Skip to main content

Skojec's attack on Bp. Gracida shows he has become Mark Shea

I couldn't stop laughing when I read One Peter Five publisher Steve Skojec's Twitter attack on Bishop Rene Gracida claiming he had "lost the plot" which means he stopped acting rationally.

I texted the Tweet to my niece saying "I got a good laugh from this."

She texted back:

Haha I can see why... Like the Democrats accuse others of what they are guilty of."

I have had email exchanges with both Bishop Gracida and Skojec:

The Bishop is a humble highly intelligent gentleman while Skojec in the last few years acts like a deranged mindless leftist Democrat who has "lost his plot" that is he apparently has lost the ability to think rationally. Here are some examples:

I made a long carefully reasoned post hoping to engage Skojec in reasonable argument and all I got in return were attacks on caricatures of my arguments, shrill mocking and the claim it was too long.

So, I put together five fairly short clear questions in dubia fashion for him to respond to reasonably and I got no response from him until when in his laughably ridiculous Twitter attack on Bishop Gracida and me said:

"Gracida has clearly lost the plot. His constant republishing of the increasingly rambling Fred Martinez makes clear his ability to act prudently is impaired."

In simple words, sadly Skojec has become deranged and "his ability to act prudently is impaired."

Or, in other words, like in some weird science fiction movie it appears that Skojec has become transformed into Mark Shea.

Philosopher Edward Feser's description of Mark Shea is strangely almost unbelievably a perfect characterization of Skojec:

"'Deranged' might seem an unkind description of Shea and his comments. Sadly, it's also a perfectly accurate description..."

"... Shea has, in several follow-ups now, given no response whatsoever to these points or others made in my earlier posts. He simply ignores the arguments and instead reiterates, with greater shrillness the same false and already refuted claims he made in his initial attack on Joe and me"

"... In blog post after blog post he tosses out strings of ungrounded assertions, attacks caricatures, hurls insults and abuse, seems content with the 'high fives' his rabid fans give back in response to critics who try to engage him substantively."
(Edwardfeser.blogspot, "A low down dirty Shea," March 24, 2017)

The only difference between Shea and Skojec is that he does most of his "insults and attacks" on Twitter. But, other than that, Skojec has weirdly been transformed into Mark Shea.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Comments

Charlie said…
Both Shea and Skojec are potent examples of what happens to people who spend too much time on social media.
Aqua said…
I remember commenting with Skojec before 1P5, back when he had just a personal blog. He was much more interesting, friendly, introspective in those days.

As Charlie alludes to above, Skojec has the hard but shallow shell of social media immersion. As a fellow Catholic, and as one who has followed him since the beginning, and even though I have been blocked and banned by him for a few years, I am really sorry to see what has happened to him. This is not how we Catholics were meant to be.

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...