E
- Status
E
Esperance
Guest
I think Mother Angelica and EWTN are on the blacklist of many bishops…
J
Joysong
Guest
If Arroyo and Rev. Newhaus are representative of EWTN, then I can see why. Maybe Arroyo in his arrogance would have liked to accept the honor in Mother’s place, due to her poor health, and maybe HE is the one feeling snubbed.
Both narrators of the DC mass left little to the imagination in their derogatory comments throughout the liturgy. Arroyo has been considerably vocal in many of his special broadcasts, leading the participants with obvious biases of his own, which I believe is in very poor taste as a reporter, especially a Catholic reporter who has no business airing his own preferences. I can no longer watch him because he is not reputable, but coercive. He does not represent the totality of Catholics, but only one element, the traditionalist.
Both narrators of the DC mass left little to the imagination in their derogatory comments throughout the liturgy. Arroyo has been considerably vocal in many of his special broadcasts, leading the participants with obvious biases of his own, which I believe is in very poor taste as a reporter, especially a Catholic reporter who has no business airing his own preferences. I can no longer watch him because he is not reputable, but coercive. He does not represent the totality of Catholics, but only one element, the traditionalist.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
The Pope doesn’t know I exist. I hope Raymond can start a movement among those who have some influence to have Mother recognized by the Pope. But even if this does not happen Mother is recognized by God and I honor her for being an influence in my conversion.
CDL
CDL
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Joysong,
I hadn’t noticed what you did. I haven’t had much time to watch. But what is traditionalist about EWTN?
CDL
I hadn’t noticed what you did. I haven’t had much time to watch. But what is traditionalist about EWTN?
CDL
J
Joysong
Guest
I watch EWTN probably more than any other station, so my comments were not about the network or its programs or priests. They were about the two reporters who do not faithfully represent EWTN nor the totality of Catholics worldwide. It is a bias of their own and casts a poor light on the network.
If they were being interviewed on Bookmark, for instance, it would be perfectly acceptable to state their preferences. But as a reporter, especially of a huge event like the papal mass, one should narrate and leave their personal comments aside. It was a moment of glory for these two, as I see it.
I wonder if Mother Angelica would have approved?
If they were being interviewed on Bookmark, for instance, it would be perfectly acceptable to state their preferences. But as a reporter, especially of a huge event like the papal mass, one should narrate and leave their personal comments aside. It was a moment of glory for these two, as I see it.
I wonder if Mother Angelica would have approved?
C
CatholicNerd
Guest
I think, perhaps, that you have forgotten how Mother herself acted when forced to watch liturgical abominations. She, like all EWTN commentators, has a duty to present the truths of the Catholic faith to the viewing audience. I found none of the commentary to be derogatory. Catholic is as Catholic does. If you’re referring to the liturgy in DC, guess what: it WAS really bad, by OBJECTIVE standards.
And what’s so disturbing about shining the light on the sordid USCCB agenda to silence EWTN? It had NOTHING to do with Raymond Arroyo.
J
Joysong
Guest
Your words do not surprise me, C.N. I would expect to see many more similar replies. In reality, this is your right to hold your own opinon, but it does not represent every single Catholic’s view of the papal mass, many of whom will disagree with you – and many of whom will agree.
Reporters and journalists do not have a duty to interpret their views of catholicity in a public forum WHILE they are reporting. It is reprehensible, and that is MY opinion, which I will continue to hold. This statement in the Catechism teaches that the actions of these two reporters, who did stoop to defamation, was abhorrent.
Reporters and journalists do not have a duty to interpret their views of catholicity in a public forum WHILE they are reporting. It is reprehensible, and that is MY opinion, which I will continue to hold. This statement in the Catechism teaches that the actions of these two reporters, who did stoop to defamation, was abhorrent.
A thread of several comments on the mass was just eliminated in the L&S forum, so you may have seen how many varying “opinions” there can be.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Let’s get this thread back on-topic. Joysong (ironic name choice IMO) has turned this into a let’s judge and bash Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Neuhaus, and any other “traditionalist” thread. That is not what this thread is about. The Pope’s visit and itinerary were not made based on the coverage by Arroyo and Fr. Neuhaus…it hadn’t been seen yet.
