The line.
You know, the line. The line is is what you cross when in the defense of some perceived good, you do something not so good.
I have crossed the line occasionally here (alright, more than occasionally). Sometimes I have done it merely in an attempt to be funny. Actually, this is where I make the most mistakes. Also, I have occasionally erred when I let my passion over an issue obscure or overwhelm my charity.
As part of my efforts here I write a lot of stuff. Most of it, fairly judged, is nonsense. I think that one of the merits of CMR is that Matthew and I make no claim on think tank quality stuff. Quite the contrary. If we can find and excuse to work the Pope, Hugo Chavez, Richard McBrien, and the Chupacabra (Bigfoot or zombies in a pinch) into a post, we will do it just for yuks. When I go over the line in the name of comedy, retractions or apologies can be proffered quite easily. It is when I am deadly serious that perspective and those same retractions and apologies are typically less forthcoming.
For me, in those times, it is tough to take a step back and look at my words objectively lest I question the motives for writing them in the first place. But, as we all know, sometime motives can be good and judgment and execution poor.
I truly consider myself fortunate that in those moments where my where my judgment has been impaired (or absent) whether due to comedy or conviction, I have had good people to offer me correction.
Now don’t get me wrong, as a Catholic blogger I am frequently offered correction of all types, much of which is offered in the form of the ubiquitous anonymous comment. This I put no stock in. However, sometimes correction comes from otherwise supportive sources (my wife, my brother, and other bloggers whom I respect). When the otherwise amiable and erudite suggest that I missed the mark, I listen. Maybe I don’t listen right away, but I eventually listen. When I do, I am usually better off for it.
Why all the preamble? Because offering correction is tough and I know that I have a plank in my own eye. Even so, I feel compelled to say that I suspect that Mark Shea has crossed the line.
Mark, in his righteous fury over the support for torture demonstrated by this administration seeks to bolster his contention that the “bushies” are evil by relaying the following third hand anecdote.
You might be interested in an anecdote I haven’t published because it is just a rumor, though it is a rumor only once removed from me.
A pilot friend of mine knows another pilot who flies big cargo planes. This other pilot, not my friend, flew big freight airplanes in and out of Iraq as a civilian contractor for a while. Mostly his ‘cargo’ was prisoners. He would regularly take off (so he says) with, say, 65 prisoners, and land with only 25 or so. Supposedly prisoners were being interrogated and then pushed out the door ten thousand feet up if they didn’t please the interrogators. Our own intelligence agents (not military) were the interrogators, according to the pilot. They always made sure they were done throwing prisoners out the door before they got into NATO airspace.My pilot friend who told me this had never discussed the war or prisoner interrogation or anything like it with me. I first met him years ago, but I’ve only gotten to know him well in the last year or so. We were chatting up various pilot careers at the time, and discussing the ‘freight dogs’ who fly really big cargo planes. He just brought it up out of the blue when talking about this ‘freight dog’ friend of his.
Anyway, a few years back I would have dismissed such rumors as conspiracy theorists tunneling under our houses with black helicopters provided by aliens passing by in a comet. Now they strike me as eminently plausible. Maybe I was naive before, but if so I kind of wish I still was.
While I find the plausibility of this anecdote suspect, I will not debate it here because it is irrelevant to the point I wish to make. While the Bush administration can rightly be critiqued and perhaps even condemned for its support of torture, I do not think that it is remotely Christian to relay an admittedly third hand and unverified anecdote that accuses Americans of systematic large scale murder.
Mark refers to the above as ‘entirely believable’ on the basis that Bush has supported other bad things. But this third hand unverified anecdote accuses not just Bush (although that would be bad enough) but other U.S. citizens of systematic (large scale) murder with absolutely no proof.
I believe this crosses the line. I am not going to get into the specific areas of the catechism that address such horrific public accusations. I am quite confident that anyone who cares about it can find the relevant passages on their own. Long story short, this is plainly wrong and profoundly un-Christian.
I remember back in the day when President Clinton was outed as an admitted adulterer and perjurer. There were those on the right whose judgment was so clouded by disdain (and even hate) for the President that they used these obvious transgressions as cover for publicly entertaining any all scurrilous rumors about the President ranging from from rape to murder. It was wrong when they did it then and it is equally wrong today.
