English Version Of Relatio Is Finally Out - No Wonder The Heretics Tried To Delay It

I suppose they hoped that with passage of time, the interest of many Catholics might have waned.  Well, some of us do have attention spans longer than those of ants.  Recall that the synod fathers voted two weeks ago to remove particularly heretical paragraphs.  The announcement came that they would remain, with the vote counts next to each.  The votes appear at the bottom of the document.  I share Father Z's disappointment that we don't know who voted which way.  Why the big secret?

Well, that last part didn't happen on this English version from the website of the Vatican Press Office.  I see no tally; that absence gives the distinct (and I believe deliberated) impression that the heretical elements passed through the synod vote with flying colors.  You'll have to look closely, as it appears that the paragraph numbering was revamped.

One of the heretical suggestions is now paragraph 52, talking of giving divorced/remarried (e.g. adulterous) Catholics "access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist".  Later it goes into some blather about "penitential practice".  Here are some problems with this.  If one goes to Confession, they must confess all mortal sins; else they've just made a sacrilegious Confession, adding to their charge yet another mortal sin.  If they confess their adultery, proper contrition demands that they quit their adulterous situations, not remain in them.  Otherwise, they are not properly disposed to receive absolution.  Of course if they aren't properly absolved through a worthy Confession, they are in no way eligible to receive Holy Communion as they will still be in a state of mortal sin.  If we're going to talk about "penitential practice" there is absolutely no substitute for those that have been promulgated by the Church since her founding by Jesus Christ; anything else is an illusory pipe-dream, a false consolation that will probably lead to eternal perdition for those so duped into embracing it.

Paragraph 53 reiterates paragraph 52, with the difference being a focus on coddling the mortal sin of fornication as opposed to adultery.  Again, what's being proposed by this SinNod here is nothing short of spiritual poison inspired by the evil one.

Paragraphs 55 and 56 touch upon those who suffer from homosexual tendencies.  I am happy to see that the cr*p that extolled "sacrificial love" between two partners in sodomite sin was expunged.  Let us pray that it stays expunged. I am wary of some elements within the hierarchy.  In a saner time. that nonsense would never have been allowed to see the light of day, coming from the Vatican.

I don't know how this squares against other translations.  I do know that the Pope said, in the SinNod's closing address, that we have one year to "mature".  If that "maturation" means a return to understanding that we follow Jesus Christ and not the whims of the world, so be it.  But given the cabal that de facto wrote that interim relatio without regard for the other synod fathers, I rather doubt it.

Father Marcel Guarnizo Interviewed Regarding The Extraordinary Synod

Last week an online publication interviewed Father Marcel Guarnizo for his thoughts on the synod that had just concluded.  I have been permitted to publish it on this site.  Father Guarnizo has many excellent points to make of the synod and its ramifications for the future of the Church, drawing on Catholic theology and philosophy.

He voices many of the same concerns as do other Catholics.  Rather than try to rehash the interview here, I urge its study.  It is here in pdf format, meaning that you can download it to your own computers and perhaps circulate it electronically, either on your own blogs or Facebook, etc.

From The "Francis Effect Department" - Baltimore Catholic Review Shills For "Gay Coming Out"

Since the heresy known as the interim relatio was allowed to be published from the SinNod two weeks ago, we've been seeing increasingly blatant advocacy for dissent from supposedly Catholic institutions.

The following article is from the Catholic Review, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.  I need to reemphasize that it comes from an official Catholic publication for one could easily be confused into thinking it's from a "New Ways" newsletter or even the Gay Blade.  It's in the October 23rd online issue and the link is http://www.catholicreview.org/article/home/st-matthew-broaches-topic-of-coming-out-for-parents-gay-catholics

We urge all to contact Archbishop William E. Lori, as well as the staff of the Review.  Point out that they offer false consolation to those struggling with same-sex attractions.  We wish to point them towards repentance, salvation and healing.  In no way do we want to affirm them as they engage in mortally sinful acts nor do we wish to approve of their family members as they misguidedly affirm such sin - such affirmation would be its own mortal sin.  With the release of this article they failed utterly in their mission as Catholic journalists to proclaim Christ to the world.

I trust that they will have the good sense (unless the Francis Effect is more advanced than I suspect) to pull that article and issue a retraction.  I will reproduce it below so you can see just what was allowed to be printed in a Catholic newspaper.  You may also wish to contact this St. Matthew's parish and urge them to once again be a truly Catholic institution as opposed to a glorified dating service for gays.

And now, the article.

St. Matthew broaches topic of ‘coming out’ for parents, gay Catholics

October 24, 2014

By Maria Wiering

mwiering@CatholicReview.org

“Coming out is a journey for the whole family,” a Catholic mother of a gay son said Oct. 12.

