Please Let Us Stop This “Accompany” Rubbish

I was reading this article about a tele-conversation between Jordan Peterson and FrancisBishop Barron. let me tell you first that I am not a fan of the first, and keenly dislike the second.

In the interview, Bishop Barron says something extremely disquieting, unworthy of a priest and outright creepy. Speaking of the way to assist the sinner and help him to repent, the FrancisBishop states:

“We have to accompany people all the way down [to the bottom before they can ascend],”

I have checked this part in the video, and he does not retract, or even correct, the statement. Actually he doubles down, in that he makes clear that he really intends this damn “accompaniment” in the damned Francis sense.

It is impossible to stress strongly enough how utterly and completely wrong this is. This is the satanic vision of a Church that sees Herself as a kind of gentle nurse, staying with you as you sink in a pit of drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual perversion or whatever that is, perhaps gently encouraging you to “grow out” of your way, but still making clear that the nurse is there watching you as you insert the needle.

Just a second after Peterson had (with a surprising petulant voice, I must say) complained that the Church “does not give hell” anymore to the faithful, Barron replies with a concept that is the most apt to accompany the sinner all the way to hell under the pretence of mercy; after which, every pretence to also give some strong warning can only be a travesty, as in the nurse who watches you as you insert the needle and then says to you that what you have done is… quite suboptimal.

Let us keep the metaphor alive, and let us say that the role of the Church is to slap the drug addict in the face, so hard that his head goes round and round for a good quarter of an hour; then have the slap followed by a vivid description of hell; then round everything up with another massive slap, ad abundantiam, so that the message remains.

This is why the Church excludes from communion public concubines and those in mortal sin. It’s Her way to make your head go round and round for a quarter of an hour, so that you get the message.

I am sick and tired of these damn, effeminate nurses. When I was a little child, we children were intimidated at the mere sight of the priest, walking around in his cassock, tall and solemn like he is Pharaoh. Why were we? Because we knew that the man was the very embodiment of what we knew to be unshakeable truths of life: death, judgement, and the atrocity of hell. 

As we grew up, we had around us priests we did not wear a cassock, would or could not be seen as the embodiment of any authority, and probably did not believe in hell, either. We did not respect these weak, little men. We saw them as useless losers, unable to even do their job. We knew they were expected to be leaders of men. We saw that they had reduced themselves to … nurses.

A priest cannot escape giving his sheep a strong warning about hell. Hell must be the cornerstone of everything he does, because helping his sheep to avoid it and the only reason why he has the job in the first place. By all means, let him talk a lot about Incarnation, Redemption, Salvation, and the life of grace. But let him always, always point out to the only thing that counts in life: avoiding hell.

Barron is not part of the solution. He is part of the problem. He should stop brown-nosing Francis and, as they say, get a pair. Perhaps, one day he might, who knows, even become a worthy bishop.




Posted on July 19, 2019, in Bad Shepherds, Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. I wonder what Barron would say about the number of times Jesus mentions hell and everlasting fire.

  2. Inevitable conclusion: The Vatican II Church’s mission is to accompany folks (make them feel good) on their road to hell, i.e., be a companion of evil. This would explain why nothing is done about sodomy among priests and Bishops.

  3. In the late 70s and early 80s, the corporations that did business with apartheid South Africa excused themselves with the term “constructive engagement.” “Well,” they said in complete self-serving mode, “if we weren’t in the country and doing business we’d have no ability to influence the government to change its ways.” Of course, they were heavy on the “engagement” part (making money all the way) while never seeming to have time to get around to the “constructive” part. It might do well to remind the devotees of FrancisChurch of their similarities to their cultural enemies. But self-awareness doesn’t seem to be a strong suit of that crowd. Bottom line, evil CAN’T be constructively engaged because evil is intrinsically DEstructive.

  4. John J. Marren, Jr.

    I agree with Mundy’s assessment of “Bishop Barron.”

    He is a bit creepy….

    I once had an encounter with him when I called in on EWTN’s comment line to question him about a statement he made.

    I was fueled with a few glasses of Merlot but managed to control my enthusiasm…and was surprised that EWTN took my call and put me on the air.

    His response to my challenge was a bit weak – he relied on citing all of his advanced theological degrees instead of countering my challenge to his statement.

    Most of the EWTN media “stars” end up losing their religious vocation (if they had one to begin with….) I waiting for Bishop Barron to leave the priesthood to become a media mogul after producing his series on Catholicism.

    God bless!

    • John, Great comment. Your EWTN episode is so typical of the vapid V2 cheerleading on that hoax Catholic network. We are all better off spending our leisure time in prayer or reading a book by one of the great pre-V2 saints, and nothing wrong with enjoying a glass of merlot as we read.

