Friday, September 24, 2010

Mark Shea's Hot Air "Maximum Death" Ad-Hominems

It seems that Mark Shea is not happy with my Jeff Foxworthy parody since he has now officially called it "Factional shit." He followed that up referring to me with, "I could not care less if I hurt the feelings of such bullies. Similarly, I train my fire on gay bullies who harass and abuse people for not celebrating their disordered appetite. " That is typical Mark Shea rhetoric for those of you who are not familiar with his shoddy work. We can see the noxious nonsense that Shea is trying to spin here by comparing me to a gay bully trying to force my disordered lifestyle on people. That is what windbags like Shea do when they have no substantive material to write, they resort to malicious ad-hominems. What bothers me about Shea are not necessarily his personal accusations, but the fact that he never never backs them up with any substance. For example, he accused me of being a "Rad Trad" who is for maximum death. What is that supposed to mean anyways? Have I ever called for the maximum use of the death penalty? I bet Shea has not even read the articles I have written on the death penalty and other social justice issues. If so, I would like to see a substantive argument from him arguing against what I actually wrote, rather than read his mindless bitter rhetoric like, "Why don't you get back to your pleas for maximum executions, Matthew. What the world really needs more of is Catholics hungry for death, death, and more death. You represent all that is ugliest in so-called Traditionalism, Mr. Bellisario."

So here is my challenge to the heavy windbag Mark Shea. Where have I called for maximum execution or maximum death? Have you read what I have written on the death penalty? If so, on what points do you disagree with me, and where in my work have I ever called for maximum execution? Where have I demonstrated that I am hungry for death? Perhaps you would be willing to debate my position on the death penalty sometime, we can see how well you do. I am willing to defend what I have written on the subject any time and any place.

The fact is, there is nothing that I have written on the matter that conflicts with official Church teaching. That is not important for Mark Shea however. It is only important that he puts "Rad Trads" like me in what he deems to be their proper place. The weak-minded Shea however will certainly flee when he is challenged to bring forth anything substantive to the table. Instead he would rather hurl general insults at people, and yet when he is called out to actually defend his written accusations, he runs like a coward. I expect that is what will happen here as well. Until he decides to actually retort with real substance to back up his personal accusations against me, which will be a cold day in hell for sure, Mark Shea will probably continue to maliciously slander my character and call me "Maximum Death Matthew" without any support whatsoever for doing so. But as long as Shea feels he has put me in my place, all is well.


Alexander Greco said...

This certainly is typical Shea.

Mr. Negativity [read: Shea] regularly attacks others without engaging in any substantive argumentation. If you make some sort of substantive reply, he will delete your comment and ban you from his blog. Then his equally foul-mouthed friends [read: Sean P. Dailey] get on there and continue the non-substantive attacks leaving you with no ability to interact with them on his blog.

How much of this is actually a loss on your end? Not much because even if you were able to reply to their attacks, they would not respond in a reasonable manner. It's equivalent to reasoning with a two year old, or a feces flinging inmate in lockdown. It is impossible.

Shea has an extremely narrow view of the Church. Sometimes his view is opposed to traditional teachings. He often does not maturely investigate and deliberate the traditional view. He regularly condemns the traditional view in a juvenile manner. He always treats those in disagreement with him in a mocking, dismissive, morally crude, and ridiculing way. I have to say though that by not engaging in any substantive back-and-forth argument with his opposition he exacerbates the profane rhetoric he often employs. I would like for him to just once be a responsible person and engage a topic reasonably without employing one fallacy or ad hominem after another.

It is folks like Mark Shea and his followers who exemplify the poor state of Catholic Apologetics (does he even do this anymore? I can’t tell by viewing the day-to-day drivel on his blog). As far as I am concerned, he and his pompous cohort Sean P. Dailey need to grow up, stop behaving like idiots, and embrace the fullness of the faith instead of the interpretive grid of the crypto-modernist wing of the Vatican II Onlyists.

Anonymous said...

I've had 'words' with "Jolly" Shea before under my actual name. Like you and the Greco, I'm underwhelmed by his social and literary skills. I have not seen anything on his site that shows any great literary talent and I've seen even less evidence of the common social skills that the ordinary man on the street would have. His use of foul langauge would even be upseting to some factory workers who are not noted for their refined speach.

Greco is right about ol'Jolly' having "an extremely narrow view of the Church". From what I've seen, he's slouching toward liberalism. His stand on the death penalty, his sour grapes toward our military, and his general attitude toward anyone who professes traditional, conservative, religious or political beliefs sounds a lot like what a liberal Protestant or Catholic would say. I'm surprised that no until now has even dared to, like our Greco, to use the dreaded "M" word to describe the way Shea and his 400 "followers"? filter their ideas about the Church and it's teachings through their minds.

One more comment before I go. I wonder what Shea's bishop thinks of him? If I was a bishop, I'd be embarassed to have this man in my diocese!

Clifford Carvalho said...

Just read some stuff on Shea's blog to learn something about him. He had some little tirade about how women should wear pants and it's wrong to make them wear skirts/dresses. He had one single instance of a single woman not wanting to wear dresses/skirts for trivial reasons and uses that to typify traditionalism.

Now, the media uses one single isolated incident of pedophilia to typify all priests. Shea argues the same way. He hunts for one person that works out in his favor and uses it to bash people he's prejudiced against, just like the media.

He also (in the same post, arguing in the same style) had the stereotype that all trads are bloodthirsty simply because one single person was in favor of the death penalty, so "logically" then all trads are automatically bloodthirsty. The person in question is not even reliable since she admitted to actually caring what Shea thinks in the article linked.

freddy said...

I find Mark Shea's writing, on his blog and in his books, both erudite and accessible to the lay reader. I have never known him to hold a position outside the Church, though I have known him to misunderstand a commenter and lose his temper. Unlike many in internetland, however, he often apologizes.
Sometimes two very strong willed people will lock horns and completely misunderstand each other. Is it possible that that's what happened between you and Mark Shea?
God bless you.

Matthew Bellisario said...

No I do not think that is what happened since he obviously attacked my character without any substance whatsoever to back it up. Notice how he never came back to justify his attack. Its because he has no argument to back it up. This is typical Shea. As far as his writing goes, I see no benefit to any of it, and I find more literary skill in a Jughead comic book.

freddy said...

Well, I didn't notice the exchange between you and Mark, and I couldn't find it in your links (my computer is sometimes wonky), so I can't judge. I was just attempting to offer a different perspective, in the name of charity.
God bless you

Jae said...

This is sad, sad indeed! for Pete's sake we are all catholics from the entity called One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of GOD!

Stop fighting amongst ourselves the Enemy is out there spreading lies.

Just let go and let God do the judging.

God Bless!

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

I tried posting the following to the National Catholic Register site, but I have been banned from that site:

"Our sins do not name us, Jesus does

Mark, read Matthew 7:21. Then read Matthew 23.

Do you seriously believe that a holy, righteous God will allow you to get away with your unrepentence concerning your tendency to make personal attacks and deliberately distort other people's positions merely because you are "theologically correct" in terms of Catholicism?

It won't be long before you engage in the same tactics again. Those tactics define you far more than your faith or your opinions. And, again, you hope you will get out of it with false apologies that do nothing but temporarily lull your critics to sleep.

It's time for this nonsense to stop.

Fellow Catholics, I suggest that you besiege National Catholic Register, Catholic Exchange, Catholic Answers and the Wanderer and demand that they stop employing Mark Shea or publishing any of his writings for one year. Also, send your complaints to the Archbishop of Seattle. Demand that he discipline this man.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Unfortunately it is like the mob with these "apologists". Shea is in good with this crowd. Most of them are arrogant and pompous and can hardly put two thoughts together to save their lives. Look at Sean P. Dailey and the Chesterton Society. He is the same as Shea. I have written the president Dale Ahlquist before about his foul mouth and so forth and have never even received a response from him. Yet who is Ahlquist having lunch with yesterday? Shea of course. I can't even watch EWTN any more because its the same mob of people on it all of the time. You are either in with the mob or your not.