I usually ignore the writings of Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter. However, a friend of mine emailed me a link to Winter’s latest piece. As I expected, it was the usual boilerplate about Pope Leo, Pope Francis, synodality, “listening to the Holy Spirit” and the need for the Christian Faith to have public consequences.
So far so good, with no earth-shattering insight into the signs of the times. And nothing with which any thinking Catholic could really disagree. But, apparently unable to help himself, Winters found it necessary, in an otherwise harmless and anodyne piece, to take a gratuitous swipe at Bishop Robert Barron and his Word on Fire Ministry.
The cynical weaponizing of “synodality” continues
Winters begins by quoting an excerpt from a recent homily of Pope Leo’s on the need for a “listening Church”:
How important it is to listen! Jesus says, “My sheep listen to my voice”. And I think it is important for all of us to learn how to listen more, to enter into dialogue. First and foremost, with the Lord: always listen to the Word of God. Then also listen to others, to know how to build bridges, to know how to listen without judging, not closing the doors thinking that we have all the truth and no one else can tell us anything. It is very important to listen to the voice of the Lord, to listen to it, in this dialogue, and to see where the Lord is calling us towards.
But then, out of the blue, he adds the following:
It is not difficult to imagine Pope Francis saying these words. They point to synodality and, critically, that we listen to each other to better listen to the Holy Spirit. The critics of synodality who complain it is precisely the kind of inward-looking experience Francis claimed to shun always leave out the part about listening to the Holy Spirit. Also worth noting is the absence of listening in various social media ministries such as Bishop Robert Barron’s Word on Fire. There, the answers are prepackaged and ready to be shared with the docile audience. That is not Leo’s approach.
Bishop Barron and Word on Fire are both quite capable of defending themselves, and this statement from Winters is so manifestly ludicrous that it stands in no need of refutation. But I am compelled to offer some response given that these comments from Winters are fresh on the heels of an equally nonsensical attack on Bishop Barron in the pages of Commonweal, a more substantive journal, wherein Bishop Barron was falsely accused of wanting to “bury Vatican II”.
The evidence provided for this alleged desire by Bishop Barron to bury the council was nothing more than Barron’s criticism of the “beige Catholicism” of the post-conciliar years, and the fact that Barron claims, along with Pope Benedict XVI, that the council should be read in continuity with the tradition and not against it. The fact that Commonweal saw fit to publish such exquisitely jejune “analysis” is sad, indicative in a darker way of an animus in search of an argument. (Bishop Barron directly responded to that essay in a May 28th post on X.)
Of course, such criticisms go with the territory, as someone with the immense public platform of Bishop Barron will generate criticisms, even silly ones. Nevertheless, it also goes with the territory for folks like me to push back against the bullies of the Catholic Left who for too long have been given a pass for their calumnies against fellow Catholics, who are neither strident extremists nor fevered Right-wing nut-jobs, but simply Catholics of a more traditional (and orthodox) persuasion.
Any Catholic with even an ounce of common sense can see how self-refuting Winter’s claim is that Bishop Barron peddles in prepackaged answers and caters to a “docile audience”. In a section devoted to the need for a Church where unity is achieved through listening and dialogue, it is clear Winters has done neither when it comes to Bishop Barron, or to “the critics of synodality”.
If Winters had truly “listened” to the critics of synodality, he would see that our complaint is not with synodality as such, nor with the need for the Church to listen to the Holy Spirit. Rather, we claim that the curated and stage-managed “synod on synodality” was not synodal at all insofar as its voting members were not truly representative of the Church at large.
Therefore, his criticism is a monumental exercise in question-begging. He assumes what he needs to prove: that the synod on synodality was a genuine listening to the Holy Spirit and the Synod was representative of “the people of God”. But this is precisely the point in dispute. Because curated and selective listening, where significant voices are conspicuously absent, is no listening at all.
Under-listening and 0ver-reaching
For example, why was Fr. James Martin, SJ, picked by the Vatican to be a voting member of the Synod but not the priest president of Courage International? Given the importance of the debates over homosexuality in the Church, it would seem that a genuinely “listening” Church would want to hear all voices (Todos!) on this very important and highly divisive issue. But the Synod organizers thought differently, which calls into question which “spirit” was indeed speaking through the Synod.
But Winters assumes the Synod was indeed a profound exercise in listening to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, anyone who dares criticize the Synod is an enemy of listening to the Holy Spirit. Winters does not seem to find it strange that for Catholics of his persuasion the Holy Spirit always seems to speak in the language of 1968, which raises enough red flags for the rest of us to step back and wonder whose voice is being heard?
Second, since his statement about Bishop Barron is so oddly out of the blue and utterly gratuitous, it gives every indication that there is an animus in play here against more conservative-leaning Catholics. His comments to the effect that Word on Fire is nothing more than a forum for offering canned and prepackaged nuggets of truth for a “docile” audience is prissy nastiness devoid of even the slightest merit.
