Making Too Many Wrong Mistakes

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Yogi Berra

Today we pick up where we left off in our last post titled You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching (see here). The subject matter of that post was in effect, trying to IDENTIFY the financial considerations which could be behind the HIDDEN AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS. So seeing as how we didn’t find this EVIDENCE yesterday, today we are back looking for the “money trail”.

In the previous post, we tried to tie in two, what one would assume to be intrinsically related issues, i.e. “HEALING THE WOUNDS” of the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY and ARRESTING AND REVERSING the trend of “c”atholics leaving the Church. Our simple assumption was that if they are not in the Church, they:

1) can’t have their “wounds healed”,

and

2) can’t help cover the operating costs of the church, i.e. the “money trail“.

Given the above, and giving the bi-Synod organizers the benefit of the doubt that in fact the bi-Synod was about helping the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY and not just about a “a small portion of believers”, we observed that there MUST BE an ELEMENT in the bi-Synod AGENDA that will “attract” these CONTEMPORARY FAMILIES BACK to the Catholic Church. At minimum, to help with the finances. Yet this, what would appear on the surface to be a CRITICAL ELEMENT, was missing from the discussions.

Today we will take a closer look at this last issue, i.e. that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS did NOT take FORMAL financial considerations into account in the bi-Synod AGENDA. The EVIDENCE for this assertion was the observation that it seemed strange that the bi-Synod, which was called to deal with problems faced by the “CONTEMPORARY” FAMILY would devolve into a synod whose main aim is to deal with the “problem of divorced and remarried who want to receive Communion, which relates to a small portion of believers”.

To explain this irrational (TRANSRATIONAL) observation, using the FIELD HOSPITAL metaphor, of how to heal someone in a FIELD HOSPITAL if that someone doesn’t come to the FIELD HOSPITAL, we once again employ our favorite HERETIC of days gone by, the Franciscan William of Ockham who observed that: numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.

With all things being equal, since the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, the obvious answer to the above conundrum appears to be the following: the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS don’t need to “attract” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back into the FIELD HOSPITAL.

Therefore, IF the AGENDA of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS was NOT designed to “attract” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back into the FIELD HOSPITAL, THEN their stated AGENDA of HEALING the WOUNDS is NOT OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

This would imply that the second half or our assumption, i.e. the parallel issue of “attracting” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back to the FIELD HOSPITAL, so that the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY can help offset some of the expenses of operating that FIELD HOSPITAL, which would then support  the contributions made pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law, must be at the ROOT of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S AGENDA. In other words, a HIDDEN AGENDA.

Therefore, if the above is in fact the case, the most likely place to start looking for an answer is by looking at the FUNDING MODEL of the German Catholic Church. By looking at the construction of the FUNDING MODEL, we might be able to identify one of the ROOT CAUSES driving the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Under a NORMAL CATHOLIC CHURCH FUNDING MODEL, where the Faithful support the Church institutions through ALMS GIVING (acts of charity) made during Mass, the Church needs the Faithful to come to Mass in order to collect the ALMS, which then go to pay the bills. However, the most important aspect of the Faithful attending Mass is that it is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass (see here). By participating at Holy Mass, for our purposes here, the Faithful come into contact with the MOST PERFECT form of prayer, which de facto must be the best REMEDY for the HEALING OF THE WOUNDS OF THE CONTEMPORARY FAMILY.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that the confirmation of this last STATEMENT is the near obsession of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS with giving Communion to public sinners. Actually, to ALL SINNERS is probably more accurate!

As to the process itself, the above can be described as a POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP, or a process that “enhances or amplifies an effect by it having an influence on the process which gave rise to it”. (see here) What this means is that the more lapsed “c”atholics that can be drawn back to the Holy Mass in order to be “healed”, the more ALMS will be given to offset the operating costs of the institution that is the Church. When successfully “healed”, these returned “c”atholics will in turn motivate other lapsed “c”atholics to return to the Church and through this effect, the “healing”/ALMS giving dynamic gets amplified. On an aside, this mechanism has been very successful for 2000 years making the Catholic Church the OLDEST CONTINUOUSLY FUNCTIONING INSTITUTION IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN. But I digress…

In the German Catholic Church FUNDING MODEL, one based on the KIRCHENSTEUER, or a church tax, this POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP breaks down. To be more precise, the relationship between the institutional Church and the attendance of the Faithful at Mass is broken, if not nonexistent. The reason is due to faulty design of the FUNDING MODEL itself. Allow me to explain.

The manner in which the German Church is funded, 70+% of revenue comes through a government collection scheme. The KIRCHENSTEUER itself is a withholding tax on paid income that the employers of the Faithful withhold monthly and pay directly to the German state revenue authorities, who then disburse it to the church. The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it.

Tax itself is a small part of the overall tax bill. “In the example where a single person earning 50,000 euros may pay an average income-tax of 20%, thus 10,000 euros. The church tax is then an additional 8% (or 9%) of that 10,000 euros (800 or 900 euros) for a total of 10,800 or 10,900 euros in taxes”. (see here) Therefore, the actual KIRCHENSTEUER tax amounts to a €66 (€75) increase in withholding on the monthly income of the payee. Yet when taken as a whole, the take for the German Catholic Church is quite large. In 2013 net income from the KIRCHENSTEUER amounted to €5.5b (see here) and in 2014 it was over €5.6b. (see here and here)

Therefore, what we see from the above is that this KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL effectively breaks down the NEED of the Faithful to go to Mass and give ALMS (funding) and the actual funding mechanism itself. What is CRITICAL under the KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL is that the Faithful stay in the Church tax payee pool, regardless of whether they go to Mass or not. It is this divergence of INTERESTS, between the INTEREST’S of the Faithful (spiritual need to attend Mass) and the INTEREST’S of the German ecclesiastical authorities (materialistic need to keep people in the church tax pool), that is behind the “tide of apostasy”  observed in the German (Western European) Church. This is also the ROOT CAUSE of such incidents as bishops threatening excommunications for withdrawing from the KIRCHENSTEUER tax pool. (see here) More on this in a follow-up post.

For the purposes of today’s subject matter, what is critical to understand is that the institutional Church in Germany, i.e. HERETICAL CLERICALISTS does not need the Faithful in the pews in order to fund itself. The adoption of this faulty KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL has broken down the PROPER Faithful/Church relationship. One area where this knock-on effect can be seen is in the empty churches. By breaking the bond between church funding and Mass attendance, the church authorities have lost contact with the Faithful and the Faithful lost contact with the church. This in turn has led to the “de-catechisation” of the German catholics while at the same time allowed the church authorities to neglect this “de-catechisation” of the German catholics problem, since it doesn’t have a direct impact on the Church’s revenue stream.

Another knock-on effect of the KIRCHENSTEUER on the German Episcopate can be observed in the German Episcopate’s actions when trying to address this empty churches issue.  What is obvious to all, is that the German Episcopate does not really know what the average German catholic is thinking since they have no contact with him. Therefore, the Episcopate is forced to rely on IMPERFECT INFORMATION (CORRUPTED) provided by “small groups” which are active within the Church, groups that for the most part have vested interests in particular agendas. These small but vocal “special interest” groups then CROWD OUT the average, normal “c”atholics. A good case in point is the multiple groups that have sprung up “around” the Church to promote the HOMO AGENDA, an agenda which appears to dominate the German, Austrian, Belgian and Swiss churches, while at the same time only affects a minuscule proportion of the Catholic and “c”atholic population.

Confirmation of the above CROWDING OUT effect, first from the physical churches (Mass attendance) and subsequently from the KIRCHENSTEUER payee pool, can be discerned from the recent Mathias von Gersdorf post were he writes: (see here)

A lot of people separate from their church probably not because they became atheists or non-religious people. They do not want to be simply associated with a particular church, to who they make monthly pay. They reject the rigid form of financing. They want to decide for themselves where and when they give money, “- says von Gersdorff. “Without a doubt, there are also many conservative Christians who do not want to pay church tax and leave the Church. Just as liberals want to decide themselves who they financially support “- we read further.

What the above implies is that even with a small monthly withholding, the Faithful who are separating from the Church are still going through the trouble to “formally declare their wish to leave the community to the state (not religious) authorities. With such a declaration, the obligation to pay church taxes ends. Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave it”. While others are threatened with excommunication, might as well add.

So what we see is that the KIRCHENSTEUER has introduced a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP in place of the 2000 year old POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP that has served the Catholic Church very well and has made it the oldest formal organization in HUMAN HISTORY.

Let’s think about this for a second or two, shall we?

Other knock-on effects of this badly flawed German KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL are not only the whimsical accommodation to special interest groups, but also to politicians. Since the Church depends on the state to collect the KIRCHENSTEUER, the German Episcopate is dependent on the politicians to render these services. In case they would want to collect the church tax themselves, they would still be dependent on the tax authorities to reveal taxation data of their members in order to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed. If the state would cut off the German Episcopate from this taxpayer data, the German Church and the second largest employer in German would collapse in a matter of months.

Concluding, what we observe in the above analysis is an explanation for several aspects of the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S behavior at the bi-Synod.

First, the HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S need to focus on small, yet vocal “special interest” groups can be explained   by the fact that these groups are not only vocal, but politically active likewise. This is the case with respect to the HOMO LOBBY. Given that this blog has established as far back as the 18th of December 2014 (see here) that the HIDDEN AGENDA behind the calling of the bi-Synod was introduction of GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law, the above analysis is just another piece of evidence supporting this HYPOTHESIS.

