Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Synod Mess Piles On And On

Yesterday I posted about a couple who praised some friends for affirming their son as he engages in a gay relationship and careens toward damnation.  LifeSiteNews has some rather disturbing information about the couple, Ron and Mavis Pirola of Austrilia.  It turns out that they are co-directors of the Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council.  YIKES!  Under their dubious leadership, one can only shudder at the thought of the "council" given to Australian Catholics dealing with homosexual sin in their families or even in their own lives.  How much heresy has been fed to these unfortunates, to the peril of their immortal souls?  Again, I'm at a loss to understand why the bishops in that audience, when they heard the heresies, didn't immediately arise en masse and preach repentance to them.  Don't at least some of them recall that they are the shepherds and not the sheep?

The equivocation continued this afternoon.  Again, thanks to LifeSiteNews, we heard that one presenter lamented language used to describe sin.  According to this anonymous person, "language such as living in sin, intrinsically disordered, contraceptive mentality are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and His Church".  We have no idea who this individual is, as their name is not being released.  Is that person afraid to have his/her name associated with his/her crackpot theories?  To that deluded individual and other similarly befuddled folks, I have a few words.  The language that you lament happens to be the truth.  One does not sugar-coat the truth.  If you try to do that, what you "invite people to draw closer to" is NOT Christ and His Church but insidious caricatures of the same.  It is the Truth that sets us free.  I would invite you to a close reading of the Gospels.  Jesus Christ won no popularity contest; else He would not have been crucified.  Do you really want to build up some "church of nice" slop or do you seek after the salvation of souls (that being the Church's primary mission)?

Speaking of language, the Pope decided that Latin will not be the official language of the synod.  This is an obvious - and gratuitous - break with tradition.  What was a supposed motive?  To streamline the process.  Ok!  So what language(s) was used?  Bunches of them?  How does that streamline anything, as opposed to using the Church's official language?

Now read some troubling snippets from the Pope's homily yesterday.  I'll put them in "bullet form".
  • He said that the "Church must not withdraw into dogma" but "recognize that the world has changed."  The world changes all the time - so what?  Christ's teaching is immutable - and that means dogma!  We resort to dogma so as not to be caught up in the ever-shifting sands of worldly fads and frivolities.
  • He said "we have to approach social difficulties by extending a hand to give comfort, not by stigmatizing and criticizing people".  Here we go again with him setting up false dichotomies.  Sometimes "extending the hand" involves criticism of their sins.  This statement can lend to confusion between real kindness and false "niceness".
  • He said, "Young people are not getting married.  It is the culture of the time.  What should the church do?  Expel them from her breast?  Or approach them and try to bring them close and teach them the word of God"?  By their sin, their fornication and cohabitation, these young people (and old) expel themselves.  That defines mortal sin, does it not?  It's not the Church that does any expelling.  They can only come close if they repent and come back to the Church under the terms set forth by Jesus Christ Himself.
There is much more I can write, but you get the flavor of what this synod is becoming.  I'm sure more will be forthcoming tomorrow or the next day.

1 comment:

  1. Question......is Cardinal Burke at the Synod? I read of course yes he would be, and then it was unsure because of Pope Francis basically firing him and sending him to Malta, but I haven't seen where this has been formalized yet. If he indeed is there, he, along with other traditional Cardinals have to be in much pain. That said, why do we not hear anything from them? Or could that just be because they are being 'selectively' excluded from public commentary? Realizing that names are withheld, I don't see much rebuttal from any traditional source.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.