Do We Need Fr. Dwight Longenecker?

Ars orandi ^ | August 31, 2013 | David Werling

[Alex Murphy]

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, in a fit of charity seldom demonstrated by the Internet Sanhedrin, recently asked: “Do we need Michael Voris?”

In the lead up to the US presidential election, I watched quite a bit of Michael Voris, but ever since the election of Pope Francis, I haven’t been visiting The Vortex very often. Mr. Voris has a lot of interesting things to say, but it is mostly the same complaint about the bishops, and never seems willing to go to the heart of the matter. In fact, I spend more time on the Catholic Answers forum than I do listening to Michael Voris. However, a Patheos blogging priest asking the question, “do we need Michael Voris?” impelled me to watch the episode of The Vortex that raised Fr. Longenecker’s hackles.

Not surprising, what inspired Fr. Longenecker’s question about our necessitating or not Mr. Voris’ existence was a speculation (wild and inaccurate, in my opinion) that Catholic Answers’ recent financial problems are related to a Catholic Answers’ program, hosted by Tim Staples, that attacked traditional Catholicism under the guise of attacking “radical traditionalism”. Voris mentioned that Catholic Answers may have alienated a certain percentage of their clientele, and were paying a financial price. He then passed on information that others have posted about the salaries being earned by some Catholic Answers personalities and other Catholics at EWTN, Relevant Radio and Ave Maria Radio. Here’s the money (yes, yes, I know; puns are the lowest form of humor) quote:

Then, on top of it, some enterprising com boxers dug up official numbers that the top dogs at Catholic Answers all make at least a hundred thousand a year, with Karl Keating pulling down a cool quarter a million and Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples each over a hundred thousand. That apparently set off a race among some bloggers to investigate how much other big name Catholic media people are pulling down. And a number of Catholics in the blogosphere are expressing shock. EWTN bigwigs are all well into the six digit figures with funded retirement packages. Doug Keck and Michael Warsaw are each north of $130,000 and Raymond Arroyo is over 100K. Ave Maria Radio’s Al Kresta makes $115,000 a year and Relevant Radio’s Drew Mariana earns around 150K. All of these figures by the way come from viewers who dug into the official IRS public numbers, and posted them online, available because these are all nonprofits and must report salaries. They were spurred on by Catholic Answers’ recent financial plea. Various viewers who have seen these salaries have expressed feelings ranging from surprise to shock to outrage. (Thanks to Catholic Family News for posting this, along with Voris’ video.)

Predictably the Patheos bloggers (the reading of which is always like watching a train wreck), who practically worship the ground those “Professional Catholics” walk upon, were quick to pounce on Voris, including the priest in question, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, who started his hit piece with this little gem: “Until now I have kept mum about the controversial self-appointed prophet Michael Voris.”

Oh brother… You see Fr. Longenecker has stayed “mum” because, of course, he’s so fair and open minded and above the fray. Of course, beyond his fairness and open-mindedness, he realizes that Michael Voris is a “self-appointed prophet”. Get that? Voris is “self-appointed”, or in other words, illegitimate, rogue, irrelevant, and perhaps even dangerous.

And why is Fr. Longenecker no longer remaining “mum” about Voris? What is Voris’ prodigious offense that has called down the righteous indignation from Fr. Longenecker’s place on high? It’s because Voris “calls out Catholic radio host Al Kresta, author and founder of the apologetics apostolate Karl Keating and his employees Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin”, and “he accuses them of taking exorbitant salaries”.

Yes, folks, that’s right. Michael Voris is an awful, appalling malcontent! How dare he convey information that other people, not Michael, himself, are posting online in response to Catholic Answers’ entreaty for donations in light of dire financial straits?!

Fr. Longenecker asks a cluster of questions in this his indignation:

First of all, what status has he as a Catholic watchdog?  Who appointed him as the policeman of all Catholic apostolates?  Are the financial situation of Catholic Answers and Al Kresta any of his business? Does he have all the facts? Has he checked them?  

It is evident from these queries that Fr. Longenecker simply did not pay attention to Voris’ piece. Voris unmistakably stated that the salaries were supplied by others, “com boxers”, who simply lifted them from the IRS website. Non-profits are required to disclose salaries, so fact checking is something Fr. Longenecker can do just as well as Voris. Fr. Longenecker doesn’t need to ask who appointed Voris as a policeman; he needs to ask who appointed those “com boxers” as the salary police. Voris is just passing on the information to help make another, entirely distinct, point.

