Sunday, October 19, 2014

Catholic University Of America To Host Screening Of Gay Activist's Biography

Initially the CUA administration had cancelled it, citing correctly that this movie would advocate the sin of sodomy on a Catholic campus.  Crud reports that the administration has capitulated (not their word but mine) and is allowing the gay propaganda to be seen on campus.  Apparently they are also permitting the "Milk" screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, to speak on campus now.  As of October 17 (this past Friday) a date has not yet been set.

The Director of Campus Activities approved this rescheduling.  She needs to be contacted, as well as higher officials.  The word "Catholic" in the school's name has meaning.  Integral to that meaning is that the campus will not permit on its grounds propaganda that would be injurious to the spiritual well-being of its students, and that only those programs that at least don't contradict Church teaching will be considered for admission to campus.

Katie Jennings, Director of Campus Activities,
Board of Trustees,

Please do so asap.  Else this thing will soon be rescheduled.

Three Offensive Paragraphs To Remain In The Final Report

In my post that showed in the wee hours of this morning, I mentioned that Rorate Caeli had reason to believe that the three paragraphs of the interim report that were voted out of the final report were still going to remain.  I just learned that Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has reported the same thing.

Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected.  They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”

"Not completely rejected"?  If not, what was the purpose of the vote?  Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?

"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it?  If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?

Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.

I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants".  You can see the machinations have been going on for some time.  Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them.  They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.

In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook.  However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."  It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 2 Of 2, With A Nod To Saul Alinsky

In this second part, I'll now deal with the final relatio that was released today - except for the English version.  Many secular sites are kvetching and moaning that the paragraphs regarding homosexuals, found in the interim report, did not make the vote to be included in the final report.

So they were rejected.  However, Rorate Caeli has reason to believe that those three paragraphs will  be included in the English version (that's supposed to be released next week).  Correction - in all languages.  I'm not certain of their information source so we'll have to see.  I'd be interested to hear from those of other languages.

Even if the relatio is clear of the foul language, the damage has been done and deliberately so.  The bug has been put in the ears of the Catholics in the pews that perhaps there is "virtue to sodomy" and that de facto adulterers can receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege.

Ladies and gentlemen, with that in mind, may I introduce to Rule #8 of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?  It's summed up nicely here.  In essence, it suggests that the change agent (dissidents in the Church who put in those horrible paragraphs) should "keep the pressure on; never let up".  We can be very certain that we have not heard the last of these heresies.  I think the removal of those paragraphs was damage-control.  No doubt they were surprised by internet scrutiny and the spinal fortitude shown by Cardinals Burke, Pell and Muller.  I suspect this was just a temporary retreat so they can regroup and try again later.

I'll have more to say on this later, but it is getting late here.  For now, I'll close with the latest Vortex report on all this.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 1 Of 2

I will comment in two parts, as two documents were released today: 1) Pope Francis' speech at the conclusion and 2) the final relatio synodi

Here is the text of the Pope's remarks as they appear on the Vatican website.  Please read over; you might want to have the page open in another browser window as I go through this.

First he thanks a lot of folks; that's nice.  There are some notable "players" at the SinNod who received no mention.  We see no gratitude expressed for Cardinal Kasper; in the light of the African quip and his subsequent lie about the interview, I can understand this omission.  Likewise we saw no thanks for Cardinals Burke, Pell, Muller and Napier.  These Princes of the Church aired some dirty laundry in that SinNod (as did Michael Voris) and helped provide some impetus to regularizing SinNod proceedings.

Then we hear about some "temptations".  Here is the first, and I'll quote the Holy Father verbatim.  I'll post it twice: one with no edits and the second with my comments interspersed.

