It makes conservative Catholics in the US extremely angry that their ideological foils (which hilariously includes the Pope!) never teach or promote overt theological errors while they, the great orthodox and faithful ones, do it on the daily and even rely upon it to survive.
No one is beyond reproach. Everyone's ideas deserve scrutiny, but that is not the same as promoting heresy or directly challenging Church teaching. On that matter, I've never said a single word that is unorthodox or heretical in all my public work.
Same goes for someone like Fr. Martin whose work I do not know very well but whom they are obsessed with. A critic might say we are careful in bad faith, questioning our motivations, but even that merely highlights how absolutely and totally sloppy and messy they are.
It is not a both sides issue. The plain and obvious reality is that the right wing fantasy of them being firmly on the side of Church and everyone they disagree with being against it is an inverted pipe-dream which they openly and frequently contradict and fail to deliver on.
Put up or shut up, I say. Learn the actual rules and play by them or stop pretending to be the rigorist in the room. The real, credible rigorists are the ones who do not screw the most basic things up through disobedience, defiance, conspiracy theory, and elementary mistakes.
Like, look geniuses, you have turned against the POPE! Sorry, pals, this whole Roman Catholic rigorism game is not going to go well for you. You are the clown mass protestants. Repent and believe, and your house in order before trying to make culture war. Your culture is anemic.
You are scared and mad and, frankly, really dumb. You fall for easy to spot scams in every season and move from one false prophet to the next one like lemmings, all the while playing a make-believe game of dress up and self congratulatory triumphalism. You are the sad joke here.
You love to ridicule your opponents in your safe spaces, but your antics over time reveal that you are the only ridiculous people in this whole affair. Your only strength is brute power through the pocketbook, but even that gains you nothing as you let grifters rob you blind.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I listened to Gloria's debut podcast episode late this morning and I've thought about it all day long. My wife and I spoke about it on our walk. It has lingered. I will probably re-listen tonight and maybe again tomorrow. Let me share a bit of why here, in an appreciation thread.
First, the sheer moral significance of Gloria debuting her show on the anniversary of the murder of George Floyd is enough to meditate on for a long time. The courage and statement and, of course, her "straight no chaser" opening monologue that simply starts THERE.
We really need to stop and appreciate what it means for Gloria to choose this day, of all days, to launch her new show and to not simply allow it to be an allusion or possible coincidence, but to name it and own it in all of its tragic moral reality.
No big deal, but once again, whilst grilling, a stranger of a particular presenting identity, just *had* to confront me. In this case I was grilling next to the other public grill being used by a Spaniard and we were, naturally, speaking to one another in Spanish. This person...
...walked up to us (socially distanced) and asked "are you using BOTH grills?" I replied "Well, *I* am using this one here." The person realized they assumed we were a common "you" incorrectly and doubled down by exclaiming, "well, ugh, both of the other grills are not working!"
I'm not a maintenance person but I knew the person was wrong so I walked with them to another grill and started it. This made them even more angry and they complained that it did not work properly. I walked away. This bullshit gets old. It must be the 6th time here just grilling.
In reply to @BishopBarron’s Angelus interview, shared on his Facebook page, repeating his well-known thoughts about contemporary social activism, I have posted the reply to follow. angelusnews.com/arts-culture/b…
@BishopBarron: You have said this same thing, in different ways and to different degrees, about this idiosyncratic usage of the term "woke," but you have yet to name anyone who is doing it.
You refer to philosophers by name as root ideologies but remain indirect in your disputes with contemporary voices you are critiquing, not to mention dismissive of these complex philosophical schools of thought (much more so than, for instance, Benedict XVI)...
I thank @Kinder_Cons for his astute comments on my recent remarks published by @brianfraga, and especially for his measured criticism. I want to reply with a small clarification, but I will first post the original post and the notes to follow, with my reply thereafter.
In less than a year, I have been on Catholic Answers debating Catholic socialism, Pints w/Aquinas and Crisis debating the 2020 US election, Fr. Leo Patalinghug’s podcast discussing his use of Twitter and antiracism, and dozens of hours on other podcasts on related topics. 1/2
I have no one blocked or muted (though I’m not against it in principle, with periodic jubilees) and have agreed to debate other right wing Catholics like Tim Gordon and AltPatrick who forfeited and blocked me. Now, who is the snowflake incapable of rational dialogue here? 2/2
PS: This excludes my published writing and public and private correspondence with my critics. I don’t need that extra part to show how absolutely bankrupt the conservative whining about cancel culture and a need for genuine debate is. I’m right here, and there are many of us.
Barron's latest essay on Word on Fire's rejection of liberal "beige Catholicism" and trad "self-devouring Catholicism" is an overview of his primary critics and lays out what he considers his evangelical approach to be which he asserts as representative of the universal Church.
It is essentially a both sides stance, centering Word on Fire and, by implication, the Roman Catholic presentation of the Gospel as perfectly consistent across Barron's life and thought. The libs will be evangelized and the trads will be invited, not condemned.
The tone is self congratulatory and, interestingly, cites major sources of credibility but names no allies; it credits no one but Barron's books and essays except to say that his work speaks in the voice of Vatican II, the recent popes, and the Catechism of 92.