With respect to our observation that it would appear as if the CRITICAL ELEMENT of “attracting” the CONTEMPORARY FAMILY back to the Church in order to have their “wounds healed” is missing, the above analysis explains this quite well. By putting in place a FUNDING MODEL which divorces ALMS giving at Mass from the operational funding of the Church, the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS do not need to focus on the perennial problem of lack of attendance at Mass and empty churches.

With respect to our identification of the “money trail”, our analysis can clearly identify IT by taking into account the badly designed KIRCHENSTEUER FUNDING MODEL. We can clearly observe that it was the pandering to certain “special interest” group, i.e. the HOMO LOBBY which led to the calling of the bi-Synod process. This HOMO LOBBY was able to exert  this pressure on the German Episcopate and in turn, the German Bishops’ Conference and in turn, the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS and in turn, the CONTROL GROUP for two specific reasons, namely HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY thrown into their lobbying effort and the SUPPORT of a large part of the GERMAN POLITICAL CLASS, that can in turn exert pressure on the German Bishops through the latter’s dependence on the former for their funding needs.

And by extension, for their very survival.

And it is through continuously repeating these “wrong mistakes” that the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS from the German Bishops’ Conference brought the entire Roman Church to the brink of SCHISM at the culmination of the bi-Synod process.

Now all that is left is to see if Francis crosses this Rubicon.

 

 

 

You Can Observe A Lot Just By Watching

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C, 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 was a MEANS TO AN END for the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS,
• The HIDDEN AGENDA was a MEANS TO AN END for SECRETARIAT (FRANCIS)
• 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”

and

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.

The above IS NOT AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT.

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.

If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, You Will End Up Somewhere Else

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Damian Thompson, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Gianluigi Nuzzi, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, root cause methodology, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, The Spectator, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

We pick up today where we left off two days ago; with defining an OPERATIONAL PLAN which constitutes a spiritual Work of Mercy performed by your humble blogger. This OPERATIONAL PLAN will attempt to first, IDENTIFY the ROOT CAUSE(S) and then suggest a way forward to ADDRESS the identified PROBLEM, which we defined as:

Francis trying to destroy the Church as Our Lord founded it.

To obtain the above described DESIRED ENDS, we have decided to use a methodology commonly referred to as ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS. The reason that we are taking a scientific route is that we CATHOLICS are outnumbered in this battle and our resources of both time and money are limited. On the other hand, we possess an ESPRIT DE CORPS that if deployed properly, should offset our limitations and gain for us a RESULT exponentially greater than the resources deployed.

Today we pick up with our analysis by further “drilling down” into of the ROOT CAUSE(S) driving this PROBLEM. By identifying the ROOT CAUSES, we will be able to design a more effective OPERATIONAL PLAN to counteract this PROBLEM.

In yesterday’s post, we restated that the HIDDEN AGENDA of the bi-Synods was in fact:

CHANGING CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO “INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED” BEHAVIOR.

This HYPOTHESIS was a result derived from our Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology. (see here) We used this OBJECTIVE RESULT as our jump off point for further analysis.

Given the above, we next need to establish whether the HIDDEN AGENDA was the ENDS of the bi-Synod process or rather just the MEANS TO AN END.

Furthermore, since we have identified two separate groups who were promoting the HIDDEN AGENDA, we need to establish whether they both share the same ENDS. These two groups we identified as the SECRETARIAT (Francis) and the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS (Marx & co.) We also identified a special interest within these two groups, namely what is commonly referred to as the HOMO LOBBY. (see here) Since the HIDDEN AGENDA has a direct impact on the interests of the HOMO LOBBY, we will break them out and examine them as the third stand-alone group.

HOMO LOBBY

Starting with the third group, i.e. the HOMO LOBBY. If the Church would change its moral doctrine and in turn its teaching (practice) , then this group would be able to operate openly within the present Church structures. Therefore, it is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement that the success of the HIDDEN AGENDA is an ENDS for this group.

That was easy.

Furthermore, what we have noticed is that there is an overlap between the HOMO LOBBY and what Card. Danneels termed the “mafia club” which had as its mission to destabilize if not the outright overthrow of the Benedict papacy. Next, we see that with the Francis papacy, appointments of bishops who are openly ADVOCATING changing Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law with respect to the INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED behavior.

Now that is not to say that ALL clerics who ADVOCATE for these types of changes in Catholic doctrine are afflicted with this unnatural and harmful behavioral disorders, but what is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement is that ALL these clerics ARE using this HIDDEN AGENDA of the bi-Synod to drive their own personal or professional HIDDEN AGENDAS.

We need to be clear on this point.

HERETICAL CLERICALISTS

With respect to the HERETICAL CLERICALIST group, it does not appear that the HIDDEN AGENDA was an END for this group. Proof of this situation comes from Giuseppe Nardi writing in an Eponymous Flower post which reads: (see here – [comment] and emphasis added)

The great commitment of Kasperians in their search for compromise [Synod Final Relatio] 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. 

Therefore, a better understanding of just who these people are is in order.

It is fair to say that clerics who CONTROL the HERETICAL CLERICALIST group are THE MAIN ADVOCATES of the bi-Synod HIDDEN AGENDA. To be more precise, these clerics provide the “theological platform” (read Kasper) and the funding (read Marx – German Bishops’ Conference Kirchensteuer). In essence, this CONTROL GROUP (in military jargon one would say Head Quarters elements)  is almost exclusively of ethnic GERMAN (Swiss and Austrians included) origins. Even the Belgians, English and French, who provide a multi-cultural façade, are nothing more than window dressing for these GERMAN dissenters.

These GERMAN dissenters in turn, constitute a sub-section of the GERMAN episcopate that traces its lineage to the Rahnerist camp of the Second Vatican council and the NOVELTY that the council created, i.e. national bishops’ conferences. (Christus Dominus). The present head of the German Bishops’ Conference is Card. Reinhard “Bling” Marx, who succeeded Robert Zollitsch, who in turn succeeded Karl Lehmann, who in turn succeeded Joseph Höffner, who in turn succeeded the first president Julius Döpfner. As to how Karl Rahner S.J. fits into this equation, please refer to the post titled The Network (see here) which provides the essential background.

Drilling down further, what is essential to our present analysis is to understand that this Rahnerist HERETICAL CLERICALIST group has been in control of the German Bishops’ Conference since its founding post VII and is responsible for the DESTRUCTION, by OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF MEASURE of the German Catholic Church during the post-conciliar period.

This DESTRUCTION is not only apparent for all to see, but it is causing the wider German episcopate to question the leadership of the Rahnerists. Case in point is the “wafer thin” victory of Card. “Bling” Marx over his challenger Bishop Franz-Peter van Elst Tebartz. This leadership race turned very ugly, since to get “Bling” Marx elected, the Rahnerist had to literally destroy the former Bishop of Limburg van Elst Tebartz. For background please refer to our post The Cardinal of “Bling” (see here) and German Revolting Sheep, Catch Bishop In The Spot Light (see here). In other words, what we see is that the Rahnerist camp under siege and fighting for it’s very survival within the German episcopate.

Further evidence of this siege mentality of this HERETICAL CLERICALIST’S CONTROL GROUP can be observed in their disposition to the Benedict papacy. One of the main reasons for the resistance of this CONTROL GROUP was IDEOLOGICAL no doubt. A separate post on just this will be forthcoming. However, a parallel reason and one of an EXISTENTIAL NATURE, was due to Benedict appointing German bishops who were more CATHOLIC and less IDEOLOGICAL, i.e. less Rahnerists. It is this situation that is in no small part behind  the SHEER HATRED of Pope Benedicts by the Rahnerists and the threat of a Benedict papacy was the reason behind why the CLERICALISTS tried to initially block Cardinal Ratzinger from ascending to the Throne of St. Peter. (see here) When they lost that round, the CLERICALISTS began immediately organizing in order to undermine the Benedictine papacy and their actions in large part led to his eventual resignation. (see here) In the lead up to the 2013 Conclave, the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS organized an illegal canvasing operations to get then Card. Bergoglio elected. (see here)

Given the EVIDENCE above, what this course of action undertaken by these CLERICALISTS clearly demonstrates is the gravity of the threat that the Benedict papacy posed to their AGENDA. Furthermore, it can be easily inferred that this threat, whether perceived or real, at its ROOT stems from the Restoration efforts that Benedict undertook during his pontificate. This will also be treated in a subsequent post.

A secondary element that in no small manner can be overlooked is the ban by Benedict of ordaining men with INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED behavioral problems. This is where the interests of the HOMO LOBBY and the HERETICAL CLERICALIST initially overlapped (see here and here) and what initially gave the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS a very wide INTELLIGENCE network within the Sacred Vatican Walls. Later this INTELLIGENCE network transformed itself into an OPERATIONAL ELEMENT which eventually caused the Benedict resignation. Once Francis was elevated, he inherited these OPERATIONAL ASSETS which can be easily inferred by the Ricca appointment and the disappearance of the DOSSIER.

By the way, whatever did happen to THAT Dossier? (see here)

Concluding, what we have identified in the above text is that the interests of the HERETICAL CLERICALISTS and the HOMO LOBBY overlap. One CANNOT make the inference that these two AGENDAS are identical, yet a very strong case can easily made that the AGENDAS of these two “special interest” groups in large part overlap.

Yet these two AGENDAS do not overlap completely. One example of this is the following passage from the OnePeterFive blog were Steve Skojec relays the following: (see here)  ([comment] and emphasis added)

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 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.

After reading your humble blogger’s above analysis, one SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED that HERETICAL CLERICALISTS would try to reign in the HOMO LOBBY and Francis for the simple reason that they have different AGENDAS.