She and her husband shared their family’s story at St. Matthew Parish in Northwood as part of a nine-person panel discussion called “When a Family Member Comes Out.”

Moderated by Father Joseph L. Muth Jr., pastor of St. Matthew and Blessed Sacrament in Baltimore, the panel included three gay Catholics, two sets of parents of gay adult children, and a pastoral counselor from Loyola University of Maryland.

Each panelist shared his or her experience, including how coming out as gay affected their relationship with family members and the Catholic Church.

About 50 people attended the two-hour event, which included a question-and-answer session. Attendees asked for advice on personal situations, including navigating conversations with family members.

“People find themselves in a confusing place because they have a faith that allows them to be strong in the face of adversity, but they sometimes have a church that’s been challenging them about how they should see their family members who are gay,” said Father Muth in an interview after the event.

The panel discussion coincided with National Coming Out Day, Oct. 11. It was an extension of LEAD, St. Matthew’s LGBT ministry. The 3-year-old organization hosts monthly meetings. Its members have marched twice in Baltimore’s Pride Parade.

Relationships vary

Panelists candidly described realizing they or their children were gay and initially fearing the judgment of others, especially people at their churches. Some panelists maintained strong family relationships. Others, such as John, felt rejected and hurt. A gay Catholic and St. Matthew parishioner who asked his last name not be printed, John shared his experience of feeling shunned by his Catholic parents, who insisted on years of therapy. He spent time in seminary, and also participated in Courage, an apostolate for gay Catholics that focuses on helping its members live celibately.

Over the years, John’s relationship with his parents has repeatedly frozen and thawed, he said. At times they refused to allow him to use “we” or “our” to refer to his then boyfriend, now legal husband; other times they met the two for dinner.

“To live with that tension, it’s incredibly difficult,” he said.

“No matter the amount of fuss you put up, it’s not going to change that they’re gay or lesbian,” John added, speaking to parents of gay children. “There’s a hyper-focus on (being) gay as the worst sin. That’s hard to shake off. For me, it’s been a process.”

A welcoming approach?

The panel was held in the middle of the 11-day Synod of Bishops on the family in Rome, where topics included pastoral responses to gay relationships. Midterm and final reports suggested disagreement among bishops over the kind of welcome gay Catholics should receive in the church.

Despite the church’s insistence that its marriage teaching will not change, several panelists stated support for church sanctioning of gay marriage. All three of the gay panelists were civilly married to same-sex partners. Several explicitly rejected Catholic teaching that marriage is reserved for a one-man-one-woman relationship, and that all non-married Catholics, including those who are gay, are “called” to celibacy.

Father Muth said that he’s spoken with people who feel positive about the synod’s potential outcomes on homosexuality.

“The church teaching may or may not change at some point down the road – that’s not something I can do anything about – but the initial step to people who have felt rejected and put aside for many years is to create an atmosphere of welcome,” he said.

That atmosphere also encourages gay Catholics to tell their stories, he said.

“I think through that storytelling, people begin to see how hurt people have been and how they’ve turned away from the church,” he said. “With the church’s whole emphasis on this new evangelization, this is a real opportunity to reverse the attitude – to have a more welcoming, compassionate, listening attitude, to tell people they can be included.”

Evolution, Deism And Disregard Of God

Yesterday Pope Francis spoke to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences and made some rather startling statement regarding evolution, the big bang theory and how mankind came into being.  To put a little perspective on things, Venerable Pope Pius XII stated that the Catholic faith was not necessarily incompatible with the big bang theory and evolution as far as the human body originated.  (See Humani Generis, paragraph 36).

Please note the emphasis on "body", recalling that we are constituted both body and soul.  I'm not a theologian, but I think it stands to reason that there were two parents, endowed by God with immortal souls, from which we all descended, called Adam and Eve.  It is through them that we, their descendants, bear the image and likeness of God and the scars of original sin.  Many who hold to an exaggerated adherence to evolution do so to minimize original sin and even make a mockery regarding our need for the redemption promised in Genesis.

Leaving that aside for the moment, let's look at other disconcerting words uttered by the Holy Father.  He said, "when we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything — but that is not so."  It is not so that God is able to do everything?  Yes He is!  He's omnipotent!

What I also find troubling is that the Holy Father seems to touting evolution in an almost doctrinaire fashion as opposed to any belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.  This does appear to run counter with Pope Pius' encyclical cited above.  There also seem to be strong undercurrents of deism in the Pope's address (whether or not he realized it), with the picture of God holding Himself aloof after the initial work of creation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of those touting evolution today do so with the intention of shoving God to the sidelines of our lives, and eventually out of our lives altogether.  I pray we're not going to see these ends furthered by this address.

