Mark Shea Hearts Hillary Clinton

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print


Well, Mark Shea has restarted his old blog and is giving a big thumbs up to Catholics who want to vote for the complete pro-abort Hillary Clinton in order to stop Donald Trump:


you do not have to say a word in praise of Hillary’s evil policies.  You can bash them all you like (and I do).  Her support for abortion is evil (just like Trump’s).  Her cynical ease with lying is repellent (just like Trump’s).  Her bellicose ease with violence and war is wicked (just like Trump’s).  Her shady  associations are creepy (just like Trump’s).

But if you support Trump, you also are supporting evil she does not advocate such as torture, racism, misogyny, mockery of the disabled, mockery of POWs, and fiscal fantasism.  You have to, like Mike Huckabee, say stuff like “We’re electing a President, not a pope” and chuck overboard your claims to be thinking with the mind of Christ in order to pretend that Trump has “grown in virtue” and “evolved” on abortion when the reality is that he has not changed a bit.  You need to back him on *his* “non-negotiables” while abandoning your own.

I will be voting third party since Hillary won’t need my help to win Washington and the goal is to stop Trump, not help Hillary.  But I will not fault any Catholic who takes Benedict XVI’s permission and votes to lessen the clearly greater evil posed by Trump.

The greatest of those evils is the fact that every single “prolife” Christian who supports him will invariably find that they must immediately abandon the fight against abortion and devote all their *real* energies to *his* non-negotiables of racism, misogyny, Mammon-worship, violence, and grinding the faces of the poor.


Go here to read the comments.  Now as faithful readers of this blog know I am not going to be voting for Trump because I view him as a liberal Democrat in Republican disguise.  However, I can understand people who decide to support Trump in order to stop an unprincipled crook like Clinton from running the nation, especially due to the fact that while I am dubious about Trump’s conversion to the pro-life cause, I have no doubt that Clinton is an ardent pro-abort.  However, it is truly laughable for an ostensible pro-lifer like Shea to champion Clinton.  His arguments in her behalf are delusional.  She revels in anti-white racism in order to whip up the black vote;   she supports partial birth abortion which is torture as well as murder;   in regard to misogyny, anything Trump has done on that score pales in comparison to her rapist hubbie Bill, who she has assiduously shielded from such charges;   she supports abortion for unwanted disabled kids;   she was partially responsible for our men in Benghazi being left to die and then lied to their parents about it;   and as for fiscal fantasism, I guess Shea has been asleep for the last eight years in regard to the administration that Clinton was a proud part of.  Shea’s arguments are rubbish and he is intelligent enough I trust to realize they are rubbish.  The simple truth is that Shea has gone hard left, and on that score, and only on that score, Clinton would be preferable to Trump.


Back in 2009 Shea referred to the Catholic leftists of Vox Nova as the debate club at Auschwitz, because of their downplaying of the fight against abortion in order to support Obama.  Go here to read that post.  Well boys and girls, welcome the newest member of the Catholics Who Don’t Really Give a Damn About Abortion Club.  Give a big hand for Mark Shea!

More to explorer

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Apollo

AFTER passing many years in a hermitage, he formed and governed a community of five hundred monks near Heliopolis. They all wore

PopeWatch: Relic

News that PopeWatch missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   ROME—New Year’s Eve the world witnessed a historical event when the Pope

Winter War 47

Something for the weekend.  Finlandia Hymn.  My Bride and I are off to Winter War 46, a war gaming and rpg convention that


  1. So-called Catholics like Mark Shea are frankly an enigma. He exemplifies the fact that libralism is a mental defect or disease.
    And PS, I am not a Trump supporter either, but while thieves like Trump may merit incaceration in a saner society, murderers like Hillary who advocate open infanticide were tried for crimes against humanity at Nuremburg and hung by their necks till they were dead.

