Sorondo and Shea: No Enemies On The Left!

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

An interesting feature of the Francis pontificate is the attempt by some Catholics to play games of good guys and bad guys, with the good guys on the left and the bad guys on the right.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us an archetypal example:


Mark Shea is dead wrong

About the growing and expanding Culture of Death.  Mark writes a post that more or less says the American Right is hellborn Satanic racist Nazi to the core – but we’re still called to love their miserable, evil, racist, deplorable souls.

Fair enough.  The Right, like anything involving people, has its bad elements and, being a human invention, its errors. There is a radical Right, a racist Right, an alt-Right, and all manner of evil to be found on the Right.  Smart people with more than two brain cells know it.  Likewise there is also a radical Left, an alt-Left, a movement filled with all the same loathing, hate, demonic, slaughter, racism and hellborn evil as the radical Right.


That’s where Mark swings and misses by a mile. 

Part of Mark’s justification for his move toward the Left is that liberals are, in the end, just fine and swell people.  They’re nice, kind, caring, witty, compassionate, loving.  Oh sure, they have their rough edges.  Sometimes, for reasons not quite clear, they embrace bad things like abortion rights.  But on the whole, they’re good to the core.  Not like non-repentant conservatives who aren’t really Christians and who are rotten and evil to the core.

This is a major rationale for Mark’s current ministry.  This is how he explains assuming the best interpretations of what American liberalism has to offer while assuming the worst of conservatives.  This is how he assumes that liberals would never do anything like use the poor or the immigrant as human shields for their agendas, while he knows full well conservatives do nothing else but use the unborn as human shields.

This is a major confession of faith for Mark.  But it’s obviously wrong.  It’s so wrong that it boggles the mind.  You just can’t get more wrong than that.  It’s so wrong that Mark himself once mocked the notion.  When the Tuscon shooting happened, Mark openly mocked the liberal media narrative that somehow conservatives,  being conservatives, were simply a bunch of brainless murdering zombies waiting for someone to drop the Queen of Diamonds so they could go on killing sprees.  Mark rightly saw that this notion, that righteousness and sin are based on what color state people live in, is not just heretical from a Christian viewpoint, but idiotic. 

So this very thing Mark once called out as stupid at best, is now his justification for running to the left of center.  The problem is, it requires either a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, or a dangerously ignorant level of denial. Take, for instance, this statement from his post:

I have never encountered a single abortion apologist–not one–who speaks with glee over the death of an aborted child. 

Sorry, but I posted on this growing trend in 2012It has only grown since.  The idea to bring abortion out of the shadows and into the light, with pride and glee and encouragement, has  been one of the most frightful developments in the long, sad history of abortion in America. And it is spilling over into the proud and open push for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and even questioning the justification of violence in the name of shutting down free speech for those who don’t conform.  There are connections there not difficult to miss.

As for the fact that they don’t say the word ‘baby’, or believe it is a baby?  Who the hell cares?   Slave owners were convinced that Africans weren’t real people, worthy of the same rights as actual (Read: White) people.  The Nazis were absolutely convinced that Jews and other minorities didn’t warrant being called truly human.  That people bent on slaughter will use euphemism rather than the truth to justify evil (something Mark used to point out, BTW), is irrelevant.  The fact that the growing ‘proud to have abortions’ movement might avoid the term Baby because they’ve convinced themselves there is no human in the womb is not a damn bit different than the fact that Nazis, in their minds, weren’t sending real human beings to their deaths. 

If Mark lived in Nazi Germany in the 40s, would he excuse the Nazis just because they had convinced themselves Jews weren’t really people?  I have a feeling not. When a Catholic apologist, speaking in the name of Catholic teaching, must embrace such flawed justifications for his political positions, red flags must be waved.

