Beans reveals his self-interest

Evidence of self-interest. Where does his mind go?

I’m not sure which publications he is talking about, but that hardly matters.

Nope. Can’t have any publications out there which expose heresies.

Beans wants an open field without any resistance for himself and his herd.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Gregg the Obscure says:

    so the fight against heresy these days is specifically heterosexual. got it.

  2. hilltop says:

    “ Beans” must be one of those who subscribes to Playboy “for the interviews”… yep

  3. acardnal says:

    Many of his tweets are incomprehensible. He lives in an ivory tower at Villanova.

  4. Lurker 59 says:

    Glad to know that Beans is more than cursory acquainted with Playboy to make such a comparison. Also, ya sure you read those magazines for the “interviews”.

    But seriously, this type of “bloodsport” reaches back to antiquity. Which is pointing out falsehoods and coupling that to a derisive comparison to underscore the point. The bible is filled with it. Jesus personally uses it frequently (brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, sons of the devil, etc.).

    If you find that you are getting called out on presenting falsehoods as facts, reflect on what is being said. If your interlocutors are correct, stop what you are doing. If they are not correct, grow thicker skin. Don’t complain about your fee-fees and suggest that people shouldn’t vigorously pursue truth and wisdom.

  5. ChrisP says:

    That’s funny, I always picked Faggioli’s theology to be more of a Victoria’s Secret kind of guy….

  6. Johann says:

    Beans is so spectacularly ignorant of Church teaching (as proven by the numerous times he got p@wned on Twitter) I shudder to think what his students are learning under his tutelage.

  7. NBW says:

    So sad. He admits he reads/ read Playboy. I hope he goes to confession.

  8. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    A couple of things I would like to see:

    1) Some claim they’re “religious not spiritual” instead of the trite “spiritual not religious.”

    2) Someone admit they read Playboy just for the pictures and not the articles.

  9. JonPatrick says:

    Interesting analogy, since Playboy in its heyday in the 1960’s was at the forefront of the sexual revolution so in a sense they were the ones pushing heresy against the prevailing social order. A better comparison for Playboy might be Amerika magazine or the Fishwarp.

Comments are closed.