Is EWTN too Fundamentalist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lermont
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That “cathedral” looks to me like something resembling the German Bauhaus movement of the 1920s with a bit of Frank Lloyd Wright and a touch of Purism. Beautiful building.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I actually love Modernist architecture in a way I can’t really explain. For a Cathedral though? I think a Cathedral should draw the eye upwards, like the way Gregorian Chant draws the mind and soul upwards. I haven’t seen the inside, I hope it is not full of that that postmodern horizontality that you see in so many Churches now.

It’s just that its genre-inappropriate. That’d make a fine art museum, but a poor Cathedral. Kinda like wearing a tuxedo to a dive bar, or wearing jeans to your wedding. See what I’m saying?
 
lak611 said:
How does coverage of the dedication of a new Cathedral in LA (or Sydney, for that matter) affect me as a Catholic living in Cleveland? If I visit LA or Sydney, I may wish to visit the Cathedral. However, the existence of a new Cathedral in another city has nothing to do with my faith as a Catholic. It might be worth mentioning in a 15 second newsclip, but I cannot see how an entire program about a new Cathedral could edify one’s faith. There are more important programs to cover which affect all Catholics, not just those in a certain town.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the “entire programs” dedicated in the past to the dedication/re-dedication of other churches on EWTN was wrong? How so? After all each one was a Mass (as was LA’s) and nothing is more edifying than the Mass.
 
Lermont said:
First, we are discussing the dedication of the cathedral of by far the largest archdiocese in the USA and not “every cathedral rededication.” Please don’t think you can change the subject at hand without it being noticed. Again, your attempt at misdirection is not fooling anyone.

That said while I have no idea what a “rededication” is, I do believe that the dedication of every new Catholic cathedral in the USA is indeed programming that most Catholics would love to see and would benefit from viewing for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
So what about every other Cathedral that gets dedicated around the world? Like I said, to truly cater to its very much GLOBAL audience EWTN has to do far more than worry about the American archdioceses only.

For that matter has EWTN ever shown a Cathedral dedication?? Not to my knowledge. And if, as seems to be the case, they’ve not shown others such as Oakland or Galveston-Houston, why WOULD they show LA?

Finally, what on earth does the showing or not showing of the dedication of a Cathedral have to do with EWTN being fundamentalist? Surely such a comment relates to their substantive teaching on Church doctrine, not on deciding or not deciding to show (multiple) Cathedral dedications.

Make with the specific points of substantive teaching that you believe EWTN has wrongly presented overly simply - and make with the specific authoritative church documentation that refutes the EWTN position.
 
Lermont said:
Given its huge and growing part in spreading and often defending the faith, I’m beginning to wonder if EWTN is too fundamentalist and often reductionist for the good of the Catholic faith? Don’t get me wrong I really like most of EWTN, it certainly has brought me closer to the faith and it’s a great means of international apologetics, but there are certain things what are beginning to concern me – and there are now times I immediately switch the channel these days.

EWTN often reduces the idea of legitimate positions to one (when there is more than one) and often with their own strange theories. I would have less problems with them if they were humbler, gave a variety of possible positions, and let people see and realize it is not so simplistic and hence fundamentalist as they make it out to be. EWTN rarely seems to take a wrong position, but it OFTEN excludes/denigrates other legitimate positions and I find that to be VERY fundamentalist.

There is also the matter of hubris and downright meanness. Take the misrepresentation of Cardinal Mahony’s infamous letter from years ago. Whatever one thinks of the Cardinal, you don’t misrepresent him, claim he is a heretic, and tell people to give him zero obedience, etc. Exceedingly bad form. Then Raymond Arroyo spends how many pages in his book seemingly celebrating this most lamentable behavior? What was the purpose of all hubris? To educate? To warn? I don’t think so.

