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

Stalin Transform NatureIn yesterday’s post, (see here) we provided the background and definitive proof for the hypothesis in which we posited as early as on the 18th of December 2014, that it was the promotion of the aberro-sexual agenda, i.e. all forms of sexual activity that are considered “intrinsically and or morally disordered”, that was the TRUE AGENDA of TEAMFRANCIS at the Secret Synod of 2014. Our hypothesis turned out to be correct and definitively confirmed by the “instigator” of the entire Synod process at the 2014 Consistory, the FrancisCardinal Walter Kasper. It was with a speech at this Consistory that FranCard. Kasper set the process in motion, a speech that laid out what we have labeled as the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees”.

Today we dig a bit deeper into the “closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx”, where apparently the most important key topic discussed at this “closed-door meeting” was how the Church could “better welcome those in stable same-sex unions”. To be more precise, the EXPRESSED INTENT among the participants of this meeting was to introduce the novelty of the “importance of the human sex drive” into the Catholic moral teaching and in turn “develop” the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. To this end, the participants “called not for a theology of the body, as famously taught by St. John Paul II, but the development of a “theology of love.

Or to put it another way, it would appear as if the goal posts have been moved in between the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 and the upcoming Stealth Sex Synod of 2015. But we know better, don’t we?

Since TEAMFRANCIS now is not “showing us a leg” (see here) with “the Family” and the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio any longer, but rather has changed over to using the Theology of Body as its anti-thesis, let us look and see what it is that the participants of the “closed-door” meeting are really after. Here is one telling quote from one of the “anonymous” participants who is quoted as saying:

“Imagine if the Church accepted homosexual relationships,” said one source speaking on condition of anonymity. “Ultimately, that is what these people want.”

And as we know from the interview with the titular archbishop of Tiburnia that: (see here)

Because this is how Bergoglio’s revolution proceeds, “long-term, without obsession over immediate results.” Because “the important thing is to initiate processes rather than possess spaces.” Words from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the program of his pontificate.”

Therefore, this is the state of play for the upcoming Stealth Sex Synod of 2015.

Now as the faithful readers of this blog know, when dealing with neo-modernists, the natural place to start is with definitions. Since the neo-modernist TEAMFRANCIS will be trying to craft a “Theology of Love”, we need to define the term “LOVE” or rather “CONJUGAL LOVE” as per the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is how the definition reads: (see here)

1643Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter – appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”

And as you can guess dear reader, it is the “open to fertility” that is a requirement of “conjugal love” and differentiates it from a “conjugal act” as defined by the Catholic Church. And just so that we are clear, the “conjugal act” not “open to fertility” is also defined in the Catholic Catechism. The definition is as follows:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

So just in case there is a need for further emphasis of what is being called for at the “closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx“, it can be stated as the acceptance of “conjugal acts” that are not open to “procreative and unitive purposes“, i.e. “conjugal acts that the Catholic moral theology defines as “morally disordered” and “intrinsically disordered“.

Or to be doubly sure that we know what is being proposed by TEAMFRANCIS, allow me to describe it using mathematical notation:

[To “develop” the Church’s teaching on human sexuality that would accepted homosexual relationships]
[theology of LOVE LUST]

Summarizing, from Article 2351 of the Catholic Catechism, we know that LUST is morally disordered. As for the objective disorder” that “acts of homosexuality” represent, this is clearly defined in Article 2357 which states:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, 141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Just to re-emphasize the Catholic Church teaching on the “intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality, these acts constitute a grave offense against not only natural moral law, but against natural law itself. Furthermore, these “intrinsically disordered” acts constitute grave offense against “Sacred Scripture“, i.e. the Written Word, which presents these acts as a “grave depravity“. And finally, “Under no circumstances can they be approved“.

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

Now that we have a firm grip on the subject matter at hand and the position of the participants of the “closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx”, I will leave off for today.

Concluding, what we see taking shape on the TEAMFRANCIS side of the GREAT DIVIDE between Catholic moral teaching and neo-modernist ideology is in essence a linguistic battle on the surface. The definitions of terms, such as “love”, “lust”, “objective disorder”, “intrinsic disorder” have been in use for a very long time, a time stretching back to the ancient Greek civilization. The neo-modernist’ strategy Lord’s pastoral call is to try to keep this battle on this superficial level.

However, allowing this battle to play out simply on the basis of linguistics would be to gravely underestimate the seriousness of the neo-modernist’s desired changes. The underlying concepts that are in-play, some of which may not be scientifically definable, are collectively understood in a manner that allows them to form an objective basis for the understanding of man and his proper place in his “environment”, i.e. God’s creation. The “theology” behind Catholic moral doctrine is not only comprehensive but “unitive” in its totality, and serves exactly this purpose.

Therefore, to attempt changing one aspect of Catholic moral doctrine, will be nothing short of trying to change natural law itself. And we know from previous experiments of these sorts, just how unsuccessful these attempts have been. A case in point is Stalin’s “Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature”. (see here)

But just in case we need further, and more contemporary proof of just this above stated fact, I will allow Markus Günther to provide the color commentary: (see here)

But why are the seekers no longer finding guidance? Why are the supply and demand no longer jibing? The most popular answer to this question is: because the Church is no longer relevant to the times. She must conform more closely to the realities of the lives of modern people. Initially, that sounds plausible, but under closer scrutiny reveals itself to be idiocy. For the Evangelical church in Germany has done nearly everything which is being demanded from the Catholic Church in order to become more relevant to the times: women priests, the elimination of celibacy, liberality in moral theology, the complete acceptance of homosexuals and the divorced. If these were the real reasons for the malaise of Christendom, the Protestants should be far better off than the Catholics. But that simply isn’t the case. A second error in thinking is introduced by the popular buzzword “relevant to the times” [German: zeitgemäß, which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church]: Wherever the Church does not base herself upon timeless, incontrovertible truth, she reveals herself to be purely man-made. Political programs should be “relevant to the times,” entertainment programming, too; but a religion must take command of absolute truths – or it is no religion at all.

And the above is the OBJECTIVE REALITY of the matter. For a more thorough treatment of the concupiscence that is lust, see here.

A Theology of Lust therefore, will not help the Catholic Church any more than it helped the Lutherans.

But for some reason, TEAMFRANCIS just doesn’t get it.

Sounds like another HIDDEN AGENDA at play.

So tune in tomorrow.