Edit: the pictures of the wrong Tobin (Rhode Island) was published on this blog post instead of the pictures of the bishop in question (New Jersey).
The photo has been removed.
My apologies to the Rhode Island Bishop Tobin.
Many thanks to all those who have, with kind words, made me aware of the mistake.
Bishop Tobin is, as many of you know, one of the FrancisTribe, pretty much at the forefront of the adulterers-and-homo agenda.
This makes him, both to me and to every reader of mine with a robust common sense, suspect of having some skeleton in the closet. Say, a mistress, or a male “lover”, or paedo tendencies, or financial malfeasance.
In today's church, if you can be blackmailed you can be pretty sure the gay Mafia will knock on your door and demand compliance and complicitousness with their agenda, or else.
It is, therefore, not entirely surprising to this old correspondent that a tired Bishop Tobin, very late in the night, inadvertently tweeted urbi et orbi something meant as a private message, containing the words “nighty-night, baby. I love you”.
The bishop promptly deleted the tweet, and the diocese explained that the tweet was meant for…. his sister.
Now, it can be that “baby” is one of those inside jokes running inside a family. However, if this were the case the bishop would be able to show a ton of such other PMs, with an abundance of babys and I love yous, to his sister just to put every rumour to rest. This would most certainly be the case, as two people engaging in PMs in the middle of the night obviously PM a lot.
Also, a public tweet of the bishop's sister, again confirming urbi et orbi that “baby” is the affectionate nickname with which she has been jokingly called since, say, around 1957, would not be amiss. Alas, as I write this I have seen neither.
Now, as Bishop Tobin is – for the reasons described above – a prime suspect for illicit and possibly homosexual relationships, it seems pretty reasonable to me to ask that good Catholic journalists start doing some sound investigative journalism on this, until satisfied that this was really an innocent family joke.
I have, like all of you, enough of “progressive” bishops and their skeletons in the closet; therefore, we have every right to ask that this matter be thoroughly researched.
From the Catholic blog New Sherwood.
“[T]here is the legal problem of matrimonial nullity, this has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this”. – Pope Francis, 28 July 2013
“Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams, and automatic appeals to other tribunals? In lieu of this formal court-like process, which some participants have found intimidating, can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage (after all, they are the ministers and recipients of the sacrament!) and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion?” – Bishop Thomas Tobin, 21 September 2014
“CANON XII. If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session XXIV, 11 November 1543
One understands where the Fathers of the Council of Trent were coming from here. If the decision is taken outside of ecclesiastical tribunal, you end up with… Kasper or Tobin. The words of the second are utterly shocking, and I think it is time for him to pick a new religion among the many available and go to hell with it at his leisure. Unless he repents, of course. Which these people seldom do.
But certainly, the fact that at the Council of Trent the existence and relevance of ecclesiastical judges was protected by such a formidable moat (with piranhas inside) give us the full measure of their importance in the economy of the sacraments. Then without them not only Communion would be desecrated, but Marriage virtually destroyed.
Also interesting is to know that in former, more Christian times the likes of Kasper and Tobin would have been invited to retract, or face other judges; the latter able to order that they be accommodated on top of a bunch of… faggots, to be suitably burned.
Such are the times we live in.
Bishop Tobin is the last in a long series of puttanelle who suddenly start reflecting whether the Church of Christ hasn’t, perhaps, betrayed His message and done everything wrong these 2,000 years. May he repent and obtain forgiveness when he dies; and I hope for Bishop Tobin that, if he dies unrepentant, God is more lenient than I think He will be.
Dr Peters has already written a rebuttal of the many points in which the Bishop piddles out of the WC and leaves a mess all around. I suggest you go there and read his extremely diplomatic, but very clear reply in its entirety.
What I would like to point out today is the utter and complete betrayal of Christ and His Church that is put in place every time a bishop, of all people, tries to explain to us the problems in behaving like the Church has always behaved; a behaviour made the more repulsive when this is made taking as excuse a warped reading of the Gospel. Nor can his apparent contradictions fool anyone about his subversive intent and the fact that this is the usual Modernist/V II style. “Of course we uphold Church teaching, but….”.
The Devil can quote the Gospel for his purposes, and it is not difficult to take it in isolation and let it say whatever we want to; which, by the way, is the reason for thousands of different Protestant congregations, all claiming to follow the same Scripture.
Every child used to know that; which is why they went to Catechism first and to Doctrine later, where they would be given a coherent and organic exposition of the Truth; this, in turn, would allow them to avoid the danger of reading the Gospel and raping it for their own purposes.
Not so in the new world of our purple puttanelle.
They will take a verse or two in isolation – say: Jesus’ condemnation of the extremely rigid formalism of Jewish Sabbath observance; clearly reflected in the understanding of Sunday in all Catholic Countries – and wonder whether, in light of his extraordinary discovery, rules should now make any sense at all. Perhaps should we, then, decide that public adulterers could receive communion? Look, the Jews were wrong! It follows that the Church is wrong too, right?
There is only one word for the Bishop’s behaviour: prostitution. And no, I do not care if there are far worse bishops that Tobin around. Battle lines are been formed here, and no bishop can claim to remain neutral. On the side of Christ, or on the side of Satan. Bishop Tobin has chosen Satan’s, and the fact that he did abundantly shows the extent of the problem.
Ask yourself whether the bishop would have expressed himself in such terms during Benedict’s pontificate, and you will see very clearly the poison in his soul.
This, my friends, is another one looking for Brownie points by TMAHICH.