, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pope caught cold

Yesterday’s post titled The Modernist’s Magic Words dealt with parsing and interpreting the interview given by Francis to the Argentine newpaper La Nacion which appeared this past Sunday, the 7th of December. (see here) I made the case that this interview was a watershed moment, similar in fact to the Benedict speech to the Konzerthaus society in Freiburg im Breisgauat, where he took on the German Bishops and the corrupt Kirchensteuer. (see here) Many commentators think that it was a milestone moment in the process which ended in the  abdication of Benedicts XVI. In what appears to be an analogous situation with Francis, in that his La Nacion interview is nothing short of his third rail moment,  in that he was forced to come out of his comfort zone. By this I mean that Francis was called on to take a stand on issues on which he has been silent on, those same issues that senior Church clerics have been asking him to speak up on since the end of the Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. Furthermore, Francis compounded his problem by making a forced error in that he defined what constitutes his magisterium. And this by far is the most significant takeaway from not only yesterday’s post, but also from the La Nacion interview magisterium of Francis.


Today we drill down deeper into the second part of the La Nacion interview (see here) and bring in the Sandro Magister post detailing the devastatingly accurate projectile fired at Team Bergoglio’s “theology done on the knees” by Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, a Scalabrinian and an illustrious canonist, president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See. (see here) We will also address what appears to be the major underlying issue driving Francis’s agenda at present, when we address the issue of the prominence of Francis’s homosexual agenda, cross referencing the observations made by Louie Verrecchio on his Harvesting the Fruits blog. (see here)

So let’s get cracking.


As we discussed yesterday, the “reforms” that Francis was tasked with by the cardinal electors before the 2013 conclave have turned into nothing more than a “re-branding” exercise. This re-branding exercise in turn, is nothing more than trying to find the Modernist’s Magic Words that will somehow magically invoke the ‘ god of surprises” who will then “move” the former Pew Sitters to return back into the Pews.

In the second part of the La Nacion interview, we get this passage from Francis:

The family is so beaten up, young people don´t get married. What´s the problem? When they finally come to get married, having already moved in together, we think it´s enough to offer them three talks to get them ready for marriage. But it´s not enough because the great majority are unaware of the meaning of a lifetime commitment. Benedict said it twice in his last year, that we should take this into account in order to grant nullity, each person´s faith at the time of getting married. Was it something general, though understanding perfectly well what marriage is about, understanding it enough to convey it to another person? That´s something we need to look into in depth, to analyze how we can help…

Aside from all the logical fallacies and contradictory statements made in the above statement, if the above was indeed Francis’s true intention, then the logical starting point for the next part of the Secret Synod would be the APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO of John Paul II, since this is the papal document that addresses this subject matter quite comprehensively and what is more, it is the official teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. But Familiaris Consortio is nowhere to be seen.

And the question is why?

The answer is as simple as being familiar with the term “bait-and-switch”. For those not familiar with this term, we turn to our trusted Wikipedia for the definition:

Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by merchants’ advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items (“switching”).

As you can no doubt figure out by now, the relevant part of the definition is “also employed in other contexts”.  So what we are observing in the recent communications flow coming out of the Francis Vatican is a classic bait-and-switch strategy approach  whereby on the basis of trying to promote “the ‘beaten up family”, Francis and his cohorts are in fact switching to the agenda for the promotion of “communion for serial adulterers” and “changing Church “teaching” on homosexuality”.

Communion for serial adulterers

The bait-and-switch strategy (I keep on forgetting that Francis doesn’t like this word) approach in the “switch” with respect to giving “communion to serial adulterers divorced and remarried” is explained by Francis as follows:

The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?”. The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on”. Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, ate chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change.

As we see in this rambling passage, and by now dear reader you should be able to write a college thesis on logical fallacies using just this paragraph above as your example, we see the “clever by half” Jesuitical mind at work. We see Francis desperately trying to “re-brand” communion for the re-married as an issue affecting the family. How else can one explain the focus on the “god-parents” (notice the Deus ex Machina clumsily lowered down from the contraption?), who are not nuclear family per se but extended family at best. This is a tangential issue at best and to be perfectly honest, having nothing to do what so ever with the ” family is so beaten up” narrative, the issue that the Synod is supposed to be dealing with.

Clumsy? Check. Patently transparent? Check. Modern day Jesuitical? Check. Therefore, yes to all. But Francis somehow got this size 12 foot into the size 6 shoe right in front of the nose of the non-discerning journalist.

But what about the counter arguments?

