Praising Trump on Catholic Answers Radio

[Maxirad]

When the admittedly disgraced John Corapi was still in priestly ministry, he acknowledged surrendering his tax-exempt status. This link is worth checking out.

 

[phil19034]

I’m not Psychologist by any means, though my sister is a practicing consular. But if again we keep out of basic politics, he objectively meets the profile of a narcissist, a very adept one too. I there are of course plenty of people taken by his “tell it like it is” attitude or charm.

What I think should concern anyone,though, even if you like his general policies, is that he sticks to what he says. It’s not hard to pull up public video footage where he says one thing and the switches to the other side. Yes good leaders should be capable of this, but it should represent a real change in either core values or ones that help adapt to identified goals.

Are really good example of this is him crossing the boarder with Kim Jong Un recently. The North Korean leader has done nothing to deserve this honor. Trump knew a photo op when he saw one and will add this one to his brag bag, but again he never accomplished anything substantive.

Perhaps. But I would argue that there are A LOT of narcissists in American Politics - Congress is filled with them.

The only difference is that SOME narcissists are better at hiding it because they are polished speakers. But they are still narcissists, none the less.

I mean, let be honest - the 2016 Presidential election had two candidates- both Hillary & Trump are arguably narcissistic in nature.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

I’m sorry, but I don’t find either one of them to be “extremely political.” Patrick Madrid is not a Trump fan. Yes, he is “conservative,” but he’s NOT a registered Republican. He’s also has expressed on the air issues that he has with Republicans.

For example: Patrick is very pro-immigration. He wants reforms that makes it easier for people to LEGALLY immigrate to the US. However, he’s very against illegal immigration.

Truth is, I’ve never heard Patrick or Sheila Liaugminas say anything that does not line up with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Their true political loyalties lie with the Catechism.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

I hate how Cy Kellet and Tim Staples keep trying to turn Catholic Answers into Fox News and the Praise Trump hour. I come to Catholic Answers to get away from the onslaught of Fox News that I have to put up with in my house. (FTR, I went third party in 2016 because I didn’t like either Trump or Clinton, so there.)

Catholic Answers Live tapes every single one of their episodes. Could you please provide a date, hour, and minute where they do a “praise Trump hour?”

Unless you can provide an example, I’m sorry but I do not find this to be true.

They might praise his policies, but most Catholics in Catholic Radio understand Trump’s character flaws.

 

[phil19034]

Yet he finds the time to whinge about George Sauros (or however his name is spelt), which is a typical conservative talking point that I hear enough elsewhere (As I believe that I have said elsewhere: I listen to both major sides on a general basis, although I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC because they are more or less stations dedicated to one wing or the other).

If you don’t find him political, then I would first ask what your own political leanings are. If you tend to agree with him politically in the first place (I don’t know if you do. I’m simply raising the question), you may be less likely to find him to be particularly political.

For example: Patrick is very pro-immigration.

So is the Church in general. What’s your point? Why ought he to be applauded for this.
[/quote]

George Soros is a very nefarious figure because he is spending millions of dollars to undermine the Catholic Church. He is behind a number of so called “Catholic” groups which have a goal of changing Catholic doctrine and dogma.

Anything that Patrick says about George Soros isn’t because of his political position, but because George Soros is doing everything in his power to fund organizations that are trying to change Church dogma.

I can list the groups, but I will have to google them again (as I don’t remember all of them off the top of my head) But I do know he’s has funded a “Catholic” group that argues that abortion should not be considered a sin. He’s also behind a number of other dissent groups trying to change the Catholic Church.

 

[PJH_74]

But I would argue that there are A LOT of narcissists in American Politics

To get elected, you have to have high self esteem, confidence, and ability to sell yourself. This is the official definition of a Narcissist:

Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder, according to the DSM-5, exhibit five or more of the following, which are present by early adulthood and across contexts:

• A grandiose sense of self-importance
• Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• Belief that one is special and can only be understood by or associate with special people or institutions
• A need for excessive admiration
• A sense of entitlement (to special treatment)
• Exploitation of others
• A lack of empathy
• Envy of others or the belief that one is the object of envy
• Arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes

The difference to me, compared to any other politician Democrat or Republican, that really stand out are the things like his very thin skin (mentioned elsewhere in the article) e.g. petty twitter wars, continuous use of superlatives, how he’s the special person who will resolve the world’s most intractable problems, his random “personal” associations with strange characters not normal for a POTUS, his endless talking about himself (to the point he has to be cutoff sometimes) on even explicitly friendly shows, etc.

