Secret Synod: Synod of the Three Paragraphs

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, corruption, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, John XXXIII, JP II, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Paul VI, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, US Bishops' Conference, Vatican, Vatican II

Over the last 10 days, Deus Ex Machina has been analyzing the „watershed” interview that Francis gave to the Argentine newspaper La Nacion. (see here) One area of the interview that interested this blog had to do with the the Secret Synod of 2014. With this new information, we have been able to posit three underlying facts about the true agenda of Synod and why it was called, namely; 1) Francis called the Synod to engage in a “re-branding exercise” of Catholic teaching, 2) the Synod of 2014 had very little if anything to do with “The Family” and had everything to do with a hidden agenda relating to “communion for divorced remarried” and “changing teaching on homosexuality” and 3) upon closer examination, the issue of communion for divorced remarried was a red herring and the Synod of 2014’s true agenda was to change the Church teaching on homosexuality.

Changing Catholic teaching with respect to the “objectively intrinsic disorder”that is homosexuality is were we will pick up our analysis today.

Introduction

In the Relatio post disceptationem, three paragraphs appeared on the subject of homosexuality, i.e. “The Three Paragraphs”, which later turned out to have been barely discussed by the bishops during the first week of the Secret Synod. Only three speakers even mentioned the issue of homosexuality. The argumentation used by the “inserting parties” i.e. the “Manipulators” of the Secret Synod of 2014, supported their arguments by referencing citations from another interested party in this issue, the Head Manipulator, i.e. Francis. For further reference, please see the The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch post. (see here). And for our purposes, I have reproduced the three offending paragraphs of the interim Relatio and the resulting one paragraph of the final Relatio in the “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch post.

Catholic Church Teaching as a “Hurdle to Overcome”

The first hurdle that the Synod Manipulators needed to overcome with respect to changing Catholic teaching on homosexuality is the definition in the Catholic Church itself, i.e. the Catechism. The salient point in the Catechism is Article 2357 which states: (see here) (with emphasis added)

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

Basic stuff that every Swiss seven year old with two years of “gender studies” behind him can understand.

With respect to the JPII Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (“FC”), homosexuality is not mentioned by name, but the “FC” provides a general definition of what constitutes “intrinsically immoral” behavior in paragraph 32, (and is referenced to the “almost saint” Paul VI (Humanae Vitae) that was referenced to “VII saint” John XXXIII’s encyclical letter Mater et Magistra, which was referenced to … all those bad pre-VII popes and councils.. but I digress) stating:

It is precisely by moving from “an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation, “that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church “is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitized meaning and the procreative meaning.” And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral “every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.

And here we begin to understand why the Manipulators of the Secret Synod could not ground their pre-written Relatio post disceptationem in Familiaris Concortio.

Just to drive the point home, the “FC” defines every sexual action “…which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” as ”intrinsically immoral”. And you don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a Swiss seven year-old to figure out that homosexuality falls squarely in the “intrinsically immoral” camp. And just in case you think there might be some “wiggle room” in that statement, referencing the Catechism, article 2357 leaves no room for doubt. Here it is again:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law.

Understandable to rocket scientists, Swiss seven year-olds and the likes of Cardinal Dolan and Father Rosica. But more about this in a minute.

So finding oneself in this predicament, what is a Synodal Manipulator to do?

The answer to the above problems is: simply ignore the above documents.

And while you are at it, start from scratch with new references and citations from a “living saint”… and hope no one will notice.

Start from Scratch

So the Synodal Manipulators started from scratch. The strategy “Lord´s pastoral call” of the Manipulators was to re-brand the “objectively intrinsic disorder” that is homosexuality using euphemisms. I will allow the assistant to the Vatican Press spokesman, Farther Fr. Thomas Rosica to explain: (see here)

In a press conference, Fr. Thomas Rosica, who is auditing the synod sessions as an English-language spokesman, said synod participants have called for a new language that speaks more directly to biblical truths, rather those concepts that are often not understood outside the academic realm.

There you go. What’s needed is a public relations strategy “Lord´s pastoral call” which “speaks more directly to biblical truths”. But please do not confuse this dear reader, with basing this new Lord’s pastoral call “…on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity”as per Article 2357 of the Catholic Catechism. Besides these are words that are “often not understood outside the academic realm”. And what are these difficult academic words that Fr. Rosica is referring to you may ask? We will let Cardinal Dolan explain:

As an example, the cardinal cited “natural law,” saying although the phrase is a “magnificent concept that the Church didn’t make up” and came to us from great philosophers, it is rarely understood by those outside the Church.

“The natural law is there and we count on it, we can never disregard it; it’s fundamental. But the phrase itself doesn’t seem to have much sway in our contemporary society,” he said.