On an aside, what is interesting to keep a close eye on, is situations where the AGENDAS of these two “special interest” groups diverge. It is the interplay between these “competing” interests that can be observed on the “margins” of where their two AGENDAS interact, which then gives the keen analyst very useful insights into what is REALLY happening behind the Sacred Vatican Walls and in those “peripheries”. But I digress…

On an aside, the analysis of these type of “interplay at the margins” also make the savvy financial analysts and economics very wealthy. Excuse the further digression…

For our purposes here, this “marginal interplay” is giving us a very good idea of “where we are going”, since if you don’t know where your going, you will end up somewhere else.

I will leave off here for today with this “Yogi-ism” …

Francis’ “Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free” “c”atholicism Rejected!

Tags

aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Gianluigi Nuzzi, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s ABERRO AGENDA, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today your humble blogger will engage in what could be called our post Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 and Stealth Sex Synod™ of Bishops of 2015 debriefing. This is not to say that the above designated bi-Synods are over, since we are still waiting for the post-synod FrancisDocument that will be promulgated, supposedly. But no matter what that document says, we already know the “mind of the Synod Fathers” so Francis’ document is for the most part irrelevant for the sake of this post.

What I am going to do today is a short post about how the Deus Ex Machina sees the lay of the land post bi-Synod and try to identify the winners and loser. A secondary consideration will be placed on gauging the state of the both the “mind of Francis”, the “state of his pontificate” and the overall state in which the Catholic Church finds itself in Anno Domini 2015.

So let’s get cracking.

First of all, the news is not bad. Actually, there is much, much more good news than there is bad news. I know, we all read the blogs and we are all aware of the advancement of what we termed the “hermeneutic of ambiguity” that the neo-Modernists are constantly promoting in order to undermine the moral doctrine and by extension the moral authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. This, no doubt is true.

However, since this is not a “DEFEATIST” blog, (Our Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail) and since this blog tries to discern the deeper seated, more fundamental aspects of the state of FrancisChurch and “the Church” in general, your humble blogger will focus on the positive aspects and implications of what just transpired, since there were quite a few.

First “higher level” impression of what just transpired is that the bi-Synod process can be seen as the Waterloo for the Novus Ordo sect. What I mean by this is that even though the Heretical Clericalists and Francis were able to go to the “hermeneutic of ambiguity” well once again, their efforts were met with wide-spread and quite aggressive resistance. And this is in a situation where Francis brought in 45 FrancisFreakBishop delegates in order to stack the Synod, but it all came to naught. Here are just two quotes that bear this out: ([comment] and emphasis added)

This person relayed to me what they have been told: during the Synod, Pope Francis was, in fact, dead set on finding a way to give communion to the divorced and remarried.

Only there was a problem.

There was too much push back on the issue, and it was quite aggressive. (see here)

and

So it is surprising that nevertheless, a third of the Synod has refused the decisive compromise [Final Relatio] to the divorced and remarried, suggesting organized resistance. Organized so that it eluded the European diplomat’s [Shonborn’s] parquet. (see here)

Quick comment. What this situation clearly demonstrates is that 50 years of the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II” has taken its toll on the bishops of the “peripheries”, i.e. the Universal Church. One can even venture to say that they have lost their VII religion. More on this in the next point.

Next high level observation. The bi-Synod settled the philosophical/theological debate between the Ratzingerians and the Rahnerists. This subject is something that I tangentially wrote about (see here), but the implications are enormous for the Church going forward. The skinny in terms of this debate is that the hatred for Benedict XVI coming from the Rahnerists (Kasper, Marx & co.) is due to Benedict’s criticism of Rahnerism. At the end of the day, Rahnerism is nothing more than sophist Gobbledygook (see here), as is all neo-Modernist theology. The only reason why it has survived is that the Novus Ordo sect has been able to shut down any criticism of it. One theologian which they could not shut down was Ratzinger, and this is the real cause of the hatred and sabotage of his pontificate. I will go into more detail in a future post, but here is the example of this exact phenomenon:

The fact is also that Marco Ansaldo was one of those journalists who participated last May at the Gregorian University at the secret meeting of Kasperians which organized the representatives of the “new Mercy” for the Synod. Ansaldo in fact is thus a party to it. The more weight comes to his assessment, Cardinal Schönborn attributable to the progressivist camp, who has been classified yet very differently in general. Schönborn had himself taken part in the secret meetings. And the more it may be assumed that Ansaldo wanted with this certain intention, to involve Benedict XVI. in the matter. Apart from the fact that he for has von Schönborn in his thesis as the ideal mediator between the two great “fractions” of the church, between the Argentine and the German Popes. (see here)

Reading between the lines, what in fact is being describe above is a desperate, improvised process whereby the Rahnerist’s arch-enemy Benedict XVI was brought into the Synod negotiations at the behest of the Heretical Clericalists (Rahnerists) in order to save their man, Francis (read pontificate) from being overwhelmingly defeated by the Catholic Synod Fathers. And the only person on this earth who could have pulled the Heretical Clericalist’s chestnuts out of the fire is BENEDICT.

The further implication of this defeat of the Rahnerists is that it has demonstrated that the bishops of the Universal Church have lost faith in VII, i.e. its neo-Modernist philosophical underpinnings, regardless of whether they know it or not. In other words, they are looking for a firmer, more rational philosophical basis on which they can not only execute their mission, but survive. And it is Ratzinger which gives them this firmer footing, hence his moral authority to which the Rahnerists were forced to appeal to. The sad part of watching this spectacle play out is that because Ratzinger is himself a neo-Modernist, he can’t lead these Bishops back to scholasticism, Thomism and the ONE TRUE FAITH. But that in no way means that the Holy Spirit is not leading them back to Eternal Rome anyways.

Don’t believe me?

Think about this, in the voting on the notorious paragraphs 84,85 and 86, NO votes were 72, 80 and 64 respectively, 85 passing with one vote to spare. These were NO votes that even rejected the compromise Ratzingerian position. (see here)

What does that tell you?

Next and last high level observation pertains to the “mind of Francis”. As the consummate careerist and populist Peronist, Francis always had his antenna out to gauge the “mood of the crowd”. As the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio’s focus was the crowd that was the “hierarchy in Rome”, since it was the papacy that he craved. With respect to his “sheep”, Francis didn’t give a rats ass about them, least of all about their salvation. His strategy was to placate the them and give the sheep what they wanted. If the sheep wanted drugs, he instructed his priests to give them free needles. If the sheep wanted sex, he instructed his priests to give them free condoms. If the sheep were feeling depressed due to withdrawal symptoms from the drugs, or from butt warts from the cheap lubricants, then Francis instructed his Favela priests to give them the communion breakfast wafer to make them feel better.

Understanding the accuracy of the above, it is then not surprising to read the following:

There is also, I’m told, a general fear of social media within the higher echelons of our Church. It is not well understood, and they are unable to gauge effectively the power that it wields in shaping the narrative. This makes them very wary of provoking a viral firestorm of opposition. The petition, for example, may have only garnered 2800 signatures, but it was brought up during a Synod press conference with Cardinal Pell. It was the reason I was invited to write an op-ed about the Synod in the Washington Post. It was then referenced by Vaticanista Antonio Socci. (see here)

One reason for the above is that this papacy only exists due to the HOMO Lobby promoting “c”atholic and mainstream media. So the “narrative” is of the utmost importance. But the deeper meaning behind the “general fear of social media” is that not everybody buys Francis’ “money for nothing and chicks for free” “c”atholicism. And since they don’t know how to “buy off” the social media, they are fear struck by it. This aspect demonstrates just how far Francis is detached from reality and his only defence mechanism is to call his adversaries “dirty names”.

I will end here for today…

Exploding Bombs with Francis’ Fingerprints All Over Them

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Gianluigi Nuzzi, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Yesterday we left off our running analysis of the bi-Synods providing a “most likely” explanation for why Francis (through the Secretariatt) submitted the Instrumentum Laboris as the proposed Final Relatio to be voted on by the Synod Fathers, knowing that it would be defeated.

Here is how we summarized the situation in the Synod Hall on the morning of the 22nd of October 2015:

Francis’ actions of submitting the Instrumentum Laboris in the last-minute, in Italian only to the Synod Fathers, must be viewed as follows:

FRANCIS, was attempting to provoke the Synod Fathers into rejecting his proposed FINAL RELATIO, intended on provoking a FAILED SYNOD and create an environment which would lead to a SCHISM.

The OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and our ANALYSIS demonstrated that the MOST LIKELY reason behind Francis’ attempt to engineer a FAILED SYNOD was to implement a plan first set out by the Heretical Clericalist Karl Rahner S.J. which called for a dismantling of the Europeanized and Romanized Catholic Church and replacing it with a “WORLD CHURCH”.

In other words, what Francis intends is the DISMANTLE the CHURCH AS OUR LORD FOUNDED IT, i.e. hierarchical and centered in Rome and replace it with a decentralized “WORLD CHURCH” which has dicastories in Rome, Bogota and some undisclosed German city. And the basis for this game plan is that it would be in keeping with “the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento”.

This written above sounds pretty bizarre, yet the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, when run through our Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) suggests that it is the HYPOTHESIS best meets the “numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate” test.

Given that our MODEL has produced a HYPOTHESIS that on the surface appears to be RADICAL, today we will see if we can identify another observation, unrelated to and independent of what transpired during the bi-Synodal, which can confirm what we have set out above.

And it just so happens that we have another EVENT unfolding presently in Rome which we can run through our MODEL and see if it produces any corroborating evidence. This EVENT is the scheduled release of two books. Here is how this release is being billed by Reuters: (see here)

Two new books by Italian journalists depict a Vatican plagued by mismanagement, greed, cronyism and corruption and where Pope Francis still faces stiff resistance from the old guard to his reform agenda.

