« Carthusians everywhere! | Main | Vast and Holy Power »
March 10, 2007
Sean Hannity...
Wow. Well, this should be a surprise to exactly no one, but ... watch this. (Source)
(Actually, it might be better to just go here - look the right side at "Hot Video." 'Cause it's hot. - "Judgment Day for Sean."
In short: Sean Hannity running all over Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International for questioning his rejection of the Church's teaching on birth control.
For the beginnings - read this column by Fr. Euteneuer :
For example, last Friday Sean Hannity took a few moments out of his afternoon radio show to make an apology. When I heard that the rather brash Hannity was actually going to apologize for something I was interested to find out what that would be. At first he sounded very
sincere in saying we have to take responsibility for our mistakes. Fine so far. Then he went on to tell his hearers that he had taken two bites of a chicken sandwich that day because he had been traveling and literally forgot it was a Friday of Lent. He stopped eating it when he
realized it was a Friday, but he used the opportunity on the show to make a fairly big deal about the "eat meat on Friday and you can go to hell" issue.Well, even though he claims to be a "good Catholic," Hannity is hardly a credible commentator on Catholic matters. The chicken sandwich scandal was fairly trivial in the overall scheme of his show, but it said much more about the depth of his faith than anything else. I suspect that a great number of Catholics live their faith in the same
way—rule-bound and juvenile—but we need something better from a public "Catholic" like Hannity. We need a vibrant witness of someone who knows and embraces his Faith as deeply as he articulates his political passions.Just for the record, he did not commit a sin when he ate the chicken sandwich—he had no intention to violate the Church precept, and he corrected himself immediately when he realized what he did. That's not a sin, and issuing a dramatic "apology" for doing that is, well, entertainment, not witness. This, unfortunately, is what passes for a deep discussion of the Catholic Faith in the public forum nowadays.
If apologies are the order of the day, then the repentance I would like to hear out of Sean Hannity's mouth is for his shameless—even scandalous—promotion of birth control. Yes, I have heard him personally say, "I have no problem with birth control. It's a good thing." (Another bit of profound theological reasoning.) Given the size of his audience and the importance of his status in pop culture,
Hannity's anti-witness to a fundamental tenet of Catholic moral doctrine is just devastating for the faith of others who may be weak or vacillating in this area. His impact is greater, and so his judgment will be stricter. "To those who have been given more, more will be required…"
And then go back to the first link to see how Hannity "dialogues" with Fr. Euteneuer. Typical.God forbid the out and proud Catholic should say something like, "I really don't understand the Church's teaching on birth control, Father, could you explain it to me? Since you're a priest and the head of Human Life International, I'm thinking you might know something about it..." instead of "JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, FATHER. THAT'S IN THE BIBLE YOU KNOW! AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL?"
Waiting for comments from the Catholic League... I mean...they had time to comment on Rosie O'Donnell...
(Duly noted: Hannity's untiring work on behalf of Terri Schiavo. But the point still remains. If Bill Maher had been all over a priest like this, refusing to give him three seconds to actually explain Church teaching, then turning the discussion to the sex abuse crisis...folks would be all over him.)
The larger point is that, as I've noted before, "We are all good Catholics now," good Catholics whose status as Good Catholics we wear as a badge and hold as a ticket no matter what we happen to believe. Which stands in opposition to the traditional stance of a Christian through a couple of thousand years, which has been the acknowledgment that we are all Bad Catholics in some sense, but uttered in the deep hope and trust that God is merciful and that filled with new life in Christ, we are redeemed, not by our own power or by our own wisdom, standing in judgment of what we think should be true, but by the love of God, the medicine in which we sinners stand in deep need.
There is an (annotated by the blogger ) transcript here:
Hannity: You know what I’m going to say this. I don’t really care that you’re judging me Father. I really don’t care. But I’m going to tell you this: You know what? With what you’re doing here. You are doing more to chase people away from the Church. And I would suggest to you Father. Why don’t you work on real important issues. Instead of superfluous issues? If I eat meat on Friday or you want to call a public figure who is a devout Catholic a hypocrite. Why don’t you work on the corruption in the Church? Why don’t you work on the sex scandal? Why don’t work a change in the attitude that contributed to the atmosphere that allowed a level of corruption that frankly is absolutely morally beyond anything I ever seen in my life for any Church? Why don’t you work on real important issues, sir?
