T -140: The Long And Winding Road – Part I

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, Berlin Wall, Bolsheviks, Boston Globe, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Catholic Church, communism, corrupt information, corruption, David Gibson, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, From Rome blog, German Bishops' Conference, Glastnost, Global Warming, Great Cardinal, Helmut Kohl, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, John XXXIII, Joseph Ratzinger, JP II, Kirchensteuer, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Paul VI, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, PewSitter Blog, Polls, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "alternative realities", Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, TeamBergoglio, Tradition, US Bishops' Conference, Vatican, Vatican II, Virtual Realty

Today is the 136th day from the start of what this blog has designated as the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015™. There has been a lot of new information coming out into the public domain recently, directly related to the afore-mentioned synod, so today we take one step back and incorporate this new material into our analysis. Therefore I will try to incorporate this new information into a series of posts, so as not to run long on any one particular sub-topic and to keep the analysis focused.

Just to demonstrate how drastically the EXPLICIT AGENDA of Francis, his hand-picked team of clerics in charge of the Synod, i.e. TeamFrancis and the German Bishops’ Conference leadership who are promoting this AGENDA has changed since Francis called for the Synod on the Family, we go to the very beginning. It needs to be pointed out that at the outset of this process, the “advertized” end result of this bi-synodal process was to be an apostolic exhortation along the lines of an “updated” Familiaris Consortio.

The first that was heard about this Extraordinary Synod of Bishops was in early October 2013, or 6 months after Francis was enthroned. The purpose of convening this Synod was as follows: (see here)

Today, Pope Francis called for an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops that will be held from October 5-18th, 2014 at the Vatican. The synod will reflect on the theme “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of the Evangelization.”

The original problem identified for which the Synod was convened was described as follows:

It is important that the Church move forward together as a community, in reflection and prayer, and decide on common pastoral orientations dealing with the most important aspects of our life together – particularly on the family – under the guidance of the Pope and the bishops. The convening of this Extraordinary Synod is a clear indication of this direction.

The stated goal of the Synod was as follows:

During that meeting, Pope Francis stated that the matter would be discussed with the Council of Cardinals, which took place last week in the Vatican, as well as in the next Synod of Bishop. “A synodal approach should be taken to study this problem.

Just so we are clear, the “study” of this “problem” related to “important aspects of our life together – particularly on the family”. The result of this bi-synodal PROCESS would be a papal document along the lines of an postsynodal apostolic exhortation along the lines of “updated Familiaris Consortio”.

So this is how the process was billed.

Just to demonstrate how “off the radar” was any issue related to changing Catholic doctrine with respect to “objective intrinsic disorders” collectively knows as aberro-sexuality was at this time, here is how Sandro Magister described the interventions at the Secret Synod of 2014: (see here)

Homosexuality was one of the most controversial questions at the recent extraordinary synod on the family, as proven by the vast difference between the paragraph dedicated to it in the final “Relatio” and the three paragraphs of the previous “Relatio” halfway through the discussion.

And what was the basis for this “vast difference”? It was as follows:

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

Archbishop of Kuching John Ha Tiong Hock, president of the episcopal conference of Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei, referred to the passage of the interview with Francis in “La Civiltà Cattolica” in which the pope urges the Church to mature and reformulate its judgments on the understanding that the man of today has of himself – including on the matter of homosexuality, the archbishop specified – with the same willingness for change that it demonstrated in the past in radically changing its judgments on slavery:

And just to demonstrate the impact that these three individuals had on the mid-term Relatio, here is how Magister described it:

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

The inferences that one should extract from the above are as follows:

– Since only 3 of the more than 200 participants even raised the issue, the Synod bishops were not prepared to discuss issues relating to changing Catholic teaching regarding aberro-sexuality,

– Francis had to lay the groundwork for these three interventions since there is NO MAGISTERIAL TEACHING in existence that would support the types of changes that TeamFrancis wanted to institute,

– The Synod bishops recognized that the only supporting “theology” that the three interventions had for their position on aberro-sexuality was from interviews given by Francis to the Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica,

– This issue was such a “non-issue” that one of the interventions was by the editor of the above mentioned offending magazine, Fr. Antonio Spadaro. It can be assumed that this issue was not even discussed before the Synod since Fr. Spadaro raised it so that it would at least get raised,

– In the case of the Malaysian archbishop, his intervention was made on the basis of a cognizant belief that it was Francis who wanted this change in Catholic moral teaching and the issue only arose after the La Civiltà Cattolica article.

So this was the state of play in October 2014.

And what is the state of play at present?

For this we go to the Edward Pentin article in the National Catholic Register that was reproduced in the previous post titled So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along. (see here) Here are the salient data points from the “one-day study meeting — open only to a select group of individuals — took place at the Pontifical Gregorian University on Monday with the aim of urging “pastoral innovations” at the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family in October.”:

The closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx. ( It) took place just days after the people of Ireland voted in a referendum in support of same-sex “marriage” and on the same day as the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops met in Rome. Some observers did not see the timing as a coincidence. So secret was the meeting that even prominent Jesuits at the Gregorian were completely unaware of it. Cardinal Marx insisted the study day wasn’t secret. But he became irritated when pressed about why it wasn’t advertised, saying he had simply come to Rome in a “private capacity”.

