"Hallow would also take into account the prospect of scandal..."
-I don't believe him.
I really like the Hallow app, but I dumped it off of my phone when they paid Liam Neeson to become a content creator. Mr. Neeson is a declared "ex-Catholic" and pro-abortion advocate. Mr. Jones pooh-poohed away the idea of scandal of platforming and promoting a pro-abortionist under the idea of pulling non-Catholics into the app and, hopefully, Catholicism.
It's clear that Hallow's owners don't actually care about scandal, but are willing to cooperate with any kind of evil to get their desired result.
Thanks for this write up. I've had a lot of questions about Hallow in general.
There's a big danger when we tell ourselves "Yes, but look at how much good we're doing." The position that advertising isn't an endorsement feels bending over backwards in denial
I guess my question is this: are we going to cut off everyone who isn't perfect. As my state is renaming everything because the previous namesakes had problems, are we going to admit that only the Blessed Mother is worthy?
Yes, Brand is a character, but Brand also recently turned against the left and the industrial machine. It appears that the approach is to smear and destroy people now. It's a very Alinsky approach to the world.
God forbid some of my past sins become public. In this world, my life would be over and, apparently even Catholics aren't ready to forgive.
I guess the issue for some Catholics is that this particular fellow is on the verge of facing sexual assault charges, so it seems more than merely some personal sins of the past -- the question becomes whether a person alleged to have committed rape -- and facing the prospect of criminal justice -- is the right person to pitch for a Catholic app.
Opinions might differ on that, but I do think it's a materially different question than "smearing" someone, so to speak, over a moral failure.
This is the right call, but why on earth is Liam Neeson on Hallow??? His case is not even pending investigation; he is openly for the killing of innocent children in the womb!
I recall a video from a few years ago where Russell Brand talked about shaking his addiction to porn. It seemed sincere, and I genuinely hope it was, and I hope he had a real conversion. At the same time, if he did the things he's accused of, he should absolutely face the just consequences of his actions, irrespective of whether or not he's since repented—and Hallow should not associate themselves with him unless his name is cleared, which I really can't predict in advance. There's a lot to be said for meeting people where they are and going out to the peripheries, but if it comes at the cost of overlooking real, significant evil or diluting the truth for the sake of access or image, it defeats the purpose. No one apostolate, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, is so good and necessary that it can magically justify that kind of accommodation.
It's also good to avoid putting too much stock in celebrity conversions. It's of course wonderful if someone really embraces Christianity and amends their life, but the mere fact of a famous person praying or getting baptized doesn't make them a saint—look at the example of the Artist Formerly Known As Kanye West, who went from born-again Christian to neo-Nazi in the space of just a few years.
There’s a lot of legal reasons for that. The law doesn’t care about your repentance, only if you followed it to the letter and if there any, narrowly defined, mitigating circumstances. Any public statement can be used against you in a court so even a posture of regret could be used to argue an admittance of guilt. It’s not Christian but it is liberal.
And this is precisely why someone working through legal issues like Brand’s shouldn’t be in a position of appearing on a widely used Prayer app. It’s so easy to conflate (confuse?) the moral and legal and theological aspects.
Maybe we should be taking an approach to celebrity Catholics (e.g., Brand, Wahlberg, LeBeuf) along the lines of how the early Church handled St. Paul. Send him out for a few years of formation and then bring him back
I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) that Hallow would choose to connect itself to such a partisan figure as Brand. Ideally I think you'd want to be trying to break through the stereotypes of the church as right wing, right? In order to reach people of other persuasions?
But again, a pox on digital commodification of the faith. I would prefer Hallow doesn't get better at marketing.
A question to the esteemed commenters of The Pillar: What's the cross-over to scandal? It has something to do with fame, but what level of fame? Doesn't it also seem to be what the public scandal is about? If I hire an unknown but "great sinner" to voice-over artist of great skill to narrate a spiritual work, no one will say anything. If I hire a well-known politician, who has been responsible for famine and war, or a business leader, with known fraud and theft of workers, to give the convocation at a graduation speech, isn't that just as grave? Yet no outrage at this somewhat common occurrence. If there has already been a Pillar explainer on this, please excuse my ignorance. If not, please accept my article suggestion.
It's a great question! We should work on that... I'd like to learn more myself.
In response to this:
"If I hire a well-known politician, who has been responsible for famine and ware, or a business leader, with known fraud and theft of workers, to give the convocation at a graduation speech, isn't that just as grave?"
I don't know exactly what it is, but works of art are greater than the mere product. (Please excuse the "wu wu" speak, but I don't know how to say it.) They seem to contain and keep a part of the soul of the creator of the work. Ideally, a work of art could stand on it's own merits, independent of it's creator's story, where we only know of the story of the creator's soul through a thick veil.
I am suggesting, an aspect to _artistic_ scandal is the veil to the artist's soul is only thinly or even inaccurately veiled. Was Alexander Scourby, the beloved bible narrator of the 80's a saint, and therefore worthy of speaking of religious texts? If that's the standard, we better be careful who's lectoring this Sunday! :) Or was it he liven in a different age where it was wise to be public non-sectarian, and there wasn't industry pressures for public confessions of popular pieties?
It's a ponderous topic. JD, if you revisit it and help further the thinking, thank you for a grateful subscriber.
I think the thing about scandal is that it has to be public. The unknown voice-over artist in your analogy would not cause scandal because he's unknown. Whether or not it would be appropriate to hire him to narrate a spiritual work is still a reasonable question (that I have no quick or easy answer to), but I don't think concern over scandal would be a part of it.
Fair. To clarify the situation. The voice over artist lives an average life with some modest presence on social media for their friends and family, and regularly mention {spin the wheel of sin} on their account. Is it 1 follower that make it scandalous? 100? 1,000? Is it actual engagement with the content that matters? Does the type of sin matter? I suspect that it's always sexual is an western or american phenomenon. It's never gluttony, avarice or usury. Does the amount of sin matter? I'm told 30% is usury in america, but 29.999% a legal APR. Back to the source material, if the person is penitent, been living a holy life, has been away from their past sin and the near occasions of it - isn't that no longer scandalous, but joyous? Wouldn't we -want- to celebrate the reform of another wretched sinner like me?
If I had an early post on a Monday, I suspect the erudite Pillar readers might have already found the ethical principles smarter people than I have considered and arranged. I take good solace in being noticed by one of the authors working the Friday shift. Thanks.
That's the point at which I think it becomes very hard to make a judgment in advance. Once you get down into the weeds you're describing, I think a lot of prudential judgment is required, which is hard to have without actually having full knowledge of the situation. Which is to say, the crossover to scandal doesn't have a clear line, so trying to define it in advance is probably not a very fruitful exercise. Certainly, if, as you describe, "the person is penitent, been living a holy life, has been away from their past sin and the near occasions of it", then that does not strike me as a source of scandal, provided there is good evidence of the person's repentance.
That said, sometimes things are stark enough to be obvious—if you have a marketing deal with a celebrity (meaning you pay them to promote your product or service) and that celebrity is then credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, it's obviously very public and very grave matter, so a clear source of scandal. Brand very clearly seems to fit the bill.
Agreed and adding as I feel people (american culture) has substituted reasoned spirited debated for loud hyperbolic group derision, and "scandal" is being used to disarm supposed religious or "conservatives". However, this only seems to be effective if the scandal is sexual and is male initiated. I suspect there's some sort of culturally relative salacious index, as well as a some sort of relative popularity index guiding the understanding of the width of the blast radius this scandal is causing souls. Embezzlement never gets the same discussion.
Back to Brand, the accusations are from over 10 years ago, where it's clear and admitted he was a terrible wretch. Is it a scandal for a repentant sinner to say what has been helping them as they start reforming their life? Is it because they are paid? Is Hallow's support of Brand actually scandalous or just unwise?
Thank you for covering this story, as I was scandalized by Hallow’s use of Brand and others for their marketing purposes. In fact, I contacted Alex Jones about it, after getting 875,000 emails from him telling users they could email directly with feedback. I never got a reply. However, their AI bot replied to me when I emailed to cancel my subscription. So there’s that.
No, we should not throw stones, but we should also listen to people who have been abused and take them seriously when they and others say that platforming Brand is problematic. Indeed, I am quite sick of celebrity influencers in general. Why not feature regular, ordinary users of the app and let their testimony influence others?
Lastly, it feels gross that a Catholic company would put profit (for “big swing” marketing) over the concerns of the vulnerable.