As I already said, I’ve long ceased to listen to Mark.  All his credibility left the building long ago.  I comment on him because friends still like pestering me by sending links to his blog by email or Facebook.   I would no more care to read his blog than I would visit some radical atheist or anti-Catholic blog.  But this is dangerous.  The post looks like a contrite ‘I need to love these wretched sinners’ confession.  But it is wrong.  Demonstrably wrong.  Dangerously wrong.  So wrong that it risks being complicit in the move to broaden the very Culture of Death that the New Prolife Christian movement claims to oppose.  And it rests its downplaying of the manifold sins of liberalism on stupidity and falsehood.  Stupidity and falsehoods that Mark, ironically, taught me to notice in suspect arguments all those years ago.

Go here to comment.  That Shea has allowed his boiling hatred of conservatives to cause him to take leave of his senses is an old story.  However, in this pontificate he has plenty of company.  A prime example of this appeared in the headlines this week:


Back in the 1920s and 1930s, it was fashionable for Progressive and left-wing intellectuals to travel to the Soviet Union to find out what was “really” going on in the world’s first great experiment in communism. “The entire British intelligentsia,” the editor of the left-leaning New Statesman Kingsley Martin breathlessly exclaimed in 1932, “has been to Russia.”

The vast majority came back wide-eyed and deeply impressed by what they had seen. Following his visit to Russia in 1919, for example, the American progressive journalist Lincoln Steffens famously wrote, “I have seen the future, and it works.”

There were, however, realities about Soviet communism which few such individuals ever got around to mentioning. They rarely referred to, for instance, the Bolsheviks’ destruction of freedom; the cults of personality surrounding Lenin and then Stalin; the regime’s use of systematic terrorism against real but mostly imaginary opponents; the dynamiting of churches; the herding of peasants into collective farms; the murder of thousands of Orthodox and other Christian clergy; the Great Famine that killed millions in the Ukraine; the show-trials, purges and executions; the labor camps; and the relentless propaganda which assured everyone that everything was fine and that any problems were the work of saboteurs, kulaks, class-traitors, Czarist reactionaries, evil Western capitalists, and British Intelligence.

I was reminded of all this recently when reading a strange interview of Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. He is the Argentine-born and Vatican-based longtime Chancellor of what are called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Having recently visited China, the bishop described the one-party communist state as “extraordinary.”

Why extraordinary, you might ask? Well, according to Bishop Sanchez, China has “no shantytowns” and “young people don’t take drugs.” Moreover, he said, China takes climate change so much more seriously than most other nations. That’s hard to square with China’s relentless emphasis on economic growth. But, above all, the bishop exclaimed, “those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.”

At this point, I started to wonder how the Argentine bishop reconciled some well-known facts about the Chinese communist regime—its policy of forced-abortions in the name of population-control; its use of mass labor camps; its ongoing problems with rampant corruption; the growing cult of personality surrounding President Xi Jinping; its absence of democracy; its bellicose and militaristic stance in the South China Sea; the surveillance and censoring of anyone deemed a threat to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power by the Ministry of State Security; its appalling treatment of the Nobel Peace Prize activist, the late Liu Xiaobo; its oppression of the people of Tibet and other ethnic minorities; its demolition of Evangelical and Catholic churches; and its relentless harassment of Catholic clergy and laypeople who won’t support regime-puppets like the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association—with Catholic social teaching.

Incidentally, there are plenty of shanty-towns in mainland China, including in Beijing. And if Bishop Sanchez seriously believes that no young people use drugs in China, I can only (very charitably) conclude that he was given a very sheltered tour of China—perhaps something akin to Catherine the Great’s expeditions to the provinces in Russia during which her advisors made sure that she saw only what came to be called “Potemkin villages”: temporary edifices designed to shelter the sovereign’s eyes from unpleasant truths.

A disconnectedness from reality, however, seems to have become the norm throughout parts of the Holy See lately—or at least a tendency to view the world through a distinctly leftist lens.


Go here to read the rest.  In his desire to bash conservatives and to French kiss the Left, Mark Shea has powerful think-a-likes in the current Vatican.


