Mark Shea is begging Rome to come after "The Principle". This is an excellent insight as to why Mark Shea is so much more stupid than the very worst Roman, that his readers ought to stop and consider that the very worst Roman is smart enough to see that Mark Shea is a crackpot in full meltdown. Poor guy.
It is true, of course, that were any Roman foolish enough to take Mark Shea's advice……..then the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed. But no Roman is that stupid.
Are they….?
It is true, of course, that were any Roman foolish enough to take Mark Shea's advice……..then the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed. But no Roman is that stupid.
Are they….?
"The Principle" will gladly, rejoicingly, submit to any canonical process of the Holy Catholic Church.
Mark Shea.
Put up or shut up.
File a canonical lawsuit against "The Principle".
If you do not, then you are exposed as a blustering blowhard.
Tick tock, Mark.
Would someone who has not been banned by Mark please post this on his blog?
Let's get it on.
He seems to have scrambled the title of that blog post. Shouldn't it read "Of Mark the Crackpot"?
ReplyDeleteTen minutes have passed any my challenge is not up on his blog.
ReplyDeleteGentle reader, please read the last two sentences of my post and do us both a favor.
Many thanks to Lex Naz!
ReplyDeleteIt's there now.
ReplyDeleteThose who wish to email Mark Shea may do so via his public email address: chez.ami@frontier.com . Just be ready for a possible really nasty reply.
ReplyDeleteI wonder Card. Burke would decide this canonical lawsuit. ☺
ReplyDeleteI would like to see Mark stop this crazy behavior, but as long as he refuses to listen to us, or his friends, he will continue to go full retard until he falls to pieces. ? Who will pick up the pieces?
ReplyDeleteI would add that somebody file a complaint with the Archbishop of Seattle regarding Mark's behavior (preferably, somebody who *lives* in Metropolitan Seattle). This has been Mark's SOP for more than a decade. He tried to get Front Page Magazine (David Horowitz's Web site) from publishing me. People have told me that Shea has called their bosses at work and tried to get them fired for the opinions they posted on his blog!
ReplyDeleteIf Mark lived in a different time and in a different place, he would be one of the most fanatical members of either the SS or the KGB. He would move against "enemies of the state" without pity. He is an absolute fraud not only as a Catholic in particular, but as a Christian in general (if, indeed, he really is the latter; I tend to believe he works for Satan, for all intents and purposes).
Joseph:
DeleteWe have already been advised that a strong case exists under canon law for me to sue Mark Shea.
I might do it, but not while his mother suffers.
Perhaps this terrible burden that he has to bear is affecting him emotionally and allowances ought to be made.
Mr. Keating is almost certainly headed for a lawsuit, but that will be a civil matter.
"Would someone who has not been banned by Mark please post this on his blog?"
ReplyDeleteI'm out!
Mark has deleted my challenge.
ReplyDeleteWould some kind soul please see to it that my challenge is posted again?
Let's get it on.
Rick, I just re-posted your challenge, but You-Know-Who took it down immediately and blocked me from his blog.....oh well :)
ReplyDeleteMany thanks to all who have posted this to Mark's blog.
ReplyDeleteGentle reader, perhaps you have not yet been banned by Mark.
Please consider re-posting my challenge to Mark, so that his fans can see it.
Thank you one and all!
As long as such major Catholic outlets such as newadvent.org continue to carry Shea's material, he may well feel, that he has no need to worry about a lot of other folks.
ReplyDeleteSad to say, Shea is a probably a good reflection of the state of much of the institutional/human side of the Roman Catholic Church in these wicked times.
Let's certainly pray for him as well, of course, for Holy Mother Church.
Rick, buddy, you've got to stop getting yourself banned if you want to be heard!
ReplyDeleteParadoxically, Paul, the number of people hearing me is hyperbolically increasing as a proportion of sites which ban me.
DeleteIt is really remarkable.
Sooner or later, if this hyperbolic trend continues (certainly not assured of course)…….
They will all have to come to my site in order to be heard ;-)
To divert from the levity for a moment.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Mr. Shea is afraid of?