When reading the above, one is struck by the phrase “Pope Francis still faces stiff resistance from the old guard”. The reason that this phrase doesn’t make sense is that the entire Francis papacy is “engineered” to bring back the “old guard”, or rather the “guard” that Benedict replaced with the “new guard”. Given this intro, it is time to put on our investigate journalist hats and try to determine as to what are the OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Starting with the fact that one of the books is written by none other than Gianluigi Nuzzi, a name that we are familiar with since he is the journalist that broke the original Vatican Leaks scandal that started the ball rolling with respect to the Benedict abdication, we can try to see if there is any information relating to any of the individuals that were his sources at the time. And lo and behold, one of this self admitted sources, one Francesca Chaouqui has been in the news lately.

Turns out that  Francesca Chaouqui and Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda were arrested over the weekend by the Vatican for disclosing confidential information.

Given the above, we have another “fog of war lifting” moment, and we have a clearer picture of what is in fact transpiring. So first we set out some background.

The logical place to start is at the end of the 2005 Conclave that elected Benedict XVI to the See of St. Peter. The distant runner-up was one Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Now Archbishop Bergoglio appeared to not be a good loser, since after this conclave, it is reported that he set up an information network (i.e. spies) who were keeping him in the loop as to what was transpiring inside the Sacred Vatican Walls on a regular basis. Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio had first hand information as to the who, what and where of the VatiLeaks scandal as it was playing itself out. ( I will post the link to the source as soon as I find it)

Fast forward to the 2013 Conclave that elected Francis, one of the first things Francis began doing is putting his people into “sensitive” positions at the various dicastories. Among some to the appointments were individual such as our friend Archbishop José Rodríguez “Call me Pepe” Carballo as the Secretary of the Congregation of the Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. (see here) At the Congregation of Divine Worship, Francis replace the entire Ratzingerian staff before he appointed Cardinal Sarah as the Prefect. (see here)

And the situation was very similar with the second-in-command at the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, where Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda’s career was starting to “leapfrog” over his direct superior, Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, who – among other things – bears the disadvantage of being part of the declining team of cardinal secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone, after Francis ascended to the papacy.

To understand the inordinate amount of confidence that Francis had in Msgr. Vallejo Balda, here is the relevent text from Sandro Magister: (emphasis added)

And the proof is in the dominant role that the papal chirograph instituting the commission assigns to Monsignor Vallejo Balda: not only that of its secretary, but also that of “coordinator who has powers of delegation and acts in the name and on behalf of the commission in the collection of documents, data, and information necessary to the performance of its institutional functions.”

One can even infer that the pope has also entrusted to Vallejo Balda the task of selecting and recruiting the members of the commission. This can be deduced from the letter with which he announced the appointment to each of them: from the way in which he annotated their resumes, referring (in rather jumbled Italian) to his personal meetings with one or the other.

Folks, we are not dealing here with a cleric who made a good first impression on a new pontiff, a new pontiff who had moved from Buenos Aires 5 months earlier and is trying to figure out who is who.

As to one of the tasks that Francis entrusted to Vallejo Balda was “the selecting and recruiting of members of the commission”, and one of Vallejo Balda’s appointments was none other than the notorious Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.

Here is how Magister describes Mrs.Chaouqui.

The Vatican secretariat of state had accurate information about her a number of months before her appointment, last July 18, as a member of the commission for the reorganization of the financial-administrative offices of the Holy See, with the ability to access all of the most confidential documents.

What was known at this time was as follows:

One would have gathered from this, among other things, that Francesca Chaouqui has a direct connection with Gianluigi Nuzzi, the journalist who received and published the documents stolen from Benedict XVI by his unfaithful butler, and is an assiduous informer of the website dagospia.com, the source most widely followed in Italy for gossip and slander on the Vatican.

And as Magister writes, suppose Francis didn’t know who Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui was, who convinced Francis of her appiontment? Magister writes:

The most likely hypothesis leads back to Monsignor Lucio Ángel Vallejo Balda, secretary of the prefecture for the economic affairs of the Holy See and since July 18 also secretary and factotum of the newly created commission of which Francesca Chaouqui is a member.

Given the above, what we see is Francis, acting through a very trusted cleric who is the Secretary of Prefecture of the Economy, creating a commission and appointing a notorious individual who is known to leak classified information to anti-Catholic media, simultaneously giving the known leaker access “with the ability to access all of the most confidential documents.”

Fast forward to February 2014, it was announced that Francis gave the portfolio of the newly created Secretariat for the Economy to Cardinal Pell. (see here) The newly created Secretariat of the Economy inherits the Prefecture of the Economy along with its second in command, the Secretary of the Prefecture of the Economy and Francis confidant Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda.

Fast forward to today, by a stroke of coincidence, maybe even with a little nudge from our local “god of surprises”, the journalist whose source was the Vallejo Balda appointed  Francesca Chaouqui, Gianluigi Nuzzi is set to release a book based on information on which he was sitting on for two years.

So what are we left with?

What we are left with is a classical “ticking bomb” with Cardinal Pell, Francis arch nemesis sitting on top of the whole SHA-BANG.

Concluding this post, question:

Will anyone be surprised that the narrative of these two books that will be release later today, will have a good Francis, bishop of Rome and the church of the poor,  fighting the good fight against the “old guard” who are trying to destabilize this pontificate so they can keep their power, privilege and standard of living that they are accustomed to?

OK It was a rhetorical question.

Summa summarum. How does our Peirce/Ockham MODEL explain the above, given that the threshold of testing any HYPOTHESIS is that with all things being equal, the simplest explanations tend to be the right ones?

The answer is actually easy to discern. Our OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS indicates that Francis, trying to dismantle the Church as OUR LORD founded it, and bring in a WORLD CHURCH in line with the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II”, i.e. the Aggiornomento is putting in place the infamous “Vatican II ticking bombs”, whose purpose is to destabilize the foundational elements of the Catholic Faith, in accordance with the game plan set out by the HERETICAL CLERICALIST Karl Rahner S.J. (see here)

We have identified and analyzed this mechanism at work at the bi-Synods. (see here and here and here) We have also provided anecdotal evidence from clerics on the peripheries in our post The Cruelest “god” of All. (see here) We now see this mechanism at work in the Nuzzi book and the Balda and Chaouqui arrests.

What we also see is the sloppiness of Francis’ scheming. During the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015, whereby with the compromise reached between the Heretical Clericalists and the Catholic Synod Fathers, Francis (Secretariat) was forced to show his intent, i.e. either force through the unacceptable Instrumentum Laboris as the Final Relatio or possible SCHISM. Now in this present situation, we  note that the Francis appointment of the notorious Chaouqui who was known to leak information to the journalist Nuzzi, and over the protests of clerics from the Vatican Secretariat of State, (see here) Francis has again LEFT HIS FINGERPRINTS all over the “ticking bomb” that will be exploded later today.

However, it would appear that the Law of Unintended Consequences, if not the real “God of surprises” might have intervened and something must have gone horribly wrong. Over the past weekend, news broke that Francesca Chaouqui and Monsignor Lucio Angel Vallejo Balda were arrested on suspicion of leaking confidential documents. This would indicate that people at the Secretariat of the Economy were watching these two Friends of Francis and called in the Swiss Guard at the appropriate time. Knowing that these two are Francis’ associates, this action was nothing short of the Curia sending a message to Francis. But more on this in a future post.

Back to our subject matter at hand and our running analysis, the significance of the above is that it provides us with another supporting piece of EVIDENCE regarding Francis’ attempt at the destruction of the Church, EVIDENCE that is independent and unrelated to the evidence obtained from analyzing the bi-Synods.

Stay tuned sports fans. It’s getting interesting…

The Vatican’s Suicide Bomber Problem

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Yesterday we left off our analysis of the Heretical Clericalist group that is one of the TRIPARTITE represented at the bi-Synods. We focuses on the designated leader and key decision maker, Cardinal Walter Kasper and tried to gauge his personal TRUE AGENDA in the promotion of the GENDER IDEOPLOGY onto Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law by the German Bishops’ Conference leadership.

To quickly summarize what we ascertained, it is this:

Since the entire SYNOD CRISIS that came to light on the 22nd of October was in fact “resolved” within the Circulus Germanicus, and that three of the four main players were German theologians, with the fourth being a German (Ost-deutsche) diplomat, we posited that at its root, this bi-synod process was nothing more than a “theological” disagreement between two German theological schools of thought. Both schools are grounded in the Nouvelle Théologie neo-Modernists school branch developed by the Heretical Clericalist Karl Rahner S.J.

Here is how we described Cd. Kaspers role in this affair: (emphasis added)

Which brings us back to Cardinal Kasper. What we see is in essence a figure who spent his whole life promoting a theological/philosophical school of thought that time had passed by. He knows that Rahnerism has passed its due date, which is why he is so terrified of a Schism. In other words, he wants to hedge his bets, unlike that other Modernist dimwhit in white. But I digress… Instead of moving on with the zeitgemäß of the times, Kasper is trying to keep the Rahnerist hope alive. And he is doing it with sheer will.

This is where we pick up today.

The present day theological debate which is at the root of the bi-Synod and specifically the SYNOD CRISIS is in essence one between the hard-line Rahnerists and what can be termed a reformed Rahnerist fellow traveler. The hard-line Rahnerist, Cardinal Kasper is the contemporary “keeper of the IDEOLOGICAL Rahnerist flame”. Benedict XVI in turn, is the former Rahner contemporary (see here) whose criticism of Rahnerism and the Second Vatican Council over the years, has earned him an irrational hatred from the Rahnerist hardliners in general and from the hotbed of contemporary Rahnerism, which is the German Bishops’ Conference.

On an aside, we have dealt with Rahner and the Rahnerist network in two posts titled Dei Power Ball (see here) and The Network (see here).

Back to the subject at hand. To illustrate the emotional investment that the Rahnerists who control the German Bishops’ Conference have in hating Benedict, a story related by Michael Davies helps explain:

MD: Yes. He [Kasper] and his fellow German, Lehmann, were made Cardinals. You see there is no chance of Cardinal Ratzinger being made Pope. The job of Kasper and Lehmann is to go to the conclave and stop anyone Ratzinger supports from being made Pope. (see here)

Which brings us to the issue of how Rahner figures into the big picture with respect to the present decisions made by both the Heretical Clericalists and the Secretariat.

If you recall dear reader, from our post titled The Real Jorge Bergoglio? (see here), we noted the following passage pertaining to the situation at the Argentinian seminaries during the time that the young Mr Jorge Bergoglio was in attendance:

Take Bergoglio, for example. His studies amount to nothing substantial. The Jesuits over here have no professors worthy of the name, the subjects were tossed about in an un-scholarly manner, the philosophy would never be properly taught (and, it would only be crassly digested Suárez in the best of cases). The theology seats had been all but captured by badly trained Jesuits who were prone to repeat the last of Teilhard’s work, or Rahner’s, when not divulging the Liberation Theology’s tenets (the Nouvelle Theologie never made it over here, few people could read French or German, and St. Thomas was all but perfectly ignored).

Given the above, one would not be taking a large leap by inferring that the young Bergoglio was not only introduced to Rahner, but likewise overexposed to the German Heretical Clericalist’s work. Remember, there is a lot of it out there.

So let us see if we can find any evidence that connects Francis and the Rahnerists.

First connection comes from the Kasper groups lineage. From our The Network post, the following is written:

Fifty years after Vatican II, Rahner’s shadow is hovering once again over the Catholic Church, making his voice heard in the pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte.

Furthermore, we have been able to gain an insight into the mindset of Francis from one of his closest co-workers and his personal ghost writer, the Titular Bishop of Tiberunia, Archbishop Victor Manuel “the kissing expert” Fernandez. We profiled the Archbishop in our post titled The Loose Canon, where he gave the following answer to the question of whether Francis can live away from the Vatican: (see here – emphasis added)

Would it be possible to have a pope without Vatican or away from the Vatican?

“The Roman Curia is not an essential structure. The pope could even go and live away from Rome, have a dicastery in Rome and another one in Bogota, and perhaps link-up by teleconference with liturgical experts that live in Germany. Gathered around the pope, in a theological sense, is the College of Bishops in order to serve the people.”

I did not appreciate the “fuller” implications of this answer during that time. But when I started to look at the decision tree diagram, and looking for evidence to support the HYPOTHESIS that Francis is in fact “trying to blow up the Vatican”, i.e. trying to destroy the Church as Our Lord founded it, this piece of the puzzle came into place.

The notion that Francis can “live away from Rome” and teleconference with theology experts “liturgical experts that live in Germany” is pure and unadulterated Rahnerism.

Allow me to explain.

One of Rahner’s much cited theories is about the development of the post-conciliar Church. In this respect, Rahner is definitely in the Bologna School camp and a forefather of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” paradigm. Here is now he sees the post-conciliar Church developing: (see here – emphasis added)

In addition to the lingering effects of his work during Vatican II on the post-conciliar Church, Rahner would continue to make contributions to the Church through his ideas and writings. In 1979 Rahner wrote an essay in which he discussed the lasting effects of Vatican II and its newly recognized role as a world church. In his essay Rahner divided church history into three periods. The first period was “that short period of Jewish Christianity (A.D. 30-49) when Christianity was proclaimed within one culture only: Israel” (McCarthy, 64). The second period was a period in which the gospel “was proclaimed not in Jewish culture but in the Roman-Hellenistic culture in European and, eventually North American culture and civilization. Christianity and western culture were goods exported to the cultures of Africa, Latin America, India, and the Orient” (McCarthy, 64). Finally, the third period emerged with the beginning of Vatican II when the “church appeared for the first time as a world church in a fully official way. The church had found ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture” (McCarthy, 64).

And then here is how this summary of this seminal Rahner essay ends:

Rahner said that the signs of this change were obvious. He pointed out that the council had “brought together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures; it advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; it highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; it recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; it expressed an opening to the world and historical consciousness; it made the first truly positive statements about other religions; and it produced the document on religious liberty” (McCarthy, 64-65). Rahner concluded his essay, however, with a warning. Despite the changes that had already been brought about in the Church, Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento” (McCarthy, 65).

Concluding, what we see is in the above text is in essence a road map of the Francis pontificate. Just in this one paragraph, we see the mainstays of what we call the Buenos Aires School, i.e. finding “ways to formulate and incarnate the gospel within the traditions and customs of each culture”; bringing “together indigenous representatives of all the world’s countries and cultures”; “advocated the vernacular in the liturgy; highlighted the authority of bishops in their dioceses; recognized the autonomy and independence of regional or national churches; expressed an opening to the world; historical consciousness and positive statements about other religions” and right down to the “pro-homosexual positions of some of his followers, younger than Lehmann and Kasper, like Cardinal Archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx and Archbishop of Chieti, Bruno Forte”.

Sound familiar?

But that is not the scary part. The scary part is this:

Rahner believed that the church still had many steps to take in becoming de-Europeanized and de-Romanized. He felt that if the Church did not take these steps “it would remain a western church and, in the final analysis, betray the meaning of Vatican II and aggiornamento”

And if there is one thread that runs consistently and constantly through the Francis pontificate, it is the de-Romanisizing and de-Europeanizing of the Roman Catholic Church.

But what is even scarier, is this: if the decision tree diagram and analysis in our present post titled Kasper’s Triumph Of The Will is correct, the implications are as follows:

while the hardline Rahnerist went and cut a deal with the Catholic Synod Fathers and Cardinal Muller in order to NOT PRECIPITATE A SCHISM,

Francis’ actions of submitting the Instrumentum Laboris in the last-minute, in Italian only to the Synod Fathers, must be viewed as follows:

FRANCIS, was attempting to provoke the Synod Fathers into rejecting his proposed FINAL RELATIO, intended on provoking a FAILED SYNOD and create an environment which would lead to a SCHISM.

In other words…

we have a SUICIDE BOMBER Problem in the VATICAN!

Kasper’s Triumph Of The Will

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

We left off our last post on the morning of the 22nd of October 2015, in the Synod Hall where Cardinal Walter Kasper just received the proposed Final Relatio from the Synod Secretariat and realized that it was nothing more than the Instrumentum Laboris that the Secretariat had produced sometime in May of 2015. This event no doubt created a situation for Card. Kasper that we described as his very own Henry Hill moment, i.e. where “everything went sideways in a split second, and he suddenly and with extreme clarity realized that he didn’t understand anything at all except that he’s sitting at a table with a maniac.”

Today we will look at the evidence that allows us to make the above assertion.

This decisions that Cd. Walter Kasper and the Heretical Clericalists made, along with the facts presented by Giussepe Nardi, allows the careful observer to draw conclusions that will shine the light of day onto the TRUE AGENDA driving the Heretical Clericalists and the entire bi-synod process, since it was at the behest of Card. Kasper that Francis called this bi-Synod of Bishops in the first place.

So as usual, first background and facts.

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)

We know from our analysis that this was not the TRUE AGENDA of the bi-Synod, but just to drive the point home, here is Andre Gagliarducci again:

… 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.

Note bene: where we find contradictory claims, i.e. that Communion for public sinners will “re-fill” the empty German church pews, yet the public sinners represent a “small portion of believers” and this irrational (TRANSRATIONAL) position is supported with a series of opaque, almost misleading, statements, we can assume that we have a HIDDEN AGENDA at work.

So what could the TRUE AGENDA be for Card. Kasper and the German Bishops’ Conference?

This is the subject of the below post.

Initially the Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) pointed to the introduction of GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic moral doctrine and ecclesiastical law. This HYPOTHESIS was based on two premises: the first is the inordinate amount of money that the GENDER LOBBY is spending to promote GENDER IDEOLOGY globally, and second is the complete and utter obsession with what is commonly refered to as the “spirit of the times”, or zeitgemäß (which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church) of this clique of GERMAN HERETICAL CLERICALISTS. Summing up, by promoting GENDER IDEOLOGY, the German Heretical Clericalists not only tap into GENDER LOBBY funding but also get “seats at the various GLOBALIST tables”. So it is not surprising that this GENDER AGENDA is now being explicitly promoted by not only the German Bishops’ Conference but by Francis himself.

However, it appears from the information in the Eponymous Flower posts (see here and here) that there is an even DEEPER HIDDEN AGENDA at work, one that is driving Kasper, “Bling” Marx and Co.  and might go a long way to explain the TRANSRATIONAL decisions that this group made between the 22nd and 24th of October 2015. On an aside, it is the observation of these actions that caused your humble blogger his Henry Hill moment.

For clarity’s sake, I will use a decision tree diagram to provide a visual representation of this interesting phenomenon. This decision tree diagram sets out the respective players of the TRIPARTITE and their respective decisions.

What is important to observe from the above is the following:

1. Up until the 22nd of October 2015, the positions (AGENDAS) of the Secretariat (Francis) and the Heretical Clericalists (Kasper) were aligned.
2. These two groups broke rank after the 22nd of October 2015.
3. The most likely reason why these two groups broke ranks was because the Secretariat gave the Synod Fathers a proposed Final Relatio that was known to be unacceptable to the Synod Fathers.
4. If the Secretariat’s Final Relatio was brought up for a vote, the Synod Fathers would have publicly rejected this document.
5. The rejection of the Final Relatio would have caused a FAILED PAPACY.
6. A FAILED PAPACY would have had unforeseeable consequences.
7. One consequence which all sides agree on and anticipated if the situation in point 6. would have transpired, is a schism within the Catholic Church.
8. The Secretariat (Francis) did not place a large weight on whether their actions cause a schism.
9. The Heretical Clericalists (Kasper) placed a great weight on whether their actions cause a schism, and were willing to compromise in order to avoid the schism.

