More Sin-Nod Pollution Bubbling To The Surface

Too many otherwise intelligent Catholics are absolutely gloating over the outcome of the synod claiming "we won", often with snark and guffaws at those of us who take a more sober look at the proceedings.  One of those concerned Catholics is none other than Cardinal Burke.  In an interview with Edward Pentin, he opined that the final report was "misleading" and lacks clarity on indissolubility of marriage.  He is focusing on paragraphs 84-86.  I urge you to read the interview.

From Voice of the Family we hear concerns about paragraph 58.  Apparently the majority of the prelates there voted for its inclusion: a paragraph that rejects Church teaching that states that parents are the sole authority over children's education regarding sexual matters.  The article points out that this paragraph has on it the paw prints of the United Nations.  In league with Planned Parenthood and other progressive cabals, the UN seeks to usurp the role of parents in moral formation of children.  Paragraph 58 of the sin-nod-slop plays right into their hands.

We also have an editorial from LifeSiteNews pointing out that what is not present is a clear affirmation of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality and the mortally sinful nature of homosexual acts.  The lack of reiteration of Catholic teaching does in fact send a message that the teaching is not binding on man as a dictate from God.

As we can all see, the fallout from the sin-nod is just starting to appear.  There will be more work done in examining the final report.  More importantly and more ominously, we will see within the next few months some insidious implementations of "the spirit of the synod" (I bet that phrase will enter progressive lexicons presently) in our dioceses and parishes.  This will vary according to the proclivities of local prelates.  In short, I expect the Archdiocese of Washington to continue its embrace of "social justice" crap while punishing priests who dare to uphold marriage and Holy Communion.

Stay tuned.  There will be more.

Fellow Faithful Catholics, The Sin-Nod Was A Disaster

That so many faithful Catholics are grasping at straws right now can be readily understood.  For decades now we've seen the Teachings of Jesus Christ not only attacked by secular society but undermined from within by progressive clerics of the Judas mold.  While we've been fearing a massive plop of heresy to spew forth from the sin-nod, it hasn't happened to the degree to which we expected.  But therein may lie the danger, for where overt evil might be rejected precisely because it is recognizable, evil camouflaged in subtle and ambiguous language can more easily insinuate itself into the minds of those who are all too ready to embrace simplistic appearances of good.

Think of it.  Faithful Catholics are waxing jubilant and ready to break out the bubbly because a Catholic document wasn't chock full of overt heresy!  Moreover, they are calling upon others to don rose-colored glasses and join them in pollyanna-type fantasies.  Take a look at my blog roll to the right; you'll see some of them.  Now these sites are on my blog role precisely because I hold them in respect - but on this occasion they're swilling down some dangerous koolaid.

All that demonstrates is how far we've fallen as a Church, when we rejoice because a Church document "isn't that bad".  Ladies and gentlemen, consider that the matters that were discussed during the sin-nod should never have been on the table precisely because they were stated clearly by God and acknowledged by the Church two thousand years ago.  To add insult to injury, some of the votes were fairly close.  In a saner time, any deviation from God's revealed word would have been unanimously and unceremoniously rejected.

As I stated yesterday, Rorate has commenced some analysis of the relatio.  It bodes ill for the Church.  Moreover, I link now to a LifeSiteNews piece penned by Andrew Guernsey.  In it he points out the attempts to tinker with language that has been used by the Church to describe intrinsic evils.  Anyone with a smidgen of common sense knows that the manipulation of language is an attempt to manipulate the thought processes of the audience.  One of the "offending phrases" that the sin-nod culprits want to eliminate is the phrase "intrinsic evil".  As Guernsey points out, this puts into context the Pope's concluding address yesterday in which he openly disdained "language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible".

I'll post below a video in which Michael Matt gives more insight as to what happened these past few weeks.  I will ask that my fellow bloggers throw off their rose-colored glasses and realize that the battle is still underway.  The sin-nod laid the groundwork for progressives to soldier forward with their plans at deconstruction of the Church.  Look out for phrases such as "spirit of the synod".  Keep praying, stay vigilant, vocal, and active.

We Are Being Bombarded With Maturation Efforts

Remember the Pope's closing address of the SinNod?  Here is the link to it at the Vatican site for reference.  In the third-to-last paragraph, we were told that "we have one year to mature", presumably before the ordinary synod next year.  Commenting on my post from yesterday, "TLM" had a great point to make on what "mature" means in Jesuit lingo.

The "maturation" has begun in earnest.  No one who has two functioning eye balls can deny the obvious as they behold these incidents of the past few weeks.  Please note that the incidents that I will list are merely those of which I've learned.  There might well be more, and I'm sure this list will grow over this coming year.  Now, the list thus far:

• Two weeks ago, I posted that Catholic University of American intended to host a showing of the movie "Milk".  It's a very sympathetic portrait of a gay activist's life.  The screenwriter was also scheduled to speak.  I do not know if that has happened or even if it's scheduled for a future date.  My emails have received no response.
• Again, at CUA, Cardinal Walter Kasper will receive a prestigious award and will talk about "the vision of Pope Francis".  He is the orchestrater of much of the SinNod's mischief.  No doubt his talk is being give with the goal of furthering this "maturation".
• Yesterday the University of Notre Dame hosted a "Gay In Christ" conference.  Ostensibly its aim was to address "a pastoral strategy for parishes to be able to receive the gifts of self-identified gay Catholics".  Right there we see a massive problem.  There are no "gifts" that come from anyone on account of any disordered tendencies they might have.  Would we speak of the "gifts of self-identified spouse-beating Catholics"?  Of course not.  Moreover, some of the speakers have been quite open about their embrace of the gay lifestyle.
• During the month of October, Father Walter Cuenin, a Boston-area college chaplain displayed a GLBTQ (did I get these initials right?) flag outside the chapel over which he presides.  Recently he had circulated a petition to have that rainbow monstrosity hung over the Oval Office.  On the altar of the chapel he has a pink cloth and pink candles.  I understand from the Boston Catholic Insider that this has been going on for at least ten years.  Why has not Cardinal O'Malley defrocked him yet?
• Three days ago my friend at Connecticut Catholic Corner posted news of a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Father Gary Meier, who has "come out for gay equality because it's what Jesus would do".  He himself is gay and refuses to tell his followers that homosexual acts are mortally sinful.  Julie asks a good question: where is his bishop in all this?
• Another suspiciously silent bishop is Baltimore's Archbishop Lori.  Two days ago I pointed out that the Baltimore Catholic Review, the Archdiocese's official paper, was used to shill for a "gay coming out" session at a Baltimore parish.  I continue to ask why this piece saw print in a Catholic paper and why the pastor of this parish isn't removed and even defrocked.

You might have noticed a common theme in these incidents.  They all involve the condoning of the mortal sin of sodomy by Catholic institutions.  Recall that in the English translation of the final report on the SinNod, those paragraphs that condoned sodomy were stricken, and probably to the chagrin of the progressive puppet masters of the SinNod.  I wouldn't count the elimination of those paragraphs as a clear-cut victory for those who uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Rather, it was a temporary retreat, a tactical maneuver of the dissidents so that they could cut their losses and regroup for next year.  As we continue through the year, please expect the above list of atrocities and abominations to increase.

These sorts of things have been going on for several years.  However, I don't recall them ever being so blatant or as numerous as they are now.  This has all the stench of a coordinated effort to "help us mature", as it were.  This past Tuesday I wrote of the need to resist the Vatican progressives.  One of the ways we must resist is to expose these tactics and explore action against them as they occur.  No longer can we remain passive.

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.