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

Francis Head in Hands

Some interesting overnight developments occurred that strike close to our analysis regarding a couple of recent themes. One interesting data point that we can add to our observations of the VIRTUAL REALITY that is the mainstream media we dealt with in the prior post. The gist of the story was that Rush Limbaugh, after doing some investigation of the concerted social media attack on his radio show and sponsors, discovered that this “mass social campaign” that sent out thousands upon thousands was the work of 10 people. Here is the relevant passage: (emphasis added)

There is on Twitter this thing called StopRush, and it’s people attacking me and this program much the way Indiana is being attacked today, and whatever conservative institution was attacked yesterday. What this group does is they go after local advertisers on local EIB affiliates, and they try to intimidate local businesses. This cake shop is an example, I don’t know if they’re one, but like this little mom-and-pop businesses. They just overwhelm them with complaint tweets, threatening tweets, a bunch of e-mails.

It’s 10 people. We researched it. We know who the people are. We know where they live. Virtually 85% of all the so-called outrage e-mails and tweets are generated by 10 people, made to look as though they are thousands and thousands and thousands. It’s all fake. It’s all phony. It’s all part of a left-wing, massive smear operation. It’s defamation, it’s smear, it’s everything you can imagine. But it’s made to look legit, and it does look legit until you get into it. It just scares the hell out of people. So here’s this bakery shutting down because Twitter hummed with outrage.

It is exactly this aspect of the operations of these “left wing” ideological pressure groups that we have observed in some of the catholic media space. We highlighted this phenomenon with our series on one website owned by the HUGE media conglomerate New York Times/Boston Globe whose virtual presence appears to be much larger than its actually one. (see here)

The second interesting development pertained to an interview that The Great Cardinal gave to one European newspaper, a clip that appeared on Gloria TV. But first some background and a hat tip to IndignusFamulus for bringing it to my attention.

After the Secret Synod of 2014, this blog undertook an analysis to determine what in fact was the TRUE AGENDA of the Secret Synod of Bishops that was then just recently concluded. It became evident that there was something wrong with a synod that billed itself as one pertaining to the family, but neglected to address issues relating to the majority of the Catholic families. Here is a short synopsis of what we found: (see here)

With this new information, we have been able to posit three underlying facts about the true agenda of Synod and why it was called, namely; 1) Francis called the Synod to engage in a “re-branding exercise” of Catholic teaching, 2) the Synod of 2014 had very little if anything to do with “The Family” and had everything to do with a hidden agenda relating to “communion for divorced remarried” and “changing teaching on homosexuality” and 3) upon closer examination, the issue of communion for divorced remarried was a red herring and the Synod of 2014’s true agenda was to change the Church teaching on homosexuality.

And last evening, Gloria TV presented excerpts from an interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke that addressed just this issue. Here is the relevant quote: (see here GTV)

During the Synod it was said that homosexuality had nothing to do with the family and that one would need to convoke a own Synod if one wanted to tackle this problem.

But then we were confronted in the Relatio post disceptationem with this theme which was not discussed by the Synod Fathers.”

So there you have it. Confirmation that aberro-sexuality was a VIRTUAL ISSUE at the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014. Not only wasn’t it discussed, it was agreed that “homosexuality had nothing to do with the family and that one would need to convoke a own Synod if one wanted to tackle this problem.”

Let me say this again for emphasis:

homosexuality had nothing to do with the family and that one would need to convoke a own Synod if one wanted to tackle this problem.

Just to refresh our collective memory, only three interventions mentioned this VIRTUAL ISSUE, and here is how these interventions looked: (see here)

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.

Yes, those are the facts.

So what can we discern from the above?

From the looks of things, Francis and his  Manipulators called a Synod of Bishops under the guise of “The Family”. What they in fact tried to do is use this Synod on the Family to smuggle a HIDDEN AGENDA through the Bishops Synod. Their plan went horribly wrong when none of the bishops, save two and the Jesuit heretic Spadaro even mentioned the issue at the Synod. Just to emphasis the point that this was a VIRTUAL ISSUE, here is the quote from the above cited post via Sandro Magister’s blog:

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.

So Francis and the Manipulators had to insert the rogue paragraphs into the Relatio and force it into the Final Relatio against the Bishops will. Not only did they have to force the issue in the Final Relatio, but Francis had to admit that he was the one who overruled the Synod vote when the issue of “By what authority were the rogue paragraphs inserted into the Final Relatio?” would not go away. (see here)

And now we find out that the Synod Fathers decided that the issue of aberro-sexuality was decided to be discussed at a different synod since it did not pertain to the Family!

You can’t make this stuff up sports fans!

Which brings to mind the famous Sir Walter Scott observation:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practice to deceive.”

Well sports fans, this is what passes for Jesuitical these days.