It lacks merit because the rush to smear Barron proves too much. It indicts the National Catholic Reporter and any other Catholic internet resource where writers, speakers, and various noteworthy persons offer up their insights and thoughts on all manner of topics. Is all of that online content, including that of the Reporter, also “prepackaged” propaganda that does not “listen” to the faithful and is instead counting on an empty-headed, pietistical docility?
It lacks merit because Winter’s claim here seems to involve the bizarre notion that all forms of online Catholic content are, by definition, guilty of perpetuating a “non-listening” form of ecclesial discourse simply because they are the product of a planned production process. Somebody needs to write to the USCCB therefore and tell them that they are guilty of opposing a listening Church whenever they produce some brochure or video to be disseminated to parishes.
What Winters is really getting at with his condescending comment about “prepackaged answers” for a docile audience is his usual bilge about how awful Catholicism is when it dares to offer clear answers to people living in the “messiness of life”. What he wants instead is a Church whose leaders do not offer clear doctrinal answers to just about anything on the mistaken presumption that there are no such clear answers in the first place.
His criticism of Barron is important because it gives voice to a theological idea, whose pedigree stretches back into the late 19th-century and then into the modernism of folks like Tyrell and Loisy, that what matters most for most people is an inner religious experience of something ineffable that doctrines only obliquely express in propositional form. And for Winters and those like him, a Church focused on the truth of doctrine is a Church incapable of truly listening to the articulations of the faithful of that lived inner religious experience in the messiness of life.
Real dialogue with real people
Winter’s claims also lack merit since they ignore the fact that Word on Fire conducts numerous interviews with all kinds of different folks from varied walks of life. There is indeed a concerted effort to engage in real dialogue with all kinds of public intellectuals and to present that dialogue to the public. When was the last time Winters or the NCR produced anything of such intellectual depth and quality?
It lacks merit because the content of Word on Fire is anything but the simplistic argot of old-time pieties. I know many an average Catholic who loves to watch Bishop Barron but who tell me that much of what he says goes over their heads. This is not Victorian, parlor room “Church chat”. This is serious stuff, and I suspect folks like Winters know this, which is precisely why he seems to hate it so.
In other words, he is not worried that the theology of Word on Fire is inconsequential. He is worried that it is consequential. And that is what vexes him. He fears that what he views as this “retrograde, reactionary, and ultraconservative” form of Catholicism is far, far more popular and influential than his small gang of refugees from 1975.
In short, Winters wants bishops who have no answers and who seek only to hold the hands of the confused and lost in an act of solidarity with their apophatic darkness.
So-called traditionalists also dislike Bishop Barron since he does not sufficiently populate Hell to their liking and does not seem to be a strong advocate for the TLM or the liturgy wars in general. He embodies for them “the Vatican II Church”, which of course they also dislike, and continues to advocate for a retrieval of the Council in the hermeneutic of continuity and the light of ressourcement theology. This is enough to mark him as a quasi-modernist in their eyes, which means that Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are also quasi-modernists. In fact, even Pius XII seems a bit squishy to these folks since he dared to begin the “tinkering” with the allegedly unchangeable pre-1955 liturgy. So Bishop Barron appears to be in good company.
Therefore, Bishop Barron is disliked by both progressives and traditionalists (and probably a few others who are simply tired of what they view as the marketing ubiquity of Word on Fire). But I find it all exasperating. It has become tiresome to watch the Church, in her many members, cannibalize itself through these ideologically motivated attacks on her best and brightest.
Why is it not sufficient, even if you disagree with Bishop Barron on issue “X” or issue “Y”, to step back and acknowledge that he is an evangelizing bishop who has created something of great and lasting value? That Word on Fire has brought many countless souls to Christ and his Church? We have all been asking for decades for bishops who are not just managerial class apparatchiks and who are instead true evangelists of the Gospel for the people of today. And here we have one such bishop; but instead of applauding him, there are loud voices falsely vilifying him with every effort made to tear him down because he has chosen not to ride into town on our particular ecclesial hobby horse.
This is all very disturbing. We need to be able to see all ecclesial movements that have the “weight of glory” about them in a positive light, even as they are perhaps engaged in friendly critique. I am not a fan of the film series “The Chosen” but have refrained from public criticism of it since I can see that, overall, and despite some flaws, it has brought many souls to Christ and many people’s faith is fed and strengthened by it. So, why throw cold water on it? Why tear it down? Because it does have its great moments. For example, the profoundly moving depiction of the late-night meeting and conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in Season One.
There are many a Nicodemus in our culture today. And Bishop Barron and Word on Fire have been highly effective interlocutors with them. One can indeed criticize this or that aspect of it all. But the animus and hatred and false characterizations should cease. That would be a real step toward a true synodality of listening.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Michael Sean Winter” …any man who goes by three names is himself prissy, pretentious and someone who feigns elitist superiority. Secondly, to MSW: Francis is dead and buried, just in case the news hasn’t reached the lofty towers at NCR.
MSW has his own “issues” and should not throw stones; cf.:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24632
This is an excellent article and makes many good points.