Indeed, Fr. Longenecker is downright engrossed in the whole salary thing and “professional Catholic” thing. Most of the rest is concerned with these two matters. He even goes on to reprimand Voris for his “unscriptural” approach. (I have to assume Fr. Longenecker meant “immoral” approach, but that’s just a pet peeve of mine.) It would seem that since Michael Voris didn’t call Al Kresta or Tim Staples or Karl Keating to discuss their exuberant salaries before revealing them on The Vortex, Mr. Voris contradicted Scriptures, which say we have to go to our erring brother in private before making their offenses known.

That’s interesting. I’m wondering how Fr. Longenecker’s phone conversation went with Michael before the good priest posted his little hit piece?

At any rate, it doesn’t matter, because Voris didn’t make any private information public; the IRS did, and other people, not Voris, posted what they found at the IRS website in com boxes completely unrelated with ChurchMilitantTV. Discussing public information in public, such as the salaries of those who work for non-profits, isn’t the same as discussing someone’s wrong-doing. Earning a salary isn’t necessarily wrong-doing. Nor is it detraction. There is a reason why the IRS requires those salaries to be made public: accountability and full disclosure for those who donate money to those non-profits. By discussing those salaries in public, Voris is simply doing what the IRS and the law intends.

It’s pretty clear that Fr. Longenecker didn’t heed or comprehend what Voris was saying, or perhaps Fr. Longenecker muted whole sections of that episode of The Vortex. I don’t know, but what is obvious is that Fr. Longenecker completely missed the point, which explains why the good priest seems so fixated on the salary issue.

I did my best to listen to what Mr. Voris had to say, and here is my breakdown of this episode of The Vortex:

*Four years ago ChurchMilitantTV (or whatever it was called back then) criticized the CCHD for giving money to groups that promoted abortion, artificial contraception, etc. A Catholic bishop objected, and the next day outlets that carried Voris’ programing dropped him. He dug into and found out that the bishop who objected to his treatment of CCHD was responsible.

*He told the story of how Paul Brown’s printing company lost the CRS business because his wife’s organization, American Life League, criticized CRS for giving money to groups that promoted abortion, artificial contraception, etc.

*Voris concludes that to go against the “The Church of Nice” will bring the vengeance of “The Church of Nice”. If you stick your neck out, you very well could lose your financial head.

*The chaps at Catholic Answers, EWTN, Relevant Radio, Ave Maria Radio, etc., make a lot of money, and we know this because of others investigating Catholic Answers in light of their recent financial appeal.

*They have a lot to lose, so they play it safe, because they don’t want risk biting the hands that feed them, i.e. the bishops.

*For this reason, the “professional Catholics” are actually making the problem worse, not better, because they are afraid to speak out against the “The Church of Nice”.

Fr. Longenecker is free to disagree with this narrative. I’m not so sure I entirely agree with Mr. Voris either. However, I would never insinuate that Mr. Voris doesn’t have the right to say it, or that just because I disagree with him, that we “don’t need” Mr. Voris. The fact that Fr. Longenecker, a pastor who is required to lay down his life for his sheep, would ask such a callous question about a layman is unsettling. It leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth coming from a priest. At the very least, Fr. Longenecker needs to listen carefully before rendering his public judgment on Michael Voris.

But there’s something more that needs to be pointed out, and I think it gives a particular insight into why Fr. Longenecker so egregiously misunderstood and misrepresented Mr. Voris’ argument.

Fr. Longenecker writes, “an even more worrying problem is the link back to Catholic Answers’ program criticizing radical Catholics.” He means radical traditionalists, by the way. I’m not sure what he’s trying to do by dropping “traditional”, but I suspect he would like to lump that particular breed of Catholic in with the radical liberals on the far Left of the Church’s life. That’s a favorite tactic of Vatican II “conservatives”: get under traditionalists’ skin by equating the traditionalists with liberals. It’s a lot like calling traditionalists attached to the SSPX Protestants.

At any rate, Voris’ speculation that Catholic Answers’ financial problems might have something to do with their attack on “radical” traditionalists seems to be of particular concern to Longenecker. It should be noted, though, that Voris brings this up as an aside. It’s a throw-away line that really has very little to do with the main points that Voris was trying to make. It was also a rather wild and inaccurate speculation that hindered Voris’ argument more than it helped. However, Fr. Longenecker devotes four lengthy paragraphs to radical traditionalists.