Seriously. He's fighting this like all the marbles are on the line. Sure, we can joke about it, which is fun, but he ain't jokin'. Like De Niro in The Untouchables, he wants this "dead, dead, dead".
That is such an excellent question.
DeleteI often find myself asking it, and not only about Mark Shea.
What is it about *this specific question*; that is, the Earth's place in the larger scheme of things, that explodes heads?
I provisionally conclude: there is something about this question which represents a foundational piece of intellectual territory, which can never be surrendered, without opening up the possibility of a general rollback of the Enlightenment's great triumph over the Church and Her apostolic Tradition.
If the Church was right on this, then every liberal scholar who has participated in the New Springtime "Abandon The Bastions" project runs the risk of having their credibility destroyed at a stroke.
A similar circumstance awaits any physicist whose PhD and tenure and, perhaps, even Nobel Prizes depend upon preserving a lifetime's worth of work predicated on the General Theory of Relativity.
Some bimbo says this:
ReplyDelete“Even if we ignore all scientific theories, is it possible that everything in the entire big universe revolves around the tiny little earth? This would totally defy common sense.”
Rick replies:
"I think it is very safe to say that consensus cosmology totally defies common sense.
Relativity certainly defies common sense.
Quantum physics might be the death of common sense."
LMAO! Rick, you are so funny! Love it!
Heh heh heh…..
DeleteThanks, A-FLO!
I'm out as well; blocked on two different accounts. I probably wasn't much help, but I did try to refocus the issue on the Principle rather than their personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteHi Rick,
ReplyDeleteWell, for the first time I tried engaging in Mark Shea's comments. I didn't break any rules or do anything wrong. No name calling, nothing hostile. For a while it was fine, but, now I'm blocked all of a sudden. Can't even reply to somebody who called all pre-VII Catholics and Pope Pius XII anti-Semites and out and out accuses me of anti-Semitism for quoting Nostra Aetate for her which is a document she herself was insisting I read... But she is allowed to continue posting, and apparently I'm not... hmmmm... I guess my comments will be deleted too?
Ah well... what to do?
Anyway, I must admit that they are throwing some pretty big accusations around with regards to Mr. Sungenis and others involved with concern to conspiracy theories and all that. I know none of that has anything to do with all this, but it would be nice to get some clarifications about all this some time. I know for a fact that the term 'anti-semitism' is being flung around a lot, pretty meaninglessly much like the word 'homo-phobe', a loaded term to silence opposition. And unsurprisingly it is levied at Traditional Catholics merely far stating that the world should convert to Christianity as God commanded us to.
But I must admit, that if some of what they are saying is true about this or that, or just 'perceptively-so', this should be something that I hope you guys address at some point. I pray for you so that things work out.
I guess this will be my last of the few trips to Mark Shea's blog. It's a shame the way the Church is now, but this is what Our Lady of Akita warned about, which we are told by Cardinal Ratzinger is the same message of Fatima. We are a house divided. Thankfully one side is still supported by the main pillars on a solid foundation.
Thank you very much for sharing this, Jonathan.
DeleteYes, it is an old and time-tested truth that slander, repeated over and over and over again, can plant a seed of doubt in the mind even of virtuous men.
This is why slander is such an evil sin, and also why it has been recognized as a crime since antiquity.
I encourage you to deny the architects of this campaign the fruits of their dark labors.
We will not only respond to these slanderers.
We will respond in a way, at a time, and in a forum which will, please God, allow us not only to vindicate our reputations, but render the architects of this odious campaign of reputation destruction accountable for the damage they have *intended* to do from the beginning.
Also, Jonathan, it would be of interest to me to have you share with us here exactly which of the slanderers' claims have registered with you.
DeleteJust off the top of my head from the comments section of a few individuals -
Delete- Claims that by subscribing to 'pre-VII theology' you are inciting age-old prejudices against the Jews
- Claim that you say that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ
- Apparently one of you claims John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Jewish woman, and therefore you are being anti-semitic
- Claims about denying that any man has ever walked on the moon and that if man ever walked on the moon this means that Geocentrism is somehow wrong, therefore it never happened.
- Claims Dr. Sungenesis PHDs are phony and that he is not licensed to teach in Texas or something to that effect.
