Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« On GodTube | Main | Sigh. »

September 27, 2007

Comments

SDG

Kids, can you say "Cheap sensationalistic Italian press attempt to subvert Church teaching on euthanasia, tar the memory of John Paul II, and get payback for the Church's stance regarding the Italian who starved himself to death last year?"

Oo oo! "Cheap sensationalistic Italian press attempt to subvert Church teaching on euthanasia, tar the memory of John Paul II, and get payback for the Church's stance regarding the Italian who starved himself to death last year!"

Foxfier

/shrug

It's TIME. Expecting them to be accurate is like expecting the NYT to miss a hit piece on someone they dislike.

BilllyHW

Can journalists also be saved?

Say it isn't so Jimmy. Say it isn't so.

Memphis Aggie

When did TIME become a tabloid?

francis 03

Normally I'd be worried about this kind of thing. But I think too many people felt they knew our Papa too well to believe it. When some hateful Catholic-basher brings this up, I feel like the most common response will be laughter. I just hope they do so often enough in the next few years that this doesn't become a nasty myth that gets dug up again a century from now.

Liam

The only oddity I was aware of about JP2's death was word that it actually happened the day before (on Friday). This third-hand through a Gregorian University friend of a staff physician who was in the hospital that day.

Ed Peters

Time and Newsweek have always been slanted, but now they are just jokes.

SDG

TIME: Catholics are enjoined to pursue all means to prolong life.
Indeed her accusations are grave, questioning the Catholic Church's strictly traditional stances on medical ethics, including the dictum from John Paul's own 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid death.

Note to Esau: THIS ISN'T TRUE!!! ;‑)

SDG

You know, this misreportage will probably actually KILL PEOPLE.

That's not hyperbole. Some people will probably be sufficiently confused by this to discount the Church's teaching on end-of-life care and say "If it's good enough for the Pope, it's okay to pull the plug on Grandma."

Ed Peters

SDG: quite right.

Pseudomodo

SDG...

We often forget the formidable power of the mass media. Remember what happened many years ago when Johnny Carson once joked on the tonight show that there was a shortage of toilet paper?

A lot of people ran to the store and stocked up!!

David B.

I distrusted Time after they started taking Algore's monster
seriously :-)

Mary Kay

SDG, unfortunately you're right.

The last two sentences are illuminating - relativism. Pope Benedict was right to call it the tyranny of relativism.

Fr. Andrew

Jimmy-

John Allen had this (and the Italian background of Euthanasia debate) in a brief article this week. You can find his take here: href="http://ncrcafe.org/node/1348">http://ncrcafe.org/node/1348

SDG

Here, Father, allow me: John Allen link. :‑)

the warrior

The Time errr...should I say....the gospel of Satan, tries to slander anyone, whether it be Terri Schiavo, the good Pope Pius XII, President Bush or even Christianity in general. Anything to make a story. David, our culture is extremely pagan, socialistic, secular, anti-God, anti-Christian, modernistic and anti-life. It's no surprise to me. The best response to this is prayer and fasting.

Matthew 17:20 But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

When death is very imminent, even nutrition and hydration become futile treatment. That's not euthanasia.

Fr. Andrew

Thanks SDG, my butchered html encoding didn't work too well!

John J. Simmins

You all need to write Time to set them straight.....
They're not reading this blog.

Esau

Hey, TIME Magazine! Next time you want to do a hit-job on the Catholic Church, try running the story past someone who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches!


Unfortunately, people will take this (without any effort to test its veracity) as truth rather than a distorted representation of the facts that it actually is.

marianne

It was well publicized - while he was alive - that he was bothered by tubes because he couldn't speak well with them inserted. Remember his last appearance at his window when he couldn't get the blessing articulated and his obvious frustration?

And another thing

We lived through this period, read contemporary reports, knew he players and have a good sense of what happened. Yet, just 2 years later they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes by distorting history to attack Christ and the Church.

This should illustrate how the same forces have gone after Pope Pius XII, have distorted his papacy and tried to undermine the Church. The difference is that the 1930s & 1940s were so long ago that some people have mistakenly assumed the ludicrous charges against him must be on the level since they have no memories of their own.

Everytime they make charges against Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa that we recognize as preposterous, they unintentionally rehabilitate Pope Pius XII. Thanks be to God.

Esau

This should illustrate how the same forces have gone after Pope Pius XII, have distorted his papacy and tried to undermine the Church. The difference is that the 1930s & 1940s were so long ago that some people have mistakenly assumed the ludicrous charges against him must be on the level since they have no memories of their own.

And another thing has put it well in the fact that it is this same type of revisionist history that had seriously calumniated Pius XII.

As Rabbi Dalin had remarked: numerous Jewish leaders, including Albert Einstein, Israeli Prime Ministers Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett, and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, expressed their public gratitude to Pius XII, praising him as a "righteous gentile," who had saved thousands of Jews during the Holocaust.


However, what do we find in recent times?

The history concerning Pius XII has been revised to make him out to be, NOT the saintly person that he had been known then, mind you; but as the tyrant that the morally-depraved Revisionists has made him out to be!

Same here, it seems!

Inocencio


Vatican rebuts euthanasia charge on John Paul II

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

ooops wrong link! sorry!
Vatican rebuts euthanasia charge on John Paul II

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary

When death is very imminent, even nutrition and hydration become futile treatment. That's not euthanasia.

"Very imminent" in this context means -- the person will die before starvation or dehydration has a chance to kill.

(Also acceptable are:
1. administering food and water causes damage in itself (as when the person can't digest and waste products cause damage)
2. administering food and water will be painful, extraordinarily difficult, etc, and the death will not be unduly hastened -- this would normally apply to things only such as inserting a feeding tube, or other actions that could be extraordinary)

the warrior

"We lived through this period, read contemporary reports, knew he players and have a good sense of what happened. Yet, just 2 years later they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes by distorting history to attack Christ and the Church. This should illustrate how the same forces have gone after Pope Pius XII, have distorted his papacy and tried to undermine the Church. The difference is that the 1930s & 1940s were so long ago that some people have mistakenly assumed the ludicrous charges against him must be on the level since they have no memories of their own. Everytime they make charges against Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa that we recognize as preposterous, they unintentionally rehabilitate Pope Pius XII. Thanks be to God."

I think the left is attempting to silence the Church. If they had their way we could believe anything we wanted to as long as what we wanted to was approved by them. I firmly believe that the Church will get smaller before the growth starts again.

Didn't Paul VI speak about the smoke of Satan entering the Church?

Esau

Didn't Paul VI speak about the smoke of Satan entering the Church?

... just as it has entered this very blog!


Anon,
Please post your identifier next time.

Peter

Was that a jab at saying that JPII was an operative for the man below? How would the Holy Spirit thus allow Him to reign for so long? Ai-ya, you Rad Trads, hee hee, gotta love ya.

=^p

Peter

err, that was addressed to "Anon" and it should've said've said,
"How would the Holy Spirit thus allow *him (JPII) to reign for so long?"

the warrior

Esau why do you have to insult everybody?

Esau

Esau why do you have to insult everybody?


Why do you have to insult the late Holy Father?

the warrior

That comment was not aimed at the holy father doofus brain.

Anonb

"the dictum from John Paul's own 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae to use all modern means possible to avoid death."

Ok, there's clearly some interpretation issues here. But what exactly is being misinterpreted? I haven't looked at the document recently, but "all modern means possible to avoid death" doesn't even sound like something that could come from the document.

I'm not being facetious in asking this question. Instead, I'm asking those familiar with the document WHAT PART OF IT could be miscontrued so that the author could think this?

LarryD

"Esau why do you have to insult everybody?" Posted by: the warrior | Sep 27, 2007 3:51:07 PM

"That comment was not aimed at the holy father doofus brain." Posted by: the warrior | Sep 27, 2007 6:15:07 PM

Is it just me, or is there a disconnect here? Or an inside joke?

matt

Anonb,

there's no misintrepretation, the document clearly says that extraordinary means are not required:

Evangelium vitae #65:
To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death

God Bless,

Matt

Joseph D'Hippolito

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if JPII did ask to committ suicide. First, he had Parkinson's, which we must admit does affect the mind. Second, he had been through so much physically and emotionally as his health deteriorated that asking to die would be a normal thing for any person under duress; I don't think we can fully appreciate how much suffering he underwent in this final years.

This does not mean that I favor euthanasia. My father was in a stroke-induced coma for about 10 days before he died, and my mother and I steadfastly refused to pull him off life support, despite the urgings of some people (including a Baptist chaplain!)

It also wouldn't surprise me because, quite frankly, Church officials have said one thing and done quite another when it comes to "pro-life" issues. Don't believe me? Ask Terri Schiavo, if you can.

