Apology accepted. It takes a big man to apologize, and we all know that you're definitely a big man, Mark. 
I do understand your frustation and dilemma. Like I said, I've pretty much studiously avoided this topic on your blog- the atmosphere is too toxic. Maybe, for awhile, you might want to avoid it as well?
It's the toxicity that is precisely what prompted this. Gresham's law applies to comboxes. Bad conversation drives out good. I want more people like you and less people like my apologists for murder and torture.
Doubtless you've ticked off some readers you contemn, as well, Mark. Call it double-effect.
Mark:
We Christians have an obligation to spread the Gospel and to strive to save our own souls and as many other souls as we can sneak into heaven with us. In order to do this we must meet one soul at a time. Your blog and others are essentially another way to spread the Gospel. Most American Catholics, in my opinion, were never taught their faith. This is reflected by some of the posts on this and other blogs. If you ban some people for submitting posts that are un-Christian then you also prohibit an attempt to dialogue with, and possibly convert, them. I would let these lost souls post; and allow dialogue with them in the hope of their conversion.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Mark,
I don't agree with torture as you define it, yet I cannot shake the thought that you, too, have contributed to the toxicity found in your comboxes.
God bless,
Then it's my responsibility to fix it, isn't it, Marc.
Mark:
BTW thank you for taking the trouble of running this blog. I imagine that it is a lot fo work. I could not do it. I think that you are helping a lot of souls "sneak" into heaven.
Keep up the good work.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I 2nd Richard W. in thanking Mark. I stumbled across this blog 3 or 4 years ago and appreciate the discussion and commentary. Yes, blog commenting can bring out the trolls and even the worse in some of us, but much of the information and discussion found here is informative.
Also, I have found his books enjoyable and informative.
Happy 4th of July!
Is slavery intrinsically evil?
Why are you asking here? Go check the Catechism.
"Then it's my responsibility to fix it, isn't it, Marc."
Yes.
If you ban some people for submitting posts that are un-Christian then you also prohibit an attempt to dialogue with, and possibly convert, them. I would let these lost souls post; and allow dialogue with them in the hope of their conversion.
Well, then, I guess you've just obligated yourself with some conversions, sir. Please begin since you are omniscient by description. Obviously you are self anointed enough to proceed with the necessary evangelization. I would offer the caveat though that considerations, not so black and white as you would like, offered over the history of these comments have not dismissed as easily as you the same kind of discussion permitted by the Church herself throughout history. If you wish to be holier than the Church, then, by all means, proceed. Who could stop you anyway when you're offered such a free venue for your kind of proselytizing? Did someone say there's judging going on in a Catholic blog? Well, I for one can no longer say that I'm shocked...shocked!
Mark,
You don't seem to get that when you persistently ask people if they are against torture and ignore what really goes on in the military from day to day you imply that torture is what goes on in the military from day to day.. .
Thus you imply that our military (including my son!) approves of torture and that it is a pretty normal thing. You insult, defame, and demoralize our soldiers who are out there helping Iraqis establish democracy!!! I don't think you know what they do over there, but it is easy to find out and report. You might want to report on some Islamic torture undergone by Americans--but that's not interesting to you. My husband, an attorney, says that Congress has passed the 'detainee treatment act' --So the US is against torture. May I be the first to inform you that the Islamists are the ones torturing.
The way you talk about torture is like asking a married man over and over if he is against wife beating. This implies that is what goes on, and it goes on most of the time in his marriage. Yes, I think you are unpatriotic. And hard headed.
No, Austin. I imply no such thing. In fact, I've repeatedly made it clear that I say and imply no such thing. If you cannot read, that is not my problem.
Consider, for instance, this:
http://
www.markshea.blogspot.com...168267171074965
Chris K:
Than you for your kind reply.