There you go. The problem is that “the concept of natural law is rarely understood by those outside the Church”. Just to put into context what the card. said. Given that natural law is the foundation of all the natural sciences, and the human quest for knowledge is really nothing more than trying to understand natural law itself, yet natural law is not understood outside the Church, according to card. Dolan.

Funny that.

To simplify even further what cd. Dolan said, for those of you who are not academics, Swiss seven-year old’s, and card. Dolan’s, it is this: you do not know that if two men have conjugal relations, this act cannot produce a pregnancy.

Besides, it’s a concept that we got from great philosophers, that two men cannot produce a baby. And this is why we need the likes of Dolan, Rosica, the Manipulators and Francis to provide for us a “new language that speaks more directly to biblical truths” and not the one that “doesn’t seem to have much sway in our contemporary society”.

Well!

What we begin to understand from the above text is this: whatever the real issue may be, it sure doesn’t look like it has anything to do with “the Family”.

Synodal Manipulators Organizers forgot about “the Family”

From that written above, it would appear that maybe the “real issue” that the Manipulators are referring to has nothing to do with “the Family”. Neither is it about the Dolan, Rosica, the Manipulators and Francis diagnosis of the problem, i.e. that we can’t understand all those big words and concepts like natural law. We can also safely assume that the real issue is not with respect to the “words” themselves, words used by previous councils, popes, saints, pope saints, scientists, academics, researchers, great philosophers etc, to describe the concept of “natural law”. Therefore, we can assume that the real issue, that is creating the problem for Dolan, Rosica, the Manipulators and Francis might lie somewhere else.

And from the looks of things, the problem might be this:

The Dolans, Rosicas, Manipulators and Francis can’t find the rights words…. “Modernist Magic Words” to describe the human condition that is an “objectively intrinsic sexual disorder” and at the same time presented in such a way as to make it acceptable to the Synod bishops.  And this is the HIDDEN AGENDA of our synodal Manipulators, and “the Family” is just a smokescreen.

And just in case there is still a shred of doubt as to the above hypothesis meeting the preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt hurdle, here is something more to think about.

And it is not just me that is making these observations.

Allow me to introduce you to Matthew James Christoff, proprietor of the New Evangelization blog and author of a post entitled The Synod’s Shocking Omissions. (see here) Mr. Christoff also observes that for a Synod about “the Family”, there appears to be a problem with the relative emphasis placed on certain subsets that comprise “the Family”. To be a bit more specific, when looking at the word count of the Final Relatio the following appears to be the case:

Here is the relative emphasis based on word count:

Those to be married (7% of the word count)
Those newly married (7% of the word count)
Those living together or civilly married (17% of the word count)
Those who are divorced or single (61% of the word count)
Homosexuals (7% of the word count)

Furthermore, Mr. Christoff also observes that the Family is hardly the issue here when he writes:

Each of these groups are certainly worthy of evangelization and are rightly acknowledged in the document. What’s missing is the largest portion of those families who are Catholic: sacramentally married with intact families.

According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (Marriage in the Catholic Church: A Survey of U.S. Catholics – 2007), sacramentally married Catholics represent the single biggest portion of Catholics (some 35-40%). These Catholics received no pastoral emphasis by the Synod.

To paraphrase Arte Johnson of the old TV show Laugh In: Very interesting?

So it would appear that the Synod of the Family actually neglected to take into account the biggest portion of Catholics which represent some 35-40% of the Catholic population.

So you think that maybe the Synod of the Family wasn’t about the Family after all?

Going one step further, the data underlying the analysis above was derived from the final Relatio with its one paragraph dedicated to this pressing church issue, i.e. changing the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. This pressing issue that according to Louie Verrecchio’s back of an envelope calculation could affect a number so staggering that it could be as high as 6 in every 1000 Catholics. (see here) In the Relatio post disceptationem, there were Three Paragraphs that dealt with this issue.

I think you all can do the math, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Summa Summarum

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 and change the teaching on the “objectively intrinsically disordered” human condition of homosexuality.

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.

When this scam strategy “Lord’s pastoral call” did not bring the intended results, since the bishops vetoed these Three Paragraphs, the Manipulators, or rather the Head Manipulator had these vetoed paragraphs inserted into the Final Relatio on his authority as the Supreme Pontiff, disregarding past precedence and the will of the bishops.

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”.

And that is the HIDDEN AGENDA and the state of play as of this writing. As to the upcoming Synod of 2015, it will be a synod that is shaping up to be the synod driven by the “Three Paragraphs”.