Criscoball

Terminology check: isn't "euthanasia" a deliberate act to induce a "painless" death, i.e. a "cocktail" of various drugs/toxins? When you have a dog that needs to be put down, they don't just throw it into a cage and let it starve to death. They "euthanize" by injecting a bunch of drugs.

The argument in the article seems to be "JPII didn't have a feeding tube inserted early enough. Therefore he was euthanized." But even if JPII the Great said no feeding tube (and I'll believe that when the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny ride in on a herd of flying pigs to announce that Hell has frozen over), then it would not have been euthanasia. Suicide, yes, but not euthanasia.

So, in addition to all the other flaws of this article, to say that JPII was euthanized is at best a lack of understanding of terminology, and at worst a deliberate attempt to introduce more scandal and slander.

Criscoball

Terminology check: isn't "euthanasia" a deliberate act to induce a "painless" death, i.e. a "cocktail" of various drugs/toxins? When you have a dog that needs to be put down, they don't just throw it into a cage and let it starve to death. They "euthanize" by injecting a bunch of drugs.

The argument in the article seems to be "JPII didn't have a feeding tube inserted early enough. Therefore he was euthanized." But even if JPII the Great said no feeding tube (and I'll believe that when the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny ride in on a herd of flying pigs to announce that Hell has frozen over), then it would not have been euthanasia. Suicide, yes, but not euthanasia.

So, in addition to all the other flaws of this article, to say that JPII was euthanized is at best a lack of understanding of terminology, and at worst a deliberate attempt to introduce more scandal and slander.

SDG

I don't think we can fully appreciate how much suffering he underwent in this final years.

Because, of course, none of us has any direct experience with anyone dying a slow and painful death.

I am sorry to hear about your father.

he had been through so much physically and emotionally as his health deteriorated that asking to die would be a normal thing for any person under duress

It would be a normal thing for many persons under duress. Duress does not reliably produce all effects in all persons. There is such a thing as heroic virtue and strength of character that perseveres to the end and beyond.

I am willing to countenance many criticisms of John Paul II, and willing further to take seriously points of view that countenance criticisms I would not. I do not think the known facts would lead any reasonably even-handed observer to give credence to the charge that John Paul II made a request so utterly contrary not only to his own forceful proclamation of the gospel and culture of life but also to his iron sense of personal vocation to carry the cross of Christ to the end.

That, it seems to me, is a proposal that would be of serious interest only to an ideologue with an axe to grind. Your comments about Terry Schiavo, with the implicit comparison of the late Holy Father to the failure of local Catholic authority in that case, seem consistent with this assessment.

matt

Criscoball,

I believe the Catholic Church would consider starving someone who's care you are responsible for to be euthanasia. Suicide would apply to starving yourself.

God Bless,

Matt

Sky

Do you truly believe that Joseph D'Hippolito? If so shame on you... Nobody is perfect, could JPII have wanted to commit suicide? Well everything's possible, but the evidence plus his character preclude that and I don't know how somebody could give credence to such filth... I understand that you have experienced things I haven't and maybe that's why I don't understand/agree with your statement, but still... shame on you if you truly believe that... JPII is far from perfect but I don't see anything like that being possible, he's gone through so much for so many years, I don't think you or me can't even begin to understand what it must be like.
I for once don't believe for a second that he gave up, he took his suffering and then some more and went above and beyond as a true follower of Christ should. Him and Mother Teresa are two current examples of what it means to carry one's cross no matter what, no turning back.

Sky

Exactly Matt!

Preventing Teri Schiavo from eating when she wanted to is murder/euthanasia. Somebody stopping from eating of their own accord is suicide. (They do overlap a bit in certain specific situations though).

francis 03

To comment on the terminology, I would think you could commit suicide by asking someone to euthanize you, couldn't you? So the two aren't mutually exclusive. It might also be possible, although in a more metaphorical way, to "euthanize" someone by convincing them to commit suicide.

Alex Benziger.G

Sir,
Just ignore these kind of articles somebody wants to the cheap publicity.

Jamie Beu

Hey, TIME Magazine! Next time you want to do a hit-job on the Catholic Church, try running the story past someone who knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches!

But Jimmy - you should never let the facts get in the way of a good article!
If they actually ran their stories by some Catholic fact-checker, then they wouldn't have much of a hit-piece anymore.

C'mon, you know the MSM better than that!

Sky
To comment on the terminology, I would think you could commit suicide by asking someone to euthanize you, couldn't you? So the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly, that's why both dfinitions can overlap a bit, euthanasia can be a suicide and vice-versa.

Vishnu

Yes, Mr. D'Hippolito is an ideologue with an axe to grind.

JPII must have committed suicide because he was weak and evil. Why was he evil? Because he didn't advocate the rational and Christian "Nuke Mecca" position of Mr. D'Hippolito.

Joey, stick to sports and stay out of the grown-up discussions, dear. If you want to advance the offensive you dream of, grow some stones, buy a plane ticket, and take out a few women and children before being beated down. You can even try a mosque in the States, but you won't last much longer.

Esau

It also wouldn't surprise me because, quite frankly, Church officials have said one thing and done quite another when it comes to "pro-life" issues. Don't believe me? Ask Terri Schiavo, if you can.


WTF?

Have you even seen coverage of those events at all or were you living under a rock?

There was so much coverage on the local channels as well as on the cable channels in addition to that on EWTN that should an overwhelming Catholic opposition to the Schiavo incident.

Clearly, your prejudice against the Church has blinded you even to the obvious facts!

Esau

Corrigendum:

I meant "that showed" not "that should".

Caffiene hasn't kicked in yet...


Further, it was all over the place in the main-stream media that much of the people were getting tired of 'those crazy Catholics' advocating yet again Pro-Life issues.

Esau

...he's gone through so much for so many years, I don't think you or me can't even begin to understand what it must be like.


About what Sky said, people must keep in mind that JP II suffered so much during his lifetime; do you really think he would be so weak as to succumb to such things that are against the very thing he stood for all his life?

Unlike the folks of nowadays whose spirituality is nothing more than a consumer product; for JP II, God was real, Christ was everything to him and Catholicism was at the heart of his beliefs.

He isn't the weakling that people are today where one fraction of suffering puts them over the line.

He was tougher than all that -- especially given his background whether it was suffering tyranny against the Nazis, the Communists, assassins, or whatever else was thrown his way, including Parkinsons!

JP II was Catholic to the bone and a man that actually LIVED his beliefs!

Hippo, don't get him confused with someone like you.

Joseph D'Hippolito

I'm well aware about how much JPII has suffered in his life, well before he became Archbishop of Krakow. Do any of you think that JPII might be human, in the sense that a man in his 80s can only take so much, regardless of the nobility or committment of his faith?

I'm not saying that JPII actually wanted to committ suicide; nobody on this thread can offer evidence one way or the other. I'm just saying that the thought might well have crossed his mind, given his condition.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Church officials let JPII die regardless of his wishes because 1)most Church officials are more influenced by modernist and secular ideas that we realize 2)his death would serve those Vatican bureaucrats with related agendas to push.

What does Terri Schiavo have to do with all this? Well, despite the outcry and organized opposition from Catholic laymen and priests, the bishops didn't do a god-damned thing and effectively let her die! In fact, Terri's brother issued a statement criticizing the bishop of Fort Myers, Fla. (Terri's diocese) for his inaction.

You know what the bishops were doing instead? Announcing a new campaign designed to eliminate capital punishment in the United States, complete with "educational" materials for parishes and dioceses. Exquisite timing, eh?

Announcing such a campaign while ignoring Terri's plight reflects the bishops' true values: Gain political influence and embrace the intellectually fashionable at any cost, the innocent be damned.

Rome's failure to demand action from the bishops on Terri also reflects Rome's true values: Let the bishops do what they want, so long as they don't threaten our power, the innocent be damned.

Such is the true condition today of The One, Holy, Catholic And Apostolic Church Which Alone Has The Divine Sanction Of Apostolic Succession.

Not for nothing did St. John Crysostom say that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!

matt

Joseph,

Rome is not Ft. Myers. The fact that many bishops fall is no reason to apply this to the pope's death. When one makes an accusation likely do damage a person's reputation, it must be known to be true, and it must be done for a good. Neither of those situations apply here. By defending those who speculate on a potential murder/suicide, you damage the Holy Father, and the Church's reputation.

God Bless,

Matt

Sky

Mr. D'Hippolito I don't know what the tragic case of Terri Shiavo has to do with John Paul II's passing. Apple and oranges.

Esau

...the bishops didn't do a god-damned thing and effectively let her die!

