It has been brought to my notice that the author featured in my earlier post, “The Church and Libertarianism”, has also written a book attacking EWTN, the Catholic TV network. I wish to distance myself, and this site, from this book – and I wish to do so unequivocally. I have worked with EWTN for many years and know many of those who work for the Network. My experience is entirely positive and I fail to see how any sensible tradition-oriented Catholic could wish to harm this powerful voice of truth. Any attack on EWTN will only serve to weaken the voice of Catholic tradition in our ailing and failing culture. I have always sought to avoid attacking bone fide Catholics, in the knowledge that such division and divisiveness only serves to weaken the Church and strengthen the Church’s enemies. In the culture wars, EWTN is a powerful force for Catholic goodness, truth and beauty. Long may it grace the airwaves. Bravo EWTN!
Defending EWTN
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Joseph Pearce
Joseph Pearce is a Catholic author and biographer who has written about subjects as various as GK Chesterton, economics, and Shakespeare.
Hello!
I would just like to say that I don’t think we have anything to fear from the truth. Neither does St. Pius X think the Church has anything to fear from truth, even if it were to incriminate some people within the Church and thus give some fodder for the enemies of the Church. If we are to muzzle any sort of legitimate criticism of apostolates within the Church, then we might as well say that we should not be “divisive” against open heretics either, such as Wir sind Kirche or Hans Küng, because such “divisiveness” would give fodder for the Church’s enemies.
Just to make clear I haven’t read the book you mention and I don’t have an established opinion about EWTN. I just think that the reasoning behind this post was somewhat misguided and I wish to point this out in charity.
In Christ,
David
I agree 100% about EWTN. I was out of the Church for over 25 yrs and it has been a touchstone in my reversion, a place where I knew I could be fed the truth in a sea of lies and half-truths.
When I returned I was shocked at all the “changes” that had taken place – supposedly in the “Spirit of Vatican II”. I felt ignorant and intimidated in my liberal parish and didn’t know enough to question certain things. A Solid spiritual director and EWTN gave me the ammunition I needed.
As for the book, I (now) understand all the “factions” within the Church (something I never experienced in my youth), and the “Rad Trads” are one such faction. What I have learned in the years since returning is that many of these “factions” have parts of the truth, and as you say rather than attacking them, I find it helpful to take the best and leave the rest.
I found the video you posted very interesting and saying things that need to be said, and I look forward to reading his book, but I – do not put any of these “guru’s” on a pedestal whether they wear a collar or a layman. I have learned to be VERY wary and discerning of “experts” & “authors”, as there is quite often a hidden accompanying agenda with their books & papers.
Mr Ferrara & Mr Woods have a long, and protracted battle over their “brands” of orthodoxy. Both have bright and astute things to say, and as the subject of this post points out they also have feet of clay. Take the best and leave the rest, and pray for reconciliation within the Church so it can go forward.
In defense of myself, permit me to say that my book EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong was not an “attack on EWTN” simpliciter. My approach was just a bit more nuanced than “EWTN bad.”
My book was a systematic study of serious problems with certain aspects of the content of EWTN, which followed a stipulation on the very first pages that much of what it broadcasts is quite good, along with praise for the courage and traditionalism of Mother Angelica before she lost control of the network (as seen in her famous opposition to Card. Mahony).
For example, the book aired back in 2006 the grave defects in Christopher West’s take on the “theology of the body” which are now widely acknowledged as a problem in the Church and have led to his six-month sabbatical.
To take another example, one of EWTN’s kooky celebrity hosts, whose show has carried parental warnings—on a Catholic network?–has since resigned in a sex scandal which he confessed on the air.
To take another example, an EWTN “expert” on sexuality, who had a series on EWTN, maintains that the Big Bang was a divine orgasm (among other revolting propositions) and has published positively filthy discussions of his sex life as “advice” to other Catholics.
