Really? That's not how I read it.
Did St. Thomas deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
...At least this much is certain, St. Thomas ended his life leaning much closer to a belief in the Immaculate Conception and was convinced that our Lady received a singular grace in being free from all sin, both actual and even original sin. Therefore, it is ridiculous and quite unfair (not to mention uncharitable) for people to claim that St. Thomas denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception."
Why not extend the same charity to Fr. Barron.
Since when is it "charitable" to silently acquiesce to public attacks on Tradition by a media priest? In Fr. Barron's video on hell, he tosses the theology of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (both Doctors of the Church) out the window and then establishes a false dialectic between Origen (the flip-floppingest Church Father) and Karl Barth (not even a Catholic) in order to be able to make the claim that Balthasar "has it pretty much right". Fr. Barron would have us believe that Adam is a poetic figure, and that hell is a spatial/visual metaphor, yet he treats an obvious use of poetic license ("brother sun", "sister moon") as a factual statement, going so far as to ridiculously classify us as "ontological siblings" of inanimate objects. Even a five year old wouldn't buy into that tortured characterization.
Fr. Barron's teachings are not in line with Catholic Tradition. Charity demands that priests not be given a free pass to mislead the faithful by promoting their own personal opinions as fact.
He is not denying Hell. He is not denying that any human being is in Hell. He is simply stating that it is possible to hope that no human being is in Hell.
Fr. Barron is not saying Hell is only a metaphor. Of course, if you think this, you would think of him as a heretic.
I don’t have further time for this as you are clearly misrepresenting Fr. Barron.
A-HA! I knew it!