Original quote
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

With my comments in red
One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, What is the "written word" if not Sacred Scripture and Tradition, along with Church laws derived from Scripture and Tradition with the Church's teaching authority? (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, If any purported "surprise of God" contradicts the aforementioned "written word" we may rest assured that any such "surprise" is not of God. by the God of surprises, "God of surprises"!  Where, oh where do we find that title in either Scripture or the history of the Church? (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.  As one Facebook commenter quipped, the real issue is the "Church hierarchy surprises".  They are not to be confused with any movement of God.  Thus paragraphs 50-53 are "surprises" that were demonic; we knew that for they defied the "written word".  There is no dichotomy whatsoever between God's work and His Written Word.  This is not the first time this false dichotomy has been proposed.  Regrettably it probably won't be the last.

Moving along we see " I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia."  That's nice!  Please share that joy!  Let us know who said what for all the speeches and interventions - as was common practice for synods until two weeks ago!

I'll end with this whopper.  "And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life."  Excuse me!  Look at the interim report - particularly paragraphs 50-53!  Fundamental truths of marriage were most certainly contradicted in that report.  Now this is a stretch, but the only way that statement could be ever so slightly correct is if gay lifestyles were indeed not discussed on the floor and these paragraphs were surreptitiously added to the report, as Cardinal Napier suggested.  I will address these paragraphs in the "part 2" post.

Some well-meaning people are waxing ecstatic about this phrase, claiming that the Pope is formally upholding Catholic teaching on marriage, per the challenges put forth by Cardinals Burke and Pell.  No, this is not a formal statement upholding these teachings.  All it claims is that the teachings were not flouted during the SinNod - and even that might be (ahem!) incorrect.

Friday, October 17, 2014

With The Ouster Of Cdl Burke And Misconduct Of SinNod, The "Lovable" Mask Comes Off Pope Francis

No longer can any thinking, alert Catholic believe that Pope Francis is an affable "good ole boy" who likes to live simply and put clown noses on his face for silly selfies.  It is becoming painfully obvious that he is quite skilled in Machiavellian and Alinskyan tactics for advancing his agenda.  These skills have been displayed all too well at this SinNod.

A few days ago, after the release of the interim relatio, Cardinal Burke publicly urged - challenged - the Pope to defend unambiguously the teachings of the Church regarding marriage.  It should be emphasized that these teachings are those of Jesus Christ Himself.  Yesterday Cardinal Pell echoed that challenge.  However, it does seem that the agenda of the SinNod was planned well in advance - and that the relatio may have been written before the SinNod convened!

California Catholic Daily goes into detail about the planned short-comings of the SinNod:
  • The prohibition against the publication of bishops' statements, unheard of in any other such gathering
  • No mention of chastity or pursuit of holiness
  • Over-emphasis on divorced/remarried issues to the exclusion of others (pornography, polygamy in Africa, etc)
  • An obvious deference to the opinions of the secular world as to what constitutes "mercy"
Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany appears to be the "front man" for the Vatican apparatus that is pushing for doctrinal changes in regards to distributing Holy Communion to de facto adulterers.  There is much information about Kasper and his thinking; I won't delve into it here lest I digress from the main points of this post, but I do urge all to read it. 

I will also link to a National Catholic Register article by Edward Pentin (the same who caught Kasper in a lie regarding his African quip).  The evidence he cites, plus other points cited by others and me (review my postings from this past week) during the past few days, indicates that this SinNod is not much more than an engineered "dog and pony show" conducted to give cover to the advancement of a diabolical agenda masterminded by a select few.  If true, we can only conclude that Pope Francis is one of those select few.  If this isn't Machiavellian and Alinskyan, I don't know what is.

Pope Francis has yet to answer the challenges of Cardinals Burke and Pell for defense of the Church's teachings on families.  Cardinal Burke had some words to say on this, stating that "the Pope has done a lot of harm by not saying openly what his position is", and that the "synod was designed to change Church teaching".  Both Buzz Feed and Rorate Caeli have accounts of this interview today.  In this same interview, His Eminence confirmed that he has been ousted from the Apostolic Signatura.

