference to a perceived trauma Shea may have experienced as a child, which he views as the reason why Shea acts in such an uncharitable manner, "Not all of us attack people who disagree with our views as angrily as you do because of those traumas. It's one thing to experience them. It's quite another to allow them to govern how you behave toward people." It is not this psychoanalysis of Shea that I found to be of interest. It was Shea's arrogant response that caught my eye. It really shows you what type of guy he really is. After Shea responded that he had no childhood trauma which leads to his attacking of people who disagree with him, he wrote the following, "Oh, and my attacks on those who defend torture are not unconscious, Dr. Freud. They are quite conscious." So here we have a clear admission by Shea that he feels his personal attacks on people's character are justified, and admittedly deliberate. They are made with full awareness of his actions. Shea is not attacking the person's theological or moral position, he is attacking the people and their character. Need we say more? It amazes me that people will invite this guy into their parish!
37 comments:
Thank you! No one wants to stand up to this man. He is rude, arrogant and a glutton. He firmly believes that waterboarding is a dogma is the Church and if we don't rally against it we are going to Hell. Shut up already, Fat Boy! He got rolled in this debate years ago by superior apologist Jimmy Akin and he is still sore about it. He writes of little else. Get over it and go eat 5,000 more doughnuts, Shea.
While I appreciate your support, I can't endorse your insulting language. It is best to confront these guys with sound argumentation rather than insults, otherwise we end being just like he is. I did see the Akin response and I thought is was well done.
No, Matthew. I have attacked Fr. Harrison's words and deeds. That's all I know of the man. In addition, I have stated a fact (that his views are on the fringe of Catholic theological opinion) and I have stated the documentable fact that, by his words and deeds, he has given aid, comfort, and succor to defenders of torture all over St. Blog's and that he has allowed himself to be used to give support to Marc Thiessen's egregious campaign to legitimate torture. These are statements of fact about what Fr. Harrison has *done*, not attacks on his character. You may not like the implications of what he has done, but that's not my problem. An ad hominem argument would proceed, not by looking at his words and deeds or the effect of these, but by, say, writing: "He is rude, arrogant and a glutton. He firmly believes that waterboarding is a dogma is the Church and if we don't rally against it we are going to Hell. Shut up already, Fat Boy! He got rolled in this debate years ago by superior apologist Jimmy Akin and he is still sore about it. He writes of little else. Get over it and go eat 5,000 more doughnuts, Shea."
Do you see the difference? A criticism that criticizes the actual words and deeds of Fr. Harrison is not "character assassination". It is legit criticism. A criticism which says "Fr. Harrison is wrong because he's fat. Go eat more donuts, Fat Boy" is wanting in substance.
Shea, you have insulted a priest based on pure conjecture and personal opinion, not the teachings of the Church. You have not dealt with what Fr. Harrison has said with any level of accuracy or respect for his office as both priest and theologian. You are a foul-mouthed, out of control arm-chair "apologist" who should be censured, reprimanded, and hopefully find some humility and truth. Your blog is hardly anything more than one entire diatribe and senseless attack on anything and everything opposed to your narrowly tailored views. Unless I see a radical change, if you ever attempt to come and speak at any parish in the Venice diocese, I will do my very best to make sure that our good Bishop has seen the type of hatred, slanderous-venom which you employ on a regular basis at your own blog. God willing, perhaps if he were to voice some displeasure, if indeed he perceived a need, then you would begin to be more cautious with your tongue. It is one thing to have a disagreement and to pose a reasonable argument; however, what you and your cohorts do is entirely inexcusable. Based upon your past history, I will not hold my breath. It appears to me that you are more prone to attack my dear Bishop’s good name than to have any true self-reflection and humility. I suggest that you go for an extended retreat.
Yes. Well. As I have suggested in the past, Alex, folks like you really *should* go to their bishop and put your money where your mouth is. Urge him to write a pastoral letter to the diocese of Venice on the legitimacy of torture and waterboarding. March into his office demanding to write a letter to the diocesan paper or, better still, be allowed to address a gathering of priests in the diocese about the critical need for the Catholic Church to defend the use of waterboarding, cold cells, strappado and other forms of torture. Tell him he needs to get on board with Fr. Harrison's support of Marc Thiessen.
Get back to me when you've done that. I'd *love* to be a fly on the wall for *that* conversation. And not because I have the faintest belief that your good bishop, being a good bishop, would do anything other than stare incredulously at you and then try to figure out a way to end this surreal interview as fast as possible.
So: go ahead. Call your bishop. Urge him to get on board with Fr. Harrison and Marc Thiessen. Or are you just a lot of talk in a combox?
Mark, for one thing, I never saw Alex say anything about water boarding anyone, or marching into the bishop's office to endorse water boarding. Where did you come up with that? He only referenced your uncharitable attitude that he would write the bishop about, if he saw that you were going to come to the Venice diocese. In case you do not understand formal logic, the two are not even remotely close in content.
Secondly, aligning Fr. Harrison with anti-Semitism is an attack on his character that has serious consequences. You have done the same with Robert Sungenis. You have gone far beyond writing coherent arguments for or against someone's theological or moral position. You have no right to write condescending comments towards these fellow Catholics, one being a priest. You can disagree with someone and not be a total jerk about it.
Matthew:
Tell you what. You and Alex can go explain to the bishop that I am "uncharitable" in some vague and unspecified way to nameless people about nothing in particular. But when he asks "What do you mean?" it seems likely that you will have to, sooner or later, mention the specific fact that I have been writing in opposition to torture and its defenders and that your anger is largely centered on that. Good luck trying to put lipstick on that pig.
Re: Sungenis multiply-documented anti-semitic rants and Fr. Harrison's deliberate choice to defend him: once again I am talking about matters of documentable fact. If you wish to defend Sungenis, you should at least go over the abundant evidence concerning him. Start at http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com
Once again, I urge you to, by all means, go to your bishop and explain to him why Sungenis' actions are defensible, why Fr. Harrison's defense of him is not to be questioned, and why I am a menace to the Church for doubting these propositions. You should present your defenses of Sungenis in tandem with your defenses of the poor souls who were subjected to such intense suffering by my criticisms merely because they publically defend the use of torture. I'm sure the bishop will totally warm to your arguments.
Seriously, Matthew. Put up or shut up. If you seriously *believe* the nonsense you are defending then hie thee to your bishop make sure I am never allowed into your diocese. But you have to be honest about it. Don't just pass along "Shea is so *mean*!" whines. Specify very clearly that what angers you is that I attack defenses of torture and of documentable anti-semites. Bring along print outs of what I have written, not just your hearsay accusations. Give him a link to my blog and tell him to read it. If you believe what you are saying, then man up and act on it. Don't be like Alex and just threaten me in a combox.
Mark, I have never threatened you in a com box. Where did that happen? Once again it seems that rational argumentation is not your strong suit. You are not an authority to determine who is and who is not an anti-Semite, and you have no right to label a priest like Fr. Harrison, or a fellow laymen like Robert Sungenis in such a manner. I have gone to that blog dedicated to destroying Robert's character, and I find it completely immoral to set up a blog in the manner that it was done. It was set up not to argue against a theological position, but to destroy a person's character. I cannot endorse that.
You want to talk about "putting up or shutting up," why don't you act in a moral manner and give Robert the chance to address your personal accusations in public forum? He is willing to pay for it! If you are so sure that Robert is an anti-Semite, then there should be no problem in defending your accusations fact to face, as Scripture itself calls us to do! As serious as these accusations are, you have a moral obligation to oblige him face to face. It costs you nothing, so have no excuse!
Of course I would oblige anyone to go to your blog and read it for themselves. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it to come to the conclusion that you are an extremely uncharitable person who has taken himself way too seriously on the blogs,and made accusations at fellow Catholics that are very serious in nature. It doesn't take long to peruse your blog to come to that conclusion. Believe me, you don't want me to come over and start going through your blog pulling comments you have made in the past where you have insulted people, calling them names, using foul language, etc. I will refrain from that, and allow people to draw their own conclusions.
Finally, no matter how hard you try to spin it, Alex nor I have not endorsed water boarding, nor have either one of us ever said we were going to the bishop to argue for water boarding. This type of bullying may work on some people not well schooled in logical argumentation, but not on me.
I am not against you or anyone else arguing for or against a position concerning Catholic morality or theology. In fact I enjoy a good debate, especially when it concerns issues that fall along the fine lines of morality. I do have a problem with how it is done. Without charity none of this matters. “But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection” (Col 3:14) With this in mind, you have a great number of people to apologize to for the manner in which you have addressed them on your blog, and for the labels you have applied to people in which you have no right to do. I suggest you get started on that.
Shea,
Where in the world did the topic of waterboarding come from???
As I have said, this is about your continual disrespect of not only priests but also other individuals who should not be subjected to the manner of attacks which they undergo on a regular basis at your blog. This is also about your foul mouth. This is about your vicious attitude towards those who do not hold to your opinions. This is about the level of uncharity which almost thoroughly permeates your blog.
I've met you before. I've seen the way you treat people with a great lack of charity (my friend who owned a Catholic bookstore in this case) as if you were completely entitled in every way. You are a bully, plain and simple, and I do not want you in the diocese of which I am a member. I believe that you are an embarrassment to the Church, and I pray for your reflection and growth in humility.
As a member of my Bishop's flock, if you were to appear in this diocese I would express my concerns to him for your well-being. If he found merit in them, then I would hope that you would take his counsel. That is it.