Advertisements

Secret Synod: The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch

Tags

Benedict XVI, Benedicts XVI, Bergoglio, Bruno Forte, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, Catholic Church, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Final Relatio, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, Harveting the Fuits blog, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, Konzerthaus society, La Nacion, Louie Verrecchio, messeging, Modernists, MSM, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Relatio post disceptationem, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Sandro Magister, Secret Synod of the Three Paragraphs, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Vatican II

Yesterday’s post titled The Modernist’s Magic Words dealt with parsing and interpreting the interview given by Francis to the Argentine newpaper La Nacion which appeared this past Sunday, the 7th of December. (see here) I made the case that this interview was a watershed moment, similar in fact to the Benedict speech to the Konzerthaus society in Freiburg im Breisgauat, where he took on the German Bishops and the corrupt Kirchensteuer. (see here) Many commentators think that it was a milestone moment in the process which ended in the  abdication of Benedicts XVI. In what appears to be an analogous situation with Francis, in that his La Nacion interview is nothing short of his third rail moment,  in that he was forced to come out of his comfort zone. By this I mean that Francis was called on to take a stand on issues on which he has been silent on, those same issues that senior Church clerics have been asking him to speak up on since the end of the Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. Furthermore, Francis compounded his problem by making a forced error in that he defined what constitutes his magisterium. And this by far is the most significant takeaway from not only yesterday’s post, but also from the La Nacion interview magisterium of Francis.

Introduction

Today we drill down deeper into the second part of the La Nacion interview (see here) and bring in the Sandro Magister post detailing the devastatingly accurate projectile fired at Team Bergoglio’s “theology done on the knees” by Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, a Scalabrinian and an illustrious canonist, president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See. (see here) We will also address what appears to be the major underlying issue driving Francis’s agenda at present, when we address the issue of the prominence of Francis’s homosexual agenda, cross referencing the observations made by Louie Verrecchio on his Harvesting the Fruits blog. (see here)

So let’s get cracking.

Bait-and-Switch

As we discussed yesterday, the “reforms” that Francis was tasked with by the cardinal electors before the 2013 conclave have turned into nothing more than a “re-branding” exercise. This re-branding exercise in turn, is nothing more than trying to find the Modernist’s Magic Words that will somehow magically invoke the ‘ god of surprises” who will then “move” the former Pew Sitters to return back into the Pews.

In the second part of the La Nacion interview, we get this passage from Francis:

‘The family is so beaten up, young people don´t get married. What´s the problem? When they finally come to get married, having already moved in together, we think it´s enough to offer them three talks to get them ready for marriage. But it´s not enough because the great majority are unaware of the meaning of a lifetime commitment. Benedict said it twice in his last year, that we should take this into account in order to grant nullity, each person´s faith at the time of getting married. Was it something general, though understanding perfectly well what marriage is about, understanding it enough to convey it to another person? That´s something we need to look into in depth, to analyze how we can help…

Aside from all the logical fallacies and contradictory statements made in the above statement, if the above was indeed Francis’s true intention, then the logical starting point for the next part of the Secret Synod would be the APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO of John Paul II, since this is the papal document that addresses this subject matter quite comprehensively and what is more, it is the official teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. But Familiaris Consortio is nowhere to be seen.

And the question is why?

The answer is as simple as being familiar with the term “bait-and-switch”. For those not familiar with this term, we turn to our trusted Wikipedia for the definition:

Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by merchants’ advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items (“switching”).

As you can no doubt figure out by now, the relevant part of the definition is “also employed in other contexts”.  So what we are observing in the recent communications flow coming out of the Francis Vatican is a classic bait-and-switch strategy approach  whereby on the basis of trying to promote “the ‘beaten up family”, Francis and his cohorts are in fact switching to the agenda for the promotion of “communion for serial adulterers” and “changing Church “teaching” on homosexuality”.

Communion for serial adulterers

The bait-and-switch strategy (I keep on forgetting that Francis doesn’t like this word) approach in the “switch” with respect to giving “communion to serial adulterers divorced and remarried” is explained by Francis as follows:

The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! Thus, let us open the doors a bit more. Why can’t they be godfathers and godmothers? “No, no, no, what testimony will they be giving their godson?”. The testimony of a man and a woman saying “my dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe our Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on”. Anything more Christian than that? And what if one of the political crooks among us, corrupt people, ate chosen to be somebody´s godfather. If they are properly wedded by the Church, would we accept them? What kind of testimony will they give to their godson? A testimony of corruption? Things need to change, our standards need to change.

As we see in this rambling passage, and by now dear reader you should be able to write a college thesis on logical fallacies using just this paragraph above as your example, we see the “clever by half” Jesuitical mind at work. We see Francis desperately trying to “re-brand” communion for the re-married as an issue affecting the family. How else can one explain the focus on the “god-parents” (notice the Deus ex Machina clumsily lowered down from the contraption?), who are not nuclear family per se but extended family at best. This is a tangential issue at best and to be perfectly honest, having nothing to do what so ever with the ” family is so beaten up” narrative, the issue that the Synod is supposed to be dealing with.