Some might think my words regarding Pope Francis to be rather caustic. But look at the events of the past few days and consider that they could not have happened without permission from the Pope.  I regret to say that his refusal to affirm Church teaching regarding the divorced/remarried seems to be a glaring signal of things to come.

I close now with a Vortex that was done just after Voris et al got word of the Cardinal's interview.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

SinNod's Interim Report And Its Shady Circumstances

Today's Vortex Report from Rome is aptly entitled "Document-Gate".  Voris reiterates some facts abut the document.  I'll interject my own comments.
  • It was released to the press before most of the bishops at the SinNod received a copy.  I think it's worth noting, too, that the publication of the document on the Vatican website coincided with the release to the press.  Whoever (probably several people) released it to the press had some collusion with those who published it on the Vatican site.
  • According to Cardinal Napier, topics in the document were hardly discussed at all during the SinNod proceedings.  Who inserted them?  Was that the work of the six additional committee members hand-picked by the Pope?  Father Zuhlsdorf has an account of behind-the-scenes occurrences at the SinNod.
  • Paragraphs 50-53, those that openly condone sodomy, seem to be the handiwork of Archbishop Bruno Forte.  By the way - Father Paul Check, international director of Courage, made known his disapproval, citing concerns for those struggling homosexuals whom Courage tries to assist as they live according to Church teaching.
  • At 6:11, Voris asked who collected the information, who wrote the document, who published the document, who distributed the document to journalists before the bishops saw it.  I think we can safely hypothesize that those six prelates (including Cardinal Wuerl), handpicked by the Pope, facilitated that process.  As far as I'm concerned, this has papal paw prints all over it.  Voris mentions that Vatican official Father Federico Lombardi and Father Thomas Rosica stonewalled him when he asked his questions.  Father Lombardi is director of the Vatican Press Office.  It is on the site of that office that the document appeared when first released to the press.  Father Rosica is also with that office.
  • Voris asks was the leak planned, with the hopes that the secular media would react as it did?  We know the key players enough to opine "yes".
  • He makes the excellent point that those who insist that "this is only a working document", "don't worry, be happy" crowd are engaging in dangerous and dare I say ungodly naivete.
Voris reminded us that Cardinal Burke has publicly called upon the pope to publicly proclaim that no teaching will change.  Cardinal Pell now echoes the same call.  As of the time of this writing, I've heard no word that the Pope has issued any such declarative statement.  Will he?

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

SinNod Full Of Satan's Smoke, Perhaps Irreparably

Surely the diabolical relatio that was released a few days ago should have removed any doubts of that.  But if one still refuses to remove their rose-colored glasses, take a gander at the arrogance of Cardinal Kasper, one of the fomenters of the demonic proceedings.  In an interview with Zenit earlier today, he opined that a "growing majority" in the SinNod are in favor of divorced and civilly-remarried Catholics (translation of gobblygook - Catholics living in the mortal sin of adultery).  He also admitted that in the SinNod, the imput of African bishops regarding homosexuality is ignored.  Now just think!  If a conservative-leaning prelate had the audacity to say that input from African bishops about any topic was ignored, the mainstream media would be waxing apoplectic over the matter with indignant cries of "racism!" and such being hurled hither and yon.  Have you heard any such outcry in the wake of Kasper's arrogance?  Neither have I.

However, some prelates are having nothing to do with Kasper's cheap tricks.  Many of them have denounced the relatio, with Cardinal Muller calling it "shameful, undignified and completely wrong".  Others joining him include Cardinals Burke, Oullet and Dolan (good for him on this moment of lucidity!). 

There are some who still deny the obvious work of satan through his minions in the SinNod, choosing to trot out the "bad translation" canard.  Oh, please!  This "faulty translation" excuse got old some time ago - bad translation of interviews, etc.  Sheesh!  How did the previous pontiffs ever get by without 10% of the "translation issues" that are the favorite excuses of this papacy?  Moreover, my readers know that I linked to the relatio on the Vatican website.  The Vatican, right up to the pope, owns the English translation - no excuses!

