Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts advises us that Mark Shea is disturbed by Brian Sims:


Apparently many have rightly condemned his cowardly and spineless browbeating of an elderly woman. Sims, for his part, at least makes clear his utter hatred for Christians and his desire to eradicate the right to not support aborting babies and gay sex.  Also, there is evidence to suggest that he offered to pay people to Dox (a new word I learned, meaning expose personal information on the Internet in order to bully, threaten and intimidate) teenage girls who were protesting.  Again, pure evil and an example of the worst of the emergent Left; a Brownshirt styled thug who I have no problem believing would do the worst we can imagine for his cause.

Meanwhile Matt Walsh and Live Action and Lila Rose and others are coming out to stand for the beauty of life and the cherished freedoms of speech and the right to protest against Sims’s Bolshevism for Sex political platform.  Along the same line, others recognize the ugly and racist denial of the Democrats when it comes to aborting blacks out of existence:

Swinging in to damage control mode, on the other hand, the long forgotten (and ignored) Mark Shea steps in to remind us why the upcoming fight will be a tough one, owing to those believers who will gladly align with the enemies of God and man:

Mark swipes away the morality of verbally bludgeoning an elderly woman and mainly chastises Sims for helping the ‘other side’.  That is something Mark used to condemn in no uncertain terms, the idea of being outraged by immorality because it hurts ‘the tribe.’  Another in a growing list of things Mark does that he once said will lead to Hell.

So the Good (those justly outraged at the cowardly lawmaker browbeating an elderly woman and threatening teenage girls), the Bad (Sims and his ‘screw you scum followers of Jesus, I hope this Soviet state will someday put you in your place for opposing abortion and gay sex’), and the Pathetic (Mark Shea’s ‘Don’t browbeat that old woman, you’ll help their tribe!’), all on display due to this craven act. Exposing this level of evil is like applying warm compress on a boil: it draws out the pus, but also promises healing.  If, of course, the forces of goodness and virtue take a stand.

Though a word of caution.  Many are pointing out that the response to this, Mark Shea aside, has been overwhelmingly negative – because it’s wrong, not because it makes Trump look good.  Yes, that is good.  Remember years ago, however, when a few lawmakers suggested banning Chick-fil-A over the owner’s stance on gay marriage.  Response was overwhelmingly negative and the lawmakers universally condemned, both in and out of the LGBTQ community.  Now look at things.  The question isn’t if everyone is condemning this.  The question is, if we continue on the track w’ere going, will they condemn it as much in another ten years?

Coming in with another angle, Rod Dreher chimes in here, reminding us of those ancient days, when the MSM went crazy with around the clock coverage of vile white skin racists (redundancy there) from Covington High School who assailed helpless Native Americans.  Now look at the dearth of mainstream “journalism” covering this story:

Barely a major news outlet between them 

The press is dead.  It is the ministry of lies and propaganda (or Truth, as my boys say).  It is one of the great threats to the Truth, mankind and freedom in our world today.  Well noticed Rod.  And worth remembering when thinking of how the media channels the narrative today.

Go here to read the comments.



More to explorer


  1. “Sin makes you stupid.” Mark Shea.


    PS, I don’t give a hoot what Mark Shea or the News Media says. Rather, why not bomb the heck out of this guy’s twitter account?

    I will say again something I already said for which FB put me in its social media prison for three days: there is NO room in a free republic for hateful disgusting bullies like Brian Sims. Disagree about abortion and gay marriage? Fine – let’s debate the issues. I even lived with a gay guy after I got of the Navy some 30 years ago because we couldn’t afford an apartment on our own. Never agreed with his life style. He didn’t agree with my religion either. But he’s still a human being and he had the decency to treat me as such too.

    But bully an innocent elderly lady for exercising her 1st Amendment Right? Get out of my country! Out! No difference between you and your Nazi forefathers.

    You see, folks, the time for debate is sadly at an end. Not what I want because I fear what comes next. But you can’t debate with these people. They have proven it again and again and again.

  2. I observe Sims bullied an old lady with no men around. Says something, doesn’t it? Think he’d talk that way to some Football Players for Life prayer group?

  3. Brian Sims is simply the poster boy of what the left have become. He is not unique, his mindset is widely held by the left. What is shocking is Sims is putting his hate into action. Previews of what’s to come, then the likes of Shea will claim “no one saw this coming.”

  4. So what is it about Shea that made him turn to the dark side? What caused this reversal in his life as a Catholic blogger?

    Hard to say. Possibly many things. In fact, probably many things. At this point, however, he continues to get praise even though he misrepresents the teachings of the Faith, and does so for the sake of defending the Left no matter how evil its designs (I’m thinking of a recent Fr. Longenecker post more or less giving Mark a thumbs up). Those who enable him are, to be honest, guiltier than Mark.

  6. Ah okay Dave. I thought it was a specific thing that incurred this change in him. Thanks.

    It could be. I don’t know. I began reading him around 2005. He was pretty conservative, though sometimes critical of conservatives, while openly critical of liberalism, though tried to give it credit where it was due. By 2008, he had sworn off both parties and declared a vote for either would likely result in damnation. That was phase 1. Somewhere between that and 2016, he became an unofficial detractor of anything but the liberal Democrats, and those who were swinging more moderate. In 2016 and since, he’s completely behind the Democrats and declares his party line support everywhere he goes. There were key issues in those years that he exploded over: the A-Bomb decision in WWII, the torture debates, the death penalty and Harry Potter (yeah, HP). Along the way, he also began referencing people from Patheos, as well as others like Simcha Fisher, who were far from right leaning. Again, it might be many things. Or it could be one that snapped. I’m usually inclined to assume many things.

    So what is it about Shea that made him turn to the dark side? What caused this reversal in his life as a Catholic blogger?