Yet another example is EWTN’s aggressive promotion of the idea, advanced by the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC), that there should be a “Hebrew Catholic” branch of Catholicism, for Jewish converts only, because “For the last 1700 years the Church has been sociologically Gentile.” Consider the implications of that opinion for the Church’s divine institution and indefectibility.
My basic objection to these aspects of EWTN’s content is this: We must beware of allowing ourselves to slip into a sliding scale orthodoxy not unlike that which has diluted the term “conservative” in politics today. The objective truth demonstrated in the book is that a great Pope like Saint Pius X would view with horror much of what passes for “conservative” content on the network. We must be honest about this and not allow the Faith to be relativized in the manner of culture at large merely because much of what EWTN presents is indeed sound and even laudable.
None of this is to deny the good that EWTN has done, especially with its recent promotion of the traditional Latin Mass. But a mixed bag is still a mixed bag, and when some of the contents of the bag are questionable and even plainly contrary to sound orthodoxy and chastity–as the book has shown without any real contradiction from anyone—we have every right to question the bad elements just as publicly as they are presented. This is all the more true where, as where, what is presented is essentially the production of laymen and not the Magisterium.
EWTN commentators have had had no hesitancy in criticizing what they believe to be the errors of “traditionalists.” I submit that they should be willing to listen to well-supported criticism of their own position. This, after all, is what public discourse is supposed to be: a mutual exchange.
Chris Ferrara
I should also add that my good friend and “traditionalist” colleague James Bogle has done excellent work on EWTN, as has Dale Ahlquist, whom I had the pleasure of meeting and dining with nightly for more than a week in Lake Garda.
Dear Mr Ferrara, Thank you for taking the time out to respond to the initial post. I enjoy watching EWTN–and listening to it, but there is no question that it is not Mother who runs the network anymore. Things are done quite differently perhaps to appeal to a broader range of people, which makes EWTN lose the core audience it should be attracting. In my opinion, sports tv and the Catholic Teaching don’t mix, but there on EWTN is a tv show wedding the two together. Rather than causing us to be called to Christ true simple truth, we dress it up in ways that appeal to the weak minds of men that seek cheap imitations to fill their minds that constantly need stimulation.
And, I’ll finish as I started. I love EWTN. I am just now careful with what I let in and what I ignore–but not everyone can do that.
Speaking as someone who has also done much work with EWTN in the past several years, I think a few things have to be kept in mind.
1. EWTN SAVED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA. At a time when people generally could not get Catholic teaching at any of their local parishes, at a time when the anti-Christians had almost entirely usurped what had once been the Church in the United States, at a time when your pastor and fellow parishioners were assuring you that their agenda-driven heterodoxy was in fact orthodoxy, in the midst of our darkest hour, at a time when the gates of hell seemed to have prevailed against us, a straight-talking Poor Clare looked right into the camera and spoke common sense and Catholic Truth directly into people’s living rooms. One can not over-estimate the importance of this.
2. EWTN IS NOT THE MAGISTERIUM. And while Mr. Ferrara thinks it’s the liberalizing influences that are corrupting the network, the anti-Catholic challenges the network faces more typically come from the neo-con element of the political right as well as from the Puritan element in the Church; EWTN’s donors tend to be from these demographics, and hence their influence tends to pull the network in that direction. Mr. Ferrara may be more sensitive to the liberalizing influences, but the network is aware of them and very much on guard against them.
3. EWTN IS MADE UP OF SOME OF THE BEST PEOPLE I’VE EVER MET. The crew, producers, directors, theologians, talent and marketers I’ve known – these are people who are devoutly Catholic, making huge sacrifices in working for a lot less than they’d be making at a for-profit network, and trying their best to live the Catholic Faith. Literally every other person has experienced a miracle in their lives that brought them to the network or that happened while they were working there. It is a blessed place, and being there is always a kind of slice of heaven for me.
4. EWTN, LIKE THE CHURCH, IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE. And so, like the Church, the network makes mistakes, occasional bad decisions, and is not perfect.