Fr. Longenecker’s hit piece on Voris is really a reactionary diatribe against traditionalists, or rather what Longenecker and other Vatican II “conservatives” contrive traditionalists as being. What is really bothering Fr. Longenecker is not the fact that Michael Voris made public information that other people made public from already public records. What is bothering Fr. Longenecker is his perception that Voris is doing this to get back at Catholic Answers for their unjustified and inaccurate attacks on traditional Catholics (which Fr. Longenecker admits he never listened to). Fr. Longenecker writes, “therefore the most worrying thing about Voris’ attack on Catholic Answers, EWTN and others is that it seems like some kind of sick revenge thing.” I’m afraid, though, that is what Fr. Longenecker took away, because in his ignorance of traditional Catholics and traditional Catholicism, he believes that that is what traditional Catholics would do.

Fr. Longenecker’s pompous witlessness in regards to traditional Catholicism couldn’t be expressed more plainly than when he wrote:

If they criticized radical Catholics, so have I. When we do, we are careful to repeat over and over again that we love the traditionalist movement. If they are like me they say time and again that the vast majority of traditionalist Catholics are good, God fearing faithful Catholics. They love the liturgy. They l0ve [sic] the church. They love their families. We are on their side–and that’s exactly why we criticize the RADICAL traditionalists.

Now wait just a minute, Father! If you love “the traditionalist movement”, if traditional Catholics are “good, God fearing faithful Catholics” who love the liturgy, the Church and their families, and you are “on our side”, then why in the world are you not a traditional Catholic? I love traditional Catholicism; I love the Traditional Latin Mass; I love my family, the Church, my neighbor, and guess what? I’m a traditional Catholic, because if I weren’t, if I loved all the smells and bells from a distance, but didn’t practice the hard things and believe the hard things of my faith, then I would be a hypocrite.

This is not rocket science, Father. If traditionalists believe and practice the Catholic faith the way Catholics had always believed and practiced the Catholic faith prior to the Second Vatican Council, and you love that traditionalism, and if these traditionalists are good, God fearing, family people who love the liturgy and the Church, then you are a hypocrite for not being a traditional Catholic! What’s more you certainly don’t have the right or authority to define what is an acceptable or unacceptable traditionalist. Your moral, ecclesial and theological credibility is nil among traditionalists.

Are there fringe elements in the traditional Catholic world? Without a doubt, there are. But are we to believe that these sedevacantists are culpable for the state of confusion that drove them to that position in the first place? I think the Fr. Longeneckers of the world need to work out the incompatible and irrational behavior of their church leaders who excommunicate traditionalists for wishing only to practice the fullness of the Catholic faith, but coddle and dialogue with other groups that openly deny the divinity of Christ. You can’t condemn the sedevacantist without taking a good, long, hard look at the possibility that you might have some part to play in the reason for intelligent and otherwise reasonable people reacting in such an extreme and unreasonable fashion.

Are there “bad” people who claim the traditional faith? Sure. But, honestly, does anyone really believe that there are more angry, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, paranoid conspiracy theory loons among traditionalists in comparison to the Vatican II, mainstream? Has Fr. Longenecker ever read Culture Wars Magazine or attended a Medjugorje conference? Start working on that beam, there, Father! However, we have our own priests to deal with our bad apples, and those priests aren’t so hypocritical or judgmental than the average internet priest. The Fr. Longeneckers of the blogosphere often forget this fact because traditional Catholic priests don’t swim in the same pond they do. Traditional Catholic priests smell of their sheep, and not the ozone that wafts from desktops and laptops.

With priests like the ones we enjoy, do we traditionalists need Fr. Dwight Longenecker?

[Alex Murphy]

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, in a fit of charity seldom demonstrated by the Internet Sanhedrin, recently asked: “Do we need Michael Voris?”....what inspired Fr. Longenecker’s question about our necessitating or not Mr. Voris’ existence was a speculation (wild and inaccurate, in my opinion) that Catholic Answers’ recent financial problems are related to a Catholic Answers’ program, hosted by Tim Staples, that attacked traditional Catholicism under the guise of attacking “radical traditionalism”. Voris mentioned that Catholic Answers may have alienated a certain percentage of their clientele, and were paying a financial price. He then passed on information that others have posted about the salaries being earned by some Catholic Answers personalities and other Catholics at EWTN, Relevant Radio and Ave Maria Radio....

