Catholic Answers Needs Help

This great apostolate is in need of saving. If you can give, please do so.

HT Pewsitter



  1. They need help because they (like the GOP) have lost their base.
    Check out the comments from unhappy Catholics who once supported them:

  2. Seriously?

    Here's one way they can raise some money.

    If you read the comments, you'll notice that someone posted the IRS filing for CA. Karl Keating makes 200K a year. The organization brings in 5 MILLION a year.

  3. Maybe if Catholic Answers hadn't attempted to tar the SSPX and other traditionalists as some sort of almost-schismatic, semi-Protestants,I'd be more inclined to contribute. One thing the Church does NOT need is for us to form circular firing squads.

  4. Yeah...I'm conflicted about this.

    On the one hand, CA produces quite a bit of the content that Catholic media in the USA requires to operate. And, it manages to be 99% orthodox and STILL operate within the good graces of the Bishops.

    They also employ some of my favorite authors, like Jimmy Akin, inside an organization that gives them some security and structure and allows them to apparently work in a serious way which I'm doubtful they could otherwise do.

    On the other hand, the CA discussion forums are a giant cesspool of error and bad behavior. It's like it's run by a wholly different, anti-Catholic group intent on embarrassing the Church. Whatever small errors the other CA content has problems with, they are magnified 1000X on the forums. I suspect the conventional wisdom that there is a lavender streak in the forum management is true; it seems the only explanation for the incredibly wide latitude given to all things gay on there.

    It's also telling that when you read a really persuasive, knowledgeable conservative or traditional Catholic on any other forum, it inevitably comes up that this person was banned from Catholic Answers, leaving the lamest, creepiest weirdos (Brother JREducation, I'm looking at you) there to represent the Church.

    Apple, an otherwise dynamic, efficient, world-leading organization, has iTunes, which no one likes and everyone loves to bash. Likewise, Catholic Answers has the Catholic Answers Forums, a giant festering swamp of ignorance, heterodoxy, liberalism, gay propaganda, and heavy-handed and rude moderation. It is a blight on the organization and needs to go. If I could be assured that none of my money would go to it, nor to the weirdos like "Michael Francis" who make all of these (more than) questionable decisions about who gets to spray paint on the walls over in there, I might give some money to CA, even if Karl is obviously not a nice man.

    But, as it is, I'll donate to the parish building fund, and privately to seminarians who get tiny allowances from their diocese.

  5. Thank you, Matthew -- I just got off my butt & donated to CA. For the life of me, I don't understand the criticism of their handling of the topic of radical traditionalism. I heard those shows. They were specifically talking about those outside of communion with the church SSPX & sedevacantists -- not traditionalists within the church. It was a fair subject and handled fairly.

  6. *Facepalm* It's really sad because I listened to the follow up show on "Radical Traditionalism" and it has nothing to do with attack traditional-minded Catholics (which I try to be) and those who are schismatic and dissociate with the Church.

    Catholic Answers isn't perfect, but they have certainly helped me return to the Church a few years ago. They are of tremendous value to the Catholic community.

  7. Fred and kuramei:

    There is sadly a perpetual outrage element in the Catholic blogosphere, and so folks will take even perceived slights and use them to blow issues wildly out of proportion. But you are correct, there was nothing at all outrageous about the shows CA did.

  8. They helped me greatly at their forum between 2005 and 2007 when I came back into the Church. And I contributed monthly. Then, they started banning 'trads'. I wrote to Karl Keating about it and he answered me but the bans continued. I haven't gotten banned yet but I no longer contribute. I'm sure they'll survive.

  9. The comments here about the SSPX having separated themselves from the Church shows exactly the damage done by the likes of Catholic Answers. Their last broadcast on the subject of those nasty "rad-trads" was replete with very sly implications that SSPX had separated itself from the Church, from which they quickly back-tracked when called on it. The ONLY way SSPX could have possibly separated itself from the church is if the post-Conciliar Church really is different from the pre-Conciliar Church.

  10. phlogiston1667,

    I ask this out of respect, because I would really like to know. Why don't you think SSPX has separated itself from the Catholic Church? I understand that SSPX only includes its priests and not those who attend its masses and thus I'm only thinking about the priests. I also understand that it was only the bishops and not the priests who were excommunicated. However, these priests do not have faculties from their bishop to confect the sacraments. It seems to me that by continuing to function as priests, but without the ability to administer the sacraments, separates them from us.

  11. Fred K,
    In the Catholic Answers broadcast I heard (the second, not the first), the word "Schism" was thrown around and then backed away from repeatedly. The SSPX is not in schism and it is disingenuous for CA to imply that they are. Further, the excommunications you referred to have been lifted (for 4 years now). No they do not have faculties from the local ordinaries. That effects the sacraments of confession and matrimony. The Vatican has sent mixed signals on whether SSPX masses satisfy the Sunday obligation. But what doctrine is it exactly that separates them? The SSPX would say that they believe and worship as Catholics believed and worshipped for centuries. And make no mistake, there would have been no Ecclesia Dei or Summorum Pontificum without the SSPX, leaving all of us at the mercy of the felt banner crowd. If people don't agree with SSPX, that's fine. But let's keep the discussion civil without veiled accusations of protestantism as CA has done.

  12. SSPX is in schism, and if you were half as Catholic as you posture as being you'd know that in no way equates to "veiled accusations of Protestantism". The Orthodox are in schism—over organizational disputes not unlike the SSPX ones—but they still have valid sacraments and apostolic succession. Protestants don't, because their ecclesiological doctrines are heretical (before anyone worries that I uttered a warpath word and will call down ghosts to curse them, Protestant doctrine is heretical, Protestants who were never Catholic or Orthodox can in no way be described as heretics morally).

    But seriously, how radical a traditionalist can you be if your liturgy is 14 years younger than the Book of Common Prayer? Many of the regional Uses that the Tridentine so imperiously replaced were over a thousand years old when they were brusquely suppressed, why does your respect for tradition stop before the half-millennium mark?

  13. Sophia's Favorite:

    The SSPX is not in schism. I know this because Pope Benedict XVI said it, the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia said it, and all the facts point to it. As stated above, this is the problem with places like Catholic Answers spreading this false information. And, just to be clear, I've never attended an SSPX chapel.

    Regarding your misinformed opinion on the Traditional Latin Mass, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the matter. It is widely known that Pope St. Pius V simply codified the Roman Mass in existence at that time and that went back to before St. Gregory the Great. Furthermore, Pius V did not suppress any rite of Mass that was older than 200 years. This is all very simple really - I'm surprised there are so many people like you confused over the matter.

  14. Benedict has removed the excommunications—as the Patriarch of Constantinople removed the one against him. They are still in schism.

    Admittedly, Pius V did permit the continuance of rites more ancient than two centuries. You know, like how Vatican II never banned the Tridentine. "Not officially banned" and "receiving any official support whatsoever" are two very different things. The Tridentine held sway in most of France, the Papal States, and the Holy Roman Empire, so automatically anyone not using it would be seen as some kind of a bumpkin (this was compounded by Italian racism against Spaniards—seen, for example, in the glee with which Italy spread and perpetuated the "Black Legend"—and German racism against Eastern Europeans). Add to that the new centralization of church structure that Trent brought about, and it's really just a matter of brevity to say "the other rites were suppressed". Negligence is as much grounds for criminal charges as malice.

  15. CA doesn't have issues with those who like the EF Mass and sacraments and who prefer traditional devotions. But there are legitimate issues with Grunerites, Feeneyites, the "dwarves in the stable" faction (which includes a large part of the SSPX's following), and sedevacantists.

    Dave P.

  16. The comments about the SSPX demonstrate the depth of damage done by Catholic Answers/

  17. Catholic Answers is good--the Radio Show. However, their forum is a nightmare. Where the uneducated barely catchechized Catholic herds run wild armed with their opinion and not much else. Of course, my criticism doesnt extend to those who have read and studied the Bible and strive to know and follow Catholic doctrine. But when someone asks a question there a 100 different answers come from 1000 different respondents. If you reply without writing a thouroughly considered 2 page response, then invariably someone replies misinterpreting your words, looking for argument and practically demanding that you prove your case.This happens with all levels of topics, not just advanced ones.

    Try asking a question based upon DeMontforts 'True Devotion to Mary' and invariably hinky Catholics will blech/vomit in your thread and state they can't or dont feel devotion to Mary because it gives them the heebeegeebees. Meanwhile my question isnt answered and the thread is taken over by an argument of why or why we should have devotion to Mary with non-Catholics chiming in with their opinion. The place is very trying and is hardly an experts forum on Catholicism. Yeah, non-Catholics in all parts of the Catholic section of the forum with no restriction on what they can say, argue for or against.
    Nightmare! As if barely cathechized Catholics arent problem enough.

  18. I'm not a fan of CA's forum, nor their uncomprehending shows on traditionalists.

    I wonder why they didn't invite some real traditionalist on the show to discuss the matter: like somebody from The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, or Catholic Family News?

  19. You're all automatically excommunicated for heresy and for physical participation in a heretic cult ... which completely rejects the Catholic Dogma ... the vatican-2 heresy (founded on 8 December 1965).

    Since you're not Christian (that is Catholic) you're headed for Hell ... unless you make a Formal Abjuration of your heresy ... which I provide on Section 19.1 of >


Post a Comment