FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Has Mark Shea Become an Anti-Semite?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Unexpected post from a man I consider to be an Arch Neo-Con in the Catholic blogoshpere.

Maybe there is hope for the ole boy yet.

Santorum: A Flat-Footed Evangelical
Quote:Posted on March 28, 2012 by Mark Shea

Honestly, what Catholic in his right mind would do this?:

[Image: santorum_card.jpg]

The guy comes off like one of those Evangelical preachers who regard Israel as a stepping stone to the fulfillment of “Bible prophecy” in the Left Behind books and who think of Jews as basically right wing Christians who like matzoh. The amazing cluelessness of that greeting card is breathtaking.

Yes, yes, I realize that Santorum self-identifies as a Catholic and I’m not trying play bishop and excommunicate him. I’m simply saying that, for somebody who claims to be Mr. Catholic, he sure seems unclear on the concept. His apparent theory that opposition to abortion exempts good Catholics from paying any attention to the rest of the Church’s teaching (such as “don’t call murder ‘wonderful’”, “pre-emptive war is unjust”, “torture is wrong” and sundry other points upon which Santorum is in full blown dissent from Holy Church), seems to give him a sense that both Catholicism and Judaism as customizable versions of the Real Core Faith, which is simplistic Bible only anti-abortion (not really prolife) Evangelicalism. If you want to accessorize with Catholic smells and bells or Jewish matzoh and yarmulkes, that’s great. It’s a big tent. Just so long as we are all on the same page about the core dogmas: Santorum as President, war with Iran, anti-abortion rhetoric, something about smaller government, and support for contraception.

This is fairly heartening. I remember posting something mildly Holocaust-revisionist to his website a few years back--that George Orwell or Gandhi had taken issue with one or two aspects of the official Holocaust account--and he banned me with extreme prejudice.
Shea is touching on the right track, but closely read the core of his rejection of Santorum: Shea seems to think that pre-emptive war and torture are, per se, sins.  They can be, but need not be so.

Still, he does rightly point out that this weird lowest common denominator pan-Christianity (or, pan-Judaic Christianity) defines Santorum.  As many of us have pointed out, Santorum acts completely out of line.

One moment he is the actual vested Catholic Knight (technically which excludes him from US government.)  The next he is talking in a faux country accent while sweaty Baptists grip his person, grimmacing as though facial expressions correspond to piety in prayer, offering false prayers on behalf of the two term Senator.

when can wars of aggression (pre-emptive) and human torture not be sin?
(04-01-2012, 10:46 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]when can wars of aggression (pre-emptive) and human torture not be sin?

Yes, I'm wondering as well.  Aquinas said that torture can be justified, though, didn't he?  Maybe someone can provide a relevant quote.
Pre-emptive war is possible in Just War Theory.  Torture can be justified, through that does not mean it should be endorsed as a standing policy.  It is certainly something you would want to move away from.

I think Shea starting to develop a Catholic sense.  Notice that he starts the article by unconditionally rejecting Santorum's incredibly stupid 'holiday' card (one that uses testimony of Jesus Christ, messias of the Jews, to encourage a defunct and anachronistic false religion.)

Keep in mind, this is an actual Knight who (supposedly) has sworn to defend the Faith against all enemies.  Anyone want to argue that we are not in a crisis?
(04-01-2012, 11:26 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2012, 10:46 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]when can wars of aggression (pre-emptive) and human torture not be sin?

Yes, I'm wondering as well.  Aquinas said that torture can be justified, though, didn't he?  Maybe someone can provide a relevant quote.

As far as I know, the only time St. Thomas mentions torture is here:
Quote:On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article9

The Anglican theologian John Milbank has an interesting take on torture in the Middle Ages in his essay "The Gift of Ruling," though he ultimately comes down against it:
Quote:once, direct confession was regarded – quite reasonably, since circumstances and witnesses may always mislead – as the crucial factor in truth, in a period when neither the inflicting nor the suffering of measured pain (witness asceticism) was regarded so negatively as it is today. From the Enlightenment onwards though, increased horror at pain and its exhibition in an era now more confined to notions of imminent and palpable happiness, was conjoined with a greater trust(linked to an empiricist sensibility) in circumstantial evidence: a trust which then and ever since has, in fact, led to horrendous miscarriages of justice. This betrays the fact that at bottom liberalism cares more about ravages to the body than violations of the spirit. The former nevertheless, as Asad so precisely notes, are still admitted, and in fact on an unparalleled scale where they can be quantified and made part of a utilitarian calculus: thus reasons of State in modernity have permitted massive civilian casualties in war, and continue to permit for the same reason torture in secret (and now in the open) – in fact an augmentation of pain’s intensity where the circumstances are deemed to warrant this.

(04-01-2012, 11:33 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: [ -> ]Pre-emptive war is possible in Just War Theory. 

No it is not.

From Catholic apologist and Trad John Salza:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/just_war.html

Quote:...Legitimate defense cannot only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life (CCC 2265). Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm (CCC. 2266). The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;

2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. There must be serious prospects of success; and,

4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what the Church calls the “Just War” doctrine (see CCC 2309). This doctrine was first introduced by St. Augustine in the fourth century, and later refined by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages.

Note well: “Just War” is war undertaken only to repel an aggressor. It is not undertaken as a “pre-emptive” measure or as a means to impose a system of government upon another nation. Such reasons cannot possibly meet the rigorous criteria of the Just War doctrine. Moreover, acts of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation (CCC 2314). Since modern weapons are able to bring about such devastating effects, it is extremely difficult to justify war in the 21st century. In fact, St. Thomas More said the same thing in the early 16th century...

Santorum has to appeal to Jews. He appeals to the practicing, "conservative" ones with his social policy, and the ex-Trotskyist, neo-con ones with his foreign affairs views. A truly Catholic politician will not win as long as we (trads) are a minority in this country. Heck, JFK spent a lot of time saying he wouldn't take orders from the papacy. Whilst this may be acceptable to say in regards to loans and perhaps some other things, a Catholic must follow the Supreme Pontiff unless he commands a sin.
I think Mr Shea was upset because the card would offend Jewish sensibilities.  As he says in the comments:

"When you wish a Jewish person Happy Hanukkah, you don’t quote the gospel of John to them unless you are utterly clueless. ...  We are talking about somebody who, if he gets his way, will be responsible for the relationship of the United States and Israel."
Pages: 1 2 3 4