It is marred by something similar to your complaint about Winters’ piece. You say “So-called traditionalists also dislike Bishop Barron since he does not sufficiently populate Hell to their liking and does not seem to be a strong advocate for the TLM or the liturgy wars in general.” I consider myself a “traditionalist.” I do not think it is a position deserving the adjective “so-called.” It is better than the political term “conservative” and is more to the point. In addition, I admire Bishop Barron and his work. I would argue that he himself is a traditionalist. Think of a comparison to people like Father Martin. Or Pope Francis.
If the point was important, you might have said “Some traditionalists ….” I think that is fair.
I’m pretty traditional and I think Bishop Barron is great. Once or twice I think he might could have chosen a clearer way to express Catholic teaching but which of us communicates perfectly 24/7? I sure don’t.
Agree. Well said.
I interpreted that opposite of how you took it. The use of “so-called” signals the author’s reluctance to cede the appellation “traditionalist” to the subset of Catholics who reject Lumen Gentium and expected Barron to fight against Traditionis Custodes.
“Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed conversation or in passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance; it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples.” Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti, No. 50. I do think Winters overstepped dialogue and went on attack. I wonder if we could have a “passionate debate” between Winters and Barron, or Winters and Chapp. Show us the synodal way in action.
I agree with your basic thesis. Bishop Barron has enormous gifts and unity is a great good. This should not preclude a sed contra. My concern with the ministry of Bishop Barron is not about his teachings on Vatican II, von Balthasar or against some rad trad agenda. I was very disappointed during the McCarrick revelations of the sexual abuse crisis that Barron’s Letter to a Suffering Church added to the sufferings of lay people by suggesting that they were also complicit in clerical abuse by giving the Church such perverted prelates. Speaking of the thousands of clerical abusers, Bishop Barron concluded by pointing to the laity, saying: “Priests do not arise in a vacuum. They come from…Catholic families…Therefore, fellow Catholics, this scandal is OUR (emphasis his) problem.” What rot! Enough of the gaslighting. Another major concern was the pontifical pandering for a dozen years to the “prophetic” Franciscus despite the bullying and enabling of heteropraxy.
Barron is no Sheen. Better to be a straight shooter with the simplicity of Strickland than a hoity-toity team player. To achieve authentic unity we must dispense with the forced cheerleading of everyone who might be “on our side.”
(See page 91: https://media.wordonfire.org/ebooks/Letter-to-a-Suffering-Church.pdf?_gl=1*3xo25j*_up*MQ..*_ga*MzEzNDMyNDQxLjE3NDkyOTUxOTM.*_ga_4081DYV3TL*czE3NDkyOTUxOTMkbzEkZzAkdDE3NDkyOTUxOTMkajYwJGwwJGgw)
A great comment. Although Barron and you are both right on one point. We all contribute to our ecclesial culture for better or worse, and we have no right to refuse challenging each other on our faith, especially those heading to a seminary. But Barron downplays, by omission, how seminarians in the seventies were recruited in part by priestly orders advertising in porn magazines.
And his downplaying of the heterodoxy of Francis was shameless.
> I usually ignore the writings of Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter.
I usually ignore the National Catholic Reporter.
Me, too.🙂
Exactly
Ditto. Likewise, I usually ignore Bishop Barron’s work, God bless our little hearts.
JeffL , How can you grow if you ignore your adversary?
How is that an adversary?
It’s not for nothing that some refer to it as the National Catholic Distorter.
Good
If there was truth in advertising, NCR would change it masthead to National Catholic Distorter.
It’s the house organ of dissident pseudo-Catholic left.
I have found that I like Michael Sean Winters more and more, and Bishop Barron less and less. For example, “There, the answers are pre packaged and ready to be shared with the docile audience. That is not Leo’s approach”.
I kind of agree with that. Bishop Barron is very good and he’s always managed to avoid the red zone on the “smug meter” –although he got pretty darn close at times–, but this Q & A Catholicism is really rather tiresome after a while, the “Father knows best” attitude has got to go. It’s this “brand” of Catholicism that is “getting old”. I know what Winters is talking about and I don’t think he’s altogether wrong on this. And I hate to say it, I liked Larry Chapp at first, but I found him increasingly difficult to stomach, with all the conspiratorial whining about the synod and synodality, etc. I know he can do much better than that. Gosh, if he likes–and would interview–someone like Jordan Daniel Wood, he’s gotta be good. But why he would allow himself to play in the mud here with bitter, cynical and unmagnanimous whining is beyond me.
Suffice it to say, I find your comment to be ridiculous, quite emotionally based, and without merit.
“I have found that I like Michael Sean Winters more and more, and Bishop Barron less and less.”
That might say more about you, than them.
So you believe anything that is “getting old” is boring? Have you considered throwing Jesus on the trash heap of irrelevancy also? Citing such things like the beatitudes and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount as Barron is fond of, might seem “prepackaged” to you, but since truth never changes, a concept you apparently reject, maybe a more modern nostrum, descriptive of pseudo-Christianity would be more pleasing.