- Claims about NASA using space lasers to create crop circles as a disinfo campaign.
- Vague allusions to 9/11 conspiracies and Freemasonry
- vague allusions of Holocaust denial or that there is disagreement about how many Jews were murdered by Hitler.
That's about the gist of it... though one can easily see that with regards to some of these claims that most can be traced down to ridiculous accusations against Traditionalist, nay rather, Catholics or any Christians who simply believe what the Bible and the Church and History records for the matter. So this is simply slander, and bearing false witness because nobody anywhere claims all Jews are responsible given that many of them were Christ's followers and converts. They didn't even spare me slander of being anti-Semitic for merely quoting Nostra Aetate which one insisted absolved all Jews, past and present from all accountabiity, but to be honest, that particular commentor was quite a bit unbalanced.
I have no knowledge about conspiracies about Kennedy or the Moon Landing, or NASA's crop circles, though I guess these folks would rather the alternative explanation be that aliens are actually doing this, because that's more plausible? Nonetheless, it would be a biggie to claim NASA themselves are behind this...
The Kennedy assassination and 9/11 and even general information on Freemasonry are widely known and held conspiracies by the general population. Even if these weren't true, though I myself see plenty of reason to be skeptical about the official story of 9/11. Believing these things whether right or wrong of which we'll probably never know in our lifetimes, still doesn't have anything to do with the discussion and are merely attempts at poisoning the well and diverting attention elsewhere.
The only thing that puzzles me, is they claim one of the contributors to GWW claims that man walking on the moon means geocentrism is falsified. This at least is on-topic. What are they referring to here?
What you will not find Mr. Shea's group produce, is an argument against the content of the movie. Instead, they will talk about reptilian eyes, 911, gas chambers and lunar landings. I think I know this game. This is a ploy to get chummie with the crowd; to encourage them to laugh the opponent off the stage, because people who don't know anything, enjoy laughing - it elevates them. So it's crowd manipulation. That's Shea's one and only game.
Delete@Joseph:
DeleteBob Sungenis asked me to post this reply:
- Claims that by subscribing to 'pre-VII theology' you are inciting age-old prejudices against the Jews
R. Sungenis: If we look at the official statements of the Church, Vatican II’s statement about the Jews in Nostra Aetate 4 have not changed from what was officially taught previously by the Church. If they had changed, then the Church would be contradicting herself. Since both are correct, I side with both the pre-Vatican II and Vatican II official statements about the Jews.
The problem is that there is a pre-Vatican II unofficial but popular belief about the Jews as well as a post-Vatican II unofficial but popular belief about the Jews, and both of them are wrong.
A pre-Vatican II popular belief , for example, believes that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, and are accursed, but we won’t find any of that in official Catholic teaching prior to Vatican II.
Similarly, a post-Vatican II popular belief, for example, says that the Jews have their own covenant with God and that the doctrine of supersessionism is obsolete. This is false, since neither the pre-Vatican II or Vatican II official statements teach such a thing.
- Claim that you say that all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ
R. Sungenis: I say only what the Vatican II and the pre-Vatican II Church has officially stated, namely, that the Jews of Jesus’ day were responsible for the death of Christ, not Jews of today.
- Apparently one of you claims John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Jewish woman, and therefore you are being anti-semitic
R. Sungenis: That is from Neville Jones, a person who lives in England. Neither I nor anyone associated with Stellar Motion Pictures or CAI Publishing believes such a thing.
- Claims about denying that any man has ever walked on the moon and that if man ever walked on the moon this means that Geocentrism is somehow wrong, therefore it never happened.
R. Sungenis: Several years ago, I entertained arguments that, with the limited technology available to us in the 1960s, it would have been highly improbable that we could land a man on the moon. As I stated recently, however, we do not delve into those kinds of topics any longer, and presently do not hold a position for or against.
In any case, the moon landings have nothing to do with Geocentrism. If we had the capability to send a man to the moon, either the geocentric or the heliocentric system could be used to do so, as is the case today when either NASA or JPL sends satellites in orbit or sends probes into the solar system.
- Claims Dr. Sungenesis PHDs are phony and that he is not licensed to teach in Texas or something to that effect.
