Your points have merit but they explain more about the general history of Western Civilization than they do about a couple of average Catholic Church going guys with media access to political, not religious, commentary.

As an infrequent listener to Hannity I heard him several times self-depreciate himself with humility. I personally ignore the other guy as much as I can but I would be surprised that Moore would state anything about his personal religious or moral shortcomings.

But that’s not my point; we can find salvation with faith the size of a gnat skimming the surface of God’s mercy or faith as large as an elephant drowning in it.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Too many times IC and combox writers express what never was or will be---creating a Vatican-like pure government. LOL, most Catholics don’t follow the Vatican teachings now!

Clearly the choice is between the marxist/socialist model to the Reagan catholic subsidiarity model.

When the choice is between the stupid party or the evil one---I’ll choose stupid. Fracturing the stupid party into small minorities does what? Create an evil party that dominates as they do now---how’s that working for you?

When it’s all said and done, the “Fox Catholics”, i.e., Hannity and O’Reilly, will have done more harm to souls than the evil doers over at MSNBC. At least at MSNBC, no one pretends to be anything but what they are, useful idiots for hate spew.

I’m glad that both Moore and Hannity are still going to mass, but someone does need to educate them beyond their 2nd grade catechism. I can have a little more compassion for Moore, as I believe he is truly simply lost. Hannity on the other hand, never misses a chance to remind us (for those who can still stomach watching), that he was in ‘seminary’ (which I think equates to a senior year of high school and a “course in Latin.” Oh my!).

While I am not suggesting that Hannity (or O’Reilly), “preach the faith” every evening, they DO have an obligation not to “distort” it and/ or use it when it fits them for a rating. Both promote artificial birth control. I’m not sure what Hannity thinks about gay ‘marriage’ but I know O’Reilly doesn’t see it as any big deal.

I disagree with you Barbara that these men are “earnest.” For starters, there is absolutely no reason anyone in this internet age of Catholic Blogs, Catholic Apologists, and 24/7 EWTN can’t be properly catechized. There is only one reason they are not; they don’t want to be.

For anyone who doubts Hannity’s 2nd grade catechesis or his arrogance/pride, simply Google Father Etenauer and Hannity on your tube and watch the famous “birth control segment.” It’s jaw dropping “telling.”

This is an important and well needed article. Just as Catholic public figures have an obligation not to be catholic heretics, we non public figures have an obligation to rightly call attention to the heretics.

Sad but true, America’s two biggest TV audiences, Hannity and O’Reilly, are hosted by catholic heretics. Danger, danger!

about what each of these two 'Mass-goers' thinks about contraception. For many Catholics, abortion...well that's somewhat of a no-brainer. But as far as contraception is concerned, well that's another matter...as if the two had nothing to do with each other.

Argue on my fellow Catholics.

As a product of the same Catholic education as Moore and Hannity, I agree with the author's thoughts that some of the educational approach was to "kept the historical Christ but dismissed most of Scripture's supernatural elements". I feel though, that many Catholics on TV and in Congress claim to be pro-abortion or neutral on the sin of Onan for their own expediency. They're willing to 'soften'such tough topics and meet somewhere in the middle so as to keep their high paying jobs or get re-elected. If tomorrow congress found out that 99% of all Americans wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, these pro-abortion Catholic politicians all of a sudden would be anti-abortion. As far as Catholic education, bring back the Baltimore Catechism and also a greater education on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Start on page one and start teaching exactly what the Church believes.

....Also, maybe it's time we canceled the cable service and put the TV out on trash day, or only keep the TV with one channel, EWTN. Follow the money, all these channels are about is getting "eyeballs" for advertising money. Instead of watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC, I'm going to try and read more Catholic resources such as The Catechism, or the 2000 years of great writing and teachings from popes and saints.

To: Klaire

The problem this interesting article raises runs much deeper.

It is one of the reasons that the late Servant of God John Paul II called for a "New Evangelization." This "New Evangelization" was meant to be in addition to the regular missionary obligation of the Church to the Nations. It is intended for those who "go to Mass" and other Catholics who have not really ever been catechized.

