Mark Shea is speaking to stereotypes in his own mind.
I know Catholics like him. They believe, first and foremost, but they really, really want to be Democrats. They know they can’t, because they do believe, but as a result, they spend their lives trying to show that conservatives are just as morally bankrupt as dems (or those that support abortion etc.)
It seems to me that Mark Shea resents the fact that he can’t be a dem, so he will demonize conservatives to make himself feel better.
It seems to me that Mark Shea resents the fact that he can’t be a dem, so he will demonize conservatives to make himself feel better.
IMO that's a pretty good description of any number of Catholics that I know.
First, I think this Register writer, Pat Archbold, is correct: Shea is arguing against a conservative strawman. No such person (or to be safe, let me say, very few such persons) as described by Shea actually exist. However, he finds it useful to construct Mr. Omnium Gatherum Errorum in order to provide a focus for his argument: namely,that we shouldn't take any ideology (whether it's from the conservative forums or factions or parties or pundits---"the Talking Hairdo of Fox")-- as a substitue for Catholic Faith and Morals.
(N.B. He gives this treatment to the Catholic Left, too.)
Second, why does he persist in constructing and then knocking down Straw Men (he does it lots)? I think it's because (1) he doesn't want to call out anybody in the Catholic blogosphere by name and start a one-on-one feud; (2) he doesn't want to commit the sin of rash judgment or detraction by imputing extreme positions to someone who really isn't that extreme; but (3) he enjoys refuting extreme positions because he prefers the huge swinging haymaker whomp to the short precise jabs of an accurate point-by-point argument.
So therefore he makes up this AwfulPerson ("saluting the brave idealists of the Waffen SS?" Really?) and then takes his exhilarating roundhouse punch.
Do I think that's a good way to argue? No. It might work in writing a deliberately ludicrous parody, but not in a column where you're allegedly characterizing a huge complex group known as "conbservatives" (or "conservative Catholics.")
Should he be corrected for this fault? Yes. He should hear it, above all, from his friends. His best writing is much more thoughtful and skillful than this, and he knows better.