NOTE: Comments are held for moderation (a new thing I'm trying instead of shutting off comments.) So your comment might not appear for a while - just post it once, please!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I watched Hannity's "diologue" with Fr. Euteneuer last night and found it to be distasteful and insulting. I couldn't help but notice the fact that the venom that he spewed at the good father was in great contrast to his prideful claim of at one point being in a seminary. His main reponse to the father's article was to shamelessly heap the entire church scandal at the father's feet. Apparently in Hannity's view if a small percentage of priests commit henious acts this somehow nullifies all priests from speaking out in moral issues, especially if it calls into question one's own viewpoint.
Oh, and to answer Hannity's question about birth control v. abortion: the lesser of two evils is still evil...
Posted by: Bob at Mar 10, 2007 8:50:29 AM
My take on Sean Hannity is that he's a slightly more intelligent version of Bill O'Reilly. Instead of O'Reilly's seat-of-his-pants populism, he offers knee-jerk patriotism. But I wouldn't write him off as a future 'witness.' He's reportedly a voracious reader; if someone could convince him to put down the latest Ann Coulter book and pick up something by, say, Peter Kreeft, he might just feel the twitch upon the thread.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 10, 2007 9:10:59 AM
Judge not lest you be judged, the good book says that.
Yes, but the good book also says "If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."
Posted by: Jason at Mar 10, 2007 9:19:58 AM
For Bill Buckley's take on Catholics' (including Hannity) "Playboy" view of birth control see:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200312191325.asp
I mostly stopped listening to Hannity when the priest sex scandal's broke into public view a few years back. Iit seemed to me he was more interested in improving his ratings than improving our Church.
Posted by: Mark Wyzalek at Mar 10, 2007 9:37:21 AM
I can't listen to Hannity. He basically just berates anyone on his show with an opposing viewpoint. I get the impression he is a sincere fellow and a nice guy off the air, but when the camera is rolling or the mic is on he turns into a clown.
I don't have a huge problem with his on-air apology about eating meat, though it sounds a bit melodramatic. But anyone who uses the "what about the priest scandal?" line of argumentation clearly shows that they just don't have anything substantive to say.
Posted by: paul zummo at Mar 10, 2007 10:00:43 AM
Paul, the problem with the "apology", as Fr. E stated, was that it expressed a juvenile and incorrect take on the issue.
Posted by: meg at Mar 10, 2007 10:10:59 AM
I don't now how old Hannity is (I have never watched him) so I don't know when he got his training but it certainly fits with what I was taught in the 60's - one bite of meat meant an eternity in hell, along with mass murderers. (this does not address the inadvertant eating of meat, which apparently Hannity did, but it is an example of explicit training that we got in the 60's that eating meat = same punishment as murderers.)
Posted by: mb at Mar 10, 2007 10:11:49 AM
The only real Catholic commentary on TV these days? Why, Stephen Colbert, of course! The fine folks at dotCommonweal understand this:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/827/For-God-So-ToughLoved-the-World
Posted by: Brigid at Mar 10, 2007 10:13:04 AM
I can't stand Hannity. He speaks with such a smarmy sense of moral superiority. I noticed some time ago, he's not a good public representtion of Catholicism. He is also unreasonably anti-academic/intellectual. I heard a conversation with an economist who was describing post WW2 investments by US businesses around the world. The economist's thesis was that this was implicit imperialism. While I did not necessarily agree w/the economist, I found Hannity's pouncing on the man for the use of the word "imperialism" to be ridiculous and quite unintelligent.
Posted by: Peggy at Mar 10, 2007 10:13:16 AM
I guess it just goes to show that if you want to see a proper debate, don't watch television. Uncivilised and insulting interrogations by this man Hannity make for 'good' TV, but they shouldn't be considered a serious part of public discourse.
Posted by: Ted at Mar 10, 2007 10:19:22 AM
mb:
1) I don't believe you
2) Hannity was born in 1961, which means his substantive formation came in the 70's.
