Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher Fired from National Catholic Register

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I gather that Mark Shea is at a very low broken point in his life . Whether you like his style or not or even if you agree that he has been beyond uncharitable ( the complaint of which is so ironic when spread by the ultra right :rolleyes:) I believe that Mark Shea is a humble man who truly believes in truth. There is room for growth in all of us. I hope that his time off will be a time of healing and growth. Why don’t we all just pray for our brother in his time of need.
Praying for him.

As one who has lost jobs several times, I can empathize.
 
Mark Shea is a buffoon and an embarrassment to the Catholic Church. He is a mentally ill narcissist man-child who never grew up and has finally descended into madness. If his friends and family loved him they would suggest he find a real job that has nothing to do with church, and then duct-tape his filthy mouth shut. A straight-jacket wouldn’t hurt either.

Karl Keating saw the light about him ages ago and dumped him from the Catholic Answers speakers bureau.
As somebody who agrees with the NCR on letting Shea go, as well as Fisher (whom I hope comes back at some point), allow me to say that this comment is really harsh.

We’re not qualified to make these sorts of statements. I disagreed with Shea’s tone and his recent political comments, but that doesn’t entitle us to say things of this type, in my view, in this tone.
 
As a more or less stranger to Shea’s writing (I rarely read him, as I didn’t have to and I tended not to enjoy his more recent writing) it seems to me that the debate has some really interesting sidetracks to it which may overshadow the real issue, and which are coloring the commentary in the blogosphere. We may wish to keep that in mind.

There are some whose views are of such a distinct variety that they are fairly hostile to any Catholic commentator who isn’t Rad Trad or nearly Rad Trad. For those folks, Shea can say nothing right and their comments really reflect that. They feel the same way about Fisher. Indeed, they seem to feel that way about others whom we’d regard as really solid, orthodox, Catholics I’ve seen some hostile comments, for example, about EWTN in this context, and EWTN is quite orthodox.

In interesting contrast, there are those in the declining (I know I’m go to take hits for this, but it is declining) remnant of “liberal” Catholicism who feel really tribal about this. For them, Shea and Fisher can do not wrong. They can use any language and advocate any political position, seemingly, and should not have their publishers question it.

In this debate, I’d tend to discount both groups.

Which leaves those of us in the middle. Probably mostly orthodox Catholics, with some liberals, who feel publication isn’t a right and that Shea’s advocacy had left the rails in terms of tone and content (and Fisher’s at least in tone). That takes a lot of heat out of the argument, but maybe it’ll shine some useful light on it.

Those who write for a Catholic journal, have to keep their faith in mind whenever they write. Indeed, those who right as Catholic (if you will) pundits have that duty. That puts us in an odd spot in this election, quite frankly, as we have two choices that are distasteful to a lot of us. But when we apply the principals of protecting life and opposing death, that doesn’t seemingly leave us with one of the two mainstream avenues. Rationalizing that is really hard, in my view, and those who would undertake to do so cannot reduce to insults even if insulted, and not expect a negative reaction. For that matter, I don’t know, of course, that they didn’t expect it.
 
I totally agree. This insinuation that Donald Trump fans somehow conspired to bring these two writers down, actually strikes me (ironically) as the kind of conspiracy theory Donald Trump himself might stir up, if someone who supported him were to be fired from a publication, that there must have been some Clintonista or Political Establishment conspiracy at work.

Now, truth-telling is of course a virtue, but it does not trump (no pun intended) the obligation to be charitable. I can agree with a person’s opinions and still disagree with how they express them. I also agree with some of what Ann Coulter has to say about issues, too, but I’m certainly not a fan of her, either.
It’s really not some ‘conspiracy theory,’ since no one is saying that Trumpkins directly forced the firings. What I think I’m reading here is that many Catholics have bought into the (false) idea that Trump is the only acceptable candidate for a Christian to vote for; this is manifest in polls, comment threads and the very angry anti-Simcha-and-Mark blogosphere (which I won’t link to out of charity to all). This angry group has commented/blogged/lobbied hard against the two writers for months and is now ruthlessly celebrating their firings.

If NCR editors had read that feedback, and every good editor should’ve, they’d’ve been faced with a choice: either support their writers, or give their readers more of what they want. They opted for the latter (and the easier) and caved to the mob.

Before someone says, “Well, this was a long time coming and the Trump stuff was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back,” I’d point out that both Shea and Fisher had developed their writing voices/personas well before the NCR hired them. NCR Editors knew who they hired, profited from what the two wrote, and cut the cord only when their opinions either A) Didn’t conform to the editorial board’s political preference, or even more pathetically B) Didn’t jive in the mob’s echo chamber.

If I’m a writer with a shred of self-respect, I’m not going anywhere near an outlet that openly displays such cowardly editorial leadership.
 
It’s really not some ‘conspiracy theory,’ since no one is saying that Trumpkins directly forced the firings. What I think I’m reading here is that many Catholics have bought into the (false) idea that Trump is the only acceptable candidate for a Christian to vote for; this is manifest in polls, comment threads and the very angry anti-Simcha-and-Mark blogosphere (which I won’t link to out of charity to all). This angry group has commented/blogged/lobbied hard against the two writers for months and is now ruthlessly celebrating their firings.