5. THEY CAN’T PLEASE EVERYONE. Shows like “Crossing the Goal” (the sports-themed show the above commenter refers to) may not suit everyone’s taste, but they’re certainly not heterodox. Indeed, though I have not read Mr. Ferrara’s book, the examples he gives (at least in his comment above) are of material that is no longer being aired. The stuff that’s on varies in quality, but is, from what I’ve seen and helped produce, entirely Catholic.
All of this having been said, it’s important to distinguish true Catholic teaching from corruptions thereof, while giving the Network of Miracles the credit it deserves for the tremendous good work it had done and continues to do. If EWTN starts to slide toward heterodox teaching, it should be called on the carpet for it.
Meanwhile, we should praise the good the network has done and continue to support it financially and with prayers.
By the way, this is one of the most civil series of combox discussions I have seen, and I hope it stays that way.
Full agreement! During my recent convalescence following liver resection surgery, I cannot express enough the consolation and relief in leaving the wasteland dregs of television – worse than the nightmare images written by George MacDonald – and turning to EWTN.
From features on Shakespeare with Dr. Pearce to interviews on timely books for Catholics or news from Rome, EWTN offers a rare oasis for Catholics and, one would hope, a tool of evangelization for non-Catholics.
As Mr. O’Brien observes: <<>>
Perhaps, then, my book had some small influence on this change. At any rate, change was needed, whether or not I had any role in provoking it.
And I think Mr. O’Brien is quite right to note that “the anti-Catholic challenges the network faces more typically come from the neo-con element of the political right as well as from the Puritan element in the Church; EWTN’s donors tend to be from these demographics, and hence their influence tends to pull the network in that direction.” Spot on. Other followers of the network have developed that point in correspondence with me.
While Joseph’s post above and the comments on it are about EWTN and Christopher Ferrara’s book about the network, the fact remains that aside from that, the video that Joseph linked to in his earlier post on “The Church and the Libertarian”, in which Mr. Ferrara talks about his book on Catholic social teaching, is excellent. It’s a thoughtful and straight-forward explanation of the differences between libertarians and unrestrained captialists on the one hand and what the Church tells us is truly good and just for man on the other.
Word on the street is that Mr. Ferrara’s book “The Church and the Libertarian” is likewise very good.
He says early in the video that two things can inspire you to write a book, love or rage. I would add that rage is usually a sign of frustrated love, and that any critique of Catholic apostolates – though such critiques may be ill conceived or impolitic – are motivated by love or by frustrated love and thus by a desire to see God served in a way most fitting to Him.
There are many Catholic apostolates out there that fall far short of their potential. My own Theater of the Word Incorporated is no doubt one of them. And may whatever criticism we encounter serve to build up our mission and likewise build up the Body of Christ.
Dear Friends in Christ,
I wandered today into the Ink Desk and found myself surprised by this topic and this discussion. I am quite pleased with the results of the warm and friendly discourse between the various parties who have expressed opinions in the comments section.
Friends, as someone acquainted with Christopher Ferrara personally, I will vouch not only for his brilliance and analytical mind, but for his orthodoxy and deep love and devotion to Holy Mother Church. As founder of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Christopher Ferrara has been engaged in and successfully represented the interest of Catholic religious and civil liberties, including a legal brief he filed in order to save Terri Schaivo’s life.
Chris often speaks at the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute (The Roman Forum) in NYC where, whenever possible, I make sure to be in attendance. He recently returned from a weeklong symposium offered by The Roman Forum in Gardone, Italy. Speakers included Dale Ahlquist, John Medaille, Dr. Jeffrey Bond, Brian M. Mccall, Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro (Director of Human Life International’s Rome office), among many other notable speakers.
I have great admiration for Mr. O’Brien and he is correct in saying – and Chris wholeheartedly agrees – that the staff at EWTN are good, honest, and hard working people who care deeply for their faith, with only the best intentions at heart. Let us recall Chris’ book was published quite a few years ago. Certainly all of us can praise the many improvements over the course of these past for years, and we should all celebrate and express how deeply indebted we are to Mother Angelica for her perseverance, hard work, and faith. Finally, I believe Chris joins me in saying that the leadership EWTN has provided over the course of the network’s lifetime will be needed for the task at hand, that is, to bring further illumination to the Catholic faithful on the following and important topic.
“The Church and the Libertarian”
I am privileged to have offered, along with my colleague John Medaille, a testimonial for the book’s website (John also wrote the introduction to this important work). If I may, please allow me to copy my testimonial here:
“From soup to nuts, Ferrara’s engaging book simultaneously puts the final nail in the Austrian coffin and breathes new life into the social vision of the Catholic Church. This future classic should be required reading for the layman and seminarian alike: especially those enamored by Acton and Mises.”
Friends, we at The Distributist Review are not simply plugging a book. No, we believe the timing of this release could not be more appropriate. As president of The Society for Distributism I have witnessed error upon error committed by Catholics, young and old, whom ignore or carve up the social vision of the Church and are being sold a bill of goods by Austrian economists regarding property rights, the poor, the nature of the individual in relation to society, justice, authority and the legitimate exercise of government, subsidiarity, and liberty among many others. The poison is pervasive. So much so that some Catholics would in fact reject Christendom if they even recognized what it was; the work to undo this damage, to reacquaint Catholics with the Church’s social teaching, and restore their understanding of the just social order will be extensive and challenging. I do not exaggerate. Mail comes pouring into my inbox every day and so does the sophistry.
We have all heard it before, “economics as science is empirical,” “the popes are incompetent to speak of economics,” and my favorite “the State should simply leave the welfare of the nation in the hands of the marketplace,” which is social modernism and is qualified as “dangerous” and erroneous by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno.
I briefly touched upon some of these errors in my 7/16 entry for the Ink Desk, “Rise of the Pelican.”
https://staustinreview.org/ink_desk/archives/rise_of_the_pelican/
We at The Distributist Review and The Society for Distributism believe Distributism can play a fundamental role in bringing the Church closer together. The dawn of the 21st century brings with it a new way of thinking. Today we can agree the differences that exist within the Church do not impede the reconciliation needed for this war against secularism, particularly a war aimed at the hearts and minds of friends and of strangers. We cannot do this alone. We need Joseph Pearce’s quill and the sharp mind of Christopher Ferrara. We need Dale Ahlquist and John Salza. If we can work together we can achieve what could never be accomplished apart.
Let us be good Christians unified in truth first and foremost, moving forward together out of deep love for our Holy Father who is our beacon of light, strength, and example in discourse and reconciliation. With Christ the King in our hearts we march together, arm-in-arm, to do battle with the enemy. May we rise up to the occasion with rosary clutched in our hands as we sail to our very own Lepanto.
Before distancing yourself-have you actually read the book and Ferrera’s comments and infomration in that book? I have differences with Ferrera on different things, and not saying I agree 100% with his book, though mostly. I have observed many of the same things he points out in the book.
Before distancing oneself, whould one read the book?
Robert Sungenis has and did a review on the book.
Also, stating that, well, EWTN is a “powerful force for Catholic goodness, truth and beauty”, is not really proving anything, especially if Mr. Ferrera is correct even an ounce of what he says. Also, the statement “Any attack on EWTN will only serve to weaken the voice of Catholic tradition in our ailing and failing culture” is actually incorrect. If EWTN is bad, then attacking it serves to stand against the bad and for the good.Merely sweeping problems under the rug is not helpful and indeed, supports error.
This commentary is a rather knee jerk reaction and sad. One should read Ferrera’s book, give it honest critique before giving a blind hoorah for EWTN and treating Ferrera like a leper.
Truth mixed with lies is still a bitter cake that will not rise and not bear joy to eat…
“EWTN offers a rare oasis for Catholics and, one would hope, a tool of evangelization for non-Catholics”
actually, if one reads the Ferrera book and does their own checking, EWTN is not into evangelizing non-Catholics , hence the point is moot.
You either accept the whole or reject the whole…EWTN wants it both ways and is a fad mobile-they are now down with Latin Masses since the Moto Proprio, but would barely mention it before nor touch it…they sway with whatever breeze blows…not good…
The real “mixed bag” here is topics. Mr. Ferrara’s expertise on Catholic social theory, his criticism of EWTN, its defense, all preceded by the inevitable illogic of criticising someone (“in charity”, of course) for criticising someone. But Kevin’s comment that EWTN is not the Magisterium sums it all up, really. The network’s audience is arguably the most diverse in the world, its catholicity second only to that of the Church. It must speak to every conceivable intellectual level, every known culture, every taste or opinion. A nightmarish responsibility.
But I think if I were preparing a banquet for a starving population, I wouldn’t invite a gourmet who’d write a book about too much oregano in the sauce, “nuanced” or not, introduced by disclaimers or not.
There’s a story by Nathaniel Hawthorne called “The Birthmark”, recommended reading for all the hammers in the world, who will, no matter what anyone says to them, find their nails.
Might as well add mixed metaphors to this mixed bag.
“But I think if I were preparing a banquet for a starving population, I wouldn’t invite a gourmet who’d write a book about too much oregano in the sauce, “nuanced” or not, introduced by disclaimers or not.”
That’s an interesting observation, but unfortunately the book in question didn’t question ingredients, but rather a few courses. It does not deny that most courses on the menu are good, but it does single out some we should remove. But if we are to speak about ingredients, I would certainly hope a stranger would be charitable enough to point out if an ingredient corrupted your food and made the starving sick – particularly if you fed millions.
Sorry, but I take my hat off at Church, not my head.
Mr. Aleman, the first words of any book are its title, especially such a condemning title as that one. Secondly, it’s really hard for me to believe that millions of people have been made sick by EWTN. Again, as Kevin said, it’s not the Magisterium, and if we’re going to burden them with that, they must surely shut down. Didn’t someone point out that the incorrect remarks/views/offensive persons were removed?
Mr. Grant: “Firstly let’s assume that everything in EWTN a Network Gone wrong was incorrect.” Why? That’s not necessary.
Followed by: “What bearing does that have on “The Church and the Libertarian?”
Exactly the point: What’s the topic here? Which of Mr. Ferrara’s books was under discussion? His opinion of EWTN or his opinion of libertarians?
No intelligible discussion can ensue when people are not talking about the same thing–except, of course, in politics.
“Didn’t someone point out that the incorrect remarks/views/offensive persons were removed?”
Dear Dena,
We pointed out that this book on EWTN was written prior to those removals (it went to press in 2005). We have all acknowledged the many improvements made since then.
But I will not apologize because someone had the courage to point them out back when they were happening, just as I am proud of Alice von Hildebrand speaking out against Christopher West. She may not have made it to your banquet, but she has an open invitation to mine.
Dear Ms. Hunt,
“I’m sure, Mr. Aleman, the venerable Mrs. Hildebrand would be welcome at anyone’s banquet, but likely, Mr. West would be as well. The wonderful thing about the banquet is that we’re all invited. We should maybe worry a little less about the guest list and more about being good guests.”
Yes, unfortunately how we define “good” can be at times quite subjective and selective. I never realized Mr. Ferrara did the Church a disservice by writing the truth (at the time) when his comments were evident. No, this is not about “goodness,” unfortunately. But you are correct that this is about selection.
I appreciate the conversation as well. If anything, at least I’ve found it illuminating.
I would have preferred civil discourse, but I see that even the Motu Propio cannot resolve (at this time) the long road ahead.
To all, and as I’ve said previously, we at The Distributist Review will promote “The Church and the Libertarian.” At a time when Catholics are falling for the errors of libertarianism, and as politics, economics, and the social order are paramount to the future of not only this nation – but the world – from our standpoint it is our duty to respond. This book could not have come at better time. Sadly – and I say it in all earnest – If we are alone in this, so be it.
I’m late to this conversation, but having read the whole of it, let me just say that I am very deeply disappointed. I am shocked, above all, to see Joseph Pearce, of all people, make a rash judgment of this sort without even thoroughly investigating the merits of the accusation himself before endeavouring to “distance himself unequivocally.”
For the record, I read Chris’ book back when it was first published at the behest of friends I have/had at Leaflet Missal before they added the title to their catalogue. At the time that I received the desk copy, my housemate and I had already stopped watching most of the programming on EWTN precisely because there was so much of it that had, truth spoke, very little redeeming value. In fact, all that “EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong” did for me, at that timewas reinforce what I and several of my own colleagues already knew to be true: that Mother Angelica had clearly lost control of her apostolate.
Things at EWTN may have changed since then, but I cannot say because I very rarely watch it except to hear the pontifical Masses. The fact remains that at the time Chris’ book was published it addressed, quite fairly, some very serious issues. I don’t call that “an attack”–there was nothing viscous in his treatment of the subject matter–I call it telling things as they are.
As to Mr. Campbell’s statement, “EWTN wants it both ways and is a fad mobile-they are now down with Latin Masses since the Moto Proprio, but would barely mention it before nor touch it…they sway with whatever breeze blows…not good…”
This is as unfair as it is untrue. Mother Angelica not only wanted the Tridentine Rite (and said so), she also encouraged the priests there to celebrate the Pauline Mass ad orientum….until they were forbidden to do so by decree of he local Ordinary.
Regardless, this whole “mixed bag” nonsense is more than annoying; it reeks of fence-sitting rationalism, and I am very sad to see it here, of all places.
Joseph, if you’d like to read what Chris actually wrote for yourself to see that this was not the salacious attack that you’ve evidently been lead to believe it to be, I’d be happy to bring you my copy next week. All I can say at this point is that I think that you’ve been entirely unfair and reactionary in this matter, and I cannot even begin to tell you how astonished I am.
That’s all I have to say.
Dear Mr. Aleman,
What made this both interesting and difficult was that commenters could not defend, as they wanted to, EWTN or Joseph Pearce without appearing to offend, though that was not their intention. That’s what happens when a topic becomes a “mixed bag”. Unless commenters stick to the issue at hand, a virtual donnybrook can follow. Civil discourse must first depend on adherence to that ground rule. It wasn’t distributism that was under discussion, but Joseph’s post and by extension, EWTN.
Those who love the network (even if they don’t watch it much) probably do acknowledge its flaws, past or present. But they’d draw the line at condemnation of it as bad, or even, as in Mr. Ferrara’s title, “wrong”. The thing about drawn lines is that, if one crosses them, one should expect some flack. Courage has less to do with it than common sense.
Still, especially in your post about distributism, and Mr. Ferrara’s value to that subject, I learned enough to understand your concern. And I thank you for that. I’m planning to attend part of the Chesterton conference next week, where I expect to learn more.
Passionate adherence to a political theory (or a television network) can cause collateral damage, sometimes tragic, even to one’s friends. Sadly, one realizes often too late that it wasn’t the theory or the network that was at fault, but the passion. But then, an earnest attempt to live righteously is fraught with peril, not so much from without as from within. (That’s “The Birthmark”.)
And here I depart.
Pax Christi.
Dena Hunt
I remember watching Mother losing control literally, before our very eyes. And then the strokes came. It was heartbreaking.
But as for this post and its comments, I hoped that commenters could agree that criticism cannot be permissible only for a select few with whose opinions we happen to agree. We cannot applaud the “courage” of one, and then condemn another simply because we don’t like what he has to say. That isn’t “rationalistic fence-straddling”; it’s just civil discourse. Language matters so very much. Some people are just naturally more sharp-tongued when they’re aroused about something; others seem barely able to speak without acidic sarcasm. Personally, this latter type always seems more destructive to me. Though strong reactions often do appear “knee-jerk”, I’m far more comfortable with that kind of honesty than with language that tends to slither.