I don’t know that Mother Angelica was intentionally snubbed, but there is no denying that she deserves praise for her work. I hope she does receive it.
J
Joysong
Guest
Really? I am bashing any other traditionalist? Are your glasses on? Defaming my user name is not “bashing” of your own?
The topic explores why Mother was snubbed. I personally believe that it may have been due to her mis-representatives, but primarily due to her poor health, as I mentioned. I remind you that hers is a cloistered order and I doubt she would have been present, even if she were in good health.
Arroyo is offended on her behalf in the linked article, so one will naturally comment on his commentary, which I did. May I not express my opinion? It is on topic.
It would be interesting to know Mother’s feelings, which in her holiness would probably not be in accord with Raymond’s. Who’s to say she was snubbed, anyway? It is solely Raymond’s opinion.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I “defamed” your username?
Is it going to sue me? 
All I said, is that I find it ironic, since your posts aren’t particularly joyful…or lyrical for that matter IMO.
I agree that she probably was not snubbed and that she probably would not be bothered with the recognition, but Raymond Arroyo’s commentary on the DC mass is completely off-topic. It has nothing to do with the alleged snubbing of Mother Angelica or EWTN. It is just pettiness on your behalf. You could easily have just posted that it is Raymond Arroyo’s opinion and stated your disagreement rather than take the thread off-topic into a discussion of the appropriateness of the DC mass, the coverage of it, and your personal distaste for the commentators.
J
Joysong
Guest
Raymond Arroyo’s words in the link which opened this topic were,
Is it possible that those who were in charge of the entire event knew of the bias of these two reporters and wanted to avoid controversy concerning the universality of the Church which the Pope came to inspire? If Mother Angelica was asked to attend and declined, who knows this for certain, but perhaps Arroyo. My guess is he was miffed that he could not represent her, and in my humble opinion, was possibly not invited for the reasons which I posted.
Makes no sense to you, perhaps, Rlg, but my comments are within the scope of the OP’s original postings. Opinions are simply opinions, and being a message board, one is allowed to express them, positive or negative though they be. It is condescending of you to describe them as petty. Could that be because they differ from yours?
The OP, besides posting the link, made the comment
My comments as to the reporters themselves being the cause of this possible oversight, were on topic. I am “telling what I think” as the Arroyo link asked. I remind you that the article centered on the papal visit.
Is it possible that those who were in charge of the entire event knew of the bias of these two reporters and wanted to avoid controversy concerning the universality of the Church which the Pope came to inspire? If Mother Angelica was asked to attend and declined, who knows this for certain, but perhaps Arroyo. My guess is he was miffed that he could not represent her, and in my humble opinion, was possibly not invited for the reasons which I posted.
Makes no sense to you, perhaps, Rlg, but my comments are within the scope of the OP’s original postings. Opinions are simply opinions, and being a message board, one is allowed to express them, positive or negative though they be. It is condescending of you to describe them as petty. Could that be because they differ from yours?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Nope, just my condescending observation of your posts.
I have plenty of discussions with people of differing opinions whose posting style I don’t find offensive. I do find others who I believe are petty and hateful in their posts, and I choose to point it out sometimes. You don’t seem to have any problem doing the same, so I’m not sure why you are so taken aback. Little thin-skinned?…
Regarding Arroyo and Fr. Neuhaus. I had already pointed out that the organizers of the papal visit would not have made decisions about whether or not to visit with Mother Angelica based on their commentary of the DC mass, which hadn’t happened yet. Now, you are claiming that perhaps they didn’t include Mother Angelica, so they could avoid any controversy coming from these two commentators. How silly.
I don’t know why Mother Angelica was not included in the papal visit, but it could have been for a host of reasons. My personal opinion is that she was just overlooked…not intentionally. All indications I see from Pope Benedict XVI are that he tends more toward the traditional and has a great appreciation for men and women in consecrated life. I see no reason to assume that he was “snubbing” her.
It is my humble opinion that Mr. Arroyo feels this way because of his great love of Mother Angelica, not because “he was miffed that he could not represent her.” The latter is attributing an emotion to him that is uncharitable.
J
Joysong
Guest
For someone who objects to taking a thread off topic, you are doing a pretty good job here, rlg. Seems to me the forum rules suggest using PM’s for off-topic content.
