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

Personality Quiz IVToday we return to the theme of the HIDDEN AGENDA that was behind Francis’ calling of the “bi-synod” after the Consistory of Cardinals in 2014, i.e. the Secret Synod of 2014 and the Stealth Sex Synod this year.

We have demonstrated in numerous posts that the real reason for calling this synod was to change the Catholic teaching with respect to aberro-sexuality. We last summarized our argument in the post titled So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along. (see here) In this post, we highlighted the National Catholic Register article written by Edward Pentin relating the “closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx”, and the almost exclusive focus of this one “study day” on changing Catholic teaching on aberro-sexuality.

In a subsequent post titled HIDDEN AGENDA Comes Out of the Closet, (see here) we explained how the promoters of the aberro-sexual have been “outed” and are now speaking about the ABERRO AGENDA openly. The money quote from the Pentin article was as follows:

Many observers have long expected Cardinal Kasper’s more explicit public support for the homosexual agenda, saying that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships.

And this is where we pick up this thread today.

However, there is one problem with the above quote. The problem with the above quote is that it appears to limit the “revolutionary agenda” to the “opening toward married couples” and “same-sex relationships”.

The problem with this understanding of the “revolutionary agenda” is deceptive. In our post titled Francis “Showing a Leg”, (see here)  we explained why the issues relating to the “communion for the divorced and remarried” is a fake issue, or as we called it a “non issue”. It was introduced into the Secret Synod of 2014 deliberations to tie the HIDDEN AGENDA at the synod to “the Family”.

The important information that the above cited paragraph from Edward Pentin provides is that it confirms our analysis that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples” was a ploy and served as a transition mechanism through which the Secret Synod would introduce the ABERRO AGENDA. Once again the relevant passage reads: “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships”.

And once again, this above confirms our analysis that appeared in our post titled Synod of the Three Paragraphs from the 18th of December 2014. (see here) This is how we concluded this analysis:

For those who have been following this thread, it is very apparent by now that the Secret Synod was called not to discuss issues concerning “The Family”, but rather had a hidden agenda to try to change the teaching on the “objectively intrinsically disordered” human condition of homosexuality.

A further confirmation of the correctness of our analysis came from none other than Francis, the bishop of Rome himself. On the 20 of March 2015, Francis made the following statement:

Francis called it a simplification to give people in such unions [Ed. Note: divorced and remarried] Communion because with that “we are not fixing anything.” He added, “What the church wants is for you to integrate your life into the life of the Church.”

There are some who say: ‘No, I wish to take communion and that’s that.’” But the pope characterized this as making Communion a symbol or an honorific. To which he retorts, “No. Reintegrate.”

So from an objective reading of what Francis said, this would be consistent with Francis’ position all along, i.e. that he is against a doctrinal change in Catholic teaching with respect to the Holy Sacrament of Communion. To be more specific, Francis’ position is a “pastoral position” on this issue, as per Sandro Magister, is as follows:(see here)

On communion for the divorced and remarried, it is already known how the pope thinks. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those “penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop” projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.

So this is the state of play on the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried. Just to recap, Francis is for and against at the same time, i.e. voting present.

As to the ABERRO AGENDA, we have some new developments. Actually, it is ONE development, but a rather important one. In an interview published on the Life Site News blog, (see here) Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments had this to say about the HIDDEN AGENDA that is being promoted under the banner of the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” at the Synod of Bishops:

Regarding the Synod’s General Assembly in October 2014, the cardinal said, “It was clear that the real focus was not and is not only the question of the remarried-divorced persons, but, whether the doctrine of the Church is to be considered as an unattainable ideal, unachievable and therefore in need of a downward adjustment to be proposed to today’s modern world. If things are like this then it necessarily requires a clarification if the Gospel is Good News for man or an unnecessary burden which is no longer possible.”

What the good Cardinal is saying is that there in fact was and still is a HIDDEN AGENDA at play. Secondly, if this HIDDEN AGENDA is to be accepted by the Catholic Church, “necessarily […]a clarification if the Gospel” is required. And we know that this position is a non starter. Regardless of what was written in the Lineamenta.

Reading further, it appears that this was not the most important part of the interview. In the following paragraph, we read the following:

In answer to which ideologies to fight against today, the Cardinal unmasked the deceit and lack of true love behind them. “Today one of the most dangerous ideologies is that of gender, according to which there are no ontological differences between man and woman, and the male and female identity would not be written in nature. … To say that human sexuality does not depend on the identity of man and woman, but a sexual orientation, such as homosexuality, is a dreamlike totalitarianism, and is a real ideology which negates the reality of things. … I don’t see a future in such deceit.”

For our purposes here, the key point is that Cardinal Sarah ties homosexuality to the gender ideology.

This above paragraph is very important for two reasons, namely that TEAMFRANCIS at the Secret Synod of 2014 has been trying to introduce the change in Catholic moral teaching pertaining to homosexuality as an extension of “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships, i.e. an issue of the “Family”.

Yet Cardinal Sarah clearly and poignantly places the promotion of the homosexual agenda not in the category of “the Family”, but rather into the category of the gender ideology. Once again:

In answer to which ideologies to fight against today, the Cardinal unmasked the deceit and lack of true love behind them. “Today one of the most dangerous ideologies is that of gender, […] such as homosexuality…

It does not get any clearer than the words of Cardinal Sarah that homosexuality IS an integral part, i.e. a subset of the gender ideology.

Furthermore, Cardinal Sarah has a large supporter of his position regarding gender ideology. It has been widely reported that over the span of the last few months, Francis has been observed to criticize gender ideology. Here is the relevant passage from the National Catholic Reporter titled Francis strongly criticizes gender theory, comparing it to nuclear arms. In the article, Francis is quoted as saying the following: (see here)

“Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,” he continues. “Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

I will leave of here for today, but the proximity of nuclear arms and gender ideology in this speech leaves little doubt as Francis’ public position on these two topics.

So concluding, the obvious point that needs to be made here is to ask the following question:

How can someone (Francis) who views “gender ideology” as the equivalent of “nuclear arms” that can “annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings


simultaneously can promote the “homosexual agenda” by personally implanting the offending paragraphs rejected by the Synod Bishops regarding the “homosexual agenda” into the final Relatio and then instructing the synod bishops to disregard “doctrinal solutions” in the Leneamenta?

The only rational explanation to the above conundrum is that Francis does not understand that homosexuality is a part of gender ideology.

And if this is the case, then Cardinal Robert Sarah has just filled in the blanks for Francis.