The cardinal is known to be especially eager to reform the Church’s approach to homosexuals. During his Pentecost homily last Sunday, Cardinal Marx called for a “welcoming culture” in the Church for homosexuals, saying it’s “not the differences that count, but what unites us.”

The key topics discussed at the closed-door meeting was how the Church could better welcome those in stable same-sex unions, and reportedly “no one” opposed such unions being recognized as valid by the Church.

Among the featured participants was “included Jesuit Father Hans Langendörfer, general secretary of the German bishops’ conference and the leading figure behind the recent reform of German Church labor laws to controversially allow remarried divorcees and homosexual couples to work in Church institutions. A prominent critic of Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), as well as a strong supporter of homosexual clergy and those pushing for reform in the area of sexual ethics, Father Schockenhoff. In 2010, he gave an interview in which he praised the permanence and solidarity shown in some same-sex relationships as “ethically valuable.” He urged that any assessment of homosexual acts “must take a back seat” on the grounds that the faithful are becoming “increasingly distant from the Church’s sexual morality,” which appears “unrealistic and hostile to them.”
Father Schockenhoff has also gone on record saying that moral theology must be “liberated from the natural law”. Another suggestion was that “official Church” should be done away with because of a growing gap between the institutional Church and the Church of the faithful. This is widely seen as code words for understanding the Bible differently from Tradition — and the need for a “reflection on a theology of love.”

By replacing the theology of the body with a “theology of love,” it creates an abstract interpretation that separates sex from procreation, thereby allowing forms of extramarital unions and same-sex attractions based simply on emotions rather than biological reality.

At the meeting, conspicuously failed to mention sin, ended by saying that “further discussion on the future of marriage and family is necessary.

And yet…

(At the meeting, among others was discussed the) “importance of the human sex drive,” and the “develop” the Church’s teaching on human sexuality and called not for a theology of the body, as famously taught by St. John Paul II, but the development of a “theology of love.”

“Imagine if the Church accepted homosexual relationships,” said one source speaking on condition of anonymity. “Ultimately, that is what these people want.”

Summa summarum, it should become quite obvious reading the above, how the “advertised” purpose for calling the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops was described in early October 2013 and how it mutated into the present state of affairs.

Initially, the Secret Synod of Bishops were caught off guard by a HIDDEN AGENDA that only emerged after the release of the mid-term Relatio. Since this moment however, the Synod bishops have been so effective in blocking this revolutionary HIDDEN AGENDA of TeamFrancis that the Bishops have forced the TeamFrancis subversives to declare what it is that they are after.

And now that the Catholic bishops are aware what it is that TeamFrancis and the promoters of this HIDDEN AGENDA want to force through the Stealth Sex Synod of 2015, they should be in a much better position to not only resist, but to thwart the entire subversion of Catholic moral teaching by Team Francis and its promoters.

But more on this tomorrow.

T -141: So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along.

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, Berlin Wall, Bolsheviks, Boston Globe, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Catholic Church, communism, corrupt information, corruption, David Gibson, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, From Rome blog, German Bishops' Conference, Glastnost, Global Warming, Great Cardinal, Helmut Kohl, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, John XXXIII, Joseph Ratzinger, JP II, Kirchensteuer, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, New York Times, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Paul VI, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, PewSitter Blog, Polls, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "alternative realities", Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, TeamBergoglio, Tradition, US Bishops' Conference, Vatican, Vatican II, Virtual Realty

FOR THE RECORD:

Below is an article from the National Catholic Register. (see here) The reason that I am reproducing this article in its entirety is that it adds more data points that strongly confirm two themes that this blog has been pursuing.

The first theme is that the two Synod’s were called due to a HIDDEN AGENDA, a HIDDEN AGENDA that this blog identified as “changing Catholic moral teaching on aberro-sexuality”. Reading the below, it becomes obvious that communion for remarried is just a side issue, as was the billing as a Synod about the family. The side issues were needed to create the impression that the HIDDEN AGENDA encompassed more than just the fraction of the 1% of Catholics who may suffer from any of the “objective intrinsic disorders” that collectively comprise aberro-sexuality. We laid out the case for this in a series of post that culminated in our post titled The Three Paragraphs. (see here)

The second theme that we have been pursuing is that of the Soap Bubble Papacy™. We have demonstrated that the entire Francis Effect at its base, is nothing more than a VIRTUAL REALITY, a media created illusion that Francis is “popular”. This aspect of the Francis Effect was very poignantly summed up by Cardinal Brandmuller when he made the following observation: “It is superficial. Were this a religious movement, the churches would be full”. We illustrated this Soap Bubble Papacy™ in posts such as Searching for the “Illusive Francis Effect” (see here) and A Grand Ole Time Had By All (see here).

When reading the below, please keep the above in mind for context. (with emphasis added)

Confidential Meeting Seeks to Sway Synod to Accept Same-Sex Unions

ROME — A one-day study meeting — open only to a select group of individuals — took place at the Pontifical Gregorian University on Monday with the aim of urging “pastoral innovations” at the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the Family in October.

