Conservatism and Catholic Answers Live

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by jonathan_hili

Hi Iron Donkey, it's not so much that they aren't explaining well - which I think they do - but rather that it seems a bit inaccurate to portray their (the show's directors') views on the matter as the official Church stance.

To put it more bluntly, I guess, I could never see a writer, theologian, priest, etc. being a guest on the show who wasn't theologically conservative nor a topic being presented that didn't have an equally conservative slant.

Would you prefer the correct answer or a man-made answer? Or a liberal answer? Catholics are confused and wishy-washy about their faith today, WHY? Because all of the people you are referring to are required to give the correct answer. Do you think the Church should allow anyone on the radio that does not teach what the Church teaches - precisely?

Are we going to stand in front of God at Judgement and say, "Well, the thing is Lord, this guy said this and the other guy said that, and I didn't bother getting the right answer. In all honestly, I was just more comfortable with the answer that best suited my own thinking."

We need to listen, get wisdom and right after that, get understanding.



Peace,
Ed

[jonathan_hili]

Originally Posted by Windmill

Jonathan,

I find that Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples are good about acknowledging areas of open debate on the radio shows, but I agree that it is typically not discussed on the air. This is probably because most of the interactions are ad lib and are punctuated with commercial breaks. Such a format would just cause confusion.

Most of these open debates are conducted in scholar's journals and, honestly, would probably be boring to us with all the proofs, technical language, and detailed argumentation with very precise terminology (IOW, very big words). A radio show would just go down the tubes trying to be fair to both sides of a debate. The listeners would tune out as it would have little relevance to their lives.

That's a fair point, Windmill, and Jimmy Akin in particular, I think, is very balanced when presenting his views.

I'm not suggesting the show should present debates as such, but more so that it should be open to hosting guests who would represent different degrees along the theological spectrum, while still being orthodox.

[jonathan_hili]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Hi Jonathan,


Clarification, clearing up misunderstandings or answering questions like, "Does the Church actually teach this? and if so, is it true?" are welcome. Scott Hahn, who is teaching apologetics, will be judged more harshly at the time of Judgement than those who have not been given this gift by the Holy Spirit. He cannot afford to say, "Well, in my opinion." No, he is under authority and cannot stray from that authority just as all other apologists on Catholic Answers Live.

Most of the time, especially here, the debate is not about the truth, the debate is not to get the right answer as the Church, Bible, Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Church give us, but to challenge Church teaching not in search of the truth but to say, however politely, that the church is wrong.

On a 24/7 basis, the media is not telling us the truth, or clarifying the truth or leading us with good example. It is endlessly repeating lies and preaching most things that go against the Truth and Church Teaching. You got that? Catholics are not ignorant of the other points of view - they are shoved in our faces constantly. AND NO - THEOLOGIANS ARE UNDER STRICT GUIDELINES TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE NOT AS BY MEN BUT UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE ABOVE THEM.

The Truth shall set us free not the lies of men who seek especially after the flesh.

Our Liberty MUST, at all times, be enlightened by the Teaching Authority of the Church - NOT MEN.



Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed, thanks for the reply.

As you say, theologians do have guidelines to follow set down by the Magisterium, but within those guidelines there are issues that are open to discussion, e.g. when the Scriptures were written, their authorship (within reason and tradition, of course), evolution, etc.

I agree with you that the media can often present distorted views of the Church. I'm not really talking about the media's opinions but those of Catholic theologians, many who are brilliant, but not conservative and so we don't get the value of their insights, for instance, someone like Fr Raymond Brown.

Thanks for your input.

Bless you too, Ed.

Jonathan

[Corki]

Originally Posted by jonathan_hili

I'm not suggesting the show should present debates as such, but more so that it should be open to hosting guests who would represent different degrees along the theological spectrum, while still being orthodox.

Well, they do have guests accross a broad spectrum of orthodox viewpoints. They just don't cross the line into the area of hosting guests who are use thier liberal theological opinions to criticize the Church or to mix up theological discourse with dissent/heterodoxy.

Do you have anyone in mind that would present what you are looking for? Frankly, I can't think of any well known liberal theological speaker who isn't also a dissident.

[jonathan_hili]

Originally Posted by Corki

Well, they do have guests accross a broad spectrum of orthodox viewpoints. They just don't cross the line into the area of hosting guests who are use thier liberal theological opinions to criticize the Church or to mix up theological discourse with dissent/heterodoxy.

Do you have anyone in mind that would present what you are looking for? Frankly, I can't think of any well known liberal theological speaker who isn't also a dissident.

Hmmm well, I could list some who have passed away and who, I suspect, wouldn't be invited on the show (though I could be wrong here): Yves Congar, de Lubac, de Chardin. Schillebeeckx, Raymond Brown, just to name a few. What do you think?

[Corki]

Originally Posted by jonathan_hili

Hmmm well, I could list some who have passed away and who, I suspect, wouldn't be invited on the show (though I could be wrong here): Yves Congar, de Lubac, de Chardin. Schillebeeckx, Raymond Brown, just to name a few. What do you think?

What do I think? I think it is very unfair of you to fault CA for not having enough dead theologians on their shows.

Yves Congar, de Lubac, de Chardin would all be interesing guests. I am not sure how much English they all spoke which would be important on radio. It would depend on when, in their lifetime, you wanted to time shift them here. At various times, they were all under some kind of censure and it would be inappropriate for CA to have a censured clergyman as a guest.

Schillebeeckx would be a difficult guest just because his theories are so nuanced. Radio just doesn't lend itself to such complex theories and any attempt to abbreviate them would sound heretical (ie Jesus may have remained bodily in the tomb or his theory on Apostolic succession, which I don't really understand)

Brown might be interesting. He is such a polarizing figure that it would make for some interesting questions from callers.

[jonathan_hili]

Originally Posted by Corki

What do I think? I think it is very unfair of you to fault CA for not having enough dead theologians on their shows.

Yves Congar, de Lubac, de Chardin would all be interesing guests. I am not sure how much English they all spoke which would be important on radio. It would depend on when, in their lifetime, you wanted to time shift them here. At various times, they were all under some kind of censure and it would be inappropriate for CA to have a censured clergyman as a guest.

Schillebeeckx would be a difficult guest just because his theories are so nuanced. Radio just doesn't lend itself to such complex theories and any attempt to abbreviate them would sound heretical (ie Jesus may have remained bodily in the tomb or his theory on Apostolic succession, which I don't really understand)

Brown might be interesting. He is such a polarizing figure that it would make for some interesting questions from callers.

Come on, with some guy called Coffin hosting the show, it should be able to roll out a few cadavers

I think you hit on the term, Corki, "polarising". Fr Brown was definitely polarising but never considered heretical even though all his views wouldn't have been officially endorsed by the Church. I guess the crux of my issue is that a theologian, biblical scholar, philosopher or theologian like Fr Brown would probably never be invited onto the show.

Now, I can understand that it's an apologetics programme, but the result is that responses tend to seem very monotone. For example, if there was a show on sacraments, the only real definition and understanding that I think would be presented is the "official line" and many interesting theological developments might be ignored because the theologians who explore them are questionable in their orthodoxy in some areas or else seem novel in their approach.

Hmmm perhaps a contemporary example would be someone like Fr James Alison?