Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher Fired from National Catholic Register

[PRmerger]

Let’s be free of linguistic traps that I am seeing here. I will give you an example of what Mark should do.

Mark posts an article about minimum wage and makes it apologetic thread because defrauding wages is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. When people post that not all jobs can be paid a living wage and prove it with actual facts Mark behaves insolently, and violates the basic rules of charity by not addressing the real facts and deals instead with hyperbole. My first post in this thread were the tip of the humongous number of examples where Shea’s snark violate his threads apologetic threads.

Clear?

Not really.

Could you please answer my question?

Are you saying that Shea MUST post apologetics on Facebook?

Yes? or no?

Pretty simple question.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

He MUST let his apologetics role be evident on his Facebook posts?

I think this is where you’re missing the point. He doesn’t have to mention his apologetics, the NCR, the Catholic faith or anything else on Facebook. However, he’s absolutely required to wear the hat of an NCR employee (in his case, he’s an apologist) whenever he presents himself to the public. He’s utterly and completely obligated to not post anything that could cause problems for his employer. In Shea’s case, it’s even more of an obligation because his page was that of a public figure and not a personal page. In other words, he wasn’t posting his bile to his chose friends but was putting it out there for everyone who followed him to see. I’d say that puts him under far more of an obligation to comport himself in an appropriate matter. In other words, there’s no way he could say he didn’t realize his comments would be seen by the public or cause a problem for the NCR.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Not really.

Could you please answer my question?

Are you saying that Shea MUST post apologetics on Facebook?

Yes? or no?

Pretty simple question.

Okay. No he mustn’t post apologetics on Facebook. However since he does post apologetics of his on free will, he is responsible for how he behaves. Since he doesn’t he deserved to be cut from NCR.

 

[utah_rose]

His political writing were on his blog at Patheos though.

Simcha, supposedly wrote something overly risque’ on her own facebook page.

Her blogs on National Catholic Register and her personal one were non political, general mommy blogging. She had a feature on preparing meals for many children. She talked about NFP. She’s discussed her struggles with post partum depression. She discussed her struggle with her mom with Alzheimer’s.

I like her and found her personable.

I liked Simchas columns but some I didn’t always agree with but she was funny. Mark Shea though lately was getting way too political and insulting in many ways. Still he had some good columns on Catholic doctrine. I didn’t always agree with their views and often said so, but I’m sorry to see them go. I think if Simcha had stuck with the funny mother things, like Erma Brombeck did, she could have been very successful. I like the NR but wish they’d have kept them.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. No he mustn’t post apologetics on Facebook.

Thank you.

However since he does post apologetics of his on free will, he is responsible for how he behaves.

Of course.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Not really.

Could you please answer my question?

Are you saying that Shea MUST post apologetics on Facebook?

Yes? or no?

Pretty simple question.

I think you may have missed the whole point of the issue. He didn’t get fired because he did or didn’t post about apologetics on Facebook. He got fired because he posted pro-abortion rhetoric and acted in a hateful, uncharitable manner. I don’t think anyone ever said he had to post about apologetics. However, he did have to wear the hat of an NCR employee who just happened to be an apologist whenever he interacted with the public. It was his refusal to do so that got him fired.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you may have missed the whole point of the issue. He didn’t get fired because he did or didn’t post about apologetics on Facebook. He got fired because he posted pro-abortion rhetoric and acted in a hateful, uncharitable manner.

Gordon, if you will look back on the conversation, you will note that I have not addressed whether it was judicious to fire Shea and Fisher.

I simply took issue with saintjohn’s comment that no one could tell that he’s an apologist from his Facebook posts.

I don’t think anyone ever said he had to post about apologetics.

Well, that’s what comes of entering into a discussion in medias res*.

saintjohn did indeed suggest such a thing. Twice.

Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all.

Yes he does have an obligation to wear his apologist hat on Facebook esp. when he refers to himself as an apologist on Facebook and Facebook is not a reason to leave your Catholic identity.

And, to his great credit and demonstration of decency, saintjohn did acknowledge that, indeed, Shea does not refer to himself as an apologist (on FB), nor is it obligatory for him to post apologetics on his FB page.