Niebuhr famously said: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
Mr. Winters is indeed stricken with fascination regarding himself, and must have fired his editor ages ago (or is simply paid by the word).
But regarding Vatican II, which took place during my undergrad years at Notre Dame:
What specific timeless magisterial truths did it change? And what new magisterial truths did it proclaim?
I don’t mean the “Spirit of Vatican II,” which has asphyxiated several generations, to be sure. But the real thing: what did it change?
I appreciate this well-written and well-thought-out article from Dr. Chapp. As a former Evangelical Protestant who, along with my late husband and eventually our daughters and son-in-law, converted to Catholicism after a horrific experience in the final Evangelical church that our family was part of, I find that Bishop Barron is not only a great “bridge” speaker for Catholics, but also for Protestants, especially Evangelical and non-denominational Protestants.
He’s young, well-spoken, and makes use of apologetics (as do many converts from Protestantism to Catholicism). I think that Holy Mother Church accommodates both traditionalists and those who are more “modern” in their thinking and preferences, and that generally includes many non-denominational and Evangelical Protestants who have never considered Catholicism because of presumptions about ancient Masses in a foreign language (Latin) but are intrigued by contemporary speakers like Bishop Barron and eventually, become open to conversion.
There are now quite a few prominent Evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism and are speaking out about Holy Mother Church and seeing a “harvest” of other Evangelical converts. Bishop Barron can appeal to both Catholics and non-Catholics, and if there are Catholics who do not appreciate his “style” or “message,” there are plenty of other very conservative, traditional Catholic teachers, both past and present, that they can surely find to minister to their needs, too. No need to criticize others who are clearly doing the work of God and bringing souls to Holy Mother Church!
Well said ! All workers in the vineyard of Jesus. They appeal to different people and that is all good and well as long as they speak the true teachings of Jesus.
The National Catholic Reporter is NOT Catholic and once you realize this you can dismiss them and read many worthwhile Catholic papers and literature. Peace
Thanks Doctor! A refreshing reminder to me that the Church has endless critics. Maybe I should just try to help build up her sons and daughters.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you locked Fr. James Martin & Fr. James Altman together in a cell without any other human contact for a year, and then interviewed them. If they were both alive at the end of the experiment, I believe that we would find that two very changed men would emerge. The real problem seems to be that we talk ABOUT each other rather than WITH each other. We are polarized because we are separated. It is easier to throw a rock at someone who is standing on the other side of the fence than someone who is standing next to you. We need to really get to know the people that we disagree with, who they are and how they came to be , and why they think and act the way they do.
Thank you. I think that’s an important point. Social media has the means of connecting us to each other but ideologically it can splinter us off into increasingly narrow echo chambers. And dark rabbit holes.
I wish it would. I don’t know what happens in rabbit holes, but Christianity requires us to devalue “unity” over truth.
Those rabbit holes tend to meet up underground.
🙂🐇
I have long had the feeling that Bishop Barron must be doing something right since he seems to draw attacks from all sides.
My thoughts as well Mr. Saucci.
When I wrote what follows and subsequently (electronically) discussed it with Dr. Chapp, he disagreed with my analysis, which had flowed from my genuine respect for Bishopo Barron and my disappointment that–at least at that time–he (Barron) was often too little and too late in defending what eminently deserved spirited (that’s a pun) defense. I now gladly defer to Dr. Chapp’s judgment and say to Bishop Barron– “Your Excellency: we need your counsel, and you are here for us. Deo gratias.”) I now happily “cancel” my earlier assessment: “Bishop Robert Barron often uses his learning and talent well, but he does so selectively, too frequently failing to battle valiantly against many of the preferred depravities of our day. Qui tacet consentire videtur: Who remains silent is seen as consenting (a key element of Bolt’s fine play, A Man for All Seasons). So it is that a celebrity champion of much of what is true and orthodox can–by his socially servile silence about other moral matters–maladroitly provide aid and comfort to the Enemy (1 Pt 5:8). Thus may it fairly be said that his preaching can deceive us by never exposing our sin (in certain matters, especially carnal) and making us think that we do not need to repent (Lamentations 2:14, Ezekiel 33:7-9, Malachi 2:8, 2 Tm 4:3). Of someone like this talented bishop, to whom much has been given, much is expected, including the bold proclamation of truth even if such parrhesia will reduce his audience or popularity (John 12:43, Galatians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:4). Good bishop, stop counting the cost (cf. Job 38:3, 40:7)! As St. Paul commanded: ‘proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching’ (2 Timothy 2:4). [A book of his I reviewed] . . . reflects Barron’s bicephaly: sometimes unparalleled excellence in evangelization, and sometimes unfathomable desertion from the spiritual battlefield. Good bishop, ‘Get ready; go and tell them everything I [the LORD] command you to say. Do not be afraid of them’ (Jeremiah 1:17, Job 38:3)!'” When Mr. Winters’s judgment is that Bishop Barron’s ministry is deficient or deranged, you may be sure that the good bishop is home, and calling to us. We might well now say, Listen to him.” Dr. Chapp, thanks!
