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.

Worried Sick

Bishop Barron is “worried sick” about gun violence. He seems to think everybody is.

Well, I would like to state here that I am not one of that crowd.

Gun violence is just violence. Violence can be carried out with forks, kitchen knives, or baseball bats. Violent people will be violent, and one needs to take care that they are punished if they do. But no, I am not worried sick about it, particularly considering that most violence happens among criminals.

There are, however, some things about which I am worried sick. A short list would include the systematic killing of the unborn, the constant barrage of institutional support for sexual perversion, the constant attempts to pervert children , grooming them with trannie shows and with other disgusting “invitations” to “discover their sexuality” and assign a gender to themselves.

These are, just off the cuff, some of the things about which I am worried sick.

If Bishop Barron puts these issues on the same level of his beloved “gun violence”, I start wondering for which team he is batting.

Pants on Fire? Or, Dare We Hope That Bishop Barron Is Not A Homo?

I dare say Bishop Barron likes this guy a lot

So, dare we hope? Follow the link and judge for yourself.

https://cleanthechurch.com/bishop-robert-barrons-disturbing-musclemen-fetish-is-a-scandal-by-itself/

There is an awful lot of stuff there. Not coincidences. Not episodes. A whole picture.

In the very, very, VERY best of cases, Barron is a Bishop with a clearly unhealthy passion for culturism, which leads him to wrong choices and to give the money donated to his organisation to his not-very-Catholic-looking pals irrespective of qualifications. This sounds unprofessional and, again, a strange environment for a Bishop as one certainly prone to unhealthy narcissism; a narcissism so pronounced, in fact, that most women will tell you it makes such men unattractive to them. Go figure… in more than one sense.

In the worst case, this is just another closeted faggot blathering heresies because he has lost the faith, and the shame, a long time ago. One, also, in the hands of the Gaystapo.

I reflect here, like the author of the linked article, that the Bish praised Father Georgina and wrote an endorsement approving not only one of his books, but him as a person.

Oh dear… let me dare some reflections here…

Who, endowed with normal feelings about sodomy, would ever express himself in a positive way towards an obviously effeminate promoter of it?

Mind: in contrast with the author of the linked article, I am not in the least interested in the question whether Bishop Barron is a factual sodomite.

If he is homosexual, he has to go both as a Bishop and as a priest. Homosexuality is not compatible with the priesthood, period.

I will, here, dare doing something daring and, in fact, dared by many a daring commenter before me. I will , in fact, dare to make the hypothesis that Bishop Barron a) belongs to the same parish as Father Georgina, b) is allowed to make a career as “controlled Catholicism” of sort and fake (but still heretical) “conservative”, but c) is controlled at every step by those who can ruin him at all times. This daring supposition would explain the absolutely stupid act – in a guy who wants to appear conservative to the badly instructed – of d) endorsing Father Georgina; one who, I dare say, looks, sounds, and writes like he is the second coming of Pierpaolo Pasolini (who, take it from a mother tongue, was an obscenely bad writer, too).

Let nobody say, here, that I am giving scandal. Bishop Barron is giving scandal. I am merely the guy who is sickened by it, the more so as the guy promotes heresy under the guise of conservatism.

Let us, also, not hide behind the usual finger of “perhapsism”. Perhaps it’s all a strange coincidence; perhaps the Bishop does not know what Father Georgina goes around saying all the times; perhaps he is so innocent that he lives together with hunky men and does not think anything of it; perhaps he is just naive; perhaps he is just so darn thick; perhaps, perhaps, and more perhaps.

I dare to hope that he is not like that, merely very stoopid.

But a much bigger intelligence than me once said that if it walks like a fag, swims like a fag, and quacks like a fag, he is very likely a fag.

Oily, Slimy Bishop Barron Ready For A FrancisChurch Red Hat

There is a kind of Catholic Bishop and priest I dislike – and despise – very keenly. They are the “I am with you” fake Catholic priests, who agree with truth in that feeble “don’t get me wrong” way and then proceed to throw so many bones to the other side that you wonder what the heck they have going on in their brain.

The blogger priest ranting at orthodox Catholics at the non-catholic blogging channel is one of those. The bishop who plays with denial of hell is another one.

The latter has now given an interview in which he, once again, shows his true (false) colours. He does not openly condemns the Church on sexual perversion, but then again he does, stating that if any priest does not precede his statement of Catholic faith with feel-good waffle according to his own precious wisdom, then the priest in question is “disordered”.

Notice the double whammy here: he accuses priests in the very same strong terms with which the Church condemns perversion, even as he downplays the very strength of the accusation he makes.

You see, if a priest can be “disordered” in the same way a pervert is, perversion can’t be so bad after all, can it now? But “don’t get him wrong”, the man “agrees with you” in full on what the Church say, right?

There is much more wrong that the man says in the interview, but I don’t have the time. What is clear here is that the man is frantically padding down the stream of FrancisChurch, or I should say that he is frantically licking all the boots he can to advance his career. 

The Bishop shouldn’t be worried. His mixture of fake orthodoxy and authentic subversion make of him a perfect candidate for a red hat one day; and he is young, he can wait. The important thing is to never stop exercising that tongue, and reward can’t be too far away. 

M