    I think it started with being in the Seattle area– it’s hard to explain how reflexively liberal that area is, but I lost a good friend from the Navy because he was a “real conservative”; he thought that Obama was a moderate, rather than being far-right.
    Added to that is the feedback loop of comment sections, where the left side is better about hitting emotional buttons, both negative and positive, while those who follow more traditional manners will leave rather than fight for ages with the host.

    I did that– I can’t even remember what it was about!– just stopped visiting his blog because it was getting uncomfortable and he was unwilling to deal with corrections and differing evidence, other than by screaming and banning whoever made one that hit too close to the nerves.

    A while later, I was debating torture with one of his Protestant followers and found out some incredibly inaccurate for the purpose of deliberately inducing the desired conclusion information had been spread by him. Their reasoning was that their conclusion was correct, so any conflicting information was unneeded.

    That was about the time that I started hearing from all and sundry about him basically banning every Catholic who was to the right of Stalin if they even mildly disagreed, or simply shared information he didn’t want to hear. (I’m pretty sure I haven’t been banned, mostly because I can’t think of when I’ve got to read anything where he had any sort of ability to do so.)

  9. Dave–
    and Harry Potter (yeah, HP).

    Wait, what?

    I would guess that was when that one author was drumming up business, I remember the to-do from Perusing Holiness (a now defunct blog), but for love nor money can I see what he’d latch on to with that. Did he actually go with the “all dragons are evil and thus so are monsters, a friendly monster is demonic” guys, the “all fictional magic is demonic” guys, or the “zomga you guys all think that this fantasy story is real, you stupid conservative guys!” people?

  10. Foxfier, I understand the Seattle thing…I lost my son to liberalism there…God willing I’ll get him back to the straight and narrow. Thanks for the input.

  11. FOXFIER,
    He grabbed onto the ‘Harry Potter as complete unpacking of the Paschal Mystery’ people, and those who challenged Potter on any grounds were ‘Potter Haters’ or ‘Reactionaries’ who sided with the “Magic equals Satan” group. Almost any attempt to critique the series or Rowling was met with immediate smack downs. Unless, as was obvious even then, you were someone he liked or admired, then it was OK. That,BTW, was an early bad sign that something was not healthy in his approach to apologetics .

  12. I think it started with being in the Seattle area–

    He has a long history in Seattle. He’s lived there at least since 1983 (earlier, I think). I got acquainted with Shea around 2002. He had only a qualified interest in topical political questions and tended to favor the starboard side (more or less). I noted by the fall of 2005 he seemed animated by an antic hostility to George W. Bush (which I suspect was deeply personal in nature).

    I think there are three options for the seriously religious person in regard to public life: a retreat from consideration or discussion of anything but the most granular local issue, a retreat to a discussion of policy absent discussion of any particular actor or set of actors, and a general (if qualified) favor to the starboard. Shea hasn’t chosen any of these options.

    In truth, I think there is something esoterically wrong with the man, his trajectory being quite odd for a man between the ages of 43 and 62. (I thought the same in re the late Jeffrey Hart, who I suspect was addled by the sequelae of a lifetime of excess drinking conjoined to senile dementia). I think you get to a certain age, your worldview tends to be fairly settled and you tend to be less sensitive to various sorts of stimulus. And you lose your edge. An old school psychiatrist once told me that manic-depressives tend to lose their emotional amplitude as they grow older unless they get senile. That Shea’s getting nuttier as he grows older is … inneresting.

  13. “at least since 1983 (earlier, I think). I got acquainted with Shea around 2002. He had only a qualified interest in topical political questions and tended to favor the starboard side (more or less).”

    When I first ran into his writings, I began commenting on his blog around 2005. I sent him an email shortly after that (a year or so later), asking him what he thought about Sam Harris. He responded he hadn’t heard of him. Back then he spent most of his time correcting Catholics who were critical of the Church (though he seldom was too harsh with his criticisms), and taking fundamentalist Christians to task over their criticisms of Catholicism. It was shortly after my email that I noticed he began taking on atheism.

  14. “banning whoever made one that hit too close to the nerves.”

    He banned me most recently when he published a post accusing critics of George Soros of only being against Soros because he is Jewish and they are antisemitic alt right wingers. I went back and found a post of his criticizing Soros and calling out Catholics who supported him. I pasted it in his comments section. Several saw and commented on it before he could remove it. He banned me once again there and then.

  15. OC-
    Good luck. In hindsight, I am incredibly glad that I was born a geek, and social pressure just doesn’t work correctly on me. I didn’t do anything I regret while we lived there.

    Dave G-
    Good grief. Now I can see how that would fit, but…wow.

  16. accusing critics of George Soros of only being against Soros because he is Jewish

    1. Soros doesn’t give a rip about the welfare of Jews and never did. He and his father were collaborators during the Szalaszi interlude in Hungary (1944-45). He’s all but persona non grata in Israel.

    2. Soros after 1997 quite voluntarily immersed himself in contentious domestic politics. Prior to that (like Paul Krugman), he wasn’t regarded as a troublesome figure at all by people like you and me.

    3. The man’s actually the living embodiment of a half-dozen nasty cliches about Jews as character types. (So was Ivan Boesky, but Boesky was interested in hoovering up money and not much else. He confined his malevolence to mistreating his sister-in-law, not the rest of us.

  17. Sims belongs in a locked cell with the whacko lesbian from Poland who got some images of the icon of Czestohowa, pasted rainbows over the heads of Mary and Jesus and then glued these posters onto a church.
    Shea snapped over the torture issue in the Iraq War. Shea never had much to say over the treatment of the Chaldean Catholics and Assyrians. He is a self serving egomaniac.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: