Stop shooting the messenger!

[Crusader13]

Sadly, to me it also appears that Patrick has gone off the rails.

Gone off the rails??? For simply saying that we shouldn’t attack those who are speaking of real problems?

Did you watch his video??? Again he’s not giving a 10 min piece defending CM or Lifesite news, in fact most of his comments are centered around situations where it’s been clergy who’ve been mislabeled and attacked, not journalists.

 

[Beryllos]

I did watch the video. Mr. Coffin has a good point, though in my opinion, “shooting the messenger” is not the best metaphor for dismissing an article based solely on its source.

With regard to research and refuting, I did not write clearly, but I was referring to errors and misleading headlines at LifeSiteNews, ChurchMilitant, and some other Catholic-oriented websites and blogs. I used to take the time to refute provocative headlines like “Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist” (LifeSiteNews) or “Boy Scouts Demand Condoms” (ChurchMilitant), but now I just ignore them and move on.

When I do respond, I try to respond to the content of the article, and not my assessment of the author or website (though sometimes I might slip up at this).

 

[Crusader13]

Lifesite and Michael Voris need to write better articles. It’s pretty obvious that Voris completely loses his kimchee whenever any gay person is involved. He frankly seems irrational on the subject.

Well that’s subjective and I’m not here to defend CM or Voris.

The video speaks of dealing with people who are bringing problems to light and then are attacked and ridiculed for even mentioning the problem. Which, may not apply to you, but it does to others.

In the example you mentioned above, you feel Voris “completely loses his kimchee” whenever any gay person is involved. However, there is a difference when someone speaks of homosexuality in the realms of the secular world vs homosexuality in the priesthood and within the Church. I for one want to know when when such a problem exists and how wide spread it is.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’re asking why the articles get dismissed. I’m pointing out that one reason is that they seem poorly sourced or hysterical foaming at the mouth to many of us.

ALL of our opinions including yours are subjective. However, in order to be taken seriously, journalists usually have to strike some chord of truth with a wide audience, not just with a fringe group.

 

[gracepoole]

Defensiveness is unnecessary. They’re all Catholic media stars — none of them deserve adoration. But they do deserve criticism when their “red-pilled on the Holy Father” talk becomes divisive.

 

[CelticWarlord]

For the record, I’ve always ignored them

When it comes to irritating or frustrating authors, presenters, speakers etc, this is always the best course to take.

 

[Beryllos]

On further retrospection, I see that my first post in this thread was not a response to the video at all, but to your opening post. The video was indeed about shooting the messenger, that is, punishing the bearer of unpleasant news. Your post seemed to be about the prejudices we may bear against the websites and persons you named. There is a difference. I don’t mind bad news, but the messenger must stay close to the facts. We have enough bad news without making stuff up or distorting it.

 

[blackforest]

He talks about a problem that needs to be addressed. A problem that I feel is very prevalent, especially here on this forum!

When I was growing up, I remember the tabloids at the grocery store check stand with headline like: “Elvis’ Ghost Admits to Killing Nicole Brown Smith” and “Wisconsin Dairy Farmer Watches Three-Headed Aliens Abduct His Grand-Son.” Eventually, as a child, I came to learn that this was the source to go to for wild fairy tales and not actual news.

LifeNews is the site to go to for a holier-than-the-Vatican slant on reporting. If you were a doctoral candidate in theology at a high-ranking Catholic university, your dissertation reader rightfully would tell you not to cite LifeNews as a source of supporting evidence.

These days, most sources - LifeNews for sure - are biased to the point of insulting our intelligence. It’s more important to generate outrage - and therefore clicks - than actual facts.

So it’s good to compare how matters are spun. Here’s an example of two interpretations of one incident. Hopefully between the two, readers can deduce the actual facts and come to their own conclusions.

Beto O’Rourke Compares Trump Supporters to Nazis, Calls Huge Campaign Event a "Nuremberg Rally" - LifeNews.com

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke compared President Donald Trump’s political event in North Carolina last week to Nazi Party rallies held in Germany during Adolf Hitler’s reign. O’Rourke said in an interview Monday with ABC News that he believes Trump is racist. The former Texas...

www.lifenews.com

Trump's Rhetoric Echoes Nazi Germany, Beto O'Rourke Says, Accurately

Beto O’Rourke hears echoes of the Third Reich when Donald Trump calls immigrants an “infestation,” and he has no plans to stop decrying it.

theintercept.com

Of course, the whole issue if fluff. Dumbed-down news coverage calls for generating outrage, not provoking intelligent thought. LifeNews and its ilk are no exception.

