Posted on 03/12/2007 8:14:39 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Hannity the Liberal
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?
Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.
The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.
And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.
Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.
Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.
Positive Feedback from Fox Interview
Catholc ping!
I saw most of that exchange. Frankly, lately it seems like every time a priest is interviewed or reported upon, it has ended up being one with pro-sanctuary, semi-socialist leanings. This time was quite different. Fr. Euteneuer is right. Sean is a patriot and espouses conservative ideals, but not Catholic ones. Someone needs to tell Sean that the cafeteria is closed.
hey thanks for post #2! (in addition to this one) Very informative.
He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.
I think Sean knows that he is not Catholic. His "I forgot it was Friday" story was a bit of coy mockery. If he was actually Catholic and actually forgot, he would know it is no big deal and not worth mentioning.
You tell 'em Padre! God Bless Fr. Euteneuer!
I would venture to say that Hannity's vociferous promotion of torture is not Catholic or even American either. He's only entertaining if one likes to listen to a rhetorical bully, but as for leadership, religious or political, he should be put on permanent ignore.
I agree. I have a lot of respect for Hannity and his Conservative ideals. He is a good spokesman for the Conservative movement. However (there is always a "however"!!), he was WAY out of line in his attacks on that Priest. I watched the video of their exchange, and I could not believe what I was hearing. The nasty things that Hannity said are more commonly heard from the mouths of San Francisco liberals.
On top of it all, not only was he wrong about Church teaching on birth control, and dissenting about it in public (which is technically called heresy), but then he started crowing about how he had attended a Seminary at some point in the past (apparently to make himself look like some sort of expert). Unbelievable.
He needs to check his ego at the door, eat some humble pie, and issue an apology. We have enough trouble with this sort of stuff coming from the left, and we don't need from within our OWN camp!! If he disagrees with a certain church teaching, there are civilized methods by which such things may be discussed without resorting to dissent. Full frontal attacks on a priest who is accurately describing church teachings is not the way to go about it. As much as it pains me to say it, that Priest was on-target when he said that he would deny Holy Communion Hannity.
I find it odd that an ordained Priest would choose to chastise Hannity in public prior to, say, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Giuliani, etc., etc. From a purely Catholic perspective, Sean and Kerry are in the same pile, though.
Fr. Euteneuer has criticized the pro-abortion Dems in public plenty of times.
Don't worry, he's told Pelosi the truth, too (Copied from this website; dated June, 2004):
Dear Congresswoman Pelosi,
Thank you for clarifying for all U.S. Catholics the meaning of the word "apostasy." Your May 10 letter to Cardinal McCarrick qualifies for what the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines as the "total repudiation of the Christian faith" (§2089). That, by the way, is a document you may wish to consult before writing another letter to a prince of Christ's Church.
Not only did your letter manifest an utterly infantile understanding of the Catholic Faith-the Blessed Sacrament is properly called the Eucharist, not the "sacrament of holy communion," please-it was intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Your lip service paid to the teaching office of the bishops while knifing their authority in the back is a treachery that deserves the scathing contempt of every honest person, Catholic or otherwise.
You have lost your faith. Just admit it. One either accepts the hierarchy of truths and the hierarchy of authority, or she doesn't. You obviously don't. In such case by continuing to call yourself Catholic you are gambling with the most precious of all birthrights, your own soul; and it's yours to lose. I can understand that it is not politically correct to care about your immortal soul-prescription drug benefits are more popular in Washington-but at least have the decency not to make the souls of others "twice as fit for hell" as you. Have you forgotten about the millstone? The Lord delivered that image to another group of sophisticated public officials who scandalized the weak in faith.
All those who dare call themselves Catholic while shamelessly advocating the death of Christ's "least brethren" will not have the Supreme Court to appeal to on the Day of Judgment. There is a Supreme Judge that you should be more concerned about. However, He obliges no one to remain in the Catholic Church. Membership is, above all, a free "choice." The door of the Church that opens wide to welcome every repentant sinner swings both ways. In the Name of Jesus, use it and spare the rest of us your perversity.
I hold out hope that some day you will see the light and want to reconcile with the Church you have so brazenly betrayed. If so, call me. I will hear your confession. But get ready to do some serious penance.
And he has a sense of humor too. =)
Cool. I have a lot of respect for linear Catholics.
You have to wonder about anyone who can claim to be friends with Alan Colmes.
&&
One of the reasons I stopped listening to Hannity is that everyone is his "good friend", including clintonistas like Lanny Davis and Leon Pannetta. I realize that a talk show host has to be polite to the opposition, but calling such jerks his good friends is disgusting pandering.
What a bizarre comment.
The Catholic Church doesn't really care about his "patriotism" or his "conservatism", but about his Catholicism. I believe that's what's at issue here.
If religious denominational litmus tests are to be required of one to be considered both patriotic and conservative in the USA, or the Republican party, then we have no freedom of and for religion in this nation.
A further bizarre comment.
Last time I checked, "freedom of religion" was intended to protect religious belief and expression from the government. It wasn't intended to censor the public rebuke, by a clergyman, of a member of his own denomination. In fact, it wasn't intended to censor a public rebuke by a clergyman, period.
then perhaps I should reevaluate my thoughts on the position of Catholicism in our society.
Now this isn't bizarre. It's chilling.
**Someone needs to tell Sean that the cafeteria is closed.**
He is a CINO Catholic in Name Only, and I didn't used to think that about him. Too bad. He came out looking really dumb on this interview. Did what he accuses a lot of dimocrats of doing on his interviews. He tried tochange the subject to blaming Fr. Enterneuer for the priest abuse scandal.
| 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). |
| 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.