And as you can figure out, Francis rolls out the logical fallacies, this time the ad hominem attacks. The way in which the counter argument is presented by Francis is that the opponents are

1) “scared”,

2) “people are always afraid”,

3) “people are always afraid because they don’t read things”.

Nothing more, nothing less… according the the bishop of Rome.

But maybe it might be Francis that doesn’t read things, yes?

Speaking of reading things, Sandro Magister published a post on the Cheisa blog on the 9th of November, or two days after the La Nacion interview. The post dealt with the response to the Francis’s “theology done on the knees” from Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, a Scalabrinian and an illustrious canonist, president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See. And he didn’t mention anything about opponents being “scared”, “people are always afraid” and “people are always afraid because they don’t read things”.

But what the the illustrious canonist said is this:

But now De Paolis has come back to the argument, taking as the object of his criticisms precisely that paragraph 52 of the final “Relatio” of last October’s synod concerning the pros and cons on communion for the divorced and remarried.

In the judgment of Cardinal De Paolis, this paragraph is not only incoherent and contradictory in itself, but “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.

Which by the way, is exactly what the Polish Episcopate has been very vocally pointing out post Shameful Secret Synod.

So if a illustrious canonist claims that “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals, maybe it’s not an issue of people being“scared”,” people are always afraid” and “people are always afraid because they don’t read things” after all. Maybe it’s Francis who is not doing the reading.

The Switch from “value in aberro-sexual unions” to families with aberro-sexual members”

But the real bait-and-switch operation, and one by far the most transparent if not laughable deals with the metamorphosis of the Secret Synod passages relating to the issue of homosexuality. Just to remind the wording of the infamous Relatio post disceptationem three paragraphs were dedicated to homosexuality; 50, 51 and 52. (see here) Here is how they read:

50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing […] them […] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

“51. The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect, all of which constitute an important educative challenge. Moreover, the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that the pastor’s outlook be pressured or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations based on gender ideology.

“52. Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to […] children who live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”

And here is how the single paragraph on homosexuality read in the Final Relatio:

“55. Some families live the experience of having persons of homosexual orientation within them. In this regard it was asked what pastoral attention should be paid to this situation in reference to the teaching of the Church: ‘There exists no foundation whatsoever for assimilating or establishing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God’s plan for marriage and the family.’ Nonetheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy. ‘Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’ (Congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Considerations on plans for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons,

What happened? How did we get from 3 paragraphs speaking about homosexual’s gifts and unions in the Relatio post disceptationemto to 1 paragraph about how families deal with homosexual members in the Final Relatio? Here are the relevant passages from Magister:

First by cardinal relator Péter Erdö and then by president delegate Raymundo Damasceno Assis, the author of these three paragraphs has been indicated in the special secretary of the synod, Bruno Forte, placed in this role by Pope Francis.

But the prehistory of these paragraphs is also indicative. Two of the three synod fathers who had raised this issue during discussions in the assembly – the only ones out of the almost two hundred present – in fact supported their arguments with statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Oh my!

And what did the Synod do to the passages which “supported their arguments with statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio” : (emphasis added)

The “Relatio post disceptationem,” in the three paragraphs dedicated to homosexuality, revisited and further developed the things said in the assembly by the Malaysian archbishop, by Fr. Spadaro, and by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the third to speak on the issue.

But the subsequent discussion at the synod tore the three paragraphs to shreds, and almost nothing of them made it into the final “Relatio,” which on homosexuality limits itself to referring to what has already been said by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

So in other words, nothing changed from Familiaris Consortio. It was a non issue.

But here is how Francis explains what happened at the Synod with respect to “homosexual persons”:

What we did talk about was of how a family with a homosexual child, whether a son or a daughter, goes about educating that child, how the family bears up, how to help that family to deal with that somewhat unusual situation. That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires. We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by their son or daughter. That´s what the synod addressed. That´s why someone mentioned positive factors in the first draft. But this was just a draft.

Even the ignorant, simply blind or chronically delusional must admit that the process to transforming the paragraphs from the Relatio post disceptationem to the Final Relatio was intended to return the issue back to the status quo. Hence the comment by Magister:

So after two weeks of heated discussion at the synod, the question seemed to have gone back to the starting point.

We now we can clearly see that “families with homosexual members” was a by product of the “… subsequent discussion at the synod tearing the three paragraphs to shreds, and almost nothing of them made it into the final “Relatio,” which on homosexuality limits itself to referring to what has already been said by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith”.