Therefore, from the decision tree diagram above, it is quite evident that it is the issue of Schism where Francis and the Germans part company.

So the question is why are the German’s so terrified of creating a Schism, a Schism with which they threaten the Catholic Church on a regular basis? (see here) Please recall that this “new opening” is supposed being orchestrated in order to bring in the “new VII springtime” that will fill the pews and set up the Marxist (as in Reinhard “Bling”) “great age of Christendom which lies not behind us, but before us!”

So in this case, it would be reasonable to expect that the Heretical Clericalists would make good on their “Germany is not a branch of Rome” threat and allow the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II” to usher in this new age of “Christendom which lies not behind us, but before us!”

But yet, the actions of the German Heretical Clericalists are quite different then those that one would expect based on the positions that which they publicly expose. So why is that?

First of all, we see that the entire Synod Crisis that developed on the 22nd of October 2015 had its epicenter in the Circulus Germanicus. To be more precise, the entire CRISIS played itself out inside the Circulus Germanicus. Both protagonists, the diplomat and the authority figure who resolved (allegedly) the CRISIS were German.

The second important feature of this CRISIS is that it played itself out on the “theological” stage. What is interesting to note is that by designating Kasper as the head of the Heretical Clericalists (not a lead player from the German Episcopate), we begin to see the “theological” stage where three of the four main characters are German theologians, i.e. Cd. Muller, Cd. Kasper and Benedict XVI, while the emissary who reconciles the warring factions also being German i.e. Cd. Shonborn.

So from the above facts, we are beginning to see a clearer picture of what in fact played out. What we see is an IDEOLOGUE, i.e. Card. Kasper who is a representative of an IDEOLOGICAL School. Let’s call this the Rahnerist Nouvelle Théologie School. Kasper’s lifes work can be seen as nothing more than to promote this IDEOLOGICAL school. This IDEOLOGICAL school in turn is needed by the neo-Modernist German bishops since it gives them a philisophical base on which they can function. The reason that the German Heretical Clericalists need Rahnerism is that its “something” (if only because there is so much of it) that gives the German Clericalists a basis in which to justify their actions. But the problem with Rahnerism, just like with the wider neo-Modernist movement is as follows: (see here)

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world..

And the dying German Catholic Church is visible for all to see!

So taking all this into account, what most likely played out in those fateful days of 22nd to 24nd of October 2015 is that Cd. Shonborn came to Benedict XVI, at the behest of Card. Kasper with a plea. The plea most likely had to do with Benedict XVI, as the preeminent theologian and philosopher of our age, to provide the Circulus Germanicus the proper “Modernist Magic Words” that would “difuse the Kasper bomb”. The solution needed was on the one hand, to allow cd. Muller and the Catholic Synod Fathers the language that would not change doctrine, while allowing Kasper and the Heretical Clericalists the language to save face.

But Benedict XVI’s motivation was not to help out his fellow countrymen who created this two-year nightmare that spun out of control. Benedict’s motivation most likely revolved around saving the institution of the papacy. And with a lunatic like Francis, one which ascended to the throne due to an unwise decision by Benedict, it was the least that he could do in this situation.

Which brings us back to Cardinal Kasper. What we see is in essence a figure who spent his whole life promoting a theological/philosophical school of thought that time had passed by. He knows that Rahnerism has passed its due date, which is why he is so terrified of a Schism. In other words, he wants to hedge his bets, unlike that other Modernist dimwhit in white. But I digress… Instead of moving on with the zeitgemäß of the times, Kasper is trying to keep the Rahnerist hope alive. And he is doing it with sheer will.

In fact, if due to his insistance on calling this bi-Synod, Kasper gets Francis, who came into contact with Rahnerism while at the seminary (see here), to act out that which Rahner espoused, it will be because of one thing and one thing only…

Kasper’s Triumph of the Will!

I will end here for today.

Kasper’s Henry Hill Moment

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, Andrea Gagliarducci, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Card. Tagle, Cardinal Burke, cardinal Walter Kasper, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Eponymous Flower blog, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Giuseppe Nardi, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Just Call Me Jorge blog, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Before we start today, a disclaimer.  The scene above contains vulgar language.

And now to the matter at hand.

More “fog of war lifting” coming by way of Giuseppe Nardi and the Eponymous Flower blog in today’s post. (see here) There are a lot of data points in it, so we will write a few posts on this subject matter. The picture that is emerging from this material is not pretty, but very informative. But before I get into the analysis, an introduction to frame the context of what transpired in the Synod hall on the morning of the Thursday, the 22nd of October 2015 is in order.

And as it just so happened, I ran across a passage written on one of the financial markets blogs (see here ) that I think represents the situation in the Synod Hall on that Thursday morning, at the moment when the Synod Fathers received the proposed Final Relatio from the Secretariat and started reading it.

A further reason that I used this passage and video is that it fits in so well with the narrative that is emerging from the entire by-synod process and the Stealth Sex Synod™ in particular. The scene can be viewed in the video at the beginning of the post. Once again, excuse the vulgar language. Here is the relevant passage:

I think we are all going to have a Henry Hill “Goodfellas” moment, where we think that we understand the conversation going on around us, where we think that we’re engaged with our social system in the usual way … and then everything will go sideways in a split second, and we will suddenly and with extreme clarity realize that we don’t understand anything at all except that we’re sitting at a table with a maniac.”

The part of the passage “where we think that we understand the conversation going on around us, where we think that we’re engaged with our social system in the usual way”, explains pretty accurately a visceral feeling that I have had for quite some time now with respect to both the bi-synods as well as the entire Francis pontificate.

Which brings me to the latest Giuseppe Nardi post. After reading this post, titled Will There be a Post-Synodal Letter?, I had what can be described as a minor Henry Hill moment. It was at this time that I suddenly, and with extreme clarity realized just how big of a maniac we are dealing with when we analyze Francis.

Furthermore, from the Nardi text, it would also appear that I am not the only one. It would also appear as if Cardinal Walter Kasper had his very own, and full blown Henry Hill “Goodfellas” moment on that fateful Thursday in October. I will explain this below.

From the information contained in this Eponymous Flower post, it is confirmed that there were in fact THREE FACTIONS engaging at the bi-synods. Here is how this “TRIPARTITE” was alluded to in our post from yesterday titled HOMO-LOBBY Aborts Francis’ Succession Line?. (see here) Here is the relevant passage:

If it is TRUE that through Benedict’s intervention with Muller, the compromise was reached at the request of the Schonborn, i.e. the GENDER LOBBY, it would also suggest that Francis was not part of the process. Therefore, it would demonstrate that Francis is seen as a side-show (Mundabor would call it a CLOWN ACT), while the real decisions that impact the Universal Church are made behind his back. Which is highly probable.

With the new information supplied by Giuseppe Nardi, we can confirm the existence of this TRIPARTITE and can now identify the individuals who led the respective parties and who had the decision making authority. We already knew that Francis was the decision maker behind the Secretariat and Cardinal Muller was the decision maker in the Catholic Synod Fathers. The new information in the Nardi post indicates that it was actually Cardinal Kasper (not Cd. “Bling” Marx” or Cd. Shonborn – who was just an alleged “emissary” to BXVI if the Ansaldo account is true) who had the decision making authority in the Heretical Clericalist group.

Furthermore, we can now infer the real intentions, i.e. TRUE AGENDA of the Kasper led Heretical Clericalists from the decisions that they made during this SYNOD CRISIS that ensued on that fateful Thursday morning, the 22nd of October 2015. Here is how the general situation unfolded.

• The Secretariat Group had received the 13 CARDINAL LETTER on the 5th of October 2015 which was the opening day of the Synod deliberations.
• The 13 CARDINAL LETTER  not only stunned the Secretariat, but forced them to agree to publish the Final Relatio which they would receive from the Synod and to be allowed a vote on the Final Relatio on Saturday the 24th of October 2015.
• The initial Final Relatio document proposed by Synod Fathers with amendments, which was proposed to the Secretariat, was completely ignored by the Secretariat.
• On the morning of the 22nd of October 2015, the Secretariat gave back to the Synod Fathers an un-amended version of the Instrumentum Laboris, which the Secretariat then tried to force onto the Synod Fathers as the final document, i.e. Final Relatio.
• This Instrument Laboris as Final Relatio was then going to be voted on, on Saturday the 24th of October 2015.
• The forced vote on the Final Relatio was also a consequence of the 13 Cardinal Letter.
• If the Final Relatio would have been voted on in the form proposed by the Secretariat, it would not have received the mandatory 2/3 majority.
• A rejection of the Final Relatio by the Synod Fathers would amount to a “public disavowal of Pope Francis” by the Synod Fathers.

Therefore, the situation whereby the Secretariat trying to force the un-amended Instrumentum Laboris onto the Synod Fathers as the Final Relatio, created the SYNOD CRISIS.

Here is how Nardi explains the situtation:

The Pope and his closest collaborators have improvised, since the letter of Thirteen and they have pretty badly improvised, wanting to impose the Laboris Instrumentum virtually unchanged on the synod as a final report.

The ramifications of allowing this SYNOD CRISIS to go horribly wrong were as follows:

At this point, the Synod would almost have failed and therefore was only likely to emerge for special observers, but not the public is for this pontificate like none yet previously in recent Church history.

In other words, if a vote was taken on the Instrumentum Laboris, this vote would have failed. And a FAILED PAPACY, especially on a fundamental article of Faith, i.e. the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Marriage would have been brought about by a “public disavowal of Pope Francis” by the Synod Fathers. (see here) The failure of this vote would have created the FAILED PAPACY over a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Faith. In other words, the Synod Fathers would have rejected a papal document that was contrary to the Catholic faith, i.e. a FORMALLY HERETICAL document. Their rejection could only have been understood as a rejection of a FORMALLY HERETICAL document ( a document not conforming to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle) that was presented to them by the Secretariat, i.e. Francis, and was subsequently publicly rejected “for all to see”. It would have been “something” that has not happened in recent Church history, i.e. post-conciliar Church.

Or to put it another way, the “new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II” chickens would have come home to roost!

A further implication of this passage is that on that Thursday morning, the Catholic Synod Fathers group and the Heretical Clericalists group both understood the ramifications for not only the Universal Church, but also for what we lovingly call the Novus Ordo sect on this blog, and the gravity of the situation in which the Secretariat had put the Synod Fathers, by trying to force the Instrumentum Laboris as the final synod document.

As for the head of the Heretical Clericalist group, Cardinal Walter Kasper, on that fateful Thursday morning, after beginning to read the Instrumentum Laboris disguised as the Final Relatio that the Secretariat wanted to bring up for a vote, he no doubt “encountered”  a moment when “everything went sideways in a split second, and he suddenly and with extreme clarity realized that he didn’t understand anything at all except that he’s sitting at a table with a maniac.”

And it was probably then, in this moment of extreme clarity, or what could be termed Cardinal Kasper’s “Goodfellas” Henry Hill moment, that he must have realized the sheer scale of the maniacal behavior that he and the Heretical Clericalists were engaging with, when engaging with the “social system” of Francis and the clerics that stand behind his pontificate.

I will leave off here today and pick up this subject matter in my next post.

Trapped, Like Rats

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we go straight to the subject at hand and the Roberto de Mattei article.

In yesterday’s post titled Francis’ Hate Speech (see here), the following passage appears:

The reason that “homosexual marriage” was not specifically referred to in the document was due to the brilliant strategy of the Catholic Synod Fathers from the national episcopate conferences. They were very well prepared to counter the heretical clericalist’s arguments. They continuously forced the heretical clericalists to retreat to fall back positions. One can say that the Catholic Synod Fathers cornered the heretical clericalists on the issue of Holy Communion for serial adulterers. Excuse the digression, but I will go into this in the next post, since it is one of critical importance.

So today we will lay out how the Catholic Synod Fathers trapped the heretical clericalist rats.

The first thing that is critical to understand is that the synod’s TRUE AGENDA was to change Catholic doctrine on aberro-sexual behavior. The reason that the titular theme was about “the family” was that individuals with this aberro-sexual affliction make up a statistically insignificant subset of the general population. By all accounts, it is less than 1% of the general population. But I digress… This in turn made is very hard to not only argue a general rule (doctrinal in this case) that would change Catholic teaching, but moreover makes it an outright absurdity to call a synod of bishops to address this matter. So a SUBTERFUGE (the use of tricks especially to hide, avoid, or get something) was needed, and “the family” was chosen.

On an aside, please note that Catholic doctrine by definition teaches that which is true always and everywhere. Therefore, doctrine addresses general situations and defines norms. That which we termed as “omnium,et invisibilium”. (see here) Exceptions to the general rule (norm) are identified as exceptions (deviations from the general norm) and then treated on a case by case basis. These exceptions must conform to the general principle (norm), but by no means can they be defined as a general norm in and of themselves. The reason being that they are not that which is true always and everywhere. With the aberro-sexual afflictions, what is being attempted by the GENDER LOBBY and the heretical clericalists who promote this GENDER AGENDA, is to present this aberration (deviancy) as a general rule.

Back to the subject at hand…

The next thing to understand is that since “the family” was chosen as the “theme” of the bi-synod, the focus had to be diverted from issues faced by the “the family” per se, to pathologies in “familial structures”. Please keep in mind that the biggest fear of Francis and the heretical clericalists was that the bi-synod would just reaffirm Familiaris Consortio. This is the reason why neither Familiar Consortio was mentioned in the first part of the synod (had to be forcefully introduced by Synod Fathers on JPII Familiaris Consortio/Blue Thursday -see here) nor were representatives of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family invited to participate at the Secret Synod of 2014. (see here) And to finish this point, since divorced and remarried “c” atholics make up a larger part of the respective Catholic and “c”atholic populations (more statistically significant), it was easier to promote the aberro-sexual agenda under the guise of “accompaniment of pathological families”.

As for how this SUBTERFUGE ended, here is what was written in our last post:

Or to put it another way, Francis called a synod on the Family, so the Synod Fathers GAVE Francis a synod on the family. Pathological family, but family none the less.

If you think about it for a second, by choosing the subject of “pathologies in “familial structures” to cover for promoting a aberro-sexual agenda, the heretical clericalists by default admitted that aberro-sexual affliction is a pathology. Chalk another one up to the real “God of surprises”. But I digress…

So now that we have the background, how did the Catholic Synod Fathers play their hand?

First they made it known that the HOMO AGENDA was off the table.

Next they focused on the issue of Communion for public sinners, i.e. divorced and remarried and those living in concubinage.

Next, they made it known that the Kasperian penitential path was a non starter
Here is how George Weigel explains this process: (see here)

At the end of the Synod’s second week, this local-option proposal seemed to be the fallback position of those who had once championed the “Kasper Proposal” on the admission of the divorced and civilly remarried to Holy Communion, but who now realise that the Kasper Proposal is only favoured by a distinct minority within Synod-2015.

What we see is the initial “penitential path” was shut down by non acceptance of a vast majority of the Synod Fathers. Therefore, the fallback position was the defined as the “local option” position. In other words, the local bishops could make the call about admitting public sinners to Communion. However, this “local option” also met the disapproval of the Catholic Synod Fathers. Here is how this option went down in flames: (see here)

The final report does not endorse “Local-Option Catholicism,” ie, the devolution of authority in these matters to regional or national conferences of bishops, or to local bishops or pastors.

The defeat of this post-conciliar novelty then forced the heretical clericalists to go for the “inviolability of conscience option”. And this is where the new FrancisBishop Blase “Eyelashes” Cupich (see here) made an idiot of himself. Wanting to pay back the favor to Francis for making him the Archbishop of Chicago, he came out and claimed that the “individual conscience is inviolable” and should be the defining criteria of whether a public sinner should receive Communion, (see here) to the mirth of pro vobis et pro multis.

Aside from its comedic value, appreciated by all properly formed Catholics and all other rationally thinking people with a minimal inkling of common sense, what needs to be mentioned here is that this was one of the fall back positions at the secret synod meeting of clerics and journalists in Rome in May of this year. (see here) Therefore, it could inferred that the clerical heretics also came prepared.

But unfortunately, this “inviolability of conscience” was so absurd, that it needed to be teamed with an “internal forum” mechanism to make it kosher. Yet, this also didn’t sway the Synod Fathers. Here is how this one ended: (see here)

The final report makes clear that “conscience,” properly understood, is a rightly informed conscience, one formed in and by the truth; which is to say, “conscience” is not simply an expression of a person’s will. The statements on conscience in #84-86 of the final report should be read in light of that affirmation.

Which brings us to that fateful Thursday which Roberto de Mattei reported of the impasse that reigned at the Synod of Bishops and threatened to give Francis a defeat at the Stealth Sex Synod™.

In a post that appeared today at the Eponymous Flower blog, (see here) Giuseppe Nardi does more “fog of war lifting” and discloses how the final “cessation of hostilities” was most likely negotiated between Benedict XVI and the homo-heretical clericalist and former Ratzinger student, one Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. I will deal with this issue in a subsequent post.

So now to explain how the heretical clericalist rats were trapped.

By forcing the Stealth Sex Synod™ to focus entirely on “the pathological family” and the communion for public adulterers specifically, and by forcing the heretical clericalists to withdrawal into their fallback positions, each subsequent fall back position being weaker, not to mention more exotic than the previous one, the Catholic Synod Fathers were able to reduce the final report to an incoherent pile of gobbledygook. (see here)

Here is the pertinent point and I am going to take it step by step:

The Relatio, doesn’t affirm the right for the divorced and remarried to receive Communion (and thus the right to adultery),

This is win for the Catholics. Furthermore:

but it denies the Church, de facto, the right to publically define as adulterous, the condition of the divorced and remarried, leaving the responsibility for evaluation [of this] to the conscience of the pastors and the divorced and remarried themselves.

This is also a win for the Catholics and not just for the comedic value from the intrinsically disordered condition known as “theological schizophrenia”.

How so you might ask?

Simple. By not allowing the Church to define something that is defined by Our Lord, the heretical clericalists have detached themselves from the part of the Faith that comes from the written Word. On a side, just think about what that does for interreligious dialogue with the proddies, whose “faith” comes exclusively from sole Scriptura. But I digress…

Furthermore, the post-conciliar Church has gone down the path of Formal Heresy. Albeit implied for the time being, since the final Relatio is only a consultative document.

Just to remind you dear reader of why this is so, here is what Our Lord said: (Matt 19)

And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

And it is adultery because:

Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Think about it for a second, the Church that Our Lord founded now CAN NOT DEFINE and TEACH that which Our Lord DEFINED AND TAUGHT.