I listen quite often to the mass on EWTN, and I have not seen this bias from the clergy who are the celebrants.
Not so silly, since it is well known that these two would be officiating on EWTN, as they have many times in the past. They are the anchors of the network’s broadcasting. Their reporting is also well known to any who have observed it, so it is very possible the dissension they generate with their bias was taken into consideration by the planners, who may have wrongly attributed their type of reporting to Mother’s influence, rather than to the two themselves. As I said, they cast a pall over the network and Mother herself.
I listen quite often to the mass on EWTN, and I have not seen this bias from the clergy who are the celebrants.
We’ll never know, will we? All we can do is conjecture.
It is simply conjecture, rlg. You are having a field day with your put-downs. Read his own words and tell me that he himself was not ‘attributing an uncharitable emotion’ to the planners?
Now please get back on topic and if you have any further demoralizing comments, kindly take it to PM.
E
Esperance
Guest
Joysong, what part of the coverage do you specifically dislike, and are you saying that they practiced defamation? Were there specific comments? Also, is it just because of your feelings of the papal coverage by Arroyo that you feel that the Church should not recognize Mother Angelica for her life work? Just curious…
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I have no opinion on the reporting but I join the call for you to get off that subject on this thread. You seem rather sour about things. If you wish to bash the reporters start another thread please.
CDL
J
Joysong
Guest
Esperance,
To reply to your questions, I believe Mother has done a wonderful service to Catholics in establishing the network, and I recognize that and applaud it. As I said, I watch the network regularly. But a papal visit is not the time, nor the place, to recognize her work; neither would it be appropriate to publicly uphold the charitable works of many others in the church who have given extraordinary service. I don’t believe Mother would want specific recognition – it’s called ‘humility.’
As for the comments, it is difficult to retrace in exact wording because the thread was deleted.
I personally recall hearing, with respect to the mass, “multicultural exhibitionism” for example.
To reply to your questions, I believe Mother has done a wonderful service to Catholics in establishing the network, and I recognize that and applaud it. As I said, I watch the network regularly. But a papal visit is not the time, nor the place, to recognize her work; neither would it be appropriate to publicly uphold the charitable works of many others in the church who have given extraordinary service. I don’t believe Mother would want specific recognition – it’s called ‘humility.’
As for the comments, it is difficult to retrace in exact wording because the thread was deleted.
I personally recall hearing, with respect to the mass, “multicultural exhibitionism” for example.
T
the_phoenix
Guest
This is what I’ve taken away from the blog entry in the OP, which echoes my sentiments exactly:
As for Arroyo and Rev. Newhaus, as one who does not have cable tv and so am not a regular watcher of EWTN, I was pleasantly surprised to come across them on the EWTN webpage containing Archived Video & Audio Clips of the Papal visit.
I have not watched the DC Mass.
From what I have seen, Arroyo and Rev. Newhaus strike me as being conservative and loyal to the Pope.
As for whether they might also be “traditionalist,” I would require further definition of the term “traditionalist” and proof as to whether these two commentators fit that definition.
In closing, Happy Birthday Mother Angelica! Love and prayers for you!
:clapping: :tiphat: 
~~ the phoenix
I do not fault the Pope for not specifically mentioning or honoring Mother Angelica, for the simple reason that I do not know all the details.
As for Arroyo and Rev. Newhaus, as one who does not have cable tv and so am not a regular watcher of EWTN, I was pleasantly surprised to come across them on the EWTN webpage containing Archived Video & Audio Clips of the Papal visit.
I have not watched the DC Mass.
From what I have seen, Arroyo and Rev. Newhaus strike me as being conservative and loyal to the Pope.
As for whether they might also be “traditionalist,” I would require further definition of the term “traditionalist” and proof as to whether these two commentators fit that definition.
In closing, Happy Birthday Mother Angelica! Love and prayers for you!
:clapping: :tiphat: ~~ the phoenix
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
No, I do not see it as being snubbed. It is no easy feat to have events in Alabama when the main focus of this trip was the UN visit. It was determined this was not the time to play favorites. BXVI reached out to all Catholics, not just the EWTN subset of Catholics.
Z
zagjames
Guest
Well they were commentating not reporting so…
- Status