Frankly I think that Mark Shea is a better person and a better blogger than this post would indicate. I believe that posting such a heinous rumor with absolutely no evidence simply on the basis that it fits with your view that the administration is corrupt is a serious error in judgment. Mark should retract that portion of the post as it is a disservice and a distraction to the good work that he typically performs on his blog.
Update: Joining the fray…
Erin Manning
Jay Anderson
December 3, 2008 at 1:55 am
Nope. Sorry. This is not tantamount to Trig Trutherism, much as you try to make it so.
Of course not; one was spreading a pretty obvious lie to make Gov. Palin sound bad, and the other is spreading a pretty obvious lie to make Prez. Bush look bad….
Totally different.
December 3, 2008 at 2:26 am
Repeating my comment left on Mark’s blog.
Let’s all pray this together:
Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil upon the head,
running down upon the beard,
upon the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
life for evermore.
Glory be… as it was…
December 3, 2008 at 2:29 am
IOW, I think we’re getting too heated up here. Time to stop, pray for each other, and move on. It’s not worth the tarnish to one’s soul.
December 3, 2008 at 4:59 am
“I believe Mark Shea is correct in noticing that the place to voice concerns about his writing is on his blog.”
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
Mark will be the first one to tell you that he owes no one a forum, and that if someone disagrees with something he’s written, they’re free to start their own blog and critique him there.
Besides, Mark has once again engaged in calumny without going to the original source of this story to verify it. It’s a little lame to now complain that someone aired a grievance against him for that somewhere besides Mark’s blog.
December 3, 2008 at 5:12 am
“Mark will be the first one to tell you that he owes no one a forum, and that if someone disagrees with something he’s written, they’re free to start their own blog and critique him there.”
I know the above for a fact, because Mark has said it to me before when I complained that he had banned someone from commenting at his blog and then posted a diatribe against the guy without the guy having an opportunity to respond because of his banishment.
So, forgive me if I don’t view Mark as the victim here.
December 3, 2008 at 6:30 am
Jay, you’re absolutely right. Mark said the same thing to me six years ago because he cannot tolerate any opposing opinion for very long without feeling personally threatened. This has nothing to do with his position on torture; if he maintained the exact opposite position, he’d behave the exact same way.
Confronting Shea with the conesequences of his positions on his own blog, as M suggests, only gets you banned — even if you make your points rationally and without invective. So what’s the point?
December 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Joe D’Hippolito and Mark Shea:
Pray for the personal intentions of the other (if you find this dubiuos, just ask that God’s will be done). And then please disengage. Not worth the trouble for your souls.
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I’d like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You’re welcome to drop on by.
December 3, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“I have no such resident expert. That’s kinda my point. I have a reader who, like you and me, doesn’t know much beyond the fact that we already know the Administration has tortured, murdered and lied about it before and therefore has no confidence that they might have done it again. Any other flippancies you’d like to offer?”
Of course you have such and expert which you have publicly commended:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/113993811290587716/#428341
But now its time to listen to the vets who have legitimate credentials. Any more flippancies from you?
December 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“I have to apologize to Mark. Just now I stepped outside and it started raining corpses. I forgot how routine such an occurrence was. No wonder the people living underneath the flight path were so non-plussed.”
Crankycon,
Don’t know where those bodies are coming from but they can’t be terrorists. You see, the terrorists that are thrown from planes are transported to Area 51.
Its true. You see, I heard from someone that heard from someone else that I totally trust that we have developed transport technology recovered from spaceships kept at area 51. Its called the Total Body Shifter or TBS. The only problem is this TBS is too large to move so all the bodies get transported to Area 51. Its true. I heard it.
December 3, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Patrick,
I don’t think you’ve answered my question yet, and I’m still sincerely curious. To repeat:
What is the point of this post (posting something accusatory about someone else)? I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. Do you intend this post as a public service announcement? It sounds like the airing of a grievance…Or am I missing your point?
December 3, 2008 at 4:02 pm
M-
I think it’s pretty clear what Patrick’s purpose in this post is and was– to stand up and say “this is not acceptable,” in the hopes of being heard.
December 3, 2008 at 4:12 pm
It should be apparent from his blog alone that you can take the Protestant out of the protestant “church” but you can’t take the Protestant out of the blogger
December 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Now that’s a bit uncalled for– I know cradle Catholics and converts alike who would nod in agreement to the discussed post.
December 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm
M.
I am not airing a grievance or accusing anyone of anything. I am critiquing something that another blogger wrote. This is the way it works. It is a public debate. This is my blog and this is what is for.