When We Must Respectfully Resist Vatican Progressives

Over the past year I have written many posts that express my concerns with this papacy.  Here is an archives of them; they do not appear in chronological order.  These concern are shared by many faithful Catholics, as evidenced on my right side-bar.

During the course of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family - which I dubbed the SinNod for the obvious attempts to normalize sodomy and adultery - we have seen the cause for our concerns multiplied exponentially.  I can think of no time in Church history when such a piece of heretical horse manure known as the interim relatio would ever have escaped the scrutiny of the sitting pontiff.  It did this time, and seems to have been engineered by the extra facilitators hand-picked by the Pope.  We stand in faith that the sitting pontiff will never solemnly proclaim error.  But in his lower-level statements and deeds, he would be well-positioned to wreck havoc upon the souls of millions nonetheless.

Some fellow bloggers brought to my attention an op-ed piece written by Ross Douthat called "The Pope And The Precipice".  I'd suggest a close reading and consideration.  He appears to be a faithful Catholic who is likewise concerned in the aftermath of this disastrous SinNod.   At the bottom, he suggests that the laity have a critical role to play in protecting the Pope from error and that will happen by resisting him in his errors.  I might prefer to state it as "resisting his errors" as opposed to resisting him as a person.

My friend at Tenth Crusade has written some excellent pieces in these past few days as another friend at Les Femmes and another blogger from Sensible Bond.  We are all sensing something horribly amiss about this papacy and its current trajectory.  If the degradation continues, we'll have to take steps to protect children and people we love from a garbled mess that can lead them to hell.

And now a word to those who persist in pretending that all is well with this papacy.  I love and respect you too much not to challenge you as you wear your rose-colored glasses and pretend that the pope walks on water in everything he says and does simply because he was elected pope.  I know there are those who think "the Holy Spirit chooses the pope".  That's not necessarily so, and that comes from none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; read from Father James Martin this quote from the Pope Emeritus along with a treatise on the process of papal election.  Some of you have taken exception to me and others as we've tried to sound the alarm.  Despite your tut-tutting, we will raise our voices for the sake of our loved ones and yes, for Holy Mother Church.  We truly hope you will open your eyes; else we will have to contradict you roundly.  We hope that won't be necessary, but that will be entirely up to you.  Let's stop the denial regarding this worsening train-wreck of a papacy.  Pray for Pope Francis, the clergy and all Christians.

Dignitatus Humanae Institute Clarifies Buzz Feed Interview With Cardinal Burke

From Aleteia we read that Dignitatus Humanae Institute, the organization that arranged Cardinal Burke's interview with Buzzfeed took the latter to task for rearrangement of words - a rearrangement that misquoted Cdl Burke as saying the "pope was harming the Church".

Rather, what Cardinal Burke said was "that in his opinion a general lack of clarity regarding the Pope’s position had caused harm to the Church."  In brief, he did not fault the Pope, but the "general lack of clarity" for harming the Church.  Buzz Feed has reprinted the entire text of the interview.  I appreciate Cardinal Burke's statement to set things right and to get his exact wording out there.  But now new questions are raised.

• Why, oh why, would there be any lack of clarity about the Pope's positions regarding divorced/remarried/adulterous relationships and sodomite situations?  The Magisterium has spoken on these things for 1000+ years.  Somehow I think that Pope Benedict XVI would have made his own positions crystal clear.
• Cardinal Burke asked the Pope to issue defense of the Church's teachings in light of the flim-flam that was called the interim relatio.  I do not believe that defense ever came.
• Let me elaborate on my previous sentence.  Here is the Pope's closing address.  In it, he states 
 "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."  That is not a definitive defense of the Church's teachings.  All he claimed here is that these teachings were not called into question during the SinNod; the interim relatio contradicts the Holy Father here.

So that little bit was cleared up.  Cardinal Burke did not attack the pope - as if I ever believed he did.  Will these other questions be answered?

Election Time Means Wisdom On Windshields

In less than two weeks the polls will open as many elected offices are up for grabs.  In Maryland, for example, every local office from the governor on down to the county clerks will be filled based on the people voting.

Many people will be sporting on their cars the names of their favorite candidates.  Unfortunately that means you may well see, in a Catholic parking lot, a car touting the candidacy of someone promoting abortion, gay lifestyles, etc.  Obviously they are either dissident from the Church in matters of public morals OR they are victims of lousy catechesis.

Either way, they can benefit from Wisdom on Windshields.  It is an educational flyer that can be placed on the car of the obviously oblivious fellow Catholic.  You can download it here and have it handy on your own computer.  Print it out and always carry a supply with you to Church, as you'll never know when an opportunity will arise to educate an ignorant fellow Catholic.

This flyer is a tool that can be used to "rebuke the sinner" or "instruct the ignorant" as the case may be with the individual recipient.  Wisdom on Windshields.  Never go to church without it!

