Mark Shea, in his full throated conversion to the Left, puts on display his current lack of intellectual honesty:
Today’s “Conservatism”: where there’s something weird and silly about having a problem with non-consensual sex. Mr. Limbaugh: the term for that is “rape”. And yes, for rape we do, in fact, call the police, you dolt. I’m sure that your moronic remark has nothing to do with the ongoing struggle of the freak show that is right wing media to defend their Sex Predator candidate.
Trump is gonna lose. And it will be so satisfying to watch him and his team of professional liars and mob of misogynist racist followers trying to claim that he was robbed and blame everybody but themselves for the catastrophe for which they and they alone are totally and completely responsible. It’s about damned time the Party of Personal Responsibility was forced to take some responsibility.
Go here to read the comments.
Notice that Mark did not link to Limbaugh’s site. Here is what Limbaugh actually wrote:
Standards, you stand up for moral standards, you’re gonna be mocked and laughed out of the room. They’re gonna call you a prude. They’re gonna call you a Victorian. They’re gonna call you an old fuddy-duddy, an old fogy, and they’re gonna claim you want to deny people having a good time. So a culture which rejects moral standards. In other words, anything goes. You know what the magic word is? The only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is one thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is?
Consent.
If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine, whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left. “How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they’ve judged Trump is found.”
If morality is relative to each individual — and believe me, it is today. You try to define morality, and they’re gonna come for you and mock you and make fun of you, and, worse than that, it’s like you don’t have any right to define morality. One of the Undeniable Truths of Life that I wrote back in 1987 is that morality has become an individual choice. And, of course, it isn’t.
Morality is what it is. Virtue is what it is. And you either are or you aren’t. And the left doesn’t like that so they’ve obscured the lines and the definitions. And the definition now is moral is whatever you can get somebody to do with you, consent. You can do anything. If you could get the dog to consent with you, if you can get the horse to consent, we got no problem with it. And they don’t! So morality has been boiled down to consent, is my point, and it’s true.
So it’s said here, “If morality is relative to each individual — a purely subjective experience — by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a ‘standard.’ Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?”
Because, you see, morality is not subjective. “Human beings possess the capacity for rationality and objectivity. We’re able to distinguish what’s good and what’s bad,” and we know it. We know right from wrong. We know good from bad. We know what we should do and what we shouldn’t do and the left wants to not feel guilt when they engage in what you shouldn’t do. And the way to get there is to simply erase the concept of objective morality. There isn’t any. You don’t get to define it. Nobody else does. You get to define your own. And therefore you can’t criticize.
Well, in this atmosphere, how does anybody dare preach to Donald Trump? When we have spent the last 25 or 30 years obliterating the moral code, when we have blown virtue to smithereens, who are you phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers all of a sudden now sitting in judgment of Donald Trump?
“Trump’s trashy comments do not uphold sex and romance as a beautiful and fulfilling, uplifting activity. But neither do Bill Clinton’s actions over the years, particularly with respect to his many, many dalliances with women. Bill Clinton is not running for president. His wife is. But his wife built her whole career off the springboard of his presidency. Without his presidency, she would not have become a U.S. Senator and later Secretary of State — a bad one,” but she wouldn’t have become either if it weren’t for her husband and her using that as her springboard.
Go here to read the rest. I guess winning political battles by any means, fair or foul, possible is important in some quarters. For myself, I like being able to look at my face in the mirror when I shave.
A dozen years ago, I’d have told you he was agreeable to read when he had an editor. Shea strikes me as one of the minority of men (Albert Gore is another) who just decay in every way as they grow older. I don’t think that’s the fate of most of us, who just have to cope with excess weight, arthritis, prostate problems, and, if our longevity is excessive, senility. In general, old men are great company, because they have perspective (and will humiliate you at cribbage or chess or dominoes or whatever their preferred board game is). Not always.
Some pigs just love rolling in the mud.
I was listening to Rush as I was traveling. I was impressed with his remarks as my wife and I saw them as an impressive summary by an untrained non-Cathoilc of Catholic moral theology and natural law.