Again, WTF?


Mr. Hippo,

Just what kind of judicial power do you think the American Bishops possess?

I've monitored official protests ranging from the Vatican as well as the personal protests from more than a handful of bishops then.

I seriously doubt that they could have done more to change the outcome.

Even Jeb Bush (a relatively recent Catholic convert), whom the Catholic clergy had influence, could not do anything as well.

And believe me -- I watched a variety of news programs then (and, to some extent, now) that covered the news at the time.

After 9/11, I had become somewhat of a Cable News Junkie.

matt

Esau,

I believe the local bishop was very weak, and to add insult to injury he permitted the attempted marriage in a Catholic church of a man who killed his wife with the intent of contracting a new marriage in violation of canon law.

God Bless,

Matt

Esau

Matt,

I was not speaking of the local bishop.

Esau

Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, I am not able to load media clips on the blog; however, here's just one example of what I was alluding to in my previous comments:

Cardinal joins with Florida bishops in statement on Schiavo case

Excerpt:

SCHIAVO-KEELER Mar-10-2005 (450 words) xxxn

Cardinal joins with Florida bishops in statement on Schiavo case

By Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities joined with the Florida bishops March 9 in calling for the continuation of any medical treatment or care that could benefit Terri Schindler Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who has been at the center of a legal battle over removal of the feeding tube that is keeping her alive.

The statement from Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore came nine days before the court-imposed deadline for the woman to be taken off the tube.

...

The cardinal said he, like the Florida bishops, prayed "that those who hold power over Terri Schindler Schiavo's fate will see that she 'continues to receive nourishment, comfort and loving care.'"

Cardinal Keeler quoted from Pope John Paul II's 2004 talk to a conference in Rome, in which the pope said even patients in a persistent vegetative state have "the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.)."

The pope said it is "morally obligatory" to provide water and food, even by artificial means, "insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering."

Esau

Here's another:

Fla. bishops: Let Schiavo receive care that will benefit her


Excerpt:

With a March 18 court-imposed deadline for removal of the feeding tube that keeps Terri Schindler Schiavo alive, the Catholic bishops of Florida reiterated their plea that the brain-damaged Florida woman will continue "to receive all treatment and care that will be of benefit to her."

In a Feb. 28 statement of "continued concerns for Terri Schiavo" released by the Florida Catholic Conference, the eight bishops said they recognize that questions about her prognosis and her wishes persist, raising doubt about what she would truly want at this point in her life.

Esau

Here's another:

Continued Concerns for Terri Schiavo


Excerpt:

Terri Schindler Schiavo has been the center of national media attention, and the focus of a debate that touches all three branches of government. Mrs. Schiavo is not "brain dead" or comatose. She has lived in a nursing home for years, presently a hospice facility, generally needing only nursing care and assistance in receiving nourishment. Some experts say she is in a "persistent vegetative state;" others say she is not. Her husband wants to remove her feeding tube, insisting she expressed clearly this would be her wish; her parents and siblings vigorously disagree, and have offered to care for her as long as she lives. Questions about her prognosis and wishes persist, raising doubt as to what she would truly want.

No longer able to speak on her own behalf, Mrs. Schiavo is a defenseless human being with inherent dignity, deserving of our respect, care and concern. Her plight dramatizes one of the most critical questions we face: To be a truly human society, how should we care for those we may not be able to cure?

In our past statements concerning Terri Schiavo, as well as those by Bishop Robert N. Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, we have made it clear that there should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration even by artificial means as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient. We reiterate our plea that Mrs. Schiavo continues to receive all treatments and care that will be of benefit to her.

In a statement provided in March 2004, Pope John Paul II urges us to see every patient in a so-called "vegetative" state as a fellow human being, retaining his or her full dignity despite diminished abilities. Regarding nourishment for such patients, he said:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

Simply put, we are called to provide basic means of sustenance such as food and water unless they are doing more harm than good to the patient, or are useless because the patient’s death is imminent. As long as they effectively provide nourishment and help provide comfort, we should see them as part of what we owe to all who are helpless and in our care. In certain situations a patient may morally refuse medical treatment and such decisions may properly be seen as an expression of our hope of union with God in the life to come.

We pray that Terri Schindler Schiavo's family and friends, and all who hold power over her fate, will see that she continues to receive nourishment, comfort and loving care.

Archbishop John C. Favalora
Archdiocese of Miami

Bishop John J. Nevins
Diocese of Venice

Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ
Diocese of Pensacola/Tallahassee

Bishop Robert N. Lynch
Diocese of St. Petersburg

Bishop Victor Galeone
Diocese of St. Augustine

Bishop Gerald M. Barbarito, JCL
Diocese of Palm Beach

Bishop Thomas G. Wenski
Diocese of Orlando
Auxiliary Bishop Felipe J. Estévez
Archdiocese of Miami

Florida Catholic Conference
201 W. Park Avenue * Tallahassee, FL * 32301-7715
Phone (850) 222-3803 * Fax (850) 681-9548

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

If somebody walked up to the Pope & punched him in the nose. Joe D would complain how wicked & un-Christian it was for the Pope to hurt that poor man's fist with his snozz.

Classic Joe people.

I. Shawn McElhinney

As usual, I have mixed thoughts on these things.

Joe, you are adequately within your rights to be annoyed at the manner in which so many Catholics bend over backwards to explain away everything about John Paul II to make it look as if he was either perfect as a person or possessing of a prudence that they would never extend to any of his predecessors. However, you need to recognize your own operative presupposition on this as well and consider if they are not admitting of some of the same problems that those you criticize possess.

I am more than aware of the sorts of double standards that permeate the "apologist" sorts and I deplore them much as I do the lamentable weaknesses and downright idiocies that the USCCB frequently manifests. For those reasons, it would make touching on the subjects of Terri Schiavo or the death penalty here because they are both side issues which serve as a distraction. The issue is the whole John Paul II and euthanasia issue.

I want to request of you to read and reflect what I wrote recently on this subject -particularly the parts which focus on the flimsy nature of this woman's allegations and the part about how such allegations by their nature should be treated in general.

Opposing one extreme (the "John Paul II was perfect, never did anything which was imprudent, and woe to those who say otherwise" crowd) with another extreme (that of seemingly trying to find everything possible to criticize or undermine the memory of the late pontiff) creates problems of its own. You and I both have areas where we feel the late pontiff dropped the ball. That should not prevent us from giving the benefit of any doubt on these kinds of matters.

I see no reason to presume for any reason whatsoever that John Paul II did not die adhering to the principles he espoused while he was living. And I say that as someone as sick and tired of the apologetics double standards as anyone to say nothing of the annoyance at the whole "cult of the pope" schtick. Those matters can be dealt with in other ways though and not at the expense of the memory of the late pontiff who while far from perfect was nonetheless a very holy and good man.

Anyway, I hope you give some due reflection to these words.

Joseph D'Hippolito

Shawn, I appreciate your charitable correction. Esau, I also appreciate the examples you provided.

matt

Esau,

thanks for correcting the record. I still wonder though why no action was taken in the attempted Catholic marriage in violation of canon law.

God Bless,

Matt

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

Shawn writes:
>Opposing one extreme (the "John Paul II was perfect, never did anything which was imprudent, and woe to those who say otherwise" crowd) with another extreme (that of seemingly trying to find everything possible to criticize or undermine the memory of the late pontiff) creates problems of its own.

I reply: I don't think there are two extremes here. I haven't seen anyone here react in an extreme way to any valid or fair criticisms of the last pope. Indeed, Jimmy Akin has a post up now where he seems to implicitly (but fairly) criticize JPII for not getting rid of his master of ceremonies. I don't see anyone here telling him, "How dare you criticize the Pope! Don't you know he was perfect & sinless & never made a single mistake in his entire life!" I don't think anyone here believes that, though some people go to the latter extreme of doing everything they can to undermine the last Pontiff & the Catholic Church in general. I also have not seen a single person defend Terri Schaivo's bishop for allowing her husband/murderer to remarry in the Church. But I have seen a general & largely unfair condemnation of all the bishops.

When certain people build up a reputation for extreme unfair treatment of a certain issue(or individual) they lose a lot of legitimacy to comment on it. Who, indeed, believes that Bob Sungenis should ever be granted any legitimacy to be allowed to comment on Jewish issues? He's forever tainted himself by his extremist positions & is unwillingness to publically distence himself from them. The same could be said about other individuals, who have proven themselves to be consistently unfair extremist critics of the last Pontiff.

When I read such dreck I long for the balanced criticisms of a Mark Cameron or similar individual.

Esau

Esau, I also appreciate the examples you provided.


Joseph D'Hippolito:

I can understand some of your frustration to some extent.

