The Religion Of Social Justice Is Not Catholicism



I have read with some satisfaction that the National Catholic Register has fired two of his worst bloggers/journalists. This is not officially confirmed, but factually sure. 

Well done. 

What I dislike in the particular brand of writing of the two (particularly one) is the all-pervasive bending of their (particularly his) own particular brand of leftism until the simple believe that it resembles Catholicism. 

Mind, I am not angry at the emotional tone. I am an emotional one myself, though I do not react directly to those who insult and mock me on the blogosphere.

What makes me angry is the utter perversion of Catholicism, in a relentless Jihad against every form of social conservatism under the thinnest of varnish of a pretence of Catholicism. A Jihad made most clear by the insults thrown at conservative Catholicism – and at the very pro-life movement – as a whole.

This is the tone – and the thinking – of those who hate every form of social conservatism first, and try to hide behind the finger of a very stupid, deformed wannabe Catholicism second.  Social justice, anti-Conservative Jihad that can’t even see the yearly holocaust of unborn children because hey, all is preferable to Trump becoming President. 

The other one – another leftist, for what I can see, and a very vulgar one at that; but I read her even less than the first one – is probably more the victim of her interactive intemperance (and vulgarity) than of a relentless will to wage Jihad on those who fear the Lord and happen not to be SJWs. But when you start cleaning the home, it’s better to do it well. 

The Jihad will continue, and it will continue with the same tones. Even after the famous public apologies for the vitriolic style the vitriol kept flowing, so this gives you a good indication of the future. 

The best thing to do is, as before, to ignore these people. No links to them, no mention of them on your blog (brings traffic, and makes their name go higher in internet researches), no traffic sent their way in any way whatsoever. 

The religion of Social Justice is not Catholicism, even when it camouflages that way. 



Posted on August 23, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. M, I have personally crossed swords with Mark Shea. He is an obsessive, infantile bully. He stalked me on the Internet for seven years. He called another person’s employer to complain about that person’s comments. He routinely issues vile personal attacks against anybody who dares to disagree with him, tries to destroy their reputations, deliberately distorts their arguments, feigns victimization when caught, issues crocodile apologies and manipulates people.

    Somehow, I don’t think those behaviors would be considered orthodox by Catholics.

    Shea lies like the rest of us breathe. He is evil. Not deluded. Not just needing spiritual direction, psychological counseling, an exorcism or a swift kick in the ass. EVIL. Don’t believe that? Then why did Shea exult in his behavior? If he were really concerned about it, he would “avoid the near occasion of sin,” as the Act of Contrition states, and avoid social media. Instead, he saved his worst for those very media.

    The very fact that Shea lies with impunity offers positive proof that he works for Satan, the Father of Lies.

    As far as Simcha Fisher is concerned, I have it on good authority that her calumny destroyed somebody else’s marriage.

    Shea and Fisher were con artists, pure and simple. They misled a lot of sincere but naive and puerile Catholics. Well, the jig is up — and none too soon, I might add.

  2. When Jesus mentioned salary issues, He always implied that disciples should be content with their wages. The parable of the workers in the field (Matthew 20:1-16) comes to mind, but more specifically:
    Luke 3:14 And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.

    So when Catholic social justice warriors pine for a state mandated minimum wage, for instance, they have no basis in the actual gospel and are in fact creating an anti-gospel.

    Now, a Catholic employer who hires a Catholic worker does have a bond of charity to his brother Christian and so should pay him a just wage, but the Church has no business or authority in applying the same moral standard of a just wage to non-Catholics.

    Furthermore, Jesus warned his disciples they should not worry so much over temporal needs:
    Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?

    So the religion of “social justice” is not Catholicism passed down from Jesus Christ is it?

    • Social justice warriors create demands and foster resentments and entitlement; both are the contrary of charity and cooperation.
      I have read something of the woman, and she is so entitled it’s scary. I have read much more of the man, and he is so out there with his not even concealed socialism it’s even scarier.
      That’s one who can tell you with straight face an obviously pro-life candidate (who would bring an army of pro-life elected representative with him at every level of representation) shoul dnot be voted because… he paid for one abortion three hundred years ago?
      The man would have stoned St Paul.


  3. Very good Mundabor. Bad social justice hypocritically puts self before man and man before God in order to justify beliefs and actions contrary to Catholic doctrine.

  4. Your point about not mentioning their names is wise. Right now, their camp followers are wailing and moaning that these two are so persecuted, so it’s all over the net. However, the dumbmantic duo Will eventually lose steam and fade into oblivion. You can only chant the “I’m so persecuted” mantra so long until it gets boring.

  5. sixlittlerabbits

    Mundabor, thanks for a great post. Will say several Hail Marys for you.

    My comment would probably labeled prejudiced and judgmental by the social justice crowd. Many (not all, however) of the problem writers–such as Simcha Fisher and Mark Shea and Rod Dreher–are converts.

    It seems one can embrace the faith and not leave the pick-and-choose approach behind. Dorothy Day is another example of this approach.

    • I have had the same impression more than once (I knew about the man converting, not the woman).
      Catholicism obviously seemed to them a good way to make their own fantasy world match with a big, respected religion.
      One has the impression they never got its meaning, and thought their new religion could be bent to their old ideas.

  6. I hadn’t heard about this, but I did notice that Shea had gone slinking back to Patheos a while back, so I wondered if something was up. I simply can’t read anything he writes anymore. Nothing he loves can equal even one-tenth of the energy that comes out in what he hates. And that something is ALWAYS conservatism, wherever it may be found: political, cultural, religious, even simple, harmless habits of life. It became clear to me a long time ago that Catholicism is just a respectable costume that he can wear to attack anything and anyone on the Right, and pose as God’s virtuous warrior by doing so.

    I think it’s the same reason he professes to luuuuuuuuvvvv Pope Francis so much. He gives Shea the green light to attack the people he wants to attack anyway, and he can flatter himself that he’s being holy while doing so. Who wouldn’t love the pope who baptizes his pet hatreds?

    • extremely well said, quiltwallah.
      And yes, unreadable. Immediately putting one off as hard anti-conservative militancy in everything.
      He has this in common with Francis: he hates us all.

    • I think the best explanation of Shea is that he’s an Ultramontanist on steroids. Also, he and Fisher (like all too many Catholics), essentially worship the ecclesiastical bureaucracy and hierarchy as God rather than God as God. They’ve defined their identity (let alone their writing careers) through that world view. That’s why they’re so churlish when challenged.

      Evelyn Waugh had a character in “Brideshead Revisited” called Rex Mottram, a non-practicing Protestant who was engaged to a young Catholic woman. Shea and Fisher are “Rex Mottram Catholics.” Read the link below and you’ll see what I mean:

    • However, I wonder if he would remain so Ultramonstanist if a Pius XIII were to become Pope. Methinks, he would revert to Protestantism, claiming that the Catholic Pope has betrayed Catholicism

    • I read Shea from about 2001 to 2007, when he was far more conservative politically. That coincided with the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who were far more conservative than Francis. He even wrote a brief piece in “National Review”! Two things about Shea during that time: He viewed George Weigel favorably (bet he doesn’t now) and he had a regular feature on his blog criticizing the activism of the homosexual lobbyists: “Gay Brownshirts On The March” (or was it “Brownshorts”?). That feature has long since gone the way of rotary phones.

      The 2003 Iraq War and the scandal at Abu Ghrab really set him off and began his turnaround politically. So did capital punishment, the issue on which I engaged him. He fell hook, line and sinker for the rhetoric in “Evangelum Vitae” concerning capital punishment (rhetoric which arbitrarily revises centuries of teaching from Scripture and Tradition on the subject, and has since been placed in the CCC). When I challenged his views, the obsessive bullying came out, even to the point where he would enter conversations I was having on other Catholic blogs — conversations that neither involved nor mentioned him — and try to destroy my character. This was early in the last decade!

      I’m reminded of a quote by Hermann Goering: “If the Fuerher (Adolf Hitler) told me that 2+2=5, I’d believe it.” That’s Shea in a nutshell. Any prudential comment made by any Pope equals infallible teaching. Never mind that the Church defines “infallibility” in narrow terms.

      Shea’s a symptom of a bigger problem: a papal positivism that replaces faith in the Triune God as the distinguishing factor of Catholic faith and identity. It didn’t start with Francis. JPII had a pretty nice cult of personality going on, aided and abetted in the English-speaking world by the Sheas of the Catholic Apologetics-Industrial Complex.

  7. I disagree. I think Shea not only would stay but would find some sort of justification for doing so, and make that public. Remember, most of the same people in the Apologetics-Industrial Complex who fought on behalf of John Paul II also do so for Francis, despite the fundamental differences in both men.

  8. Not wanting to prolong this dreadful topic indefinitely, I still wonder if anyone read the Twitter exchange between the female ‘writer’ and a critic, and the ‘male’s ‘pithy’ comment about ‘penetrating analysis’. Vile, trashy little man. I’ve never been able to read him, or barely look at his photos, and yet somehow he thinks he can advise and critique actual Catholics! It would be hilarious if there were a punch line to it. As it is, I’m totally surprised anyone takes either of them seriously. I should pray for them both, I guess.

%d bloggers like this: