Sean Hannity faces-off with Priest who calls him heretic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrismasfetus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
christianley said:
I’m tired of hearing that. I think most people have been properly taught their faith and are ignoring it. The doctrine on birth control seems to have been around forever. I knew what Catholics taught about birth control even when I was a non-Catholic young boy. People like Hannity are just finding excuses to skirt church teaching. They simply lack faith in the church, but that’s a much different thing than being improperly taught. A man Hannity’s age has had more than enough time to educate himself. I’ve heard him on his radio show fawning all over Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell. He’s a closet evangelical.
Click to expand...
Once second thought, I think the fact that you are tired of hearing that people are not properly taught is very telling. It reflects an judgemental and impatient attitude that people who consider themselves orthodox (Was “serious catholic” that you called it Setter?) to have for those whom they consider to be inadequately catholic.

What is there to be tired of? If someone claims to not have been taught, what a great opportunity to teach them something? Even if you have to do it 100 times! How many times have you ignored your faith? How many times will you ignore your faith today? What opprtunity for patience, kindness, charity, prayer, etc., will you, will all of us miss today? And how many times will God take us back, pathetic as we are, and try to teach us, what He has already taught us 100 times?

In addition, it is not your place to determine the motives of Sean or anyone else. You may say that their actions are objectively wrong, but you cannot know what is in anyone’s heart. That kind of judgement is reserved for God alone. God will determine whether Sean is a closet evangelical, is genuinely ignorant, is trying to skirt around the truth, or whatever. The saints have always taught us to be hard on no one but ourselves. Worry about the log in your own eye, but makes lots and lots of excuses for other people.

Kendy
 
Kendy said:
Most people don’t around reading additional sources. Oh, there’s a crazy idea, How about a challenging, relevant, and interesting homily once in a while? There’s a once a week opportunity to teach people something.
Click to expand...
I agree in part, but to those of use who live in a world with so many ways to know what is true what is lacking is not only Shepherding, but a lack of desire to grow in holiness.

**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.
I don’t know how I implied that we should become indifferent. I said, we should simply “gently help them along.” I never suugested that we keep people ignorant, only that we assume that they are not ignorant out of malice.
Click to expand...
In general I agree. In specific cases that needs to be adjusted. That is called prudence.
 
Kendy said:
And everyday, he gets up and tells them use birth control?
Click to expand...
Yes he does! He rationalizes this by saying it is better to use birth control rather than getting abortions. Sean Hannity thinks the Church is wrong on this and has said so for many years, but yet a few on this forum still side with him.

Sean even calls Mormons good Christians. They may be good people, but they aren’t christians. Sean seems to have more respect for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell than he does for Catholic clergy.

Millions of people look up to this liberal masquerading as a conservative, and follow his rants.

How can this heretic still receive communion? HOW??? What is the name of his priest and bishop and what parish/archdiocese?
Texas_Roofer said:
Mike did not obfuscate, Father errored in the interview in regard to birth control. The US Bishop publications do not agree with what Father stated. I can not post the US Bishops reference from work but if I can remember I’ll post it from home. The error was in using “birth control” in place of “contraception” or better when address non Catholics “artificial methods of contraception” Mr Hannity was correct in that regard however that was not the issue Father was intending to discuss.
Click to expand...
NFP is NOT artificial birth control. People that practice NFP have left themselves open to the will of God.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Mike did not obfuscate, Father errored in the interview in regard to birth control. The US Bishop publications do not agree with what Father stated. I can not post the US Bishops reference from work but if I can remember I’ll post it from home. The error was in using “birth control” in place of “contraception” or better when address non Catholics “artificial methods of contraception” Mr Hannity was correct in that regard however that was not the issue Father was intending to discuss.
Click to expand...
This is rather confusing. Could you clarify it?
 
Beyrak said:
NFP is NOT artificial birth control. People that practice NFP have left themselves open to the will of God.
Click to expand...
Artificial, no, maybe not. Can NFP be used as a form of birth control? Yes, it certainly can.

Pls read the part on the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM)

ccli.org/nfp
 
But the thing is, a natural ‘birth spacing’ or as we used to call it, ‘periodic continence’, is not ‘birth control’, not in the sense of what we call ‘artificial birth control’.

Any sexual action in marriage must be open to the will of God. That being said, there is no reason why one cannot chose when to have sexual relations based on a whole host of reasons, including that of wishing to avoid relations in the ‘fertile’ time, provided those reasons are ‘reasonable’. To spend one’s entire life as a ‘fertile’ couple assiduously avoiding any theoretically ‘fertile day’, and excusing it as “we’re doing it naturally” is bogus. But because a tiny percentage of people ‘may’ do this, does not invalidate the process itself. After all, we cannot know the hearts of others, nor assume to judge them based simply on ‘outward’ appearances, can we? 😃

And believe me, one can ‘get pregnant’ even if one is using NFP carefully and correctly. It is rare, but it happens. There is normal ‘human’ error, there are unforeseen hormonal changes, etc. But because one is open to life, one does not see the pregnancy as a mistake (which is basically the mindset of those who conceive while supposedly ‘safe’ with artificial contraception)–one sees it as a gift and an opportunity to love God’s newest little soul.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
But the thing is, a natural ‘birth spacing’ or as we used to call it, ‘periodic continence’, is not ‘birth control’, not in the sense of what we call ‘artificial birth control’.
Click to expand...
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck. Sorry, if you use NFP to gauge your fertility and choose not have sex during that time to avoid pregnancy, then it is a form of birth control, albeit not artificial.
 
With respect, no, it is not. One always has the choice when and how to engage in sexual relations within the martial construct. Unlike certain mammals, there is no ‘estrus’ for humans. With the gift of reason, we can choose when to engage in sexual relations, and we are not forced to choose ‘only’ from fertile times. As I said, those who would ‘only’ choose non fertile times and none other all throughout their fertile lives, specifically to avoid pregnancy, are a tiny minority who abuse the God-given right of reason and the proper way to approach the issues of fertility.

And even here, there is always a ‘chance’ for conception if there is no artificial barrier.

I do wonder about those who are so eager to see only the rare, the theoretic, the ‘ones who abuse’ the privilege and argue that, because there is this ‘chance’, therefore the entire teaching itself should be shunned.

Are you then arguing that, in order to be ‘fully open’, all married couples must engage in sex during fertile times, or during fertile times alone, regardless of their own feelings? Surely you aren’t suggesting that men and women must live totally ‘heedlessly’, never even bothering to notice fertility? We are never–never, told to live life heedlessly as Christians. In fact, we are told to be careful stewards. This disconnect, where in one ‘function’ it appears that, unless we live totally without care for biological functions we are ‘sinful’, is ridiculous to me.

As a diabetic, do I live totally heedlessly, certain that if it is God’s will I die or become physically impaired due to diabetic ketoacidosis, I will do so, so don’t bother to eat properly, exercise, etc.?

Do I leave my job and consign everything ‘to God’ without any thought for the morrow, certain that He will allow me to live comfortably no matter what?

Then why on earth would two people be willynilly forced into sexual relations without any thought for the consequences, just because ‘some people’ think that any consideration thereto is ‘birth control’ and that if artificial birth control is condemned, then surely this other must be condemned as well. . .
 
Tantum_ergo said:
With respect, no, it is not. One always has the choice when and how to engage in sexual relations within the martial construct. Unlike certain mammals, there is no ‘estrus’ for humans. With the gift of reason, we can choose when to engage in sexual relations, and we are not forced to choose ‘only’ from fertile times. As I said, those who would ‘only’ choose non fertile times and none other all throughout their fertile lives, specifically to avoid pregnancy, are a tiny minority who abuse the God-given right of reason and the proper way to approach the issues of fertility.

And even here, there is always a ‘chance’ for conception if there is no artificial barrier.

I do wonder about those who are so eager to see only the rare, the theoretic, the ‘ones who abuse’ the privilege and argue that, because there is this ‘chance’, therefore the entire teaching itself should be shunned.

Are you then arguing that, in order to be ‘fully open’, all married couples must engage in sex during fertile times, or during fertile times alone, regardless of their own feelings? Surely you aren’t suggesting that men and women must live totally ‘heedlessly’, never even bothering to notice fertility? We are never–never, told to live life heedlessly as Christians. In fact, we are told to be careful stewards. This disconnect, where in one ‘function’ it appears that, unless we live totally without care for biological functions we are ‘sinful’, is ridiculous to me.

As a diabetic, do I live totally heedlessly, certain that if it is God’s will I die or become physically impaired due to diabetic ketoacidosis, I will do so, so don’t bother to eat properly, exercise, etc.?

Do I leave my job and consign everything ‘to God’ without any thought for the morrow, certain that He will allow me to live comfortably no matter what?

Then why on earth would two people be willynilly forced into sexual relations without any thought for the consequences, just because ‘some people’ think that any consideration thereto is ‘birth control’ and that if artificial birth control is condemned, then surely this other must be condemned as well. . .
Click to expand...
Nope, I disagree for the reasons already given; using NFP to avoid pregnancy is a form of birth control, too say otherwise is just a refusal to accept the obvious. However, I will admit that a couple who uses NFP to avoid pregnancy might be guilty of some sort of sin in the Church’s eyes.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
mikew262 said:
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck. Sorry, if you use NFP to gauge your fertility and choose not have sex during that time to avoid pregnancy, then it is a form of birth control, albeit not artificial.
Click to expand...
But is it not allowed according to Church teaching? I think we are arguing over semantics here.
 
mikew262 said:
Nope, I disagree for the reasons already given; using NFP to avoid pregnancy is a form of birth control, too say otherwise is just a refusal to accept the obvious. However, I will admit that a couple who uses NFP to avoid pregnancy might be guilty of some sort of sin in the Church’s eyes.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Click to expand...
What is the sin with NFP? You choose to sacrifice and abstain on certain days,but any day you do not abstain you are open to life–how is this a sin?
For those who think NFP is a sin, do you make sure that you do NOT abstain on fertile days, so to be open to life and not to sin?
 
mary_bobo said:
But is it not allowed according to Church teaching? I think we are arguing over semantics here.
Click to expand...
I think I read somewhere that if one uses NFP to actually avoid getting pregnant, then the Church may have a problem with it. However, I could be wrong.
 
Kelly said:
What is the sin with NFP? You choose to sacrifice and abstain on certain days,but any day you do not abstain you are open to life–how is this a sin?
For those who think NFP is a sin, do you make sure that you do NOT abstain on fertile days, so to be open to life and not to sin?
Click to expand...
I said “might”. I could be wrong on this, but I thought I read somewhere that if one uses NFP to actually avoid getting pregnant, then the Church may have a problem with it.

Maybe someone else can help out on this point.
 
Kelly said:
I think Sean Hannity is very aware of what the Church teaches, he simply disagrees with it. We do not have to understand everything that Mother Church teaches, but we do have to assent to that teaching with an act of the will. I am grateful for all the priests and bishops who are willing to stand up to public dissenters and preach the Gospel “in season or out of season”.
Click to expand...
We all can appreciate that!👍
 
Sean Hannity panders to the religious right just like the rest of the GOP for one reason—votes. Hannity’s insane display against the priest really shows how far from the Church he is.

As a teacher and a union man, I detest the constant teacher-bashing, anti-union venom, and blatant bias he has toward anyone who is not radically to the right.

The Democratic Party is horribly left of center and promotes immoral moral overhauls to our country that would just destroy our traditional Judeo-Christian cultural values. That being said, sometimes the Democrats ARE right about things like the environment, social justice, aiding the needy and lower class, dealing with homelessness, fighting for workers’ rights, unions, education, fighting outsourcing, and stopping a war of aggression that breaks the Just War clause of our Church.

We need to recognize that not ALL Democrats are pro-choice and immoral. Likewise, many many Republicans are anti-Catholic, pro-choice (Giuliani, etc.) Sean Hannity does not represent all Christians and his anti-NFP rant really shows that. I’m saddened to see how many Catholics are big fans of Hannity to begin with. He is a mean guy and not at all humble or Catholic in demeanor. He is an angry guy. Likewise, he is mean-spirited and hurtful to his guests. Whether they are wrong or not (and often times they ARE!), it is Allan Combs, the Jewish liberal left-winger on the show that shows more charity and friendliness to his enemies. Not a good advertisement for our Church ole’ Hannity!
 
kolchak said:
Sean Hannity panders to the religious right just like the rest of the GOP for one reason—votes. Hannity’s insane display against the priest really shows how far from the Church he is.

As a teacher and a union man, I detest the constant teacher-bashing, anti-union venom, and blatant bias he has toward anyone who is not radically to the right.

The Democratic Party is horribly left of center and promotes immoral moral overhauls to our country that would just destroy our traditional Judeo-Christian cultural values. That being said, sometimes the Democrats ARE right about things like the environment, social justice, aiding the needy and lower class, dealing with homelessness, fighting for workers’ rights, unions, education, fighting outsourcing, and stopping a war of aggression that breaks the Just War clause of our Church.

We need to recognize that not ALL Democrats are pro-choice and immoral. Likewise, many many Republicans are anti-Catholic, pro-choice (Giuliani, etc.) Sean Hannity does not represent all Christians and his anti-NFP rant really shows that. I’m saddened to see how many Catholics are big fans of Hannity to begin with. He is a mean guy and not at all humble or Catholic in demeanor. He is an angry guy. Likewise, he is mean-spirited and hurtful to his guests. Whether they are wrong or not (and often times they ARE!), it is Allan Combs, the Jewish liberal left-winger on the show that shows more charity and friendliness to his enemies. Not a good advertisement for our Church ole’ Hannity!
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
fix said:
Interesting. After reading your point here is occurred to me that perhaps some of the foundation for this reasoning is that immortal souls are not really in danger. Kinda like thinking everyone is in invincible ignorance or has some psychological block so there is no imperative to correct when needed.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of an old Mother Angelica Classic from 1980 that aired this week, where she lectures and (lovingly) made fun of people who didn’t think it was nice or tactful to correct people when they sinned or were on the wrong side of church teachings and morals as Sean Hannity is.

Mother Angelica said sarcastically, “Let’s not offend anyone. Let them go to hell, yes, but let’s not offend.”

Sounds like she was speaking directly to the people on this thread who claim they agree with Fr E, but disagree with his methods of correcting Hannity. Puh-leeze…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top