Posted by: Ted at Mar 10, 2007 10:26:59 AM
According to Jimmy Akin, the (intentional) eating of meat on Friday is a mortal sin, though of course it's not akin to murder. But that's a whole 'nother discussion, and indeed Jimmy's has had about 400 active comments on a post that is now three years old, so we'll leave the controversy there.
Posted by: paul zummo at Mar 10, 2007 10:40:07 AM
Right, Paul. As in "intentional." As in "Screw You, Body of Christ, I don't care what you think or say." As in the definition of mortal sin, which involves cutting oneself off from Christ and His Church. Someone with that level of intentionality has undoubtedly cut himself off from the Church in other ways, as well.
Not as in accidental, and not even as in the case of someone who has been poorly catechized and sees the not=eating-meat thing as nothing more than an identity badge.
The "intentionality" and "with full knowledge" part of "mortal sin" is very poorly understood by most people.
Posted by: Ted at Mar 10, 2007 10:44:45 AM
I have no issue with the comments here concerning Mr Hannity but this is another example of some deeper issues that the Catholic Church-all of us, "the Christian faithful"-need to face and ask ourselves....
What are our underlying assumptions concerning the relationship between being Catholic and American [they are not mutually exclusive nor are Catholics unamerican or unpatriotic]? But in coming into the mainstream American culture during the fifties and sixties what now are the real core beliefs and values which shape our 'world-view'? American middle-class conservative [a whole slew of examples in our pop culture of these] or liberal [whole slew of examples in our culture of these] values? Or the teachings of the Church both doctrinal and moral [and both personal and social]?
In other words, does ideology or faith-love shape us?
Certainly we know of many in the liberal category who pick and choose but what do we make of one of the leading conservative Catholic commentators who wrote in response to Pope John XXIII's encyclical Mater et Magister [the Church as Mother and Teacher]---"Mater si Magister non"?
Who do we really follow?
Posted by: Father Elijah at Mar 10, 2007 11:15:20 AM
Just tell Hannity, given a few more years he won't have to worry so! He can swim in BBQ ribs every Friday (in Lent) if he wants! But he could always offer other sacrifices ... like keeping his mouth shut until at least he's counted to 10!
I found him in the beginning and still do, to be naive and his overreactions prove he uses defensiveness as a substitute for his inability to discern at any real depth.
Has anyone ever asked him just how many abortions have occurred through the use of birth control? That may be another area where one might not have the intention, but it's a bit more final and beyond what an apology could make up for. When that truth is humbly accepted, will he throw BC away as quickly as he did the chicken? Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels! Just maybe he might choke if you mentioned that he's just another Cafeteria Catholic!
Posted by: chris K at Mar 10, 2007 11:21:27 AM
I was really surprised that happened last night; it made no sense for either of those men to engage in that brawl. Mr. Hannity showed himself to be ill informed on Church teaching, and he didn't seem to be at all concerned about preparing for such an interview; he just wanted to get back at the Fr. Euteneuer for his criticism.
Father E. deserves credit for sticking to his guns, although I wondered if anyone had prepped him for his interview; he could have helped his cause as well.
That can't have helped either of them, but I would guess Mr. Hannity had more to lose. After all, you get into an argument with a priest about whether you're a good Catholic, and Catholic teaching, most people are gonna figure the priest is more the expert, no?
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Mar 10, 2007 11:34:51 AM
I have a slightly different view of this whole thing. I agree with Fr. Euteneuer that people who are high-profile Catholics have a great responsiblity to get the Church's teachings straight, but I have to think that this "dialogue" would have been much more fruitful had it been done privately. Sean Hannity strikes me as a very decent fellow who like most of us his age had a pitiful formation in the faith, but nonetheless, seems to take his faith seriously. For Fr. to take a swipe at him as a mere "Cultural Catholic" is not helpful. Of course the guy is going to get his back up!
More importantly, I challenge anyone to come up with a member of the media who did more than Sean Hannity to give the Schindler family a fair hearing when their daughter was suffering so cruelly. I think he should be given some credit for that.
Posted by: Julie at Mar 10, 2007 11:43:51 AM
I wonder if the term "Cafeteria Catholics", would be over 85%?
