Taylor Marshall's video on Fratelli Tutti- am I missing something or is TM being disingenuous...?

[Genesis315]

The point was to show that Marshall’s approach was deceptive and unfair. He did not use the word “God” but the phrase “God the Father” in his criticism. You get the same kind of results he got searching FT when you search the other texts.

The word “God” shows up 80 times in Fratelli Tutti, way more than Rerum Novarum. “Jesus” is used in FT 33 times, and “Christ” an additional 6. By applying Marshall’ standards to classic social doctrine texts, the deceptiveness of his criticism is made apparent.

 

[Gab123]

The problem is that people are too lazy to read the encyclical for themselves and instead have an individual on YouTube tell you what to think about it. If you read it, you will find that the pope is simply echoing the teachings of Christ and the catechism of the Catholic Church. For those who do not like to read, there is an audio version of it in YouTube. For those who just like summaries, here is one put out by RomeReports:

 

[Anesti33]

You know, I don’t feel it’s a good investment of my time to read it. Prudentially, I could read better things than 43,000 “echoes of teaching”. I am learning some from secondary sources because I’m helping build the Wikipedia article, and that’s as far as I care to go.

I read Evangelium gaudii and that will be the last Francis document for me. I was alternating between nodding my head to agree and being frustrated and shouting back, arguing with the text. I would much rather read Rerum novarum or Mit Brennender Sorge or something light like that. I loved Salvifici doloris. In fact I have a huge volume of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church which I’d love to crack open one day. Unfortunately, I am no longer an active Catechist, so my impetus for growing my faith is dim.

 

[Anesti33]

There is absolutely nothing like Humanae vitae. I could dip into that again and again. Paul gives good background, he gets to the point, he makes a conclusion, he’s gone. It is the kind of document you recommend skeptics to read and they won’t be turned off by length of words.

 

[godisgood77]

Taylor Marshall has proven over and over again that he has no interest in doing anything constructive…I would avoid him and his content like the plague.

 

[Gab123]

I am learning some from secondary sources because I’m helping build the Wikipedia article, and that’s as far as I care to go.

The problem with Wikipedia. Anyone with an internet connection providing incomplete and biased Information one way or another, often form secondary sources.

I read Evangelium gaudii and that will be the last Francis document for me.

Evangelism Gaudí‘ is a good exhortation for the badly needed New Evangelization in our age.

 

[Anesti33]

The problem with Wikipedia. Anyone with an internet connection providing incomplete and biased Information one way or another, often form secondary sources.

I find that insulting, as I am the person helping to write the article, and ensuring that it is neither incomplete, nor biased. And that the secondary sources are accurate and not anti-Church. Thank you.

Two of the main problems with Wikipedia are systemic bias and inexperience. There are not enough experienced Catholic editors helping in the topic area to hold off the secularist, atheist, liberal bent of most things. There’s one priest active there right now, and he’s a Jesuit, actively promoting Jesuit things. But we have thousands of articles and a skeleton crew.

So anyone who casts stones should not be living in a glass house. If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.

 

[Gab123]

Don’t be offended. Anyone on the planet earth can edit Wikipedia. As for contributing to the entry on the pope’s encyclical, I would urge you to at least read or listen to the whole work.

 

[Anesti33]

Don’t be offended. Anyone on the planet earth can edit Wikipedia. As for contributing to the entry on the pope’s encyclical, I would urge you to at least read or listen to the whole work.

I don’t have to; it would really be counterproductive. In order to work on the article, I use secondary sources (such as this Taylor Marshall video) over and above the primary one. Wikipedia depends on professional analysis, not that of the editors.

Wikipedia’s slogan is “The Free Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit” - yeah, well, you can try. Many conservative editors in good faith get blocked after they fall afoul of policies and guidelines. Many others are offended or intimidated by the heated dispute climate and fall away. Many get reverted over and over again and think it’s a Sisyphean task. It’s easy to get burned out. There’s an alleged CABAL running the whole place, who knows. It’s a vast left-wing conspiracy.

But I am living proof that you can be Catholic and a Wikipedia editor and you can operate constructively in their milieu. I encourage everyone to give it a try. I am happy to be available as a mentor.

 

[Gab123]

I use secondary sources (such as this Taylor Marshall video)

The problem with Taylor Marshall is that he often uses a straw man approach in his hit video presentations, building false narratives for his viewers to spread. So be careful when using him as a source, so you don’t help spread misinformation.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

I use secondary sources (such as this Taylor Marshall video)

The problem with Taylor Marshall is that he often uses a straw man approach in his hit video presentations, building false narratives for his viewers to spread. So be careful when using him as a source, so you don’t help spread misinformation.

Thank you. I am advised he is controversial and possibly deeply flawed. It is obvious to me that he is prejudiced against the Holy Father. I am interested in any and all solid Traditional Catholic analysis, pro or con. Frankly I’d rather hear more pros that would convince me to accept the thing myself.

 

[Gab123]

Frankly I’d rather hear more pros that would convince me to accept the thing myself.

Yes. How about let the Holy Father himself tell you. It’s available in audio. I listened to it on YouTube at 75% speed to ponder it well. You don’t have to listen to it in one sitting, but it will take over 3 hours. I like those Bluetooth ear devices that allow you to walk away from the computer and still listen, while doing manual work. Here is the link in case you want to ponder it yourself. And do realize that your secondary sources may not have read the whole thing, but rather scanned it to find something to underline and nit pick…

 

[humilityseeker]

Wikipedia depends on professional analysis, not that of the editors.