....Then, on top of it, some enterprising com boxers dug up official numbers that the top dogs at Catholic Answers all make at least a hundred thousand a year, with Karl Keating pulling down a cool quarter a million and Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples each over a hundred thousand. That apparently set off a race among some bloggers to investigate how much other big name Catholic media people are pulling down. And a number of Catholics in the blogosphere are expressing shock. EWTN bigwigs are all well into the six digit figures with funded retirement packages. Doug Keck and Michael Warsaw are each north of $130,000 and Raymond Arroyo is over 100K. Ave Maria Radio’s Al Kresta makes $115,000 a year and Relevant Radio’s Drew Mariana earns around 150K. All of these figures by the way come from viewers who dug into the official IRS public numbers, and posted them online, available because these are all nonprofits and must report salaries. They were spurred on by Catholic Answers’ recent financial plea. Various viewers who have seen these salaries have expressed feelings ranging from surprise to shock to outrage. (Thanks to Catholic Family News for posting this, along with Voris’ video)....

....It is evident from these queries that Fr. Longenecker simply did not pay attention to Voris’ piece. Voris unmistakably stated that the salaries were supplied by others, “com boxers”, who simply lifted them from the IRS website. Non-profits are required to disclose salaries, so fact checking is something Fr. Longenecker can do just as well as Voris. Fr. Longenecker doesn’t need to ask who appointed Voris as a policeman; he needs to ask who appointed those “com boxers” as the salary police. Voris is just passing on the information to help make another, entirely distinct, point. Indeed, Fr. Longenecker is downright engrossed in the whole salary thing and “professional Catholic” thing. Most of the rest is concerned with these two matters. He even goes on to reprimand Voris for his “unscriptural” approach. (I have to assume Fr. Longenecker meant “immoral” approach, but that’s just a pet peeve of mine.) It would seem that since Michael Voris didn’t call Al Kresta or Tim Staples or Karl Keating to discuss their exuberant salaries before revealing them on The Vortex, Mr. Voris contradicted Scriptures, which say we have to go to our erring brother in private before making their offenses known. That’s interesting. I’m wondering how Fr. Longenecker’s phone conversation went with Michael before the good priest posted his little hit piece?

[Jeff Chandler]

Somebody is playing a game of “Let’s you and him fight” on FR.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

Pretty much. It’s pathetic, really.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Fortunately the game is gaining little if any traction.

[CdMGuy]

I find those salaries at places like EWTN quite interesting. Considering the amount of work those named individuals do, their rates of compensation are quite reasonable, even for a non-profit. Those are quite responsible positions.

Compare these salaries with what executives at Red Cross, United Way and other non-profits are making. As a Catholic, I am gratified that the EWTN folks are willing to work for less than they could earn elsewhere.

[Salvation]

four

[Bruinator]

Those salaries are not exorbitant in the least.

[Bruinator]

Those salaries are not exorbitant in the least.

[Alex Murphy]

"...the top dogs at Catholic Answers all make at least a hundred thousand a year, with Karl Keating pulling down a cool quarter a million and Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples each over a hundred thousand...EWTN bigwigs are all well into the six digit figures with funded retirement packages. Doug Keck and Michael Warsaw are each north of $130,000 and Raymond Arroyo is over 100K. Ave Maria Radio’s Al Kresta makes $115,000 a year and Relevant Radio’s Drew Mariana earns around 150K..."

Those salaries are not exorbitant in the least.

I think Voris made a huge mistake by IMO trying to stir up class warfare within his viewership. While I am surprised at some of the salaries, I'm not one to begrudge any man his income. One's earnings are a combination of his marketable output, his ability to correctly assess the market for his labor, and his ability to negotiate higher wages from his employer. "A laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7)."

[RBStealth]

Do we really need Alex Murphy?

Well he is useful at times. Perhaps his problem of only being 90-95% right on with his postings is a liability though.

[Salvation]

ROTFLOL!

[Alex Murphy]

"Do we really need Alex Murphy?"

Well he is useful at times. Perhaps his problem of only being 90-95% right on with his postings is a liability though.

I see I have to work harder on my batting average!

[smvoice]

Asking if we really need Alex Murphy is like asking if we really need rain. Or sun. Alex brings life to these threads and I for one, would miss him terribly if he were to leave.

Alex, you can send my check to my forwarding address...;)

[ebb tide]

Do we need Fr. Longenecker?

http://throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com/2013/08/do-we-need-fr-longenecker.html

Until now, I have kept quiet on the self-appointed celebrity priest Fr. Longenecker. However, today I read this piece where he ‘exposes’ Michael Voris, whom he disparagingly calls a ‘self-appointed prophet’.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing to hold people accountable, however there are serious problems with the way Fr. Longenecker made his criticism and I must be blunt!