As someone who regularly teaches RCIA and spends much of my time helping other Catholics (as well as other Christians) discover the beauty and depth of the Catholic vision and world view I am regularly reminded of how desperately this "New Evangelization" is needed, right in our household.

The place where I find that this lack of comprehension of Catholic teaching has taken a very deep root is among those who use some of the teachings of the Church (such as the the truths and principles found within her Social Doctrine) in a piecemeal fashion seeking to bolster their already formed political,policy or economic theories. Otherwise very sincere people, have such political, policy or pet economic theories which they have come to hold deeply, having sincerely thought them through after experiences in their own lives. Then, something happens which causes difficulties.

They attempt to use Catholic Social Doctrine or teaching and thought in a kind of "proof text" and "piecemeal" approach to bolster their positions. We Catholics need to be Catholic first,last and all the way through. We need to start by informing our approach in every area of our lives,including politics, policy and economic concerns, FIRST with the teaching of our Church.

When we really try to do this, for example by actually reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine, prayerfully and with a "heart" (in the biblical sense) ready to be formed, informed and converted by the truth, we quickly discover that the political labels often do not fit. Catholic must become "the Noun" and not simply an adjective which we place before a political label.

The tired political categories "liberal", "conservative" and all of the permutations are increasingly an impediment. What is needed right now is a "New Catholic Action" informed by the wonderful teaching of the Church on the dignity of every human person at every age and stage; the primacy of marriage (which is what it is and not what the new cultural revolutionaries seek to foist upon the rest of us) and the family - and society - founded upon it; an understanding of genuine freedom as always connected to the truth and responsible to others in its exercise; and its insistence that we do have a special obligation in solidarity to the poor in our midst which must, in the policy arena, always recognize the application of the principle of subsidiarity.

This is an interesting article. However, a return to the "Baltimore Catechism" and decrying "modernism" (which certainly is worth decrying when rightly understood) is not the solution. We need to become known for what we propose and not just what we oppose. A new and true humanism and a vision of the real common good.The extraordinary gifts we have been given such as the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, the "new" (although it is already old) Catechism and the compilation of the Social Doctrine in the Compendium pave the path to a future which a new group of Catholics must now frame. We Catholic Christians are the ones who should offer a true vision of "Progress", rejecting the regressive new paganism which is masquerading as "progressive" in a world ripped asunder by the emptiness of what Pope Benedict XVI rightly labeled the "Dictatorship of Relativism" and the nihilism of the hour.

Deacon Keith Fournier

a bit of insomniac crankiness -- but really, really??? Michael Moore is "likeable"?!?!!

Kamilla

P.S. It's four gospels, three of them are synoptics, I think. I've insomnia, I shouldn't try to think . . .

This article, as written, basically flings mud at two well-known persons and fails to substantiate it. The inclusion of these persons therefore was not necessary or beneficial to others. As such, I am not sure it qualifies as charitable.

The author could have just as easily made thse musings about Marxism and Modernism without mentioning the two figures. Of course, I probably would not have read it through if it began that way.

I greatly enjoyed reading this article since it captures what I have thought for a long time about many of the "talking heads" in our society. There is one minor problem, though.

When you write that Marxism "recalls the dialectical materialism of Friedrich Hegel", you are confusing Hegel's ideas with Karl Marx's. Hegel wrote about "dialectical Idealism", which posits that ideas lead to the formation of new systems of governance, economics, etc. Karl Marx (hence "Marxism") was the first to about "dialectical materialism": the claim that economic systems determine the way we think about the world. Marx was Hegelian in some ways (i.e. epochs, progressing towards human fulfillment in the end of history, etc.), but their differences over the nature of the dialectic are huge.

"Hannity on the other hand, never misses a chance to remind us (for those who can still stomach watching), that he was in ‘seminary’ (which I think equates to a senior year of high school and a “course in Latin.” Oh my!)." I tend to agree with this statement. I had been a regular listener of Hannity for a about a year. He would toot his seminary background ( the one on Long Island NY) and I have to tell you something. The Seminary he refers to I attended during the the approx time he says he was there. I have no recollection of him being in any of the upper or lower classmen. Also, If he did attend that seminary, he would have been better theologically educated than he shows himself to be. Let us remember these two men are being paid to entertain. Anything of substance from them is purely coincidental.

