The Pope is not infallible on non-magisterial teachings. He has made controversial decisions as leader of the Catholic Church. China deal is high on that list, the weaponized ambiguity of some of his encyclicals, wanting to bring in aspects of a culture with roots in paganism (pachamama), suppression of the Latin mass (opposed to having it be a coexisting separate rite)…. I could go on. He is a divisive leader (akin to former President Trump). He should expect pushback and not just look for fealty.
I've not watched much EWTN lately (and rather doubt the pope has, either) but Arroyo is basically only on for an hour a week. Am I really meant to believe that the whole network has become like that since I last watched?
I've donated to EWTN for years. But while admitting I haven't seen Raymond Arroyo for quite awhile, I've heard he has become something of a Trump shill. I have to wonder if I should be donating elsewhere. Of course, Arroyo's in only one program.
This editorial is filled with assumed motives. It assumes ewtn is motivated by division and narrative. It assumes the Holy Father is open to criticism from a traditional/conservative perspective despite evidence to the contrary. Etc.
I don't buy it. Assuming motives is a particularly weak form of debate. It's an easy way to build a straw man that one goes on to compare against their own morally superior approach. I don't have any problem with criticisms against ewtn or anyone else, but keep it to what they do as opposed to their supposed motives for doing what they do. Otherwise be prepared to have your own motives questioned, which will lead to a contest of who has the most pure motives...despite the fact that motives are impossible to prove or even fully discern within one's self.
Personally I support JD and Ed because I appreciate their approach and think they bring a well informed perspective. I don't support them because I think they have superior motives or that they're always right.
Good ol’ Pope Francis, always open to dialogue and accompaniment, unless he disagrees with you, then he throws out broad labels like “work of the devil” and “rigid” and “clerical”, usually when he’s talking to a bunch of his Jesuit friends….go figure.
JD and Ed- I would love to hear your comments on his comments on TLM during this same speech. Why is it “backwards” to want sacred liturgy. What is so bad about TLM and Latin? He seems very anti all things TLM which I find genuinely perplexing. Church leaders act like it’s such a head scratcher why most people don’t believe in the Real Presence anymore but won’t even talk about the possibility that maybe something more traditional like communion on the tongue would help restore this belief. This is just one example. It’s frustrating that he continual calls for dialogue, unless you want to dialogue about sacred tradition- in which case the message is please shut up. I‘m in my forties and have attended 2 TLMs in my life and they were both profoundly spiritual experiences for me....and the Pope can’t be any clearer on how much he dislikes TLM. I don’t get it. What am I missing?
Thanks Steve. I did read that but I am referring to the Pope’s recent comments in the same meeting where he spoke about large news outlets, etc. According to the article from CNA, the Pope said, “Now I hope with the decision to stop the automatism of the ancient rite we can return to the true intentions of BXVI and JPII.” He also spoke about seminarians wanting to learn Latin in what seemed to me like a negative tone. Almost like- these crazy kids want to learn to pray in Latin! Can you believe that? I would love to hear if JD or Ed have any feedback on those comments. Thanks!
In case you missed it the Holy Father also had this "gem" in that speech:
"It frightens us to go forward in pastoral experiences. I think of the work that was done – Father Spadaro was present – at the Synod on the Family to make it understood that couples in second unions are not already condemned to hell. It frightens us to accompany people with sexual diversity. We are afraid of the crossroads and paths that Paul VI spoke of. This is the evil of this moment, namely, to seek the path in rigidity and clericalism, which are two perversions."
Who in the world has ever suggested that couples in second unions are already condemned to hell? That is a first class straw man. He also seems convinced that fear and rigidity are what drives those who disagree with him. The Holy Father has never demonstrated that he's capable of approaching those who disagree with him without condemning their motives as opposed to addressing their actual positions.
I know most people want to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. How could you not? He's the pope! But at some point you have to look at his repeated statements, such as the ones JD and Ed addressed, and conclude that the man either refuses to or is incapable of seeing anything but bad motives in his adversaries.
The Pope is not infallible on non-magisterial teachings. He has made controversial decisions as leader of the Catholic Church. China deal is high on that list, the weaponized ambiguity of some of his encyclicals, wanting to bring in aspects of a culture with roots in paganism (pachamama), suppression of the Latin mass (opposed to having it be a coexisting separate rite)…. I could go on. He is a divisive leader (akin to former President Trump). He should expect pushback and not just look for fealty.