  2. His equating Hillary and Trump on abortion….the very day that Trump gave the names of his Supreme Court picks…all conservative…is classic fast talking salesman. This is not the real Shea that his wife knows. This is the click getting Shea…stir up the clicks ergo money ….attract the old followers who give to his tin can collections.
    A zen master said that one had to find the face one had before one was born. We would equate that to surmising who we would be had original sin not happened…and we’d tell the zen man, God through the sacraments can help you in that search. Only his intimates ever see part of that real person in Shea. On the net, he is often an act. He starts a bar fight with shotgun sprayed assertions too many to check completely then is off writing the next post while the clicks are being counted financially at Patheos et al.

  3. No…Shea was two days ago but in February, Trump stated he would defer to the Heritage Foundation on SCOTUS.
    So Mark is still speed thinking his accusation.

  4. (and I do)

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, since when? Oh just then? (though still taking time to beat up on trump I see)

    Let’s see here… blog’s been back since may 11th. Oh and we have a category!
    Never Trump which has… 6 posts in it.

    Let’s see… is there a category for “never hillary” or something like that?

    NOPE! 3 pages of archives and ONE other article about her. Wow yes, you have written 1 third the posts on her than Trump (and even 1 of those 2 is half him anyway, so it’s more accurately 1/4th of the amount) AND one of those 2 posts is POSITIVE.

    So yeah, Mark, STFU and quit it with your spin and *****.

    Shea’s arguments are rubbish and he is intelligent enough I trust to realize they are rubbish.

    I question if he is. I think he has given so over to emotionalism that sloth has overtaken his mind and his mind has become anthropoid and lazy.

    Once he may have realized, but no longer. And I challenge him to prove otherwise. But then he’d have to step out of his safe space, and we all know thin skinned crybullies can’t do that.

  5. If (may it please God) the next set of cardinal-electors sees fit to elect an orthodox pope, it will be immensely entertaining to watch Mark Shea instantly revert to being a stalwart, pro-life Defender of the Faith.

  6. If it hadn’t been for this blog post, I wouldn’t have known “Catholic and Enjoying It” was up and running again, nor would I have known (or cared) what Mark Shea thought about Hillary Clinton. So why are we calling attention to that blog, and generating more hits for it, if it’s so heretical and pernicious? If, as Bill Bannon states, Mark is just saying outrageous stuff in order to generate page hits and make money, why “enable” him to do that?

  7. From the outside looking in on the USA, I can’t even imagine how any faithful Catholic would advocate voting for la Hilary to keep Trump out, irrespective of their dislike of Trump.
    As I have said previously, I think Trump is malleable due to his “wanting to be a Republican”, and will be putting together – I believe – a good and acceptable team, as he has done with his business ventures.
    If la Hilary becomes president due to so called faithful Catholics voting for Hilary, or even voting third party, or supporting a split in the vote, then the banshee-Harpie will be able to change the USA as we know it along the lines that Obama has been partly successful in.

  8. “So why are we calling attention to that blog”

    A good question Elaine. Time permitting in my prep work for posts on this blog I read widely. I could have quite a few blog posts on any number of liberal Catholic blogs, but I don’t bother because they are obscure blogs with little influence. That is not the case with Shea. He has a column with the National Catholic Register. He has published a stream of apologetic books. He is hired by parishes and dioceses for appearances to speak. In short he is taken as a serious Catholic commenter by many. That he is now a drum beater for the radical left is a newsworthy matter and I intend to publicize that fact and attack him for it.

  9. Mark Shea isn’t worth anyone’s attention.
    Like a bad book, movie or TV show, he is best forgotten.

  10. Penguin Fan – True – Mark who?
    Apparently, himself is a moral defective. How could a person with a speck of discernment support such a corrupt, incompetent liar? I believe that she murdered two of her unborn babies – women’s health!!! Trump never murdered anybody.
    Mark could not support her if he had half an ounce of Christian morals . . .
    Here is my primary Trump/Hillary debate question ‘Does Christianity have a place in American culture?” I’d like to see her spin and twist on that.
    She and her old man are crooks. So says Harry S Truman (D). “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” And, anybody that supports them is as bad.