More to explorer


  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   CHINA—Christians in China have joined together in lifting up their American

Not One Thin Dime

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas my bride and I usually send Christmas donations to groups we support.  This year our major donation will

D & D and Moral Panics

  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at the history of the role playing system Dungeons and Dragons: So even


  1. “The idea to bring abortion out of the shadows and into the light, with pride and glee and encouragement, has been one of the most frightful developments in the long, sad history of abortion in America. And it is spilling over into the proud and open push for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and even questioning the justification of violence in the name of shutting down free speech for those who don’t conform. There are connections there not difficult to miss.” DAM

    Your entire post is sadly accurate, and the (pride, Glee and encouragement..)
    is a frightening attitude to encounter. Women boasting at the numbers of multiple abortions..the “it tickles when it’s being done,” the gay pride festivals, Southern Decadence, and it just keeps getting worse and worse.
    Surly our times must be more offensive to God than the times of Sodom and Gomorrah…. I can’t imagine it otherwise.

  2. Is this man willfully blind? At my cities recent March for Life I saw a couple dozen counter protesters who gleefully embraced their sacrament of abortion. Others were just deranged by their anger. Go on Youtube and you can find plenty of examples of celebrities who who just luv their abortions. Liberalism is based on emotions and since the fall our emotions are distorted. To allow your emotions to guide your intellect is just foolish and in the case of this Shea fellow dangerous.

  3. Ten or 15 years ago, before I stopped misusing my eyesight on that site, I was more chagrined by the drooling commenters than by his wordy BS.

    “Mark Shea Is Dead Wrong” is the equivalent of headlining, “This Morning The Sun Rose In The East.”

    The common logical fallacies deployed by leftists, e.g., Mark-who?, are ad hominem, appeal to false authority, distortion, fabrication, false equivalence, non sequitur, omission of salient facts, outright lies.

    In conclusion, Mark-who? can stick his “ministry” where the Sun doesn’t shine.

  4. IMHO, Shea has always been spiritually and mentally unbalanced. Look at the way he cyberstalked Joe D’Hippolito a decade ago. I’m convinced he was always a leftist, but he couldn’t come out as one until Pope Peron came along.

  5. Autocorrect infraction on DAM… should of been DRM.

    Speaking of mistakes; “Doctrine can develop as a result of the Church’s merciful accompaniment of families because God has chosen the family as a privileged place to reveal all that the God of mercy is doing in our time.”. Chicagoland Cupich.

    So doctrine can develop… without any discourse from opposing counsel…but “they” don’t matter. The Pope wrote it and uses his own letters to support his cause. Conscience is King in all things Katholic.
    After all, doctrine is developing… Jesus. Catch up already!!! The doctrine of Killing the innocent is developing too.

  6. My assessment of Shea has long been that he is at heart a liberal Mainline Protestant. As with many others post-Vatican 2, his conversion was not to historic Catholicism, but to a church that would not threaten his essentially liberal Protestant world view while providing the stability that Protestantism destroys with its very nature.

    One other thing you rarely hear about Bolshevism, is that the vast majority of its leaders were Jews:
    “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks whom took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians, they hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you in America call the “Russian Revolution”. It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history. It can not be understated, Bolshevism was the greatest slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators.”
    -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  7. I too have never “personally encountered” a pro-abort who was gleeful about killing babies, if by “personally encountered” one means “met face to face”. However, just because you have never personally encountered someone does NOT mean they don’t exist. I have never personally encountered Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Pope Francis, or numerous other public figures; does that mean they are simply myths (as much as we might wish some of them WERE just myths)?

  8. Steve D., is that why Stalin slaughtered so many Jews in his campaigns against the “rootless cosmopolitans”? Or perhaps you were imagining Trotsky multiplied by thousands. And perhaps you can source that quote by Solzhenitsyn so I might put in context. I don’t see “Jew” mentioned anywhere in the quote. And I am perplexed that a fine writer would use “whom” when “who” is the correct relative pronoun.