My brothers are exactly the non-practicing Catholics that Jones is targeting by using Brand’s platform. They listen to his podcast and worse characters than him and revel (rightly or wrongly) in the shock value. One of them recently downloaded Hallow becuase he kept hearing about it via those ‘problematic’ platforms and is occasionally darkening the door of his parish. I’m praying hard for him to keep coming and to outgrow that whole scene.
Those allegations of assault have been floating around for two decades it would not be surprising if his former and renounced rock and roll lifestyle played fast and loose with consent. So did a lot of his social circle at the time. All of that, rightly or wrongly factors into everyone’s culpability and is the reason it has taken 20 years for any hint of prosecution being remotely possible.
It’s ‘risky’ full stop to utilise celebrity endorsements for any brand and there is a line between ‘Russel Brand says the rosary for Hallow’ versus, ‘we paid him a fair price to plug our app.’ Just because a billboard company plasters up adds for Planned Parenthood, it doesn’t mean that we should never use billboard advertising nor does having a pro-life billboard ad with the same company mean that we endorse planned parenthood. It’s not a perfect analogy, but guilt by association is not charitable or reasonable in a fallen world.
For the record, Russel Brand inspires in me an irrational and unholy desire to punch him in the face. He is extremely annoying. His conversion to Christianity has not mitigated it. So I avoid strenuously a near occasion of sin and when I can’t, I choose to pray for him and the mess of people he has wounded.
It's heartening to know I'm not the only person who's leery of Hallow's decision making on all this stuff. The answer is not to try to lure people into Catholicism with the allure of recently-converted celebrities. I can't believe they don't see how this could backfire in the potential case of a neophyte influencer who renounces the faith or is later shown to have had an insincere conversion. Bear Grylls? Gwen Stefani? Russell Brand?Pro-abort "Repeal the 8th" Liam Neeson? The folks at Hallow are thinking as the World thinks and valuing what the World values. I'd not be terribly surprised if they signed a deal with Taylor Swift next and portray it as a veritable missionary project to evangelize Swifties. It's just a bit gross honestly.
The Hallow app has frankly been giving me “the ick” for a while.
I’m always skeptical of any kind of project (secular or religious or otherwise) that just explains its activities instead of explaining its strategy or its impact. Hallow’s value proposition has always struck me as “you can still pray the Rosary - except now you can do it on your phone with a recording of Mark Wahlberg’s voice!”
And its marketing strategy just seems to be, “We spent a lot of money so a lot of people will hear about us!”
It’s the same shotgun approach at the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. They raised a billion dollars and then ended up $20 million in debt because they did a media blitz in the final lap where they just threw money at celebrity endorsements and expected that to yield votes.
Nothing about Hallow’s product, its advertising outreach, or its partnerships says “amend your life” or “conversion” or “spiritual depth” to me.
That’s before we even get into odious partnerships like Russell Brand or Liam Neeson. I do hope that Russell Brand has turned his life around, but I don’t think it follows that a Catholic app is specifically obligated to provide him with income.
I’m tired of influencer and celebrity culture as it is, and Hallow is just demonstrating the vanity of hitching your cart to that horse. I like the advice of Abraham in the parable. “They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them.” No one should need Russell Brand to bring them to Christ.
Guess the picture of our Christian Brother , Russell Brand, which is posted at the top of this article, explains a lot. And is maybe how the Pillar views his participation in this App. I love our Catholic Faith and how we express it. And I love and appreciate how the Pillar covers our Faith and points to its strengths and weaknesses.
I don’t like associating the church or promoting celebrity recent converts . Emphasize recent. Look at Anne Rice . After a couple years she relapsed . Let them at least join the church and got through the period of mystagogy. So my recommendation is at a minimum no association during OCIA and through mystagogy. That takes them through Pentecost. I would personally provide another cushion of a year to the next Easter . That goes for Bishop Barron interviews etc (Shia Lebouf).
"Hallow would also take into account the prospect of scandal..."
-I don't believe him.
I really like the Hallow app, but I dumped it off of my phone when they paid Liam Neeson to become a content creator. Mr. Neeson is a declared "ex-Catholic" and pro-abortion advocate. Mr. Jones pooh-poohed away the idea of scandal of platforming and promoting a pro-abortionist under the idea of pulling non-Catholics into the app and, hopefully, Catholicism.