Around 50 participants, including bishops, theologians and media representatives, took part in the gathering, at the invitation of the presidents of the bishops’ conferences of Germany, Switzerland and France — Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Bishop Markus Büchel and Archbishop Georges Pontier.

One of the key topics discussed at the closed-door meeting was how the Church could better welcome those in stable same-sex unions, and reportedly “no one” opposed such unions being recognized as valid by the Church.

Participants also spoke of the need to “develop” the Church’s teaching on human sexuality and called not for a theology of the body, as famously taught by St. John Paul II, but the development of a “theology of love.”

One Swiss priest discussed the “importance of the human sex drive,” while another participant, talking about holy Communion for remarried divorcees, asked: “How can we deny it, as though it were a punishment for the people who have failed and found a new partner with whom to start a new life?”

Marco Ansaldo, a reporter for the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica, who was present at the meeting, said the words seemed “revolutionary, uttered by clergymen.”

French Biblicist and Ratzinger Prize-winner Anne-Marie Pelletier praised the dialogue that took place between theologians and bishops as a “real sign of the times.” According to La Stampa, another Italian daily newspaper, Pelletier said the Church needs to enter into “a dynamic of mutual listening,” in which the magisterium continues to guide consciences, but she believes it can only effectively do so if it “echoes the words of the baptized.” 

The meeting took the “risk of the new, in fidelity with Christ,” she claimed. The article also quoted a participant as saying the synod would be a “failure” if it simply continued to affirm what the Church has always taught.

The closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx, was first proposed at the annual meeting of the heads of the three bishops’ conferences, held in January in Marseille, France.

The study day took place just days after the people of Ireland voted in a referendum in support of same-sex “marriage” and on the same day as the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops met in Rome. Some observers did not see the timing as a coincidence.

The synod council has been drawing up the instrumentum laboris (working document) for the October synod on the family. Integrated into the document will be the responses of a questionnaire sent to laity around the world. Those responses, particularly from Switzerland and Germany, appeared to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Church adapting her teachings to the secular world.

 

Why the Lack of Publicity?

No one would say why the study day was held in confidence. So secret was the meeting that even prominent Jesuits at the Gregorian were completely unaware of it. The Register learned about it when Jean-Marie Guénois leaked the information in a story in Le Figaro.

Speaking to the Register as he left the meeting, Cardinal Marx insisted the study day wasn’t secret. But he became irritated when pressed about why it wasn’t advertised, saying he had simply come to Rome in a “private capacity” and that he had every right to do so. Close to Pope Francis and part of his nine-member council of cardinals, the cardinal is known to be especially eager to reform the Church’s approach to homosexuals. During his Pentecost homily last Sunday, Cardinal Marx called for a “welcoming culture” in the Church for homosexuals, saying it’s “not the differences that count, but what unites us.”

Cardinal Marx is also not alone, among those attending the meeting, in pushing for radical changes to the Church’s life. The head of the Swiss bishops, Bishop Büchel of St. Gallen, has spoken openly in favor of women’s ordination, saying in 2011 that the Church should “pray that the Holy Spirit enables us to read the signs of the times.” Archbishop Pontier, head of the French bishops, is also known to have heterodox leanings.

The meeting’s organizers were unwilling to disclose the names of everyone who took part, but the Register has obtained a full list of participants. They included Jesuit Father Hans Langendörfer, general secretary of the German bishops’ conference and the leading figure behind the recent reform of German Church labor laws to controversially allow remarried divorcees and homosexual couples to work in Church institutions.

 

Father Schockenhoff

Among the specialists present was Father Eberhard Schockenhoff, a moral theologian. Some are particularly disturbed about the rise to prominence of Father Schockenhoff, who is understood to be the “mastermind” behind much of the challenge to settled Church teachings among the German episcopate and, by implication, at the synod on the family itself.

A prominent critic of Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), as well as a strong supporter of homosexual clergy and those pushing for reform in the area of sexual ethics, Father Schockenhoff is known to be the leading adviser of German bishops in the run-up to the synod.

In 2010, he gave an interview in which he praised the permanence and solidarity shown in some same-sex relationships as “ethically valuable.” He urged that any assessment of homosexual acts “must take a back seat” on the grounds that the faithful are becoming “increasingly distant from the Church’s sexual morality,” which appears “unrealistic and hostile to them.” The Pope and the bishops should “take this seriously and not dismiss it as laxity,” he said.

Father Schockenhoff has also gone on record saying that moral theology must be “liberated from the natural law” and that conscience should be based on the “life experience of the faithful.”

He has also insisted that the indissolubility of marriage is “not seriously called into question” by admitting remarried divorcees to holy Communion and that the term the “official Church” should be done away with because of a growing gap between the institutional Church and the Church of the faithful.

Also present was Marco Impagliazzo, president of the Sant’Egidio lay community; Jesuit Father Andreas Batlogg, professor of philosophy and theology and chief editor of the liberal periodical Stimmen der Zeit (Voices of the Time); and Salesian Msgr. Markus Graulich, prelate auditor of the tribunal of the Roman Rota — one of very few Curial officials to attend. Some of those participating, such as Msgr. Graulich, took part in the previous synod.

