R
ringil
Guest
I wonder how folks here would be responding if the Pope where inviting Herman Cain or Sean Hannity?
I’m guessing . . . . that’d be different.
I’m guessing . . . . that’d be different.
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Well, sure. If the pope meets with people who are likely to agree with Catholic doctrine, it wouldn’t be news. It’s that these people are generally not in agreement that makes it newsy.
R
ringil
Guest
What makes you say that Cain and/or Hannity would be more in line with Catholic doctrine?
I am sure the Pope would take issue with many stances taken by the American Right- that’s why the Holy Father makes them so nervous. Just look around CAF.
A
annem
Guest
CatholicShelia
How many souls have been lost because they followed her? How many no longer follow Christ because of her?
And David Geffen? Incredible.
But of course we all must go out and meet with people who are truly lost. And Pope Francis especially.
Still, it is deeply disturbing, and could so easily encourage those who don’t know much about these people to start to listen to them, which would be disastrous.
All we can do is pray.
God bless, Annem
You are so right. Oprah is a true believer in Deepak Chopra and has pushed that New Age guru and a dozen others of similar worship-yourself-New-Agey types down America’s throat. Deepak Chopra hates Christianity above all things, and has done his level best to push people away from Christ, and into his vague mumbo-jumbo of New Age, and Hinduism.
How many souls have been lost because they followed her? How many no longer follow Christ because of her?
And David Geffen? Incredible.
But of course we all must go out and meet with people who are truly lost. And Pope Francis especially.
Still, it is deeply disturbing, and could so easily encourage those who don’t know much about these people to start to listen to them, which would be disastrous.
All we can do is pray.
God bless, Annem
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
You make a very good point. If the Vatican seeks these people out, their level of importance increases in the public’s eye and people might be more apt to follow them and the people and ideas they promote.
M
Mongo
Guest
I don’t know about Herman Cain, but hannity is catholic and he has mentioned it several times on his show.
M
Mongo
Guest
This doesn’t make sense to me. All I can think is ‘don’t cast pearls before swine.’ Why would he waste his time on people who won’t listen?
meltzerboy
New member
Maybe the Pope realizes just how powerful television and social media are, and this a means of getting the Church’s message out to reach many more people around the world. What’s wrong with that?
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Hannity has openly dissented from Catholic teaching. A Catholic priest called him out on it on one of Hannity’s shows.
Source:
catholicexchange.com/hannity-and-repentance
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I wish they would have had the exchange during the interview in the article. I know Hannity is Catholic, but I have not heard him speak much on the teachings of the Church. I am surprised Fr. Morris defended Hannity and not the Church. I agreed with the article otherwise.
A
AndyP2014
Guest
Ding Ding Ding we have a winner
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
We are told that the Pope has not watched tv in 25 years so this must be the work of his advisers.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11628348/Pope-Francis-has-not-watched-television-since-1990.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11628348/Pope-Francis-has-not-watched-television-since-1990.html
8
808Catholic
Guest
If the Pope has not watched American TV for 25 years, he’s doubly blessed!
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, excellent point~If the Pope has not watched American TV for 25 years, he’s doubly blessed!
Mary.
M
MacBP
Guest
Very long overdue.
For many people, their primary (and perhaps sole) exposure to the institution of the Catholic Church is through movies and television. That depiction is almost universally awful and has serious consequences for any evangelism effort. Why would anyone want to join the Catholic Church if the only thing you knew about it was that it was bad news? Or, taking it one step removed, why would you want to listen to anyone asking you to consider joining an organization which you think is so many bad news? Is it no wonder that a not inconsiderable amount of young people seem to feel that the Church is responsible for nothing but war, violence and human misery. That is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of the Catholic Church and Catholic history, but people can only know what they know. Getting a fair depiction of the Church in the media would be a great boon to Catholics everywhere.
If you want to know why its important to have a positive Catholic Presence, look no further than the wild success of the LGBT movement. They’ve been very, very, very good at having the media adopt their narrative while their opponents have been just awful. And so the opposition was crushed. Interestingly enough the pro-abortion lobby has been surprisingly listless when it comes to advancing their narrative in the media, and as a result they stall and continue to sputter in the US.