Wikipedia is not an academic source for information. At worst wiki can be coffee table mis-information for the masses. We Catholics have that in abundance emanating from popular media. If an article is well researched, well referenced and well informed, it can be a good and positive contribution.

An article can never be well researched and well referenced or well informed if the primary source is discarded in preference for

I use secondary sources (such as this Taylor Marshall video)

Wikipedia depends on professional analysis,

Any professional worth his or her salt will first and foremost post to peer review formats. (one reason being anyone can post and edit to wiki) Any wiki posting on a published Vatican document should be made after reading the thing firstly and having some knowledge of what it contains from a theological, scriptural and ecclesiastical knowledge base.

The potential for coffee table Catholic mis-information here is enormous
example

Can anyone actually deny that Fratelli Tutti promotes religious indifferentism because it considers any religion as a good for societies?

Without knowing Church teaching

The Church teaches that there is a trace if truth in all religions, with some having more than others, thus as Nostra Aetate explains:

as an example

 

[Anesti33]

Wikipedia is not an academic source for information. At worst wiki can be coffee table mis-information for the masses. We Catholics have that in abundance emanating from popular media. If an article is well researched, well referenced and well informed, it can be a good and positive contribution.

Wikipedia doesn’t hold itself out as any such thing. Wikipedia is a particular tool for certain applications. I don’t use it for serious research. I find it useful to read when I want to get bird’s eye view of a common or even very obscure topic.

Any professional worth his or her salt will first and foremost post to peer review formats. (one reason being anyone can post and edit to wiki) Any wiki posting on a published Vatican document should be made after reading the thing firstly and having some knowledge of what it contains from a theological, scriptural and ecclesiastical knowledge base.

Wikipedia prefers peer-reviewed scholarship and academic sources over all other types. But it also relies heavily on news outlets such as America, the National Catholic Reporter, and Religion News Service. So I find it useful to balance it out with orthodox apologists and scholars where I can find them.

Since Fratelli tutti is a couple of weeks old, peer-reviewed journal articles and academic-press books analyzing it aren’t particularly thick on the ground. We work with what’s accessible. I don’t personally have any privileged access to scholarly journals so I’m a bit hobbled when it comes to ultra-reliable sources.

 

[Anesti33]

Abp Vigano has some words on it, too
[/quote]

Well, right now I’ve watched the totality of Marshall’s video, and found two small paragraphs worth of material. It was needle-in-a-haystack, though. I get what you mean about strawmen in here, and he spends a lot of time just “disliking” stuff or mocking it derisively. He’s very low on scholarly and erudite criticism. Is he always this lowbrow?

As for Vigano, I don’t have a lot of polite words for him right now. He seems to have gone off the reservation. What was he like 20 years ago? Is this a new thing for him, to be railing against the alleged vast conspiracies of the world?

 

[Anesti33]

Marshall’s general attitude and demeanor put me off initially, but his central points seem rational enough. He goes to an FSSP parish, which would indicate he’s a moderate enough trad.

I just don’t think it’s charitable to regularly spend an hour on camera slagging off the Holy Father, and even worse to get rich and famous doing it for a living.

 

[Bithynian]

I think there’s some confusion regarding Wikipedia. @Anesti33 is attempting to explain that Wikipedia discourages editors from engaging in original research and making their own interpretative or evaluative statements. Wikipedia doesn’t engage in academic research nor does it purport to do so; its articles are instead meant to summarise the agreements and disagreements in secondary literature.

Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia’s editing policy:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Is Marshall biased? Probably. But that doesn’t disqualify him from being cited so long as his source is deemed reliable (e.g. a book that isn’t self-published, an interview with a notable organisation rather than a YouTube Q&A). An excerpt from Wikipedia’s policy:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

 

[humilityseeker]

Since Fratelli tutti is a couple of weeks old, peer-reviewed journal articles and academic-press books analyzing it aren’t particularly thick on the ground. We work with what’s accessible. I don’t personally have any privileged access to scholarly journals so I’m a bit hobbled when it comes to ultra-reliable sources.

We all have access to the primary source, the original article. We do not have to be privileged to have access to this article in our native language.None of us are hobbled. We can all read it, rather then reading and relying on secondary sources and then posting a wiki article about it, without reading it.

How would anyone know if the secondary non peer reviewed source has any measure of accuracy , without first reading the primary source?

 

[Anesti33]

Yes, Bithynian, thank you for explaining that. You are exactly right. Here’s the thing about NPOV and RS (reliable sources). It is very easy to skew articles one way or the other by a careful selection of sources. Bias can creep in, not by writing biased articles, but by using lopsided sources that prevent seeing the other side.

This is a pervasive and widespread issue on Wikipedia. The number of times I’ve seen the NYTimes and the NCReporter! There is supposedly a policy called DUE that enforces all reasonable points of view to be presented. But unless you have editors going out and looking for those points of view, you’re not going to get them in the articles at all, and nobody will care if they’re underrepresented.

So that’s why I latched onto Marshall as an ideal source for Fratelli tutti because he is highly critical of Francis, and he sports good academic credentials. He’s a former Episcopal priest, he’s a faithful Catholic, he’s a distinguished writer. He is just the kind of source that Wikipedia needs.

 

[humilityseeker]

My point @Bithynian is that in writing about a Vatican document on wiki, surely a person should be reading that Vatican document, that primary source, in its entirety.
It is impossible to present a neutral point of view if bias already exists in a lack of want in reading the primary source.

It is also impossible to present a neutral point of view if secondary sources are themselves not neutral.