It seems your intentions are basically good, but that your anger seems to be misplaced.

I do sympathize with you though in some respect.

At the very least, I greatly appreciate the fact that you were willing to go through the examples I cited.

God bless you.

Joseph D'Hippolito

Coming from you, Esau, and given our previous disagreements, that means a lot to me.

Esau

Coming from you, Esau, and given our previous disagreements, that means a lot to me.


Joseph D'Hippolito:

The fact that you were even open to these examples and their consideration means a lot to me, too.

God be with you, brother, and don't get so easily discouraged by these events that persistently seem to trouble you, as they do also to a certain of the faithful as well.

One thing to remember, amongst other elements requisite to careful consideration of these matters, is the good that others have done in the Church and that, most of the times, the failures, if any, are due to the individuals themselves rather than the Church as a whole.

We may not always meet eye-to-eye on some matters (that's okay -- we're thinking individuals and not the automatons that easily acquiesce to other people's opinions); but, all in all, in spite of our differing methods and the notions we respectively subscribe to, I believe you are striving for greater ideals.

God bless.

I. Shawn McElhinney

Hello Jim:

Shawn writes:
Opposing one extreme (the "John Paul II was perfect, never did anything which was imprudent, and woe to those who say otherwise" crowd) with another extreme (that of seemingly trying to find everything possible to criticize or undermine the memory of the late pontiff) creates problems of its own.

I reply: I don't think there are two extremes here.

There are two extremes on this matter wherever groups of Catholics congregate Jim. I have been involved in enough threads over the years, combox discussions, discussion lists, various message boards in years past, etc. to state this as a universal fact. It is particularly a problem when you have a group of Catholics on a site where they pride themselves on orthodoxy. The latter is not in and of itself the problem; however, the oft-inability of most Catholics to discern properly the difference between what is of required assent and what is not is the problem in a nutshell. That is what drives those who take personally any criticism of the pope and bishops however rational or well-founded it may be. Rather than address the issue in question, the common refrain is a mass silencing attempt either by those on the thread or moderators imbued with imprudent zeal to delete or ban such threads without discrimination. I have found few places where these things are not the rule -I trust Jimmy's moderators (and Jimmy) are not so insecure as to feel the need to omit any and all criticism to give this thread a similar revision or omission.

I haven't seen anyone here react in an extreme way to any valid or fair criticisms of the last pope. Indeed, Jimmy Akin has a post up now where he seems to implicitly (but fairly) criticize JPII for not getting rid of his master of ceremonies.

Well Jim, while what you note here is good, I am going to use it as the exception proving the rule that I have noticed time and again.

There is a serious problem in Catholic circles with treating people with differing views on non-doctrinal matters as being of questionable orthodoxy unless some "apologist" gives their "imprimatur" to the view in question. You mentioned Jimmy Akin here but how many who float about the blogosphere would give credence to those views coming from another person??? Do not misunderstand this please: I am pleased that Jimmy is on this matter (and some others I can recall from the past) showing a discernment on these matters which meets with the approval of people on the thread. However, he is the exception that proves the rule.

Ask yourself if you would accept the exact same criticisms if Joe D'Hippolito made them. The criticisms themselves are either on target or they are not. What determines objectively if they are Jim, the positions themselves (and the merits or demerits of the arguments used to advance them)??? Or is it okay for Jimmy to say these things but not okay for Joe to because Jimmy is "your guy" and Joe is not??? I will now tell you and point to an example where failure to recognize this has left "apologists" of various stripes with enough egg on their faces to cook omlets for the entire 82nd Airborne Division:

Something is either right or wrong or an argument is solid or flimsy on its own merits by objective assessment, not because of the persons who espouse the view.

Keeping that rational principle in mind, I will now remind you of one significant example of what I am referring to which happened just last year.

I remember that whole torture flap where your amigo Mark treated a lot of Catholics who did not agree with him as dissenting dungballs. Then when Jimmy agreed in principle with them (or at least did not rule their view out of court completely), Mark played the "well, we can agree to disagree" card with Jimmy. You see, it was a problem worthy of the worst character assassination and invective Mark could spew but once Jimmy weighed in, now the position was legitimate however much Mark did not agree with it.

I have an email from Mark where he tried to explain away this double standard and it is so ludicrous as to be laughable -both in its lack of objective assessment as well as blatant favouritism. The episode as it unraveled in public was pure horsecrap yet Mark got away with it because Jimmy and his fellow "apologists" did not have the guts to slap Mark down for that unacceptable behaviour.

Indeed I remember Jimmy giving Mark a nice big "plenary indulgence" on the matter (see the "all is forgiven" post from December of 2006 on this weblog for details on that in case you have forgotten) as if Mark was to be forgiven for taking issue with Jimmy but did not have to apologize to the rest of the people he treated so heinously in a public setting.

And of course only later did I find out (from Mark and confirmed by Karl Keating) about his book deal with Catholic Answers -they must have lost the memo from Trent that indulgences cannot be sold. The bottom line is: if your name is Joe D'Hippolito and you act imprudent at times, you are the scum of the earth and deserve to have your reputation destroyed but if your name is Mark Shea, well you deserve a book deal and you need not rectify your abominable public behaviour at all. The double standard here is beyond sickening but that is what the game involves apparently: the sacrifice of ethics and principles for $$$.

I don't see anyone here telling him, "How dare you criticize the Pope! Don't you know he was perfect & sinless & never made a single mistake in his entire life!" I don't think anyone here believes that,

Maybe not in the abstract but when the rubber meets the road, that is how they act -particularly after someone in the "apologetics oligarchy" picks out someone for being classified as an unperson the way Mark did with Joe D'Hippolito among other persons who had the temerity to refuse to genuflect, bow three times, and incense his inanities as "profound" or otherwise worthy of special veneration.

though some people go to the latter extreme of doing everything they can to undermine the last Pontiff & the Catholic Church in general.

I know whom you had in mind with that comment. I should note here that it would only take a couple examples to refute your universal negative -nay it would take but one- shall I do this or would you prefer to step back and nuance your argument better???

I also have not seen a single person defend Terri Schaivo's bishop for allowing her husband/murderer to remarry in the Church. But I have seen a general & largely unfair condemnation of all the bishops.

Frankly, the USCCB as a group are a bunch of spineless opportunists Jim. I hate to say it and I will rarely say it in public but since you raised the issue, I will note it here. There are of course some very good bishops in the American episcopate but the USCCB as an entity is not to be commended. Here are a few examples of many which could be noted:

One such example is how they have gone out of their way over the years to find every possible loophole in the liturgical directives from Rome to continue to do more of the same. I note this as someone who fought for years and secured an indult in my dioceses which I never once have attended: once again standing in principle for something which was not in my own self-interest.

Another is the USCCB's attachment to absurd activism on matters where there is no one Catholic position to be had (i.e the whole "abolish the death penalty" because John Paul II was of the unsubstantiated personal opinion that it should not be used at all) while ignoring or being negligent in matters where there is no similar degree of latitude (i.e. matters of actual doctrine). A classic example is the whole John Kerry and receiving communion issue from 2004 where the USCCB was claiming that there was a double standard in denying communion to politicians who espoused support for abortion, euthanasia, and gay "marriage" while not doing so for politicians who supported the war in Iraq or the death penalty.

I remind you that Cardinal Ratzinger in his capacity as CDF prefect sent a communique to the USCCB on principles for communion reception where he made the distinction between matters of free inquiry and matters where there was not. This should not have been necessary but because the bishops confused matters of doctrine with their own activist agendas, it made Vatican intervention a necessity.

What did Cardinal McCarrack do with that memo from the head of the CDF Jim??? Simple, he quashed it and the conference went on issuing their report with no evidence whatsoever that they took the Vatican's corrective seriously. I dare you to try and find it on the USCCB's site -it was not there as of last year but there is a lot of crap about abolishing the death penalty on there with enough inferences to fill a small truck that this was a matter of binding assent. That should be enough to confirm the sort of bureaucratic bumpkins we are dealing with at the USCCB. Do you want another example???

How about the one where the "traditionalist" contingent has a point with how many of the bishops did everything they could to not allow an indult in their dioceses for nearly twenty years. (I know this cause I bugged my bishop for a couple of years on this before he finally allowed it: for the record I have never gone to it but I did this out of principle and with friends and family in mind.) Course the indult itself was not in a place where it would be remotely convenient for many people to make use of -this was basically a way of failing to give the platoon adequate armarments for an offensive and then blaming the platoon for failing to execute the battle plan. Or (if you like ship analogies better) shooting some holes in the bottom of the boat and then blaming the crew for the ship sinking because they could not bail water fast enough. Oh but there is more.