Clumsy? Check. Patently transparent? Check. Modern day Jesuitical? Check. Therefore, yes to all. But Francis somehow got this size 12 foot into the size 6 shoe right in front of the nose of the non-discerning journalist.

But what about the counter arguments?

And as you can figure out, Francis rolls out the logical fallacies, this time the ad hominem attacks. The way in which the counter argument is presented by Francis is that the opponents are

1) “scared”,

2) “people are always afraid”,

3) “people are always afraid because they don’t read things”.

Nothing more, nothing less… according the the bishop of Rome.

But maybe it might be Francis that doesn’t read things, yes?

Speaking of reading things, Sandro Magister published a post on the Cheisa blog on the 9th of November, or two days after the La Nacion interview. The post dealt with the response to the Francis’s “theology done on the knees” from Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, 79, a Scalabrinian and an illustrious canonist, president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See. And he didn’t mention anything about opponents being “scared”, “people are always afraid” and “people are always afraid because they don’t read things”.

But what the the illustrious canonist said is this:

But now De Paolis has come back to the argument, taking as the object of his criticisms precisely that paragraph 52 of the final “Relatio” of last October’s synod concerning the pros and cons on communion for the divorced and remarried.

In the judgment of Cardinal De Paolis, this paragraph is not only incoherent and contradictory in itself, but “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.

Which by the way, is exactly what the Polish Episcopate has been very vocally pointing out post Shameful Secret Synod.

So if a illustrious canonist claims that “the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals, maybe it’s not an issue of people being“scared”,” people are always afraid” and “people are always afraid because they don’t read things” after all. Maybe it’s Francis who is not doing the reading.

The Switch from “value in aberro-sexual unions” to families with aberro-sexual members”

But the real bait-and-switch operation, and one by far the most transparent if not laughable deals with the metamorphosis of the Secret Synod passages relating to the issue of homosexuality. Just to remind the wording of the infamous Relatio post disceptationem three paragraphs were dedicated to homosexuality; 50, 51 and 52. (see here) Here is how they read:

“50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing […] them […] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

“51. The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect, all of which constitute an important educative challenge. Moreover, the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that the pastor’s outlook be pressured or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations based on gender ideology.

“52. Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to […] children who live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”

And here is how the single paragraph on homosexuality read in the Final Relatio:

“55. Some families live the experience of having persons of homosexual orientation within them. In this regard it was asked what pastoral attention should be paid to this situation in reference to the teaching of the Church: ‘There exists no foundation whatsoever for assimilating or establishing analogies, however remote, between homosexual unions and God’s plan for marriage and the family.’ Nonetheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy. ‘Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’ (Congregation for the doctrine of the faith, Considerations on plans for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons,

What happened? How did we get from 3 paragraphs speaking about homosexual’s gifts and unions in the Relatio post disceptationemto to 1 paragraph about how families deal with homosexual members in the Final Relatio? Here are the relevant passages from Magister:

First by cardinal relator Péter Erdö and then by president delegate Raymundo Damasceno Assis, the author of these three paragraphs has been indicated in the special secretary of the synod, Bruno Forte, placed in this role by Pope Francis.

But the prehistory of these paragraphs is also indicative. Two of the three synod fathers who had raised this issue during discussions in the assembly – the only ones out of the almost two hundred present – in fact supported their arguments with statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Oh my!

And what did the Synod do to the passages which “supported their arguments with statements of pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio” : (emphasis added)

The “Relatio post disceptationem,” in the three paragraphs dedicated to homosexuality, revisited and further developed the things said in the assembly by the Malaysian archbishop, by Fr. Spadaro, and by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the third to speak on the issue.

But the subsequent discussion at the synod tore the three paragraphs to shreds, and almost nothing of them made it into the final “Relatio,” which on homosexuality limits itself to referring to what has already been said by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

So in other words, nothing changed from Familiaris Consortio. It was a non issue.

But here is how Francis explains what happened at the Synod with respect to “homosexual persons”:

What we did talk about was of how a family with a homosexual child, whether a son or a daughter, goes about educating that child, how the family bears up, how to help that family to deal with that somewhat unusual situation. That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires. We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by their son or daughter. That´s what the synod addressed. That´s why someone mentioned positive factors in the first draft. But this was just a draft.

Even the ignorant, simply blind or chronically delusional must admit that the process to transforming the paragraphs from the Relatio post disceptationem to the Final Relatio was intended to return the issue back to the status quo. Hence the comment by Magister:

So after two weeks of heated discussion at the synod, the question seemed to have gone back to the starting point.

We now we can clearly see that “families with homosexual members” was a by product of the “… subsequent discussion at the synod tearing the three paragraphs to shreds, and almost nothing of them made it into the final “Relatio,” which on homosexuality limits itself to referring to what has already been said by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith”.