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI - Dialogue Is No Substitute For Mission

On October 21, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, personal secretary to the Pope Emeritus, read aloud remarks written by the latter.  He reminded the people of Christ's direction to His apostles to "go make disciples of all nations".  He quite openly exposed the errors behind the phony concept of "dialogue", pointing out that "dialogue" is predicated on a fallacious assumption that "different religions are variants of one and the same reality".  "Dialogue" assumes that the "authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable".

The Pope Emeritus emphasizes that "dialogue" is "lethal to faith".  Of course we can then conclude that it is inimical to the soul and will facilitate eternal damnation as opposed to the salvation that Jesus Christ wants for all souls.

I urge close reading of this address.  I particularly encourage our own local "emeritus", that is, Cardinal McCarrick to read this address; by repeated actions of his, especially in favor of islam, he may well be placing himself in a perilous place.

Of Rock-Star Religious And The Follyhood Of Hollywood

Lately two "acts" have been winding their way through Catholic circles: one is some Italian nun who apparently can sing (choices of material leave something to be desired).  Another is that of a pair of priests who can tap-dance.  There are videos of both - and I refuse to post them.  In this post, I won't say too much of these entities.  Rather, what piques my curiosity is why so many good Catholics seem to be in awe of them.  I had a discussion on facebook about the priests and some of the comments are downright troubling.

I started off the discussion by asking "Why are people so fascinated by priests and religious who engage in "dancing with the stars" antics that are, at best, ancillary to their sacred vocations? Just asking..."  I heard a number of responses.

• "Their joyful witness is something that the world is incredibly hungry for".  No.  A tap-dance routine, no matter how happily done, will not satisfy the world's hunger.  They need to hear the truths of our faith preached to them in a straight-forward fashion.  They need the Holy Mass.  They need the Sacrament of Penance.  "Joyful witness" to what?  Jesus Christ, or their dancing talents?
• "So many don't think of them (priests) as normal human beings".  That begs the question of what we consider a "normal human being" to be.  The way I've understood it is that a human being is created in the image and likeness of God and that image and likeness is manifested through man's intellect and will.  Period.  I suspect that our concept of "being human" has been dumbed down by the secular culture - and deliberately so over these past few decades.  Our de facto belief (as a superficial culture) seems to equate "human" as "clown".  Unfortunately faithful Catholics are acquiescing to this degradation in attempts to "win people over".  In reality, we bow to lies and that will only lead to ultimate futility.  Should we not be teaching our young and those with whom we come in contact the real dignity that comes with being human?

No one begrudges these priests of their hobbies.  The problem is that we now know them not because they're exemplary teachers of the faith or stellar confessors, but because they can do tap-dance routines.  In our minds we have replaced the essential with the superficial, the primary with the ancillary.

Last year I had occasion to write about this false-joy mindset that is in actuality a focus on silliness.  I and some others had spoken out against it and were lambasted by those who wanted to remain in la-la land.  Here it is, for what it's worth.

Let's pray for these two priests, that their ministries (meaning at the altar, in the pulpits and confessionals, etc) be fruitful and that they continue to draw closer to Our Lord.

Pope's Erroneous Call For End To Death Penalty AND Life Imprisonment

As most Marylanders know, the State of Maryland last year abolished capital punishment of deadly criminals (the execution of innocent babies goes unabated, however).  I wrote two pieces that both excoriated the Maryland Catholic Conference and demonstrated why they actually violated Church teaching in their effort to abolish capital punishment.

In their efforts to abolish capital punishment, both on their website and during testimonies in Annapolis, the MCC stated that Maryland would be able to protect its citizens through the use of life imprisonment without parole in lieu of the death penalty.  I've saved screen shots of two of these and will post them after the jump break so as not to take up too much space in the main screen.

However, Pope Francis today made clear his opposition not only to the death penalty, but to life imprisonment.  He said "life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty".  So he just contradicted Archbishop Lori and the Maryland Catholic Conference.  He made the latter appear to be a bastion of conservative common sense - that's quite an accomplishment!

More seriously, though, he spoke in disregard to Evangelium Vitae and the hundreds of years of Church teaching.  He seems to impute motives of "violence and revenge" to governments who employ these means.  I've no doubt that some corrupt regimes do precisely that; however, to issue a blanket denouncement of life imprisonment - and the death penalty for that matter - is simply irresponsible.

What also seems to be disregarded is that governments have a solemn duty to protect their citizens from unjust aggression - including that which arises from other citizens.  That is an overriding concern, and in fact one that must rise above the "redemption" of one criminal.  So without at least life imprisonment, just what does His Holiness think should be done with those violent criminals who simply won't be "redeemed"?  Do I hear crickets?