How about "Cafeteria Catholic Priests", say 42%?
Posted by: Larry Tierney at Mar 10, 2007 11:48:47 AM
Hannity has been profiled quite a bit in the Catholic media.
Posted by: Maddie at Mar 10, 2007 11:59:16 AM
Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are peas of the same pod. Both brash, bombastic news personalities who are Catholics by rearing and practice, but who are dogmatically right on everything, even when they "disagree" with the Church. Really amazing. I think Hannity is probably somewhat more docile than O'Reilly, but only by degrees. It's true they both happen to agree with the Church on many things--but then so do many non-believers, so that hardly constitutes faith or piety. I really don't understand why so many people refer to either of these men as "conservative." If Russell Kirk had lived to hear either of them conduct a show, my best is he would not have allowed either of them to claim the title. Right-wing blowhards, perhaps; conservatives, no.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 10, 2007 1:22:46 PM
Unlike Sean Hannity, Fr. Euteneuer seems to have kept his cool, but he could have handled the situation better. I cringed when Fr. Euteneuer said he would deny Hannity communion, thinking of the large majority of Catholic couples who use artificial means of contraception.
I listen to Hannity often and he is usually courteous with all his guests. Like his fellow radio and TV commentators there is no depth to his thinking, but he can be entertaining.
Posted by: TomM at Mar 10, 2007 1:23:05 PM
Apparently Hannity learned from the Terri Schiavo experience the same lesson the national GOP seems to have learned from it: Back off from pro-lifers! Sean has lately become a mouthpiece for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, and as such, he is spouting that "Change hearts, not laws" mantra that has been dear to pro-abortion Catholic politicians since the days of Mario Cuomo. Hannity has plenty of company too; it's amazing how many so-called socially conservative pundits have been signing on to Team Giuliani.
If the trend continues, pro-lifers will have nobody to vote for in the 2008 election and will be marginalized even on FoxNews and talk radio.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Mar 10, 2007 1:25:39 PM
Peter Kreeft says it so well:
"If you want to invent your own religion, do not be a Catholic. If you want to teach the Church rather than let the Church teach you, there are plenty of other churches for you, churches that welcome theologies without miracles, moralities without absolutes, and liturgies without adoration. Please do not be a Catholic unless you believe the Church's claim to speak in these areas in the name of Jesus Christ."
"There is no such thing as a 'cafeteria Catholic'. Catholics do not pick and choose among the Church's doctrines and laws; we receive them gratefully from God, we 'eat all the food Mother puts on our plate'".
"A 'cafeteria Catholic' or a half Catholic or a 95 percent Catholic is a contradiction in terms. If the Catholic Church does not have the divine authority and infallibility she claims, then she is not half right or 95 percent right, but the most arrogant and blasphemous of all churches...It must be either/or, as with Christ Himself...The only honest reason to be a Christian is because you believe Christ's claim to be God incarnate. The only honest reason to be a Catholic is because you believe the Church's claim to be the divinely authorized Body of this Christ."
- Dr. Peter Kreeft, in his book "Catholic Christianity" (pp. 104-105)
Posted by: Phil T. at Mar 10, 2007 1:27:17 PM
Fr. Euteneuer- recognizes when he sins.
Sean Hannity- refuses to recognize when he's sinned.
I stopped watching Fox years ago, and really dislike the moral neanderthal-ism of Hannity and O' Reilly.
Thank God for Colbert for poking holes in the superciliousness of at least one of these bozos.
Posted by: abigail at Mar 10, 2007 1:28:16 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for this to hit the blogs.
I like Shawn. I watch him on TV and listen to him on the radio.
I was rather surprised and dismayed to realize that he does not know the basic tenets of the Catholic faith. Even more so when he said he went to seminary.
He needs to have a long talk with his Catholic spirtual advisor, if he has one, and listen instead of talking.
The term "Cafateria Catholic" comes to mind.
Maybe we should, as devout Catholics, be more worried about teaching the tenents of our faith rather then putting dancers and other such nonsense in the mass.
He owes the good Father an apology and I completly agree with Phil T above.
Posted by: JMM at Mar 10, 2007 1:52:51 PM