Matt,
Just for the sake of balance, I'm wondering if you have posted on your blog any correction of Robert Sungenis for his public, unjust accusation against his own bishop, accusing him of holding to and actively promoting heresy to "unsuspecting Catholics"?
I think it's important to establish that point to see if this is really about being shocked at how a layman treats another layman and a priest, or if it really is All About Bob.
If you have been reading this blog then you know its not "All About Bob." Whether or not you agree or disagree with some of Robert's comments or not gives no one a right to go after someones character. Once someone has been labeled as an anti- Semite it is hard to get your reputation back. The point is, tread very carefully when you label someone, especially when it is something as serous as this. Like I said earlier. You don't want me to go through Marks' blog and put together a greatest hits list of comments Mark has said to drive home my point. I will not do that because believe that it quite obvious that he needs to seriously work on the way he addresses other people who disagree with him. That is my point. I will leave it at that and move on.
As for Fr. Harrison's very unfortunate defense of Bob Sungenis, it has been answered in detail:
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-rsatj.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/09/fr-harrison-and-diocese-of-harrisburg.html
Although I have appreciated Father's work in the past, this foray in support of his friend was extremely disappointing, being erroneous on numerous facts and rash in its characterization of those who oppose Sungenis. I confess at being somewhat scandalized at the prospect of a priest of the former stature of Fr. Harrison taking the side of a layman who is publicly charging a bishop like Bishop Rhoades with heresy.
Interestingly, the most Fr. Harrison could bring himself to say in criticism of Bob is that his publicly professed views of the Jewish people are “at worst, merely exaggerated or immoderate” while simultaneously (and indiscriminately) disparaging Bob’s critics as “persecutors,” “cyber-vigilantes,” “Sungenis baiters” and over a dozen other such strong, unequivocal condemnations.
Again, Matthew, I wonder if your moral outrage is balanced enough to take Father to task on your blog for his own treatment of his opponents?
Where in the world did the topic of waterboarding come from???
From the mouth of Fr. Harrison, whom you are defending, and who chose to come to the defense of Marc Thiessen's grotesque defenses of this obvious form of torture.
I'm afraid I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about concerning your friend and his bookstore. I've been to Florida twice to speak and I don't remember any problems concerning a bookstore. My memory is terrible, so maybe I've forgotten. But this is the first time anybody has brought it up.
If you've been carrying some grudge about whatever it is you are referring to, it would be better to just email me and tell me what the problem is since it doesn't seem particularly germane to anything here.
As to my alleged foul mouth, I think offering defenses of torture is much more filthy than stating clearly that terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" or claims like "waterboarding is not torture" are Orwellian bullshit (or, if you prefer the biblical term "skubala"). The peculiar tendency to strain at such gnats while swallowing the camel of defense of grave and intrinsic evil is just one of the reasons I'd love to see you really act on your alleged convictions and go demand your bishop speak out in defense of Fr. Harrison's actions with respect to Thiessen and Sungenis.
Matthew:
My apologies for conflating your views with Alex's threats. Evidently, you think I am a disgrace to the Church, but don't really plan to do anything about it at all. Fine by me.
Meanwhile, it really would be nice if you would at least favor the PalmHQ with a serious reply.
Mark wrote, "Evidently, you think I am a disgrace to the Church, but don't really plan to do anything about it at all. Fine by me."
Mark, obviously I have no authority over you to really do anything about the way you conduct business on your blog. My hope was that you might have read what I said about the way you have dealt with people on your blog, and that maybe, just maybe, you would have had some humility to sit back and look at the things you have written and think about them. It was my hope that you would would have considered that there may be a better way to go about proving your points in a more charitable manner, by sticking to the arguments rather than labeling people and insulting them.
You know as well as I do that this blog post was never an issue about defending water boarding or a wholesale defense of torture. The entire issue has been how you Mark, have gone about addressing these issues, and how you have dealt with those who have challenged your views on Catholic morality.
You would ultimately be a much more effective voice for the Catholic apologetics world if you got your temper under control before you started blogging. It is obvious that you have wholeheartedly rejected that course of action. It is clear that I can't force you to do anything. My efforts have failed, "C'est la vie." I've said my piece, I'll move on to bigger and better things!
[ You are not an authority to determine who is and who is not an anti-Semite, and you have no right to label a priest like Fr. Harrison, or a fellow laymen like Robert Sungenis in such a manner. I have gone to that blog dedicated to destroying Robert's character, and I find it completely immoral to set up a blog in the manner that it was done. It was set up not to argue against a theological position, but to destroy a person's character. ]
It's interesting, but as far as I know there has not been a single instance in which the material at that blog has been shown to be factually incorrect.
It seems to me that a man's character is defined by what he says and does. If his public words and actions are repeatedly immoral and scandalous, then it suggests that he is a man of bad character. In my opinion, men of bad character ought not speak publicly on behalf of the Catholic Church.
Sungenis' own bishop (the successor of the Apostles whom Sungenis has publicly and unjustly accused of holding to and propagating heresy) has stated that Sungenis' views on the Jews are “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian.”
What would you call someone whose repeated public actions and statements concerning Catholics were demonstrably “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian”? Would it be just to call him an anti-Catholic? I think that's reasonable. Would it be just to warn others publicly about such a man's work? I think that's reasonable as well.
One has only to apply the Golden Rule to come to the reasonable conclusion that Sungenis is indeed anti-Semitic.
If a man decides to put out a shingle, beg for donations, claim to speak and to "teach" publicly as a self-appointed Catholic apologist, then I submit to you that his character counts. It is by no means a violation of charity or any precept of Catholic morality to warn others away from such a man, when it turns out that his "teaching" is “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian” and that he has consistently behaved in a scandalous manner. Rather, it is an act of charity.
If you are prepared to defend Sungenis in his attacks on Bishop Rhoades, Jewish converts such as Roy Schoeman, and the Jewish people as a whole then by all means do so. But if not then it would seem, as I suggested above, that your moral outrage is seriously out of balance.
Palm, you may think you are clever in your efforts to force me into a corner by putting words in my mouth, so you and your buddies can label me and try and destroy my character as well. I will have none of that. I will not be forced by you or anyone into that situation.
In case you haven't understood the message yet, let me repeat it once more. Not you, nor Mark, nor anyone else has the authority as a lay Catholic to label anyone an anti-Semite. That is the bishop's job to handle, not your own. Bishop Rhoads doesn't need you or Mark's private opinions. Did the bishop solicit help from you guys in determining his theological or moral status as a lay Catholic? Does he need your help, as if he were too stupid or too inept to do his job? Let the proper appointed Catholic authorities handle the situation.
If you want to counter what you perceive are theological or moral errors of Sungenis' writings, then do so properly and in good charity. He usually is more than willing, from what I have seen anyways, to reply to them, and he has offered to sit down face to face with at least one of his repeated accusers at his own expense.
It is not your job to destroy a man's character despite your personal opinions about his writings. Got it? Do you understand? You are entitled to your private opinions about him and his writings, and you can charitably and properly respond to his writings, but you have no right to launch a website to destroy a man's character by labeling him an anti-Semite. That is not your job. That is all I have to say about the matter.
Matthew,
Our stated purpose for the blog is as follows:
"We have consistently stated that our intention is to defend those unjustly attacked, to help insure that innocent people do not adopt the inflammatory and scandalous views of the Jewish people that Bob has advocated, to make clear that Bob’s views of the Jewish people are not those of the Catholic Church and that Catholics care enough to speak out vigorously against such views" (http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/last-word.html).
It would seem that you are attributing motives to us that we have never stated and do not hold.
I think you know perfectly well that it is within our rights as Catholics to critique publicly the anti-Jewish writings of a fellow Catholic, "properly and in good charity" as we have done, and conclude based on the prevailing evidence that he is indeed anti-Semitic--just as it is within the rights of various Catholic apologists to critique the writings of others and conclude that they are anti-Catholic. There is no double standard here, although you seem keen on enforcing one (cf. my latest entry at http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-you-anti-semitic.html)
But if you truly believe that we have transgressed our proper boundaries then, with Mark Shea, I invite you to have the courage of your convictions and take it up with Bishop Rhoades or any of our bishops. Lay the writings of Sungenis on the Jewish people, on Jewish converts, and on Bishop Rhoades himself before the bishop of your choice and register your complaint about us. I would be interested to hear how that goes for you.
Palm, are you dense or what? Leave to bishops what is for the bishops. I repeat, you are have no authority to proclaim anyone a formal heretic, or a formal anti-Semite. Capisce? Unlike yourself, I think that the bishop can handle the problem himself. He doesn't need my advice. Did I ever say anything about going into any bishop's office? No, I did not.
[ Not you, nor Mark, nor anyone else has the authority as a lay Catholic to label anyone an anti-Semite" and "Palm, are you dense or what? Leave to bishops what is for the bishops. I repeat, you are have no authority to proclaim anyone a formal heretic, or a formal anti-Semite. ]
We have said more than once that we consider Bob a "material" anti-Semite and have never accused him of heresy, material or otherwise. But I'm still trying to detect a moral coherence in your position, Matt. Below I've pasted in passages from various places on your blog that don't jibe with the standards you're laying out here.
I note, for example, that you were able to come to the conclusion that Luther was an anti-Semite and said so publicly.
I note your verbiage against Chris Matthews, contrasted with your complaint of "malicious, personal attacks" from the "obnoxious Shea".
As far as I know, no bishop has stated publicly that Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi were/are heretics, yet you arrogate it to yourself to say so publicly. On the other hand, Bob Sungenis has been accusing various Jewish converts and his own bishop with heresy on the flimsiest of grounds, but from you on that point there's deafening silence. Sungenis deploys other outrageous personal insults against the bishop (e.g. he is paying "homage" to Jews because they own the mortgages on his diocesan property and the bishop has greater "allegiances" to Jews than to the Catholic faith) but anyone who takes him to task for his repeated outrageous behavior needs to be quiet?
The charge you level against James White is particularly interesting. You deploy the dictionary definition of "bigot", conclude that White fits that definition, and publicly call him an anti-Catholic and bigot. But when we deploy the dictionary definition of "anti-Semite" and even a bishop states from his evaluation of Bob's work that it is “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian” with respect to Jews, you complain that it's foul play and out of line play to say that he's an anti-Semite.
Now, do you really hold to what you wrote to me and all of the examples below are slip-ups on your part? Or does your moral outrage just depend on whose ox is being gored?
Matt on Luther: "His torments also carried over to his hatred for the Jewish people. It is a fact that Luther was an anti-Semite and of course anti-Catholic as well."
Matt on James White: "James White at Alpha and Omega has once again proven why he is an anti-Catholic bigot....Turretin asks, "Amazing! Does Bellisario even know the definition of a bigot?"
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, defines it this way:
1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person
Yes, he is the perfect definition Turretin....Turretin, you as well are delusional. You will defend your buddy White no matter what sick, foolish, outrageous and unsubstantiated argument he brings forth."
Matt on Chris Matthews: "Chris Matthews is an Idiot....Chris Matthews is a real loser folks....Chris Matthews is also a confused, twisted idiot....What a wretched tool of hell this man is ... You can almost see the sulfur coming out of Matthews' nostrils as he attacked the bishop. The arrogance of Matthews stinks to high heaven and it frankly makes me sick....it seems to me that the bishop was kind of blindsided by this screwball."
Matt on Ted Kennedy: "Kennedy is a public heretic who has separated himself from the Church, and he is only hurting himself by receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin."
Matt on Nancy Pelosi: "Heretic Pelosi ... Pelosi recently said the following in public, making her a publicly professed heretic"
From the mouth of Fr. Harrison, whom you are defending, and who chose to come to the defense of Marc Thiessen's grotesque defenses of this obvious form of torture.
It isn’t so much that I am defending Fr. Harrison’s position; it is that I am condemning your horrendous and vile manner in attacking this priest and others whom you disagree with on your blog. If you can’t understand that, then the problem is really deep seated. We have come to discover quiet some time ago your inability to interact with the actual positions your opposition holds and the actual way they have expressed themselves, so there is nothing new here. If you were to do some minor self-reflection, you would soon discover that this rank intellectual dishonesty in the way you interact with your opposition is very much part of the foundation which causes you to treat others so uncharitably. To blatantly lie and misrepresent people and their positions is extremely uncharitable and sinful.
I'm afraid I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about concerning your friend and his bookstore. I've been to Florida twice to speak and I don't remember any problems concerning a bookstore. My memory is terrible, so maybe I've forgotten. But this is the first time anybody has brought it up.
It wasn’t in Florida; it was in Charlotte, NC. It wasn’t a bookstore; it was a conference where you were one of the participants and he happened to be representing his bookstore at that conference. Since he had some of your books (not very many, just a few) along with the many others he was selling at that conference, and you had brought your own books with you, I personally witnessed in a shockingly rude and utterly contemptible manner you throw a fit and demanded that he remove your books from his stand. These mannerisms of being a foulmouthed and uncharitable bully who feels that you are entitled to whatever you deem fit are regularly displayed on your own blog.
If you've been carrying some grudge about whatever it is you are referring to, it would be better to just email me and tell me what the problem is since it doesn't seem particularly germane to anything here.
It is exactly germane here, and just like the bully you are you expect everything to be on your terms. You can insult whomever, whenever, and we must sit idly by and accept it. As a bully, you are an intellectual coward who refuses to face-off with your opponent in any reasonable way, and instead lie about their beliefs, misrepresent them, place words in their mouths that they do not hold, and then attempt to burn these caricatures of them on your own blog. You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen of your own fanciful creation.
As to my alleged foul mouth, I think offering defenses of torture is much more filthy than stating clearly that terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" or claims like "waterboarding is not torture" are Orwellian bullshit (or, if you prefer the biblical term "skubala"). The peculiar tendency to strain at such gnats while swallowing the camel of defense of grave and intrinsic evil is just one of the reasons I'd love to see you really act on your alleged convictions and go demand your bishop speak out in defense of Fr. Harrison's actions with respect to Thiessen and Sungenis.
Case in point, as I have stated above. Secondly, as I have already stated, I will raise my concerns over you coming to this diocese to speak if this were to happen. If you are incapable of reading my comments as written without inferring things that any rational person would not attribute to me, then perhaps professional help, spiritual guidance, or a hiatus from the blogosphere for a while is in order.
I will continue to pray for you, and if you ever attempt to speak at a parish in this diocese, I will forward these comments and my concerns to my Bishop for his consideration.
I am quite unconvinced that it is the job of the Bishop to publicly declare someone an "Anti-Semite". I supponse I can look it up in the Cerimonal of Bishops. However, I am quite sure that I promised to only teach what the Catholic Church teaches, and that includes a clear condemnation of torture. You may not like Mr. Shea's style, but any assumed sins against charity that he commits pales in comparison with the Millstones that Fr. Harison and others tie around the necks of innocents with their defense of torture.
Palm, Sure I made those comments. Unlike Mark Shea, I will admit that I have gone overboard at times, and I have apologized publicly on my own blog and other people's blogs, despite criticisms that I received for doing so. While I will continue to improve my attitude and language on my posts, it is my hope that you and Mark will do the same. Unlike Mark I don't run and hide. I am able to face up to my mistakes and admit them here in front of anyone who reads my blog. Unlike your accusations, my reference to Pelosi concerns her own admission to going against a formal Church teaching openly, so that is not an equivalent comparison is it? No, its not. Be that as it may, I own up my mistakes, what about yourself and Shea? Now what excuse are going to come up with? Unlike you I haven't devoted entire websites and article after article going after one man's reputation. I suggest you quit endorsing entire websites to destroying one man's character and quit trying to compare my brief articles to the massive damage you have done to Sungenis, and now a priest Fr. Harrison. This type of garbage does not work with me. You might think that you have cornered me with your little cut and paste job on my blog, but it has little impact on drawing away the attention from what you and Mark are supporting.
Now to address your claims. You wrote the following "We have said more than once that we consider Bob a "material" anti-Semite..." Yet did you not title one of your own articles, "Lies, Plagiarism, and Anti-Semites: Sungenis Comes Full Circle"??? Nice job of trying to say that you have separated Bob's "material" from his person. You labeled Robert a liar, a plagiarist and an anti Semite all in one title. You yourself wrote, "In this forum we have amply demonstrated that Bob Sungenis is an irresponsible and dishonest commentator on Jews and Judaism." That comment is a personal attack in case you didn't know. Calling him dishonest implies personal motive. So don't come over here telling me that you have only implied that he is "materially" an anti-Semite, when you yourself said he was intentionally dishonest in presenting his material on the Jews. Saying his material is anti-Semitic is one thing, saying he is intentionally dishonest about the material is making him personally an anti-Semite by implying his intentional motives in presenting the material.
Shall I continue quoting your own work showing how what you just told me was an outright lie? You wrote, "This piece will focus on Bob’s most recent shoddy scholarship, double standards, plagiarism, and outright bigotry in regard to Jews and Judaism." This is a personal attack, calling Bob an outright bigot. In case you didn't know, that is a personal attack. Are you starting to understand the difference? I am giving you fair warning now, don't come back over here and comment any further. We are finished with this nonsense. In case anyone wants to know where I got your quotes from, they can go here. I have nothing further to discuss with you.
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/07/lies-plagiarism-and-anti-semites.html
Palm, also in case you haven't noticed, the original blog post is not primarily about Sungenis. It is about Shea's poor example of Catholic charity and his repeated personal attacks on fellow Catholics including priests. Nice try, but you are not going to corner me into a Robert Sungenis debate so you can attack someone else on your website. I repeat, do not come over here and comment again. This discussion is over.
Alex:
I guess you have a different idea of what "throwing a fit" means. I recall requesting that, since I brought books of mine to sell, that he not sell my books. That seems rather fair to me, given that book sales are one of my main sources of income and given that he had other books to sell. There was no fit. Just a request.
Matthew:
Unlike Mark Shea, I will admit that I have gone overboard at times,
Apparently you are unfamiliar with this tag at my blog:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/search/label/Mea%20Culpa
I'm quite willing to admit it when I am at fault. It's just that I don't think I'm at fault here.
It would really be good if you could give PalmHQ a coherent reply here. Cuz up till he nailed you to the wall with your own hypocrisy, I wasn't seeing a whole lot of admitting "Of course, I've done this too, so who am I to complain" but pretty much nothing but "Shea is a disgrace!"
But then I would be more sensitive on that score, given what a character assassin I am.
Mark wrote, "It would really be good if you could give PalmHQ a coherent reply here. Cuz up till he nailed you to the wall with your own hypocrisy," Maybe in your fallacious reasoning he "nailed me" to the wall. When he doesn't use proper comparisons it doesn't amount to much. Comparing an admitted, public and self professed dissenter to the Catholic faith like Pelosi to Sungenis? Please. Maybe in your world this is great piece of of masterful work in "nailing me to the wall", but not by most people's standards I am afraid. I find it quite funny how you send your buddy Palm over here to try and turn this into a Sungenis debate while you conveniently duck out. I am through with this, have good life insulting priests on your blog.
Matthew:
I don't send people anywhere. I didn't know Palm read your blog and I had nothing to do with his posting here. Evidently, he just couldn't endure the hypocrisy and felt compelled to say something.
At any rate, I'm done here. If you feel the need to actually act on your conviction that I am a disgrace to the Church, I really would urge you to contact your bishop and put your money where your mouth is. If possible, please make an audio or video file of that interview and post it, cuz I would *love* to see you explain to him what Sungenis has said, Fr. Harrison has defended, and you are so passionate to defend as well.
Not too surprising that you keep all this stuff bottled up on a blog. Actually saying it out loud to competent ecclesial authorities might force you to step outside the hothouse and watch your defenses of this stuff get blown away by a gust of laughter.
Once again Mark, the material Sungenis and Fr. Harrison has not been the issue here, its your big mouth. Nice try again to divert the argument somewhere else, but like I said, these type of ploys do not work with me. I stay on the subject I started with. You should try doing the same.
That is usually how rational argumentation works. A rational person actually debates the subject matter that the opponent actually presented, and not something that he instead invents in the figment of his own imagination to divert attention away from the original subject. In case you don't know, that is called a Red Herring. They used to teach rational thought back in the day, you should try and educate yourself on it.
If I'm still to be allowed to post here, I'd like to make the following points:
First, let's be clear that I was holding you to your own standards—I was not holding myself to your standards. If a man has spent years and tens of thousands of words attacking the Jewish people in ways that, applying the Golden Rule, could certainly be considered anti-Semitic and his own bishop—the competent authority in the matter—considers his writings toward the Jews to be “hostile, uncharitable and un-christian” then yeah, I consider him an anti-Semite. We've documented the examples extensively. As for his culpability in all of this, I'm not the judge. If I erred in not prefixing "material" in front of every use of the phrase then okay, score one for you Matt. But the fact remains that the competent authority has actually weighed in on this—imagine how bad things had to be for that to happen—and certainly supports my view of things.
You've complained several times about a blog dedicated to defending Jews and others against the unjust attacks of Bob Sungenis. Strange that it doesn't seem to occur to you just how bizarre it is that Sungenis has written so much attacking Jews, Jewish converts, and his bishop that it requires a whole blog to respond to much - not nearly all - of it. You seem completely unmoved by the fact that Sungenis has repeatedly slandered and unjustly attacked an entire people, a successor of the Apostles, and pretty much anyone who has reacted against in opposition to those attacks. So again, where's the balance in the moral outrage here?
Finally, it seems clear to me that you're not really interested in interacting with the facts of these matters, with the actual evidence as presented (e.g. the link to my article.) But the plagiarism is documented. The shoddy scholarship is documented. The falsehoods, repeated even after they have been demonstrated to be false, are documented (those are rightly and justly called "lies": see here for one particularly ugly example: http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm). The bigoted statements—again applying the Golden Rule to determine the bigotry—are documented. The unjust assaults on Jewish converts and Bishop Rhoades are fully documented. I can understand a certain resistance to looking at the whole, ugly picture, but the documentation is there and it has yet to be demonstrated that there is any factual error on the blog.
Sungenis' actions have been scandalous. Fr. Harrison's defense of him was as well. That is what led to this discussion. But it's not unjust or wrong to speak the truth in these matters. I'm still puzzled at how it is acceptable for you to divine the motive of someone like James White and openly call him an anti-Catholic and a bigot, but you insist that it's absolutely wrong to apply such labels in this present case, when the evidence is many times greater. It seems to reveal something about your priorities, if not your moral compass.
By the way, I confess that I did not search your blog for a possible retraction of what you said about White. If I missed that then I apologize for continuing to use it as an example.
Palm, it seems that you won't leave it alone, after I asked you to go away. As I said, I will not be sidetracked onto the issues of Sungenis' theological writings on the Jews. That is not the subject of this post. We are talking about Mark Shea's attitude and actions against anyone and everyone who disagrees with him on his blog.
I personally can't believe you are going to compare my posts on James White, who is obviously writing against the Catholic Church daily, as if it were preaching a false gospel, to that of the character assassination of Robert Sungenis. I may have been uncharitable in my choice of words against James White, but I have not devoted my entire website to destroying the guy's reputation. This is the logical fallacy of a false analogy. Even if your false analogy was admitted as a valid one, it amounts to no more than, "you did it, so can I!"