Ladies and gentlemen, sometimes we must disagree vociferously with our Church leaders in matters of "prudential judgment".  Clearly this is one of them.  I link now to excellent points by Vox Cantoris.

Again, the MCC writings are below this jump break.

Archdiocese Of Atlanta Promoted Gay Pride Day

Both the Eponymous Flower and LifeSiteNews revealed that two weeks ago in Atlanta, the Shrine

of the Immaculate Conception both advertised and promoted the annual "gay pride" day in October.  Archbishop Wilton Gregory authorized both these abominations.  According to event organizers and the parish's "gay ministry" cabal, they've been doing this long before Gregory's arrival.  To that I reply, "so what?"  Gregory's been in charge of that place long enough and should have quashed that desecration from the get-go.

But hey!  Maybe I'm engaging in "hostile inflexibility" as the Pope may have called it.  Perhaps the archbishop has simply been worshiping the "always new" "god of surprises!

I seriously hope that faithful Catholics there will organize themselves so that they can take appropriate action next year.

PS - The picture to the right is the work of the blogger of http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/.

This Apology Could Do With Its Own Apology

Regrettably Michael Voris issued an apology for reporting on Cardinal Burke's comments last week.  If you go here, you'll see the video is no longer working; he took it down.  My friend at Les Femmes saw this apology before I did.  I say AMEN! to all her comments and I too pledge NOT to succumb to a false clericalism that refuses to acknowledge the obvious problems issuing forth from this papacy.  Contrary to what Voris says, we do not have to "comb through" everything the Pope says to find statements that, at best, obfuscate the faith.  In fact, it takes much more effort and mental gymnastics to pretend that we are not being continuously bombarded with oddities.  If nothing else, I want to assure others that they need now bow before the "god of surprises".

I have to wonder about something.  He seems to believe that his reporting of Cardinal Burke's all-too-accurate assessments somehow "harmed the Church".  But he merely reported what the Cardinal said.  Are we to surmise from this "apology" that he believes that Cardinal Burke harmed the Church by stating that the Pope was doing harm by not standing for the Faith?  If not, where's the alleged harm?

I also couldn't help but notice a parallel between this and another situation that happened about six weeks ago.  Consider: this past Friday Voris published his report on Cardinal Burke's remarks.  A few days later it was pulled down.  Yet another few days later he issues an apology.  Does it sound familiar yet?  Here's a hint: Msgr Charles Pope!

By the time I became aware of Msgr Pope's reaction to Cardinal Dolan's stance regarding the St Patrick's gay parade, his blog post - rightly critical of Cdl Dolan - had been pulled.  Fortunately LifeSiteNews and others saved it so I was able to save it.  So, like Voris, Msgr Pope posts an article and then it's pulled down!  Then - like Voris - Msgr Pope apologized for his previous post.  Even the timing of events is almost identical.

Now if one reads Pope's apology very closely, one can detect that he apologized under duress, probably from the Archdiocese of Washington.  Their server does host his blog and he is a priest of that diocese (just happens to be mine as well).  Now a question for which we may never receive an answer: was Voris's apology influenced by some outside entity?  Perhaps I'm just speculating, but one must admit the other similarities are quite striking.

God Of Surprises A False Idol

Let's take a look again at this notion of this so-called "god of surprises".  Again I'll link to the Pope's closing address at the SinNod.  I'm not certain that I dealt with it thoroughly in the last post and want to do so for we are seeing way too many manifestations of clergy bowing before this idol.

He chides those whom he considers embroiled in "hostile inflexibility".   Supposedly we close ourselves within "the written word" and don't allow ourselves to be "surprised by God".  Now think of it.  What would cause the serious, faithful Catholic to be surprised, even alarmed, if they were to encounter something that seemed off the mark?  Most likely it would be some deviance from God's word.  There's no doubt that our understanding of God's written word is not perfect; but in many cases neither is that understanding completely lacking.  The Catholics who have made good faith attempts to study their faith and to live it out (via prayer, Sacraments, good works) are, to varying degrees, able to perceive spiritual danger.  Often that spiritual danger is signaled by a divergence from God's written word as found in Scripture and/or Church tradition.  Thus the "surprise" that some may experience is really a red flag, a warning that spiritual peril is afoot; rather than embracing that source of "surprise" perhaps it should be fled, as Peter urges us to do with Satan.

The Pope has suggested that "God always surprises".  "Always"???   I can see surprises happening from time to time, but if one is always surprised, perhaps that tendency betrays an abysmal ignorance of the faith OR they are dabbling with spiritual forces that will lead to their eternal perdition.

Dare I suggest that any attempt to dissuade Catholics from reliance on God's written word in favor of some "surprise" is itself seduction by the devil?

