Harsh News And Word Salads

How often did he say it in two hours? Aaarrrggghhhhh!!!!

Bishop Barron has commented on the comments to an interview he gave to a famous blogger-live interviewer.

Two hours of the stuff. I will pass, thank you.

The words of the Bishop are as follows:

Without a doubt, the most common negative reaction was that I was speaking “gobbledygook,” or tossing an unimpressive “word salad,” or “using lots of words to say nothing at all.” Much of this critique was focused on my opening exchange with the interviewer. Lex asked me very simply, “Who is God?” I responded, not sentimentally or piously, but rather in the technical language of philosophy. I said that God is ipsum esse subsistens (the sheer act of being itself), in contradistinction to anything other than God, in which essence and existence are distinguished. I went on to clarify the meaning of these terms in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, attempting to be as precise and technically correct as possible. To be sure, there are many ways to talk about God, but I chose, with Lex’s audience in mind, to use a more intellectual approach.

Good Lord! And then they say we are in a crisis! With Bishops like this one, we would be in a crisis if the entire population had an unquenchable thirst for the religious phenomenon (which is, most clearly, not the case)!

Yeah, pal. People who are listening to a Bishop talking about God are certainly yearning for your “intellectual approach”. Grand. So smart.

If you ask me “Who is God?” I do not answer with St Thomas Aquinas. I know that my audience, and everybody come to that, is not interested in philosophical definitions; they are interested in the crux of the matter, that is: the Four Last Things. My answer would be along the lines of:

“God is the Omnipotent being who made you, me, everybody, and everything else. He is the One who has given to you rules about how to live this life. He is, also, the One who will reward you forever if you have made a serious effort to please Him (we’ll discuss this in the next two hours), and will punish you forever if you haven’t, or if you have worked against Him, denied Him, despised Him, or worshipped a false god. He, and His judgment of you, are the only assured things in your life, and by far the most important ones. Nothing is as important as Him. Mind my words today, because one day, without fail, you will be reminded of them!”.

The following answers would have been along the same lines: there is a reality that atheists are trying to ignore, but that will catch up with them with absolute certainty. It will not count in their favour that they did not believe, or that they believed a false god. Mock Christ now, pay the price later, and so on. Yep, it goes for the Muslims, to likely 99%, too. Yep, the same applies to Jews. Yep, let us not even talk about Hindus at alia. Yep, it’s harsh. Focus your mind now, then.

Two hours of that, and I assure you the term “word salad” will not appear anywhere.

I don’t know if St Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with this answer. What I am sure of is that no one of my listeners would have accused me of saying gobbledygook, or producing word salads. In fact, I can assure you that, whenever I touch the issue with non-believers and infidels, I give them such a spoonful of my medicine that “gobbledygook” is the last thing they think of it!

Caveat for the “don’t get me wrong”-types out there: I lost friends, and I am proud of it. I have been laughed at in my face. I have been belittled, mocked, and insulted. Still: I don’t think I have ever been considered one who “uses a lot of words to say nothing at all”. Newsflash: it’s because I don’t.

But why does the Bishop answer in that way? For the same reason for which he goes on with his word salad for two, surely interminable, hours: the desire not to be the guy with the harsh news.

The modern, V II Bishop is affable, accultured, always appropriate. He will (try to) impress you with his Aquinas. He will bloviate for two hours in such a humorous, intelligent way. But at the end, no one will go to sleep, that night, thinking “I hate that guy’s self-assured, judgmental, hom-mof-fobeek attitude; but boy, I’d like to have his certainties! What if he is, in fact, right?”

There is a reason why bishops are called “shepherds” instead of “philosophy professors”.

Someone should inform Bishop Barron about his job description; because he seems, to me, rather confused.

Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

(click on the link to continue)

Toxic Effeminacy

Sissified Men: Reblog from 4 April 2019

Mundabor's Blog

You see them more and more often now. On lifts, buses, trains. Queuing at the till. Talking to each other as they walk.

Sissified men.

Their gesture, their tone; the way they walk, their posture when they stand. The way they cross their legs, chastely protecting an imaginary vagina, when they sit on the underground. Their clothes, with those ridiculous tubular trousers, three inches too short, that say “I am making an effort to look unthreatening”.

They can’t be all inverted.

There is a sub-cultural poison going around that is threatening the very bone marrow of this Country. I blame the explosion of “single motherhood” (once upon a time, called “bastardhood “) , that causes millions of boys to grow up without the army of men around him with whom every child growing up in my generation had constant contact. Not only this causes a lack of manhood models; it…

View original post 307 more words

And Then There Were None

Well… not *these* ones, of course…

Today we talk about three little CNN heroes of the Trump years. Sadly, it appears that, of the three, no one has remained.

What you see in the microscope, if you look very attentively, is a little violin playing.

