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.
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.
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”.
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”.
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.
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.
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”.