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

Logic Yogi Berra

Today we will talk about money. And “observe a lot by watching”. Here I would just like to mention that one of the selection criteria used in the assessing the soundness of HYPOTHESES in the Deus Ex Machina blog’s Peirce/Ockham pragmatic paradigm methodology (see here) is actually borrowed from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. When the FBI analyze criminal racketeers i.e. for our purposes think “mafia club” or Team Bergoglio, the initial investigation begins with an analysis of the “money trail”. In our methodology, we translate this as following our Golden Rule, i.e.

He who has the Gold, makes the Rules.

But before we get to the meat of the matter and since at the end of the day, we are speaking about Vatican finances, I would just like to draw your attention to this yesterday’s Monday Vatican post (see here). As my regular readers know, Andrea Gagliarducci, the proprietor of the blog is a very good source of not only information (data points) but likewise what one can term “color” commentary. Since Mr Gagliarducci is a Vaticanista, with sources who represent various interests behind the Sacred Vatican Walls he has to write in a…. shall we say… a rather “enigmatic” style. In order to properly read Mr. Gagliarducci, one needs to be able to read between the lines, otherwise one will not fully appreciate the value of the information (data points) and “color” commentary that is being presented. Therefore, when reading his post titled Vatileaks: the Italian connection, what one should pay attention to is the following information “flow” (data points):

Benedict initiated the CLEAN-UP of Vatican finances=> CLEAN-UP entailed removing CORRUPT CLERICS from CURIA => Francis inherited this CLEAN-UP from Benedict => Francis let SAME CORRUPT CLERICS back into the Curia=> presently, the CORRUPT CLERICS that Francis let back into the Curia are WAGING A WAR on Card. Pell who is responsible for Vatican finances => the reason why Francis let those CORRUPT CLERICS back in is that they were the ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING FRANCIS ELECTED.

Now please go back and reread the post and remember: “You can observe a lot by watching”.

And now back to the Golden Rule.

The key data points that one should extract from the Gagliarducci text is the following: Francis doesn’t really care about Vatican finances per se, implying that financial considerations are not a large component of the FRANCIS’ TRUE AGENDA.

As to the CONTROL GROUP of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS and how they conform to the Golden Rule test, we will analyze below. The logical place to start is to recap what we have established thus far in our prior two posts. What we have established is the following:

      • Change in doctrine w/r/t INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED sexual behaviour was HIDDEN AGENDA of bi-Synod,
      • Three identified special interests promoting HIDDEN AGENDA were identified : HOMO LOBBY, HERETICAL CLERICALISTS, SECRETARIAT (Francis)
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA was an END in itself for the HOMO LOBBY,
      • The HIDDEN AGENDA had a higher priority (more important to force through) for SECRETARIAT than for the CLERICAL HERETICS.

So today, we will test to see the manner in which the HIDDEN AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS is driven by financial considerations, i.e. our GOLDEN RULE.

The natural place to start is with the observation (HYPOTHESIS) that the largest problem by far that is faced by the German Catholic Church and by extension, the CLERICAL HERETICS and then by extension the CONTROL GROUP who controls the German Episcopate is the wholesale disintegration of the German Church membership. (see here) The DISINTEGRATION of the German Church membership directly affects the revenue collected under the KIRCHENSTEUER. Since the KIRCHENSTEUER is the primary source of funding for the Catholic Church, it is only logical that the PRIORITY of the German Episcopate, i.e. CONTROL GROUP would be to take actions to not only stop this DEGENERATIVE PROCESS but try to reverse this DELETERIOUS TREND.

That which is written above, is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement of reality.

Furthermore and to be more precise, the DISINTEGRATION of Church membership has a causal relationship (positive correlation) with the KIRCHENSTEUER tax base. In other words, the lower the Church membership, the lower the proceeds from the KIRCHENSTEUER. The DISINTEGRATION of the KIRCHENSTEUER tax base is in large part the result of the DISINTEGRATION of the FAMILY, which is the FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK of the German Catholic Church, the Universal Catholic Church and society in general.