  9. One other thing you rarely hear about Bolshevism, is that the vast majority of its leaders were Jews:

    You don’t hear that from reputable sources, because it isn’t true. The alt-right nose counters who fuss over this and have some sophistication will typically locate knots within the Soviet apparat for their aha! contentions. (“Top 5 officials of The Checka in St. Petersburg in 1921 and 1922”). Others have different targets. One Russian nationalist I correspond with was running on about the number of Latvians in the Cheka during some narrowly defined period (ergo they got what was coming to them in 1940).

  10. “One other thing you rarely hear about Bolshevism, is that the vast majority of its leaders were Jews:”

    You don’t hear it because it isn’t true. Stalin was not a Jew. Lenin had a converted Jewish maternal grandfather, all the rest of his family being Christian, as he was. Trotsky was the only Jew among the top three and he had long ago given up his faith, just as Stalin and Lenin were apostate Christians. The Jews among the Bolsheviks who misruled Russia were no more Jews than their Christian colleagues were Christians. Let us have no more of this.

  11. “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks whom took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians, they hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.

    Lenin’s cabinet in the fall of 1917 had 17 members, of whom about seven were great Russian. One was Ukrainian, one was Ukrainian / Finnish, one was Polish, one was Georgian, one was an ethnic jumble, several were Jews, &c.

  12. Elaine Krewer.

    It’s true Elaine.
    If we could go back in time to 1942 and see the smiling SS Nazis boast of the extermination of Jews… please tell me the difference. Worse than the SS are the prideful degenerates who call themselves feminist and laugh at the idea of Pro-Life.

    Pigs. Filthy pigs.

  13. “I am so happy I had an abortion. My life would not be my own without it. I would have been catapulted into a new world that I wasn’t ready for; I would have become a slave to debt and underpaid work to try and provide the life this child required, but it wouldn’t have been the life that it deserved.”

    Just a small sample of the heartless left. Adoption never..but thank rottonness for her abortion…
    Mass today at 5pm. I’m working today. I’m remorseful for using “pigs” in the post above. These twenty year olds are just lost. They view life in the womb as a used prophylactic, worthless and to be thrown away. Abortion is the killing of a Nations soul. These misguided lost sisters are ruining their and our future.
    Can you convenience them of that? Rarely but it does happen.
    Please. When you see a sign up sheet in the back of church asking for one hour of prayer during the 40days for Life, please sign up. These lost souls need more old men, young men..all people to see that Life matters!

  14. First, I pay no attention – absolutely no attention – to that liberal progressive Democrat named Mark Shea. If I did, then surely one of the seven stents distributed among four arteries within my heart would surely undergo catastrophic explosive failure. It’s better for my serenity and sobriety to read the Scriptures and pray the Rosary.

    Second: “The blog has never tolerated antisemitism and you have crossed that line….” I find it unfathomable that some people (hopefully in an underwhelming minority) calling themselves authentic traditional Catholics (and they are demonstrably NOT!) seem to fail to comprehend that our Messiah was a devout and obedient Jew. I just don’t get that at all. Jesus is Jew par excellence!

  15. LCQ-
    Here’s a funny thing to consider:
    to be a Jew, you must have a Jewish mother, right? Otherwise you’ve got to convert?

    …Who is Mary?