Furthermore, even this reworked version was voted down and the only reason why it appears is that Francis wanted it to appear. Once again Magister:

The purpose of the survey, according to Cardinal Baldisseri, will be “the examination of the questions addressed in the debate, of all of them, but above all of those that need to be discussed in a more painstaking manner.”

With this, the cardinal alluded to the two most controversial questions at the synod last October. So controversial that they did not obtain, in their final formulation, the two thirds of the votes necessary for approval.

The above two controversial questions are the questions concerning communion for the divorced and remarried and homosexuality.

Got that?

And yet, these are the things Francis desperately needed to get onto the agenda for the Shameful Secret Synod “Secret Synod of the Three Paragraphs” of 2015, the same issues that were voted down, and in the normal course of all the “supposed collegiality and synodality”, should not even be discussed come October 2015. (see here)

Francis’s Hidden Agenda

So as you no doubt concluded by now, the entire Shameful Synod of 2014 and 2015 is in reality a farce. It has nothing to do with the “family” per se, but is just a “dog and pony” show designed to disguise Francis’s hidden agenda. And the design is so flawed, that Francis repeatedly keeps on getting caught in lies trying to cover it up. And it is this dishonest behavior by the Vicar of Christ that has completely destroyed his credibility.

Which raises the question, why is Francis doing this? Why the obsession with this farce. Or to expand this thought, why is Francis so hell bent on getting his hidden agenda onto the Secret Synod part II Secret Synod of the Three Paragraphs?

One clue can be inferred from a post that appeared on the Harvesting the Fruits blog yesterday. (see here) After doing what appears to be a “back of an envelope” calculation of what percentage of the population can be the group of aberro-sexuals that Francis has in mind when he says:

That is to say, the synod addressed the family and the homosexual persons in relation to their families, because we come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation.

This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires.

Louie Verrecchio’s makes the prescient “objectively based” observation :

This would mean that only .0625% (that’s roughly 6 out of 10,000!) of the general population is comprised of that unit known as a “same sex couple that identifies as Catholic raising children.”

Now, of this statistically insignificant group of people, how many are banging on the rectory door “requesting baptism” for their kids?

The obvious answer? Practically none!

Mr. Verrecchio then goes on to make this brilliant summation which I am reproducing, in large part for your reading pleasure.

Clearly this tiny demographic doesn’t give a flying one-night stand in a gay bar bathroom about the sacraments, much less the doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church.

Of those who claim as much, arguably some small portion thereof really is seeking to respond to the promptings of grace, and God help the cleric who provides accommodation (stones) instead of the unadulterated truth that calls them to conversion (bread).

That said, is there really anyone so naïve as to not realize that the overwhelming majority of those “same sex couples” who claim to desire baptism for their unfortunate children, small in number though they most certainly are, really are looking for little more than for the Church to validate their sexual deviancy?

Well, if we’re charitable, we have to conclude that there are some among us who are so naïve, and one of them is running the show in Rome.

Summa Summarum

Well, I somehow suspect that “naivete” might not be the underlying issue here. Call me uncharitable, but…

In an off the cuff response in the comment box under Mr. Verrecchio’s final observation, I proposed the following explanation, albeit in a joking manner:

An alternative explanation that comes to me off the top of my head is this: when you made as many enemies in Rome over the course of the last year and a half as Francis has, you can’t afford to lose the queers.
_
PS Numbers don’t lie.

And you know what, upon further reflection, I don’t think I am off the mark.

Which leads to a further question, namely: If it’s not “naivete” then could it be that Francis might be a hostage to the Vatican Homo-Lobby? Remember them?

Or to put it another way, has the cleverly Jesuitical Francis worked himself into a corner, out of which he is desperately trying to work his way out of?

Looking at the above facts rationally, on the one hand, Francis needs the afore mentioned “special interest” group to help him “keep an eye on things” at the Vatican. They might be the only friends he has left in Rome and beyond. He no doubt had their “help” in years past. There is a reason why he has kept Msgr. Ricca in his delicate positions.

On the other hand, Francis can’t afford to make enemies of the bishops and cardinals. Remember, there is still this little issue of the Dr. Austen Ivereigh and Team Bergoglio/ Formal explicit violation of UDG 81, (see here) which is a big deal in Vatican circles from what I understand.

I would say that the above situation may have placed our bishop of Rome in quite a vulnerable position.

But more about this in a future post.