Therefore, a bi-Synod that was called at the initiative of the German Episcopate, which was called to deal with the situation faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE an IMPLICIT AGENDA to bring the lapsed “c”atholics back into the pews and by extension into the Kirchensteuer payee pool.

Therefore, in order to address the problem of the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, the bi-Synod would de facto need to address the parallel problem of the lapsed “c”atholics leaving the Church. Addressing simultaneously these two most pressing concerns, one can state these as follows:

Bring the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY” into the Francis FIELD HOSPITAL to administer to its “wounds”


Arrest if not reverse the debilitating trend of “c”atholics leaving that same FIELD HOSPITAL that is at the ROOT of the FIELD HOSPITAL’S financial problems.

Logical, yes?

As to the fact behind why the German Episcopate asked Francis to call the bi-Synod, here is what we know about why the bi-Synod was called in the first place. On the MondayVatican blog from the 10th of March 2014, right after the consistory, the following passage appears: (emphasis added)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has called for a «Council-like solution» to the issue in his presentation during the consistory on the family. This «Council-like solution» is a reference to the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council to issues like religious freedom and ecumenism. i.e., not to change the tradition, but to create new openings. The issue now is that of a change of paradigm regarding the doctrine for the divorced and remarried. (see here)

Further on, in the same post we read:

… Ultimately, Kasper recognized that the problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive communion relates to a small portion of believers. And the theme of the divorced and remarried is addressed only in the fifth section of the speech. But it is nevertheless the real focus. And the text reaches this focal point through a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements.

From the above, it is evident that our initial statement, namely:

Therefore, a bi-Synod that was called at the initiative of the German Episcopate, which was called to deal with the situation faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE an IMPLICIT AGENDA to bring back the lapsed “c”atholics back into the pews and by extension into the KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool.


From the EVIDENCE above, one can infer that the TRUE AGENDA of the bi-Synod process, as seen by the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS had very little, if anything to do with “attracting” the lapsed “c”atholics back into the FIELD HOSPITAL to either administer to their WOUNDS or to SHORE UP that FIELD HOSPITAL’S KIRCHENSTEUER tax base.

On a more general note, what is most striking about the above observation is that one could say that the DISINTEGRATION of Catholic Church as an institution, caused by the DISINTEGRATION of the FAMILY is a wider phenomenon. This is also the case in the other parts of the developed world (i.e. the US, UK, Canada and Australia) and large parts of the third world, (i.e. Central and South America) that possess (or possessed) large Catholic populations. The DISINTEGRATION of the world-wide Catholic population directly impacts not only the REVENUE BASE of the national churches but also directly impact the universal church. The proceeds from this source of income is what then pass through to the Vatican and are known as contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law.(see here)

Therefore, it is with utter amazement that Francis would call a bi-Synod of the Catholic Church, fly in 300 delegates to Rome from all over the world, TWICE and not have this CRITICAL issue addressed in the bi-Synod’s AGENDA.

Concluding, one is left with the following observation.

IF calling the bi-Synod to address a “small portion of believers” that constitute the “divorced and remarried” is intended to address the issue of the problems faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”,

THEN the calling of this bi-Synod IN NO WAY can be viewed as a gathering whose aim was to address issues faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY”.

The opposite side of this argument is the following: if Francis IN FACT called the bi-Synod to address the issues faced by the “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY“, then the bi-Synod would by default have to address the issue ARRESTING AND REVERSING the trend of “c”atholics leaving the Church, which would by default address the issue of the DISINTEGRATION of the Universal Church’s REVENUE BASE.

Using figurative language, one can say the following: IF they don’t come to your FIELD HOSPITAL, THEN the FIELD HOSPITAL can’t help them.

Therefore, it is plainly evident that financial considerations constituted AT MOST a negligible role in the TRUE AGENDA behind the calling for the bi-Synod on the part of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS.

As for the ASSUMPTION to our HYPOTHESIS that financial considerations played a role behind the calling of the bi-Synod’s by Francis at the behest of the German Episcopate, one can say that Ockham’s razor claims another victim.