I have noticed a problem with some "Catholic" celebrities, in that they seem to think that since they are on TV, have a newspsper column, radio show, etc., that they somehow speak with more authority than the "average Joe" when it comes to matters religious. This is also true with politicians, such as Nancy Pelosi and the Kennedys.

Just because a Catholic [or person of any religion], is a celebrity, politician, etc, this does not somehow make them a "spokesman" or "expert" on their Church. I know this is an obvious point, but I have noticed a tendency of celebrities to slip into this spokesman or expert mode, when they really should not be acting as such.

I don't know if Hannity went to the seminary or not, but it doesn't matter anyway. He has no authority to speak for the Church and while he might claim that he does not, he does give the impression of some "imputed authority." I would hope that most people would take what he says for what it is, his opinion, which carries no real authority.

I know it's unpopular on these pages to suggest this, but isn't it possible that someone might have studied Church teaching on a particular topic (eg artificial birth control) and come to the conclusion that they disagree? Many of the commenters here seem to think that if someone is "properly catechized" and exposed to the Church's actual teaching, they would immediately "see the light" and cease their obstinate heretical ways. I just don't think it's that easy.

And on a related note, it's certainly legitimate to accept Christian proscriptions on, say, homosexuality, but not support their implementation in law. Hence Hannity's throwaway line about not caring what others do in their bedroom.

Also, I must question this description of "the heresy of modernism" used by the author:



Um... isn't this precisely what theologians do? They attempt to apply Christianity to new, developing trends and ideas in society, explaining and reconciling, challenging and testing. If advances in biology demonstrate X, and Christianity seems to say Y, a reconciliation MUST take place, otherwise intelligent people will reject the Faith entirely as unbelievable. God is the source of all truth, natural and revealed, and they can't contradict one another. Isn't scientific rationalism just another way of saying "critical thinking based on evidence"? I don't know that it's a heresy to subscribe to it.

Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were baptized Catholic but do not attend the Catholic Church as yet. I have to say they stand for more truth and faith than cradle Catholics who are commentators on the news networks.

I watched the show with Hannity and Moore and I have to say Moore seemed to know a lot more about his faith than Hannity but they still both have a long way to go.

All of these folks need to watch EWTN and they need to do Holy Hours each day before they even get on the T.V. or their radio shows.

I have gotten to the point where I can't stand listening or watching Hannity. I am tired of his repetitiveness, his fake "lil 'ol me" humility, his constant giving himself a pat on the back for this or that, especially his SUV that he constantly talks about and gives himself a pat on the back for, and most of all because of the damage he does the Catholic Church by calling himself a Christian and then making comments that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. Hannity is not a Roman Catholic, he is a catholic only when he thinks it will give his argument credence. Does anyone remember his attack on Father Eutenauer of Human Life International. I do. Hannity has nothing new to say and I don't know why people watch him since they just hear the same thing over and over again for weeks on end. As for me, during Hannity, I prefer to walk my dog!

Thank you for catching that! Corrected.

The thought of those two debating Catholicism on TV is the equivalent of Abbot & Costello's "Who's on First"

The complete disconnect between modern Catholic opinion on contraception and other issues comes out in this article. There are logical connections that can't be avoided. If one believes that non-procreative sexual intercourse is OK because married couples love each other, it is logically inconsistent to say it's not OK for homosexuals or any others who really love each other and are committed to each other. And if you say you have a right to sex without children, you logically also have a right to refuse giving birth to children if they come "by accident" after sexual intercourse. Their "right to life" conflicts with your right to enjoy sex without being encumbered with offspring.

I know it's unpopular on these pages to suggest this, but isn't it possible that someone might have studied Church teaching on a particular topic (eg artificial birth control) and come to the conclusion that they disagree?

Absolutely. So what?

Many of the commenters here seem to think that if someone is "properly catechized" and exposed to the Church's actual teaching, they would immediately "see the light" and cease their obstinate heretical ways.