Post scrioptum

Before I finish, I would just like to remind all of you dear readers of the following video produced of Michael Matt which I posted under the title “Hey, what did happen to that dossier?”  which goes a long way into confirming my suspicions. (see here)

Secret Synod: Rebellion Spreads to Spain

Tags

Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Bishop Juan Antonio Reig, Bruno Forte, Bugnini, Cardinal Piacenza, Carlos Osoro Sierra, Catholic Church, Deus Ex Machina, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis church, Great Cardinal, Italian Bishops' Conference, José Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña, Mario Iceta Gavicagogeascoa, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Pope Francis, Ricardo Blazquez, Rorate Caeli blog, Spanish Bishops' Conference, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II

Antonio Cañizares Llovera (born 15 October 1945), Spanish Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church

Over on the EP website, we get the next dispatch from the resistance to Francis: The Spanish Front. (see here)

Post is titled : Spain’s Bishops Elect Members for Bishops’ Synod – Surprise Bishop Reig – Little Ratzinger Elected to Chairmanship.

The Fall General Assembly of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference elected three synododalists for the Synod of Bishops on the Family in 2015 with a not insignificant surprise.

The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who was dismissed by Pope Francis and sent back as Archbishop of Valencia, Cardinal Antonio to Spain, has been, it seems, chosen with great support to the Chairmanship of the Conference of Bishops. He replaces the retired Archbishop of Madrid Rouco Varela.

Now just so we understand what just happened, lets examine the lay of the land and identify the players:

Cardinal Antonio Cañizares is the “Littel Ratzinger” from the title of the RC post. Cd. Cañizares was the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, under Benedict XVI and holds the distinction of being the second victim (Piacenza holds the honor of being the first victim) of the Francis “pontificate of the long knives”. (see here) His grave “offense”for his demotion and degradation is explained by EF (see here): [with emphasis added]

With personal integrity, but not particularly combative, the cardinal celebrated several times in the traditional form of the Roman Rite, as well as in autumn 2012 on the occasion of the first International Pilgrimage of Tradition to Rome . It was the first time since the reform of the liturgy that it was celebrated at a main altar of St. Peter again in a larger scale Sacrifice of the Mass in the Old Rite.

So for that grave crime committed against the “spirit of VII” and the Bugnini’ite “liturgical reforms” (see here) commonly known as the Novus Ordo Missae, Cardninal Cañizares was sent packing. Not only was cd. Cañizares sent back to Spain, he was further degraded by not being named the Archibishop of Madrid, where he was expected to be appointed, but at the lesser See of Valencia. The appointment of the new archbishop of Madrid in turn, was a stunt similar to Francis’s appointment of the new archbishop of Chicago, i.e. appointment of Blase “Francis pulls a rabbit out of the hat” Cupich. The See of Madrid went to the HOT Christian Carlos Osoro Sierra (HOT Christian definition see here). Remember that name Carlos Osoro Sierra. Here is the relevant RC passage (see here):

… Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, up to today Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, was named by Pope Francis new Archbishop of Valencia (in the place of Carlos Osoro Sierra, named also today Archbishop of Madrid).

As to the nature of the demotion and degradation, it is just another example of Francis’s pettiness, vengefulness, small mindedness, hatefulness.. and a bunch of other ness’s. And since the demotion of cd. Cañizares Llovera, Francis has wielded his “axe of mercy” mercilessly at the Congregation for Divine Worship as can be seen from this RC post titled: “De-Ratzingerization Purge at Divine Worship: Full Steam Ahead.” (see here). But I digress…

So back to the Spanish Bishop’s conference and the Chairmanship election, because there were more surprises.

In the first Shameful Secret Synod of Sin, Spain was represented by just the Chairman of the Spanish Bishops’Conference, the retired archbishop of Madrid, Archbishop of Madrid Rouco Varela. But at the Synod (I am omitting the “Shameful”, “Secret” and the “of Sin” qualifiers since I want to give the bishops the benefit of the doubt) of 2015, the Spanish delegation will be comprised of three prelates. Here is the relevant text:[with emphasis and comments added]

The Spanish Episcopal Conference was represented in the first part of the Synod of Bishops, which took place as extraordinary Synod last October, automatically and exclusively by its President, while three representatives will participate in the second part, the Annual Synod, who were elected by the bishops from their own ranks.

Just so were very clear of how the situation looks. In the Secrete Synod of 2014, the Spanish bishops were represented exclusively by the President of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference. In the Synod of 2015, the Spanish bishops will be represented by three bishops elected from their ranks.

Now my dear readers, your probably asking yourselves: elections have not been very good for TeamFrancis. And you all have the “brutalization” by the Italian Bishops’Conference of the “unfortunately unfortunate Bruno “Slippery as an eel” Forte vividly engrained in your minds.(see here and here) And your asking yourselves “Can lightning strike again?”.

Well, you are on the right track. In the elections for the three delegates to the Synod of Bishops of 2015, the following transpired:

First place will go to the Vice President of the Bishops’ Conference, then Ricardo Blazquez, archbishop of Valladolid, who was elected by a large majority.