Maybe I am wrong – I usually am; but are not Christians by their baptism and confirmation sent out into the world to save souls? I was brought to Christ, not by some government program; but by the personal efforts of individuals who took both the time to talk to me and also the time to talk me out of my foolish ways. How can we convert, evangelize and save souls unless we sinners dialogue with our brothers and sisters? How do our brothers and sisters come to know the good news of Jesus Christ unless someone tells them? How, for instance, did you you find out about our Savior?
I hope, as I often do, that I have not missed your point; but we must love our fellow man; and the best way we can do that is to help him save his immortal soul…do you not agree?
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Hi Mark,a few points.
(1) I could never run a blog like this, and I admire your persistence.
(2) The intrusion of the torture stuff into the biblical interpretation really got on my nerves last week.
(3) I tried to vote A, but I don't think it was recorded by the website, because a vote for B would have incriminated St. Thomas Aquinas, who entertained some immoral arguments in his Q.'s of the Summa, before demolishing them in his A's.
(4) That being said, I think it is within your sphere of authority to excercise your own prudential judgement regarding toture posters on your blog.
Blessings,
I've been away for bit. Is there a objective "bright line" rule separating moral interrogation techniques and immoral torture, or are we defining it in the manner of Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it"?
I hope, as I often do, that I have not missed your point; but we must love our fellow man; and the best way we can do that is to help him save his immortal soul…do you not agree?
Well, Richard, I hate to douse your hopes, but I'm afraid you certainly did miss my point.
You used the term "lost souls" for those whose opinions were deleted ... not I. Now that's a pretty big assumption about others, just because they didn't jive with this one particular little program mostly based on black or white permitted replies on a subject.
Maybe I am wrong – I usually am; but are not Christians by their baptism and confirmation sent out into the world to save souls?
Well, yeah ... that is, IF their souls are in need of saving. And a little comment box has now become "the world"? And do you really believe that the usual commenters here have condemned souls or something? I just thought that was an awful big and arrogant leap to make about others based simply on the fact that Mark happens to differ with perspectives that may extend the discussion beyond certain personally proscribed parameters. I think that you can rest assured that just because someone may differ in approach with a blog meister he hasn't lost his soul! Or have we started a new little diocese here with a bishop hurling excommunications?!!!
Why can't Mark's comments section be more like the fair Amy's? Amy is feisty--but Mark is feistier. His posts, overall, have more of a polemical edge, and less of a newsy tone. Mark is a very good presenter of his case--and often does it with pop. In fact, he has more than once apologized for pop that was over the top, or involved rash judgment. This all attracts a different crowd of commenters than, say, the average run at Amy's. His commenters try to respond in kind but are rarely up to his standards of logic, knowledge, or care with details. Naturally, the resulting comments often irritate him, just as he irritated them. Personally, I usually enjoy Mark's style of commenting--the paradoxical titles and repeated, thematic tag lines, and all the rest--but one of the costs of that style is his blog is a little more like talk radio and a little less like a friendly round-the-table discussion over beer. On the other hand, on the occasional issue where I differ with Mark, (and these are very few, and certainly do not include this issue) the style -- stings. People want to sting back. Jacque Maritan's works are full of careful thought, strongly argued and well researched, but he had his wife Raissa check them before they saw print. The Peasant of the Garonne, his response to the excesses that followed the Vatican Council, was written and published after she died. It is Maritain with the gloves off--great fun as he lays waste to his opponents. But it hasn't quite the philosophical tone of everything else he wrote. Mark's books and articles are like Maritain plus Raissa (and he is especially careful when he's writing to a non-Catholic audience). This blog is like The Peasant of the Garonne, and I imagine some of the irritation evident in both cases comes from writing to and about Catholics who should know better. My suggestion is that Mark should set up comment moderation and only post comments after previewing them. There would be no need of announced blanket bans or the like, just a little warning now and then at the end of a post before the comments come in. He should simply not publish any he thinks are way out of line, on a case by case basis. Hey, it's HIS blog. If it is clear a lot of would-be commenters have missed his point--perhaps he can clarify the post. Or ignore us. I believe this will gradually sift out the less helpful commenters and result in more comments from those inclined to be a bit more careful, and gentle about it.