I now post today's installment from the Vortex's reports on the events of the SinNod.  He reiterates Cardinal Burke's challenge to the Pope to clearly defend traditional Church teaching regarding marriage and family life.  Whether he does so or not will clearly indicate the Pope's mindset on these crucial matters.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Vortex - Commenting On Press Conference

Michael Voris released another video today regarding the goings-on at the SinNod today.

Before I delve into that, I'll ask one teensy question.  We all know that after the various language groups elected representatives to a committee that was tasked to draft this interim report, Pope Francis unilaterally appointed six progressive clergy to the committee as well.  Cardinal Wuerl was one of them.  Here's the question.  Had the Pope not stacked this committee with progressives, would the interim report have been the wretched mess that we see today?  Something to ponder!

In what appears to be commentary about a press conference (same one in previous post??), he comments on remarks made by Bishop Napiers of South Africa.  Napiers reportedly said that the synod fathers had not seen the relatio before the press did.  Does that mean they hadn't seen it before it went onto the Vatican website?  Is this just a fishy alibi?  BUT.... if the bishops truly did not see the document before the press, who was responsible for that, and why?

Hitherto, Voris has been very reluctant to criticize what the Pope says or does.  But now he says this synod is "a defining moment for his papacy", especially in light of Cardinal Burke's public call to the pope to stand for Catholic teaching on marriage and family.

Faithful Catholics Wax Indignant At The SinNod's Interim Report

G. K. Chesterton once said "If the world grows to wordly, it can be expected to be rebuked by the Church; but if the Church becomes too worldly, It can be hardly expected to be rebuked by the world."  No, it can't, and these days it isn't.  On the heels of yesterday's disastrous relatio (due in part to the stacked committee engineered by the pope), the Human Rights Campaign released this

They are rejoicing and gloating over what seems to be transpiring at this SinNod.  They seem to have solid basis for their jubilation.

Many of us understand the trouble that document signals for the Church.  We bloggers made known our concerns yesterday, particularly with those passages that condone homosexual behaviors.  Today's Vortex shows Voris interviewing a panel of the clergy, including Archbishop Bruno Forte, whom many believe was instrumental in the writing of paragraphs 50-53.  I'll post the video now and below that, I'll have more news.

Cardinal Burke sharply criticized the document, stating that it's a "betrayal" that "faithful shepherds cannot accept".  He called upon Pope Francis to issue a statement defending true Catholic teaching on the various topics that were mangled in the relatio.  Bishop Rogelio Livieres also has some well-founded criticism of proceedings.  Cardinal Muller had some pointed language for the thing.

There is something else to consider, and I thank Chris Ferrera for pointing this out.  Yesterday, the date of the release of this relatio, was the anniversary of some key Divine interventions.  It was on this day that Pope Leo XIII had his vision of satan attacking the Church, prompting him to compose some remedial prayers to be prayed after every Mass; these prayers are called the Leonine prayers.  They were scuttled after Vatican II, although noting in the council documents so directed their abandonment.

It was also the 97th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.  To the three children Our Lady made plain that we must pray and repent else we will be judged.  Did we see some stark sign of that judgment issue forth from the Vatican?  I believe we did.

As we read the comments of Ferrara's piece, a reader points out another anniversary: that of Our Lady at Akita, where she warns of bishops being set against each other, and a strong exhortation to be faithful to the daily Rosary.  None of this is a coincidence.

Monday, October 13, 2014

SinNod Interim Report Soft-Pedals Mortal Sin To The Eternal Detriment Of The Sinners

Today the Interim Report from the SinNod was released.  Here is the English translation from the Vatican Press Office.   By the way - I've taken the precaution of saving this thing to my own computer, just in case it "disappears" (ahem!).  I'd suggest others do the same.  Quite frankly, it is a friggin' disaster and portends God's judgment if the current course of the SinNod doesn't turn around.  Please have this document open in another window as I'll be working my way through it; I'd rather not "copy/paste" passages; otherwise this post will become too voluminous and bulky.