No doubt there are more than a few who are material heretics and many many more who are formal heretics.

When formal heretics continue to receive Communion, they are drinking judgment unto themselves. 1 Cor 11: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord

So, the kindest thing one could do to a formal heretic is to excommunicate him so he will not continue to heap coals upon himself.

The Catholic Church does a favor to no man when it continues to allow formal and obstinate heretics to receive Communion.

Excommunication can be an act of charity.

While posturing as "Catholics" O'Reilly and Hannity show that at best they have superflous knowledge of the Faith and in Bill's case a promblem of belief in and of itself!

Educated at Chaminade High School shortly after Vatican II (a critical fact IMHO) and Marist College (which no longer claims Catholicity) O'Reilly proudly boasts of his Catholic elementary school days in the 1950's (which I also experienced) and his self appointed status as a "Cultural Warrior"!

Yet when "push comes to shove" he backs water....fast, especially when the subject delves into homosexuality!

He also revealed himself in an interview with Hugh Hewitt (a former Catholic) wherin he stated that Jesus was a philosopher but probably not "a God" and then hurriedly stated that he was a Catholic while obviously exposing a Unitarian stance!

But keep in mind that these guys operate in a metropolitan New York political/social milleu which is anything but hospitable to the professional media aspirations of believeing and practicing Catholics!

And it appears that they've gotten the message!

Kudos on an excellent piece. That was an excellent summary of two major destructive movements

Hi Everyone,

FYI - Michael Moore was also a seminarian, which makes this article even more amusing.

I am a post baby boomer and I never have even seen a Baltimore Catechism, so I must be missing the significance. I was, however taught stories from the Bible as a child.

I have to admit though, that a good portion of the people I know who are early boomers and older and are good church-going Catholics have limited their catechesis to the Baltimore Catechism. Due to a lack of adult catechesis or evangelization, they seem to have a very rote, and sometimes robotic description of our faith. I believe that this observation may get interpreted by others as a mindless following of the tenents of our faith. These people may not have an understanding beyond this rote and rudimentary knowledge - I don't know.

On the other hand, many people my age seem simply rudderless if they have not furthered their religious education since their childhood. We had no baltimore catechism, so we lacked the words to describe what we were learning about the faith, however flawed or rudimentary.

These two individuals in the article, however unfortunate this may seem, are a very in-your-face indication of our lack of Catholic adult evangelization. It is at times comical, but overall very sad.

We need to pray for ourselves and others, because our faith is so beautiful - it is a treasure. It seems that this treasure has been buried and needs to be unearthed for its glories to be fully seen and appreciated.

Hegel came up with the idea that an immaterial dialectic rules history: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marx studied Hegel and decided that the dialectic was economic and material, so he simply inverted Hegel. End of story. Both of them were wrong. Post-modernist intellectuals love Hegel for saying ideas rule history, which makes them seem important.

Ideas do rule history. Postmodernists typically believe that power structures rule history and discount the role of ideas. Or, if postmodernists speak about ideas, it is only to say that the powerful impose a certain reading of the idea that benefits the powerful.

I'm not arguing on behalf of Hegelianism, but I believe to equate Hegelianism with postmodernism is incorrect.

The best Hegelian interpretation (which is still wrong) is Fukuyama's "The End of History." Fukuyama is not a postmodernist.



There is a singular event in human history (as Chesterton points out in The Everlasting Man) and that is the Incarnation.

THE YEARS OF MY SOJOURN HAVE BEEN THREE SCORE AND FIFTEEN---
IN MY YOUTH, THOSE WHO ATTENDED CHURCH, STUDIED THE BIBLE (OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS), AND LIVED WITH MORAL RECTITUDE, WERE RESPECTED, AND TRUSTED---HARD-WORKING PEOPLE WHO WERE ALWAYS HELPING THOSE IN NEED---ABORTION WAS MURDER AND TREATED AS SUCH, AND ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF A LOVING MAN-WOMAN MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP WAS IMMORAL AND REPUGNANT (A DREADFUL SIN AGAINST GOD).