Why I would not consider our previous ones meeting this clinical diagnosis? Things like how Obama did not lash out at the Birthers and when Bin Laden was killed he came to a podium, stated the facts, took no questions, and he really never mentioned it again. Bush too keep his composure with his many critics and he has a notorious self-deprecating sense of humor. You also see this in how often previous Presidents call on each other for advice no matter the party; something I understand Trump has yet to do. Apparently Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. became best of friends for example.

 

[phil19034]

I like Drew too.

But I really don’t understand what your beef is with Patrick. Illegal immigration is a sin. Both for the person breaking the law and for the nations that have conditions that are causing it.

Our immigration policies/procedures are terribly outdated and NEITHER party is doing anything about it. The Democrats do NOT want to fix the immigration policies because illegal immigration makes Republicans look bad. And Republicans have a vocal minority who are legitimately against immigration. So instead of making policy changes to eliminate and reduce illegal immigration, both parties are fighting over what do with people who come here illegally.

We need immigration reform so we can use modern technology to speed up the process and allow families to be reunited.

For example: there is a woman who lives in my neighborhood with her son. However, her husband is not a citizen and never properly applied to legal residency. So he currently lives in another country. These situations should not happen. It should be easy for married couples to apply for residency and not resort to doing so illegally.

But again - NO ONE wants to fix the laws & system. Elements in BOTH parties like the broken system.

And in regards to Patrick, yes, he will flat out admit that he is conservative (as are most people who attend daily mass), but he is not a Republican and has issues with the Republican Party as well as the Democrats.

 

[steve-b]

JimR-OCDS:

Praising any politician in this forum should be avoided, especially when trying to defend a political ideology

CAF needs to stay away from “identity politics,” which our divided society is so heavily into.

I agree wholeheartedly. It’s a shame that so many of us American Catholics tend to be split along party lines, instead of what the Church actually teaches. (I know I’ll probably get blasted on here for that comment, but that’s the reality of the situation).

Along those lines, Just a couple of thoughts

According to Georgetown Univ, a Jesuit Univ, they put together some statistics about American Catholics. Apparently only 21% of Catholics go faithfully to Sunday Mass. Ergo 79% of Catholics don’t. Ergo, unless all those Catholics have a good excuse for deliberately missing mass on Sunday, all of them without such excuse is in mortal sin.,

I mention it this way, because if a Catholic doesn’t go to mass faithfully, for sure, they aren’t being instructed continuously, albeit, bits at a time from the pulpit on Sunday. AND my thought also is, how are THEY, who are in in mortal sin, (no sanctifying grace alive in their soul at this point) even able to think and respond Catholic anymore? Secularism not Catholicism, has hold of them.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[Aquinas11]

Well President Trump was the first sitting President to address the March for Life via satellite in its 45 year history, so Catholics have plenty of reason to applaud him.

 

[steve-b]

Well President Trump was the first sitting President to address the March for Life via satellite in its 45 year history, so Catholics have plenty of reason to applaud him.

Add to that, he has appointed to the bench, (Supreme court as well), pro life judges, as he promised.

 

[phil19034]

John Harper doesn’t have that kind of show. He’s show is all about starting the day off nice. He’s like the Catholic version of the “Good Morning America” - no hard news, mostly feel good stuff. (Which is fine - Glen’s Story corner is my favorite)

Patrick’s show is apologetics. With apologetics you cannot avoid the tough teachings because it’s those tough teachings which give people issue with the Church.

Partick is not going to avoid discussing abortion because that is a major apologetics issue.

Shella’s show is all about world issues from the Catholic worldview. So euthanasia, abortion, Planned Parenthood, same-sex marriage, etc are all Catholic Worldview issues. She can’t ignore them and have the type of show that she does.

 

[phil19034]

o any other politician Democrat or Republican, that really stand out are the things like his very thin skin (mentioned elsewhere in the article) e.g. petty twitter wars, continuous use of superlatives, how he’s the special person who will resolve the world’s most intractable problems, his random “personal” associations with strange characters not normal for a POTUS, his endless talking about himself (to the point he has to be cutoff sometimes) on even explicitly friendly shows, etc.

Why I would not consider our previous ones meeting this clinical diagnosis? Things like how Obama did not lash out at the Birthers and when Bin Laden was killed he came to a podium, stated the facts, took no questions, and he really never mentioned it again. Bush too keep his composure with his many critics and he has a notorious self-deprecating sense of humor. You also see this in how often previous

sure… I agree that he is a Narcissist. All I said is that are are many more.

Hillary and AOC (for example) both fit the definition too.

 

[Aquinas11]

Things like how Obama did not lash out at the Birthers and when Bin Laden was killed he came to a podium, stated the facts, took no questions, and he really never mentioned it again

A speech with countless references to “I”…proved he’s a narcissist.

“Tonight, I can report . . .And so, shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These efforts weigh on me every time I , as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s pretty obvious that

• the only control we have over what media airs is writing them a complaining letter and then turning it off, as losing listeners or advertisers is the one thing that motivates media to change;
• they continue to air Trump content, good or bad, because people keep listening to it, talking about it etc, whether that’s because they love the man or hate him;
• there is nothing inherently wrong with praising Trump on Catholic Answers Radio as he has done some things while in office that are very helpful to the pro-life and pro-religious freedom contingent, plus about 50 percent of Catholics probably like him just like 50 percent of the rest of the country likes him; and by the same token there is nothing inherently wrong with criticizing him on CA Radio either except that another group of posters would complain about that.

In this case, turning off the radio or switching to a different station is the strongest message one can send. It is actually a productive act in that it will relieve your own stress AND send a message to CA that you don’t like the content, especially if you accompany it with an e-mail or whatever to CA (not a thread on here, they don’t read this) explaining your position.

I don’t see how commiserating with the OP really makes any sense here. Nor do I see how arguing with the OP makes any sense here.

I stand by what I said and if someone doesn’t find it helpful, they’re entitled to propose something else to the OP. I’m not sure what else you’d suggest - that he go picket the CA office until they agree to stop praising Trump on the radio? Or that we just validate OP’s feelings? I personally couldn’t care less if CA radio praises Trump or not as I don’t listen to it either way.

 

[puppson]

Regardless of party it’s a shame so many influential Catholics–such as a certain celebrity Jesuit–continue to praise and support the election of blatantly pro-abortion / pro- infanticide political candidates.

 

[CTBcin]

Along those lines, Just a couple of thoughts

According to Georgetown Univ, a Jesuit Univ, they put together some statistics about American Catholics. Apparently only 21% of Catholics go faithfully to Sunday Mass. Ergo 79% of Catholics don’t. Ergo, unless all those Catholics have a good excuse for deliberately missing mass on Sunday, all of them without such excuse is in mortal sin.,

I mention it this way, because if a Catholic doesn’t go to mass faithfully, for sure, they aren’t being instructed continuously, albeit, bits at a time from the pulpit on Sunday. AND my thought also is, how are THEY, who are in in mortal sin, (no sanctifying grace alive in their soul at this point) even able to think and respond Catholic anymore? Secularism not Catholicism, has hold of them.

Just thinking out loud.

I agree. Although I do try to give Mass-missing Catholics the benefit of the doubt, as many are probably poorly catechized and don’t realize the gravity of missing Mass, which may lower culpability.

 

[kainosktisis]

I dislike whenever someone reaches for the political church so taxation to be applied status.

The reality is that the Church takes stands on various things - for moral reasons. If they disagree with certain political ideologies, it’s because morally the politics fails, & the Church is obliged to speak out about it. People have their own ideas about morality, & these impact how they see the world, & this, in turn, impacts their politics. Churches are no different. They are bodies of believers.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Along those lines, Just a couple of thoughts

According to Georgetown Univ, a Jesuit Univ, they put together some statistics about American Catholics. Apparently only 21% of Catholics go faithfully to Sunday Mass. Ergo 79% of Catholics don’t. Ergo, unless all those Catholics have a good excuse for deliberately missing mass on Sunday, all of them without such excuse is in mortal sin.,

I mention it this way, because if a Catholic doesn’t go to mass faithfully, for sure, they aren’t being instructed continuously, albeit, bits at a time from the pulpit on Sunday. AND my thought also is, how are THEY, who are in in mortal sin, (no sanctifying grace alive in their soul at this point) even able to think and respond Catholic anymore? Secularism not Catholicism, has hold of them.

Just thinking out loud.

I agree. Although I do try to give Mass-missing Catholics the benefit of the doubt, as many are probably poorly catechized and don’t realize the gravity of missing Mass, which may lower culpability.

Agreed. (may reduce culpability, ≠will reduce culpability)

That’s why the CCC puts this ignorance (let’s say deliberately missing mass on Sunday) , this way

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Thus if a Catholic, even though poorly catechized, takes no responsibility to find out about Sunday mass attendance, and/or routinely blows off mass such that they can’t remember when the last time they attended, or they are a C&E (Christmas and Easter) Catholic, THEN it seems to me, based on the definition above, they are culpable.

Trump for example was pro choice for most of his life. He switched to Pro Life. He obviously put effort into learning what is good that he needed to know,

 

[phil19034]

Let me elaborate by comparing Mr. Madrid to another Relevant Radio host:

I listen to Monsignor Stuart Swetland pretty regularly. There are quite a few areas where we disagree (and I think that he is generally more to the left than I am). For instance, off of the top of my head (and, obviously, this list is not exhaustive):

He accepts body piercings and tattoos as essentially fine, I do not accept that notion in the slightest.

He thinks that the word “mankind” is somehow sexist, I know (and pretty much always have known) that it is not*.
*
The original, core meaning of the word “man” is “human being”, and that meaning existed before the meaning “male human being”. It was only after the original word for “male human being”, which was wermann (equivalent to “were-” + “man”) fell out of use that “man” (or “mann”) started to gain the additional meaning of “male human being”. “woman” is ultimately from Old English wīfmann, which is equivalent to “wife” (which originally meant simply “woman” itself) + “man”.

Those who want to get rid of ancient words like “mankind” that are perfectly good words simply because they don’t understand what they actually mean, and where they actually come from, are quite annoying, I must say. If you don’t understand a word, then learn about it. Don’t shout that it ought to be thrown away if you don’t understand it at all.
I believe that guns ought to be gotten rid of except for use by police officers, military folk, and hunters. He, on the other hand, holds a less stark view on that subject than I do.

He thinks of the United States as “the great experiment”. I, on the other hand, think of the United States as the greatest country that the world has ever known, that ceased being an “experiment” long ago. The only “experimental nature” left is in what is presented in what Benjamin Franklin said: if we can keep it.

…

With all of that said, Monsignor Swetland is quite pleasant to listen to, and when he is on other shows, he brings a lot of balance to the programme.
[/quote]

Yes, Monsignor Swetland is nice to listen to. But he’s a priest. While he sometimes answers apologetic questions, his show isn’t really an apologetics show.

The name of his show, “Go ask your Father” sums it up pretty well. His show give Catholics an opportunity to ask a priest a question. Many people are often afraid to ask priests select questions. Monsignor’s show allows people to do that.

So his show is really different than Patrick’s.

 

[phil19034]

Ok, I will have to take your word for it, because I think he actually does a pretty good job of staying neutral.

I would 100% say that he doesn’t hide his worldview. But I’ve heard him many times not give his real political position until someone has accused him of a position he doesn’t hold.

I’ve never felt he was anything other than Catholic.

He has some political positions that are more in line with the Democrats and other positions that are more inline with Republicans.

Again, just a Catholic Worldview.