We look at paragraph 20, where "irregular situations" are discussed.  These includes those living together without benefit of marriage, those married civilly and those divorced and subsequently married civilly.  Let me call these what they really are: the first two are the sin of fornication and the third is the sin of adultery.  Both are mortal sins.  In order for one to be culpable of mortal sin, three elements must be present: 1) grave matter, which these situations obviously are, 2) full knowledge of their sinfulness (given the dismal state of catechesis, this knowledge isn't always present and 3) acting on this sin with full knowledge of sin and disregard of the same.

The paragraph talks of these objectively sinful situations and "the positive values the contain".  I posit that any "positive value" is far outweighed by the danger of damnation to those participating in these relationships.  Nowhere in this discussion do I see any reference to the eternal destinies of those engaged in these mortally sinful situations, nor do I see any mention of the need for repentance and Confession.

As you work your way down, notice paragraphs 47 and 48.  They deal with persons who are divorced from their first spouses and who are civilly remarried without obtaining a Church annulment.  Paragraph 47 starts by saying "as regards the possibility of partaking in the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist".  It sounds laudable, but only if the Sacrament of Penance includes the cessation of de facto adultery; else there is the issue of a sacrilegious confession.  Likewise, reception of the Eucharist in such a state would be yet another sacrilege.  There are those clergy who think themselves as being "merciful" for their prattle of condoning these unworthy reception of the sacraments.  In fact, such false mercy would be an act of unspeakable cruelty, as these clergy - wolves in sheeps' clothing - would in fact be facilitating yet more mortal sin upon the souls of those in their charge.

Now move along to paragraphs 50 - 52, dealing with homosexual persons.  Paragraph 50 urges Catholics, in regard to the homosexual to "value their sexual orientation".  Let me say this right now and I mean every word of this.  That statement in paragraph 50 is pure satanic pig-slop!  Church teaching has always declared the homosexual orientation to be intrinsically disordered.  There is nothing - NOTHING! - to value about an intrinsically disordered orientation that, if followed, will lead to heartbreak on earth and hellfire for eternity.  Will these faux-clergy soon be talking about valuing the "orientation" of a child-rapist, or a binge-drinker?  How about the "orientation" of serial shop-lifters?

The seduction to mortal sin continues in paragraph 52, as it erroneously states, "there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners".  I almost don't know where to begin.  Real aid would entail the accomplices in sin to separate and cease their perversion.  As it is, this so-called "precious support" is really the two accomplices blinding each other as they mutually push each other towards eternal damnation.  The gay person who claims to be loving his/her partner deceives only him/herself, as their sin condemns not only them, but the one whom they purport to "love".  Their very dalliances point not to authentic charity but to a reckless disregard for the spiritual well-being of their "partners".   Why we see this self-deception affirmed in this SinNod is impossible to discern, unless it is a pandering to the gay elements within the Vatican itself.

Speaking of authentic ministry to homosexual persons, were any representatives from the excellent Catholic apostolate called "Courage" invited?  I have heard no mention of them.  Perhaps they too, like the JP II Institute for Marriage and Family, were ostracized because of their fidelity to the Magisterium.

I am so glad this document is relatively short, for it contained way too much spiritual poison as it is.  Here is commentary offered by LifeSiteNews.  Voice of the Family has called this report "a betrayal". I concur.

I'll close this now with today's Vortex report coming from the Vatican.  Voris, in commenting on the "openness" of the Vatican, quipped that the Obama administration is more transparent than this SinNod.  He also asked a number of questions about conflicting messages from the SinNod.  I can only surmise he recorded this before this interim report was released for this report, if nothing else, made plain the nefarious direction of this SinNod.