You are not signed in as a Premium user; you are viewing the free version of this program. Premium users have access to full-length programs with limited commercials and receive a 10% discount in the store! Sign up for only one day for the low cost of $1.99. Click the button below.
I'm Michael Voris, coming to you from onboard our eighth annual Retreat at Sea, where the news just doesn't stop coming to us, especially the absolutely insane, piece-of-trash news inserted into the Catholic bloodstream by the self-promoting, superiority complex-driven Bp. Robert Barron.
The man is a gigantic handicap to actual evangelization because honey comes out of his mouth laced with poison. It is Barron we have to thank for the latest iteration of the 1,600-year-old heresy of "everyone goes to Heaven" being resurrected. True, he doesn't come right out and say that. He just slyly leaves the unsuspecting, gullible person with that impression.
He's also the same bishop who, unwilling to lose the support of the world, could not muster the fully truthful response about the necessity of Christ for salvation when noted Jewish pundit Ben Shapiro asked him flat out. Instead of just giving the answer that St. Paul — a Jew — gave to the Jews, Barron song-and-danced his way around the glory of the truth and labeled Christ "the preferred way."
That's a finely nuanced theological answer that Barron, no doubt, would defer to in his own weak defense, but Shapiro wasn't asking for some esoteric, philosophical, fourth-year theology answer, but a straight-up "yes" or "no."
Now, the latest Barron insanity and legalism comes in the form of his reportedly saying, while on his ad limina visit to Rome, that U.S. bishops need to come up with some kind of list or plan to tackle what he believes is a serious division of faith — the teaching being misrepresented on social media. That's rich, coming from a man who shot to instant, celebrity-priest stardom by so nuancing the teaching of the Church on the doctrine of Hell so as to empty it of its content.
Barron is no intellectual — not by a long shot — even though he plays one on social media. He says what itching ears want to ear among his Church of Nice devotees. He says in this latest pabulum that "certain" websites and social media types are causing division and — wait for it — the bishops have to put an end to it. Ha! You mean, the ones who created the chaos in the first place — those bishops?
When Barron produced his meaningless, self-serving book, Letter to a Suffering Church, it may have been his attempt to declare that, according to Bp. Barron from on High, he had finally pronounced on the sex abuse garbage. And now he had deigned to speak, so the matter is closed. Pay no attention, he tells us, to that homosexual cabal behind the curtain. So much did he not want us to even consider that homosexual clergy are responsible for homosexual assault, that the word "homosexual" appears in the book two times.
And that's how you know he's kissing butt on his way up the career ladder — by denying what everyone and their mother and brother already knows, especially the victims of those homopredator clerics. You're a bad man, Barron — a bad man. Only a bad man would try to advance his career over the broken bodies and souls of teenage boy victims of this evil and have you try to sweep that aspect under the rug. You are complicit, period. And for the record, that's just the minor victims. All the rest, in seminaries all over the country, get short shrift from Bp. "everyone goes to Heaven" Barron.
So let's play Barron's little game with him here, shall we? 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.