But it gets even better. If you read the de Mattei analysis closely, what this new Modernist interpretation of the written Word does is it redefines the Sacrament of Marriage from being an OBJECTIVE ACT entered into publicly and which can be OBJECTIVELY verified, i.e. witnesses, document, etc., into one that is SUBJECTIVE, i.e. subject to the “discernment” of the conscience of the parties involved. Who is to say now that a marriage entered into in the Novus Ordo church was valid? Furthermore, this marriage is non verifiable. This new marriage as SUBJECTIVE ACT can’t be verified since only God can know whether the individuals intended to enter into the marriage.

What this then means is that not only the Sacrament of Marriage, but also that of Holy Orders are subject to the “unknowable and unverifiable” intentions of the respective parties who are entering into the respective Sacraments. This new situation, if it is formalized and promulgated by Francis in the recently announced exhortation, will create a situation that is one of complete chaos.

Please bear in mind that it is one thing to get a FrancisQuickyDivorce which was caused by “etc.” and quite another where it is not known whether the marriage existed in the first place.

Even the protestants will not be able to get onboard with this new “sacramental theology” since even they base their marital theology on an OBJECTIVE ACT, with witnesses, supporting documents and the rest of it.

Therefore, by going down the rabbit hole of their Modernist theology, the heretical clericalists have trapped themselves like the rats that they are. They are cornered and all they can do is retreat.

Can’t wait to see the band aid that they come up with in this upcoming exhortation…

And the response from the “theological structurer” at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

So like the old saying goes, stay tuned sports fans…

Post scriptum

Going through the above process, just think of how much easier it would have been if the heretical clericalists were allowed to go down the “changing” discipline (some value in aberro-sexuality) route as opposed to the “changing doctrine” (Sacrament) route?

Francis’ Hate Speech

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Ambiguity, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Francis Effect, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Law of Unintended Consequences, Markus Günther, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, Pagan Christians, pathological, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roberto de Mattei, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s "theological structuring", s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s optics, s Pope Francis, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Synod Walkout Petition, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, The Radical Catholic blog, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C

Today we continue with our theme of WHO WON at the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015 .

But first some background.

With more information coming out of what actually happened at the Stealth Sex Synod™ of 2015, the fog of war is beginning to lift. This lifting in turn is providing your humble blogger with more data points, which are then input into our OBJECTIVE Pierce/Ockham pragmatic methodology. (see here) And as my regular readers know by now, the resulting, and as Cardinal “Bling” Marx would say: “fuller”, HYPOTHESIS that is produced with the addition of the new information provides us with a better understanding of what in fact was the TRUE AGENDA driving not only the bi-synod process, but the Francis papacy itself.

As to our HYPOTHESIS of the TRUE AGENDA behind the bi-synodal process, which we initially laid out in our post titled The Synod of the Three Paragraphs (see here) on the 18th of December 2014, our analytical model has established that it was about nothing more than the following:

PURGE THE TERM “INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED”, WHICH OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBES ABERRO-SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR, FROM CATHOLIC MORAL DOCTRINE AND CODE OF CANON LAW.

Can’t repeat this enough.

The counter argument to our HYPOTHESIS was that the agenda was in fact about allowing public adulterers and individuals living in concubinage, access to Communion. Briefly, the argument was that since it was the clerics from the German Bishops Episcopate who were pushing this reform, it had to do with arresting the disintegration of the German “c”atholic membership, i.e. the population pool that pays the notorious Kirchensteuer. It is assumed that these German “c”atholics are abandoning the German Church because the Church forbids those among them who have irregular situations from receiving the breakfast “c”ommunion wafer with the rest of the pew sitters. And since the Germans are people who follow the rules, or as Francis would say extremely Pharasiaical”, they will not go to “c”ommunion if the Catholic Church states that they can’t. And due to this situation, underlying the Marx & co., who control the German Episcopate, the German church is losing members and by extension the contributions that eventually make their way into those contributions pursuant to Canon 1271 of the Code of Canon Law.

The rebuttal to the above counter argument can best be summed up in a passage from an article that appeared on December 29, 2014 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, written by one Markus Günther. (see here)

On an aside, if you dear reader notice, this article came out on the 29th of December 2014, or 11 days after we published our initial findings on the TRUE AGENDA behind the bi-synodal process on the 18th of December 2014. But I digress…

Here is how the rebuttal to the counter argument is stated: (emphasis added)

But why are the seekers no longer finding guidance? Why are the supply and demand no longer jibing? The most popular answer to this question is: because the Church is no longer relevant to the times. She must conform more closely to the realities of the lives of modern people. Initially, that sounds plausible, but under closer scrutiny reveals itself to be idiocy. For the Evangelical church in Germany has done nearly everything which is being demanded from the Catholic Church in order to become more relevant to the times: women priests, the elimination of celibacy, liberality in moral theology, the complete acceptance of homosexuals and the divorced. If these were the real reasons for the malaise of Christendom, the Protestants should be far better off than the Catholics. But that simply isn’t the case. A second error in thinking is introduced by the popular buzzword “relevant to the times” [German: zeitgemäß, which can mean “modern,” “suitable,” or even “appropriate,” and often carries all of these shades when applied to the Church]: Wherever the Church does not base herself upon timeless, incontrovertible truth, she reveals herself to be purely man-made. Political programs should be “relevant to the times,” entertainment programming, too; but a religion must take command of absolute truths – or it is no religion at all.

Idiocy indeed!

And since the heretical clericalists among the German bishops who are pushing the HIDDEN AGENDA don’t live in a vacuum and are not idiots, their AGENDA must be driven by other factors. Furthermore, since they know exactly how the situation looks on the side of the protestant sects, if for no other reason than that they have been for the last 50 years continuously “dialoging” with them, it CANNOT be the “attractiveness” of this protestant “theology of death” that is driving their actions. And it also can’t be… what could be termed a “friendly merger”, since adopting a failed ecclesiastical model from the protestants will just lead to the German “c”atholic church’s disintegration likewise.

I will leave this sub theme for a future post. Now back to the subject at hand.

Which brings us up to date and to the Roberto de Mattei article that appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog. (see here) For the record, de Mattei hold the position that everyone lost, yet if there is a winner it would be the conservatives. Here is how de Mattei states why the conservatives have won:

…the conservatives have won, since the document doesn’t contain an explicit reference to Communion for the divorced [and remarried] and rejects “homosexual marriage” and the gender theory.

The reason that “homosexual marriage” was not specifically referred to in the document was due to the brilliant strategy of the Catholic Synod Fathers from the national episcopate conferences. They were very well prepared to counter the heretical clericalist’s arguments. They continuously forced the heretical clericalists to retreat to fall back positions. One can say that the Catholic Synod Fathers cornered the heretical clericalists on the issue of Holy Communion for serial adulterers. Excuse the digression, but I will go into this in the next post, since it is one of critical importance.

But back to the subject at hand…

Here is how de Mattei explains the situation on the 22nd of October 2015 or the Friday before the Saturday vote:

To the great surprise of the Synod Fathers, the text consigned to them on Thursday evening was only in Italian, with the absolute prohibition of communicating it, not only to the press, but also to the 51 auditors and the other participants in the assembly. The text did not take into any account the 1355 amendments proposed over the course of the preceding three weeks, and substantially reproposed the implantation of Instrumentum laboris, including the paragraphs that had roused the strongest criticism in the Hall: the one on homosexuality and the other on the divorced and remarried. Discussions were fixed for the following morning, with the possibility of preparing new amendments that night only, on a text presented in a language mastered by only part of the Fathers. But on the morning of October 23rd, Pope Francis, who had always followed the work carefully, found himself faced with an unexpected rejection of the document edited by the commission.

What is important to observe from the above text is that the “homosexuality” paragraph was still in that Thursday text. Now please keep in mind that this “working text” supposedly represents a synthesis of what had been discussed at the Stealth Sex Synod™ for almost three weeks.

Let that sink in for a second.

Yet, the pro-sodomist forces that Francis brought in as his personal delegates to the Synod were complaining throughout the Synod that the “homosexuality” was completely neglected in the synod small group discussions. Here is how one proponent of the HOMO AGENDA, a Bishop Peter Doyle put it: (see here)

The bishop, one of two synod fathers from England, said: “The majority of synod fathers are not considering this to be the main issue in their own situation and although the issues have been raised occasionally, they’ve been put in a siding.

Just to put this HOMO AGENDA and its proponents into context. Francis appointed 45 delegates of the aggregate 300, which represents 15% of the Synod Fathers. These FrancisDelegates were there to promote the HOMO AGENDA, but could not even bring it to a discussion. Irrespective of the daily Fr. Rosica spin. In other words, the Catholic Synod Fathers completely shut down any discussion of the HOMO AGENDA, which we have identified as the TRUE AGENDA of the entire bi-synodal process.

Or to put it another way, Francis called a synod on the Family, so the Synod Fathers GAVE Francis a synod on the family. Pathological family, but family non the less.

And it is understanding the above, that one can than gain an appreciation for the HATE and VITRIOL that dominated Francis’s speech at the close of the Stealth Sex Synod™ of Bishops of 2015. As Roberto de Mattei explains:

So, among other things, the Pope said on Saturday evening: [the Synod] “was also about laying closed hearts bare which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families. […]It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.” Hard words, which express bitterness and dissatisfaction: certainly not those of a victor.

One could write books analyzing what is WRONG with the above, but I digress…

Which leads one the ask the following question:

If the pope is the supreme monarch and can create magisterial teaching that is binding on the entire church, and doesn’t have to listen to the Synod Fathers, what is there to stop him from creating a magisterial document and promulgating it to the universal church?

Well, for those who have been following this blog already know the answer to that question.

For those who are new to the blog, what, or rather who is stopping Francis from promulgating his FORMAL HERESY onto the Universal Church is the…

THEOLOGICAL STRUCTURER

For those who don’t know who that it, you will need to read the post titled Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring! which you can find here.

For the rest, we will pick up this theme in our next post.