*(NB: there’s nothing wrong, of course, with entering a discourse on, say, page 13 of a 23 page thread. No one is obligated to read an entire thread before posting. However, when it’s pointed out that you’re missing the context, it’s sensible to simply say, “Ah, yes. I misunderstood because I didn’t read the prior 3 posts”.)

 

[AbideWithMe]

saintjohn did indeed suggest such a thing. Twice.

And, to his great credit and demonstration of decency, saintjohn did acknowledge that, …nor is it obligatory for him to post apologetics on his FB page.

I was reading these earlier posts from saintjohnxxiii at the time they were posted, and to be fair to him, I never thought he was saying the latter at any point.

 

[PRmerger]

I was reading these earlier posts from saintjohnxxiii at the time they were posted, and to be fair to him, I never thought he was saying the latter at any point.

I did.

And my response was: no one is obligated to post apologetics on Facebook.

To assert such a thing would be absurd.

 

[PRmerger]

I did.

And my response was: no one is obligated to post apologetics on Facebook.

To assert such a thing would be absurd.

And I think we can simply end this with: everyone seems to agree now that NO CATHOLIC is under any obligation, whatsoever, to wear an apologist hat while on Facebook.

Catholics must be charitable on Facebook. Catholics must be truthful.

But no one should fault Mark Shea for not letting on that he’s a professional Catholic apologist on Facebook.

 

[AbideWithMe]

And I think we can simply end this with: everyone seems to agree now that NO CATHOLIC is under any obligation, whatsoever, to wear an apologist hat while on Facebook.

Catholics must be charitable on Facebook. Catholics must be truthful.

But no one should fault Mark Shea for not letting on that he’s a professional Catholic apologist on Facebook.

I think everyone would agree that no professional apologist is under any obligation to do apologetic work on Facebook, to spell out what you mean by “apologist hat”, since I think that term by itself can mean different things to different people.

 

[PRmerger]

I think everyone would agree that no professional apologist is under any obligation to do apologetic work on Facebook

Egg-zactly.

And that’s exactly what I was refuting when saintjohn said this:

Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all.

The above is an inutile objection to Shea, since no one has to show his profession on Facebook through his FB posts.

 

[pensmama87]

I liked Simchas columns but some I didn’t always agree with but she was funny. Mark Shea though lately was getting way too political and insulting in many ways. Still he had some good columns on Catholic doctrine. I didn’t always agree with their views and often said so, but I’m sorry to see them go. I think if Simcha had stuck with the funny mother things, like Erma Brombeck did, she could have been very successful. I like the NR but wish they’d have kept them.

Well, she’s already written one successful book and is working on another; she blogs at Aleteia, and she’s just been hired by the Catholic Herald in the UK. So…I think she’s doing just fine. Not that it’s ever any fun to be fired, but I think her writing career is far from over, and it’s a good thing.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, she’s already written one successful book and is working on another; she blogs at Aleteia, and she’s just been hired by the Catholic Herald in the UK. So…I think she’s doing just fine. Not that it’s ever any fun to be fired, but I think her writing career is far from over, and it’s a good thing.

I’m not surprised Simcha already has another job. It seems that for the overwhelming majority of cases, professional commentators, talk show hosts, etc, who are let go by one network because of controversial comments, are pretty quickly picked up by a competitor. Actually I can say that about media figures in general. And hence I have long since stopped being outraged over such incidents.

Off the top of my head I can think of Don Imus and Bob Grant getting fired for on-air comments, only to quickly land on their feet with other employers. Marv Albert was fired after being convicted of a sex crime and still eventually got back on the air (though in his case he worked for multiple networks). And of course there was the whole Duggar debacle on TLC - yet they’re pretty much 100% back except for Josh himself (and I’d not be surprised if he shows up at some point too).

It just goes to show that if media people really can pull in a substantial market share, they’re pretty much guaranteed a job somewhere even if they turn out not to be a fit for a particular outlet.

(And while none of the EWTN priests who got “fired” have come back, I think there situations are different since they answer not just to the network itself but to their clerical superiors.)

 

[AbideWithMe]

Egg-zactly.

And that’s exactly what I was refuting when saintjohn said this:

The above is an inutile objection to Shea, since no one has to show his profession on Facebook through his FB posts.

I don’t think saintjohnxxiii is saying what you think he’s saying. It seems to me you’re taking one sentence out of the context of his other comments. That particular sentence could mean several things; the way you’re reading it is a possible meaning, but it never struck me as the most likely possibility. And I’m looking at all his comments together to help me figure out what I think he meant. He does clarify further later on, which makes me think it even less likely that he meant what you think.

I reread the last few pages of this thread, so all I can say at this point is that I think he already made himself clear enough.

 

[PRmerger]

I liked Simchas columns but some I didn’t always agree with but she was funny. Mark Shea though lately was getting way too political and insulting in many ways. Still he had some good columns on Catholic doctrine. I didn’t always agree with their views and often said so, but I’m sorry to see them go. I think if Simcha had stuck with the funny mother things, like Erma Brombeck did, she could have been very successful. I like the NR but wish they’d have kept them.

Like!

 

[benjohnson]

I just had a brief interaction with Mark Shea - I presented facts, and he proceeded to call me names and then ban me.

I like his apologetic work - and for the a while I thought there were two Mark Sheas: A reasonable and thoughtful Catholic, and a acid tongued Facebook screed maker.

I begin to wonder if he’s like myself - someone who does his best work with adult supervision.

 

[PRmerger]

I just had a brief interaction with Mark Shea - I presented facts, and he proceeded to call me names and then ban me.

I like his apologetic work - and for the a while I thought there were two Mark Sheas: A reasonable and thoughtful Catholic, and a acid tongued Facebook screed maker.

I begin to wonder if he’s like myself - someone who does his best work with adult supervision.

I’m starting to think that Shea is, ironically, becoming the Donald Trump of Catholic Apologists.

And Shea’s tribe are even worse than he is.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m starting to think that Shea is, ironically, becoming the Donald Trump of Catholic Apologists.

The hard bit for me is that I recognizes Mark’s behavior in myself - throughout my life, I’ve had a 10% problem with doing the wrong thing or not doing enough of the right thing.

Mark has a great benefit in that his friends and opponents have told him how to change - if I had one bit of wisdom: when good people go out of their way to correct bad behavior, it might be a good idea to take their advice.

One of the good moderators here at CAF (Eirc Hilbert) took the time to tell me that I had getting a bit too full of myself - I’ve done my best to take his advice and I’ve been much happier for it.

From a political stand-point, I also found my interaction with Mark interesting - I’m going to sit this election out and vote third-party, but I found myself moving over closer to supporting Trump because of my interaction with Mark: When someone acts so poorly it drives you to support the victim of their poor behavior.

I’m also willing to admit that I’m a bit more touchy than I should be - Mark’s Facebook persona reminds me of the angry left-of-center Catholics here in Seattle that I never got along with when I was agnostic. They were just loud people who never listened.

EDIT: I’d like to mention, that it would be fun to meet the guy in person and thank him - he’s done great work in the apologetics field and has helped my faith a lot.

Enough of me rambling: Here’s my ban-notice:

 

[PRmerger]

The hard bit for me is that I recognizes Mark’s behavior in myself - throughout my life, I’ve had a 10% problem with doing the wrong thing or not doing enough of the right thing.

Mark has a great benefit in that his friends and opponents have told him how to change - if I had one bit of wisdom: when good people go out of their way to correct bad behavior, it might be a good idea to take their advice.

One of the good moderators here at CAF (Eirc Hilbert) took the time to tell me that I had getting a bit too full of myself - I’ve done my best to take his advice and I’ve been much happier for it.

From a political stand-point, I also found my interaction with Mark interesting - I’m going to sit this election out and vote third-party, but I found myself moving over closer to supporting Trump because of my interaction with Mark: When someone acts so poorly it drives you to support the victim of their poor behavior.

I’m also willing to admit that I’m a bit more touchy than I should be - Mark reminds me of the angry left-of-center Catholics here in Seattle that I never got along with when I was agnostic. They were just loud people who never listened.

Enough of me rambling: Here’s my ban-notice:

Do tell what you said that got you banned (from Shea’s FB page)!

And did you know that there is a Banned from Mark Shea FB page?