Jerry Lewis to Raymond Arroyo on 2015 EWTN Interview: "You're the best interviewer I've ever had, and I've had thousands."

Tweet

Raymond Arroyo, the host of EWTN's The World Over, interviewed Jerry Lewis, a few days before Christmas, 2015. I suspect it was one of the most popular interviews Arroyo ever gave. I assume many of you remember it. I missed it.

Lewis died, yesterday, at the age of 91.

I've transcribed a few minutes of the interview, below (I had a bit of help on the last third of it from EWTN and Lifezette). The transcription is from the most "politically incorrect" section, where Lewis says, "the refugees should stay where the hell they are," praises Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan, makes a joke about how the Chinese name their children by seeing where thrown utensils land on a platter - "ting, tong," and (worst heresy of all) calls Stephen Colbert, "an elitist snob."

But calling it "politically incorrect" is unfair to Lewis and the interview. I don't think Lewis was trying to be anything. That's bull__t, he might have agreed. He was simply answering the questions as truthfully as he could (and trying to be a bit funny). He dissed Colbert but praised Tina Fey as "brilliant."  

Lewis was not really part of my generation, and I am somewhat unschooled in vintage comedies, so I can't say I was ever a great fan. I always associated him with silly movies and the Muscular Dystrophy telethons. Though I did think his portrayal of "Jerry Langford" in The King of Comedy was nifty.

But the interview made me want to review his work (the EWTN segment contained some clips).

At the end of the interview (not transcribed here). Lewis tells Arroyo that he was the "best interviewer he ever had." I can believe it. And I think Lewis meant it. Among other things, there's such an obvious sense of good will between the two men.

If you missed it in 2015, and if you have time, watch the full interview, below. It reveals much about Lewis, the comedian and the person, as well as giving a glimpse into the history of mid-20th century comedy and show business.

Tomorrow, I'll post a video of the worst interviewer Jerry Lewis ever had...

The EWTN segment lasted 57 minutes, with the interview taking up most of it. The transcribed section is from approximately 43:55 to 50:00:

Raymond Arroyo: You told a story about going to China recently...

Jerry Lewis: Well they took me to the Great Wall, and I was with probably 200 press. (They) followed me all over Shanghai and all over China. But at the Great Wall I'm standing there with a reporter from United Press and he said, "well what do you think of the Great Wall?" I said "I think it's nice but it ain't great." It made the front pages of every paper in Asia: "Jerry Lewis calls the Great Wall, 'nice.'" And I said, "how do you say nice in China?" "Tongue-Yao." Nice.

Arroyo: Not so nice.

Lewis: I don't even know what that means, "Tongue-Yao." Well you never know that they have a special way of naming Chinese children. It's a special way. They take a huge silver platter. They put it on the ground. They grab a handful of silverware. They throw the silverware up in the air, and as the silverware hits the platter - "ting tong ching chong tong ting" is how they named Chinese children.

Arroyo: Now, you know when some people hear a joke like that, they say, well that's politically incorrect. You shouldn't be telling that joke.

Lewis: Oh, bullshit. [EWTN bleeped this out.]

Arroyo: What do you say?

Lewis: I got six Catholic jokes that'll stop their services.

Arroyo: You can't tell them now.

Lewis: No, of course not.

Arroyo: But you can tell me when we're finished.

Lewis: So these two Jews... no [Lewis makes the sign of the cross].

Arroyo: That's what I like, to see, Jerry.

Lewis: And that's not easy when you're a Jew [winks].

Arroyo: I know, I know, but that's good, it's good practice. Um, tell me who do you consider funny today. I'm going to give you some names...

Lewis: Robin Williams...

Arroyo: Oh, but he's gone.

Lewis: What he did is not gone. Billy Crystal...

Arroyo: Oh hilarious.

Lewis: I mean...

Arroyo: Jimmy Fallon...

Lewis: He's a beginner. He's got a long way to go. But he's doing well, he's doing well. The fact that he's doing the third show makes it well. Jimmy Fallon could never ever be like the old comics that we remember. He could never do what I do because he had too many years on Saturday Night Live, which was a series of this is what you will do and that's what we're shooting next. No point of view. No contribution. They just did what was on the credit...on the cue card. And I think Jimmy is suffering from that kind of work. And watch him in about a year. You're going to see a development of this kid that's going to be so wonderful.