Speaking of Cardinal Mahony, there is also the matter of pettiness. No matter what your feeling about the structure, the building of LA’s Cathedral was a monumental process, yet EWTN didn’t even bother to cover its opening. When I asked why they didn’t on one of their Q&A forums, I was met with a very petulant “because we were not invited.” Oh, is that so? C’mon…

EWTN seems to be VERY appealing to Catholics who want everything rigidly cut-n-dried and simplistic – much like some of our Fundamentalist Protestant Brethren. It certainly appealed greatly to me when I knew even less about the faith then I do today. I worry however that many are receiving an intolerant formation from EWTN – particularly in the area of apologetics and that ultimately it’s going to harm the Church.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your negative implications directed toward EWTN. May I suggest that if you do not like the programming, you turn the channel? I do not love all of the programs and find some to be uninteresting, but I do have a great respect for the mission of the network. Perhaps you could develop pilots of some programs you believe to be more suitable. They are always in need of new and fresh ideas which are faithful to the Magisterium. I am sure that any and all donated talent is greatly appreciated.

Peace
 
mschrank said:
That “cathedral” looks to me like something resembling the German Bauhaus movement of the 1920s with a bit of Frank Lloyd Wright and a touch of Purism. Beautiful building.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I actually love Modernist architecture in a way I can’t really explain. For a Cathedral though? I think a Cathedral should draw the eye upwards, like the way Gregorian Chant draws the mind and soul upwards. I haven’t seen the inside, I hope it is not full of that that postmodern horizontality that you see in so many Churches now.

It’s just that its genre-inappropriate. That’d make a fine art museum, but a poor Cathedral. Kinda like wearing a tuxedo to a dive bar, or wearing jeans to your wedding. See what I’m saying?
Click to expand...
What truly would have been “genre-inappropriate” would have been another cookie-cutter Gothic structure, yet that’s just what the muck-rackers would most love to have seen. A Gothic building located where Our Lady of the Angels is located would have looked foolish.

Personally I would loved to have seen a cathedral modeled after the California Missions. A most beloved architectural style today that was born out of necessity and harshly criticized by “experts” back when they were originally being built as “ugly” and “crude.”

Many “experts” also attacked the work of FLW until more and more people began to understand his work.
 
It could be anything you like, but it has to have the sense of highness and “loftiness” inherent to the Mass. It needn’t be Gothic if you do not like that- although so far the Gothic form is most usually used to capture this.

May I ask, why you believe uniqueness or iconoclasm is inherent to the mass? I guess you believe this since you referred to Gothic structures as “cookie cutter”.
 
LilyM said:
So what about every other Cathedral that gets dedicated around the world? Like I said, to truly cater to its very much GLOBAL audience EWTN has to do far more than worry about the American archdioceses only.

For that matter has EWTN ever shown a Cathedral dedication?? Not to my knowledge. And if, as seems to be the case, they’ve not shown others such as Oakland or Galveston-Houston, why WOULD they show LA?

Finally, what on earth does the showing or not showing of the dedication of a Cathedral have to do with EWTN being fundamentalist? Surely such a comment relates to their substantive teaching on Church doctrine, not on deciding or not deciding to show (multiple) Cathedral dedications.

Make with the specific points of substantive teaching that you believe EWTN has wrongly presented overly simply - and make with the specific authoritative church documentation that refutes the EWTN position.
Click to expand...
It was a big deal. 🙂 The reason given for not covering it was not a lack of resources but because they were not invited. 😉
 
mschrank said:
It could be anything you like, but it has to have the sense of highness and “loftiness” inherent to the Mass. It needn’t be Gothic if you do not like that- although so far the Gothic form is most usually used to capture this.

May I ask, why you believe uniqueness or iconoclasm is inherent to the mass? I guess you believe this since you referred to Gothic structures as “cookie cutter”.
Click to expand...
Now you are quite mistaken. While I cannot really defend the exterior of the cathedral (I lack the architectural understanding to do so), the interior of the cathedral – particularly its use of natural lighting is awesome and every bit as high/lofty as the structures beloved by those who attack this cathedral. Iconoclasm does not apply to the interior of the building. While I would change some of the furnishings (like the cathedra and the main crucifix) I would keep most everything else.