For many people, their primary (and perhaps sole) exposure to the institution of the Catholic Church is through movies and television. That depiction is almost universally awful and has serious consequences for any evangelism effort. Why would anyone want to join the Catholic Church if the only thing you knew about it was that it was bad news? Or, taking it one step removed, why would you want to listen to anyone asking you to consider joining an organization which you think is so many bad news? Is it no wonder that a not inconsiderable amount of young people seem to feel that the Church is responsible for nothing but war, violence and human misery. That is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of the Catholic Church and Catholic history, but people can only know what they know. Getting a fair depiction of the Church in the media would be a great boon to Catholics everywhere.
If you want to know why its important to have a positive Catholic Presence, look no further than the wild success of the LGBT movement. They’ve been very, very, very good at having the media adopt their narrative while their opponents have been just awful. And so the opposition was crushed. Interestingly enough the pro-abortion lobby has been surprisingly listless when it comes to advancing their narrative in the media, and as a result they stall and continue to sputter in the US.
H
HCTC
Guest
In my opinion, Pope Francis just needs to keep on doing what he’s doing - for as long as he can do it. The impact that he is having on the world by generously sharing his authentic self is already improving media coverage… and better media coverage is way down the list of all the good that he does…
H
Hazen_Pingree
Guest
In 2011, Oprah left ABC and formed her own network (OWN). Leading up to her final season, her ratings dumped. Her final season, however gave her a rebound. Nonetheless, either she or ABC decided not to continue with her program. Since the time of the switch, she has lost a measure of influence with mainstream audiences. Judge Judy now commands a bigger percentage of viewers in the former time slot – perhaps the pope should arrange for a meeting with the Judge.
The fact is, these people (Oprah, Judge Judy, Jon Stewart, Matt Lauer, Kelly Ripa, and the list goes on and on) are show biz personalities. They are well-coiffed, well manicured masks created by producers who work for the networks – and that’s who owns them. The network’s game is ratings. If your ratings are good, you get more and better paying advertisers. So, to boost ratings, the networks encourage their “talent” to doand say things that are naughty or funny or controversial – Oprah, for instance, was particularly adept at promoting the LGBT agenda by her careful choice of colorful guests and staging frequent discussions on the subject. People would tune in because of the shock value (Is HE gay? I don’t believe it!). It’s a game played for ratings. That Oprah believes in these causes herself is beside the point. The point is to sell soap and comsmetics and dietary supplements.
But for the Vatican to determine that these actors are somehow important influences in American culture as it relates to the Church is misguided. Even if these personalities were “evangelized” by the pope (as has been discussed on this thread), believe me, they would turn on him – and Christ – in a heartbeat if the networks smelled blood. Again, the game is ratings. Television is a circus. The pope should not be turned into a clown.
The fact is, these people (Oprah, Judge Judy, Jon Stewart, Matt Lauer, Kelly Ripa, and the list goes on and on) are show biz personalities. They are well-coiffed, well manicured masks created by producers who work for the networks – and that’s who owns them. The network’s game is ratings. If your ratings are good, you get more and better paying advertisers. So, to boost ratings, the networks encourage their “talent” to doand say things that are naughty or funny or controversial – Oprah, for instance, was particularly adept at promoting the LGBT agenda by her careful choice of colorful guests and staging frequent discussions on the subject. People would tune in because of the shock value (Is HE gay? I don’t believe it!). It’s a game played for ratings. That Oprah believes in these causes herself is beside the point. The point is to sell soap and comsmetics and dietary supplements.
But for the Vatican to determine that these actors are somehow important influences in American culture as it relates to the Church is misguided. Even if these personalities were “evangelized” by the pope (as has been discussed on this thread), believe me, they would turn on him – and Christ – in a heartbeat if the networks smelled blood. Again, the game is ratings. Television is a circus. The pope should not be turned into a clown.
M
Midwest88
Guest
The Pope works in mysterious ways. We may not understand or agree but he is our Pope and we must support him in his efforts to “bridge” the Catholic Church with the secular!
That was part sarcasm.
That was part sarcasm.
M
Midwest88
Guest
bold: Awful in what sense? I’ll say that the opponents don’t have the media on their side, so that’s the awful thing. The media drives whatever narrative that makes their heart flutter. What the opponents are awful at is forming a face that wasn’t what the media gave them - they let the media form their own face/identity; they let the media dictate the tone, pace and all definitions used during debates.
So no, the opponents weren’t “awful.” The opponents were out-smarted and lacked momentum - the cultural tide/zeitgeist was on the social “progressives” side.
- Status