Every wounded dog licks his wounds!
Bishop Barron addresses these criticisms in a May 19 episode of Word on Fire podcast. Episode 490. Highly recommend.
Great article Dr chapp….NCR and America magazine are 2 periodicals I completely ignore when so many good magazines are out there..first things for example…we need to discern more what we read and keep a list of people like Larry to guide us thru such obstacles to true faith…..
Thank you, Dr Chapp. As always, spot on!
While there has been an issue or two on which I have disagreed with Bishop Barron, I still emphatically view him as a genuine treasure for the Church, a modern day St. Paul, who is his day likewise encountered criticism from jealous false teachers, from counterfeit apostles.
About the “winter of our discontent” (Shakespeare’s Richard III):
Four points and a summary:
FIRST, simply stated, the mirabile dictu is how to respect the distinct “hierarchical communion” (the sacrament of Holy Orders; Lumen Gentium) together with the interrelated “ecclesial assembly” of all the baptized under the “universal call to holiness.” Recent incompetencies—or some say, deceptions—have been to deform a real synod of bishops into an ecclesial assembly, and then to further confuse such a select town hall consensus with the sensum fidei.
SECOND, regarding our “ecclesial assembly” (not a “synod”), we have the clarity of Benedict XVI when he reflected on the partial eclipse of the “ecclesial assembly”—or “communio”— probably at Trent…
In response to Luther, et al, the restoration of the sacramentally ordained priesthood as more than a seeming “cult-minister” (Benedict’s term), but as a bearer of sacramentality through Holy Orders, also led to an unfortunate separation of the laity from the clergy. The loss of “communio”—”the problem of the laity, which arose at this time and still haunts us today.” The “original meaning of the word ‘ecclesia’—that is, a ‘coming together’” (Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” 1982/Ignatius 1987).
THIRD, a false “sensus fidei” cannot pit the baptized laity against the ordained (laying on of hands) successors of the apostles who are “sent” (“apostello”) by Christ himself, and the Magisterium. See https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html and especially n. 47. Based on the Council’s Lumen Gentium which defines the sensus fidei as: “the supernatural appreciation of faith on the part of the whole people, encompassing bishops [!] and all the faithful, when they manifest a universal consent [!] in matters of faith and morals.”
FOURTH, now under Pope Leo XIV, needed is a “bridge” between our confused moment in Church history and the historical workings of the Second Vatican Council. The “real” Council of the Documents versus the media’s “virtual” Council (as Benedict XVI often explained); and then to also rediscover the true meaning of “sensus fidei.”
SUMMARY: how walk and chew gum at the same time.
Jesus didn’t tell the Apostles to go and dialogue with all nations. He told the Apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded You!”
As for listening, it was supposed to be to the voice of Jesus the Good Shepherd, not to the false prophets around synodal tables or heterodox “Catholic” publications who want to tickle the ears of those who don’t want to listen to the sound teaching of the Apostles who gave their lives to bring to the world all the teachings that Jesus commanded.
Maggie I tend to agree with your sentiments here.
I wonder if there are Catholics other than myself who think that since Vatican Council II we have had a plethora of words exchanged. We seem to live now in a world where we have words, words and more words and that, the more words we have, the more meaninglessness there is. We’re drowning in words.
Having read the Gospels more than a few times, it occurs to me that Christ was quite laconic in his ministry. He was, rather, profoundly more steeped in witnessing with acts. And now, I’ve used more words than necessary.
Amen…Amen.
I lack the theological and educational chops to engage beyond my layperson’s perspective but I do consider myself to be in complete agreement with the teachings of our beautiful church and hope I am very respectful of her inspired hierarchic genius, warts and all.
Her sacraments; His presence is inexpressible. Love in and for all.
I did not read the original critical piece on Bishop Barron but loved the clear defense from Dr. Chapp and simply wished to express my sense of wonder at the powerful and uplifting continuing genius and deep education so evident in the daily gifts of Bishop Barron. I particularly appreciate his dedicated Thomistic insight as I view Final causality as the clear light of reality that can pull us away from the intellectual death that is purposeless naive materialism and its pathetic scientism in our western death cult. I wish to express a revert’s gratitude to our wonderful Bishop Barron and his compassionate sharing of eternal love. I much enjoyed the contributed responses here as well. Thankyou.
National “Catholic” Reporter is operated outside of Rome’s authority. In short, they’re not in union with the universal Church.
All they are is the official mouthpiece for the progressive Catholics who dream about women’s ordination, gay marriage, and lgbtqxyz issues.
And their hatred of pro-lifers.
The National Catholic Reporter is the epitome of protracted adolescent rage nourished by the mid-century council. More than a half-century later it is even less credible than it was back in the sixties. Its sole value is it has boldly documented the advancing state of decomposition Roman Catholics have shouldered at the hands of fraudulent academics sporting theology degrees and a rogue episcopate nourished by their hubris.