Arroyo: What about Stephen Colbert?

Lewis: I don't like him.

Arroyo: Why not?

Lewis: I think he's a snob. I think he's elitist and snob.

Arroyo: Hmm Tina Fey...

Lewis: Ah, wonderful.

Arroyo: Really?

Lewis: Brilliant, brilliant, everything comes from her brain. Marvelous.

Arroyo: I want to talk about some quick contemporary events. You are beloved in France.

Lewis: Don't forget it [makes funny look off camera].

Arroyo: The French Legion of Honor.

Lewis: And the Commander of Arts and Letters.

Arroyo: You are adored there. I mean, when you show up at Cannes or... it's, forget Angelina Jolie or anybody else. It's Jerry Lewis everybody wants to see.

Lewis: Pretty much.

Arroyo: And humble, too...[Lewis smiles]. When you watch what’s been happening on CNN and on Fox, ISIS blowing up, shooting people indiscriminately — what went through your mind as you saw this?

Jerry Lewis: You gotta remember something. ISIS has attacked the world, OK? And all of a sudden I’m wondering, where are all of our NATO allies? Why don’t I have Germany, and Italy, and Great Britain? Why don’t I have all of them, including Spain, doing something? Get all of your military together, bring that military to our military, and wipe ’em out. They’re asking to be stopped. And we’re not stopping them, we’re just reporting what they’re doing. That’s ridiculous.

Arroyo: And what do you think about the refugees?

Lewis: The refugees should stay where the hell they are.

Arroyo: They say there’s a humanitarian crisis. They’re fleeing. They have to come to America...

Lewis: Hey, nobody has worked harder for the human condition than I have. But they’re not part of the human condition, if 11 guys in that group of 10,000 are ISIS. How can I take the chance? I don’t want to lose another Frenchman or another Englishman. That bothers me. You can’t really knock the president [Obama] per se because he was never given to understand that’s out there. He was never ready, never prepared for it. And what I’m watching in him is uncertainty. And you don’t have uncertainty in a leader. A leader doesn’t give a s___ what he does, but he gets it done.

Arroyo: Politics: I know you watch it. I see you watching news every minute of the day. What do you think of Donald Trump?

Lewis: I think he’s great.

Arroyo: Why?

Lewis: Because he’s a showman. And we’ve never had a showman in the president’s chair.

Arroyo: Well, you had Ronald Reagan. He was a bit of a showman.

Lewis: Well, that’s different. You can’t make a comparison with Ronald Reagan, because I can do three hours on him with just praise, he was so good.

Arroyo: Alright, final questions: What is the legacy of Jerry Lewis?

Lewis: The legacy?

Arroyo: The legacy of Jerry Lewis.

Lewis: My son.

BOMBSHELL EWTN INTERVIEW (Arroyo, Royal, Murray): the Pope's Recent Governing Actions are Like a Caricature of Corporate America

Tweet

Today's interview, from Raymond Arroyo's World Over Live, is a great indication on where the center of gravity is now moving within the ranks of the knowledgable Catholic faithful.

The interview was with author and apologist Robert Royal and canon lawyer and priest Gerald Murray. I think it's fair to say that all (including Arroyo) were highly critical of Francis and the recent direction of his pontificate in the wake of Amoris Laetitia.

Among other things they addressed the report - now confirmed by many sources - that the Pope ordered the firings of three faithful "un-mutual" priests from important positions and then belligerently exclaimed that, as Pope, he didn't have to explain himself to anyone.

Hence the jab about corporate America. 

The three were somewhat restrained and "respectful" - they didn't claim Francis was a heretic or the forerunner to the Anti-Christ, etc. - but the overall negative sentiments were obvious. And I suspect all three may be less restrained in private.

Schism is coming. And more and more fence sitters are taking sides in their own way.

And no, I don't want schism. No true Catholic would. Francis recently privately admitted that he may be the cause of it. But everyone will have to answer to God for the part that he played.