 

Media Participation

Also noted were the large number of media representatives. Journalists from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, German broadcasters ZDF and ARD, the Italian daily La Repubblica and French-Catholic media La Croix and I-Media were also present. Their presence was “striking,” said one observer, who predicted they will be used to promote the agenda of the  subject matter under discussion in the weeks leading up to the synod.

Monday’s meeting is just the latest attempt to subtly steer the upcoming synod in a direction opposed by many faithful Catholics. A statement on the study day released by the German bishops’ conference May 26 said there was a “reflection on biblical hermeneutics” — widely seen as code words for understanding the Bible differently from Tradition — and the need for a “reflection on a theology of love.”

This, too, is seen as undermining Church teaching. By replacing the theology of the body with a “theology of love,” it creates an abstract interpretation that separates sex from procreation, thereby allowing forms of extramarital unions and same-sex attractions based simply on emotions rather than biological reality. Gone, say critics, is the Catholic view of marriage, which should be open to procreation.

The statement, which conspicuously failed to mention sin, ended by saying that “further discussion on the future of marriage and family is necessary and possible” and that it would be “enriched by a further, intensive theological reflection.”

This, too, is code for wanting a change in teaching, giving the impression that the doctrine in these areas is open to change. But for the Catholic Church, it is a settled issue.

“Imagine if the Church accepted homosexual relationships,” said one source speaking on condition of anonymity. “Ultimately, that is what these people want.”

I rest my case!

Concluding, somehow I am not shocked,… shocked that the HIDDEN AGENDA of the Secret Synod of Bishops of 2014 and the upcoming Stealth Sex Synod of Bishops of 2015 was and will be all about “changing Catholic moral teaching on aberro-sexuality”.

T -227: Re-blog: Secret Synod: Synod of the Three Paragraphs

Tags

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

Today we added another data point to our catalog of supporting evidence that appeared yesterday, one that strongly supports our analysis of the TRUE AGENDA driving the Synod of Bishops. In the below post titled “Synod of the Three Paragraphs”, we set out what the TRUE AGENDA is and how it was derived. Just to remind our readers, here is what we wrote:

With this new information, we have been able to posit three underlying facts about the true agenda of Synod and why it was called, namely; 1) Francis called the Synod to engage in a “re-branding exercise” of Catholic teaching, 2) the Synod of 2014 had very little if anything to do with “The Family” and had everything to do with a hidden agenda relating to “communion for divorced remarried” and “changing teaching on homosexuality” and 3) upon closer examination, the issue of communion for divorced remarried was a red herring and the Synod of 2014’s true agenda was to change the Church teaching on homosexuality.

With respect to the data point itself, there is a story on Drudge linked to Yahoo News Canada with the following headline: (see here)

“Gay Catholic group gets VIP treatment at Vatican for first time”

For context, here is how the From Rome blog interprets this incident in a post titled:

So then, Francis, your reforms are all about advancing the Homo-heresy?: (see here)

“With great dis-ingenuity, when greeting the groups present, the Pope hid their presence by not mentioning them by name. The article makes a point to cite a “Team Bergoglio” journalist:

And veteran Vatican watcher David Gibson says that is a very big deal.

“It’s a substantial change of direction for the Catholic Church, not just a symbolic move,” Gibson, of the Religion News Service, told The Daily News.

“In the past, such groups or individuals would never be formally acknowledged in any way — not even a response to a letter — for fear that some could view such an attitude as approval,” he said. “Now Francis is saying the Church must cast aside such fears.”

Since we have identified the issue of trying to “change the Church teaching on homosexuality” as THE UNDERLYING ISSUE driving the TRUE AGENDA and therefore driving the upcoming Synod of Bishops that will commence in 227 days, we will be looking deeper into this matter in the upcoming posts.

But for now, here is the “Synod of the Three Paragraphs” re-blog that we first published on the 18th of December 2014 as a point of reference.

The Deus Ex Machina Blog

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

View original post 2,136 more words

Secret Synod: Synod of the Three Paragraphs

Tags

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Catholic Church Teaching as a “Hurdle to Overcome”

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

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start from Scratch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funny that.

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

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

Well!

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

Synodal Manipulators Organizers forgot about “the Family”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the relative emphasis based on word count:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summa Summarum

For those who have been following this thread, it is very apparent by now that the Secret Synod was called not to discuss issues concerning “The Family”, but rather had a hidden agenda to try and change the teaching on the “objectively intrinsically disordered” human condition of homosexuality.

The Synod was controlled and manipulated by a group of clerics who were taking their directives from Francis himself. The way in which the Manipulators wanted to change church teaching was first by discarding the Church’s existing Magisterium and the foundations for the Church teaching on homosexuality, replace this body of teaching with something new, only grounded in the speeches, newspaper interviews, musings at the Domus Sanctae Marthae and off-the cuff remarks the magisterium of Francis. They tried to find the magic formula,i.e. Modernist Magic Words that would allow for this change in teaching to slip past the Synod bishops.

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

And finally, the “Lineamenta” (the preparatory outline for the next synod of bishops) has been sent to the episcopate conferences on the 9th of December with not only the corrupted text containing the discarded paragraphs on the “objectively intrinsic disorder” of homosexuality, but also with instructions for the bishops to “disregard the Church doctrine and do whatever Francis wants”.