DeleteR. Sungenis: First, I have a US accredited Bachelors degree (George Washington University) and a US accredited Masters degree (Westminster Theological Seminary), and these are sufficient to teach in Texas.
Second, I obtained a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university for my own personal reasons, not to use in an academic institution.
The Ph.D., however, is not “phony.” The degree is issued by Calamus International University (CIU) which operates under the governmental authority of the Republic of Vanuatu, a government that, similar to Denmark, does not require governmental-approved accreditation to issue degrees. Because CIU is a private university, it obtains its accreditation from a private institution, namely, the International Association of Distance Learning.
The CIU degree, however, is just as rigorous as many other US and EU accredited degrees in that it requires at least two to three years of intensive research in one’s area of expertise, and must include the supervision of both a professional academic advisor (mine was Dr. Robert Bennett, Ph.D. in physics) and the academic dean (mine was Dr. Morris Berg), which must then be finalized by the writing of a PhD-style dissertation. The dissertation is then examined by a committee of qualified Ph.D.s who either approve or disapprove of it. My dissertation was on the Galileo affair and was approved as “excellent” in nine out of nine categories. The dissertation was then developed into the book Galileo Was Wrong.
- Claims about NASA using space lasers to create crop circles as a disinfo campaign.
R. Sungenis: Whether true or not, we are not dealing with those areas of investigation any longer. At the time it was addressed, I merely tried to offer some explanation that made sense for the existence of crop circles. The fact is, crop circles do exist and we must give a rationale explanation for them rather than pretend they do not exist. The alternative explanation (e.g., that they were created by aliens) is much more bizarre and dangerous than believing that someone on Earth made them.
- Vague allusions to 9/11 conspiracies and Freemasonry
R. Sungenis: Whether true or not, we are not dealing with those areas of investigation any longer. What we are against, however, are those who try to control the thoughts of others and who vilify those who, from time to time, question the policies and practices of the US government and allied nations, as if they never do anything wrong politically or morally. Moreover, to claim that there have never been any secret organizations and/or conspiracies is simply unrealistic and dangerous.
- vague allusions of Holocaust denial or that there is disagreement about how many Jews were murdered by Hitler.
R. Sungenis: I have never denied that many Jews suffered or lost their lives in German concentration camps. I only question the number of Jews who lost their lives simply because the Jews themselves have made it an open question. This is admitted, for example, by the caretakers of Auschwitz who changed the number of Jews who died from 4 million to 1 million.
Thanks for the replies. They are greatly appreciated!
DeleteYou are both in my prayers.
Thank you, Jonathan.
DeleteHi Rick,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you have seen this before, but apparently Stephen Hawking got himself in a bit of a hot water by denying the existence of the black holes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545552/Stephen-Hawking-admits-no-black-holes-GREY-holes.html
Mr. DeLano,
ReplyDeleteYou may be interested in reading the following response to your thesis by a Japanese blogger, who is, so far as I can tell, not even a theist, but whose cool reflectiveness in treating of the subject stands in marked (and refreshing) contrast to the hysterical fits we have seen recently on the part of certain Catholic commentators:
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/albert-einstein-stephen-hawking-and.html
I wonder whether it is his cultural and historical distance from the controversy that allows him to take a more detached and objective view of the matter?
If so, perhaps you would find a less hostile, more receptive audience for The Principle outside of the European cultural orbit (pun intended) - have you thought about having it subtitled or dubbed for the foreign market?
Mr. Melburnensis:
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for bringing this to my attention.
I intend to make this the subject of a new blog post.
If we lived in a world where rational thinking guided the consideration of this issue, this is the kind of treatment we would expect to receive from the heliocentric side of the question.
It is refreshing indeed to see that honesty and a decent consideration for the views of one's opposition still survive out there.
"The Principle" has an important role to play in challenging what has become, frankly, a sociopathic campaign to render the idea that Earth might be in a special location, even perhaps the center of the universe, a Thoughtcrime.rather than a view of reality which has survived five centuries of attempts to scientifically falsify it…….
This view has received stunning new support in recent large-scale surveys of the cosmos.
Thanks again!
PS: Yes, we are already seeing very strong evidence that the foreign interest in the film is going to be very large.