In second place comes a Mario Iceta Gavicagogeascoa, the Bishop of Bilbao who is an acknowledged expert on bioethical issues. As to the two above, the Spanish Catholic church historian and blogger José Francisco Fernández de la Cigoña considers both of “strong character and conservative”. Think “messaging”. 🙂

And as you probably suspect, the real fireworks were for the third place in the delegation to the Synod of 2015.
And this is what transpired: [ with emphasis and comment]

For third place, however it came to a scramble. For this spot, the Archbishop of Madrid, Carlos Osoro Sierra, [remember him?] who was appointed by Pope Francis, and him alone, would have gotten the position owing to his rank.

Should have, owing to his rank. However:

In reality, several rounds of voting were needed because Archbishop Osoro could not gather a sufficient majority.

But it gets better. As to his opponent, here are the details.

His opponent was none other than Bishop Juan Antonio Reig of Alcalá de Henares. Archbishop Reig is the Spanish bishop who speaks in the most definitive language and does not hesitate to publicly engage in clear words for faith. But he is also most severely under attack by opponents of the church and media. “If the Archbishop of Granada had been present, Archbishop Osoro would have gotten a nasty surprise,” says Fernández de la Cigoña.

As you can by now deduce, the Francis HOT Christian “Osoro prevailed because of one vote.”

Not a resounding performance by TeamFrancis. So much for the narrative of “inevitability”.

Below is the EF blog commentary. I have reproduced it in its entirety, with my emphasis and [comments] so that you dear reader can get an accurate idea of the situation inside the Spanish Catholic Church.

The humiliating ballots are a snub for the new Archbishop of Madrid. Perhaps the voting behavior of many bishops were directed not against him, but were rather in support of the positions of Bishop Reig. The Bishop of Alcalá de Henares [Reig] had to put up with a thorough drubbing in public in recent months, but stood at the forefront in the defense of non-negotiable values and expressed clear positions on the controversial issues at the Synod of Bishops. The vote for him [Reig], if [even though] he ultimately lost the election, means a substantial strengthening his position in the Bishops’ Conference. Bishop Reig was the one who sharply criticized the reigning bourgeois Partido Popular because of the pandering to the abortion party. Next year, a new parliament will be elected in Spain. The support of the bishop by his confreres can also be seen in this context and even more importantly, there is nevertheless in most of the Episcopal Conferences a certain unwillingness to mess with political power, and certainly not before elections.

The post goes on the conclude by saying this:

The close defeat of Bishop Reig is a loss for the Synod of Bishops . More surprising than its failure, however, is that he could ever unite so many votes against the Archbishop of Madrid, [and implicitly against Francis who “pulled Osoro out of his proverbial hat and installed him in Madrid] almost half the episcopate. It may be as general custom now such that Bishop Reig is a replacement synodalist, should one of the three newly elected Synod members should not be able to go to Rome. [So all could turn out for the best if Osoro breaks a leg, for example], 😉

And finally, the EF blog concludes as follows:

Spain’s bishops are well positioned in sum for the Bishops’ Conference. Their position was clearly stated with the election of Archbishop Blázquez, Bishop Iceta and the votes for Bishop Reig.

And here are my parting thoughts. Francis is an absolute sovereign. He is king pope. But the next pope, will also be an absolute sovereign just like Francis. And since Francis is overturning the general order and unwritten conventions that govern an institution such as the Vatican, he must realize, or at least someone should tell him, that the next pope that ascends to the Throne of St. Peter can just as easily take Francis’ reforms and throw them onto the trash heap of history, along with liberation theology and the Nuns on the Bus. And no matter how many “reforms” Francis institutes, and no matter how much collegiality and synoldality he introduces – which to date has been none, as a matter of fact, he has reverted back to the days of the Ultramontanist papacies- the next pope will just as easily revert back to the historic norms. And he will no doubt use Francis as his example.

Now that is what I call irony.

Secret Synod: Play It Again Sam!

Tags

Bergoglio, Cardinal Napier, Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Shonborn, Catholic Church, Donald Wuerl, heretical pope, Luis Tagle, manipulation, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, optics, pathological, Peter Turkson, pianist, Pope Francis, Rorate Caeli blog, Secret Synod 2015, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Vatican II

Play it again Sam Lorenzo!

Editor note: I created a new category for this post. Since we are at half time of the two part Secret Synod, and we definitely will be tracking the “happenings” leading up to it, and covering it next October, I have put a separate category at it’s disposal.

Now to the business at hand. To use a football metaphor, we are in half time of the Shameful Secret Synod of Sin. Looks like the players are starting to warm up for the second half. This story appeared today on the Zenit News Service via the Pew Sitter website. (see here). Here are the key passages:(with emphasis and [comment])

The Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops met from November 18-19th to discuss the recent Extraordinary General Synod in October and to prepare for the 15th Ordinary General Assembly, which is set to take place next year from October 4th-25th.