Today’s Liberalism: Where yesterday’s serial sexual predator is today’s respected elder statesman. Where yesterday’s enabler of said serial sexual predator is today’s Democratic nominee for President.
.
” The rationale: consent is the sole criterion of the good. If marriage isn’t “working for me” because I feel stifled or want to run off and get my shakras aligned or any conceivable other excuse, then the Common Good simply counts for nothing. Generation Narcissus was handed a powerful license upon which to build the kingdom of the Imperial Autonomous Self.
Of course, when we start talking about fornication, divorce and remarriage, we begin to move on to turf that Christianity does say something about. But this answer made less and less sense to many millions of our countrymen, because they can only understand “consent” as the sole criterion of the good. Therefore, once begun, the logic can only proceed to the demolition of the next ‘societal taboo’.”
–Mark Shea
“But when you make consent the sole criterion of the good as our culture already has, there’s no particular reason to stop there.”
–Mark Shea
Man who does this Rush think he is? Mark Shea? I’m so glad Mark Shea called him out. Rush should try harder to be more like Mark Shea, not Mark Shea.
But there’s nothing weird and silly about that!
I can’t help but feel a little pity for Mark. To go from explaining the Catholic faith to defending the Democratic Party; that’s like selling your birthright for a mess of pottage.
Good catch, Mr. Winchester.
Comment of the week Nate! Take ‘er away Sam!
“THE COMMON GOOD” ? When a person conceived in original innocence, consents to a criminal act that person outlaws himself from the community, the state and the nation. Informed Consent may not be given without undergoing the consequences as in building up the common good or destroying the nation and our Founding Principles,” the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
Informed consent to criminality may not be given without forfeiting our sovereignty, our discipline, over ourselves. The rejection of sovereignty over ourselves darkens the rational soul with the intellect to recognize the common good.
Discrimination against vice is patriotism. Discrimination against virtue is a sign of a lost civilization.
Hillary cannot take us to hell unless we choose.
” For myself, I like being able to look at my face in the mirror when I shave.” Comment of the week from my perspective. “Take ‘er away Sam”!
I just went over to Shea’s page and provided the link to the full article from Rush in the combox. I am interested to see if that affects the discussion.
Mike’s, he did reply to you.
So what Rush says in paragraph 2 of an 8 paragraph writing is what he “ends up saying”.
Still proving he doesn’t read a thing.
Even from Mark’s truncated excerpt, you can tell Rush’s point was that anything goes with the left as long as it is consensual (euthanasia, drugs, homosex, pedophilia, orgies, you name it). He wasn’t saying that rape is not rape. Shea is a lost human being. Sad, considering how he used to be about 15 years ago.
Shea is beyond fraternal correction. Reasonable people should pray for him and otherwise ignore him.
I haven’t listened to Rush in some time now, but in reading that little snippet Shea quoted, it never occurred to me Rush was defending rape.
.
Does Mark post under the name “chezami” or are there others who don’t read? I’m a glutton for punishment, so I tried again. Last time though: https://xkcd.com/386/ (“someone is wrong on the internet!”)
Chezami is Mark.
Gotcha.
Yet another reason tio ignore Mark Shea. He has become a full blown leftist.
What I don’t understand about all of this is why isn’t Mark Shea ignored completely by The American Catholic as analyzing what he says causes anger or pity or some other negative response. But perhaps he serves his purpose by being a scratching pole conservatives. Maybe that’s important.
Good post. Wish I had something profound to say, but there is nothing profound about Mark Shea.
Why? Because of things like…
See, here’s what a lot of people fail to realize: however crazy, insane, and stupid of an idea you think Person A has, there is SOMEONE coming across them for the first time. And that someone does not have your knowledge and experience so to them they have no way of telling that idea is crazy, insane and stupid. So how are they supposed to know that idea is crazy, insane, and stupid? Possess your knowledge and experience? But that’s impossible, you are you and they are them. The only way is for you to share your knowledge and experience. But you won’t, because you’re “ignoring” the bad idea.