First of all, he asks ‘what status does Voris have as a Catholic watchdog’ and ‘who appointed him as policeman for Catholic apostolates’.

If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Fr. Longenecker was ignorant of the credentials of Baptism. Baptism gives any and every Catholic the standing to carry out any and every action codified in Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since he isn’t ignorant, it’s hard not to conclude he is willfully and deliberately marginalizing the fiat and power of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The Catholic Church has canonized lay people who corrected the errors of misguided Catholics and apostates.

Fr. Longenecker then asks ‘whether the financial situation of Al Kresta and Catholic Answers is any of Voris’ business’

Actually, yes.

The point of the video was to point out the fact that people who earn a living reporting Catholic news are turning a blind eye to episcopal and presbyteral corruption.

I like Al Kresta and all - but he DOES coverup corruption by refusing to report the corruption. I Like Carl too, but it’s pretty clear he’s let his apostolate be used to tarnish and attack faithful Catholics in who attend the Latin Mass. I don’t read Catholic Answers, but it’s clear he’s insulted a number of faithful Catholics who are now shunning his apostolate. He is now reaping the consequences.

Voris is 100% right on the money. No pun intended!

Just like the mainstream media isn’t covering the ethnic cleansing of Catholics - just like the mainstream media didn’t cover what was going on in Auschwitz and every other concentration camp — just like the mainstream media did not cover what actually took place in Benghazi or in the Obama administration — Al Kresta is a player in the Catholic journalist blackout of corruption. So isn’t Carl. The National Catholic Reporter, EWTN - etc., etc.

If one is ‘taking money’ for reporting Catholic news, one has the duty to be impartial and report the facts, irrespective of the identity of a person. If a whistleblower comes and reports corruption and has the facts to back it up, if the corrupt person is a priest or bishop and they bury the story, they are an accessory to the damage being done. Their silence is an intentional act to protect a person who is harming other people.

It has been going on for a very long time. It has in the past caused Catholics their salvation and sometimes, even their very lives. Catholic journalists do not give a damn about it or they do but the cash cow they have going for themselves is more important to them than the lives and souls of their brothers and sisters.

It’s a tough and embarrassing thing to face and say but it is the truth.

Consequently, the fact that Catholic journalists take money for reporting Catholic news is a perfectly reasonable fact — and I would argue necessary - in reporting the craven and selfish practice of covering up corruption.

Fr. Longenecker then states he learned things as a protestant.

A word to the wise.

Fugghetttabout the stuff you learned as a protestant. The man you knew with the bulldozer who quietly tithed is irrelevant. I’ll say it again: The moral of Voris’ story is about Catholic journalists who take money to report Catholic news and then protect corrupt people with their silence.

Nobody cares where their royalties are coming from. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t get a fair wage.

Fr. Longenecker makes good use of his emotions to build straw men and distractions.

Again: The fact that they earn lots of money to report Catholic news and then refuse to report corruption — that is something reasonable and impartial people get disgusted about.

It is a wrong and righteous people try to right it.

Then there is folks like Fr. Longenecker who try to undermine and discredit the people who are reporting corruption.

Most people don’t want to be discredited or shunned by a priest or a bishop or the entire USCCB!

This kind of conduct wields it’s own power. They used same weapon used against people who knew priests were raping children.

There are relatively few people in this world who will choose to serve Christ no matter what the price. It’s clear, at least to me, that Fr. Longenecker knows he isn’t one of them and is lashing out at a person who is.

I see what he is doing and it is pathetic.

The next problem with Fr. Longenecker is that he contradicts scripture.

First, he mischaracterizes the content of Voris’ video to do a character assassination. Check the section where Scripture describes the content on the Tablet Moses carried down from the mountain.

Next, he questions whether Voris sat down with Keating and Al to talk about their covering up corruption.

Is he serious?

How about the fifteen years we have approached Catholic journalists with the goods on the corruption?

Is fifteen years worth of trying good enough?

You know what whistelblowers got in return from folks in the Catholic Church like Fr. Longenecker?

Even when a bishop goes so far as to hire subcontractors to kill unborn children and force Catholic doctors, nurses and pharmacists to go along with the murders whilst he sits at arms length from it all in the peace and quiet of his rectory?

Cover ups and character assassinations, bullying, threats and intimidation.