Narrative. Whether the cause or the effect, it's destroying us.
I've not watched much EWTN lately (and rather doubt the pope has, either) but Arroyo is basically only on for an hour a week. Am I really meant to believe that the whole network has become like that since I last watched?
I've donated to EWTN for years. But while admitting I haven't seen Raymond Arroyo for quite awhile, I've heard he has become something of a Trump shill. I have to wonder if I should be donating elsewhere. Of course, Arroyo's in only one program.
Now I feel there really was a lot more to that Catching Foxes interview JD did after leaving EWTN...
But more seriously, this is a very good editorial. Not surprising, and largely hinted at in the newsletter. But nice to have it put plainly.
Do you have a link to the interview?
Here you go!
https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/catching-foxes-51247/episodes/jd-flynn-and-catholic-independ-82307970
Thanks! Unfortunately, it seems like the podcast itself has been taken down--I can't get it to play on my phone or computer, or via that website.
This editorial is filled with assumed motives. It assumes ewtn is motivated by division and narrative. It assumes the Holy Father is open to criticism from a traditional/conservative perspective despite evidence to the contrary. Etc.
I don't buy it. Assuming motives is a particularly weak form of debate. It's an easy way to build a straw man that one goes on to compare against their own morally superior approach. I don't have any problem with criticisms against ewtn or anyone else, but keep it to what they do as opposed to their supposed motives for doing what they do. Otherwise be prepared to have your own motives questioned, which will lead to a contest of who has the most pure motives...despite the fact that motives are impossible to prove or even fully discern within one's self.
Personally I support JD and Ed because I appreciate their approach and think they bring a well informed perspective. I don't support them because I think they have superior motives or that they're always right.
Thank you JD, Ed and Michelle - this is spot on and much appreciated
Good ol’ Pope Francis, always open to dialogue and accompaniment, unless he disagrees with you, then he throws out broad labels like “work of the devil” and “rigid” and “clerical”, usually when he’s talking to a bunch of his Jesuit friends….go figure.
JD, Ed, and Michelle, thank you for this. Your journalistic philosophy of being faithful, honest, and accurate is why I subscribe.
JD and Ed- I would love to hear your comments on his comments on TLM during this same speech. Why is it “backwards” to want sacred liturgy. What is so bad about TLM and Latin? He seems very anti all things TLM which I find genuinely perplexing. Church leaders act like it’s such a head scratcher why most people don’t believe in the Real Presence anymore but won’t even talk about the possibility that maybe something more traditional like communion on the tongue would help restore this belief. This is just one example. It’s frustrating that he continual calls for dialogue, unless you want to dialogue about sacred tradition- in which case the message is please shut up. I‘m in my forties and have attended 2 TLMs in my life and they were both profoundly spiritual experiences for me....and the Pope can’t be any clearer on how much he dislikes TLM. I don’t get it. What am I missing?
They addressed the motu propio in the podcast after it was released.
Thanks Steve. I did read that but I am referring to the Pope’s recent comments in the same meeting where he spoke about large news outlets, etc. According to the article from CNA, the Pope said, “Now I hope with the decision to stop the automatism of the ancient rite we can return to the true intentions of BXVI and JPII.” He also spoke about seminarians wanting to learn Latin in what seemed to me like a negative tone. Almost like- these crazy kids want to learn to pray in Latin! Can you believe that? I would love to hear if JD or Ed have any feedback on those comments. Thanks!
In case you missed it the Holy Father also had this "gem" in that speech:
"It frightens us to go forward in pastoral experiences. I think of the work that was done – Father Spadaro was present – at the Synod on the Family to make it understood that couples in second unions are not already condemned to hell. It frightens us to accompany people with sexual diversity. We are afraid of the crossroads and paths that Paul VI spoke of. This is the evil of this moment, namely, to seek the path in rigidity and clericalism, which are two perversions."
Who in the world has ever suggested that couples in second unions are already condemned to hell? That is a first class straw man. He also seems convinced that fear and rigidity are what drives those who disagree with him. The Holy Father has never demonstrated that he's capable of approaching those who disagree with him without condemning their motives as opposed to addressing their actual positions.
I know most people want to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. How could you not? He's the pope! But at some point you have to look at his repeated statements, such as the ones JD and Ed addressed, and conclude that the man either refuses to or is incapable of seeing anything but bad motives in his adversaries.