Of New Things And Surprises And Diabolical Subtleties

A little note before I begin this post.  I will be expounding on these rather bizarre statements from the Pope, understanding of course that they are not spoken ex cathedra.  However, because there are some good-hearted people who think that every word he utters is a prophetic declaration or that it's just wonderful when he dons a clown nose for a silly selfie, there needs to be some input that is not derived from the "three monkeys" approach.  I'm pleased to note that many of my fellow bloggers seem similarly persuaded.  In fact, I shall be linking to them (as I often do).

Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible.  These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.

On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily.  In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete".  It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners).  Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect.  God's laws will never be obsolete.  They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.

We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy.  They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.

Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit.  Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly.  "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit.  God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus."  With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.

In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since.  You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g".  "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?).  What is with this fetish about "being surprised"?  In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.

Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris.  Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"!  To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous.  Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address?  Most likely so.  In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked.  Now he'll probably be rewarded.

During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things".  There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons.  First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun".  God is eternal.  His Word and Law is eternal.  Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John).  If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst.  Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment.  Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.

Let's face it.  This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy.  Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.

Double-Shame On CUA - Dissident Cardinal Kasper To Receive Award From CUA

Two days ago the esteemed Cardinal Burke gave an interview to the Catholic World Report.  In that interview he lamented that the SinNod was obviously orchestrated by certain elements (and Edward Pentin opines from the top - the Pope?) to advance progressive, dissident agendas.  He also went so far as to say that Cardinal Kasper's racist remarks were made to advance his dissident positions.  It is obvious that indeed the remarks were a clumsy attempt to discredit Cardinal Napier.  He might have gotten away with his lie had it not been for Edward Pentin's recording.

Quite frankly, Cardinal Kasper has been shown to be a flaming dissident and a bald-faced liar.

Now comes the burning question  Why, oh why, is the Catholic University of America going to bestow its Johannes Quasten Award on him on Nove 6th?  See this Rorate Caeli post for the details.  Apparently the attendees will also sit through his wind-bag exercise about the "Theological Background of the Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Vision of Pope Francis".  I don't know about any of you, but I think the world has already had its face rubbed enough in that muddy mess of a "vision".  At the end of his closing remarks at the end of the SinNod, the pope said we now have "one year to mature".  "Mature" means to be brainwashed into accepting heresy.  It's odd how I'm just noticing now that "mature" and "manure" are different by only one letter - but in the context of the pope's address I don't think it's that much of a difference.  But with this address, the "manure-maturation" process will be underway!  I am reminded of David Kupelian's book The Marketing of Evil.  He talks of the psychological process of jamming.  Since the progressives in the Church are working for acceptance of the gay sin inside our Church, I can see him borrowing a tactic of gay activists.

But let's get back to the Catholic University of America.  What has gotten into them?  As we saw yesterday, they are about to renege on their responsibilities as Catholic educators and let a gay rights activist be celebrated on campus.  Now they're going to bestow a prestigious award to a dissident cleric who has attempted to push through his warped agenda during last week's SinNod.  In prior posts I have lauded CUA for standing firm in Catholic matters, such as keeping their dorms unisex.  Now with these two pieces of news that I share, I must wonder if they've been infected with that deadly disease known as "the Francis Effect".  Pray for CUA, for things don't bode well for them spiritually.

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.

Contact:
Katie Jennings, Director of Campus Activities, jenningk@cua.edu
Board of Trustees, CUA-Trustees@cua.edu

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Time For An Early Christmas Mass!

In the midst of all the - I'll call it what it is - diabolical crap oozing from the SinNod, it's time for something innocent and cute.  We might have a future priest here!  It is from December 2013 so he must have been rehearsing for Christmas Mass.  His memory is quite remarkable.

Post by Chim Bồ Câu.

Subterfuge At The SinNod - Who Is Surprised?

This SinNod is supposedly about addressing the needs of the family and strengthening family life - is it not?  If so, I find the following quite curious, and I thank Pewsitter for bringing this to light.  The John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family has within its faculty and organization some of the most learned theologians and scholars bringing a faithful Catholic perspective to family matters.  Many of the faculty and their speakers include Cardinals.  Would it not have seemed reasonable to invite at least some of these capable thinkers to the synod to bring their expertise to bear on some of the questions about which they are debating?  It would to me - yet not one person from that Institute was invited!  We heard from the Pirolas, who really should have been flunked from their grade school catechism classes, but real scholars were personae non grata.  Now who made that bone-headed decision?

Let's move on.