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

Processes: Getting a Clue

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Final Relatio, Francis church, Gaudium et spes, heretical pope, hippies, Jesuits, JP II, messeging, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Relatio post disceptationem, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we begin with news that Pat Archbold, co-founder of the Creative Minority Report has also recognized the significance of the Francis interview from the 7th of December published in the Argentine newspaper La Nacion. His blog post is titled: “This Papal Interview Changes Everything”. (see here) On the Deus Ex Machina blog, we take a breather from the running analysis to regroup and take stock of the present lay of the land. From the information we have gained so far, we will begin to construct a framework through which we can better understand what it is in fact that Francis is trying to tell us.

Introduction

This post is a continuation of a thread that we have been exploring since the publication of the Francis interview in the Argentine La Nacion daily on the 7th of December 2014. Since the publication of this interview, this blog published a series of posts analyzing the Synod of the Family in light of the information already in the public domain and the new information contained in this interview. To be more precise, the Deus Ex Machina blog has recognized the watershed nature of the interview, and has incorporated this new information along with the information contained in the “Lineamenta”, (the preparatory outline for the next synod of bishops) that has been sent to the episcopate conferences on the 9th of December into this analysis. The analysis is being performed for three reasons:

1) to construct a framework that will provide an understanding of the true agenda driving the Synod of the Family,

2) to use this framework to test the accuracy of any statements or hypothesis which may arise as to the true agenda of the Synod of Families,

3) to use this framework to gain a “predictive functionality” to help to anticipate events that can transpire in the second half of this synod scheduled for October of 2015.

Framework

The framework mentioned above has already been defined in earlier posts. Therefore a quick review will suffice. For more in depth information, a re-reading of the source posts would be recommended. Here is what has been established in the preceding posts:

Modernist’s Magic Words (“MMW”) (see here)

We have established that Francis’s strategy is of a linguistic nature, i.e. replacing a word that according to him has a negative connotation or imagery with another word that, again according to Francis, has a positive connotation or imagery. The definition of what constitutes a positive/negative connotation and imagery is subjectively defined by Francis. Examples of the “MMW” strategy are: “dropping out” replaced by image of “field hospital”, “proselytism” replaced by “attraction” and “strategy” replaced by “Lord’s pastoral call”. And these are the limits of depth and breadth of the Francis magisterium.

The „Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch (“JBS”) (see here)

We established that the “Family” is for the most part irrelevant to the true agenda of the Secret Synod of 2014/2015 by pointing out the absence of any hermeneutic of continuity between the Synod 2014 documents produced by Team Francis and the John Paul II Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. Furthermore, we demonstrated that there was a hidden agenda since three paragraphs produced by Team Francis (written by Bruno Forte) the Synod bishops rejected. However, Francis through the power of his absolute authority put them back into the Final Relatio. This was proof positive that the “Bait and Switch” strategy was to “Bait” the Synod bishops with a nominal Family agenda, and then “Switch” to an alternative agenda, i.e. “communion for remarried” (“cdr”) and/or “changing teaching on homosexuality” (“cth”). Confirmation of the accuracy of the above hypothesis was the fact that the Relatio post disceptationem was pre-written and did not represent what was said at the Synod by the bishops.

Francis „Showing a Leg” (“FSL”) (see here)

We established that the hidden agenda that was based on the two pillars, i.e. communion for divorced remarried (“cdr”) and/or changing teaching on homosexuality (“cth”) was in fact not correct. The “cdr” pillar was actually a diversionary tactic to get the real agenda, the “cth” past the Synod bishops. We demonstrated that, if in fact the “cdr” was a part of the real agenda, the documents produced by Team Francis in this matter would have been grounded in previous Church teaching documents, i.e. the JPII “FC” and by extension the Vatican II Gaudium et spes. This would have tied the “cdr” issue into the “Family” issue. We supported this contention by demonstrating that Team Francis was desperately seeking a “hermeneutic of continuity” with previous Church teachings since they repeatedly cited “FC” and Benedict XVI texts during the run up to the Synod, yet completely ignored linking their “pre-written” synod documents with the “FC”. This created a “rupture in continuity” with previous Church teachings and the associated problems with the Synod bishops. On the basis of this evidence, we hypothesized that the “Synod of the Family” was in fact the “Synod for changing Church teaching on homosexuality”.

Practical Application of Framework

So now that we have the framework defined, let’s take it for a spin. Here is an example of how we can use the framework to interpret what Francis is saying on issues relating to the Synod. A good case in point is the passage in the La Nacion interview that we all should be familiar with by now. With respect to the “communion for divorced remarried”, Francis said the following:

…The fifth is the question of what do we do with divorcees who have remarried; they are part of our congregation after all. Kasper´s hypothesis is not his own. Let´s look into that. What happened? Some theologians feared such assumptions and that is keeping our heads down. Kasper urged us to seek hypothesis, i.e., he made the first move. And some panicked. And went as far as to say: Communion, never. Only spiritual Communion. And tell me, don´t we need the grace of God to receive spiritual communion?

First we need to define all the terms. In our case, a definition for spiritual Communion is needed. According to Wikipedia it is this:

Spiritual Communion is a practice among Catholics (and Anglicans) of desiring union with Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist as a response to God’s own desire for union. It is used especially as a preparation for Holy Mass. This practice is well established in the Catholic Church and highly recommended by many saints, according to Pope John Paul II. He explained that practicing this constant desire for Jesus in the Eucharist is rooted in the ultimate perfection of Eucharistic communion, which is the ultimate goal of every human desire

Conclusion

If we run the above passage through our framework, here is what we get:

1) Is this an exercise of a linguistic nature? Definitely yes. What does “spiritual communion” have to do with receiving communion? Not a lot really. The later is a physical act, while the former is a desire, a desire that can be had sitting on one’s living room couch. And then there is the question of being in a state of mortal sin. Looks like we are on the verge of another novelty to be defined at a later point in time.

2) Does it relate to “the Family”: No. Receiving the Sacrament of Communion is an individual act. Has nothing to do with “The Family”, and not tied into previous church teaching in this area.

3) Does this passage pertain to either of the “two pillars”: Yes. The first one, i.e. “cdr”. Therefore, this is Francis “showing the leg”. And points 1 and 2 confirm this.

By putting Francis’s words through our framework, we gain a better understanding for what Francis is saying. And what he is saying is that a new novelty, along the lines of “expansion of the concept of Spiritual Communion” is needed.

What this has to do with the Sacrament of Communion is simply this, to create the impression that someone who is living in a state of mortal sin, when he comes to church, can appear just like all the others, and the others will not be able to distinguish that he is different. What are the ramifications of this new potential novelty? Here is a few:

Will it help him feel better about himself? Maybe yes.

Will it bring him back to church? I doubt it.

Will this “strategy of mercy” help the sinner obtain the grace necessary for obtaining salvation? Definitely not.

At the end of the day, he is still living in a state of mortal sin.

With respect to the predictive capability of our framework, we can look at the most important question: Will Francis change Church teaching with respect to communion for divorced remarried? No. Not because he doesn’t want to, but because he doesn’t have the cover from the other bishops to do it.

So a new linguistic novelty of an expanded definition of the term “spiritual communion” will have to do. And it is this animal that we need to be on the look out for.

Post Scriptum

Doesn’t look like the “spiritual communion” was that big a deal at the Secret Synod. Only mentioned once in the interim Relatio and once in the final Relatio. Please keep in mind that there were “Three Paragraphs” on the subject of changing Church teaching on the “objectively disordered” homosexuality in the interim Relatio alone. “Spiritual Communion” appears in the Relatio post disceptationem once. (see here)

48. Suggesting limiting themselves to only “spiritual communion” was questioned by more than a few Synodal Fathers: if spiritual communion is possible, why not allow them to partake in the sacrament? As a result a greater theological study was requested starting with the links between the sacrament of marriage and the Eucharist in relation to the Church-sacrament. In the same way, the moral dimension of the problem requires further consideration, listening to and illuminating the consciences of spouses.

“Spiritual Communion” appears in the Final Relatio once. (see here)

53.Some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access “sacramentally”. As a result, the synod fathers requested that further theological study in the matter might point out the specifics of the two forms and their association with the theology of marriage.

The basis for the present practice of “spiritual communion” was explained in the JP II encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, not in the Familiaris Consortio.

Post Post Scriptum Notice how the wording got more restrictive in the Final Relatio?

Processes: Francis “Showing a Leg”

Tags

Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Bishop Schneider, card. De Paolis, card. Kasper, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, communion for diverced remarried, Eponymous Flower blog, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, Gaudium et spes, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, JP II, La Nacion, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, Sandro Magister, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Vatican II

This post and the subsequent post will be expansions of The “Jesuitical” Bait-and-Switch (“JBS”) post. Today’s post is titled Francis “Showing a Leg”. “Showing a leg” is an expression which describes an old football tactic whereby a player who is running with the ball extends a leg toward the would be tackler, only to pull it away as soon as the tackler commits himself to reaching for that leg. This allows the ball carrier to avoid being tackled and allows him to score a touchdown. And from what we have witnessed at the Shameful Secret Synod so far, Francis is desperate to “score a touchdown”. And all that is left for us to do is identify what exactly “scoring a touchdown” to Francis entails.

Introduction

In the JBS post introduction, I started by making the case that IF the Secret Synod was really about “the family”, than the natural starting point for Team Francis should have been the JP II Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Concortio (“FC”). And even if “FC” wasn’t the initial starting point, with all the changes made by the Synod bishops and the direction in which those changes went, the Final Relatio brought the discussions back to that starting point, i.e. the Familiaris Concortio. But since the “FC” is still nowhere to be found in the discussion, there is something in it that creates serious problems for Francis and his manipulators with respect for their true agenda. So a hidden agenda is being promoted, whose results will be to attain the goals of the true agenda. This hidden agenda appears to be comprised of two elements, since it is these two elements that were forced into the Final Relatio despite being voted down by the Synod And these two elements are: communion for the divorced remarried (“cdr) and changing the Church teaching on homosexuality (“cth”).

In this post I will focus on the Communion for the Divorced Remarried (“cdr”) issue.

A Third Rail Issue

With respect to the first element of the manipulator’s hidden agenda, i.e. “cdr”, in the JBS post I explained how the justification that Francis used in the La Nacion interview was clumsy at best and in reality an attempt to convince a gullible audience that he is really, really thinking about changing the doctrine practice on “cdr”. I think it is fair to say that the rationale behind the “godfather” example in the La Nacion interview was pure and utter gibberish.

And then I quoted the Scalabrinian illustrious canonist and president emeritus of the prefecture of economic affairs of the Holy See Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, who wrote the following: (emphasis added)

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

And even if no other evidence existed, and no other supporting positions by other members of the Catholic Church hierarchy were stated publicly, this passage alone would demonstrate that Francis and his ghost writer’s proposal is nothing short of a “ third rail” issue. And just to explain the concept of a “third rail”, it is a metaphor derived from the electrically charged third rail that acts as the power source for electric train engines. If a person touches the third rail, he is electrocuted.

As to the consequences of trying to force a change in the doctrine practice of the “cdr”, a change in doctrine that would “undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals”, Francis would be risking a situation whereby:

“the hierarchical structure of the Church would require that (in the case of an apostate pope, or a heretical pope, or an invalidly elected pope), that some cardinals and bishops break with the fraud and reconstitute the hierarchy because the indefectibility of the Church preserves at least in part all the orders in the church, cardinals, bishops, clergy, religious. (H/t to the From Rome blog.)

Here is where we are entering into serious Sedevacante territory. And on an aside, it is not without meaning that cd. De Paoli is the Prefect Emeritus of the Economics Secretariate of cd. Pell, the author of the 37 false popes soundbite.

Proof that Francis will not change doctrine/practice on the “cdr”.

The proof that Francis will not do anything to risk his papacy by attempting to change either doctrine or practice with respect to the communion for the divorced remarried is of a “circumstantial evidence” variety. Therefore, the question becomes: does it meet the preponderance of evidence threshold? My case is laid out below.

Background

I didn’t spend too much time addressing this point in the JBS post because I think it is a bogus issue. On this point, as I stated above, I think Francis is “showing us a leg”.

Why do I think this? Because Francis said so. How do we know that he said so?

We know that Francis said so from an interview that Cardinal Meisner of Cologne gave to Deutschlandrundfunk, and was posted (partially) on Fr. Z’s blog on 23 December 2013. (see here) True, we are dealing here with a third person account as our source, but let’s just assume it’s true. Furthermore, please recall that this interview appeared almost two months before the Kasperian “theology done on ones knees” speech. So Francis had no reason to not tell us what he thinks simply because he did not know how the Shameful Secret Synod would play out. Therefore, on the issue of changing dogma practice on the “cdr”, here is what the good cardinal said that Francis said: (emphasis from Fr. Z)

During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.

Do I believe what Francis said?  Yes, and without mentioning that this is a canonically proper position to hold, here is why.

There are four reasons why I think Francis will not change the doctrine/practice in this area, which support the point in the Third Rail section:

Reason 1:

First note that De Paolis has “come back” to the argument of communion divorced and remarried. De Paolis has taken a public position as early as March 27 2014, (see here) and his position was included in the Five Cardinals book. The present quote from De Paolis is a complete and utter “trashing” of paragraph 52 of the final Relatio. And it is worth repeating that De Paolis makes the case that:

“the innovations that would be introduced if it were approved would be of unprecedented gravity,” because they would undermine the very foundations of Catholic dogma and morals.

So Francis had been warned. But Francis knew there were problems with “theology on the knees” no later than when De Paulo joined the other four cardinals in the Five Cardinals Book that came out before the Synod started, and most likely much, much earlier. As early as the date of the cd. Meisner meeting.

Reason 2:

Francis would not make a change like this without cover, as per Third Rail section argumentation. This is why he called the Shameful Secret Synod in the first place. All the scheming, maneuvering and manipulation that we witnessed at the Secret Synod of 2014 was an attempt to give Francis cover. And not necessarily for the ”cdr”. We also know this from the same interview with Cd. Meisner, when he relates these words of Francis:

And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church.

Now we can question the intentions behind the reason why Francis said what he said, but it would appear that he provides to cd. Meisner the “line of demarcation” that he will not cross. From observing what went on at the Secret Synod of 2014, the following would be an accurate statement: Francis will lie, cheat and steal, as long as Francis has cover for his lying cheating and stealing. Besides, we also have confirmation that he will not cross this line from cd. Scola. (see here)

Reason 3:

Francis does not have cover. A good case in point about Francis needing and lacking cover can be observed from the situation that developed leading up to Benedict revising his texts on just this subject matter. As we have seen, Francis has been quoting Benedict when trying to justify his “purported” changing of the doctrine practice on “cdr”. Here is a Francis quote from Fr. Z’s blog from the 27 of May 2014, (see here) given on the flight back from the Holy Land to a reporter: (emphasis added)

“Something Pope Benedict said three times about the divorced has helped me a lot. Once, in the Valle d’Aosta, another time in Milan, and the last time in the public consistory which he held for the creation of cardinals: to study the procedures for matrimonial nullity; to study the faith with which a person comes to matrimony and [NB] to clarify that the divorced are not excommunicated, and so many times they are treated as excommunicated.”

And it was not only Francis who was suggesting that his position has Benedict’s tacit support. Kasper was saying the same thing likewise. (see here). So is it any wonder why Benedict went through all his earlier work to expiate the “nuances”, at the same time depriving this “dynamic duo” of a large part of their cover. (see here) Also puts the Benedict revisions in a proper context. Yes?

Before we go to reason 4, which is really an “anti-reason” we need to make the following observation. From the above 3 reasons, it would appear that Francis “gave it the old college try” to get the “cdr” doctrine practice changed. However, it just wasn’t meant to be. The “stubborn” just wouldn’t bend to the “god of surprises” Holy Spirit, Francis can claim. As a matter of fact, he did just that in the La Nacion inteview. Funny that! But I digress…

But the question is, did he really, really try, or was he just going through the motions. And here is why I think he was going through the motions.

Reason 4:

The reason why I think Francis is just going through the motions of trying to change the “cdr” doctrine practice, and at the same time playing the German Bishops’ Conference and its president card. Marx like a cheap banjo is due to the following fact. Francis and his cohorts did not bring out the big gun to get the “cdr”practice changed, let alone the dogma changed. And the big gun was the JP II Apostolic Exhortation Familiars Concortio. And what is the evidence?

Evidence 1:

First of all, the “FC” would have given Team Francis a bridge between Vatican II Gaudium et spes, with the associated “Sacred Spirit of VII” pastoral stuff, through the “FC” and into the forthcoming final product of this Secret Synod 2014/2015. Making the final product of Francis grounded in FC, would have been easy enough to do. How do we know this would have been easy to do? Since in the run up to the Synod, cd. Kasper was quoting the “FC” in his promotional tours. (see here).

Next,  a foundation in the “FC” would have placated a larger number of the bishops at the Synod. Keep in mind that the majority were elevated by JPII, and hold him in high esteem. And that is not even mentioning the Polish bishops who were personally offended by the “FC” being completely disregarded by Team Farncis. Therefore, by totally disregarding the “FC”, the manipulators “created a defeat” for their position on the “cdr” at the Secret Synod 2014. But to paraphrase the rogue priest in the the Dirty Harry movie: ”Sacrifices have to be made”.

Evidence 2:

A lot of the disquiet outside of the Polish Episcopate Conference was due to the fact that “FC” was completely ignored. As a matter of fact, we could observe just this fact, that “the will of the Synod bishops” was to bring the Final Relatio back to this starting point, i.e. the FC. And they did just that. Refer to the argumentation in the JBS post.

Futhermore, the Thursday when cd. Pell stood up and banged his hand on the desk and shouted to Team Francis to “stop manipulating the Synod” was considered by some as an act of divine intervention attributable to JPII. (see here). And that is why this day will always be known on the Deus Ex Machina blog as the “JPII/Familiaris Concortio Miracle Thursday”. But I digress…

Evidence 3:

By not grounding this new “Product of Synod 2014/2015” in the “FC”, it is as if the manipulators are trying to start from scratch. What ever the form of the Francis magisterium that will be coming out of this process, it will be void of the lineage of JP II Familiaris Concortio and by extension Gaudium et spes of Vatican II by design, i.e. independent of all predecessors. Talk about a hermeneutic of rupture. And from the “quote fest” of Benedict XVI citations from both Francis and card. Kasper with respect to the “communion for divorced remarried” issue, it would have appeared that a hermeneutic of continuity was desperately needed. Or so it appeared.

But from the evidence above, it obviously wasn’t.

Summa Summarum

In the above text, we see that the Secret Synod of 2014/2015 was created to provide cover for making changes to Catholic Church doctrine, masked as “only a change in practice”. The “Family” was used as a proxy to changing doctrine/practice that is not in the least bit related to “The Family”. The hidden agenda was exposed at the Secret Synod 2014 by courageous clerics and according to bp. Athanasius Schneider; journalists and bloggers. (see here)  The hidden agenda centered around two issues, namely “communion for divorced remarried” and “church teaching on homosexuality”. The way we know this to be the case is that even though the paragraphs associated with these two issues were voted down by the bishop’s at the Synod, the head manipulators (or rather the Head Manipulator) had them forcefully inserted into to Final Relatio that went out to the bishops’ conferences for further consultation.

However, after a careful analysis of the process to date, it would appear that the “cdr” is not a real concern. The argumentation is explained in the above text. And just to make the final argument, we can assume that this to be the case from two before unmentioned facts. First is the comment by Francis made to cd. Meisner in the above cited interview that:

Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

And we know what cd. Muller’s position on this matter and corroborates the Francis position. (see here).  Therefore, it is really a non issue, however an non issue that is generating by far the most debate post Shameful Secret Synod of 2014. Given the argumentation above, it would appear that that the issue of “communion for the divorced remarried” is analogous to the “leg” of the ball carrier who shows it to the would be tackler, only to pull it away as soon as the tackler commits himself to reaching for that leg.

Given the above, it would appear that the real issue driving the Francis hidden agenda is the second element of the identified hidden agenda of Francis, i.e. changing the teaching on the “intrincsic disorder” which is homosexuality.

And this is the subject for the next post.