It’s fair to say we have given up on Catholic journalists who run the spin machine for corrupt priests and bishops. We have found our own ways of doing God’s work.

I’ll tell you something else. You know what got this crowd crazy about Boston Catholic Insider? They couldn’t retaliate. They couldn’t slander. They couldn’t bully and threaten and intimidate. They couldn’t damage and hurt the whistleblowers. It drives them absolutely wild. They can’t execute retaliation.

What kind of a priest has convictions about ‘lunatics’ and ‘loons’. Is that how he attracts people who are scandalized and hurt back to the Church?

Moreover, a man wearing a roman collar who tries to claim the moral superiority of keeping gripes private because that’s what scripture tells him to do, then proceeds to violate it himself, doesn’t have very much credibility.

Father also tries to use sedevacanists to slander people who attend Latin Masses in complete communion with Christ’s Church - “if they are not careful” they’re next.

Quite the screed.

But whatever you do, don’t jump to conclusions.

Fr. Longenecker doesn’t want to be misunderstood as not liking Michael Voris.

Heavens no. Why that would be preposterous.

Father said it is just that Michael has the kind of personality that is never happy. Voris is the kind of person who is always looking for an enemy. Voris is insecure and paranoid and thinks “everyone” is a heretic and apostate. He thinks he’s so good, all smug and warm in his own little group attacking his next enemy in his smug little self-righteousness. He’s a sicko that one.

One last thing: Fr. Longenecker’s ending is page right out of Mark Shea’s phony attempts at humility.

He’s a sicko himself dontcha know. He’s sought to remove the speck out of Voris’ eye before his own and for this he repents unconditionally.

Does he actually think we don’t know that any sincerity in that statement would have caused him not to publish this piece of trash?

[ebb tide]

Ping to Post 14.

Seven!

[Legatus]

Nobody else may need him but I certainly did... and I’m a “radtrad”, “madtrad”, “plaidtrad” whatever they’re calling us these days.

I probably disagree with a lot of Fr. Longenecker’s opinions on tradition and traditionalists but I know God used him to heal me and when he asked to say a special “Healing Mass” for me he catered to all my traddy idiosyncrasies without so much as a frown.

He’s powerful in the confessional too.

So yes, we really do need Fr. Dwight Longenecker... even if he’s not a tradical.

[trisham]

God bless you.

[Salvation]

Michael Voris certainly calls people to the edge.....and then he give them a hard-hitting punchline.

[David M Paggi]

I could not agree more. On-air talent on any level is a scarce resource, so competent broadcasters routinely command six-figure salaries. The individuals mentioned above are unfailingly courteous, knowledgeable, and diligent in their work.

There is no question in my mind that they could earn a great deal more (while probably doing less work) in commercial broadcasting than they do in their apostolates.

For example, I’m confident Raymond Arroyo could prepare for and successfully interview just about anyone on any subject. I had the opportunity to meet him and watch him interact with his audience with consummate professional skill. He is just as polite, friendly, and courteous backstage as he is on camera. No less a judge of character than Mother Angelica selected him as her biographer.

So before complaining about what are actually rather modest salaries for competent broadcasters with deep subject-matter expertise, the author above should have done some research on the salary levels prevailing in the field.

[David M Paggi]

Without wading into the “is so-and-so sufficiently traditional?” swamp, it occurs to me that none of the people the author calls to task are actually investigative journalists. It is simply not their area of interest or expertise to probe for and expose wrongdoing, unless of course it happens to fall in their lap. On the contrary, it seems fairly clear that EWTN and its content partners go to considerable lengths to vet proposed guests before putting them on the air, and it seems to me that is their real area of responsibility.

Consequently it is a blatant non-sequitur to conclude from the absence of exposures of the unnamed persons to whom your comment alludes that those whose reputations you have undertaken to attack must therefore be complicit in the corruption you believe is so obviously rampant.

Please observe I have no knowledge of the facts you allude to, which is not my area of interest. I have on occasion attended the Latin Mass offered by a nearby parish and it certainly is lovely and worthy of the cultivation Pope Benedict XVI went to such pains to promote.

However, it is absolutely clear to me that either both forms are equally valid or equally invalid, and so if you insist that the latter is the case, you assert that the promise Our Blessed Lord gave St Peter, and by extension all the Church, has been rendered false. Who indeed has the power or authority to set that aside? Also, who is it that accomplished such a remarkable feat that eluded many emperors such as Napoleon or corrupt popes such as Benedict IX?