E
exoflare
Guest
That poster was being deliberately vague… I saw that episode and what the guest was defending was waterboarding terrorists.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Okay, then defending waterboarding on EWTN seems odd to me.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I saw that, too. Yes, it is odd.
I thought of Christ’s Passion.
Can’t see Christ defending waterboarding or any other such treatment of another human being.
I turned the show off for the sake of Christ’s Passion.
M
manualman
Guest
I don’t have cable and haven’t seen him. But I have read his Mother Angelica biography and didn’t get a “Rush Limbaugh” impression (I was once a dittohead, so THAT I can relate to).
So he, ON EWTN, sounds like a righty on immigration? Build a wall and deport 'em all kind of rhetoric? Really? That’s a shame and I’m disappointed.
On torture, can we define that? I think one of our problems in America is that we talk past each other a lot by using the same words but with different definitions. I’m absolutely against torture. I define torture as physical harm and injury inflicted on someone in order to coerce them into providing information or complying with a request.
I do NOT consider forcing a bunch of guys to strip naked, put underwear on their heads and get into a human pyramid for demeaning pictures to be torture. Not even if you threaten to show that picture to their mullahs. Add beatings or outright sexual abuse and it IS torture. See the difference?
Nor do I consider it torture to isolate a prisoner that is suspecting of having critical information and to disorient him via loud music, irregular hours, sleep deprivation and lack of sunlight so as to get him to slip up and provide the needed information. This kind of thing SHOULD be limited to those who OBVIOUSLY have crucial information needed to stop terrorism and save lives. (aka guys caught in the act)
I have yet to hear a straight description of what waterboarding really is, so it’s hard for me to decide. If it is just a scare tactic with no physical harm, is it really torture? Sure, I hear it is terrifying and I hope it never happens to me. But think of it this way. What if they’d caught one of those guys pre9/11 at a flight school? What if he knew the 9/11 plans and could have revealed it to us if he was sufficiently SCARED? To me, there is an ENORMOUS difference between fear tactic interrogation and torture. I wish I understood which side of the line waterboarding fell on.
I DO know this. If we catch terrorists either beforehand or afterwards and simply put them in a comfortable locked room with cable TV and 3 nutritious meals a day provided, we are NEVER going to get information needed to stop attacks before they happen. We may have some success prosecuting them afterwards, but precious little prevention. There has to be some level of scary and unpleasant interrogation of known terrorists or we will be playing catchup after the fact with these guys forever.
Does that make me a right wing nut job too? Were Arroyo’s CIA guest’s ideas similar? Anybody actually comprehend what waterboarding is?
So he, ON EWTN, sounds like a righty on immigration? Build a wall and deport 'em all kind of rhetoric? Really? That’s a shame and I’m disappointed.
On torture, can we define that? I think one of our problems in America is that we talk past each other a lot by using the same words but with different definitions. I’m absolutely against torture. I define torture as physical harm and injury inflicted on someone in order to coerce them into providing information or complying with a request.
I do NOT consider forcing a bunch of guys to strip naked, put underwear on their heads and get into a human pyramid for demeaning pictures to be torture. Not even if you threaten to show that picture to their mullahs. Add beatings or outright sexual abuse and it IS torture. See the difference?
Nor do I consider it torture to isolate a prisoner that is suspecting of having critical information and to disorient him via loud music, irregular hours, sleep deprivation and lack of sunlight so as to get him to slip up and provide the needed information. This kind of thing SHOULD be limited to those who OBVIOUSLY have crucial information needed to stop terrorism and save lives. (aka guys caught in the act)
I have yet to hear a straight description of what waterboarding really is, so it’s hard for me to decide. If it is just a scare tactic with no physical harm, is it really torture? Sure, I hear it is terrifying and I hope it never happens to me. But think of it this way. What if they’d caught one of those guys pre9/11 at a flight school? What if he knew the 9/11 plans and could have revealed it to us if he was sufficiently SCARED? To me, there is an ENORMOUS difference between fear tactic interrogation and torture. I wish I understood which side of the line waterboarding fell on.
I DO know this. If we catch terrorists either beforehand or afterwards and simply put them in a comfortable locked room with cable TV and 3 nutritious meals a day provided, we are NEVER going to get information needed to stop attacks before they happen. We may have some success prosecuting them afterwards, but precious little prevention. There has to be some level of scary and unpleasant interrogation of known terrorists or we will be playing catchup after the fact with these guys forever.
Does that make me a right wing nut job too? Were Arroyo’s CIA guest’s ideas similar? Anybody actually comprehend what waterboarding is?
E
Elsport1
Guest
One of the wonderful things about being Catholic is that the church doesn’t dictate our every thought. The church allows us to form our own opinions on many subjects. Raymond Arroyo is exercising that prerogative. If you don’t like his opinions don’t listen to him.
D
dsears
Guest
I have to completly agree, and not only that I do really like his world over program. (I don’t get to watch it much becaue we don’t get EWTN here and I am normally doing homework on my computer. (or on here
) But then again I’m pretty right winged so I guess I would enjoy his program. 
M
Marie5890
Guest
I understand your point.
I just can’t see Christ being supportive of any of the examples you gave. Sorry.
Doesn’t sound the Man I have come to know as My Lord and Savior.
I try (and often fail) and form my opinions and views based on what He thinks. Not what I, others, cultures, or even pundits think.
D
DChacon
Guest
if you’re a democrat or republican it matters not, if you’re a Catholic you cannot be for abortion, gay rights or marriage, communism, or any type of evil, it doesn’t matter what your personal believes are cause once you take the road of Jesus you cannot be for anything that is not good.
it saddens me to say that yes the party of Kennedy has taken the dark road and they are doing the devil’s work, there are only a very few democrats that are pro-life and stand up against evil so that just leaves one other option thats the other party which is mostly pro-life an not anti-God. Ramon Arroyo is a Catholic that is just being true to the faith and he will never (as I) embrace the dark side, i will never ever support the left party ever again specially after all the times they have spit in the faces of us true Catholics.
it saddens me to say that yes the party of Kennedy has taken the dark road and they are doing the devil’s work, there are only a very few democrats that are pro-life and stand up against evil so that just leaves one other option thats the other party which is mostly pro-life an not anti-God. Ramon Arroyo is a Catholic that is just being true to the faith and he will never (as I) embrace the dark side, i will never ever support the left party ever again specially after all the times they have spit in the faces of us true Catholics.
“…Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 117, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Reconstruction of the Social Order, May 15, 1931
“…no Catholic [can] subscribe even to moderate Socialism.”
MATER ET MAGISTRA, 34, Pope John XXIII
On Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961
“Socialists…debase the natural union of man and woman…the [family] bond they…deliver up to lust. Lured…by the greed of present goods…they assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title, by labor, or by thrift.”
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
On Socialism, December 28, 1878
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 117, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Reconstruction of the Social Order, May 15, 1931
“…no Catholic [can] subscribe even to moderate Socialism.”
MATER ET MAGISTRA, 34, Pope John XXIII
On Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961
“Socialists…debase the natural union of man and woman…the [family] bond they…deliver up to lust. Lured…by the greed of present goods…they assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title, by labor, or by thrift.”
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
On Socialism, December 28, 1878
P
pnewton
Guest
Your’re right. But even though it is doctrine of the Church and not dogma, on is obliged to attempt to form their conscience by understanding the mind of the Church when one must dissent for matters of conscience.
R
rep140
Guest
“Socialists…debase the natural union of man and woman…the [family] bond they…deliver up to lust. Lured…by the greed of present goods…they assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title, by labor, or by thrift.”
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
On Socialism, December 28, 1878
If you read about the very early Church you will see that they were like a 60’s and 70’s commune.
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
On Socialism, December 28, 1878
If you read about the very early Church you will see that they were like a 60’s and 70’s commune.
M
mark_a
Guest
B
Brendan
Guest
Remember, the USCCB tried to take over EWTN, and when it couldn’t do that, it tried to shut it out of the cable systems.I used to like Raymond Arroyo, but now I can not bring myself to watch his show. I watched a show were I thought he was very disrespectful of the USCCB. Maybe I am too old school, but part of being Catholic is following the leadership of one’s bishop.
So I can imagine someone from EWTN having a measure of distrust for the USCCB.
B
Brendan
Guest
Well, the entire premise of Socialism is to share someone else’s goods in common 
D
djeter
Guest
I think taking political vocabulary (left/right wing, etc.) and applying it to the Church is a leap off a cliff one shouldn’t make. Linger a moment, if you might…
Raymond, like many Catholics, is a supporter of Catholic Social Theory and doctrines such as Subsidiarity . The social teaching of the Church is based on the human person as the principle, subject and object of every social organization. Subsidiarity is one of the core principles of this teaching. This principle holds that human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected pesons.
It is easiest to begin with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which enunciates the principle of subsidiarity in the context of man’s social nature. When the principle of subsidiarity is ignored, governments often overstep their bounds in managing matters best handled on a more local or individual level. Typically this decreases economy, efficiency, liberty and the personal character of the social order. You will find that this is probably the core reason why Raymond opposes the Obama Health Care reforms, along with the pro abortion framework it introduces. I know he has mentioned it a couple of times in programs I have watched.
Now to rope that in with Rush Limbaugh’s opposition to ObamaCare is another piece of fruitcake. You appear to making a point but in reality have mushed the apples with the oranges. Time to get out of the kitchen…
dj
Raymond, like many Catholics, is a supporter of Catholic Social Theory and doctrines such as Subsidiarity . The social teaching of the Church is based on the human person as the principle, subject and object of every social organization. Subsidiarity is one of the core principles of this teaching. This principle holds that human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected pesons.
It is easiest to begin with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which enunciates the principle of subsidiarity in the context of man’s social nature. When the principle of subsidiarity is ignored, governments often overstep their bounds in managing matters best handled on a more local or individual level. Typically this decreases economy, efficiency, liberty and the personal character of the social order. You will find that this is probably the core reason why Raymond opposes the Obama Health Care reforms, along with the pro abortion framework it introduces. I know he has mentioned it a couple of times in programs I have watched.
Now to rope that in with Rush Limbaugh’s opposition to ObamaCare is another piece of fruitcake. You appear to making a point but in reality have mushed the apples with the oranges. Time to get out of the kitchen…
dj
S
shannyk
Guest
I agree about Mr Arroyo completely.
Honestly, where can an orthodox Catholic find objective and relevant news commentary? not anywhere I’m aware of.
Honestly, where can an orthodox Catholic find objective and relevant news commentary? not anywhere I’m aware of.
M
mark_a
Guest
Well put.
U
unafraid
Guest
Well put?!! Also, I appear to making a point?!! One thing that I am not ever accused of is being ambiguous. Raymond Arroyo is not a sancrosant entity within the Catholic media. Perhaps his political agenda does great harm to EWTN and Mother Angelica? As Mother’s health wanes, who moves in to feed off of the corpus she has built out of simple dignity? Ray Arroyo? I shall never forget the time my wife and I brought the girls to my late mother’s home to watch the ceremonies regarding the death of Pope John Paul II. The way that Ray and Father Richard John Neuhaus commented on that sacred moment led my mother to comment that those two sounded like a couple of, "effeminate drama critics, critiquing a performance of “Lady Windermwere’s Fan”. Is Ray Arroyo the heir apparent to the great Mother Angelica? I sure hope not.
R
rep140
Guest
Remember, the USCCB tried to take over EWTN, and when it couldn’t do that, it tried to shut it out of the cable systems.
So I can imagine someone from EWTN having a measure of distrust for the USCCB.
I’m tired of the catechism of EWTN. Give me the bishops, my pastor, and the Pope.
So I can imagine someone from EWTN having a measure of distrust for the USCCB.
I’m tired of the catechism of EWTN. Give me the bishops, my pastor, and the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
I don’t get it. I have one poster defending Raymond Arroyo because political slant is allowable on a news commentator show. Now you say he is objective. It can’t be both.
I am inclined to agree that he crosses the line of objectivity into his own political view points quite often, as do other such news commentary programs. Yes, he is orthodox, but I see him going beyond Catholic teaching, though not against it. In this instance, it is understandable that other orthodox Catholics would wish to avoid the program because of its political ideology.
- Status