The seat of their pants worn out, their knees show no sign of wear at all.
The National Catholic Reporter is without an iota of credence.
In the past, I read enough of what Mr. Winters had to say in regards to Faith and reason to recognize that for him, and several of the those writers who contributed their viewpoint at Commonweal, a conciliatory church is one where those who affirm that The Blessed Trinity, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Marriage, and those who deny that The Blessed Trinity , In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, of Life, And Of Marriage, can be part of The One Body Of Christ, as if one can be affirming The Word Of Perfect Eternal Love Incarnate, Jesus The Christ, while denying that Jesus The Christ Is The Word Of Perfect Eternal Love Incarnate, simultaneously, through their denial of the Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of our death, and their denial of the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, through their supporting of the act of abortion, and their supporting of the engaging in or affirmation of acts that regardless of the actors or the actors desires, even if the actors are a man and woman, united in marriage as a husband and wife, deny the Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act, which is Life- affirming and Life – sustaining, and can only be consummated by a man and woman, united in Marriage as husband and wife, while affirming the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts that deny the inherent Dignity of the human person, and are thus , physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful. Love, which is always rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love, is devoid of every form of lust.
One would be accurate if one were to state that Mr. Winters aligns himself with the counterfeit church that denies the Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death , and denies the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in order to create a counterfeit church with a counterfeit magisterium to subsist in the conciliar church that he believes was created by the spirit of Vatican II, which clearly would be a counterfeit false spirit that denies The Unity of The Holy Ghost, ipso facto denying The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity.
“You cannot be My disciples if you do not abide in My Word.”- The Charitable Anathema of Jesus The Christ.
Bishop Barron, while affirming The Deposit of Faith, and having a special Gift of Evangelism, fails to recognize that by failing to affirm The Charitable Anathema that Christ Himself Affirmed as being necessary for The Salvation of souls, the counterfeit church, with its counterfeit magisterium is, in essence, being accommodated by The True Church of Christ, by following this same counterfeit false conciliatory spirit of Vatican II, resulting in a Body of Christ that is becoming lukewarm, and thus moving in the same direction as the counterfeit church, with its counterfeit magisterium, towards the bridge that leads to apostasy from Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ.
You can only have a Great Apostasy from The True Church Of Christ, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, which exists Through Him, With Him, And In Him, Oh God, Almighty Father, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
To put it simply, a well formed Catholic Conscience is one that is in communion with The Spirit of Perfect Divine Eternal Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son.
“Be Perfect as your Heavenly Father Is Perfect.”- Jesus The Christ
As a lifelong Catholic and survivor of Jesuit education, I am delighted that the
National Catholic Reporter, America Magazine and Commonweal are fading into the oblivion which they so richly deserve.
Michael Sean… who?
From what I can gather off this whole page Chapp et al, Winters got thrown by Bishop Barron. But at the same time Barron needs to be extra careful what it signifies. Could be Winters seeing Barron as a “weak link”, even “major weak link”, has attempted to bring him to a wrong turn. The devil could supply the needed touch, because Barron is in a circle of “big fish” where he could either get eaten or grow into a big fish too.
I appreciate Bishop Barron, and at the same time consider SMW as a purveyor of a post-christian-tribalism.
One striking problem that I observe wrt Bishop Barron, and one that he has candidly admitted, is that his Catholic school and seminary formation was, as he had noted, nearly devoid of any teaching about evil, or Satan, etc. He candidly stated so on his commentary on the McCarrick crisis, expressing astonishment that McCarrick and other abusers almost seemed diabolical.
Astonished…
Just last week, in his interview with Tuckr Carlson, Bishop Barron defined traditional Catholic people as those who want to hear The St. Michael Prayer at yhe end of Mass. TC asked him what the were the words of that prayer. Bishop Barron admitted he didn’t know the words.
This is one tremendous and quite deliberate blind spot for the Church Establishment, including even well-intended Bishops like Bishop Barron: They apparently don’t think they are in a spiritual battle, despite all of the testimony given by Jesus that we actually are in a battle.
Many people in the Church of a more JP2/B16 bent (of which I count myself one) who were vexxed by the Pontiff Francis, are publicly expressing their “relief” that Leo XIV will restore peace inside the Church.
Indeed, as one pointed example, about a week ago Robert Royale of TCT published an essay where he said that he was relieved that Pope Leo XIV took the name he did, as that harkens back to Pope Leo XIII, and bodes well for Church unity and a more peaceful time for the Church. Mr. Royale said, evoking Leo XIII, that Catholic people ought to be able to argue points in dialogue and disagreement, but should avoid conflict and “combat.”
Now…anyone more than a little familiar with Pope Leo XIII knows at least 3 things about him:
1. Yes, he wrote Rerum Novarum, on of his greatest encyclicals…
2. Yes, he wrote the St. Michael Prayer…
3. And he is famous for penning this line, quite contrary to the counsel given by Bishop Barron and Robert Royale: “Catholics are born for combat.”
