Raymond Arroyo slammed from all sides


Arroyo is trying to present the news from a Catholic perspective. I’m not a regular viewer, except when he has had guests discussing the widening clerical sex abuse crisis, which has so many aspects to it – clerical homosexuality, cover-ups of abusive priests by bishops, money (and lots of it), the heavy-handedness of the Pope in reigning in the US bishops, on and on, etc. the silence of so-called “good” priests and bishops, intimidation of priests, the furor of the laity over abuse of minors and adults, particularly seminarians. He has to talk fast just to hit the highlights of these topics.


Agent CS (chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile) and Agent CN (chloroacetophenone) are banned by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention in warfare. Do you say that chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile and chloroacetophenone are not chemicals?


Would you have rather they used another form of crowd control? Or is it better they just stepped aside and let everyone pass through? Most people don’t want people that are throwing rocks and broken pieces of metal at law enforcement to just be let go with no consequences.


The error of insufficient alternatives.


What would you have happen? What alternatives do you have in that particular situation?


Nor am I. However, CS is not a chemical weapon, regardless of what the treaty says. It is a non-lethal agent that is used in crowd control. That is very different than VX or mustard gas, which are designed to injure and kill. Perhaps the best way to prevent children from being exposed to CS is to not involve them in criminal activities?


No not at all. I’m merely pointing out the fact that instead of looking at the situation as a whole, many people choose to focus on the fact that children just had tear gas thrown at them. Or if your prefer to really make a statement, let’s use the verbiage of saying that children are now victims of “chemical warfare”.

It makes an unfortunate situation appear that much worse, because now you’ve painted the border patrol and/or the US Military as heartless individuals who just “gassed” children and families. It’s a narrative that doesn’t fit the circumstances. If these “families” really cared about the welfare of their children, then why march them thousands of miles across Mexico to reach a specific US border check point??? They could’ve shaved off nearly 1500 miles by marching to Brownsville, TX. Instead they march to Tijuana, MX?!


I asked my husband the same thing. Why Tijuana? Matamoros was a lot closer and a more direct route. He says his sister has seen large amounts of migrants in Veracruz which is the opposite side of the country heading towards Matamoros/Brownsville. So maybe that group isn’t as newsworthy? My thinking is that there are either fewer photo opportunities with that group or they are all young men. My husband says he is worried this group is a distraction (he’s retired army so thinks that way about situations).


Here’s what wikipedia says: " Tear gas , formally known as a lachrymator agent or lachrymator (from the Latin lacrima , meaning “tear”), sometimes colloquially known as mace ,[NB 1] is a chemical weapon that causes severe eye and respiratory pain, skin irritation, bleeding, and even blindness


So a woman who uses Mace on a would be attacker that is under the age of 18 has used chemical weapons on a child? Forget the fact that she saved herself, she’s now guilty of “gassing” a kid.


Wikipedia calls tear gas a chemical weapon and the Chemical weapons convention agrees. I suppose you can make up your own definition of what a chemical is or of what a weapon is. It is in the book by Lewis Carroll, ( Charles Lutwidge ) that words can mean only what you want them to mean. I can’t disagree with Alice in Wonderland.


I have increased my donation to EWTN.


One ought to consider the source of information before coming to far reaching conclusions.
AINg’s news video source in an early post (Horrifying scenes at the Border) here is from a Pakistani news agency. I wonder what do Pakistanis know about our Mexican border that we don’t?

The other link is from Australia’s green left weekly.


You are obsessed with labeling this “chemical warfare” for some reason. That is just silly. Of course CS gas is a chemical agent and a chemical weapon. Just as a baton is a close quarters, physical weapon and a shotgun is a ballistic weapon. Just because something is a weapon doesn’t mean “warfare” is going on. CS gas is a nonleathal agent that makes one cough, eyes tear up, skin get irritated, and snot pour out of your sinuses while one is standing in the CS gas cloud. It takes about 15min to shake off the effects completely after exposure. I myself have been gassed by CS gas. It isn’t fun to be in. And it is probably the most effective and least violent weapon in the riot control arsenal. The crowd gets some gas chucked at them, the disperse, feel better in 15min with no harm done. The alternatives are officers beating rioters down with batons and dragging them behind the cordon line to be handcuffed or firing nonleathal rubber bullets out of riot shotguns into the crowd which can cause serious injuries.

So while you want to call this chemical warfare, I call it going easy on the rioters and using the appropriate escalation of force with the least violent method possible. Your insistence that this is chemical warfare connotates leathal WWI gas clouds that incapacitated men for the rest of their lives. That is disingenuous and you know that. Don’t be irresponsible with your accusations.


If you go to what I said, you will see that I said that tear gas is a chemical weapon, which you seem to agree that it is.


Yes, it is. And if you read the rest of my response you will see that I proposed the question, “SO WHAT?” Why is it horrible that the border officers used CS gas? I argue it was the most humane option to use against the violent riot at the border.


I haven’t watched EWTN much in the past five or six years.

I used to watch, but I lost tv service for about a year.

I tried getting back into it, but didn’t.

My diocese has a station. They run old Bishop Sheen episodes. I enjoy that.

I wonder what Bishop Sheen would think of a station frequently featuring a “papal posse”?

I know Padre Pio called a man a skunk for badmouthing a Bishop.

Different times, I guess.

Adding, I do miss Father Groeschel.


RA is VERY decisive. It seems you must be anti-Francis to actually like him.

I like EWTN. But in my humble opinion, he should not be on there when every other talking point is anti-Francis.

Also, beware of any American Catholic who is more sympathetic to President Trump than Pope Francis!


Arroyo is American right wing first and Catholic second


So, with this statement, you are labelling yourself American left wing?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.