Another Take On Bp Barron

The visitor who sent the link to Wednesday's post to California Catholic Daily tells me, "Bp Barron is often a bone of contention here. Some fear he is angling for metro DC as Wuerl's replacement." I wasn't familiar with the site, but on hearing that, I've got to say, "Of course." The best anyone not in the loop can speculate is that Cardinal Tobin had been in line for the post when Wuerl was eased out, but the Italian actor bunkmate made that too much of a stretch, so now they need some sort of fresh air type without the gay baggage but not a crazy like, say, Bp Daly of Spokane, who seems to have his head screwed on a little too straight.

Thus we have the willingness of Bp Barron to wag his finger at the racists among the Catholic faithful, a majority of whom voted for Trump in 2016. No matter that, as Catholics, they saw Trump's public policy positions on life issues as far better than those of any prominent Democrat. The puzzle for me is why Barron and apparently many other US bishops don't recognize this, except that the "seamless garment" school of theology seems to take the position that the perfect must be the enemy of the good -- if Trump is somehow a "racist", then any support for life issues must be cynical, no matter that current public policy on abortion, based overtly on eugenics, results in proportionally more minority babies aborted than white ones.

Plus, if Catholic teaching on life issues makes us uncomfortable or less popular, we can say it's all a seamless garment, and if somehow this or that public policy on immigration or whatever is "racist", we can disregard the rest of the whole structure unless it's perfect. So let's get on with it and be less "homophobic".

Up to now, I'd thought Michael Voris was a little too hard on Bp Barron, but if the bishop is signing on to this, I'm not so sure. As I say, I was seated not far from him at a concert last year, and my impression was that he seemed open and unpretentious, which I counted in his favor. However, I'm certain that if I e-mailed him with my concerns, it would never reach him, nor would he want it to. So my mind is open.

Certainly for him to move from auxiliary in a more rural part of the Los Angeles archdiocese to a major post in the US Church would be a phenomenal rise, but I think it would also be an indication that he could be manipulated by powerful figures already in place.