Now that the new indult law has been promulgated, watch and see how many of them do their damnest to find ways to skirt that one too. I am not optimistic about this anymore than I am that the bishops will enforce the Vatican directives on liturgical music, the CDW/CDF instruction Redemptiones sacramentum, the rubrics of the GIRM in general, etc. They talk the talk about loyalty to the pope when it suits their activist agendas (and where there is no "loyalty" to be had really) but not when it involves areas pertaining to doctrine or the enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline or church law.

Need I mention more examples Jim??? I could make a biblical scroll but these suffice to note a serious problem with the American episcopate taken as a whole. And this is just the tip of the iceberg amigo -they are incompetent bumblng opportunists as a group. Joe was wrong about the Terri Schiavo situation but frankly, if he was going based on the USCCB's overall track record, he took the right defacto stance.

When certain people build up a reputation for extreme unfair treatment of a certain issue(or individual) they lose a lot of legitimacy to comment on it.

Is this a principle you are willing to apply across the board or only when it is convenient for you to Jim??? Let us test you briefly on this matter:

Would you claim that Mark Shea has lost a lot of legitimacy to comment on Joe D'Hippolito as a person and the subjects of national security and "torture" in particular then??? Or is it okay for Mark to shoot his mouth off on anything whatsoever cause he is your "buddy" but since Joe is not, Iosephus anathema sit???

If you were to apply your principle consistently, you would have to affirm what I noted in the first part of the above paragraph. If you fail to, then I know you are engaging in a double standard yourself. I am frankly not convinced that Joe's "reputation" while he has some responsibility for what it is was not further undermined by Mark Shea's attempts at character assassination on him.

But since Mark is one of "the boys", it is okay for him to stoop to any level to smear another person right??? You may say no to this but heck, Karl and Jimmy have proven that he can be rewarded for such abominable behaviour -can anyone say "full unconditional pardon without proper repentence and contrition being manifested first" (Jimmy) or "book publishing deal with Catholic Answers" (Karl Keating)??? In fact, I will be shocked if Jimmy or one of his moderators does not delete or edit this entry -course I have saved the text in the event that they do because it will only prove in spades precisely what I am saying. (And if they do not, then props to them for showing some rare backbone.)

Who, indeed, believes that Bob Sungenis should ever be granted any legitimacy to be allowed to comment on Jewish issues? He's forever tainted himself by his extremist positions & is unwillingness to publically distence himself from them.

I agree with you on Sungenis.

The same could be said about other individuals, who have proven themselves to be consistently unfair extremist critics of the last Pontiff.

What about those who are such fawning sycophants of the last Pontiff that it makes the average person sick to their stomach??? Should those people be given a similar berth in your opinion or is this another double standard??? Cause if so, then I can think of a lot of "apologists" who should be ignored for their inability to approach the subject of John Paul II with any semblance of critical discernment whatsoever.

What about your amigo Mark on the issues noted above, does he deserve a similar distancing Jim??? Whatever extremes Joe has taken, I am unaware that he has tried to brand those who disagree with him across the board as "unorthodox." The same cannot be said for your amigo; ergo I ask if you are going to be consistent here or not.

When I read such dreck I long for the balanced criticisms of a Mark Cameron or similar individual.

You can call it whatever you like but I will let the readers judge the balance or imbalance of what I write on its merits, not on the word of someone (i.e. you) with such a Paul Bunyan-size axe to grind against another person (i.e. Joe) that their objectivity can be legitimately called into question on the matter at hand.

I will defend Joe's right (or anyone else's for that matter) to have an opposing view on non-doctrinal matters whether I agree with him/them or not on specific matters in question. Furthermore, I noticed that Joe has weighed in here and apparently given some reflection to what I wrote to him as well as the examples given by Esau.

That is what I mean by Joe being of a different mould than Mark who simply bans from his blog anyone who dares to hold him accountable for his excesses whom he is unable to bully or otherwise call the contingent of fawning sycophants on his blog to play the "lets all say ______ is stupid or irrational or deluded cause if enough of us vote that way, then he/she is." It is my hope that the moderators at this blog as well the contributors (and of course Jimmy himself) are at the very least above that. How this combox entry (and/or its author) are treated will tell me if they are or are not.

I. Shawn McElhinney

Joseph D'Hippolito:

The fact that you were even open to these examples and their consideration means a lot to me, too.

God be with you, brother, and don't get so easily discouraged by these events that persistently seem to trouble you, as they do also to a certain of the faithful as well.

One thing to remember, amongst other elements requisite to careful consideration of these matters, is the good that others have done in the Church and that, most of the times, the failures, if any, are due to the individuals themselves rather than the Church as a whole.

We may not always meet eye-to-eye on some matters (that's okay -- we're thinking individuals and not the automatons that easily acquiesce to other people's opinions); but, all in all, in spite of our differing methods and the notions we respectively subscribe to, I believe you are striving for greater ideals.

God bless.

Esau,

May more people of your temperament and approach to issues (when confronted by a principled adversary) find their way into these kinds of discussions and your tribe increase substantially.

Reading this from your keyboard made my day and suspended (at least for a while) my nearing-complete cynicism about the usefulness of these kinds of combox discusions.

Esau

I. Shawn McElhinney:

Thank-you very much for your kind comments!

God bless you!

Keep the Faith, brother!

Tim J.

I. Shawn McElhinney -

I have found that Mark Shea mainly bans people for being obnoxious, not for the positions they may or may not hold. Your post was full of gross overstatements, rash generalizations and unfounded innuendo.

You don't like Mark Shea. We get it.

Joseph D'Hippolito

First, Shawn, I am eternally grateful for your defense of me that you posted above.

Second, Tim, I don't know what kind of experience you've had with Mark Shea but his behavior goes beyond banning "obnoxious" posters. For five years, he made a concerted, obsessive effort to follow me onto practically every Catholic blog in creation, enter into arguments that did not concern him and start flame wars that he knew would get me banned. He would also give my IP to other blog owners so they could get me banned. He also encouraged a campaign to prevent Front Page Magazine from publishing any of my commentaries.

Here's a defense from Victor Morton, Catholic blogger and editor at the Washington Times, from 2004:

This will come in a few parts:

I swore I would never again acknowledge Mr. Shea's existence, but this thread is a perfect example of why Joseph is right that he is pursuing a persecutionist vendetta.

The reader will note above that the thread, prior to Joseph's first post, had not involved Mr. Shea. Further, it had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, nuclear weapons or just war, the state of Islam or anything else remotely related to Joseph's comments. Further, that Joseph's comments did not introduce those topics.

Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.

Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalkign siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.

As for the "I merely posted it" defense of the Front Page letter, give thou me a break. Yes, you did just print the letter, and followed it with this comment, after which I will sign off. Read them and see if this defense would be any more convincing coming from the king's musings about Thomas a Becket:

more to come...

Here's is an e-mail I sent to several bloggers

Joseph D'Hippolito

The following is an e-mail I sent to various Catholic bloggers regarding another one of Shea's dustups in 2004. It demonstrates Shea's manipulative nature:

Hello Everyone,

All of you have commented on what you believe to be my direct response to the tragic death of Mark Shea's sister-in-law. Mark has given you the impression
that I commented on his blog or e-mail comments directly concerning his public grief.

I am here to tell you, with all due respect, that not only are you completely misinformed about the context of the comments I made at which Mark took such umbridge, but that Mark is manipulating you to bear false witness against me.

First, I didn't make the comments in question on Mark's blog or send them to him directly; I made them on Carrie Tomko's blog. Second, I made them
not in response to his sister-in-law's death but in response to the manipulative way he used her death.

You can go to Carrie Tomko's blog (runningoff.blogspot.com) and look in the comments thread under the post, "Mark's Blog And 'Our Lady'."
The post dealt with Carrie's concerns about Mark's response to the Hindu clergy praying in the Fatima chapel. Here's my second post on the topic:

"Regarding Mark Shea's comments, it should be apparent to anybody with even cursory knowledge of his blog that Mark will never critically evaluate
any prudential decision made by this Pope. If he gives the appearance of doing so, it's only to defend those decisions. Mark is one of those Catholics who confuses defending the Pope at any costs with defending the faith -- and that says far more
about him than it does about the faith.

"Now, I'm sure I'm going to set some angry blowback on this thread from The Illustrious Mr. Shea himself, who will point out my 'support for genocide.'
That is nothing but a diversionary device (which Mark uses oh so well) to deflect attention from the subject at hand. Smart readers will recognize it as such and reject it."