Your second fallacy is your statement contrasting the supposed evidence of what White has written against Catholics, to what Robert has written against the Jewish people, to deflect the argument away from the original subject matter, which in case you forgot again, is Mark Shea, not Robert's theological writings.
You wrote, "but you insist that it's absolutely wrong to apply such labels in this present case, when the evidence is many times greater." How have you come to this false conclusion of the evidence being greater? Did you go to James White's website and add up all of the anti-Catholic writings and line them up side by side with the writings that you consider Robert Sungenis to have written against Jewish people, and tally them up some how to determine your fallacious assumption? Is this a statistical comparison you have conducted to try and justify your actions? The logical fallacies here are too numerous to continue wasting my time on this.
If you feel that spending your time and efforts on supporting a website that does nothing but attack one person's character, then keep on doing it. Keep on attacking priests if it makes you feel better. It seems that if the bishop is addressing the situation, as you have repeatedly written here, then you don't trust that he is doing a good job if you have to keep stoking the flames on your websites. Once again, let the bishop be the bishop. Now, I would appreciate it if you would go away as I asked you before.
Palm:
We're talking about accusing Shea of assassinating Fr. Harrison's character by his noting that he defended a clearly documented anti-semite. We are *not* interested in evidence, no matter how voluminous, that the man he defended was an anti-semite, nor in the fact that he defended him. We want to say what *we* want to say and we are not interested in facts that contradict what we want to say! So stop it!
Mark, when you guys learn to put together a coherent argument,and not one string of logical fallacies after another, then maybe we can take you seriously. I have an idea! Why don't you man up and fly out to debate Robert on his own dime and brush up on your debating skills! If all of the evidence is so clear on the matter, then I can't see why you won't at least give the guy the opportunity to face one of his accusers in person. You keep running from that, don't you? After all, if what you say is absolutely true, then Robert will be corrected in person, and hopefully that will help him change his attitude on the matter. Maybe he will then devote his time to more productive apologetic subjects.
If I endorsed an entire website devoted to attacking a person, and I repeatedly put up posts attacking a person, and they requested that I debate them face to face over the issue I was so passionate about, at their own expense, I would jump at the opportunity. Whats the hold up? Planes are flying everyday!
This is very much the reason why I no longer pay attention to whatever Mr. Shea says about me on the few occasions that he has done so. I have concluded that if he likes or dislikes something that I have written, it really is of no consequence, since the emotional level at which he engages the argument is about the same of that of a three year old throwing a tantrum. More often than not, he doesn't even give the opposing side the benefit of having good intentions, which I think decency at the very least dictates. He needs to learn that, at the end of the day, emotional bluster is not an argument.
All of this is rather indicative of Catholic discourse being at such a low level in general. The age of the Scholastics and the great minds of the Church was all about subtle questions, questions that to some pious ears seem blasphemous and ridiculous. But it is the job of qualified theologians in the Church to make the necessary distinctions, and inquiry is not shut down just because the zeitgeist seems to find one side of the argument particularly repulsive. Today, we seem to be thrown about between the extremes of theological relativism that is just lightly baptized secularist rhetoric and magisterial positivism that borders on group-think. There is little room for discourse that both takes truth seriously and actually leads somewhere, and that is why I tend to steer clear of all of it. The Internet has only made this about a hundred times worse, since anyone with a keyboard, encyclopedic knowledge of a myriad of pop references, and the gift of gab can become his own cyber-pontiff. To all of that I say, no thanks.
I guess you have a different idea of what "throwing a fit" means. I recall requesting that, since I brought books of mine to sell, that he not sell my books. That seems rather fair to me, given that book sales are one of my main sources of income and given that he had other books to sell. There was no fit. Just a request.
You did not request; you demanded, and had he not conceded, I hardly believe that you would have been indifferent either way. Secondly, selling books is a source of income for him and his family, so what makes you any more privileged than he at earning money? If a buyer wants to buy your book, and my friend had it to sell, then why should he not provide it? Why do you believe that you are more entitled than he at selling the book? At that time, including himself and his wife he had 11 mouths to feed. Thirdly, you should be happy that he even carried your books, thereby giving you greater exposure. What I see here is nothing less than another indication of your selfish, immature, uncharitable, entitled, bully self.
You should really consider some sort of self-reflection. Perhaps a retreat would do you some good.
Arturo,
That about sums it up for me.
Thanks for your comments.
FYI.
http://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2012/03/joseph-hippolito-compares-mark-shea-and.html
http://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2012/03/in-case-you-missed-mark-sheas-comments.html
http://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-shea-brags-about-his-latest-raise.html
On the last post there was a mention in an anonymous comment about plagiarism. Maybe you can add light to that.
Post a Comment