US Bishops will tell you what you can read

Dictatorships can be recognised by some obvious clues. Rigged elections; rule by decree; repression of political opponents; failing to abide by the rule of law procedures, censorship and cult of personality.

Bishop Robert Barron is someone I have personally met. He reminds me of so many of the priests I knew as a young man, in a word, impressive. He is charismatic, intelligent, confident. He has a knack, a way of engaging people. He has used his many gifts to evangelise by engaging the culture and it works. His ministry has undoubtedly had a powerful effect on many, many people because he is able to explain Catholic doctrine in a sensible, reasonable way. This has drawn criticism on occasion.

Last week, news broke that he believes the bishops should consider exercising their authority in the digital sphere:

“just as John Paul II, in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, called for the bishops to exercise greater supervision of universities operating under the aegis of the Church.”

“There are, to be blunt, a disconcerting number of such people on social media who are trading in hateful, divisive speech, often deeply at odds with the theology of the Church and who are, sadly, having a powerful impact on the people of God,” he said.

“I do think that the shepherds of the Church, those entrusted with supervising the teaching office, can and should point out when people on social media are harming the Body of Christ.”

Bishop Barron suggested that it may be time for bishops “to introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online, whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church.”

My first reaction was disbelief to be honest. It's like he lives in a pre-pope Francis world where everyone still has respect for things like theology and canon law, you know, the things Pope Francis ignores and despises?

If Bishop Barron thinks it is a good idea for the shepherds of the Church to point our when people are harming the body of Christ, I suggest he starts with his brother bishops, especially those in Germany perhaps? If he is so concerned about those who are harming the body of Christ, why doesn't he start with Fr James Martin? Or perhaps he should have a word with the Holy Father himself?
This all follows on from the US bishops ad limina visit to the pope which was deeply disappointing in my opinion. While I understand the importance of unity, you really would think everything is just great from the public out pouring of sycophancy that has been on public display, Bishop Barron himself appears to be on some sort of mission:
Meanwhile, incoming San Bernardino Coadjutor Bishop Alberto Rojas said
“He’s such a free man, he answers all the questions and he doesn’t give you just a little answer. He gives you an answer that quotes the Bible, quotes the Fathers of the Church, it has personal experiences that he has lived. That in itself is really worth the whole trip.”
Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Marc Trudeau commented
“I was struck by how intensely he listened to us, in his responses, I think he was also thinking about questions that other [U.S. bishops] groups had made to him, so he gave us longer answers to our questions.”
I wonder if any of them told him how confused and fed up the "people" are? How they've stopped giving their money and have started a class action against the USCCB for misleading the "people" about what they were collecting money for?

Barron has had a long running feud with Voris over his comments that there's a reasonable hope that all men are saved, a theological novelty pushed by the Vatican II theologian Hans Urs von Balthazar. So much so, his organisation had to publish a whole page about it which you can see here.
However much Barron generalises, I think this feud is a big part of why he has made this suggestion. But let's be totally frank: it's not just about Michael Voris and others who expose the rot. The real problem is that the bishops are sitting on a pile of stuff that cries out to heaven for vengeance, and they are very eager to rein in what they will call "dissent."

Can you imagine what "basic set of norms" the USCCB would ask online writers to abide by in order to get their "yellow check"?

Let's be honest: there are two issues that roil up the bishops more than anything else. Being called on the carpet for abuse -- sexual, financial, liturgical, doctrinal, whatever kind it may be and the increasing presence of and demand for traditional Catholicism: its catechisms, its liturgies, its clear morals, etc.

So it's not just about Church Militant, One Peter Five, Canon Two Twelve, Voice of the Family, Lifesite and Taylor Marshall, it's also about sites like New Liturgical Movement and Rorate Caeli, WDTPRS and other sites that display the BEAUTY AND GLORY of traditional Catholicism.

Dr Peter Kwasniewski comments on this:
One of the top 3 reasons the TLM is flourishing (I speak here of natural causes...) is that thousands of photos of resplendent liturgies have been published at NLM, and people all over the world -- I know it, because I talk to folks from everywhere -- look at these photos and say: "We want that. How do we get it?" And they study up, they learn, they work, they network, and they eventually pull it off.
Without the internet, so little would be happening. That's why this proposal (which, by the way, was floated at the 2018 Yoof Sin-nod too) is coming now.
I can't agree more. Catholics who appreciate the strength and beauty of the faith as it was planted (to quote St Edmund Campion) no longer feel alone. To be part of a muscular Catholicism is brilliant. You mix with Catholics who believe the faith and are prepared to defend it. You worship with people who really mean it. There are more men. There are discussions about doctrine. Everything means something. Everyone cares about what they are doing.

Cardinal Nichols has banned TLM in Westminster Seminary in direct contradiction to Summorum Pontificum. The bishops demonstrably seem to hate the traditional faith, have made no efforts to restore provision and actively fight against it.
So the battle is on many fronts.

Michael Voris may not be liked by the bishops, but if the bishops did what they are ordained and consecrated to do, he wouldn't have to do what he does would he? I have said here many times, I wouldn't have to write a blog shining a light on the Catholic hierarchy's constant attacks on the faith if they just did what they are supposed to do - called to do!!

Want proof that I not exaggerating the problem? Well, Voris confronts the issue head on in his own inimitable manner, pointing out just how utterly ridiculous it is to suggest the USCCB could possibly be judges about what is best for their flock when the reality is that they are in fact the wolves ravaging the faithful:

"Let's talk about the bishops sitting down and making their list of "baddies" on social media.