Bill Mild wrote:
I tried to vote A, but I don't think it was recorded by the website, because a vote for B would have incriminated St. Thomas Aquinas, who entertained some immoral arguments in his Q.'s of the Summa, before demolishing them in his A's.
I too found Mark's phrasing of "Writing justifications for slaughtering prisoners is evil" to be ambiguous. For example, much of satire (e.g., "A Modest Proposal") hinges on writing something that you don't really mean. And in a debate, one may need to summarize an opponent's argument; that's not the same as agreeing with that argument.
A regular reader knows what Mark is really asking here -- his focus is on those whose intent is to convince others that torture is permitted, not on those writing satire, etc.
But a newcomer to this site might see this poll and think "Mark is trying to ban discussion of a complex issue," instead of "Mark is trying to end an incessant and pointless tangential debate that has been hijacking far too many of his comboxes."
"Why are you asking here? Go check the Catechism."
Well, what I find in the Catechism doesn't always tally with what I find here.
But frankly, you seem like you need a rest. Constant roiling arguments can get wearisome, no matter who is right and who is wrong. Other people might try a bit of graciousness if they wanted a rest, but that's no matter.
I'll try to steer clear of controversy with you for a while, especially on your own blog. But if you decide to interpret general comments on some other blog as "obviously" applying to you and start an argument with me yourself, then don't expect me to keep mum.
Let me just say that, as someone who loathes just about anything resembling torture but does not agree with your theological analysis of it, I thought your discussions of the personalism of John Paul and of the passage from Deuteronomy were real contributions to the difficult questions involved. I began to think we were getting somewhere, though I wasn't sure where it would be in the end. Perhaps you'll have made a real contribution in the end to a conversation that you refuse to have. That wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Keep us posted on how the book deal is going; even those of us who dispute with you hammer-and-tongs are remembering you in our prayers.
If you are "... just mortally sick of listening to apologetics for instrinsically grave sin" then why not stop subjecting yourself to the sickness by cooling out on the subject? You are not going to change others sin so don't make yourself sick trying to. Give yourself a break for awhile and you can always come back to it later.
Torture is anything that you would consider to be torture if were being done to you.
Chris K:
Are you saying that Mark deleted one or more of your posts? Are you upset because he deleted them? Mark deleted two of my posts. (Now humanity has lost that portion of my wisdom forever - sigh.) This is his blog he will run it as he sees fit. You and I cam always leave.
Are you accusing me of calling you a lost soul? I did not identify you by name. I was not attacking you. If I offended you please accept my apology. It was not intentional.
I think that we should approach a blog like this as a mutual search for the truth. Truth is Jesus Christ. We learn the truth not just from dry books but from other mortal men. We search for the truth in order to save our own and our neighbor’s soul. Our neighbor is anyone we come in contact with including the posters on this blog. (With the possible exception of the evil New York Yankees.)
It seems to me that Mark has decided to ban certain people who are searching for the truth starting from a position that appears to be immoral. He asked for opinions on this matter. I gave him mine. Obviously he does not agree with me. (I notice that a lot of Popes, Presidents and Prime Minister also do not agree with my opinions – I do not know what is wrong with them. )
Let us pray for one another.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"Torture is anything that you would consider to be torture if were being done to you."
My wife's cooking is torture?
Can I just say, Mark, how much I have appreciated your blog for the past few years. You have spoken so well on our Catholic faith, and explained many things in a way that helped me to further understand and appreciate the richness of our faith. I read Amy's blog too, and as much as I also enjoy her entries, I certainly wouldn't want your blog to become more like hers.
Keep up the good work! As you have helped me, so must you be helping many others!
Thanks you, Julie. Your words of encouragement really make a difference. It's been a difficult week for various reasons.