I’m sure, Mr. Aleman, the venerable Mrs. Hildebrand would be welcome at anyone’s banquet, but likely, Mr. West would be as well. The wonderful thing about the banquet is that we’re all invited. We should maybe worry a little less about the guest list and more about being good guests.
Thank you for having this conversation with me. I have learned much.
Here’s the problem I see. So and so wrote a book I don’t like, so I’m going to ignore what he is saying now, no matter how much I like it or how true it must be.
Firstly let’s assume that everything in EWTN a Network Gone wrong was incorrect. What bearing does that have on “The Church and the Libertarian?” Whatever happened to putting a caveat and saying I don’t agree with this author on everything, but this work is excellent. Tertullian and Origen were heretics (although Origen made an act of union with the Church) yet their works are still used in Theology as evidence of our faith and cited in magisterial documents, not to approve those sources, but to demonstrate what truth they did teach. If that is true of them, how much more so of Mr. Ferrera who is most certainly a Catholic in good standing who didn’t even write anything approximating a heresy, but attacked what he saw as failings in a network with bad consequences for Catholics?
Secondly has anyone here ever read EWTN a network gone wrong? Mr. Ferrara actually praises the work of Mother Angelica and all the good that was done prior to her handing it over. He then analyzes somethings that have gone wrong since she let go of the reigns. He did not criticize everything, or say the network was evil, but that some of the personalities appearing there have communicated some error which is confusing Catholics of good will. That is more or less the content of the book. The book doesn’t say any and all good EWTN did is suddenly invalid, or useless.
The problem I see is that EWTN is treated like a quasi magisterium, and anything I hear there must be true and if anyone criticizes what is said there it is bad. This reflects one of the problems that was created by the introduction of vernacular, the feeling of a national Church where everything is politicized according to categories we agree with, not according to scripture and tradition which transcends national boundaries. This is because the Mass now accords with the common culture instead of the universal culture. We need to begin treating sources like EWTN or Catholic Answers as an organ for information that we weigh against what we’ve received from the Aposltes, not as the source of the same.
I detect rad tradism. They are always, every moment, listening for ERROR.
They don’t trust. I cannot think of one programme in the years I have been watching it that didn’t have the Catholic atmosphere. If you cannot ‘feel’ that then you are in trouble. Oh dear, maybe I am stoking the fires again.
I hate/don’t like it to be criticised.
Although I love the work that Joseph Pearce has and continues to do. I have to emphatically disagree with his assessment of EWTN and his distancing from the author of the book EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong. I was a dedicated EWTN viewer. But as I continued to watch over the years elements started appearing in a number of its shows that were dismaying. Over time and way before the book in question came out and without ever reading anything by Mr. Ferrara, I came to the same conclusions he does in his book. I no longer watch ETWN or recommend it. I no longer give the generous contributions to that network I once provided. My faith is too valuable to leave to the questionable likes of a Scott Hahn and others the dominate that network. So Joseph, I love you, but as a Catholic of Tradition, I have to respectfully and emphatically disagree with you.
God Bless,
Tom Fortino
Roswell, GA
I detect rad tradism. They are always, every moment, listening for ERROR. Another sign of it-(evident in this discussion) they never give evidence.
I cannot think of one programme in the years I have been watching it that didn’t have the Catholic ‘atmosphere’. If you cannot ‘feel’ that then you are in trouble.
Oh dear, maybe I am stoking the fires again. I hate/don’t like it to be criticised.
Let’s name names-Fr Mitch surely not a closet fifth columnist, Fr Groeshel, Father Apostilli undercover…
It really speaks of that rad trad paranoia. I have had my dealings with them in other forums and I know.