More from Fr. Euteneuer: "the “Hannitization” of the Church will not prevail!"

[Tom317]

ANd you know?
Father Morris another catholic priest who is very orthodox cleary disagrees with Fr Euterneuer. Good catholics can disagree with Fr Euterneuer tactics. You presume this priest knows more than John Paul II and Pope Benedict which have directives that would condone such confrontational tactics in a public manner.

How do you know Father Morris is orthodox, and did not Father Morris use the very same tactics you are attacking?

Further, you are making claims of two Popes as if you were those Popes, you call a Priests a “rouque” and you state that the good Father did not speak with his Bishop. We should never call anyone names, much less a Priest, and we should not make statements as if we have personal knowledge, when we do not.

Do not forget, Jesus angrily turned over the tables in the Temple, which means even our Lord used blunt tactics when required. Too many people think Jesus never rebuked anyone and never spoke a harsh word or had a harsh action, that is simply a matter of re-writing known truths to fit an agenda.

Sean Hannity is helping to propogate grave sin, he does so with full knowledge and with full consent, and he refused to acknowledge Fr Euterneuer’s attempt to speak with him privately. The good Priest was left with very little choice if he takes his vocation seriously. The problem I feel you are experiencing is that so few Priests have courage today, that most Catholics are simply not used to being told they are in sin and must stop.

 

[setter]

You fail to see the problem here that Jesus clearly rebuked and which Paul did not repeat. The Pharisees called out individuals for sins in a public forum and declared them heretics sinners and publically condemned them many times to death. Jesus spoke out against these tactics and counciled such persons indivudually and in private. Jesus and Paul were not shy to condemn sin and by all means artificial birth control is a sin. But they did not call out you lowly sinner Sean Hannity are a heretic and know nothing and not worthy of the catholic religion and I don’t want you in my church. No my friend this is the attitude of the Pharisee of which you have bought into. Judging indiviudals in a public forum was not the tactic of Jesus but since you think Fr Euteneuer trumps the teachins of Jesus and John Paul II and POpe Benedict by all means support this rouge priest and his un-Christ like tactics.

In your analysis (and extrapolation) Fr. Euteneur is but a modern day Pharisee and nothing but a “rogue priest" who is employing “un-Christ like tactics” …God save us from fellow Catholics who such a repulsive reaction when a priest publicly speaks the truth of the Catholic in all charity.

Jesus did not have any qualms about protocal and “niceness” when calling out the works of darkness amongst those closets to him:

"But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.’” Mark 8: 33

An obvious oversight in your analysis:

The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.

Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something.

hli.org/sl_2007-03-12.html

And please your sola scriptura like insertion of the players in this controversy is embarassingly protestant.

You also have a problem with Catholic laity who read, understand and know when to apply appropriate scripture to real life situations?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Hannity is NOT a theologian.

For goodness sakes, we have enough problems with priests who ARE theologians.

This “controversy” only points up the need for much more education of the laity.

 

[Tom317]

Hannity is NOT a theologian.

For goodness sakes, we have enough problems with priests who ARE theologians.

This “controversy” only points up the need for much more education of the laity.

Yes, except Hannity knows the truth and rejects that truth.

 

[Mijoy2]

I disagree. You are basically saying that a person is not educated unless he/she agrees with the Church teachings and that they cannot reject those teachings of they are educated. That takes away free will.

Possibly I should have used the word “accept” in place of “agree”. We, of course, can disagree with the teachings of the Church. But in matters on Faith and Morals we are obliged to accpet these teachings. We retain our free-will. We can; agree and accept; disagree yet accept; or disagree and not accept, the choice is ours.

 

[Tom317]

Possibly I should have used the word “accept” in place of “agree”. We, of course, can disagree with the teachings of the Church. But in matters on Faith and Morals we are obliged to accpet these teachings. We retain our free-will. We can; agree and accept; disagree yet accept; or disagree and not accept, the choice is ours.

I agree and Hannity went attended seminary, studied Catholic theology and personally proclaims he knows the Church’s teachings regarding birth control and he rejects that teaching.

His is not a case of poor education, it is outright rejection.

 

[setter]

I agree and Hannity went attended seminary, studied Catholic theology and personally proclaims he knows the Church’s teachings regarding birth control and he rejects that teaching.

His is not a case of poor education, it is outright rejection.

Sean Hannity is a typical example of a "good” Catholic bloated with self-pride, operating on a false idea of autonomy of conscience, and all the while neglecting or discarding the “faithful” requirement of being a Catholic to the peril of his eternal soul.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From the Gospel for the Second Scrutiny -

Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."40 Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not also blind, are we?"41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

John 9:39-41

I suppose that it would have been better if Jesus had counseled the Pharisees privately and not rebuked them in public.

.

 

[Al_Masetti]

From the Gospel for the Second Scrutiny - John 9:39-41

I suppose that it would have been better if Jesus had counseled the Pharisees privately and not rebuked them in public.

.

Do we have Hanissees?

