As we said in our New Oxford Note "Hit Men for Opus Dei" (Jan. 2006): "If rash judgment is your thing, [Mark] Shea's blog is just what you want."
In late December 2005, we put up on our website the January 2006 NOR. If you are an online subscriber (for which you pay an extra $10), you are able to view the entire issue online -- often before it arrives in your mailbox.
Each weekday we also have a rotating section with one item from the current issue, in which you can view part of an article or New Oxford Note for free. But to view the entire article or New Oxford Note online, you need to be an online subscriber, or if you're not an online subscriber, you need to pay a mere $1.50 to read the entire piece.
As we all know, Mark Shea despises the NOR, but he just can't resist going to our website. He found "Hit Men for Opus Dei," which discusses his blog.
An entry on Shea's blog for December 30, 2005, called "NOR Continues Death Spiral Into Crankhood," claims that the NOR gives "the appearance of accusing me [Shea] of being a 'hit man for Opus Dei.'" This was posted at 1:35 PM. Shea did not read the entire New Oxford Note (only the first four of its 13 paragraphs), but he felt he could wing it nonetheless, much to his embarrassment.
The next day at 4:04 PM, a gal named Deirdre posted this: "In the interests of fairness: the article (I read the whole article [i.e., New Oxford Note]) did not say Mark Shea was a hit man for Opus Dei, but was repudiating the claim of a commenter on this [Mark Shea's] blog who stated that Dale Vree, Michael Rose, and their respective wives, were hit men for Opus Dei." Later, Shea admits he didn't read the entire New Oxford Note.
But in the interval between Deirdre's post, Shea, once again venting his spleen against the NOR, has enabled his loyal blog followers to jump on the bandwagon: "They [the NOR] have no idea how ridiculous they have become"; "Let's pray for them"; "Vree [the Editor] himself has slipped off to cloud-cuckoo land."
In the New Oxford Note, "Hit Men for Opus Dei," we noted that Shea jumped on us for publishing an article by Robert Sungenis (Oct. 2005). We also noted that on Shea's blog forum, John L. asks Shea: "Did you actually read the [Sungenis] article before criticizing NOR for printing it?" In subsequent posts by Shea, he avoids answering the question. Obviously, Shea did not read the article.
Previously, on his blog, Mark Shea vehemently denounced an article in the NOR by Edward O'Neill called "Scott Hahn's Novelties" (June 2004). Five days later, Shea had to admit that he did not read O'Neill's article.
Dear Mark: You've really got to clean up your act. If you don't, no one -- except the gullible and your groupies -- will ever believe what you say.