  11. Shea Truth Standard: The Principle of NonNonContrdiction: A thing can be and not be at the same time. A vote for Hillary Demon can be a mortal sin and not a mortal sin at the same time. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  12. I’m sad to hear he started back up, and I wish he hadn’t, but it is important to know what he’s doing now– I can’t counter his damage if I don’t know it’s going on.

  13. The charge of misogyny is empty, both against Trump and, unfortunately, as employed by Mr. McClarey in this post indirectly against Hillary Clinton via her husband.

    At the heart of the charge it is still the rabid and irrational feminist demand for equality. Lecherous fellows like Bill Clinton or Trump show their disdain for humanity differently in the case of women than men, and because their disdain for women is not manifested the same way as their disdain for men, the charge is Misogyny!

    But is it misogyny because Bill Clinton singled out women for groping and didn’t do the same for men? If the answer is yes to this, are we also prepared to call the treatment of the men in Benghazi by Mrs. Clinton misandry? I, for one, would rather not, but would also rather see much more limited and judicious use of the term misogyny also.

  14. More to Donald’s point, Mark Shea is but one example of a scandal orthodox Catholics are in large part loath to address. And that is the orthodox Catholic media has become as integrity-deficient as the mainstream secular press. And Catholics who ignore the former have absolutely no moral right to talk about the latter.

  15. “The charge of misogyny is empty,”

    Certainly not against Bill Clinton who has a history of forcing his unwanted attentions on females, up to and including rape. That is treating women as less than human. Trump is a boor when it comes to women, but as far as I know there have been no claims that he has forced himself on any woman.

  16. Depends on how you define “misogyny,” I suppose.
    I don’t think any of the three hate women because they are women; I do think they all respond to women’s inherent weaknesses in a way that is both more obvious and less culturally approved of than similar treatment of men’s weaknesses.
    (Using a “honey trap” on a guy in a movie is amusing; having a guy fake that he loves a gal is a way to show Gold Plated Monster status.)
    Trump is an utter ass and probably a cad– a user; Bill Clinton is a predator, and Mrs. Clinton at the very least enables it, in addition to both being users.

  17. “Certainly not against Bill Clinton who has a history of forcing his unwanted attentions on females, up to and including rape.”

    Yes, but the charge of misogyny is the treatment of women particularly with something less than their human dignity. That Clinton repeatedly treated women worse than they deserved doesn’t provide evidence in itself of misogyny unless he treated men as a matter of course properly according to their manly dignity.

    From my view Clinton treated both men and women with less than their human dignity required, offending against manly or womanly natures of both without the partiality that would be required for the charge of misogyny.

  18. Yes, Foxfier, I think I agree with your assessment. I’d say further that I think the way we typically define “misogyny” is sentimental and ultimately irrational.

  19. “Yes, but the charge of misogyny is the treatment of women particularly with something less than their human dignity. That Clinton repeatedly treated women worse than they deserved doesn’t provide evidence in itself of misogyny unless he treated men as a matter of course properly according to their manly dignity.”

    You have a unique view of the term misogyny buckinky, and when people have non-standard interpretations of words, I long ago learned it was a waste of time debating the word in question with them.

  20. Well, for what it’s worth, misogyny is one among many terms that I suppose I have non-standard definitions if by non-standard you mean the way it is used by most people in our day.

    Thanks anyways – tis truly difficult not to come across as a troll when discussing this issue, and in fairness to you, it’s not the main thrust of your post.

  21. I didn’t take your comment as trolling buckyinky, and there are certain words and phrases where I have unique interpretations. Don’t ever get me going, for example, on the term mendacious and its many shades of meaning!

  22. I thought we all knew the modern definitions.

    Misogynist – Male conservative winning an argument.
    Racist – White conservative winning an argument.
    Fascist – White male conservative that has conclusively proven his point.

Comments are closed.