Tags

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


 

Yogi Fork

Today we pick back up with our running post bi-Synod analysis.  Just a reminder, we are presently analyzing the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS who are composed of the German Bishops’ Conference leadership and supplemented by Western European clerics from Austria, France, Switzerland and Belgium. The designated head of this group, appears to be Card. Kasper.

In the post titled The Vatican’s Suicide Bomber Problem (see here), we explained how the German HERETICAL CLERICALISTS brought the Catholic Church and FRANCIS to the point of SCHISM, only to cut a deal with the help of Bendict and then walked back FRANCIS “from the edge” at the last-minute. In two follow-up posts titled You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching (see here) and Making Too Many Wrong Mistakes (see here), we established that the ROOT CAUSE of the actions undertaken by the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS at the bi-Synod were NOT on account of any pressure from “special interest” groups or from the dire situation in the German Catholic Church with respect to empty churches, nor the rapidly dwindling church tax (KIRCHENSTEUER) payee pool.

We made these conclusions based on the following two INDEPENDENT pieces of EVIDENCE. The first comes from Giuseppe Nardi and it is as follows: ([comments] and emphasis added)

That has not come about [Failed Synod] because of any of the spokesmen, neither Cardinal Kasper nor Cardinal Müller wanted it to happen and were searching frantically for a compromise formula that was somehow acceptable. Cardinal Schönborn mediated with skill. The diplomatic multiplication table was given him in the cradle. So it is surprising that nevertheless, a third of the Synod has refused the decisive compromise to the divorced and remarried, suggesting organized resistance. Organized so that it eluded the European diplomat’s parquet. The great commitment of Kasperians in their search for compromise  shows who was  worried about the failure of the Synod or at least feared it more. It also shows that a significant part of Kasperians are progressive in protection of the papacy, but there are not real modernist hardliners. They have neatly hidden their stances in previous pontificates  and only now dare to have the knowledge or the hope of the Pope at their side, for entrance to royal circles. (see here)

Our second INDEPENDENT observation comes from Steve Skojac from the One Peter Five blog, who relays the following information from his Vatican sources:

He [Francis] appears to think he has his finger on the pulse of the Church, and is therefore surprised, even”rattled” when his agenda faces real opposition. Several progressive cardinals are said to have advised Pope Francis not to push the issue [Communion for public sinners] too hard. Surprising names. Marx. Daneels. Schönborn. Those whom one would think would be among the most aggressive proponents of the push for communion to the unrepentant. (see here)

What we have in the text above is nothing short of PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE supporting our assumptions that the HERETICAL CLERICALIST”S TRUE AGENDA is NOT based on an ASSUMPTION that Rome needs to CHANGE Catholic moral teaching relating to Communion for public sinners as a remedy for their empty churches and their deteriorating pool of KIRCHENSTEUER payees.

The reason why this is the case is that:

IF the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS really thought that it is the lack of Communion for public sinners that was the ROOT CAUSE for the collapse of their German (Western European) ecclesiastical structures,

THEN they would be pushing Francis to force through this change.

Yet, the actions of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S were exactly the opposite to those that one would expect if they in fact were functioning under the ASSUMPTION of a causal relationship between a) Catholic moral teaching and b) their financial problems.

This is a very important point that I can not stress enough!

The implication of the above point is that the financial issues of the Western European churches DID NOT serve as a ROOT CAUSE for the HERECITCAL CLERICALIST’S TRUE AGENDA.

Furthermore, we can also see that the AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS was different from the HIDDEN AGENDA of the bi-Synod, i.e. the AGENDA of FRANCIS and his SECRETARIAT.

Same reasoning holds in this case.

IF the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS thought that introducing GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law would help them with either their dwindling KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool or their relations with the “special interest” groups who are prodding them to implement change, (as the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS claimed when they changed the Church Labor Law),

THEN they would be backing the Communion for public sinners as a first step to open the door for the acceptance and promotion of the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED lapsed “c”atholics.

Given the above, it must be the case that the ROOT CAUSE for why the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS brought the Church to the brink of SCHISM only to stop FRANCIS at the last-minute, must lie somewhere else.

So what do we know about the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS that could give us a clue about their TRUE AGENDA?

What we know is that is was at the behest of this group that FRANCIS called the bi-Synod in the first place. We also know that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS STRATEGY was for the bi-Synod to play itself out on “theological” issues. We even observed that it was odd that Card. Kasper was the lead player for the Germans at the bi-Synod since it is Card. Marx who is the most influential man both in the German Church (President of German Bishops’ Conference – with control over the KIRCHENSTEUER funding) and in Rome, where he is a member of the C9 group advising FRANCIS. Confirmation for this fact comes from Andrea Gagliarducci who noticed: (see here)

It is noteworthy that Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich-Freising, a prime engineer of Vatican reforms and one of the main players in this season of the Church, has recently insisted that the Church should learn from Luther. 

Therefore, it would appear that it is in the area of German “theology” where the trail leads to IDENTIFYING the ROOT CAUSE of the German HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S actions. And by IDENTIFYING the ROOT CAUSE of their actions, we should be able to define the TRUE AGENDA

Our jump off point for today is two independent observations from two unrelated sources which ARE CONTRADICTORY. The first observation comes from Mr. George Weigel who writes the following:

In 1994, an anthology of “replies” to the encyclical Veritatis Splendor from German Catholic theologians included the striking claim that these thinkers had a special responsibility to call John Paul II to task for what he had taught in The Splendour of Truth.

This is indeed a “striking claim” since we know from our post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! (see here) that this claim questioned what is commonly referred to as the pope’s teaching office. Once again, here is how Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP, a Dominican of the Province of Toulouse, France. Since 1992 he has been a member of the editorial board of authoritative journal La Revue thomiste de philosophie e de théologie. Since 1999 he has held the title of Professor of dogmatic theology (Church and sacraments) at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), where he is also Prior of the Dominican monastery of St. Albertus Magnus, commented on just this fact at the VASSALLO MALTA blog: (see here)

[Question] Individual Pope figures aside, can the Successor of Peter’s ministry be considered theologically “lacking” and in need of a certain “theological structuring” by individuals other than the Pope?

[Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP] Certainly not! The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church. The Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry. By “structuring”, Cardinal Müller may have meant this, above all preparatory, work.

Now that we have a firm understanding of the issue at hand, let us look further at why the German theologians thought that they have this “special responsibility” to take the sitting pontiff “to task” for the “for what he had taught in The Splendour of Truth” . Here is George Weigel explains the genesis of this supposed “special responsibility”:

Because German theology held a privileged place within the Catholic theological world; the Pope had, so to speak, dissed the great strides German thinkers had made in moral theology; and it was the Germans’ duty to let the world know about that.

Running long today, I will leave off at this “fork in the road”.

What is apparent from the above is that the novelty of the “theological structuring” functionality that Card. Muller “created” at the CDF has a much longer history than we first thought back in April. What Mr. Weigel suggests is that the German “theologians” have usurped part of the papal teaching office as early as 1994. And it is this “special responsibility”, never before heard of in the annals of Church history, where our ROOT CAUSES trail is leading.

We will continue with this lead in our next post.

Commenting on this situation, one can say that at Vatican II, the German “theologians” came to a fork in the theological road, and they took it.