As I understand things, this week the SinNod participants will be breaking down into groups to discuss the proceedings.  The groups will be determined by native language (Remember!  Pope Francis jettisoned Latin as the official language of the SinNod!).  These groups have already elected representatives who will take their discussion proceedings and, with all the other representatives will compile a synod report, called relatio synodi.  These language-based groups have elected representatives who are reputed to be rather conservative.  Cardinal Burke is one of the representatives for the English-speaking contingent. I'm not sure how many are in this group that were elected to compile the relatio synodi.  Father Z posted an EWTN interview with Cardinal Burke; he pulls no punches about some of the crackpot theories floating about at the SinNod.

To my uneducated ears, this sounds like a reasonable arrangement.  But perhaps it isn't to more progressive elements among the SinNod attendees.  Both Rorate Caeli and John Thavis relate that Pope Francis has stepped in and unilaterally appointed six others to be part of this committee.  All of these six have liberal reputations.  Yes, Cardinal Wuerl is one of them!  LifeSiteNews has an interview that shows just what Cardinal Wuerl will likely bring to the table as this committee goes about its task.

While no one gainsays the Pope's right to make this move, they cannot deny that this is a bald-faced move to "stack the committee" as it were.  So much for free debate and deliberations!  I believe we are seeing an unambiguous picture of the pope's personal predilections on these matters.

More Muddied Water From The SinNod

The stench and poison emanating from the SinNod is all too obvious, except to those who are obstinate in not taking off their rose-colored glasses and trying to make pious excuses for this debacle.  In the past few days, much commentary has been written.  I will not attempt to regurgitate them but will link to them so that you may read them.  I hope you will; too many still insist on remaining naive and ignorant to the proceedings, perhaps to their eternal peril.

First, I commend to your reading a post from Pat Archibald entitled "The Truth About This Crisis".  And yes, if anything should now be crystal clear, the Church is in deep crisis as many of her shepherds are trying their best to justify their dereliction of duty in teaching about Humanae Vitae and enforcing Church discipline.

Another I'd like to recommend is from my CMC colleague's blog, Les Femmes, as she asks, "What's Wrong With The Synod On The Family".  She in turn is commenting on a piece by Phil Lawler.  We all agree that many fundamental things are wrong with this SinNod.

Father Daniel McCaffrey of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City is a priest who has made it his mission to proclaim the Church's true teachings on contraception.  In an interview given to LifeSiteNews, he stated that the synod will not be successful unless it addresses the failure of the clergy to teach about Humanae Vitae.  He states that unless that happens there will be a "very cold, dark winter ahead of the Church".  I will add that not only is there refusal to address contraception within the Archdiocese of Washington, at least one priest who attempted to do so was flat-out punished.  Within a church in Montgomery County, he offered a class on Humanae Vitae.  When some progressive dissidents had their consciences stung (for they were probably engaged in that mortal sin), they complained to the pastor.  Immediately the priest was forbidden to celebrate public Mass and was transferred to a far-away location.  I can give no further detail for fear of exposing that priest to additional retribution.

Rorate Caeli received a letter from a reader in East Africa.  This reader, a friend of his faithful bishop, relates the horror that this bishop expressed when he read his report on the proceedings of the SinNod so far.  He wept and now fears that his flock will be susceptible to "evangelism" by muslims and evangelicals when they perceive the lack of conviction displayed by so many other bishops.  The identifying information has been redacted, undoubtedly to protect this bishop from Vatican retribution.

LifeSiteNews has other accounts of African bishops defending the family at the SinNod.  It's nice to know that there are some voices of sanity at that shindig.  But consider!  Isn't it incongruous that the family would have to be defended at an ostensibly Catholic synod?  I can understand the need to defend the family at some secular event, such as a United Nations meeting.  After all, we know the UN is hostile to the family and Christianity in general.  But now we should have to defend the family before Catholic bishops - and even the Holy Father?  What is wrong with this picture?

There have been other glimmers of common sense at the SinNod.  Unlike the Piroltas of Australia who promulgated their disgusting heresies a few days ago, there was a couple from Brazil who largely echoed Father McCaffrey's convictions.  Arturo and Hemalinda As Zamberline pointed out to SinNod attendees that large numbers of clergy have flat out ignored the teachings of Humane Vitae.  That's putting it mildly.

Rorate Caeli noted Cardinal Muller's displeasure at the censorship of SinNod proceedings.  The Cardinal stated that "all Christians have the right to be informed about the intervention of their bishops".  LifeSiteNews has his interview.  But let's look on the bright side, shall we?  At least we know that the Vatican Press Office does know how to resolutely exercise control.  Now if they would just apply that same resolve to papal interviews...

There is much more that will be said in the coming week during the second half of the SinNod.  Michael Voris and his Vortex team will be in Rome to report.  I'll post videos as they are made available.  For now, here are some introductory remarks.  In them he does cut through the "keep doctrine, change pastoral practice" crap.