If NCR editors had read that feedback, and every good editor should’ve, they’d’ve been faced with a choice: either support their writers, or give their readers more of what they want. They opted for the latter (and the easier) and caved to the mob.

Before someone says, “Well, this was a long time coming and the Trump stuff was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back,” I’d point out that both Shea and Fisher had developed their writing voices/personas well before the NCR hired them. NCR Editors knew who they hired, profited from what the two wrote, and cut the cord only when their opinions either A) Didn’t conform to the editorial board’s political preference, or even more pathetically B) Didn’t jive in the mob’s echo chamber.

If I’m a writer with a shred of self-respect, I’m not going anywhere near an outlet that openly displays such cowardly editorial leadership.
I really disagree with this.

I can hardly be regarded as a “Trumpkin”. I’m not voting for Trump, and I’m not voting for Clinton. Like Shea, I have the luxury of living in an area that is not a swing state, and I don’t have to. Chances are high that Shea and I are voting for the same candidate.

What this seems to boil down to, in my view, is that Shea was taking the position that people who live in swing states have a moral duty to vote fro Clinton. I don’t think you can ever get there, given that the Democrats clearly support ending life before birth on liberal terms and are presently hostile to marriage. If a person can get there, however, they have an obligation to argue in a persuasive but non insulting style. The NCR surely doesn’t have to keep publishing somebody who is writing under a Catholic flag who doesn’t do that.

Fisher is a writer I really like, and I’m sorry to see her go, but again, as a Catholic writer, if you reduce (off the NCR) to calling Trump’s symbol a combination of a swastika and an indecent act you are likely to pay for it. That’s not being prudish, it’s being prudent. Indeed, one of the things that widely disgusted people about the GOP race was its decent into vulgarity early on, and now the same class of people who abhorred that cannot engage in it themselves.

Finally, the firing of columnists for failing to comport to the standards of a journal, including editorial standards, is as old as journalism itself. No writer or reader can demand that a journal must publish anyone. If they want somebody published, they ought to campaign with the journal. If they don’t like what the journal publishes, they may choose not to read it, as you note.

I don’t think that hoards of “Trumpkins” took either of them down, which you agreed with. I think they’re own writing did that.
 
It’s really not some ‘conspiracy theory,’ since no one is saying that Trumpkins directly forced the firings. What I think I’m reading here is that many Catholics have bought into the (false) idea that Trump is the only acceptable candidate for a Christian to vote for; this is manifest in polls, comment threads and the very angry anti-Simcha-and-Mark blogosphere (which I won’t link to out of charity to all). This angry group has commented/blogged/lobbied hard against the two writers for months and is now ruthlessly celebrating their firings.

If NCR editors had read that feedback, and every good editor should’ve, they’d’ve been faced with a choice: either support their writers, or give their readers more of what they want. They opted for the latter (and the easier) and caved to the mob.
You are assuming that “Trumpkins” are a large enough segment of the NCR’s readership that they would have this kind of clout. I’m not convinced of that at all. Also, although I’m not surprised that an “anti-Simcha-and-Mark blogosphere” exists and that they would take credit for the firings, that does NOT mean their grandiose self-perception is correct.

I’m also sure Gretchen Carlson would love to take credit for the ouster of Roger Ailes from FNC, and certainly her social media outlets are essentially proclaiming this proves her allegations. However, it appears the Murdochs wanted to get rid of Ailes for a while anyway and make FNC a more mainstream news outlet, attractive to more than just conservative viewers. Obviously Carlson’s allegations didn’t help Ailes but I doubt they were the only reason he was forced out.
 
It’s really not some ‘conspiracy theory,’ since no one is saying that Trumpkins directly forced the firings. What I think I’m reading here is that many Catholics have bought into the (false) idea that Trump is the only acceptable candidate for a Christian to vote for; this is manifest in polls, comment threads and the very angry anti-Simcha-and-Mark blogosphere (which I won’t link to out of charity to all). This angry group has commented/blogged/lobbied hard against the two writers for months and is now ruthlessly celebrating their firings.

If NCR editors had read that feedback, and every good editor should’ve, they’d’ve been faced with a choice: either support their writers, or give their readers more of what they want. They opted for the latter (and the easier) and caved to the mob.

Before someone says, “Well, this was a long time coming and the Trump stuff was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back,” I’d point out that both Shea and Fisher had developed their writing voices/personas well before the NCR hired them. NCR Editors knew who they hired, profited from what the two wrote, and cut the cord only when their opinions either A) Didn’t conform to the editorial board’s political preference, or even more pathetically B) Didn’t jive in the mob’s echo chamber.

If I’m a writer with a shred of self-respect, I’m not going anywhere near an outlet that openly displays such cowardly editorial leadership.
I see your point.

The comboxes are terrible. The comments regarding Simcha buying a steak with foodstamps terrible. The names, that frankly would cause a husband to punch someone in the nose, are terrible. How one can call a mom of 10 married for 18 years those names is incredible.

I do read Mark Shea. I do see his point. On his patheos blog I can see that he’s been very frustrated and expressing his frustration.

His writing actually reminds me of the scene in Soylent Green where Charleton Heston says “It’s made of people!!”

But I haven’t read anything at all terrible written by Simcha on her own personal blog or on her NCR writings.
 
You are assuming that “Trumpkins” are a large enough segment of the NCR’s readership that they would have this kind of clout.
Indeed, I suspect that most NCR readers are thinking “how did this sad state of affairs come to afflict us?”

Which is, I note, another question, I suppose for another thread, but a legitimate one. People speak of the “Catholic vote” as if there is one. There does not seem to be, or if there is, it isn’t reflecting itself in either party.
 
In interesting contrast, there are those in the declining (I know I’m go to take hits for this, but it is declining) remnant of “liberal” Catholicism who feel really tribal about this. For them, Shea and Fisher can do not wrong. They can use any language and advocate any political position, seemingly, and should not have their publishers question it.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone I would describe as a “liberal Catholic” would be a fan of Shea or Fisher. To me, their audience is and has always been different shades of conservative. I doubt most liberal Catholics even know who they are. 🤷

I always found it odd when I’d see people in the combox at Shea’s blog accuse him of being liberal. Yes, he was quite scathing in his critique of Republicans and other groups of conservatives that he thought were putting politics before faith. But he was just as critical of Democrats. I think he just spent less time talking about them because it went without saying that they have serious conflicts with Catholic teaching.

I could be very wrong as I don’t know Shea personally, but I always got the sense that he prefers to tell people what he thinks they do not know and need to learn rather than simply reiterating what they already know. His audience was (by and large) conservative Catholics. Rather than simply affirming them in their beliefs, he would try to challenge their assumptions and the (alleged) uncritical deference they give to the GOP.

From reading some of the comments he receives, I can certainly see how those commenters would reinforce Shea’s opinion that some Catholics out there are willing to go along with and even agree with GOP policies that contradict the faith (and thus reaffirm for him that he is saying what needs to be said).
 
How is the NCR viewed by the Vatican? Does the Vatican see the NCR as generally in line with the Church or more like loose cannons?
 
How is the NCR viewed by the Vatican? Does the Vatican see the NCR as generally in line with the Church or more like loose cannons?
I don’t know how the Vatican views them, but unlike National Catholic Reporter, they have never had their Bishops (yes multiple) tell them that they are not in accord with Church teaching and to stop using Catholic in their name. In general I have never seen anyone in the hierarchy say that National Catholic Register is not faithful to the magisterium.
 
How is the NCR viewed by the Vatican? Does the Vatican see the NCR as generally in line with the Church or more like loose cannons?
I doubt the Vatican keeps tabs on every Catholic news outlet out there. It would really fall to the local bishop. In this case, the NC Register actually has the requisite permission to use the word “Catholic” in their name.
 
It’s weird that more than a couple of folks posting in this thread have said something to the effect of “I don’t read this or that author but I think firing him or her was totally justified” or “I don’t read this or that author but I’m sure he or she wasn’t fired for espousing unpopular political beliefs.” :hmmm:
 
Honestly, I don’t think anyone I would describe as a “liberal Catholic” would be a fan of Shea or Fisher. To me, their audience is and has always been different shades of conservative. I doubt most liberal Catholics even know who they are. 🤷
Absolutely.
I always found it odd when I’d see people in the combox at Shea’s blog accuse him of being liberal. Yes, he was quite scathing in his critique of Republicans and other groups of conservatives that he thought were putting politics before faith. But he was just as critical of Democrats. I think he just spent less time talking about them because it went without saying that they have serious conflicts with Catholic teaching.
Right. It’s pretty humorous to hear him being called liberal.
I could be very wrong as I don’t know Shea personally, but I always got the sense that he prefers to tell people what he thinks they do not know and need to learn rather than simply reiterating what they already know. His audience was (by and large) conservative Catholics. Rather than simply affirming them in their beliefs, he would try to challenge their assumptions and the (alleged) uncritical deference they give to the GOP.
Yes, yes, YES. This is why I think it’s sort of sad that he was fired. Sometimes we need to hear hard truths. And it seems there are fewer speaking them now. Just my opinion, of course.
 
Newspapers and websites that cover religious issues realize that their income comes from the Conservative religious who don’t like dissent and having their world view challenged. There is little to be gained economically by employing people that will offend those that pay for the site.
 
It’s even more ironic when it’s spread by Shea and Fisher followers who excusing their behaviors. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I gather that Mark Shea is at a very low broken point in his life . Whether you like his style or not or even if you agree that he has been beyond uncharitable ( the complaint of which is so ironic when spread by the ultra right :rolleyes:) I
 
People get fired all the time.

And anyone publicly expressing opinions would seem to be more likely than not to have that experience.

Maybe they could find paying work by opening a public relations company of their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top