The first to go was Chris Cuomo, known even to my cat as “Fredo”. Beside faking lockdowns and doing all sorts of antics, the guy was unethically helping his older brother, Big Andrew, to fend off the many accusations raining on him of being, well, quite a little pig. Big Andrew could not avoid the fall, so you can imagine that Fredo also had to go. Ouch.

But Fredo, who wasn’t as dumb a little pig as they thought at CNN, didn’t go silently. He sued CNN and, quite smartly, pointed out to similar episodes of unethical behaviour within CNN who were known to all, but went gloriously unpunished for years.

Enter Big Jeff Zucker, the guy with a sweet tooth for inside treats (Zucker is, in fact, Sugar in German). Zucker was, for years, the lover of Allison Gollust, another big whig at CNN, something of which nobody was every officially informed. This is, clearly, a no-no, and even CNN had to see it; but of course, only after the scandal had erupted, because this is how these people roll. There goes little pig number two.

The one remaining was Brian Stelter, the guy with a face resembling (literally) one of the Three Little Pigs, and the third sworn enemy of Trump. An activity, this one, which, as you might or might not know, is extremely fashionable in New York and will do a lot to promote your personal and professional life alike.

We are now informed that Mr Stelter is going to abruptly depart CNN. We have not being informed about the reasons yet, but one can well imagine that the catastrophic viewer figures of CNN after poisoning the political life of the Country for years did play a role. Be it as it may, that’s Little Pig number 3 down.

One part of me, deep down, if you look long enough, actually almost feel a little sad. It was fun mocking these people. It was, actually, quite entertaining seeing how they dedicated themselves with abandon to the Most Favourite New York Pastime. Oh, how it made them feel important, and loved, and relevant, and oh so cool among the degenerates of all sorts sipping champagne in the Big Apple!

Sic transit gloria mundi.

It is so, so sad, I might even decide to make a huge effort and try to shed a tear.

Nahh.

You know I am joking…

Francis, The Case Study

“Love me tender”, Vatican edition

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate were persecuted by Francis based on zero point zero evidence. The order, and its founder, were slandered and dragged through the mud for all the planet to see. Francis would care not one bit for evidence, or for a shred of decency.

This buddy of his, Cardinal Ouellet, is so fond of harassing women that he gets a class lawsuit against him. What does our own wannabe hero does? He orders a preliminary investigation, in charge of which he puts a close buddy of the Cardinal. The close buddy obviously decided that there’s nothing to see here, end of story.

At least, this Frankie-protege’ (literally) is not a homo. But hey, several other friends of Francis clearly appears to be. Think of Zanchetta, the buddy Francis couldn’t wait to make a bishop. And of course, we all think of Archbishop Paglia and the homo-fresco he commissioned to a homo-painter. Or of Monsignor Ricca, the guy with the Montevideo Lover, and the lift (or “elevator”) story whose details I don’t even want to know. Or of father Georgina, the man of whom everybody tries very, very hard to make us believe he is straight (and when you see a video of him, the game is up).

You will, hopefully, forgive me for thinking this: that Francis has no decency or shame; that he sees his position purely as a way to protect and reward his friends and those who have advanced his career; that he has an extremely alarming number of “friends” who are clearly bent (heck: one would be extremely alarming!); that he does not care for what Catholics think of him, because he despises Catholics in the first place; that he ruthlessly mocks, and clearly can’t stand, any traditional expression of Catholic piety and religiosity (those who pray the rosary for him must be mocked, and a boy with his hands joined in prayer is too much for him to bear); and that he ruthlessly persecutes those who dare being too Catholic, and too openly so: the Traditional Latin Mass obviously fills such a man with horror; the FFI I have already mentioned.

If you have forgiven me until now, I think you will accept my conclusion: that God has allowed an evil man, a man who clearly appears destined to have a very prominent position on the wrong side of eternity, to be made the Pope in order to show us that when you tamper with the holy traditions of the Church and sabotage her doctrine, you will get a Pope that is the visual representation of this deformity. This, I think, God has decreed that we will have to endure until He gives to bishops, cardinals and faithful the grace to finally shout that enough is enough, and to go back to sanity.

Francis is the symptom of the disease called Vatican II. Sadly, those who see this are a clear minority, with the others happy to sing diabetes-inducing hymns in church, identify Catholicism with niceness, and largely remove from their consciousness everything that Francis does. Their priests clearly help them in this because, hand on heart, I have never experienced a Pope so little mentioned from the pulpit than this embarrassing case study in the power of the devil.

Until the Great Awakening happens, I am afraid we will have to deal with Francis II, Francis III, perhaps Francis IV, and countless other cases of FFI, Ouellet, Zanchettas, & Co.

Pray, fast, and do penance.

This might go on for a while.