Everyone.

C.S. Lewis once had a character say in That Hideous Strength:

If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family—anything you like—at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.

Obviously Lewis didn't have the early 21st century crisis (stemming from the late 20th century crisis) of the Catholic Church in mind, exactly. But the point is still apt.

There is no refuge. More and more, to exhibit even "apparent neutrality" is to take a side.

Which side are you on?

Bishop Barron's Imbecilic Thoughts on Terrorism and Evangelization

Tweet

We should make "quiet witness" but he can't shut up

This topic was well-covered by Maureen Mullarkey in a recent post on OnePeterFive. But I want to offer my own thoughts on it, if only because I feel so strongly about it.

Bishop Robert Barron's short EWTN interview was ostensibly about the proper Christian response to terrorism. I think it's fair to say that his answer boiled down to pacifism--though he mentioned just war theory briefly if, in effect, dismissively. It's worth quoting part of the interview in full:

Bishop Barron, as the conference is going on, the world is shocked and in mourning over Friday's terror attack. Can you offer some guidance as to how should Catholics respond? How should Catholics be reacting? 

It was especially poignant to me because I studied in Paris for three years. As I watched the pictures I recognized those streets and some of those shops on the corner. So it was very moving to me and poignant to me. 

You know, what's the response? We worship a crucified Lord. And so in a certain way, violence and the response to violence is at the very heart of Christian faith. Our Lord, who took on the violence of the world, took on sin and dysfunction and swallowed it up in the ever greater divine mercy. That's the Christian approach to violence. Not to fight it so much on its own terms--though I think at times that's the only thing we can do, hence our just war theory--but the basic approach, I think, is to respond to violence with love, with non-violence, with mercy. And thereby, don't fight fire with fire but fight fire with its opposite. Fight hatred with love. Um, so that means prayer. That means a witness. That means the non-violent stance. Open your personal life in a public way. Those are all ways that we respond.

But half-way through, the Bishop mentioned in an offhand way that for every 1 person who joins the Catholic faith, 6.5 leave it. And the rest of the interview was largely devoted to how to address that. He reasonably claimed that Catholics should "make our faith attractive" but then explained that this should be done not by "proselytizing" but by bearing "quiet witness". If one is talking to a fallen-away or non-Catholic, then at the appropriate point in a conversation, but only after having made quiet witness, it might be permitted to "ask a question" as long as it is done "non-threateningly." And of course there should be no "finger-wagging" or "blaming."

He then brought the two points together:

So I think by our own reaction to violence in a Christian way, we evangelize. Having said that I think we can point to how dysfunctional it is to respond to violence in a sort of hyper hate-filled or violent way. We can point out the fact that it tends not to work. That might be a way to reach out to those who don't have the faith.

This of course resembles nothing if not parody, though I suppose you either see it or you don't. Here Barron plays the part of the sort of dim mid-twentieth century Anglican vicar--I'm sure the character exists in one or more British comic novels--who wants so much to be relevant and thus taken seriously, but in fact is taken seriously by none, though he is patronized by all.

Now, anyone familiar with Catholic history or Biblical exegesis would realize that Barron's description of the traditional Christian response to violence and war--while superficially plausible to those with, say, a Cliff Notes exposure to the Bible--is false. The tradition is not pacifist or even "non-violent" when it comes to resisting aggression. In a sense Barron is sketching out a new interpretation of Christian tradition (after 2,000 years)--some sort of out of context melding of the thoughts of the quasi-Baptist Martin Luther King and the quasi-Hindu Mahatma Gandhi (as Mullarkey earlier suggested). In addition casually interchanging the concepts of sin, violence and "dysfunction" (whatever that is) is dangerously misleading, even (dare I say it) heretical.

But let's leave those precise considerations aside and instead ask these questions: are Bishop Barron's views on Christianity and violence attractive? Are they persuasive? Do they make, say, a non-Catholic want to become a Catholic? After all, presumably we want to reverse that 6.5:1 statistic. Don't we?