According to a communique released by the Holy See Press Office, the first day of the meeting was presided by Pope Francis. The Pope, the communique stated, “stressed the importance of the Synod as an expression of episcopal collegiality and to the family.”

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, the Secretary General of the Synod, also addressed the Council, noting “the freedom, sincerity and spirit of fraternal communion that characterized the Synodal assembly.” [What else is he going to say!]

“Additionally, the final document, the Relatio Synodi reflects faithfully with its nuances, the results of the Synod and is presented as a good summary of the process made during the Assembly,” the communique stated.

Hmmm. Well, that’s one way of looking at it. However someone else might look at it a bit differently. Someone like say Father Z?

A couple of days ago (18th of November – 1st day of the Ordinary Council, presided over by Francis) this post appeared on Fr. Z’s blog titled:

“What’s up with the false English translation of the Synod’s Final Report?” (see here)

According to Fr. Z’s post, among the problems with the docs are the following:

1) The final and official Relatio is still accessible on the Vatican website only in Italian. That’s what you find by on clicking “Synod of Bishops“, the obvious place to look for a document of the Synod of Bishops, right?

2) The notorious interim report, however, which was roundly denounced by the Synod Fathers (who were not allowed even to see it before it was released) has been on the Synod webpage in five languages since the end of the Synod on 19 October… a month ago.  (Frankly, I think it was written already in July, because it was magically translated swiftly into five languages practically overnight.  It was also bound and ready to distribute within 36 hours.  The super-skilled Vatican translators handled that one, but the all important Final Report… not so much.   But I digress.)

But it gets better! 🙂

3) By the magic of cutting and pasting from the English version which we had to dig out of an obscure page from the archive of the daily Bolletino at the Press Office’s site, an entirely different entity of the Holy See from the Synod of Bishops, whose official document it is, we find (emphases added):

  4) With these words in mind, we have gathered together the results of our reflections and our discussions in the following three parts: listening, looking at the situation of the family today  in all its complexities, both lights and shadows; looking, our gaze is fixed on Christ to re-evaluate, with renewed freshness and enthusiasm, what revelation,  transmitted in the Church’s faith, tells us about the beauty and dignity of the family; and facing the situation, with an eye on the Lord Jesus, to discern how the Church and society can renew their commitment to the family. [You are waiting to see the part about “founded on marriage between a man and a woman” aren’t you!]

The final Italian words, describing the family as, “founded on marriage between man and woman”, seems to have been deliberately suppressed in the English version of an important Church document, an official document issued by a Synod that made headlines round the world for most for the better part of a whole month.

Oh my… Forgot to put the man/woman thing in. But hey, they are all celibate, so what would they know about that stuff? 😉

However, dear reader please do not be discouraged.  I see this as a good sign. Looks like someone is keeping a close eye on our “wheeler-dealer” bishops. 😉 For the details please go over to Fr. Z’s sight.

But back to today’s Zenit story.

Next steps are the release of the Lineamenta outline that will be sent out to the Episcopal Conferences in December. Then the Istrumentum Laboris is expected to be released before the summer next year. By that time, we will be as familiar with the “process” as are our “airport bishops”.

And as you can imagine dear reader, I have saved the best for last. Along with the bishop of Rome and his “pianist”, (see here and here) the following prelates took part in the Council: (I will also assign them their respective places on the Hot/Cold/Lukewarm continuum so as to give us a better idea of who the players are. For the HOT/COLD/LUKEWARM Christian Continuum, please go here):

Cardinals Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna (Austria); [HOT}

Wilfried F. Napier, archbishop of Durban (South Africa), [COLD]

Peter Turkson, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, [COLD – Don’t know, but with a title like that, I’m thinking HOT With a friendly research tip from a Great Friend of this blog, indignusfamulus, DEM tentatively places Cardinal Tuckson in the COLD Christian camp, however, without changing the text to reflect that there are 2 solid Cold Christians.]

George Pell, Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, [COLD – The hero of the Shameful Secret Synod I]

Donald W. Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. [HOT]

Luis A. Tagle, archbishop of Manila (Philippines). [HOT]

Looks like the Catholics are outnumbered, but if you remember dear reader, Francis stacked the deck with 6 HOT Christian members before the “JPII/Familiaris Consortio Miracle Thursday”. So having 2 excellent COLD Christian Cardinals at least give us a window into the “process”. Good case in point is that Fr. Z got the “false translation” head’s up on the day that the the players first seen the docs.

Now we knew it will not be easy, but all in all, a good start. Just got to keep the pressure on.

PS If anyone knows how to categorize President Peter Turkson, please feel free to drop us a line in the comment box.