  5. I converted decades ago, in my 20’s. My introduction to Christianity was as a Baptist, and I remain eternally grateful for that introduction. I still feel close to Southern Baptists, the ones who haven’t sold out yet. Catholicism was in my family, and I was drawn to it for it’s bold line for sin and the beauty of the Mass as well as tradition. I remember this very clearly. The priests in cassocks make an indelible mark on one’s memory, they make clear the supernatural “otherness” of Catholicism, it’s difference from the world, formerly, I mean.
    Now the church chases after the world, and look, so many souls are lost and the entire world is suffering because of that one reason. The world has no moral voice, no leadership, and we are in free fall.
    You can’t tell these men anything. They have thrown away the pearl of great price for trinkets, they see the church in eclipse but this is their desired direction of things, downward. When the person driving the vehicle is hell-bent on destruction, driving at light speed and pointed toward the tree, there is little to do to prevent the obvious result.

  6. I too have never had much time for Bishop Barron. Somehow I am not surprised to read that he has suggested that the Church should help the sinner down before bringing him up! It is an appalling thing to say and completely reprehensible. He should never have been made a bishop.

  7. Weak and effeminate priests who will not preach truth are a scourge. But, sir, let me correct you on a vital point But let him always, always point out to the only thing that counts in life: avoiding hell.. That is a direct contradiction the Questions 3 and 4 of the Baltimore Catechism:

  8. Nurses do a lot of good work. Not a great idea to compare us to a weak priest.

  9. I really don’t know why people like JP and Ben Shapiro interview Bishop Barron. If they want to know the truths of the Church, he is as bad as any prelate out there. They should speak with Br. Andre Marie of the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH.

  10. Matthew R. Schwartz

    I recently saw the docu-drama.”The Devil and Father Amorth”. Bishop Barron is asked if he would consider praying the Rite of Exorcism in his diocese. The Bishop replies to the interviewer, ” No. One needs to be a holy person …”. The answer makes it appear as if Bishop Barron assumes that excellence in the virtues is for someone else, not him. The interviewer remarks on the Bishop’s obvious humbleness given his reply. I thought it represented his spiritual sloth.

  11. One Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, DC, namely Donald(Donna)Cardinal Wuerl, was noted for using the word “Accompaniement”, many times(Mockingly Impersonated by The Remnant Newspaper Editor/Publisher Michael J. Matt).
    In the RC Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA, where Wuerl was Ordinary, he had an Entourage known as “Wuerl’s Girls.”
    He never was into Doctrine. He exiled a Priest for refusing Holy Communion to a Lesbian Buddhist(Ex–Catholic).
    I’m not a fan of The Most Reverand Robert Barron, a “Captain of NewChurch.”

  12. I’ve always told people: if you hold hands while someone is skipping their way to hell, where do you think you will end up too? This “accompany” rubbish is the enemies way of a) feeding the endless emo of the reprobate mind b) corrupting and exposing Christians to that disordered mind c) dragging as many souls to hell as possible. Heck even AA and Alanon tell you not to enable, to let the drunk descend as quickly as possible on their own.
    Scripture is clear that light and dark do not hold hands, That we are to have nothing to do with certain people (per St. John himself) and great saints like St. Francis DeSales agrees.
    The father of the prodigal didn’t “accompany” his prodigal son to the whorehouse…and he probably found the pig pen must faster for it. The evil, corrupt hierarchy only cares about attention given to the sinner, even ones who don’t care about God a whit. And why not? It’s how they might worship the enemy more and give him the attention he craves.
    God bless~

    • John J. Marren, Jr.

      Very sobering commentary about enabling.

      “That we are to have nothing to do with certain people (per St. John himself) and great
      saints like St. Francis DeSales agrees.”

      If you have a moment would you provide me with citations to Saint John and Saint Francis DeSales.

      I’m reading an exceptional spiritual treatise written by Father de Caussade on the practice of self abandonment and his work is filled with references to Saint Francis DeSales…Pere de Caussade’s spiritual teaching was derived from two extremely pure sources, Saint Francis de Sales and Saint John of the Cross.

      Interesting commentary by the good Father Caussade:

      “What does God mean by permitting the existence of Turks, protestants, all the enemies of
      His Church? It is all a striking lesson: it signifies the infinite perfections of God. Pharaoh and
      all the evil men who have followed and will follow him exist only for that purpose. Yet if we
      look at it, the letter of their history says the contrary; we must blind ourselves and cease to
      reason in order to see the divine mysteries. ”

      ” God, Saint Augustine said, would permit no evil that His power and His goodness could not
      avail to turn to the great advantage of His elect. Let us, then, make use of present ills to
      avoid those that are everlasting and to deserve the rewards promised to faith and to
      patience. The time will come and that shortly, when we shall say with David: “We have
      rejoiced for the days in which Thou hast humbled us: for the yer in which we have seen

      We are certainly seeing our share of evils.

  1. Pingback: Canon212 Update: OppositeChurch – The Stumbling Block

%d bloggers like this: