As far as monetizing their YouTube podcasts, I'm willing to give Taylor Marshall some slack. He did convert from Episcopalian and he lost his full time job as an Episcopal priest as a result. He could have sought a dispensation to become ordained as a Catholic priest but had enough wits not to, so he was left without a job but with a growing family when he converted. That takes guts. More than the rest of “apologetics inc" in general. More than me, that’s for sure.
Interesting look at “apologetics inc.” Towards the end, he’s obviously referring to Mark Shea, whose early apologetics works were quite good, but who subsequently went down a very dark path:: http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-end-of-pop-apologetics.html The End of Pop-Apologetics The 1990s and early 2000s was the golden age of professional Catholic apologetics. If you wanted to get schooled about apologetics, you tuned into the Catholic Answers Live every afternoon. You read the tracts of Mark Shea, Karl Keating, and Jimmy Akin. You listened to the Al Kresta Show syndicated through Ave Maria Radio. You watched Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN and owned sets of Fr. John Corapi's lectures on cassette. You probably owned several books and VHS tapes by Dr. Scott Hahn. These professional defenders of Catholic truth were the resources to turn to when you wanted to learn how to respond to objections to the faith, especially those leveled by evangelical Protestants. If I had to bookend the period, I would say it began around 1988 with the publication of Karl Keating's perennial classic Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and went into decline around 2004-2006, the years the internet moved into "Web 2.0", the iteration of the Internet that generated masses of users participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. At the beginning of the era, Keating's book demonstrated the need for quality Catholic apologetics done professionally; on the other end, the rise of independent content creators in the wake of Web 2.0 empowered regular folks to publish their own apologetical materials and post it directly to the internet, bypassing the professional apologetics institutions like Catholic Answers. So we are talking about roughly an 18 year reign of the professional apologist. This period and these people served us well for the time. When I was first returning to the faith after a youth of irreligion and a few years dabbling in Protestant Pentecostalism, it was the resources of Catholic Answers and its affiliated apologists that provided me with the foundations I needed to build my faith upon. And, as I have mentioned many time on this blog, I owe my return to the Church in a very immediate way to the lectures of Dr. Hahn, whom I will always consider to be one of my fathers in Christ. The role of these institutions and cadre of writers and speakers was important, especially during the 1990s when internet access was radically less than today and so many Catholics relied on print material and physical media to educate themselves. Had Catholic Answers not been there—had this group of apologists not been active—the English speaking Church would have been much the poorer. However, it is undeniable that the heyday of this kind of institutional apologetics has come and gone. Certainly there will always be a place for skilled, professional apologists—I just emceed an event this summer with Tim Staples and he was sharp as ever. These sorts of folks will always find open ears. I am talking rather about institutional, professional apologetics as a model for the delivery of apologetical content. That model has been shattered by the rise of independent content creators, just like Spotify disrupted the studio model of delivering music and Netflix destroyed the cinema model for distributing film. Today Catholics are much more likely today to seek apologetical content from independent content creators like myself or other bloggers than by turning to institutional channels. The professional apologist and their institutions are no longer the gatekeepers of apologetical content. In order to survive in this new environment, the professional apologists began expanding their output to include other forms of content creation: blogging, podcasts, and social media. Some managed to handle this transition very well; Dr. Scott Hahn, for example, has maintained the same level of professionalism, humor, and humility he has always demonstrated. Others, well, it got...interesting. Once unleashed on social media, a fair number of these apologists—loosed from the oversight of professional editors or accountability to larger institutions—went down some rather unsavory paths. Some could not resist the temptation to wed politics to faith, devolving into obnoxious Catholic political pundits, while others became proponents of bizarre conspiracy theories; still others outed themselves as committed leftists, alienating themselves from the largely conservative fanbase that consumes apologetical content. And then there are those who revealed themselves to be completely unhinged: ranting, insulting, belittling, and attacking others on social media with a vitriol on par with the blue checkmarks on Twitter. Those who have gone down this path—and admittedly, it is not all, but still a fair amount—have fallen in the same pit that many have today, which is to assume one's positions are so secure, so unassailable, so self-evident, that those who disagree with you are not simply mistaken, but are morally bad. As someone who formerly admired and learned from these people, it has been extraordinarily disappointing to see them behaving like the worst of the blue checkmarks. I'm not calling anybody out by name, but we have all seen them lurking around in comboxes and Twitter feeds and Facebook threads, spitefully belittling people whose only offense has been to disagree. Is this behavior a pathetic attempt to "stay relevant" by imitating their endlessly irritating secular counterparts, the "talking head" media class? Is it fueled by bitterness at having lost the exclusive "gatekeeper" role they once enjoyed? Is it resentment that their own ecclesial visions, which they once argued eloquently before rapt audiences and in the pages of Catholic periodicals, seems less and less persuasive? Is it simply that they were always mean people whose lack of charity was kept in check by editorial teams and publishers? It's hard to say, but it's been illuminating to watch. Whatever it's cause, it is clear that the age of pop-apologetics is over.
The vocations of this monastery are booming and they currently have a waiting list, so why is this occurring? The chaplain in the video, Father Maximilian Mary Dean, explains that it is an agenda and they are being told to get with the times. He states the the TLM is just the tip of iceberg and that they are going after the iceberg. He is a musician and he also has a youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/frmaximilianmarydean . I think that this story may have been posted on the forum or a similar one has. EXCLUSIVE: Vatican fires Carmelite chaplains and orders cloistered nuns to make changes 4/11/2022 The cloistered, Carmelite monasteries of Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Fairfield, PA and Valparaiso, NB have both had their Chaplains removed by The Vatican and have been given one year to comply with new regulations that would upend their traditional way of life. In this exclusive interview, Father Maximilian Mary Dean, who has served the sisters in Fairfield for five years, tells Jim Hale that it comes as no surprise after last fall's Apostolic Visitation. The forward to this video which includes two scriptures and a quote from St. Francis De Sales may actually help those here debating about Pope Francis: Ezekiel 33:6 And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves, and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman. Here is an example of Father Maximilian Mary Dean's music, surprisingly contemporary imho.
It might or might not be a good thing to be denounced or ridiculed. I think its efficacy rather depends on the disposition and psychological condition of the victim of the ridicule. There seems to be a tendency among Catholics to equate obsequiousness with humility. They aren't even close to being equal. An outspoken person can be just as humble or far more humble than one who adopts a servile demeanour. We should all bear in mind that only God knows what's in a person's heart. I'd like to think that we all are on the side of the Church. I agree that it is not good to wrongly accuse others. "Using up prayer time" may apply to you, a young person with a family to raise. What's right for you may not be equally right for others. I was on my way out of the Church over the abuse scandals. It was the Holy Spirit answering my sister's prayers who led me to some of those "Big name bloggers" (especially Catholic Answers) that kept me from walking away. That the bloggers don't help you doesn't mean they help nobody. It would be wrong to assume that people who follow big name bloggers don't pray and sacrifice just as much as you. I'm not including myself in the latter group because I don't pray or sacrifice nearly enough and I often find you inspiring although I'm not fully in agreement with you on this issue. Taylor Marshall did a very good series on the Book of Revelation. There are plenty of Protestant videos on Revelation but precious little from Catholics. He served a need at a time when "Rapture" nonsense was spreading among Catholics. I watched one of his videos about Pope Francis heresies. One was enough so I don't bother watching any other videos that look like he's about to accuse the Pope of being a formal heretic. That's what adults do, and Cardinal Cupich tells us that we need to have a "grown-up" faith. I'm not going to jump on any bandwagon accusing Marshall of schism. I know that he's wrong but the charitable thing to do is point out how he is wrong and pray for him and his family. I notice that individual lay people are far quicker than the Church to denounce fellow Catholics as schismatics. Even Henry Viii wasn't formally excommunicated. Yes, we do need to check our pride. All of us. Not just Taylor Marshall.
In case it has been misunderstood what I'm talking about specifically...I'm referring to constant criticism of Pope Francis and other church leaders. I am all for speaking and teaching the Faith with love if God has called one to it. Yes, we all need a check on our pride. That is exactly what I said above, and I believe wholeheartedly that when God allows others to attack or put us down, it is for our good. It sure doesn't feel good, but if we do a little soul-searching, we'll learn and grow from it. I'm in the camp that believes God doesn't allow a hair on our head to be harmed without His permission and purpose for our lives. It's just up to us to respond as humbly as possible so it will be beneficial.
Let's not forgot that the most major objective of the under cover Communists was to corrupt the priesthood and seminaries. It appears now that they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, aided by Catholics who believed that their Christians was to pay, pray, obey, keep their mouths shut and adopt a "nothing to see here" servility. Now, we have Bishops so committed to serve the zeitgheist that they would have apostates have a role in choosing not only successors of the Apostles but which parts of the deposit of faith should be retained and which consingned to the dustbin of history. That's what this synodal path is about. 74 Bishops out of thousands have condemned it publicly. Only four Cardinals put their names to the dubia on Amoris Laetitia.
That God, through his permissive will, allows ridicule doesn't mean that He actively wills it. Not everyone is as spiritually mature as you. Giving people a pass for ganging up on others because you would know how to respond if you were the victim is not a valid excuse.
Padre Pio adopted a "pray, obey, and keep his mouth shut" approach. He became angry when his friends wished to expose Church scandal and vindicate him when he was treated badly by corrupt prelates. I don't believe at all that the communists succeeded because of humble and obedient Catholics who didn't wish to disrespect their Church leaders. Communists succeeded (as far as they have; God will win in the end) due to the great number of sins growing among Catholics and their failure to pray and sacrifice as Jesus and Mary asked them to.
I'm trying to offer a larger, spiritual perspective to all of this. As I said before, I believe Taylor Marshall is a good man with good intentions. Looking at the big picture of what's happening, I see God's hand in it, if Marshall will take a step back and examine it all humbly. I don't see the world in terms of victim and oppressor. I see good vs. evil, and what God is trying to do in each of our lives and the Church as a whole. There is always so much more than what meets the eye.
I think I've said enough. I will take my leave of the forum for the rest of Holy Week. I will keep everyone here in my prayers!
I think you would better understand my position had you lived during the years of pay, pray, obey and keep your mouth shut. Padre Pio was spiritually mature enough to survive his persecution. Not everyone is. Many souls have been lost through turning a blind eye to abuse. Prayer and the need to speak out aren't always mutually exclusive. Jesus said that if His disciples fell silent the very stones would cry out. In my parish, the priest asked for suggestions for renewing the faith in the area. He said he didn't mean sodalities or novenas. I think they had a barbeque instead. And ours is one of the better parishes in the Diocese.
I hope I haven't caused you to take a break. I actually agree more than disagree with you. Perhaps it would be better if I left. Have a lovely Easter.
No worries, Maria, I was already planning to take a break. I always feel a bit uncomfortable when I get to talking too much on the forum. Sometimes it's just not important that my opinions all get to be heard.
I'm relieved to read that I haven't scared you away. Your opinions need to be heard. As a young, devout mother raising her children in the faith, you are more valuable to this forum than I could ever be. Old fogeys like me with an opinion on everything are ten a penny. I really need to stay away from contentious topics. (Incidentally, the term "whipping boy" is one I had heard used all my life. It never occurred to me that others wouldn't be familiar with it.) God bless you and your precious family.
I grew up in a working class family in rust belt west central Pennsylvania and heard it used all my life too. I’m kinda shocked that some here on the forum had not as I just assumed everyone knew what it meant.
They were able to explain hell as Our Lady showed the children of Fatima. I’m glad the folks are hearing it somewhere!
Isn't it funny how we have a common language yet some words or expressions either aren't used or can have different meanings from place to place. I remember years ago an Irish entertainer relocated to America. On a visit home, he told a story about his school aged children and how the word we use for eraser has a totally different meaning in the US. Homely is another such word. Here it means someone, usually a mother, who keeps a nice friendly home and makes guests feel at ease. I think that in the US is means a plain or ugly person.
It’s scriptural that no servant is greater than the Master. He was like us in all things but sin. He showed us by His example how to endure ridicule. We are talking about following the Master and 2000 years of saints.
Are you saying that God actively willed Padre Pio to be persecuted unfairly? I think it more likely that God's permissive will applied there.