I think that the refusal or reluctance to admit that we sre in a spiritual war is a fatal flaw that we have cultivated in the Church for 50-60 years. Yes, human flourishing might be a good result from a life trying to be a faithful Christian…BUT…that’s a by-product…it’s not the purpose)or as Aquinas would say… the Final Cause).
It’s striking to me that our Catholic Church seems intent on neutering Jesus and completely snuffing out St. John The Baptist, who preached the Baptistism of Repentance from Sin, as the preparation for union with Jesus.
Snuffing out the man who Jesus declared the greatest prophet.
The desire to avoid conflict seems, at least according to Jesus, downright un-Christian.
About the role of beauty and also the complication that some clerics do not know the St. Michael Prayer, the layman Soloviev gives us food for thought:
On the one hand “He prefaced his essay on natural aesthetics [Beauty in Nature] with Dostoyevsky’s dictum that ‘beauty will save the world’,” but he also reflected that “Even the most beautiful of butterflies is no more than a winged worm” (in Hans Urs von Balthasar, “The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics III: Studies in Theological Style–Lay Styles,” Ignatius, 1986).
We recall that prior to Vatican II, rather than either the St. Michael Prayer or pew chatter before coffee room doughnuts, the Mass concluded with a reading of part of Chapter One (1-14) of St. John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [….].
Is it possible that the path of beauty (alone?) can sometimes eclipse the whole truth?
Prior to and post VCII, after Low Mass using the 1962 Roman missal, John 1:1-14 is read and the St. Michael prayer is prayed. The St. Michael prayer was/is not said after High Mass.
I know of at least one parish in the Seattle archdiocese which prays the St. Michael prayer after all its NO Masses.
Thanks, Chris. You’ve pointed out a fine-line conundrum. Isn’t our Christian combat to be spiritual and intellectually truthful? At the same time, it is to be charitable, no? Who taught that? (Paul?) Aren’t our wars to be just? Aren’t we to use methods which cause least harm while achieving just ends?
We surely ought not fight against each other’s ideas with fisticuffs. Neither should our intellectual combat specifically address persons as types of persons (unless officially designated heretics). Our speech should be guarded, no?
Royal did agree that we should argue points of disagreement. He and Fr. Murray disagreed with much that Francis said and they would say so and why. Yet I don’t believe I ever heard them say things like, “He’s a midwit marxist.”
I disagree with Barron’s public statements and repeated public justifications for his personal ‘hope’ that hell be empty. I have said so publicly. I think that many people may hold onto Barron’s hope that this is a wonderful, easy, and joyful ‘doctrine,’, too bad the church (before Francis) kept it so quiet in order to ‘control’ and ‘guilt’ so many people!
Is such a hope a good hope to nourish in the heart of sinful men? Men who struggle to know that adultery with Holy Eucharist may not be good for their eternal souls?
Such teaching I see as a type of pastoral euthanasia; I do not see that it meshes with (admittedly ambiguous) Scripture which nowhere is clear on the population of hell. Why not hope and express hope that we and our loved ones learn to love? Only charity survives death. The conception of such a hope seems to elide St. Paul on the meaning and goals of the VIRTUE of hope. Judgement belongs to Christ. Surely we ought to have more to do than wonder about His job performance.
Jesus’ enemies were Judas and those who crucified Jesus. Sure, He cleansed the temple but he also healed the soldier’s ear which Peter sliced. He only rarely name-called. Matthew 10:34.
It’s a conundrum, sure. But our public leaders, especially our Church leaders, will answer for every word gone astray. Am I wrong?
BTW, universalist-leaners rely on 1 Timothy2:4, where God wills that “all men may be saved.”
Christian philosophers, in the main, consider men to be composite substances, each consisting of a material body and an immaterial soul. Catholic doctrine considers the separation of body and soul at death. At death, therefore, ‘man’ is no longer ‘man.’ His form, the soul, still lives, but his mortal body, his human composite substance, is no more.
1 Timothy 2:4 has God referring to “men” as the living composite of body and soul, the temporal, not the separated soul after death. If God wills to save all human beings after death, would Paul not have been inspired to teach that God wills to save all “souls”?
The universalist-leaning claim is that God’s will accomplishes what it wills by its absolute simple nature. The universalist-leaning theologian does not adequately allow for or distinguish between a permissive or antecedent will versus an absolute or consequent will. I ask: Ought we not allow God to be as He would will? Can we not allow that we do not understand? Can we not choose humility in allowing that we may not perfectly understand His will, design, His final ends for different men? The universalist-leaning position is not kind to men or to God, as I see it. In seeming to grant the grace of salvation to many, or to all, what role is left for men to play in ‘working’ out their salvation? Hope and faith yes. Anything else?
Hope and faith are not necessarily exercised with conscious awareness nor is it necessarily visible to others. God, as the only judge of souls, can clearly see what we cannot see and we do not have any business of presumptuousness against His mercy.