While I’m guilty of citing stuff like CNN on CAF, I honestly prefer to seek out better sources - Christian Science Monitor is one of my favorites.

 

[Crusader13]

You’re asking why the articles get dismissed. I’m pointing out that one reason is that they seem poorly sourced or hysterical foaming at the mouth to many of us.

ALL of our opinions including yours are subjective. However, in order to be taken seriously, journalists usually have to strike some chord of truth with a wide audience, not just with a fringe group.

I posted the video because Patrick Coffin is speaking about those who are bringing issues to light and then are attacked for doing so. Corruption and sexual abuse isn’t about striking a chord with a fringe group.

My personal opinion isn’t what I’m referring to. I’m talking about when a story breaks regarding a clergy member and scandal and corruption are involved; often times the response is, “well that’s coming from (fill in the blank) and they are known for attacking the Pope or they are tin foil hat sensationalist, or they attacked Bishop so-and-so, therefore they have no credibility.”

The issue is no longer about the clergy who was caught in a scandal, it becomes focused on the person or site who broke the story and whether or not they are reputable because someone doesn’t like their past article on communion in the hand!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Again, when a news outlet runs too many stories that seem poorly sourced or overblown, it becomes like the boy who cried wolf. No one is interested when an actual story that might be true comes along. Furthermore, anything really important, such as the McCarrick scandal, gets picked up by the wider Catholic media such as Crux, National Catholic Register etc and maybe even by MSM. At that point nobody needs to refer to LifeSite.

I’m curious as to what kinds of big important issues you think Coffin and his ilk are bringing to light these days, that aren’t also being addressed by other more reputable news outlets.

 

[Crusader13]

Defensiveness is unnecessary. They’re all Catholic media stars — none of them deserve adoration. But they do deserve criticism when their “red-pilled on the Holy Father” talk becomes divisive.

I’m defending the video, not my opinion on whether someone should or should not listen to (fill in the blank). You chose to see them as Catholic Media stars, so be it. I mentioned CM, LIfesite, Voris and others, because often times when they are reporting on a scandal, it’s comments like yours that are shown to be very prevalent in the responses. Instead of talking about the actual story, you appear to deflect and side step the issue by insinuating that they don’t deserve adoration. I’m not even sure if anyone even mentioned giving them adoration!!! So what are you talking about???

 

[Crusader13]

Again, you’re insinuating that news outlets, such as those we’ve mentioned, have run too many poorly sourced stories. I can’t speak to what criteria you are basing that on. You may see them as the boy who cried wolf, but that would entail that you’ve found falsehood in their reporting.

You also make the assumption that the “wider” media outlets will pickup on a story when it’s really important. Again, that is also subjective in that you are deferring to another, more far reaching, media outlet to decide what is actually important and what isn’t.

 

[IdaCatholic]

Patrick coffin is an important and honorable person when it comes to the very forums we are on. So sad that if one wrote about another poster this way they would be reprimanded. Coffin has done nothing wrong, has expanded into media where he chooses the content and has a good relationship with CA. Many posters owe at least part of their faith to Coffin. Personally I think when one person sounds alarm it can be dismissed but when there is an obvious theological rift we might want to at least listen to the chirping a little.

 

[Aquinas11]

the reality as I see it is that they are extreme, radical, fringe and/or disobedient.

Patrick has gone off the rails.

in order to be taken seriously, journalists usually have to strike some chord of truth with a wide audience, not just with a fringe group.

Good thing Jesus didn’t operate with that M.O. He was textbook radical, extreme, disobedient, off the rails, etc, since the establishment at the time were asleep at the wheel and not guarding their flock…hmmm remind you of anything?
And he never was concerned with whether he was “taken seriously”, nor whether his message was reaching “wide audience” or “fringe audience”, he just spoke truth and let chips fall where they may.

In fact, when he told the crowd that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to obtain eternal life, they all started to leave and disciples said to him “Master, this is a very hard teaching” and Jesus asked the disciples if they wanted to leave too. He wasn’t playing a numbers game. He wasn’t saying “Uh oh, I better not say this or ‘I wont be taken seriously’ or I’ll no longer reach a ‘wide audience’”.
We’re Catholics, not mob leaders.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Defensiveness is unnecessary. They’re all Catholic media stars — none of them deserve adoration. But they do deserve criticism when their “red-pilled on the Holy Father” talk becomes divisive.

