As such, Mark writes:
Who said anything about Paul winning the nomination. I'm simply happy to see that there is one candidate who is not foursquare in favor of Strength Through Evil. Given that both parties are now committed to intrinsic moral evil, I don't give a shit who wins, because they don't give a shit what I think. They are about power and money. I'll vote for the candidate who will not use my vote for intrinsic moral evil. The best causes are lost causes.
First of all, I don't think that this is true because it sounds far more like an after-the-fact realization once the cold, hard truth sunk in to Shea that Paul didn't stand a serious chance of winning the White House. Yet in his post explaining why he supports Paul over McCain, Mark appears to be seriously considering the geopolitical benefits from his perspective of a Paul presidency vs. a McCain presidency. While acknowledging that McCain is against torture, Mark cannot bring himself to support him because he continues to support a strong American foreign policy rather than Mark's favored isolationism.
I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but war, even the war in Iraq, is not an intrinsic evil. It is a prudential judgement and both the Catechism makes that clear. If Mark wants to argue that support from the war in Iraq or neoconservative foreign policy is now an intrinsic evil, then he has crossed the line from rhetoric into active dissent from the teachings of the Church. If nothing else, if he seriously believes that he may want to rethink asking Father Neuhaus to write the forward to his next book. Mark can criticize the Iraq war from now to Kingdom Come if he likes, but if his rhetoric is going to start reaching for these type of declarative doctrinal statements I think it is worth asking him by what authority he does so.
Anyone care to guess how long it is before Mark starts explicitly arguing that support for any GOP candidate other than Paul is to be complicit in an intrinsic evil? If he does, I'd love to see him weigh in on this one.