Some things – like the ceiling, floor, pews, tapestries, baptismal font, pipe organ and altar are truly gorgeous designs.
 
fix said:
Could it possibly be the reverse of what you think? Perhaps you could give an example?
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Just how do you suppose one can maintain the faith over two millennia with a minimum amount of change and corruption? Flexibility? OP might just tend a little to “gray area” Catholicism. Dunno. I am willing to discard my “personal truths” out of obedience. Maybe the truth is just too confining at times…

Christ’s peace.
 
Lermont said:
It was a big deal. 🙂 The reason for not covering it was not a lack of resources but because they were not invited. 😉
Click to expand...
You realise that is in fact illegal to film or photograph in or around most Cathedral (and a lot of other church) grounds without express permission?

If EWTN had attempted to do so without actually having been invited to do so, they would’ve been breaking the law for starters. So this can’t be seen as just a fit of petulance on EWTN’s part.
 
LilyM said:
You realise that is in fact illegal to film or photograph in or around most Cathedral (and a lot of other church) grounds without express permission?

If EWTN had attempted to do so without actually having been invited to do so, they would’ve been breaking the law for starters. So this can’t be seen as just a fit of petulance on EWTN’s part.
Click to expand...
I NEVER suggested that EWTN should have done anything without permission! There goes the haywire logic again with the downright freaky inferences!

Maybe they could have asked to cover the dedication?
 
Lermont said:
I NEVER suggested or that EWTN should have done anything without permission! There goes the haywire logic again with the downright freaky inferences! Look at my original posting.
Click to expand...
But you’re suggesting that EWTN could do something other than what they in fact did - NOT show the dedication, as they couldn’t, and explain that it was becuase they weren’t invited (ie they didn’t have permission, as anyone who knows about such things would know)???

What exactly do you think EWTN should or could have done differently in this instance?
 
Lermont said:
I NEVER suggested or that EWTN should have done anything without permission! There goes the haywire logic again with the downright freaky inferences! Look at my original posting.
Click to expand...
Do you really get this upset when things don’t seem to go your way? 🤷
 
teadough said:
Do you really get this upset when things don’t seem to go your way? 🤷
Click to expand...
Not upset, but I am astounded at the lack of logic and fact used by people to discuss matters on these forums. I am also amazed at the amount of misdirection people try herein.

Most just seem to rely on emotion or personal opinion, or they add comments that add absolutely no value. Very weird.
 
LilyM said:
But you’re suggesting that EWTN could do something other than what they in fact did - NOT show the dedication, as they couldn’t, and explain that it was becuase they weren’t invited (ie they didn’t have permission, as anyone who knows about such things would know)???

What exactly do you think EWTN should or could have done differently in this instance?
Click to expand...
How do you know they couldn’t? They never asked – at least that what was why I was told by ETWN.

They could have asked for permission from the archdiocese.
 
Lermont said:
Not upset, but I am astounded at the lack of logic and fact used by people to discuss matters on these forums. I am also amazed at the amount of misdirection people try herein.

Most just seem to rely on emotion or personal opinion. Very weird.
Click to expand...
seeing that you joined yesterday how can you give such a strong opionion on this site?
 
Lermont said:
How do you know they couldn’t? They never asked – at least that what was why I was told by ETWN.

They could have asked for permission from the archdiocese.
Click to expand...
The Archdiocese, had, there’s no doubt, already invited all the media it wished to cover the event. It’s among the first things people organising such events consider. In this case it’s understood that no invitation meant that no permission would be granted even if sought.

It’s like a press conference at the White House. The President and his staff know which media he wants there and invites them. If I’m not invited, I’d have Buckley’s chance of getting permission to attend even if I asked for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top