I’m defending the video, not my opinion on whether someone should or should not listen to (fill in the blank). You chose to see them as Catholic Media stars, so be it. I mentioned CM, LIfesite, Voris and others, because often times when they are reporting on a scandal, it’s comments like yours that are shown to be very prevalent in the responses. Instead of talking about the actual story, you appear to deflect and side step the issue by insinuating that they don’t deserve adoration. I’m not even sure if anyone even mentioned giving them adoration!!! So what are you talking about???

I’m going to gently suggest that you might be a bit too emotionally invested here.

I’ve given specific reasons for faithful Catholics to ignore Coffin, et al. Coffin’s claim that folks who criticize him are only “shooting the messenger” is hollow because he never accepts criticism (seriously: head to Twitter and try criticizing anything he shares – even if done kindly, he can’t handle it). Are there problems in the Church? Undoubtedly. That’s been the history of the Church since it began. No one needs a messenger to reveal what the Church is and always has been.

 

[gracepoole]

po18guy:

the reality as I see it is that they are extreme, radical, fringe and/or disobedient.

Patrick has gone off the rails.

in order to be taken seriously, journalists usually have to strike some chord of truth with a wide audience, not just with a fringe group.

Good thing Jesus didn’t operate with that M.O. He was textbook radical, extreme, disobedient, off the rails, etc, since the establishment at the time were asleep at the wheel and not guarding their flock…hmmm remind you of anything?
And he never was concerned with whether he was “taken seriously”, nor whether his message was reaching “wide audience” or “fringe audience”, he just spoke truth and let chips fall where they may.

In fact, when he told the crowd that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to obtain eternal life, they all started to leave and disciples said to him “Master, this is a very hard teaching” and Jesus asked the disciples if they wanted to leave too. He wasn’t playing a numbers game. He wasn’t saying “Uh oh, I better not say this or ‘I wont be taken seriously’ or I’ll no longer reach a ‘wide audience’”.
We’re Catholics, not mob leaders.

Coffin is not Christ.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Edited to add, I think my replies got crossed and this is supposed to go to Aquinas, not to gracepoole.
Sorry about that Grace.

Jesus was also loving. He didn’t run multiple stories or make multiple speeches basically spreading gossip about the allegedly scandalous circumstances in which a long-deceased pastor was found. He also would not have approved of dozens of Pope-bashing stories, most of them taking something the Pope said out of context or just plain taking it wrong for the purpose of fomenting outrage.

It’s a bit far-fetched for you to be comparing the likes of Coffin (see the juvenile tweet that someone actually posted above where he refers to “Crux”, a reasonable publication, by a derisive nickname) and Voris to Our Lord.

 

[Aquinas11]

He also would not have approved of dozens of Pope-bashing stories, most of them taking something the Pope said out of context or just plain taking it wrong for the purpose of fomenting outrage.

He called out the first Pope so why wouldn’t he call out future Popes? He was also most outraged at religious hypocrisy which is present in much of Catholic clergy hierarchy so would undoubtedly call that out.

Coffin is not Christ.

a bit far-fetched for you to be comparing the likes of Coffin (see the juvenile tweet someone posted above where he refers to “Crux”, a reasonable publication, by a derisive nickname) and Voris to Our Lord.

Catholics aren’t called to strive to emulate Christ? This is news to me.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Show me how a man is emulating Christ by using a derisive name for Crux?

Show me how a man is emulating Christ by trashing a pastor who has been dead for decades?

Show me how a man is emulating Christ by constantly seeking how to undermine Christ’s Vicar on Earth, our Pope?

How is ANY of this even REMOTELY Christlike?

 

[IdaCatholic]

Lifesite and Michael Voris need to write better articles. It’s pretty obvious that Voris completely loses his kimchee whenever any gay person is involved. He frankly seems irrational on the subject.

I haven’t noticed Taylor Marshall and OnePeterFive getting a lot of criticism. I find some of their posts to be quite helpful, and I’m a moderate, not a traditionalist. OnePeterFive recently wrote a very thoughtful piece on Jonathan Morris’ departure from the priesthood, which I posted here and nobody bashed it. And I was just reading Taylor Marshall’s post today on how to get yourself in the habit of praying LOTH.

With regards to Voris. He is probably pretty sensitive to gay issues. Since he was in homosexual relationships in his 30s and “came out” when he claims the Archdiocese of NY was going to “out” him.
Something I find believable given how damaging the information was to his cause. I think after recent revelations about homosexuals in the Church we might want to give him a little slack for his admittedly over the top reactions.