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

Che Revolution ApplesToday we transition away from Poland, but will return in two weeks time to see how the Catholic candidate fared in the upcoming presidential elections. The reason that this blogger sees this election as an important event is that it is the first national elections since the downfall of what has been known in Poland as the “Lagiewniki Church”. Just as a reminder, the Lagiewniki Church was an artificial creation of the domestic ex-communist elites, the purpose of which was to create dissent within the Catholic Church in Poland in order to split the Catholic vote. We explained this situation in our post How The Mighty Have Fallen (see here). But more about the wider implications of this election for the Polish Episcopate Conference and the Church in Poland will be provided in the future post.

In today’s post, the first of two, we turn our sights onto another “revolution”, or to be more precise, a subversive operation that has failed. This revolution is the one created by Francis in order to change Catholic doctrine with respect to the Gender ideology, an ideology that is being heavily promoted by the German Bishops’ Conference. We explained the relationship between the German Bishops’ Conference and BIG GENDER in our post Meet Big Gender (see here).

The manner in which Gender Theory ties into the Francis papacy in general and the Synod of Bishops in particular we outlined in our post titled The Three Paragraphs. (see here) In this post, we laid out our case for why the Synod of Bishops was called for no other reason than to “do something” about the “intrinsically disorder” description of sexually aberrant behavior contained in the post Vatican II papal magisterium. The change in this area of Catholic doctrine could then be used to open the Catholic Church to the zeitgeist of our times. Here is what we wrote:

The Synod was controlled and manipulated by a group of clerics who were taking their directives from Francis himself. The way in which the Manipulators wanted to change Church teaching was first by discarding the Church’s existing Magisterium and the foundations for the Church teaching on homosexuality, replace this body of teaching with something new, only grounded in the speeches, newspaper interviews, musings at the Domus Sanctae Marthae and off-the cuff remarks the magisterium of Francis. They tried to find the magic formula,i.e. Modernist Magic Words that would allow for this change in teaching to slip past the Synod bishops.

Since the above analysis was written on the 18th of December 2014, the Francis revolution has come to a screeching halt. Looking back at what transpired in that fateful month of December 2014, and what has happened since, one can clearly identify the moment when TeamFrancis lost the initiative by over-playing their hand. That critical moment occurred on the 9th of December when the Synod secretariat released the Lineamenta (instructions) to the upcoming Synod of 2015. Here is how we described this event:

And finally, the “Lineamenta” (the preparatory outline for the next synod of bishops) has been sent to the episcopate conferences on the 9th of December with not only the corrupted text containing the discarded paragraphs on the “objectively intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality, but also with instructions for the bishops to “disregard the Church doctrine and do whatever Francis wants”.

Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we now can more accurately assess the significance of the Lineamenta, the reaction of the Synod bishops and the Roman Curia to this evil document, the counter-response of Francis to the Bishops and Curia’s reaction i.e. the Christmas message to the Roman Curia and the subsequent change of strategy Lord’s pastoral call undertaken by Francis.

Just to refresh our collective memory, Francis’ response to the reaction of the Church hierarchy to the Lineamenta, was his Christmas message to the Curia. The background to this episode and the resulting violent and abusive speech given by Francis to the Roman Curia was outlined in our post titled A Time of Reflection of Sorts. (see here)

The A Time of Reflection of Sorts post was published on the Monday, the 19th of January 2015. Today we will bring this thread up to date. To this end, Sandro Magister has done a great service since he has provided us with a list of what has been said by Francis since the end of 2014 and his own interpretation of Francis’ statements. In his blog titled The Closed Door of Pope Francis (see here), the following assessment of the of the present situation is provided:

Until the synod of October 2014, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had repeatedly and in various ways shown encouragement for “openness” in matters of homosexuality and second marriages, each time with great fanfare in the media. Cardinal Kasper explicitly said that he had “agreed” with the pope on his explosive talk at the consistory.

Continuing, Magister observes the following:

From the end of 2014 until today, there has not been even one more occasion on which he has given the slightest support to the paradigms of the innovators.

On the contrary. He has intensified his remarks on all the most controversial questions connected to the synodal theme of the family: contraception, abortion, divorce, second marriages, homosexual marriage, “gender” ideology. And every time he has spoken of them as a “son of the Church” – as he loves to call himself – with ironclad fidelity to tradition and without swerving by a millimeter from what was said before him by Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI.

And the reason behind Francis’ actions, according to Magister is the following with emphasis added:

But the reality is entirely different. As a perfect Jesuit, Bergoglio is a great realist and has already understood – even just from scanning the names of the delegates elected by the various national episcopates – that the next session of the synod will be even more unfavorable for the innovators than the previous one.

In the above passage lies the true cause for the abandonment suspension of the revolution by Francis and something that this blog has been pointing out in numerous posts.

To confirm what is written above by Magister, I would like to point to another post written by the Vatican watcher and very pro-Francis journalist Andrea Gagliarducci. In his MondayVatican blog, in a post titled Pope Francis, the diplomacy of freedom (see here),  the author makes the following observation:

But there is no revolution in this Vatican, and a single anecdote can confirm this. The only new body to arise out of the reform was the Secretariat for the Economy, 85% of whose current employees were taken from other economic bodies of the Holy See. Commenting on this fact, a source involved in their selection stated that “(these people) were good and skilled: why should we get rid of them?”

The above observations obviously refers to the “revolution” with respect to abolishing restructuring the Roman Curia. For a single anecdote to confirm that the doctrinal “revolution” has been put on hold, the hysterical speeches being put out by Reinhard “Bling” Marx, the cardinal of Swank provide us with proof. The relevant passage is contained in our post titled When Doves Cry (see here) and reads as follows:

We are no subsidiaries of Rome. Each conference of bishops is responsible for pastoral care in its culture, and must, as its most proper task, preach the Gospel on our own. We cannot wait for a synod to tell us how we have to shape pastoral care for marriage and family here”.

Obviously, for Card. “Bling” Marx, the proverbial wheels came of his wagon and he started to throw his toys out of his pram. Excuse the mixed metaphors.

So the question now becomes this: why has Francis put the “revolution” on hold?

I will finish here for today and keep you dear reader in suspense.

Tomorrow this blogger will examine the cause behind why Francis has decided to put his revolution on hold.

So stay tuned.