Msgr Pope On Denying Holy Communion To Those In De Facto Adulterous Situations

Yesterday Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington posted a piece called "Musings And Concerns On The Synod".  Below he gives very sound reasonings why the distribution of Holy Communion to those in irregular situations would be gravely harmful and thus morally impossible.  I urge you to read this and study it.

Obviously Cardinal Wuerl might take exception to this post. Using Father Guarnizo as his example, he already has demonstrated disdain for those priests who do uphold Canon 915; you see, it's just "not his style" AND he "follows a pastoral approach, not a canonical approach".  That last quote is quite telling, as it sheds much light on what the progressive bishops mean by their "pastoral, not doctrinal" gobblygoop that is spewing from their mouths at the SinNod.

Given the subject matter involved and the fact that Msgr Pope differs from the local bishop regarding Canon 915, I think it's possible that this Oct 9th post could suffer the same fate as did Msgr's post regarding Cardinal Dolan and the now-putrefied St Patrick's Day parade.  Therefore I have saved it below, should the link return an error message.

The text of Msgr Pope's post follows:

We are seeing in Rome a rather unusual unfolding of the Synod, wherein cardinals and bishops with very different points of view are airing those differences quite publicly. Even prior to the Synod there was the publication of various competing books.

To be fair to the bishops and cardinals, it would seem that Pope Francis himself has largely encouraged this. It is more typical at synods for the sparring and debates to take place more privately, and press conferences usually just issue summaries of things discussed. Time will tell of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of such public airings, but if the permission for frank discussion may extend to a lowly parish priest, I will say that it concerns me greatly. It is never pretty to see how the sausage is made and some who are less familiar with the internal debates may well be discouraged, while others will be inappropriately heartened. Again, though, to be fair, vigorous debates in Church Synods and Councils extend all the way back to the first one described in Acts 15.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, what I think about the matter of Holy Communion to those in invalid matrimonial states and other irregular situations is no secret. I simply cannot see how it is possible for us to extend Holy Communion to Catholics living in invalid marriages unless they are willing to live as brother and sister. Rather than restate all the reasons, I’ll just refer you to  earlier posts I wrote: HEREand HERE.

And while the pastoral solution of living as brother and sister may not seem a “pastoral” or reasonable solution to many, it does remain a solution if Holy Communion is sought. Of course it is not a perfect solution. There is still the possibility of scandal, since not everyone will know or understand that an individual who is coming forward is not sexually intimate with his or her current “spouse” from a second union. But if celibacy is generally known as a possibility, others could presume good will and a large degree of scandal could be avoided.

I was speaking of this matter recently on the phone with someone (not a parishioner) and she scoffed at the notion of asking celibacy of people in these situations. She shifted the terms and asked me somewhat rhetorically,

How can you go on denying something as important as Holy Communion to people just because they are in what you consider a bad marriage?

I told her that I would answer her question if she would answer mine:

How is it that many have come to regard having sexual intimacy as more important or necessary than receiving Holy Communion?

I went on to add:

While Holy Communion is important (and I surely think that it is), I wonder why the people you describe as seeing it as so important wouldn’t choose to live celibately in order to be able to receive our Lord. You suggest I’m being cruel by denying it, but it isn’t really I who is making the choice here. The choice is really theirs. I am not the master of the Eucharist; I am His servant. Given Jesus’ description of second marriages as adulterous (Matt 19), and Paul’s clear warning against receiving Communion in an ongoing state of serious sin (1 Cor 11), it doesn’t seem that I have any choice. The choice is and remains theirs: either to so value Holy Communion and intimacy with the Lord that they are willing to forego sexual intimacy, or to seek solutions in the annulment process, or to continue refraining from Holy Communion.

Though I was being accused of somehow denying Holy Communion, I am not really doing any such thing. I celebrate Holy Communion every day for God’s faithful who are not impeded to receive. If they are somehow impeded, I will do what I can to help them overcome this impediment. If at the end of the process there can be no way to address the impediments, then the choice returns to them: live celibately and receive Communion, or choose not to and refrain from Communion. I am not denying anyone Communion; some choose to exclude themselves.

I realize that some people are in difficult and complex situations, but I cannot simply overrule the Lord or what He said to St. Paul. At the end of the day there is a choice for those who desperately seek Communion but are in second unions. That choice is celibacy. I realize that this is difficult and some conclude that this would be unjust to the second “spouse.” But it is ultimately their choice, not mine. I am respectful of the fact that some do not think they can reasonably choose to live celibately in their second union. However, it is not fair to say that just because other avenues have been exhausted, those in these situations have absolutely no choice. They do. It is difficult, but it is their choice to make.

It is sad that the Synod on the family has seemingly become a synod on divorce. I do hope and pray that some discussion is being had about the grace of living according to the Lord’s plan for matrimony and family. Surely the agenda will expand!