Virtues have God as their object. We are to perform acts of faith, hope and love. So yes, we ought to be consciously aware of our virtues, and we ought to act to strengthen them. We let the light of Christ shine from within us for others to see. We use ourselves as salt and yeast to benefit ourselves and others.
You are right. We ought have no presumption against God’s mercy. Neither should we have presumption for mercy. Mercy is only one of God’s perfect attributes. He is also justice. God alone in his perfection has everything to say about mercy and justice. Traditional theology would have a time for mercy and a time for justice. Does mercy continue in the afterlife for the soul which consistently rejected mercy in life? It is a false mercy to hope for or posit God’s infinite mercy without acknowledging His equally infinite and perfect justice. In all hopeful humility, we ought to LOVE every one of God’s perfections and pray for His wisdom so as not to lead ourselves and others astray.
Bishop has ceased to be the (self-appointed) U.S. Church’s chief “evangelizer of culture” by embracing more and more the MAGA culture and becoming the Catholic chaplain of the racist and fascist Orange regime.
It can’t be healthy to carry on that preoccupation Deacon Dom. There’s an election every 4 years. We live with the results and get another chance to vote. It worked the same way with Mr Biden’s administration. It was rough but we survived. You will too.
🙂
Calling every hard question about Donald Trump TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is like accusing the fire-marshal of arson because he keeps pointing at the smoke. What you dismiss as an unhealthy “preoccupation” is simply the adult habit of holding leaders, pastors or presidents, answerable after the confetti is swept away. Citizenship, unlike a campaign slogan, does not expire on the first Wednesday of November. Yes, ballots are counted every four years; no, that does not impose a four-year gag order. Unconsciously you of the cult of MAGA (Mindless Adorers of the Grifter Autocrat) are inflicted with another TDS (Trump Devotion Syndrome), that flattens the civic reflexes. Step 1: canonize the candidate or crown him king. Step 2: brand every lie, indictment, or policy flop “fake news.” Step 3: prescribe “move on” the instant anyone cites evidence. Voilà, democratic vigilance replaced by a praise chorus.
That is precisely the liturgical mood Bishop Barron has adopted in his emerging MAGA chaplaincy. His flag-waving video after George Floyd’s murder ignored the blood on the pavement in favor of a misty 1950s civics reel. He laments Woodstock and drag queens yet whispers nothing about Christian nationalism—an ideology that evangelical and Catholic scholars have dissected for decades. History was never Barron’s strong suit, and it shows: he can quote Aquinas in Latin yet flunks basic Reconstruction. An evangelist who cannot view the world through the eyes of the recipients inevitably preaches only to the choir. Worse, Barron’s guest list: Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, assorted culture-war impresarios—reveals a man who mistakes echo chambers for mission fields. He denounces the sexual revolution but blinks at strong-man populism and the corrosive lure of affluence. That is not prophetic balance; it is partisanship dressed in chasuble and cincture. So no, scrutiny is not sickness. It is the immune system of the republic and of the Church. If that feels rough, the cure is not silence; it is thicker skin and far better history lessons.
I admire Bishop Barron & that he reaches out to folks rather than cancelling them.
I had coffee recently with someone who follows Tucker Carlson & believes some very disturbing conspiracy stories. I didn’t come away a convert but at least I know what they’re thinking & who they’re influenced by.
History is generally written by the winners in textbooks. History lessons can vary accordingly.
I don’t think TDS isn’t a healthy preoccupation. Nor is following isolationist, conspiracy ridden podcasters. At some point all those rabbit holes intersect.
Trump lives inside your head, I’m afraid.
Minus rent.🙂
Your posts definitely put the “derangement” in Trump Derangement Syndrome. Please seek help.
Do you realize that despite dozens of insulting characterizations, of people you have not even met, you did not provide a single specific to support them?
You use “MAGA” like a curse word. I guess in your lexicon is also “Nazi”, “King”, Extreme This and That”, etc. Try engaging your mind and less your emotions.
Are you talking about one of the most anti-fascist individuals in human history? Donald Trump? The man, despite recent slips of resolve, did more to reduce abortion in America and around the world, than any man in history? Or do you side with the fascist left-wing worshipers of the extermination of the vulnerable? And name one racist statement Trump ever made?
“We have all been asking for decades for bishops who are not just managerial class apparatchiks and who are instead true evangelists of the Gospel for the people of today. And here we have one such bishop; but instead of applauding him, there are loud voices falsely vilifying him with every effort made to tear him down because he has chosen not to ride into town on our particular ecclesial hobby horse.”
Hear hear. Although I have to point out that Dr. Chapp is guilty of the very same thing when he has called for more ecclesial movements of genuine evangelism, only to turn around and attack the likes of Dr. Ralph Martin, an exemplar of the very thing Dr. Chapp has asked for in the Church.
The lesson is the same anyway: We don’t have a right to demand that the Holy Spirit’s answers to our prayers look exactly like what we expect.