George Weigel Slammed For Attempt To Marginalize New Catholic Media

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve heard nothing but praise for Weigel’s well-thought article.
 
The only places I’m aware of “slamming” George Weigel for his recommendations are Church Militant and LifeSiteNews. Agree with him or disagree with him, he’s just one more commentator among the myriad…
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
The only places I’m aware of “slamming” George Weigel for his recommendations are Church Militant and LifeSiteNews.
Click to expand...
The article is referencing theologian Dr. Janet E. Smith’s remarks criticizing Weigel.
 
Wow, the CM crowd doesn’t like what this guy has to say. I guess I better read it.
 
The sad thing is that he didn’t say anything bad. He just recommended that folks avoid (or at least limit) exposure to the Catholic bloggosphere and inflationary (???) new media websites.

As much as Church Militant can be a good source of news that you won’t find elsewhere, I personally have to limit my exposure to them as their approach is not good for my spiritual health. Weigel’s point is that such websites should be avoided if they prove harmful to your spiritual health.
 
Please can some of you Americans clarify this for me? Is “neo-con George Weigel” a “person” or a “non person” this week? Should I agree with what he says this week or disagree?
 
I’d like to read it. Is there a link in the OP?

Never mind I found it.
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Weigel’s point is that such websites should be avoided if they prove harmful to your spiritual health.
Click to expand...
No that is Dr. Smith’s point…
Smith agreed that those who are “excessively troubled” by bad news in the Church should read only “safe” sources but argued that those who break the bad news shouldn’t be ostracized.

“[D]on’t blame the messenger in respect to the news sources that investigate and report upon events that the others eventually report, somewhat less sensationally,” she advised.
Click to expand...
Weigel suggested ‘limiting’ exposure to a select group of publications that he approves of.
 
Dr Smith says:

“While many don’t like the tone of some sources, several of these are responsible for much of what we know about the corruption in the Church and their persistence has been invaluable in achieving the few successes there have been.”

I think she is very wrong. I do not rely on hardly any Catholic news sites which are not mentioned specifically by Weigel and I think I have been well informed. And these sites do not take their cues from the likes of LifeSiteNews and the Church Militant.
 
Honestly, I wish people would make a distinction between Church Militant and LifeSite.

My opinion of Church Militant is that is that I intensely dislike their opinion pieces. However, on some level you might just want to read it. When it starts to hurt your spiritual health, stop reading it. Church Militant does check their facts. They don’t get stuff completely wrong. I’ll at least give them that. They present an opinion that many Americans hold. You can at least try to understand that view.

LifeSite get stuff wrong factually, or it written to strongly imply things that are completely wrong. One example is their coverage of amoris laetitia. It was baffling. I started a long thread here a while ago just to gain some understanding of amoris laetitia. Amoris Laetitia is a very positive and sincere step forward. LifeSite made it look like an effort to allow all Catholics to divorce and remarry at will. This could not be farther from the truth.
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
Honestly, I wish people would make a distinction between Church Militant and LifeSite.

My opinion of Church Militant is that is that I intensely dislike their opinion pieces. However, on some level you might just want to read it. When it starts to hurt your spiritual health, stop reading it. Church Militant does check their facts. They don’t get stuff completely wrong. I’ll at least give them that. They present an opinion that many Americans hold. You can at least try to understand that view.
Click to expand...
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wants readers of his Patheos blog to avoid Church Militant and LifeSiteNews “like the plague.”
 
Last edited:
No offense to Dave or even Patheos, because I’ve read some good articles there, but I’ve also read a lot of fluff and downright squiffy stuff too. Telling people to ‘avoid X like the plague’ usually doesn’t fly well. If he had said, “there is a particular slant as shown in articles A, B, C, (demonstrates slant) even though good points in articles F, G, H (demonstrates good points) so I tend to take individual articles with a grain of salt and I like to compare to articles in (name other sites i.e. Catholic News Agency, Catholic Herald, National Catholic Register) which I have found to have a very neutral tone, good research, and generally solid theology)”. . .that might have looked less ‘hysterical’ and finger-pointy. IOW it would like looked far more professional and balanced in response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top