EVERYTHING IS NOW TURNED AROUND---NO EXPLANATION NECESSARY---
GOD HATES SIN AND LOVES JUSTICE, AND HIS JUSTICE WILL BE SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED.

I CALL ON EVERYONE TO FLEE FROM COMING HELL---FLEE TO JESUS AND HIS CHURCH---LIVE IN TOTAL OBEDIENCE TO HIM AND GAIN ETERNAL FELICITY AND ECSTASY.

I AM YOUR SERVANT---DR. VB

O'REILLY AND HANNITY ---I IMPLORE YOU---COME INTO SUBSERVIENCE TO JESUS---YOU ARE CURRENTLY ON THE BROAD (ANTI-CHRIST) ROAD TO DESTRUCTION AND INTERMINABLE TORTURE.

I did not see the interview. Did Moore really have
good things to say about socialized medicine in Cuba, as
if the medicine there is equal to Canadian healthcare?
On a fishing trip in Canada, my father was injured and
went to a hospital in Canada for treatment, which went
well for my tourist father. I suppose the healthcare
in Cuba has a strong "family planning" component to it:
the tourists in Cuba come for the prostitutes, and they
and the prostitutes require birth control, STD treatment,
and possible abortions.
It is interesting to note that not only are Hannity and
Moore catholic to some degree, but Fidel Castro is/was
catholic, and was trained by Jesuits in New York City.
Maybe Moore can get healthcare inspirations from these
same Jesuits as did Castro.

"I know it's unpopular on these pages to suggest this, but isn't it possible that someone might have studied Church teaching on a particular topic (eg artificial birth control) and come to the conclusion that they disagree? Many of the commenters here seem to think that if someone is "properly catechized" and exposed to the Church's actual teaching, they would immediately "see the light" and cease their obstinate heretical ways. I just don't think it's that easy."

It is easy if you want to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church. To follow one's own conscience (whether "formed" or not) is not the issue. It is OBEDIENCE to Church teachings. OBEDIENCE is the operative word. If you really call yourself "Catholic," you MUST BE OBEDIENT to Magisterial teaching.

This place is getting spookier all the time. Doom and gloom! I have to laugh!



Jason Negri, your comments were appreciated. There has got to be a way for people of conscience to regard each other with good faith, and not simply by labels like heretic. Sheesh.

Perhaps a person is a sinner. Perhaps they are misinformed. Perhaps--think about this one, Sparty--perhaps they DO KNOW what the church teaches and out of humility they discuss things with other Catholics of good conscience and continue to form their consciences while keeping their doubt or disagreement from reaching formal heretical status.

Well now, is not this what we are SUPPOSED to do? People disagree. People dissent. It is healthy and it is how we have arrived here to 2009 no longer thinking the world is flat. New ideas have to be tossed about sometimes. Those of us who believe that there is a natural law cannot actually think that any or ANY GROUP perfectly perceives it. We are always continuing to discover. Yes, we trust the Holy Spirit and obey in humility the teachings of the magisterium. Humility is required and we plod on with our bishops in the pursuit of truth in love. This does not mean that everyone who wants to have a conversation about thier doubts in good faith is a heretic.

Is this process a perfect endeavor? No. Is the Church perfect? No. So, can we give each other a little bit of room for conversing?

Let us stop talking about the Law, and live by the Spirit. I am 90 years old, and I feel compelled to say, with Jesus, in the Gospel of John, LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Love all, the sinner (which includes us all), and the seekers. Look upon the Cross and see the One who teaches us to love one another. He died for us. Let us do as the early Christians did, take care of the needs of the brethren (all of us)

Mr. Negri:Many of the commenters here seem to think that if someone is "properly catechized" and exposed to the Church's actual teaching, they would immediately "see the light" and cease their obstinate heretical ways.

Rich:]Well now, is not this what we are SUPPOSED to do? People disagree. People dissent. It is healthy ..

Catechism:2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Dear Rich, I don't understand what your problem is. Mr Negri described what heresy is (He is right, of course) and I responded by suggesting excommunication as an act of charity so that, in receiving Communion, heretics will not heap coals upon themselves.

If you think obstinate heresy is healthy, then is Protestantism the apotheosis of Health?

I think this article puts on display the problem with both the left and right marrying their political ideology with their Catholic beliefs. I know Jesus loves both the democrat and republican and whether we want to believe it or not, both have a little "Jesus teaching" in them. As Catholics we must be more proud to be Catholics than Republicans or Democrats. If more of us just concentrated on being Catholic first, I think our country, our world would be so different.
In regards to true political junkies, like Hannity and Moore, these kind of guys have existed not just now, but always. Their first love is politics than maybe their faith. Newt Gingrich just profess this by endorsing the Republican "light" vs. a true concertative in the New York election. If your job is politics, your faith is going to be challenged.

If advances in biology demonstrate X, and Christianity seems to say Y, a reconciliation MUST take place, otherwise intelligent people will reject the Faith entirely as unbelievable.

If only science and scientists were as patient and prudent as Holy Mother Church.

In his, "Free From All Error," Fr. William G Most (page 147) describes what happened to one poor, Dr. Semmelweis.

He discovered that puerperal fever could be prevented (largely) via antiseptic measures but his brother Doctors, ignorant about germs, declared him a nut and threw him into an insane asylum for life.

Fr. Most writes that such examples are countless.

I liked the article. Very accurate to what is going on with nominal Catholics. However, can you please make a correction to the following statement you made by taking out the word traditional and maybe even changing the word view: "But it is not the traditional Catholic view." It is not what true practicing Catholics are to believe. Thank you.

In the true Jesus,

Christopher

Well if humility is a virtue... Hannity is the least virtuous person I have ever heard. Like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity is a big bag of wind. Moore, on the other hand, is like most Hollywood elite... he has come to believe in his own press clippings. Baby Boomer or Greatest Generation... a fool is a fool.

http://tiny.cc/n6beY

Of course it's totally possible to be a member of the Church and disagree with its teachings. The only thing you have to do is obey the Church's decisions and keep your mouth shut, unless you are engaging in sanctioned discourse within the framework of theological discussion with other members of the Church.

The problem is with people who claim to be Catholic and go around announcing to anyone who will listen the ways in which they think the Church is wrong. This is not just a Church issue--diarrhea of the mouth is arguably one of the biggest problems in society today. Some people simply can't accept that they might not have anything original or important to say and that there is truly nothing wrong with that. In terms of ideas and opinions most people are not "unique individual little snowflakes."

So-called "reality TV" and other forms of media have greatly exacerbated this problem. People are terrified of being denied their fifteen minutes of fame and having to live a life of anonymity, even though such a life can be one of the most peaceful and fulfilling ways to live.

Don't agree with the Church? Fine. Either leave the Church or disagree/disobey quietly in the privacy of your own home and hope for the best on Judgment Day. But don't sow discord and disunity within the Church by criticizing it publicly to outsiders--or to other members of the Church who are not actively soliciting your input--and then expect to be welcomed with open arms by our clergy who have been charged by the truly faithful to keep the faith.

But my son was watching and I happened to glance at the TV. They were arguing on who's to blame for the real estate market collapse - the banks or the home buyers? I'd say both, and the realtors and other mortgage agents, too. But the two men couldn't agree and I have no patience for watching a tug-of-war where there's no clear winner.

I've somehow figured for sometime now that both men were raised Catholics but sadly lacking in catechetics. They're not alone. What's-his-name Conan O'Brien claims to be a lector at Mass, but look at the filth he peddles in his show. They're not even funny. And Chris Matthews knew enough to say that the war in Afghanistan started "on the feast of St. Joseph." Nice touch, but that's all you can glean of his catholicity.

O'Reilly is a confused Catholic. Therefore I was surprised that just very recently, on interviewing a pro-abort woman on the matter of a young Kennedy's criticizing the Bishops for not backing ObamaCare, that O'Reilly actually spelled out to the woman that Catholics believe abortion to be murder. There is hope...

I like this article, but would like to offer a slight correction. You wrote, "The new breed of clerics also set out to revise and 'update' the Church's liturgical texts." That was not "an update" (how can you update the Eternal Sacrifice?} but a translation from the Latin text. Okay, loose translation, but take heart, there's a tighter translation coming real soon. Also "the new breed of clerics" are no ordinary men - they include at least three Popes who approved them.