I believe what I wrote was justified because 1)Mark has a tendency to agree automatically with any prudential decision or action this Pope makes 2)He has constantly refused to confront any challenges in a forthright manner, instead relying on personal
attacks or misrepresented arguments. Save for the designation, "The Illustrious Mr. Shea," nothing I said could be construed as a personal attack against him or his family.

This was how Mark responded:

"Joe:

"Thanks for making that special effort to take the very day of my sister-in-law's funeral and land a few good hard kicks and punches on me.

"Hope you're happy."

In essence, Mark was saying, "I reject M. D'Hippolito's argument because my sister-in-law just died," as Everett said in his post. I was never
aware that I was supposed to stop commenting on others' blogs because of the death of Mark's sister-in-law, and I interpreted his remarks as hiding behind
his sister-in-law's death.

I responded with two posts on Carrie's blog. This is the first:

"Mark, please point out what I said about you that wasn't true.

"Please point out one prudential papal decision or action with which you took issue.

"Please point out one instance in which you failed or refused to respond to a serious challenge to your position with 'St. Blog's Resident Advocate
of Mass Murder.'

"Besides, how am I supposed to know when you look at blogs and when you don't? I don't read minds, you know.

"Finally, what does your sister-in-law's death have anything to do with any of this?"

This was the second, at which Mark took severe umbridge:

"Mark, with all due respect to the deep grief you feel now (yes, I did read your blog), I find your exploitation of your sister-in-law's death to criticize my response to your comments completely despicable.

"Had I insulted your sister-in-law (whom I had never met), such comments would be appropriate. But my comments were directed toward your response to Carrie's opinions about the activities at Fatima -- and toward the way you defend the Pope and respond to his critics.

"Had your sister-in-law been the picture of health, I would have said the same thing.

"If you are not willing to take responsibility for the way you behave in Catholic blogdom, don't engage in such behavior."

Don't believe me? Check it out yourself.

Do you know why Mark took such umbridge? Because he knew I was right and he resented being exposed.

Notice how his response on Carrie's blog successfully deflected attention away from the subject: his view of the activities at Fatima and his support for
all of this Pope's prudential decisions. Notice, also, how the response on his blog never mentions the discussion on Carrie's blog (Pavel and Elinor, this
is why you were confused; Mark deliberately failed to specify the context of these comments).

Mark is playing you -- indeed, all his blog readers -- for fools so he can get allies in another attempt to continue a feud that has gone on for two years.
Why else do you think he threatned not only to ban anybody who disagreed with him, but even give their IP addresses to other Catholic bloggers for banning? And why would he want to link to my e-mail address, unless he hoped to generate a storm of protest directed at me? Even for a man wracked by intense grief, these are rather extreme -- and calculated -- responses.

Nobody told Mark to visit Carrie's blog on the day of his sister-in-law's funeral. Nobody told him to visit any blog, for that matter. If he doesn't like
what he sees, he can wait until his emotions are more settled and respond in a mature manner. That's his choice as an adult. Mark declined to make that choice and is blaming somebody else -- somebody with whom he has feuded for nearly two years -- for responding to the choice he did make.

I do not dismiss what Mark is going through; I lost my father six years ago and I can empathize with his grief. What I *do* dismiss, however, is Mark's
manipulative, unscrupulous hiding behind his sister-in-law's death to bear false witness against me and continue this feud.

I realize many of you don't like me. Regardless of how you feel about me, however, I assume you have enough self-respect and respect for truth to check out
my claims yourselves.

I ask you not to allow a charlatan to manipulate you for his own vain ends.

I. Shawn McElhinney


Your post was full of gross overstatements, rash generalizations and unfounded innuendo.

The word "full" implies to capacity -surely you can note at least a couple or each category right??? How about one of each??? But you cannot just list them as that would be intellectually lazy on your part. And they had better be good arguments or else I will be less than irenic in disposing of them.

Of course most of the time people who utilize the sorts of offhand dismissals as you have done do not want to back up their words. It truly must be nice to merely say something and not feel the need to substantiate it. You do not work in the mainstream media by chance do you???

Tim J.

Gross overstatement;

"The bottom line is: if your name is Joe D'Hippolito and you act imprudent at times, you are the scum of the earth and deserve to have your reputation destroyed but if your name is Mark Shea, well you deserve a book deal and you need not rectify your abominable public behaviour at all."

Rash generalization;

"...when the rubber meets the road, that is how they act -particularly after someone in the "apologetics oligarchy" picks out someone for being classified as an unperson..."

Apologetics oligarchy?

Unfounded innuendo;

"The double standard here is beyond sickening but that is what the game involves apparently: the sacrifice of ethics and principles for $$$."

Actually, that last should be classed as unfounded *slander*. My bad.

"In fact, I will be shocked if Jimmy or one of his moderators does not delete or edit this entry"

Shocked yet?

Tim J.

Truthfully, this thread has jumped the shark. It had nothing to do with Mark Shea, and arguing about him is a complete waste of ascii.

Interesting that you accuse Mark of cyber-stalking others by entering unrelated threads on other blogs and making inflammatory comments in an attempt to destroy their reputations, and then do exactly that very thing.

That's it for today... I have work to do.

Smoky Purple Mountain Majesty

arguing about him is a complete waste of ascii

Is not ascii a renewable resource? Oops...I'm almost out of carborn credits...signing off.

Joseph D'Hippolito

Truth is truth, Tim J., even if it's about one of your theological buddies.

Tim J.

I didn't realize Mark and I were buddies...(?)

I'm just wondering why Mark "flaming" you on unrelated threads in other people's comboxes is utterly damnable, but doing the same thing to him is not.

Someone was talking before about double standards...

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

Shawn

I can't respond to your scattershot multi-tangent post. In fact I am more than a little suprised you would use such a cheap tactic with me. Especially since you complained about it in the past when others used it with you. So I won't respond to everything.

By bringing up Mark Shea publically you have in fact hurt your cedibility. I find it impossible now to believe your claims that it is all about principles & double standards & not personalities & an apologetic old boys club. It seems you are doing the very things you decry in others. I doubt I am the only one who now thinks this & I have always been the first to defend you.

I note you offer up a lot of side issues that serve as a distraction in violation of you own advice. Strike one. The issue is the honor of JP2 vs dishonorable character assasinations. So you are mad at Mark Shea? Guess what? Making excuses for Joe's character assasinations isn't helping you. Pretending his character asassinations are mere disagrements or rational critcism the same.

You have seriously gone off the rails.

>however, the oft-inability of most Catholics to discern properly the difference between what is of required assent and what is not is the problem in a nutshell.

But you are consistantly blind to the fact that Joe is to this day one of those Catholics with that inability & an unrepentant offender in spite of his phoney deference to you.

>That is what drives those who take personally any criticism of the pope and bishops however rational or well-founded it may be.

Calling the late Pope an "Enemy of Christ" & accusing him of idolatry for praying in a Mosque is hardly rational or well founded criticism now is it? Of course Joe did that on Curtjester's Blog a mere 47 minutes after thanking you on this blog & accepting correction from you. I guess he was blowing smoke.
I'll send the link upon request.

>Well Jim, while what you note here is good, I am going to use it as the exception proving the rule that I have noticed time and again.

Rash generalization.

>ask yourself if you would accept the exact same criticisms [i.e that Jimmy made of the former Pope retaining his Master of ceremones]if Joe D'Hippolito made them.

Well it is a stretch since Joe is notoriously ignorant on matter theological & pastorial so I would not expect such a sophisticated critque from him on that subject. It is beyond his ability. Also making the criticism would NOT be the issue-it is how he would do it. Jimmy Akin based on past exprerience would always maintain a respectful tone in regard to the memory of JP2. Joe to date does not do that at all.

Don't believe me? I will send you the link from Curtjester's blog if requested.

If Joe had from the begining made nothing but respectful criticism of the Pope nobody would take him to task. If he would change the same. He has not. I never cared for Fr. Harison's critcisms of the Pope but in hindsight they are breath of fresh air compaired to the venom of Joe.

>Frankly, the USCCB as a group are a bunch of spineless opportunists Jim. I hate to say it and I will rarely say it in public but since you raised the issue, I will note it here. There are of course some very good bishops in the American episcopate but the USCCB as an entity is not to be commended. Here are a few examples of many which could be noted:

Joe never said anything about the USCCB he said the bishops said nothing. There have been Bishops long before there was a USCCB try reading the thread Shawn so this is a non-sequitur. You have been doing that a lot lately I notice.

>Would you claim that Mark Shea has lost a lot of legitimacy to comment on Joe D'Hippolito as a person and the subjects of national security and "torture" in particular then???

My negatives toward Joe come from my personal interaction with him in comm boxes & personally witnessing his extremist & fringe views. I don't need Mark Shea to tell me that. I have eyes & I can read.

>Or is it okay for Mark to shoot his mouth off on anything whatsoever cause he is your "buddy" but since Joe is not, Iosephus anathema sit???

I never take to him via E-mail like I do you. Indeed the last E-mail I got from him was during the Sungenis insident back in 2002. Never heard from him since & he rarely addresses me in his comm boxes. I admire much of his insight but that is it. His politic I disagree with & ignore as I try to ignore yours.
I will side with people who defend the Pope from unjust attacks & character assasination. Mark for all his great faults has NEVER done that. Joe can't make that same claim even up until today.

>I will defend Joe's right (or anyone else's for that matter) to have an opposing view on non-doctrinal matters whether I agree with him/them or not on specific matters in question. Furthermore, I noticed that Joe has weighed in here and apparently given some reflection to what I wrote to him as well as the examples given by Esau.

Yet 47 minutes later he went to Curtjester's blog & called the late Pope an "Enemy of Christ" & an "idolator". I think he is just telling you what you want to hear. I would not do that as is evidenced in this post.

>That is what I mean by Joe being of a different mould than Mark who simply bans from his blog anyone who dares to hold him accountable for his excesses whom he is unable to bully or otherwise call the contingent of fawning sycophants on his blog....

You called Mark Sedicious & yet you take acception to me calling Joe a heretic?

There is nothing really more to say to you Shawn.

You have gone off the rails.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

I hope I haven't broken Da Rulz with such a long post.

I. Shawn McElhinney

Hello Tim:

Gross overstatement;

"The bottom line is: if your name is Joe D'Hippolito and you act imprudent at times, you are the scum of the earth and deserve to have your reputation destroyed but if your name is Mark Shea, well you deserve a book deal and you need not rectify your abominable public behaviour at all."

I noted that it was a "bottom line" which means it was a summary statement Tim. Summary statements are by their nature more general are they not??? Besides Tim, I notice you had to go halfway into my post to find one such "gross misstatement." I thought my post was "littered with" them. If that was the case, you should have found one a lot further back than halfway through the work. But as for the one you did find, let us review the background behind what was said now.

To start with, Mark announced back in April of this year that he had a book deal with Catholic Answers and Karl Keating confirmed it. Four months previously, he was taken to task for a lot of people for treating a perfectly acceptable theological position as "unorthodox" and "opposed to church teaching" which he then begrudgingly accepted when Jimmy said it was okay.
What would cause Shea to act differently towards Jimmy than anyone else when the same view was being espoused or defended??? Simple my friend: $$$. It cannot be traditional Catholic approaches of charity because with those who Mark could not profit off of either financially (Akin by his ties to Catholic Answers) or by reputation-enhancement (Fr. Richard Neuhaus writing a foreword for his upcoming book), he was notoriously silent about being critical of. But those of the same general outlook as Neuhaus -or who made the same arguments in substance that Akin made- Mark was uniformily nasty towards seeking to paint them in the worst light he could.

Those are the facts Tim and you can interpret them however you want. The old adage "follow the $$$" when you consider Mark's frequent public unveiling of the bad state of his family's financials is the most logical conclusion when everything is looked at. (Including the obvious unwillingness of the apologetics establishment to take to task their own when their own act in disgraceful ways publicly.)

Book deals do not spring forth fully formed like Athena springing from the head of Zeus. They take some time and work to properly put together as does any transaction. When Mark was acting like James White on attitudinal steroids the agreement was (i) already finished and waiting some final touches before it was a done deal or it was (ii) in the works moving towards completion when Mark was acting like James White on attitudinal steroids. Either way, Karl and Jimmy in what has become sadly predictable did not publicly take Mark to task for his abominable behaviour and there has to be a reason for this.

The third possibility is (iii) the deal itself was put together after Jimmy issued the plenary indulgence in December of 2006 which almost certainly means it was at least in a discussion phase prior to that. This would give every appearance of Jimmy "protecting the investment" by trying to take the issue off the table while such arrangements were being worked out. No matter how you slice it, there was both negligence as well as irresponsibility involved.

The hypocrisy is that when non-catholic apologists act that way, they have a history of calling them out on it. I guess acting like a misanthrope is okay if you are Mark Shea or Dale Vree but if you are James White or Eric Svendsen it is not okay. Principles in other words take a backseat to whether or not you are in the clique.

Now I remind you that the last time I checked, Jimmy is in a major position at a significant apologetics group. He in other words is in a position to influence those who can put $$$ in Mark's pocket unlike the persons to which Mark was not sparing in his ridicule and attempts at character assassination. Give me a good and coherent explanation of another hypothesis or admit that you do not have one. And if you do not, then your claim of "gross generalizatinon" on that basis alone need not be taken seriously.

For far from the "gross generalization" you have claimed, I have actually pointed out something that does the apologetics establishment a great disservice. I am actually thinking about notifying their polemical enemies about it so that the polemical enemies can really get the full measure of the "pious catholic apologists" who criticize them for moral and ethical failings that they explain away and financially subsidize in various ways when one of "their boys" does it.

Sorry but your first example collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind when looked at a bit deeper. Shall we go deeper still or are you still going maintain the "gross overstatement" card???

Rash generalization;

"...when the rubber meets the road, that is how they act -particularly after someone in the "apologetics oligarchy" picks out someone for being classified as an unperson..."

Apologetics oligarchy?

You know Tim, I would like to see generally speaking some consistency from people. I am not going to blame you for this but on the one hand I get people who complain about writings being too lengthy and then when I try to abridge by making more generalized statements, they complain about the generalities.

Now I could point you to where I have explained the concept in no small detail as well as where the term itself has been defined. For the sake of not taking up too much space, I will deal here only with the definition which was set down last November here. The methodology used by the oligarchs has been discussed numerous times in the past by myself and others -I will extend to you some leeway for probably not being aware of them. Suffice to say, I can produce those threads if you want to demonstrate beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt the veracity of what I have said. Just say the word but this term and the concepts behind it are hardly as generalized as my abridged comment may have conveyed to the initial reader.


Unfounded innuendo;

"The double standard here is beyond sickening but that is what the game involves apparently: the sacrifice of ethics and principles for $$$."

Actually, that last should be classed as unfounded *slander*. My bad.

Again, I have gone over this in detail before. The first point of this response hits some of the high notes but there is a lot more to the tune than just those. And by the way, slander is spoken not written. You meant to say "libel" which is the written form of what slander is orally. But slander involves an untrue statement or one made without any substantiation whatsoever. I will again presume that you say this being unfamiliar with what I have written no small amount of in months past. (In fact, nearly all of it was in late 2006.) Again, say the word and the sources can be provided. The bottom line is significant evidence of apologetics establishment corruption and double standards. There is no other rational explanation when you consider all the factors involved. Though last year, I merely chalked it up to double standards and hypocrisy, we learned a bit more about it in April of this year which makes the matter stink even worse than it did prior to that point.

"In fact, I will be shocked if Jimmy or one of his moderators does not delete or edit this entry"

Shocked yet?

Yes but do not count your chickens yet. I saved this posting too in the event they try to edit or delete it. When the thread dies down is usually when moderators make such deletions if they do not want to risk being called on it. For that reason, this entry was also bookmarked to review later on.

I. Shawn McElhinney

As for you Jim Scott, I do not extend to you the same leeway as I do Tim because you oughta know better by now. I will deal with your stuff on my next break time and inclination-willing. One short note though in the meantime:

Sedition and heresy are specific terms which should be treated as such. The difference between you and I is you call Joe a heretic and then when I ask you to substantiate it, you cannot. And I do not mean by my standards but by what the Church defines as heresy. By contrast, I have accused Mark Shea of sedition and I have explained in reasonable detail what sedition is.

Readers who approach these matters objectively can take the definition so supplied by yours truly, peruse Mark's archives the past few years, and find enough statements which fit the parameters of sedition to make this an open and shut case in any court of law outside of south central LA. You though toss around terms and then get annoyed when you are asked to substantiate your usage of them. But here is the real difference between us Jim:

I was willing to explain my use of terms without delay and have and you continue to ignore them and whine that I am accusing Shea of something I have not bothered to substantiate. That my friend is not true and I have pointed you more than twice to where your presumption is adequately debunked.

You have reacted to my request to substantiate your rash use of the term heresy as if you should not have to and then (when you did respomnd) it was like it involved pulling teeth. Unlike your unwillingness to consider the arguments and examples I have made available to you, I was more than willing to consider yours. Of course my suspicions all along were correct as no examples you provide involve matters of Joe willfully doubting or denying a matter of divine faith; ergo there is no heresy involved. PERIOD.

As for the rest, wait till my next break and we will get to them if I feel so inclined and have the time. (It may have to happen tomorrow cause I have a lot to tend to but it will happen one way or the other.)

francis 03

I just noted that this combox is still going on. Guys, I don't really know anything about what you're talking about, and in fact I probably know a lot less about the faith than any of you. But this is a public website. Anybody can log on and see this pretty ugly argument. Isn't it best to keep disputes like these contained in the comboxes where they started?

Esau

I guess acting like a misanthrope is okay if you are Mark Shea or Dale Vree but if you are James White or Eric Svendsen it is not okay. Principles in other words take a backseat to whether or not you are in the clique.

Now I remind you that the last time I checked, Jimmy is in a major position at a significant apologetics group. He in other words is in a position to influence those who can put $$$ in Mark's pocket unlike the persons to which Mark was not sparing in his ridicule and attempts at character assassination. Give me a good and coherent explanation of another hypothesis or admit that you do not have one. And if you do not, then your claim of "gross generalizatinon" on that basis alone need not be taken seriously.

For far from the "gross generalization" you have claimed, I have actually pointed out something that does the apologetics establishment a great disservice. I am actually thinking about notifying their polemical enemies about it so that the polemical enemies can really get the full measure of the "pious catholic apologists" who criticize them for moral and ethical failings that they explain away and financially subsidize in various ways when one of "their boys" does it.

Wait a minute --

So, if certain apologists (and their actions) are found to be deplorable by somebody's personal standards, it is acceptable, and, in fact, highly commendable to join forces with enemies of the Church and, in fact, provide them with such ammunition as to effectively damage the reputation and credibility of those individuals who actually live to defend it?

I'm sorry --

I will not be party to those who would actually orchestrate such calumny against those who live to defend the Church and, even further, would actually join forces with those who maliciously attack the Catholic Church and hold such offensive ideas against it which are just as detestable as the notion that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! This has all the markings of a JUDAS ISCARIOT

I hope this is not what you are advocating here, but it sure seems like it!

Tim J.

"I saved this posting too in the event they try to edit or delete it."

I'm sure everyone is relieved to know that.

Wow. I mean, just... wow.

"Those are the facts Tim and you can interpret them however you want."

As can you. Apparently you want to see conspiracies, cliques and "oligarchies" when you look at this particular set of facts. On the whole it sounds kinda like a persecution complex.

I have heard the same thing from artists who don't get into the competitions or win the awards they would like. It's all a clique, it's all fixed.

I don't trouble myself enough about the behavior of other people to collect "evidence" or construct theories on why they do what they do, but, you know... everyone needs a hobby, I suppose.

Tim J.

For the record - I stand by my earlier assessment of your comment, and I am very comfortable letting readers judge for themselves.

Mary Kay

I agree with Francis' 4:06 post.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

>As for you Jim Scott, I do not extend to you the same leeway as I do Tim because you oughta know better by now. I will deal with your stuff on my next break time and inclination-willing. One short note though in the meantime:

I no longer see you as a valid teacher of Catholic truth. You have gone nuts.

>Sedition and heresy are specific terms which should be treated as such. The difference between you and I is you call Joe a heretic and then when I ask you to substantiate it, you cannot. And I do not mean by my standards but by what the Church defines as heresy. By contrast, I have accused Mark Shea of sedition and I have explained in reasonable detail what sedition is.

Sedition is crime only a Federal jury can convict an American of thus you are clearly inconsistant. Your special pleading & one standard for me & another for thee not withstanding. Of course legally & formally ONLY a Bishop or compitent authority can declare a man a heretic. So when I call Joe one it is as meaningless as when you accuse Mark of sedition. But Joe clearly & repeatedly makes heterodox statements. You have rejected my examples. Downplayed them & tried to spin them but I remain unmoved especially in light of your inconsistancy in regards to accusing Mark of sedition.

>Readers who approach these matters objectively can take the definition so supplied by yours truly, peruse Mark's archives the past few years, and find enough statements which fit the parameters of sedition to make this an open and shut case in any court of law outside of south central LA. You though toss around terms and then get annoyed when you are asked to substantiate your usage of them. But here is the real difference between us Jim:

This convenintly absolves you from proving the very thing you demand I prove. Another double standard. I have to "substantiate" the charge Joe is a heretic but your only "evidence" Mark is sedicious is to tell people to read Mark's archives? Well readers Read some of Joe's statement sometime. Those with at least an amature apologists knowlege of the Faith will spot the theological errors.

>I was willing to explain my use of terms without delay and have and you continue to ignore them and whine that I am accusing Shea of something I have not bothered to substantiate. That my friend is not true and I have pointed you more than twice to where your presumption is adequately debunked.

There is nothing to explain. No jury has convicted Mark of sedition. He just doesn't agree with your political views. If he really is sedicious then I suggest you do the moral thing & call the FBI otherwise you are adding & abetting a criminal.

>You have reacted to my request to substantiate your rash use of the term heresy as if you should not have to and then (when you did respomnd) it was like it involved pulling teeth. Unlike your unwillingness to consider the arguments and examples I have made available to you, I was more than willing to consider yours. Of course my suspicions all along were correct as no examples you provide involve matters of Joe willfully doubting or denying a matter of divine faith; ergo there is no heresy involved. PERIOD.

Calling celebacy (one of many examples) a "Tradition of Men which nullifies the word of God" is an orthodox statement? Of course! Let me know when Elvis gets here. Implying people who join EO & Protestant Churches have the same hope of salvation as Catholics is an orthodox view? Who knew the theology of Hans Kung was orthodox?

>As for the rest, wait till my next break and we will get to them if I feel so inclined and have the time. (It may have to happen tomorrow cause I have a lot to tend to but it will happen one way or the other.)

Why bother? Whose next on your hit list Shawn? First it was Stephen Hand, next David Armstrong, Karl Keating, and then Mark Shea & now Me perhaps? I think Christopher Blosser should watch his back.

Good bye Shawn. It's pretty much over at this point. Pity, I really did like you but over the years you have gone la la la la.

And I can no longer be a part of it.

Tim J.

Someone, please put this thread out of our misery...

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Shawn, I've read and long admired your writings in defense of the Church against Protestant errors and extremist traditionalism. But if you're honestly thinking of joining hands now with enemies of the Church like White and Svendsen, well, I don't know what to say.

Please think about what kind of affect that could have on souls who might be driven away from the Church by your actions. You really don't want to have to answer for that before the dread Judgment Seat of Christ, do you?

And no, I'm not saying you're going to Hell or whatever - I have no way of knowing your or my final destiny. I am no more assured of Heaven than anyone else, and certainly don't deserve it (then again, who does?). All I know is that every single one of us, without exception, will face the Day of Wrath, when the Judge will make us answer even for every idle word we have spoken throughout our lives!

Quid sum miser tunc dicturus?
Quem patronum rogaturus,
cum vix justus sit securus? - Dies Irae

(What am I, wretched one, to say?
What protector implore,
When a just person will scarcely be confident?)

Even canonized saints will have to answer for their failings on that day. I tremble at that thought. God have mercy on us all!

In Jesu et Maria,

SDG

Joining the call to close the thread and maybe delete all posts dating from, like, October or something.

I have no brief against anyone in this discussion. Don't know anyone posting here or the circumstances they cite. All I know from what little I've seen is that there's a little voice in the back of your head that you should almost always listen to, that's saying to back slowly away. It's not a rational thing. Dogs do it. There's a part of the human brain that does it too.

matt

SDG,

third the motion. Clean it up then lock it out... maybe time for Jimmy ponder disinvitation too.

God Bless,

Matt

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

I wouldn't mind Eraser. I can't even believe what I read & what I had to write in response.

It will help certain people save face.

Mary

People, remember to email Jimmy with comments.

Joseph D'Hippolito

Tim G:

I have found that Mark Shea mainly bans people for being obnoxious, not for the positions they may or may not hold. Your post was full of gross overstatements, rash generalizations and unfounded innuendo.

I'm just wondering why Mark "flaming" you on unrelated threads in other people's comboxes is utterly damnable, but doing the same thing to him is not.

In defending Shawn through my last two long posts on this thread, I was refering to Mark's public behavior to show you that you were wrong. That's called telling the truth.

But if you're honestly thinking of joining hands now with enemies of the Church like White and Svendsen, well, I don't know what to say.

Just as Shawn has the right to defend me, Rosemarie, you have the right to defend your husband. But saying that by doing so, he is "joining hands with enemies of the Church like Svensden and White" is grotesquely irresponsible.

If you are concerned about people's standing before the judgement seat of Christ, I suggest you start with your husband.

Joseph D'Hippolito

What I meant, Rosemarie, was your characterization of Shawn.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31