DeleteIf we achieve moderate success in the US market, then worldwide distribution, at least via DVD and VOD, is assured.
Just thinking...uh oh....
ReplyDeleteModern science needs a frontal assault by philosophers. Didn't Edison say, "I have not failed; I have just found 10,000 ways that won't work." ? So, when science is tested, (e.g., "let's see if that bulb produces light"), it very often fails. A year ago, it was common knowledge that our solar system was toward the edge of our galaxy, in one of the "arms", outside the "disc". But back in June, an article was published stating that our solar system might be closer to the center than previously thought. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/03/study-earth-closer-to-center-of-milky-way-than-previously-thought
So what are we to think? True discoveries are rare. Why are we so ready to take the word of any scientist? So many theories are so silly, you wonder if they're not playing an Emperor's New Clothes trick on us. (Just drool and nod.) Make the scientist prove his theory. Test all the givens, all the assumptions, all the conclusions. Science can't do that - but philosophy can. And a scientist who tries to torpedo philosophy, unwittingly pulls the rug out from underneath him. Some will think it arrogant, but in a way, observational science "reports" to philosophy. And that's not my claim, it's Jacques Maritain's.
Hugh, you have nailed a couple of very important points here.
DeleteBig Science has somehow managed to exempt itself from the kind of critical examination Big Government, Big Medicine, and Big Business regularly receive.
The temptation for Big Science to impose a *metaphysical* world view on the culture, while putting it in a box marked "Science", since that sells ever so much better right now, is a real problem.
For us stakeholders who actually *pay* for all of this stuff…..
And also for science itself.
This is exactly the point that Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli makes. He calls physics an "unregulated trade" and asks why other fields—like law, medicine, teaching, etc.—require licensing/regulation, but physics does not. But isn't regulation what causes "Big Government, Big Medicine, and Big Business", etc.?
DeleteOh, I think it is highly regulated.
DeletePeer review.
Tenure.
Funding.
Publish or perish.
The problem is not a lack of regulation, but an exemption from critical examination, from the kind of challenges to which other endeavors are regularly subjected.
From the stakeholders themselves.
The folks who actually *pay* for all of this stuff.
The folks whose children are going to be taught a foundational metaphysical worldview.
If that worldview is demonstrably damaging, then it ought to be challenged.
If that demonstrably damaging world view is actually *scientifically* challenged, then these facts *must* be brought forward, and not buried in the opaque language of the scientific community.
"The Principle" is simply the messenger.
Our message is not welcome, but that is precisely what makes it so important.
All that is "self-regulation", though. I'm talking about government regulation of science. I suppose there is that, too, in the grant process.
DeleteWhy does anyone have any truck with Mr Shea when he is so irrational and given to malicious personal attacks on people who are true to the Deposit of the Faith of the one, holy, catholic Church? This has puzzled me for a couple of years - it just doesn't make sense that he is given several big platforms in Catholic media.
ReplyDeleteHas Fr Spitzer had any involvement in or comment on, the film? When will it be released in Ireland??
ReplyDeleteFr. Spitzer has no involvement in our film.
DeleteHe made his own cosmology film a couple of years back.
It has nothing about the astonishing new observations that challenge the Copernican Principle and suggest that Earth is in a special, even central, location with respect to the large scale structure of the cosmos.
Only "The Principle" has this.
Have you sought his comments, reaction?
DeleteMark Shea simply bans those whom he cannot answer. I am one.
DeleteI mean Fr Spitzer's comments. Who'd have any interest in Mr Shea's?!!
DeleteLynda, E Michael Jones explained Shea's prominence this way. He's basically a 'hit man' who goes after people who speak and write uncomfortable truths that offends the Church Of Nice Mafia. He gets his hands dirty so the 'respectable' folks in the CON Mafia don't have to get down and dirty. Oh, they will say 'bad boy Mark' from time to time, but they will never reel him in for discipline. However, I suspect someday he will pull a boner that will draw too much attention to them, and he will find himself being called "Mark Who?"
ReplyDeleteMark is indeed a blog thug. Laughably obtuse, cowardly, he is his own best interview, and it isn't a very good one.
Delete