Thursday, May 10, 2018

OK, GLENN BECK AND MICHAEL MATT ARE FAR RIGHT, BUT ARE THEY WRONG TO DISCUSS POPE FRANCIS IN THIS WAY?


PAPAL AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION AND OBSTINATE REFUSAL TO CLARIFY: UNPRECEDENTED CRITICISM OF A REIGNING POPE BY FAITHFUL, ORTHODOX CATHOLICS


A fascinating 15 minute interview about Pope Francis by Glenn Beck of Michael Matt of the Remnant Catholic Newspaperfrom "right wingers" but is it fake news or reality? Listen to it by pressing here!

And then there is this:

Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church’s ultimate trial
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

+Willem Jacobus Cardinal Eijk
Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands
Utrecht, 5 May 2018

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Glenn Beckk referred to himself numerous times as a "rodeo clown."

He's not "far right." He's nuts.

And what does he think of those who listen to him?

“I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’“

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You listened to interview? Doesn't sound like a crazy interview, neither questions or answers.

Anonymous said...

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." –The Glenn Beck Program, May 17, 2005

No, nothing crazy about Glenn Beckk.... Nothing at all......

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You certainly prove to be a fan of his, I never listen to him until I heard the interview I poste. Did you listen to that or do you prefer the crazy ones, since you know so well about those?

Marc said...

Michael Matt isn’t far-right. He’s Catholic. That just appears far-right to you based on your own relative position on the center-left.

Anonymous said...

They were right on target. They were much more reserved than I would have been. The cardinals need to declare Francis the heretic his is and stop the madness. Oh and permanently suppress the Jesuits.

Henry said...

I'd never heard one of Glenn Beck's radio programs before, but listened to a re-play of this interview with Michael Matt. Somewhat to my surprise--having heard something about him--Mr. Beck sounded not only sane but sensible, and the concerns Mr. Matt expressed seemed rooted in love of and loyalty to Church and Papacy.

TJM said...

A summary of Anonymous Kavanaugh's activities:

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Henry, indeed I found Beck and Matt both respectful and measured in the questions and answers. No nut cases at least in that interview.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

The only nutcase is the "Anonymous" poster on your blog!!!

Jacob said...

Among us traditionalists , Mike is the national leader of the traditionalist movement, by far. No other person comes even close.

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Beck sounded not only sane but sensible"

Ever listen to an interview with Ted Bundy? He could sound very sane and sensible, but . . .

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Glenn Beck and Ted Bundy,I didn't know that Glenn was a psychopathic serial killer. Interesting. I hope Matt was only on the phone with him. How would you classify Matt's coherent responses to the crazy's questions?

Anonymous said...

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure." –The Glenn Beck Program, May 17, 2005

We should heed the signs...

Anonymous 2 said...

I listed to the interview. To answer Father McDonald’s question, no, they are not wrong to discuss Pope Francis in this way because their discussion clearly reflects one narrative about Pope Francis and the Vatican that many faithful Catholics accede to and this narrative deserves to be heard.

This said, it is only one narrative, one voice, in the conversation taking place in the Church. There are others. And this is where the problem lies. Why didn’t Glenn Beck also include another voice in the discussion, representing a counter narrative, to respond to Michael Matt and to offer a defense to his explicit and implied charges against Pope Francis and the Vatican?

To quote a phrase, it is hardly “fair and balanced” to present just one viewpoint. But how many care about being “fair and balanced” nowadays or want to make the effort to engage in strenuous critical thinking? It is much more comfy to live inside one’s own little bubble and indulge one’s confirmation bias. Striving to get closer to the truth is much harder work.

One of the virtues of Father McDonald’s blog is that it does encourage a more robust conversation with the expression of differing viewpoints.


Henry said...

"Why didn’t Glenn Beck also include another voice in the discussion"

You sound as though you assume he doesn't have just such a guest scheduled for a follow-up interview. How do you know this? Let me know if it happens, so I can listen. Because I don't know how Matt's factual points can be logically countered, and would like to hear somebody try it who's rational and faithfully Catholic.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

I don't disasgree with your point, but sadly "fair and balanced" certainly isn't present in most religious "news" outlets like the National Anti-Catholic Reporter, or in the secular press such as "fake but accurate" cBS.

Moreover, Pope Francis' own folks tried to stifle orthodox viewpoints at the first Synod of his pontificate. Do as I say, not as I do, is pretty much the mantra of the secular and religious left.

Mark Thomas said...

I have just listened to the first 3:30 of the broadcast...utter nonsense.

Glenn Beck wishes to understand..."what is happening to the Pope." Glenn Beck understands that Pope Francis has denied the existence of hell...is selling out China's Christians...is cozying up to Putin...