Furthermore, even this reworked version was voted down and the only reason why it appears is that Francis wanted it to appear. Once again Magister:

The purpose of the survey, according to Cardinal Baldisseri, will be “the examination of the questions addressed in the debate, of all of them, but above all of those that need to be discussed in a more painstaking manner.”

With this, the cardinal alluded to the two most controversial questions at the synod last October. So controversial that they did not obtain, in their final formulation, the two thirds of the votes necessary for approval.

The above two controversial questions are the questions concerning communion for the divorced and remarried and homosexuality.

Got that?

And yet, these are the things Francis desperately needed to get onto the agenda for the Shameful Secret Synod “Secret Synod of the Three Paragraphs” of 2015, the same issues that were voted down, and in the normal course of all the “supposed collegiality and synodality”, should not even be discussed come October 2015. (see here)

Francis’s Hidden Agenda

So as you no doubt concluded by now, the entire Shameful Synod of 2014 and 2015 is in reality a farce. It has nothing to do with the “family” per se, but is just a “dog and pony” show designed to disguise Francis’s hidden agenda. And the design is so flawed, that Francis repeatedly keeps on getting caught in lies trying to cover it up. And it is this dishonest behavior by the Vicar of Christ that has completely destroyed his credibility.

Which raises the question, why is Francis doing this? Why the obsession with this farce. Or to expand this thought, why is Francis so hell bent on getting his hidden agenda onto the Secret Synod part II Secret Synod of the Three Paragraphs?

One clue can be inferred from a post that appeared on the Harvesting the Fruits blog yesterday. (see here) After doing what appears to be a “back of an envelope” calculation of what percentage of the population can be the group of aberro-sexuals that Francis has in mind when he says:

That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation.

This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires.

Louie Verrecchio’s makes the prescient “objectively based” observation :

This would mean that only .0625% (that’s roughly 6 out of 10,000!) of the general population is comprised of that unit known as a “same sex couple that identifies as Catholic raising children.”

Now, of this statistically insignificant group of people, how many are banging on the rectory door “requesting baptism” for their kids?

The obvious answer? Practically none!

Mr. Verrecchio then goes on to make this brilliant summation which I am reproducing, in large part for your reading pleasure.

Clearly this tiny demographic doesn’t give a flying one-night stand in a gay bar bathroom about the sacraments, much less the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church.

Of those who claim as much, arguably some small portion thereof really is seeking to respond to the promptings of grace, and God help the cleric who provides accommodation (stones) instead of the unadulterated truth that calls them to conversion (bread).

That said, is there really anyone so naïve as to not realize that the overwhelming majority of those “same sex couples” who claim to desire baptism for their unfortunate children, small in number though they most certainly are, really are looking for little more than for the Church to validate their sexual deviancy?

Well, if we’re charitable, we have to conclude that there are some among us who are so naïve, and one of them is running the show in Rome.

Summa Summarum

Well, I somehow suspect that “naivete” might not be the underlying issue here. Call me uncharitable, but…

In an off the cuff response in the comment box under Mr. Verrecchio’s final observation, I proposed the following explanation, albeit in a joking manner:

An alternative explanation that comes to me off the top of my head is this: when you made as many enemies in Rome over the course of the last year and a half as Francis has, you can’t afford to lose the queers.
PS Numbers don’t lie.

And you know what, upon further reflection, I don’t think I am off the mark.

Which leads to a further question, namely: If it’s not “naivete” then could it be that Francis might be a hostage to the Vatican Homo-Lobby? Remember them?

Or to put it another way, has the cleverly Jesuitical Francis worked himself into a corner, out of which he is desperately trying to work his way out of?

Looking at the above facts rationally, on the one hand, Francis needs the afore mentioned “special interest” group to help him “keep an eye on things” at the Vatican. They might be the only friends he has left in Rome and beyond. He no doubt had their “help” in years past. There is a reason why he has kept Msgr. Ricca in his delicate positions.

On the other hand, Francis can’t afford to make enemies of the bishops and cardinals. Remember, there is still this little issue of the Dr. Austen Ivereigh and Team Bergoglio/ Formal explicit violation of UDG 81, (see here) which is a big deal in Vatican circles from what I understand.

I would say that the above situation may have placed our bishop of Rome in quite a vulnerable position.

But more about this in a future post.

Post scrioptum

Before I finish, I would just like to remind all of you dear readers of the following video produced of Michael Matt which I posted under the title “Hey, what did happen to that dossier?”  which goes a long way into confirming my suspicions. (see here)