.
So the crazy, insane and stupid idea gains another believer.
Nate W. You make an excellent point. And what you say is a spiritual work of mercy, too: counseling the ignorant. I’m more interested learning more from orthodox Catholic writers than liberal twits like Shea. There’s not enough time in the take to take them all on.
There’s also some portion of people who sincerely mean the “I read ____ from a major Catholic source, and nobody contradicted it” argument.
So we’ve got to argue against the nastier stuff, and then even when someone is only saying “nobody said anything until now” shtick to be nasty, the old article can be linked. (Check out Jonah Goldberg’s ‘g-file’ articles, for a while there every single week he was linking to him doing what “nobody did when it wasn’t Trump” multiple times from the archives.)
Of course not, that’s why we take on those we can, when we can. And if you have to pick a target, the largest one (in audience, that’s not a fat joke) will be your best bet.
Exactly, that’s who I had in mind from earlier, though I guess some people could fall into one subset without the other.
I’ve been subscribed to the g-file forever but I’m very confused on who is who in: “he was linking to him” in your statement as by my count there’s 3 possible guys in context with your statement.
Art, I’m on my fast track “to decay in every way,” and enjoying every minute. The warden wants me to keep a pen and paper handy to memorialize every “senior moment.” zzzzz. I love you, man. I see you comment over at Marginal revolution, tweaking imbeciles with econ PhD’s.
.
Do not believe anything you hear, read, or see. Opinion and reporting are not separated. The reporting is distorted to the extent that it does not contain the modicum of truth found in the common lie.
.
For the filthy animals (including post-modern, so-called scholars) the truth is that which advances the progressive (replace the current elites, money and power, not reform) agenda. Any fact or statistic that contradicts the agenda is suppressed or distorted, no matter the residual factual truth.
.
All the gargantuan, derivative bull shit makes sense when you rightly assume that everything is propaganda and the truth is the last/least item on the agenda.
He linked to himself, in the past, doing what “never” happened. 😀
Although I think a couple of times he linked to “editorial board” posts or some such… 😀
I need to see what happened to the dang gfile, haven’t seen it in my box for a while.
****
Exactly, that’s who I had in mind from earlier, though I guess some people could fall into one subset without the other.
I kinda figured, but rephrasing things helps sometimes– oh! And there’s the folks who the second they HEAR an argument against X thing, it makes perfect sense, but for whatever reason they just never considered it before.
That’s how it was when I first heard about “eye for an eye” being a RESTRICTION on the Hebrews. You just never know where someone has a blindspot.
Enough with these words – what’s at stake in this election is the Little Sisters and other such cases that the Supreme Court sent down to the Appellate Court to “work out.” Those cases are not over with. There is an empty seat on the Supreme Court that is going to be filled by the next President. If the Christians “vote wrong,” this election as Fr. Michael Orsi says in his YouTube Call to Action, the Little Sisters and other Christians won’t have a place to turn to if the Appellate Court can’t “work it out” for them.
If the Christians “vote wrong,” that’s the end of our Freedom of Religion Constitutional Rights, and that is the end of our Constitution. Besides the empty seat being filled by the next President, there are at least 2 or 3 more seats that will be vacated in the next 4 years because of the ages of several of them, which means the next President, and Senate, will set the direction of the country and government for the next 40 years. We will be dictated to by the majority on the Supreme Court, and the federal government will have the physical force to back it up; our Pravda mass media won’t say a word against it. And Planned Parenthood will be ecstatic
THAT is what the risk is in this election for those of us who love God with all are heart, soul and mind, and who pray for His “will be done on earth.” Don’t be fooled by the calumny of the other side and their fawning press.
[…] What Rush Limbaugh said is here. What Rush Limbaugh didn’t appear to say in the least was that rape is defensible. I’m no fan of Rush, and you’ll notice I seldom reference him. Not that he isn’t right sometimes. Sure he is. My favorite reference is the time he observed that the Baby Boomers are the first generation in history that didn’t have to grow up. Good observation there. […]