After having stacked the deck against His Holiness Pope Francis, Mr. Beck then introduced Michael Matt. Mr. Beck asked Mr. Matt to demonstrate that he (Mr. Matt) is not anti-Catholic.

Michael Matt said...

"I'm a traditional-minded, tradition-minded Catholic, which means that I really support and accept all the teachings of the Church."
=========================================================================

What utter nonsense. Michael Matt promotes the anti-Catholic notion that the Faithful may resist Pope Francis. Michael Matt accused Pope Francis of having defiedteachings proclaimed by Jesus Christ.

"With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis"

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2766-with-burning-concern-we-accuse-pope-francis#part1Anchor
==============================================================================

Michael Matt's Remnant TV: "RESISTING FRANCIS: Pope Corrected for Spreading Heresy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SOCptUNbGs

===============================================================================

Glenn Beck, 2:38 mark: "You say that this Pope's election was even suspect."

Michael Matt: "Well, yes" (then stammering)...it's, it's, it's, suspect may, may be the wrong word, it's just, it's incredibly unprecedented...the haste with which, ah, Jorge Bergoglio was ah, was ah, selected just had many of us kind of saying "what, what, where did this come from, what happened, who is this guy?"
================================================================================

After that horrific beginning...the misrepresentation of His Holiness Pope Francis, I lack the desire to listen to the remainder of the broadcast in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Gene said...

Beck needs to be on psychotropic meds. Most of the talk show hosts, Left or Right, are so shrill they are impossible to listen to. I do like Limbaugh. The ridiculous "talk" shows on TV are nothing more than a bunch of people talking over and past each other in the most strident tones possible. The art of debate has long since been lost, rational argument is out the window, and these political talk shows are nothing more than a two or three person mob.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gene - It has happened again! We agree! (But, you will understand, not the Limbaugh part.) Hence, I stick with NPR and BBC for good, solid, basic news without the strident tones.

Oops, did I pop the bubble...? :->

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Each news network especially to include NPR (I can't really comment on the BBC, but John Nolan certainly can, although I do like their hard news coverage) has an ideological bent and certainly commentators who pontificate on every subject possible and often in nonsensical argumentative ways. It's called entertainment, not news.

I never watch MSNBC. I do watch Fox and CNN and up until several years ago preferred CNN for hard news coverage as well as breaking news coverage.

However, something weird has happened to CNN to make it a joke--they are dour, snarky and quite entertaining. And clearly they grind their axes over and over and over again and in the most snarky, dour ways.

Fox on the other hand has always been clear to me that it has a conservative bias--but their bias is delivered in such a pleasant and often humorous way and their anchors can laugh, poke fun at each other and really seem to like each other.

I am surprised that Saturday Night Live doesn't have an on-going caricaturing segment just on CNN anchors and their dour looks and how glum they are when they deliver the news and their commentaries.

TNT is the highest rating cable network, with FOX behind it and then a very distant third is MSNBC. CNN is wasn't even mentioned on the most recent ratings reported this morning. That should tell them something. I wonder if they ever watch themselves?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Should have written CNN is quite entertaining.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think my auto spell check is fighting me! UNENTERTAINING!

TJM said...

NPR and BBC! LOL - they are left-wing loon "views" channels for left-wing loons.No wonder Kavanaugh has a warped view of the world.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Considerations of Bias...

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

TJM said...

Kavanaugh,

Baruch College? Really? Gee, I wonder how many professors there are Republican and how many are Democrats? I suspect, like much of academia it is lopsidedly left-wing. Epic fail. I bet you think Hell's Bible aka the New York Times is middle of the road.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Where are you getting Baruch College from? I cannot see that. The link Father Kavanaugh gave is to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and the first author listed worked at the American Enterprise Institute before joining Pew. Please help me (us?) locate the Baruch College connection.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

I accidentally clicked on this:

http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/documents/Polarization_PRQ_accepted2.pdf

Claiming an organization is nonpartisan is not conclusive. I view Pew Research as left of center, but not in an intellectually dishonest way, like the New York Times. I did note in Pew Research's piece, that it appears liberals are not, really very liberal or tolerant. They are more likely to dump a friend because they disagree with their political views than conservatives.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Thank you for clearing up the mystery.

On dumping friends because of political views, I have heard that this sort of thing happens, and indeed that friends as well as family members have fallen out with one another over the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency because one person voted for Trump and another for Clinton. This is somewhat mystifying to me. Don’t politicians have enough power over us as it is? Why on earth would I want to give them power over my friendships and family relationships too? Good grief!

Those we elect to public office are there to serve us and to promote the common good, we are not here to serve them or their self-interested good. As I have suggested before, it is indeed past time to take back our country, which means first and foremost taking back our relationships with one another.