    *big grin*

  16. I repeat:
    ” MSBS: By just typing his name, you give him strength like the folks at Peter Pan clapping to save Tinkerbelle. By responding, you prop open the gates of liberal hell. [darn, I promised never again to say ‘baby puppies’]. Stop the applause which enlivens him; pray for him, yes, but no clapping. Whenever you see his face, whenever you see his name, whenever a text or screen says MSBS* or the like, do what I did for BSBO – Barry Soetoro Barack Obama – I turned the computer, the cell phone, the radio, the TV off. I refused to listen, I refused to look. Did the same for HRHHRC. I excised him [and her] from my life. Throw some water on the wicked wookie wizard of the web. And watch him melt away, not with a bang, but with a wuss whimper. Guy McClung, Texas”

    * MSBS: M___S____B_____S_____ . . . . you can figure out the rest

  17. When are the U.S. Bishops going to defend God’s greatest gift – the gift of life, and add a prayer at the end of every Mass, as they used to when I was growing up, praying “for the conversion of Russia”? They should have been praying all along, since Roe v. Wade, “for the conversion of all pro-abortion organizations.” Come on, Your Excellencies, 61,000,000 murdered American babies isn’t enough for you with no end in sight?

    I’m sick of your “consistent ethic of life”! Just look at the votes of Democrats on any piece of legislation that would reduce or end certain abortions. 183 Democrats voted AGAINST HR. 4712: “Born Alive Abortion Survivor’s Act,” in the House of Representatives January 17, 2018, to 6 Democrats who voted for it. EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO VOTED, 235 out of 237, voted FOR it. No Republican voted against it.
    Then you have the Illinois State Legislature’s HR 40, last year, which funds Medicaid abortions. Of the total House Membership of 117, 67 are Democrats, 50 are Republicans. 61 Democrats voted FOR this bill and 4 Democrats vote against it along with ALL 50 Republicans.

    Catholics are still the largest single group endorsing and voting for the Democrat Party today, some 33 years post the Bishops’ new teaching of a “consistent ethic of life” which they adopted to supplant and “improve” the original “pro-life” movement that was formed after Roe v. Wade, 12 years earlier. This new teaching was supposed to provide for Catholics “A more cohesive and consistent position that would recognize a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, (that) would energize the priest, clergy, and laypeople in direct contact with the Catholic population in a positive way.” (“Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts –and battling for the soul of American Catholicism,” a biography by Eugene Kennedy, a 30+ year friend of the Cardinal’s). I guess butchering millions of innocent God created unborn babies every year isn’t “energizing “enough “for priest, clergy, and laypeople in direct contact with the Catholic population.”
    The sub-title captures what was really going on In the U.S. Catholic Church. BTW, the bishops didn’t discuss this proposal with any other major participants in the “pro-life movement,” prior to implementing it, it was strictly a Catholic endeavor because only the Catholics, who were Democrats, had a problem with the original one-and-only “pro-life movement.” That movement, to be successful, would require Catholic Democrats to start voting for “pro-life“ candidates that would be needed to pass and adopt a Constitutional Right-to Life Amendment in Congress and State Legislatures However, very few Democrat candidates were pro-life; in fact, the Democrat Party supported abortion from the very beginning. The “conflict” in the Church was Catholic Democrats who didn’t want to stop voting for Democrats. That is what the “conflict” in the subtitle was all about.-and Cardinal Bernardin found a solution, and sold it to the U.S. Bishop, not for the unborn, but for the Catholic Democrats who loved their self-identity of moral superiority Now, the new “consistent ethic of life” enabled Catholics to remain in the Democrat Party and voting for candidates who were pro-abortion because of all these other, new, “pro-life” issues; and they proudly stated, that they were not “single issue” voters.

  18. Mark Shea is still writing? Patheos Catholic channel is still a thing? WGASA?
    Shea burned his bridges everywhere more reputable, and Rosman and Rocha chased off all of the orthodox or gentlemanly writers (or even the ones with a bit of a sense of humor–e.g. Acts of the Apostasy) from Patheos when they took over from Elizabeth Scalia. So it’s a perfect match. A no longer welcome writer writes for a formerly well regarded website! A tree falling in a wood where nobody hears. Does it make a sound? Only if one ‘blogs responses.

  19. “A disconnectedness from reality, however, seems to have become the norm throughout parts of the Holy See lately” – Don McClarey

    “Sin is the love of that which is not real” – Thomas Merton

Comments are closed.