So which bishops is he talking about — Michael Olson in Fort Worth, who a lawsuit revealed wants to torture and kill a priest in quick-drying cement?

How about Michael Hoeppner in Crookston. Minnesota, who got caught lying on videotape deposition in a sex abuse cover-up case he had to pay millions to settle?

Or does he mean the lying, cheating Richard Malone of Buffalo, who is still a bishop, who got secretly recorded plotting a cover-up? Is he on the list of bishops deciding who earns the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval for Catholics on social media?

Let's stay in New York for a moment. Would Cdl. Timothy Dolan, whose list of crimes against the faithful is so long, it would take a four-volume set to cover just the last year, qualify? (Remember gays in the St. Patrick's Day parade, lying about gay-for-pay-hiring Fr. Peter Miqueli, a palatial pad he took for himself in upstate New York?) Does any of that disqualify him, or is just being in the "bishop club" the only box he needs to check?

How about Arthur Serratelli of Patterson, New Jersey — involved in more gay crap than a gay bar on a Friday night? Or maybe include Henry Mansell, who funneled a South American gay seminarian pipeline right into the seminary in Buffalo? Or perhaps it should be his long-time auxiliary, Edward Grosz, who covered up so much filth he has the nickname, "the blanket"?

How about Donald Wuerl — would he be on the committee ruling which Catholic websites were "safe" for Catholics to go to? He lied about McCarrick and covered up that monster's crimes, so presumably, he knows a lot about good and bad. He might even be elected to lead the committee!

How about the former archbishop of Miami, John Favalora, who got bounced from his post by Pope Benedict for being waist-deep in gay filth, including recruiting for seminarians in gay bars in Miami via a gay publication circulated in the night clubs?

How about any of the bishops who are now being sued by faithful Catholics for defrauding Catholics all over the country of tens of millions through the annual Peter's Pence collection, which they falsely portrayed as going to the poor, which it didn't?

Would the USCCB's second in command, Detroit's Allen Vigneron, make the cut and be on the list — the same archbishop whose own staffers publicly say is terrified of all the homosexual priests in his diocese (the ones who say the "gay Mass" each Sunday night in his archdiocese, which he permits?)

Why not include Vigneron, who defames a perfectly good, traditional priest — Fr. Eduard Perrone — with charges that the supposed accuser admits never happened? Vigneron and his gay cabal running Detroit have known this for months, and yet he lets the defamation continue — that, while at the same time, he's busy stashing away tens (if not hundreds) of millions by shifting assets around like mad, hiding them. He seems like a good fit to tell Catholics which other Catholics are to be avoided on social media.

Or maybe it could be Wilton Gregory in Washington, D.C., who was put in place to cover Wuerl, who covered McCarrick? He certainly knows his way around from his days as Bernardin's gay frontman.

Or what about Michael Bransfield — even though he got caught by The Washington Post for homosexual assault of seminarians and thieving untold millions for a lavish lifestyle in the poorest of dioceses in the country? It seems like he'd do well telling all of us who is unacceptable to listen to.

Or how about Bp. Barron himself, who almost always has in tow a couple of body-builder producers who still to this day have up all over social media some pictures which leave little to the imagination. Hey, the past is the past, but have you ever told them to take them down now, or is that part of the Word on Fire online presence? What would people think if a priest had female workers who had pictures of themselves from a prior life scantily clad? Why does Barron get a pass on this?

Cupich seems like a good candidate because virtually everything he says is opposed by faithful Catholics online, so he probably already has a good working list of Catholic social media "baddies." Of course, Newark's ecclesiastical behemoth Joseph Tobin falls right in line with Cupich, since they were both advanced by McCarrick. They could work well with Wuerl in coming up with an accurate list.

They could be joined by Robert McElroy in San Diego, who never met a pre-born human whose slaughter he ever thought was a pre-eminent moral issue.

One wonders on this list of "baddies," who might be excluded, right? Will all the social media accounts of Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden and so forth — who are always touting their "Catholic" faith — will they get a pass and be given the green light?

If Dolan is on the committee, will Andrew Cuomo's governor's social media page be green-lighted? He's complicit in killing children wholesale, and Dolan and Bp. Edward Scharfenberger of Albany each gave him a "get out of excommunication free" card, so it seems like he'd get a pass as well.

And of course, what oh, what would the bishops do about social media hog James "Brokeback" Martin, who never misses a chance to promote sodomy as a gift from God? Since many of them have endorsed his book, invited him to speak in their dioceses and generally hang out with him, it might be a little awkward for them to include him on their "baddie" list.

Barron is "off with the fairies" on this one, to use a British phrase. To accuse faithful Catholics pointing at your destructive evils and say we are the ones causing the division — how dare you?

The U.S. hierarchy, collectively, is composed of terrified, weak, cowardly, feminized men who would be more comfortable getting the smell of the sheep on them in a gay bar on South Beach than at a traditional Latin Mass.

They endanger souls, they lie, distort, abuse the liturgy, cover up for gay rapists in their ranks, rip off hundreds of millions from Catholics, denigrate the Faith, bully good priests and have lost any semblance of supernatural faith.

Even the "good" ones among them are terrified to oppose the hegemony of the gay cabal for fear of having their pasts outed.

And this is the group that a fraud like Barron says should be determining who you should listen to on social media?

There might be one redeeming aspect to all this, however. A bonus to any list produced by this corrupt lot of who not to watch would be a nice list of precisely whom to watch."

Have a word with yourself bishop Barron!!

Here's the video:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pope Francis: Dismantling Marriage

Establishing a New Object of Worship

Cardinal Nichol’s Checklist for Priestly Formation