Bishop Barron wants to be liked by the secular world. Indeed, I would say that is the driving force behind his own apparent intellectual dysfunctions. And if you put it to him politely, I think he might even sort of agree. "But that's how you evangelize," you can imagine him saying. "Talk to them on their own terms, without finger wagging."

Of course, many non-Catholics will applaud. Finally (so goes the response of the applauders), here's a Catholic who admits it's all a bit too much to fight for the Catholic faith (or even to non-physically defend it). See, in doing so, he's admitting what we have said all along, that much of what the Catholic Church has stood for and done over the last 2,000 years has been wrong.

They will applaud. But they won't become converts. They will patronize Bishop Barron as they would the dim Anglican vicar. But in the end they won't take him seriously.

If this is evangelism, it's for those who have an IQ below 80.

Christ took on violence and swallowed it up with his mercy.

If that's the best argument for Christianity, then Christianity is obviously false. There's at least as much violence in the world now as there was 2,000 years ago. Christ didn't vanquish it. Unless the Bishop means, metaphorically or whatever or, you know, in some deeper sense. If that's the case, then applause. Finally (according to the applauders) Catholicism has been denuded into just another silly and harmless religious affectation.

(Correct answer: Christ vanquished sin, or at least the eternal consequences of sin for those who honestly repent and ask Him to forgive them.)

Respond to violence with non-violence. Violence tends not to work.

Now, again, this is calculated to get applause. But it is also imbecilic. And as much as some will say they believe it, almost no one actually does. Tell it, by the way, to the Holocaust survivors who were liberated by troops and tanks, not Buddhist floral arrangements.  I suppose it might get some of the New Age crowd. Then again, why should the New Age crowd become Catholic when they're already getting their oatmeal somewhere else?

When terrorists slit the throat of your girlfriend (because she wasn't fast enough in making the exit, and then begged for mercy), open your personal life in a public way.

What is he even talking about?

Admittedly, inside all of this is a point, buried due to the Bishop's own blathering so as to be almost undiscoverable, not least to a non-Christian. What is it?

Well it's not that Christianity has a bias against violence or that it considers violence to be only a last resort or anything like that. Among other things, this is the position of every religious or moral code worth considering, including those held by atheists. Or at least Bishop Barron and those like him claim this to be the case. Islam is a "religion of peace" after all. So this doesn't really separate Christianity from the pack. And if you find yourself in the unusual position of trying to evangelize Vikings or Zulus, the bias against violence thing might not work in your favor anyway.

Rather, I would identify the point thus:

Our faith tells us that Christians should try to love everyone, by which is meant wanting the best for everyone, if only ultimately (but that's what's most important). This does distinguish Christianity and Catholicism from many other belief systems, including most religious traditions. And I do think it is an attractive feature, though some would disagree. When was the last time you heard a Muslim pray for his enemies or, with apologies to my Jewish elder brothers, a believing Jew do the same?

Note though, that this is different from pacifism. It doesn't say you shouldn't fight your enemies. It does say you should love them. And contra Bishop Barron, this isn't because loving them "works" as some rope-a-dope Gandhi-esque strategy to get them off your back or whatever. It's because, following his own example, Christ commanded it of us.

Thus, Maria Goretti famously wanted her attempted rapist and murderer to repent and join her in Heaven. But that didn't stop her from fighting him off (she succeeded at least in preventing the rape), and perhaps saving his soul in the bargain.

Joan D'Arc didn't merely ask her foes a question. And neither did Saint Bernard de Clairvaux (the most prominent theological backer of the Crusades). But they did fervently pray for them.

Bishop Barron is on record, by the way, as calling that Saint a sinner, which is a bit uppity for someone who is against "blaming".

And Jesus made a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. That was His witness. And it wasn't quiet.

But you know what? Let's stop talking and test it. Bishop Barron is welcome anytime to fly to Turkey, accompanied of course by a Word on Fire camera team, and then take a land rover into ISIS occupied Raqqa. There he can undertake a non-violent sit-in at the local kabob joint. Oh, sure, even he might admit that might earn him a beheading. Then again, perhaps it might set a good example.

He isn't willing to do that?

Then what right does he have to in effect ask others to?