Sunday, October 07, 2018

Holy crap! Barnhardt has finally lost it.

Mad Meg


Accusing Cardinal Tobin of having an affair with an Italian actor.

George Neumayr has discovered who Tobin’s “baby” is. It is the Italian actor Francesco Castiglione, who – get this – is LIVING IN TOBIN’S RECTORY...

Neumayr is the guy Bishop Morlino said to beware of.   No need to wonder why, with this salacious gossip.  Barnhardt's writing is vulgar and contemptuous, and indecen, she begins the article: 'The filthy faggot Cardinal of Newark, New Jersey.'

The very idea of Tobin having an affair with the Italian actor is laughable.  This is exactly the same level of calumny passing as investigative journalism on which Vigano probably based many of his own conclusions.

Aside from the disturbing scandal-ridden, so-called journalism, what I find troubling is that many people follow Neumayr online, and to my surprise, some very solid people link to him, friend him on FB, and share his stories.  I don't really know who he is and never read him unless someone sends me a link.  Barnhardt shows up on one news aggregate and so I'll sometimes click to read her outlandish commentary.  Again, I'm surprised she has people - even priests - who read and actually support her.  Former online 'friends' continue to do so as well and actually believe what she writes.

I won't link to these people of course, I'm just noting that much of the scandal is fed by this type of crack-pottery online.  As Ouellet wrote to Vigano, "I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation."

Beware Neumayr and Barnhardt.

Ed. Note: I neglected to note Castiglione is reportedly a house guest at Tobin's residence while he studies at Seton Hall. Interpreting that to mean he is having an affair/sex with Tobin is a monstrous, unsubstantiated accusation.  It's wicked and slanderous gossip.  This is why bishop's and diocesan spokesmen refuse to talk to so-called journalists like Neumayr or Voris.

20 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Really? Looks to me like he writes for a very good Catholic publication called Crisis Magazine. https://onepeterfive.com/interview-george-neumayr-author-political-pope/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice interview about George mentioned in above comment as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. who's Barnhardt?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Prove that the accusations are unsubstantiated. Since you are so convinced, it should be easy to prove...we're waiting...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The burden of proof is on the accusers. They have no proof.

      Delete
  6. Gearge had this response:

    George Neumayr
    2 hrs ·
    Here we have a power-sniffing, servile, sloppy blogger decrying...sloppy journalism. Notice that he doesn't quote Tobin's spokesman, who essentially confirmed my story about the Italian soap actor living at Tobin's rectory by refusing to answer any questions on the subject: "I will not entertain the question."

    Just because he is a house guest at Tobin's doesn't make him his lover or 'boy-toy'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You honestly thought Barnhardt had any credibility before this? She is one of the foulest, most vile "Catholic" bloggers on on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh no! But these people link to her and quote her and treat her as if she is credible! Even Fr. Z allowed a link to her, as well as picking up on her crazy analysis of the 'stang' thing. I can't believe these people are following this insanity.

      Delete
  8. When false accusations are made against Judge Kavanaugh, it's an outrage and a travesty.

    When false accusations are made against a bishop or Pope, it's good clean fun.

    Don't ever change, you schismatic, Americanist, right-liberal frauds pretending to be Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To mislead, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24)

      Delete
  9. censorship....nice. It was just an opposing viewpoint. Who's behind your blog? The Gallan Six

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL!
      I'm funded by Soros.

      Delete
    2. Terry,
      I will gladly donate to your blog! ÷)

      Delete
    3. Haha! Thanks Yaya!

      Delete
  10. Because grown men always have sleepovers? Any opinion regarding Cupich, Wuerl, Martin, Rosica, McCarrick along with so many more? Does one actually need photographic proof or the blue dress to come to correct assertions? I shouldn't really use the blue dress analogy as there is a high likelihood one might actually find a blue dress in one of these men's.....there I go again- one of these people's closet. Along with a fashionable pair of pumps. What about McCarrick? Or does one actually need the trial results that he will most likely die before it concludes? And what does Voris say that's beyond Catholic? Is it "tone" perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:50 AM

    I would say the tone is minimally "charitable "

    ReplyDelete
  12. David Calvani11:28 PM

    I'm sorry, Terry, but your attitude to events seems like a determination to whitewash everything in the favor of the Catholic hierarchy.

    Forgive me for making such an accusation in my very first comment ever here. I do not comment on websites simply to be contrary. I just discovered your website while searching for information on St. Sebastian's Angels. That brought me to your post of 6 March 2018.

    What I've read here today brings a number of questions to my mind. I'll address only one specific issue here. I do not ask as a practicing Catholic (I'm not) but as someone concerned with the Church as an important institution in Western culture.

    Both that post and this one left me with the impression that you are determined to believe the very best of Francis -- and of everything that comprises the Roman Catholic Church as a social organization -- despite the evidence of recent events.

    In that earlier post you stated: "If and when the pope knows about them, I'm quite certain he is doing something about them." (In that post you had no problem assuming Corapi to be guilty as he was accused in an official manner -- that is by the clerical hierarchy itself.) But when some evidence is presented that Francis knew about problems and did nothing you essentially dismiss it. In this very post you are accuse Vigano of coming to faulty conclusions on "calumny passing as investigative journalism." But Vigano has claimed his accusations stem from his OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You do not know that Vigano is lying about this (and he would have to be lying and not merely mistaken.)

    So what gives?

    Does you faith as a Catholic require you to always believe the hierarchy until proof positive is given otherwise? Your statement of 9 October, "Now it will be handled officially and explained away - not without apologies of course, acknowledging "there were failures in the selection procedures implemented in his case", but we won't do that again, and so on" suggest otherwise. So color me perplexed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks David. I get perplexed as well and writing helps me think, this is just sort of diary wherein I simply try to sort things out for myself. I don't regard the Church so much as a social institution, but rather as the Mystical Body of Christ. Filled with imperfect members - sinners - to be sure. I revere the office of the papacy, and recognize the one who sits in the chair of Peter as the Vicar of Christ. Like his predecessor St. Peter, the pope, being human has flaws and can make mistakes. The problem of judging a pope is not my responsibility, and since there is little to no concrete evidence regarding Vigano's claims aside from his testimony, no documentation has been made public, to my knowledge, I can't presume there was malicious cover-up, perhaps it was something considered more prudential? I'm not competent to speculate on what the pope did or did not do, much less on what his thoughts and intentions were. The Roman curia operates much differently than we Americans expect. I respectfully await clarification and correction of these problems, recognizing the Church moves slowly.

      When I refer to Vatican statements I usually have in mind Vatican spokesmen or functionaries attempting to explain stuff away in a sort of Church-legalese. It works, but it's not all that critical for my faith. I would prefer straight talk, but they have their protocol.

      There's a lot in your comment but everything you bring up is not equal in weight or importance - for instance Corapi. His superiors had the responsibility to investigate. Corapi is a priest subject to his superiors, and answerable to them. It was obvious to me something was way off spiritually with Corapi when he started changing his look and other changes to his appearance. Something was off with him - that was my impression. I don't know about his personal life. His superiors relegated what would happen to him, until he dropped out. I understand he's in business for himself.

      Back to the hierarchy - yep - innocent until proven guilty - I'm kind of American that way. McCarrick was steeped in rumors and gossip which I never believed, until now - after letters/documentation and witnesses came forward, and the Holy Father acted to remove his title. I was very much disturbed by the revelations, but I do not regret not participating in the rumors and gossip which circulated before his downfall.

      I'm just a single Catholic man, kind of foolish to write so much, but my opinion means very little. Thanks for commenting.

      Delete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.