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Mr. Hannity is still my favorite personality on TV. Do I disagree with what he had to say? Yes. Do I think Father Euteneur was being somewhat hipocritical? Yes. While Mr. Hannity should take SERIOUS time in researching this issue, Fr. should also not be judging people. Mr. Hannity did make a good point that about judging. I think attacking him while yes it should be pointed out, was not right when there are so many other Catholics out there who skew the truth far worse than Mr. Hannity.

 

[Tom317]

Mr. Hannity is still my favorite personality on TV. Do I disagree with what he had to say? Yes. Do I think Father Euteneur was being somewhat hipocritical? Yes. While Mr. Hannity should take SERIOUS time in researching this issue, Fr. should also not be judging people. Mr. Hannity did make a good point that about judging. I think attacking him while yes it should be pointed out, was not right when there are so many other Catholics out there who skew the truth far worse than Mr. Hannity.

A Priest is suppose to worry about souls, the good Father was simply trying to help save Sean’s soul. Sean causes a scandal and no good Catholic should watch him–imo. If he had the pain of viewer loss, he might change and thus his soul might be redeemed.

 

[Tom317]

Sean Hannity is a typical example of a "good” Catholic bloated with self-pride, operating on a false idea of autonomy of conscience, and all the while neglecting or discarding the “faithful” requirement of being a Catholic to the peril of his eternal soul.

I agree, well said.

 

[setter]

Mr. Hannity is still my favorite personality on TV. Do I disagree with what he had to say? Yes. Do I think Father Euteneur was being somewhat hipocritical? Yes. While Mr. Hannity should take SERIOUS time in researching this issue, Fr. should also not be judging people. Mr. Hannity did make a good point that about judging. I think attacking him while yes it should be pointed out, was not right when there are so many other Catholics out there who skew the truth far worse than Mr. Hannity.

Can you demonstrate how Fr. Euteneur was at all being hypocritical or rendering judgment?

 

[Mike_Brick]

…“Also Fr Euteneuer’s tactics leave a lot to be desired Jesus counciled sinners in private not in the public it was the Pharisees who did their stoning in public. Jesus told them he does not condemn them and then explained the fiath to them and sent them to not sin anymore. Father did a hit and run blog and did some more public crititisizing such as namecalling of heretic and threatening witholding the communion cup whic is ridiculous when his own bishop doesn’t do that for pro=abort politicians. Sean Hannity is out of line but frankly despite his own prideful proclamations he doesn’t know the finer points of catholic teaching and Father is the one who said this and he was right but ironically that was the very reason to not go gangbusters in a public forum. He could have attmpted to communicate to him the finer points without the name calling and heretic hunting. These are not the tactis that John Paul II and Pope Benedict have practiced but the stuff of the Pharisees and the Inquisitions. We need to preach the truth in a way that turn off people and frankly Fr’s tactics would have tunred off any non-catholic to the faith and many nominal catholics who don’t any better. Heck he turned me off and I agree with him on the issues just not the way he went about it.”

Well said Wisdom, and yes I know that many of our forum members will critisize me for agreeing with your excellent point. I wonder how many of the critics of either men actually know what Hanity previously said for which Fr. Tom told him he is not worthy of the Eucharist, (that is in a mortally sinful state), or actually saw the whole Friday night interview?

Yes Hanity was wrong on the issue but at the same time Fr. Tom is equally wrong in his approach to the resolution of the problem. Frankly he blew it and I believe set a poor example for non-believers watching and listening. There are a lot of evils in this world to condem, but ranking Hanity’s previous statement as one of them, and expressing his own judgment of Hanity’s soul, in the way he did, did not help to build the Kingdom, but to help to tear it down. The devil himself just loves it when we Catholics tear each other apart in such a public way.

 

[childofmary1143]

Well said Wisdom, and yes I know that many of our forum members will critisize me for agreeing with your excellent point. I wonder how many of the critics of either men actually know what Hanity previously said for which Fr. Tom told him he is not worthy of the Eucharist, (that is in a mortally sinful state), or actually saw the whole Friday night interview?

Yes Hanity was wrong on the issue but at the same time Fr. Tom is equally wrong in his approach to the resolution of the problem. Frankly he blew it and I believe set a poor example for non-believers watching and listening. There are a lot of evils in this world to condem, but ranking Hanity’s previous statement as one of them, and expressing his own judgment of Hanity’s soul, in the way he did, did not help to build the Kingdom, but to help to tear it down. The devil himself just loves it when we Catholics tear each other apart in such a public way.

I would like to ask you and “wisdom” if you believe in individuality?

What I mean is that what is good for you may not be good for others and that what is good for others may not be good for you. There is not 2 people that are exactly alike. Its one thing to say that you might handle a particular situation differently but its entirely different to say what Father Euteneuer did is wrong.

 

[Mike_Brick]

I would like to ask you and “wisdom” if you believe in individuality?

Yes, to an extent, and I thank God for making us unique.

What I mean is that what is good for you may not be good for others and that what is good for others may not be good for you. There is not 2 people that are exactly alike. Its one thing to say that you might handle a particular situation differently but its entirely different to say what Father Euteneuer did is wrong.

When I used the word wrong I didn’t mean evil, I meant he chose the lesser likely to be successful approach. He ended in a loose-loose, instead of a win-win.

Now tell me, exactly what do you believe it was that Hanity did or said that incurred the rath of Fr. Tom for all these years, that set him off so?

 

[Nordar]

Now tell me, exactly what do you believe it was that Hanity did or said that incurred the rath of Fr. Tom for all these years, that set him off so?

Fr E has made it very clear as to why he was calling Hannity on the carpet (SO to speak). That is why this whole issue has arisen so I am confused as to why you are asking what has incurred Fr’s rath. I don’t believe for one minute that Fr is in the least bit angry with Hannity. The fact that you would even think that is sad, I believe that Fr E was just concerned about Hannity’s soul.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Fr E has made it very clear as to why he was calling Hannity on the carpet (SO to speak). That is why this whole issue has arisen so I am confused as to why you are asking what has incurred Fr’s rath. I don’t believe for one minute that Fr is in the least bit angry with Hannity. The fact that you would even think that is sad, I believe that Fr E was just concerned about Hannity’s soul.

(Underlining is Mine) Were that so, then why did Fr. E publish his newsletter today writing the following?

“This issue is not over, friends, because the battle lines are being drawn between the two worldviews and the stakes are high. Those stakes are the hannitized souls of this and the next generation of youth, and they are worth fighting for. For my part I have been deeply gratified to see evidence of the soldiers of the Church Militant who accept objective right and wrong about contraception and are quite fed up with the nonsense of the high profile dissenters who have done so much spiritual damage to souls. We stand together to defend our first love—Christ’s Church! After all, it’s not just Hannity’s soul we are worried about. How many millions are potentially led astray by a man with that kind of platform? Keep in mind, though, that our project is much more than just objecting to dissenters in the media. We are to lead souls to the Truth through the media, or despite it. That is our common mission.”(Human Life International e-Newsletter, Volume 01, Number 59 | Friday, March 16, 2007)

This apparently is a really big deal for Fr. Tom, that even he said goes beyond worry for Hanity’s own soul. But I don’t see where Hanity is using his large platform to deliberately mislead Catholics, to the extent that “millions of souls are potentially led astray by a man with that kind of platform” as Fr. Tom wrote today. I applaud Fr. Tom’s orthodoxy, and his zeal for our faith, but is this the appropriate battleground? I think he gives Sean way too much credit for damaging the Church.

Does Sean need to be made aware of how important it is that he speak more carefully and knowledgably on matters of faith and morals: you bet he does. But is turning instruction into an all out attack the way to solve this very big problem that Fr. Tom sees Hanity causing? There’s more to this than meets the eye, as my dearly departed mom always said.

Sean Hanity is no more than an experienced radio guy who has the face for television, who happens to be Catholic. He’s not a Catholic radio guy nor is he the architect of moral relativism in the western world. Taking him down will not solve that most extreme problem we people of faith face today and in the future. There are way better targets in this world that deserve Fr. Tom’s attention.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

<waiting for Al to call Hannity a “victim”…>

It’d be interesting to go back through your posts and see if you blamed the Church where Ted Kennedy et al. where involved.

You hit the nail right on the head. Hannity gets a pass from many here because they like him. They sit there in front of their TV’s and watch him bully some liberal politician or liberal activst and cheer him on.

I wonder if Chris Matthews, also a baptized Catholic, would get the same treatment as Hannity? Would the same people who are excusing Hannity also excuse Matthews? I doubt it very much.

Hannity and Matthews both misrepresent the Catholic faith. Matthews just happens to be a liberal while Hannity is a neocon.

I never knew it was wrong for a political liberal to misrepresent the Catholic faith but fine for a political neocon to misrepresent the faith.

The Catholic faith is more important than any political ideology. Besides, what have the Republicans done for Catholics anyway?

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Mr. Hannity is still my favorite personality on TV. Do I disagree with what he had to say? Yes. Do I think Father Euteneur was being somewhat hipocritical? Yes. While Mr. Hannity should take SERIOUS time in researching this issue, Fr. should also not be judging people. Mr. Hannity did make a good point that about judging. I think attacking him while yes it should be pointed out, was not right when there are so many other Catholics out there who skew the truth far worse than Mr. Hannity.

I hope you know the corporal and spiritual works of mercy if you’re discerning a religious vocation.

Fr. Euteneuer was doing a spiritual work of mercy by pointing out Hannity’s errors. A priest or a religious has the duty to correct errors. One has to judge something to be an error before it can be corrected.

Just because Hannity is your favorite TV personality and that you have judged that others skew the faith more than he had doesn’t mean Hannity isn’t doing a grave disservice to the faith and doesn’t need to be corrected.

This gets back to my previous post. People are making excuses for Hannity that they wouldn’t make for Chris Matthews or Phil Donahue. If Fr. Euteneuer had gone on Hardball or had been on a show with Donahue and said the same thing to either one of them as he did to Hannity, everyone would be cheering him on and saying how horrible it is that people like Matthews and Donahue distort Catholic teaching. Hannity gets a pass because he’s a political neocon rather than a political liberal.

Those of you who want to give Hannity a pass should ask yourselves this question: Am I a first a Catholic or a Republican? Being a Republican won’t save your immortal soul.