I'm among the crowd who tend to lose sight of my Catholic faith when that sight is clouded by passion and emotion especially regarding the "War on Terror". I quickly succumb to the "if it was your children" argument for torture and easily forget that our Church speaks clearly about the ends not justifying the means - in fact Part Three "Life in Christ" begins with the discussion of this: SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT;
CHAPTER ONE
THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON;
ARTICLE 4
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS.
It is difficult to temper my visceral reaction to the sheer mindless barbarity of our "opponents" methods (particularly where they are made against innocents) if I am truly a Catholic and Christian as I like to believe I am. It is extremely difficult to position oneself as truly Catholic while yet failing to condemn immoral means to what may possibly be a good end. Jesus would not have equivocation but would have mercy. Yes, we must deal with murderers and butchers but we must not deal with them using their own methods.
Your willingness to state the Catholic position and stick to it is encouraging for those of us who stumble around in the middle ground (or worse). Keep it up, keep praying for conversions - I'm one your writing has helped tremendously and I appreciate what you do. Thanks Mark.
I think, Mark, that you would do well to continue dialogue with those who differ with you on torture (and other matters debated here).
Who knows, you might eventually convince them. And you will convince many others who are listening in. And if torture supporters paint themselves into a corner by starting to support murder, then it's clear to all where their train of thought is going. And maybe it will become clear to them also.
I know it's frustrating, but don't give up Mark !
God Bless
I think, Mark, that you would do well to continue dialogue with those who differ with you on torture (and other matters debated here). Who knows, you might eventually convince them.
He's certainly reoriented my bias, for what that's worth. I had a tendency towards Krauthammer's line on coercion for a while; Mark's impassioned posts have definitely reminded me where my stance is supposed to focus.
My paradox has always been that I find my sympathies caught between the competing imperatives of "Do not do evil that good may come of it" and "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". If I'm not one of the banned posters (as I have veered close to the apologists' side at times), I hope Mark might offer his thoughts on this paradox.
Stephen,
I think sometimes we're tempted by the Modernist tendency to prefer the concrete and visible to the spiritual as if prayer, the Holy Mass, suffering born well and the like are of no use whatsoever in the struggle against evil. Whereas the truth is that these are our most powerful weapons but sadly, often the most neglected.
I'd suggest that the solution to your dilema is to consider that some actions are intrinsically evil and therefore are things we can never resort to, no matter how desperate the situation and how great the temptation. Pope John Paul's encyclical Veritatis Splendor discusses this and lists some things which are always intrinsically evil.
God Bless
Stephen, your thoughts on the paradox are pretty close to mine.
It is man's responsibility to save others from evil where I find much of the apparent logical difficulty in the catholic position. If not for the evil of others, good wouldn't have to face the hard choice.
Lawrence: "A regular reader knows what Mark is really asking here -- his focus is on those whose intent is to convince others that torture is permitted, not on those writing satire, etc."
I mentioned that specifically, but Mark shot it down. Maybe it was his mistake, but he seemed to get mad about me noticing it.
Those loonies who proclaim themselves Catholic and take the morally insane position of embracing torture have no place in these comboxes. Leave the questioning of Orthodoxy to a Jesuit blog.
Sadly Catholics, ah for that matter christans become too enthralled in the ever now, the modernistic anthropocentric view of THIS life. People please this is not it, that’s the key, everlasting isn’t now but later achieved through death. Committing sin to save one self or others from death if you truly believe everlasting eternity with our Lord is wrong.
Let us not go down the road of well no wars then, no shooting murderers, no stopping a crime with deadly force, poppycock too this argument. We are talking in controlled manners executing unworthy acts of civilized people. Let us escape from this here and now and believe heartily in the life ever after with our Lord, this is the important part.
This life is momentary in nature, finite by its very nature, look forward to more then what is here, think beyond the tangibles, this is the beauty of FAITH.
Commenting by HaloScan