It's clear that Hallow's owners don't actually care about scandal, but are willing to cooperate with any kind of evil to get their desired result.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/hallow-liam-neeson-response
Thanks for this write up. I've had a lot of questions about Hallow in general.
There's a big danger when we tell ourselves "Yes, but look at how much good we're doing." The position that advertising isn't an endorsement feels bending over backwards in denial
I guess my question is this: are we going to cut off everyone who isn't perfect. As my state is renaming everything because the previous namesakes had problems, are we going to admit that only the Blessed Mother is worthy?
Yes, Brand is a character, but Brand also recently turned against the left and the industrial machine. It appears that the approach is to smear and destroy people now. It's a very Alinsky approach to the world.
God forbid some of my past sins become public. In this world, my life would be over and, apparently even Catholics aren't ready to forgive.
I guess the issue for some Catholics is that this particular fellow is on the verge of facing sexual assault charges, so it seems more than merely some personal sins of the past -- the question becomes whether a person alleged to have committed rape -- and facing the prospect of criminal justice -- is the right person to pitch for a Catholic app.
Opinions might differ on that, but I do think it's a materially different question than "smearing" someone, so to speak, over a moral failure.
This is the right call, but why on earth is Liam Neeson on Hallow??? His case is not even pending investigation; he is openly for the killing of innocent children in the womb!
I recall a video from a few years ago where Russell Brand talked about shaking his addiction to porn. It seemed sincere, and I genuinely hope it was, and I hope he had a real conversion. At the same time, if he did the things he's accused of, he should absolutely face the just consequences of his actions, irrespective of whether or not he's since repented—and Hallow should not associate themselves with him unless his name is cleared, which I really can't predict in advance. There's a lot to be said for meeting people where they are and going out to the peripheries, but if it comes at the cost of overlooking real, significant evil or diluting the truth for the sake of access or image, it defeats the purpose. No one apostolate, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, is so good and necessary that it can magically justify that kind of accommodation.
It's also good to avoid putting too much stock in celebrity conversions. It's of course wonderful if someone really embraces Christianity and amends their life, but the mere fact of a famous person praying or getting baptized doesn't make them a saint—look at the example of the Artist Formerly Known As Kanye West, who went from born-again Christian to neo-Nazi in the space of just a few years.
Agree with you 100% on not putting too much stock in celebrity conversions.
“Brand denies the allegations, arguing that any sexual encounters involving the alleged victims were consensual. “
So we once again ignore promiscuity? Disordered tendencies?
If he’s repented and reformed his life then I would hope yes?
Yes, but seemingly the first reaction in all of these situations is to claim consensuality before apology or repentance.
There’s a lot of legal reasons for that. The law doesn’t care about your repentance, only if you followed it to the letter and if there any, narrowly defined, mitigating circumstances. Any public statement can be used against you in a court so even a posture of regret could be used to argue an admittance of guilt. It’s not Christian but it is liberal.
And this is precisely why someone working through legal issues like Brand’s shouldn’t be in a position of appearing on a widely used Prayer app. It’s so easy to conflate (confuse?) the moral and legal and theological aspects.
And they have stopped future advertising once the legal issues were public knowledge. What more do you want Hallow to do?
Maybe we should be taking an approach to celebrity Catholics (e.g., Brand, Wahlberg, LeBeuf) along the lines of how the early Church handled St. Paul. Send him out for a few years of formation and then bring him back
I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) that Hallow would choose to connect itself to such a partisan figure as Brand. Ideally I think you'd want to be trying to break through the stereotypes of the church as right wing, right? In order to reach people of other persuasions?
But again, a pox on digital commodification of the faith. I would prefer Hallow doesn't get better at marketing.
A question to the esteemed commenters of The Pillar: What's the cross-over to scandal? It has something to do with fame, but what level of fame? Doesn't it also seem to be what the public scandal is about? If I hire an unknown but "great sinner" to voice-over artist of great skill to narrate a spiritual work, no one will say anything. If I hire a well-known politician, who has been responsible for famine and war, or a business leader, with known fraud and theft of workers, to give the convocation at a graduation speech, isn't that just as grave? Yet no outrage at this somewhat common occurrence. If there has already been a Pillar explainer on this, please excuse my ignorance. If not, please accept my article suggestion.
It's a great question! We should work on that... I'd like to learn more myself.