But folks, Hannity, Moore, and others are simply Catholic laypeople trying their best to influence public policy to reflect general ideals gleaned from Christianity.

Hannity argues that people must be personally responsible for their actions and must be free to work hard and own property and wages at the end of the day, and then be very charitable with their hard-earned money. In "Hannity's America," the individual is free from federal government coercion.

Michael Moore is a classic communist, believing that people should not be free to own wages and property but instead must hand over all wages and property to the government dictators for distribution as the rulers decide. That's Moore's Amerika.

Which of these two systems do you believe we should have for Americans? That's the question we all need to ask ourselves.

I'm voting for Hannity's version of America. Which system do you want for you and your kids?

If you think this article was about these two pundits then you missed the point of the article.

Personally I find very little value in Moore, come on, he’s socialist at best and communist at worst. Ok, Hannity’s not a saint either but at least he’s teaching a form of Church subsidiarity in his political views---the rest is a teaching moment.

The fact that these to blow-hards get a lot of prime time exposure and Raymond Arroyo gets only one hour a week says a lot about who?

I’m sorry, you don’t know who Raymond Arroyo is? Exactly my point!

I appreciate the point of this article, that those of us raised in the 1970s and 1980s often lack solid religious education. I also appreciate the point made by one reader that older generations had their own educational deficiencies. So... what's the solution? I'm eager to learn and to teach my own kids. This would be a great forum for substantial discussion about what constitutes the education of an informed Catholic. (Beyond "read the bible, not just the stories" and other such suggestions. Fine, but now what?!)

Also, isn't there something in the IC guidelines about "not being the Inquisition?" I get so tired of seeing Catholic forums that use select quotes from the catechism to suppose that their conclusions, however minimally-informed, are the only correct ones. Better to read the catechism sections about discernment and then engage prayerfully and thoughtfully in respectful dialogue with the other. (I had to "unsubscribe" to a Catholic homeschooling group forum once when one mom adamently insisted that only "benchwarming" Catholics would vote for Obama. Hey! I wouldn't vote for him either, but sometimes wise and good people can disagree... and truth emerges when we truly enter into conversation with each other.)

I wonder. We have witnessed the destabilization of Iraq. We have troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan seems to be next on the downward spiral. Iran appears to be the next target. The contradictions showing up from these conflicts are numerous. Saddam was on the payroll of the CIA and even consulted with the US before the attack on Kuwait. Afghanistan now has more poppy fields under cultivation than ever, under our watchful eyes. The Taliban seem to be getting stronger than ever just coincidentally as more aid goes to Pakistan.

These are political ideologues. They follow an agenda. Much as the Coca Cola and Pepsi wars, these people play their games. We cannot expect these fellows to be misguided. Their game is much deeper and sinister.

Eager to Learn:
As a Vatican II baby who only discovered the richness of the faith in grad school, and is now homeschooling my own children, might I suggest a book by Laura Berquist called "Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum: A Guide to Catholic Home Education." Even if you don't homeschool, I think you would appreciate Mrs. Berquist' thesis that education is more about "formation" than "information," and that the true end of education is the formation of an ordered will capable of deciding for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

This was not a thought-provoking debate on politics or religion, and I found it more uncomfortable to watch than informative. When Hannity brought out his "undercover" footage of Cuban hospitals, it was downright embarrassing.

I agree that neither of these men have impressive knowledge of their Catholic faith, but you'd think they would check a few facts before they broadcast their opinions before millions of people. If they are so unreliable about their religious knowledge, can we trust their reliability about any of their other claims?

Moore invokes his Catholic faith to support his pro-Marxist views. I just wish he would familiarize himself with the papal encyclicals on the Church's social teachings or Pope Benedict's indictment of liberation theology (Truth and Tolerance) or the writings of Chesterton and Belloc. He probably has no idea of what he does not know.

THANKS! It is headed to my amazon "wish list" right now! (We do homeschool; all resources are appreciated as we are a family of learners at all ages.)