Mark does exactly the same thing on his blog. I respectfully disagreed with Mark on the prudence of printing such a thing. Writing about my opinions is what I do, why is this even an issue?
I am not accusing anyone of a private sin which would mandate a private mail. This is a public discussion with some disagreement. This is not an issue.
December 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Mr. Shea,
In the hope that you are still reading the comments here, I offer the following:
You don’t know me, but as I mentioned in the very first comment above, I occasionally visit your blog, and I have enjoyed and derived great benefit from your writings on apologetics.
As an observer with no dog in this race as to who is right or wrong, I have to say that this entire ongoing debate over the Bush Administration’s actions regarding torture has degenerated way beyond the point of fruitful dialogue, both on your part and on the part of a few of the more strident voices who criticize you (I don’t include Mr. Archbold in that category).
I completely understand the reason for your anger over the current administration’s actions and policies regarding torture, and I also understand that it is natural to dig in and defend oneself when one is criticized, as you have done in the comments above.
However, it is my personal opinion that you are not currently doing good for anyone with your defensive and strident tone on this issue. I think that you could derive tremendous spiritual benefit from taking a break — even if only a week or two — from blogging and from following current events. Even just going on a weekend retreat could potentially bear great fruit.
This suggestion is based on my own personal experience. I too have engaged in political and religious debates online, and have slowly slid down the slippery slope from “I want to proclaim the truth in order to achieve a greater good” to “I’m RIGHT and you’re WRONG, DAMMIT!!” In situations like that, it was only removing myself from the situation (e.g., from the particular discussion board, or from the internet entirely) that allowed me to get back on the right course.
I realize that this advice probably doesn’t (and perhaps shouldn’t) carry much weight with you, since I am basically an anonymous stranger. But I hope that others who are closer to you and whose opinion you value are giving you the same advice. Perhaps this season of Advent provides a good opportunity for reflection.
December 3, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I’d like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You’re welcome to drop on by.
Dave, many thanks for the invitation. Please send your e-mail address to jdhipp@gmail.com; for some reason, I can’t get it by placing the cursor over your name.
December 3, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Joe, specifically:
please email me privately. I’d like to talk (religion, politics, cabbages and kings). You’re welcome to drop on by.
Dave, many thanks for the invitation. Please send your e-mail address to jdhipp@gmail.com; for some reason, I can’t get it by placing the cursor over your name.
December 3, 2008 at 7:48 pm
While we are all venting about Shea, let’s consider who the real enemy is, as exemplified by the murder of an Orthodox rabbi and his wife.
(from Tammy Bruce’s blog):
Chabad is a large Hasidic movement of Orthodox Judaism. These days it’s based in Brooklyn, but it started in Europe over 200 years ago. The modern Chabad house began in Los Angeles in the 1960’s, and Chabad houses are now spread around the world. Mumbai Chabad House, a five-story building, has an educational center, a synagogue, and it offers drug prevention and hostel services.
These are the people who get targeted for murder. Take a moment to consider how telling this is. In light of the tensions and flare-ups between Pakistan and India, or between Muslims and Hindus, an attack on India from Pakistan isn’t in itself surprising. But for the raiding party to devote two of its ten assassins to torturing and murdering the only rabbi in Mumbai along with his wife…this boggles the mind. There’s no strategy or purpose here; it’s an act of raw, impersonal hatred. We see the face of an evil that defies rational comprehension.
It’s been observed that the Jews are the miner’s canary of the world. The Islamic terror that has hit so many nations started as a campaign against the Jews. There’s a lesson and a warning there, but the world prefers to close its eyes
These genocidal jihadist totalitarians are the real enemy, not the Bush Administration nor some two-bit apologist who thinks he knows more than he actually does.
We Catholics must remember that San Diego Matamoros, Lepanto and Vienna are just as much a part of our heritage as the Pax Christi/Catholic Worker nonsense — perhaps more so.
December 4, 2008 at 1:37 am
Patrick,
Thanks for your reply.
I find that telling 3rd parties what 2nd parties should do is less effective than going directly to said 2nd parties, but you don’t. OK. Also confusing, my occasional visits to CMR usually yield posts about news items, movies, and personal reflections, not (usually) posts critiquing fellow bloggers.
December 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Whatever the merits of the larger discussion, there is a lot of ignorance on display about what can and cannot be accomplished with aircraft; ignorance which can easily be dispelled by a little googling. For example, see this video, and this one.