In response to this:
"If I hire a well-known politician, who has been responsible for famine and ware, or a business leader, with known fraud and theft of workers, to give the convocation at a graduation speech, isn't that just as grave?"
I would say it is just as grave, 1000%!!
If you come back to this source question: https://www.ncregister.com/news/hallow-apps-alex-jones-calls-neeson-partnership-mistake
I don't know exactly what it is, but works of art are greater than the mere product. (Please excuse the "wu wu" speak, but I don't know how to say it.) They seem to contain and keep a part of the soul of the creator of the work. Ideally, a work of art could stand on it's own merits, independent of it's creator's story, where we only know of the story of the creator's soul through a thick veil.
I am suggesting, an aspect to _artistic_ scandal is the veil to the artist's soul is only thinly or even inaccurately veiled. Was Alexander Scourby, the beloved bible narrator of the 80's a saint, and therefore worthy of speaking of religious texts? If that's the standard, we better be careful who's lectoring this Sunday! :) Or was it he liven in a different age where it was wise to be public non-sectarian, and there wasn't industry pressures for public confessions of popular pieties?
It's a ponderous topic. JD, if you revisit it and help further the thinking, thank you for a grateful subscriber.
I think the thing about scandal is that it has to be public. The unknown voice-over artist in your analogy would not cause scandal because he's unknown. Whether or not it would be appropriate to hire him to narrate a spiritual work is still a reasonable question (that I have no quick or easy answer to), but I don't think concern over scandal would be a part of it.
Fair. To clarify the situation. The voice over artist lives an average life with some modest presence on social media for their friends and family, and regularly mention {spin the wheel of sin} on their account. Is it 1 follower that make it scandalous? 100? 1,000? Is it actual engagement with the content that matters? Does the type of sin matter? I suspect that it's always sexual is an western or american phenomenon. It's never gluttony, avarice or usury. Does the amount of sin matter? I'm told 30% is usury in america, but 29.999% a legal APR. Back to the source material, if the person is penitent, been living a holy life, has been away from their past sin and the near occasions of it - isn't that no longer scandalous, but joyous? Wouldn't we -want- to celebrate the reform of another wretched sinner like me?
If I had an early post on a Monday, I suspect the erudite Pillar readers might have already found the ethical principles smarter people than I have considered and arranged. I take good solace in being noticed by one of the authors working the Friday shift. Thanks.
That's the point at which I think it becomes very hard to make a judgment in advance. Once you get down into the weeds you're describing, I think a lot of prudential judgment is required, which is hard to have without actually having full knowledge of the situation. Which is to say, the crossover to scandal doesn't have a clear line, so trying to define it in advance is probably not a very fruitful exercise. Certainly, if, as you describe, "the person is penitent, been living a holy life, has been away from their past sin and the near occasions of it", then that does not strike me as a source of scandal, provided there is good evidence of the person's repentance.
That said, sometimes things are stark enough to be obvious—if you have a marketing deal with a celebrity (meaning you pay them to promote your product or service) and that celebrity is then credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, it's obviously very public and very grave matter, so a clear source of scandal. Brand very clearly seems to fit the bill.
Agreed and adding as I feel people (american culture) has substituted reasoned spirited debated for loud hyperbolic group derision, and "scandal" is being used to disarm supposed religious or "conservatives". However, this only seems to be effective if the scandal is sexual and is male initiated. I suspect there's some sort of culturally relative salacious index, as well as a some sort of relative popularity index guiding the understanding of the width of the blast radius this scandal is causing souls. Embezzlement never gets the same discussion.
Back to Brand, the accusations are from over 10 years ago, where it's clear and admitted he was a terrible wretch. Is it a scandal for a repentant sinner to say what has been helping them as they start reforming their life? Is it because they are paid? Is Hallow's support of Brand actually scandalous or just unwise?
Thank you for covering this story, as I was scandalized by Hallow’s use of Brand and others for their marketing purposes. In fact, I contacted Alex Jones about it, after getting 875,000 emails from him telling users they could email directly with feedback. I never got a reply. However, their AI bot replied to me when I emailed to cancel my subscription. So there’s that.
No, we should not throw stones, but we should also listen to people who have been abused and take them seriously when they and others say that platforming Brand is problematic. Indeed, I am quite sick of celebrity influencers in general. Why not feature regular, ordinary users of the app and let their testimony influence others?
Lastly, it feels gross that a Catholic company would put profit (for “big swing” marketing) over the concerns of the vulnerable.
My brothers are exactly the non-practicing Catholics that Jones is targeting by using Brand’s platform. They listen to his podcast and worse characters than him and revel (rightly or wrongly) in the shock value. One of them recently downloaded Hallow becuase he kept hearing about it via those ‘problematic’ platforms and is occasionally darkening the door of his parish. I’m praying hard for him to keep coming and to outgrow that whole scene.
Those allegations of assault have been floating around for two decades it would not be surprising if his former and renounced rock and roll lifestyle played fast and loose with consent. So did a lot of his social circle at the time. All of that, rightly or wrongly factors into everyone’s culpability and is the reason it has taken 20 years for any hint of prosecution being remotely possible.
It’s ‘risky’ full stop to utilise celebrity endorsements for any brand and there is a line between ‘Russel Brand says the rosary for Hallow’ versus, ‘we paid him a fair price to plug our app.’ Just because a billboard company plasters up adds for Planned Parenthood, it doesn’t mean that we should never use billboard advertising nor does having a pro-life billboard ad with the same company mean that we endorse planned parenthood. It’s not a perfect analogy, but guilt by association is not charitable or reasonable in a fallen world.
For the record, Russel Brand inspires in me an irrational and unholy desire to punch him in the face. He is extremely annoying. His conversion to Christianity has not mitigated it. So I avoid strenuously a near occasion of sin and when I can’t, I choose to pray for him and the mess of people he has wounded.
It's heartening to know I'm not the only person who's leery of Hallow's decision making on all this stuff. The answer is not to try to lure people into Catholicism with the allure of recently-converted celebrities. I can't believe they don't see how this could backfire in the potential case of a neophyte influencer who renounces the faith or is later shown to have had an insincere conversion. Bear Grylls? Gwen Stefani? Russell Brand?Pro-abort "Repeal the 8th" Liam Neeson? The folks at Hallow are thinking as the World thinks and valuing what the World values. I'd not be terribly surprised if they signed a deal with Taylor Swift next and portray it as a veritable missionary project to evangelize Swifties. It's just a bit gross honestly.
The Hallow app has frankly been giving me “the ick” for a while.
I’m always skeptical of any kind of project (secular or religious or otherwise) that just explains its activities instead of explaining its strategy or its impact. Hallow’s value proposition has always struck me as “you can still pray the Rosary - except now you can do it on your phone with a recording of Mark Wahlberg’s voice!”
And its marketing strategy just seems to be, “We spent a lot of money so a lot of people will hear about us!”
It’s the same shotgun approach at the Kamala Harris presidential campaign. They raised a billion dollars and then ended up $20 million in debt because they did a media blitz in the final lap where they just threw money at celebrity endorsements and expected that to yield votes.
Nothing about Hallow’s product, its advertising outreach, or its partnerships says “amend your life” or “conversion” or “spiritual depth” to me.
That’s before we even get into odious partnerships like Russell Brand or Liam Neeson. I do hope that Russell Brand has turned his life around, but I don’t think it follows that a Catholic app is specifically obligated to provide him with income.
I’m tired of influencer and celebrity culture as it is, and Hallow is just demonstrating the vanity of hitching your cart to that horse. I like the advice of Abraham in the parable. “They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them.” No one should need Russell Brand to bring them to Christ.
"Hallow co-founder Alex Jones" → Well, look, the app is already founded by Alex Jones, so what do you expect? ... Oh, wait...
Nothing to see here. You have to reach out where you can. If Brand is convicted, they should pull their advertising, but not until then.
Guess the picture of our Christian Brother , Russell Brand, which is posted at the top of this article, explains a lot. And is maybe how the Pillar views his participation in this App. I love our Catholic Faith and how we express it. And I love and appreciate how the Pillar covers our Faith and points to its strengths and weaknesses.
I don’t like associating the church or promoting celebrity recent converts . Emphasize recent. Look at Anne Rice . After a couple years she relapsed . Let them at least join the church and got through the period of mystagogy. So my recommendation is at a minimum no association during OCIA and through mystagogy. That takes them through Pentecost. I would personally provide another cushion of a year to the next Easter . That goes for Bishop Barron interviews etc (Shia Lebouf).