Wednesday, October 24, 2018


From Sandro Magister:

Synod. The Pope Has Hit the Brakes, and On Homosexuality the Catechism Still Applies

The two synods on the family of 2014 and 2015 were among the most deliberately steered in history, so much so that at the beginning of the second session thirteen top-ranking cardinals wrote a letter to Pope Francis precisely to denounce the maneuvers aimed at producing “predetermined results on important disputed questions.”
The point being that the outcome of that double synod was already decided even before it was celebrated. And its coronation was the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” with which Francis gave the go-ahead to communion for the divorced and remarried, in spite of the fact that a good one-third of the synod fathers had spoken out against it.
Instead, the synod on young people that will conclude on Sunday, October 28 seems to be the most peaceful ever.
So peaceful that even the most explosive argument of those put to discussion - concerning the judgment on homosexuality - was practically defused.
The discussions in the assembly were kept confidential. But according to what was made public by the official information sources, there was not even one statement in favor of a change in Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.
And yet the “Instrumentum Laboris,” meaning the starter document that the synod fathers were called to discuss, seemed to promise sparks when it stated in paragraph 197 (among other things, introducing for the first time into an official text of the Church the not-innocent acronym LGBT):
“Some LGBT youths, through various contributions that were received by the General Secretariat of the Synod, wish to ‘benefit from greater closeness’ and experience greater care by the Church, while some BC ask themselves what to suggest ‘to young people who decide to create homosexual instead of heterosexual couples and, above all, would like to be close to the Church’.”
And instead nothing. When it came time to discuss this paragraph in the third week of the synod, not even those synod fathers known as innovators came out into the open.
On the contrary, in reading the few lines dedicated to the topic by what was expected to be of the 14 “circuli minores” the one most inclined to innovate, “Anglicus B” headed by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, one is struck by its explicit reference to the traditional doctrine on homosexuality contained in the Catechism.
Here, in fact, is how the relator of “Anglicus B” summed up the overall perspective of his working group, in the “relatio” presented in the assembly on October 20, concerning young people “who experience same-sex attraction:”
“We propose a separate section for this issue and that the main objective of this be the pastoral accompaniment of these people which follows the lines of the relevant section of the Catechism in the Catholic Church.”
So without changing a comma of the Catechism, which on homosexuals, in paragraphs 2357-59, says that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” but also that they “are called to chastity,” because their “inclination” is “objectively disordered.”
Other “circuli minores” also discussed the question, but always insisting - according to their written accounts - on the goodness of the Church’s traditional vision and on the need for the “conversion” of homosexuals to a chaste life.
With these premises, it therefore appears unlikely that the final document of the synod, which has been under discussion since October 23 and will come to the final vote on Saturday the 27th, would mark a turning point on the issue of homosexuality.
But precisely because the ones who hit the brakes included the synod fathers closest to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, it is plausible that this de facto flop was not a failure of the pope’s expectations, but on the contrary was the fruit of his decision.
A decision that was probably made while the work was underway, considering the dramatic moment that the Catholic Church and the papacy itself are going through on the world stage, in the thick of a cataclysm that has its peak precisely in the disordered homosexual activities of numerous sacred ministers.
By statute, a pope never intervenes in the drafting of the final document, which instead must be “offered” to him at the end of the synod.
But this time Francis has bent the rules, in order to follow the composition of the text as closely as possible. This was revealed by “L’Osservatore Romano” in the edition that went to press in the early afternoon of Tuesday, October 23, where it says that in the work of composing the document “on Monday evening Pope Francis also took part in person.”
At a press conference, on October 23, to the question of whether the final document, like the “Instrumentum Laboris” before it, will contain a passage concerning “LGBT young people,” Filipino cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle - a leading figure of the Bergoglian circle - replied that “the issue will be present in the document, in what form and with what approach I do not know,” implying in any case that there will be no repetition of the acronym LGBT, which had raised so many protests even before the beginning of the synod.
Tagle gave another response in line with tradition also to the question of what to do concerning the widespread presence in seminaries of young homosexual candidates for the priesthood. He said that albeit “with constant respect for human dignity, there are also several needs and requirements that we must consider,” so that they may not be “in contradiction with the exercise of a ministry.”
And at a press conference the following day German cardinal Reinhard Marx - another leader of the progressive wing and a “heavy” member of the “C9,” the council of cardinals that assists Francis in the governance of the universal Church - put the last nail in the coffin. “The question of homosexuality was never among the central topics of the synod,” he said. And he strictly ruled it out that the acronym LGBT would be used in the final document: “We must not allow ourselves to be influenced by ideological pressure, nor to use formulas that can be exploited.”
(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)


TJM said...

the fake catholics who post here must be in mourning!

TJM said...

I love your picture of Cardinal Burke, a true Catholic!!! Either Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah would make a marvelous Pontiff. The real deal, authentic, which is what young faithful Catholics are thirsting for.

rcg said...

It is merely the limit of hegemony at this moment. The science of this tactic is to watch for the limits of tolerance in the enemy(faithful Catholics) and stop just before they react with a counterpunch. Recruiting large numbers of sexually ambiguous children to support this activity is, well, childs play in a world with hundreds of millions of idle youth. Get some platitudes about tolerance and love that no one dares critisize then plant the flag and go home until the next synod opens to move the flag a little further.

Mark Thomas said...

At the beginning of his reign, Pope Francis "hit the breaks" on homosexuality.

In 2013 A.D., he condemned the homosexual lobby. He has condemned homosexual unions. He has supported Catholics who work for laws that outlaw homosexual unions, as well as the adoption of children to homosexuals.

Here is a video from June 2018 A.D. during which His Holiness condemned the notion that "different" types of families are legitimate forms of families.

At the end of this short video, he also condemned abortion.

At the 1:10 mark, Pope Francis declared that "we talk about 'diversified. families: different types of families. But the human family as an image of God, man and woman, is only one. It is only one."


Pope Francis "You are an icon of God: the family is an icon of God." to Families



Pope Francis says gay couples cannot be considered 'families'

Vatican City - Only heterosexual families can form a family, Pope Francis said on Saturday, when he also condemned abortion...


Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

The masthead picture is interesting. It shows Paul VI concelebrating Mass in May 1969. The altar has been extended to resemble a conference table. The stubby little candles and cross are a Pauline innovation, as are the 'modern' vestments. No wonder Cardinal Ratzinger talked about a 'closed circle'.

This arrangement was abandoned in 1970 when the Novus Ordo came in.

TJM said...

Just wanted to share with you a Vatican II "success" Story:

Netherlands: religious belonging and attendance still decreasing. Only 6% of those who say they are Catholic attend Sunday Mass

51% of Dutch people over 15 years of age do not belong to any Church or to any religion whatsoever. Just released by the National Statistics Bureau (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) as part of a survey of “social cohesion and welfare”, this figure shows a further decrease in the religious belonging of the Dutch: in 2016, 49% of them stated they did not belong to any religion, in 2012 they were 46%. The believing minority is composed of 24% Catholics, 6% belonging to the reformed Church and as many to the Protestant Church, 6% to other confessions, 5% to Islam. 78% of Dutch people have never or hardly ever attended a religious service, 10% of them attend once a week (6% for Catholics), 3% go 2 to 3 times a month, and the same proportion attends one religious celebration/meeting a month; 7% go less than once a month. The figures change depending on the age range and sex: 71% of Dutch people over 75 years of age stated they are religious, 34% that they regularly attend a celebration in a place of worship. The less religious ones are young people aged 18 to 25: 32% of them are somehow connected to a religious group, and 13% of them regularly see their group. As to men, 46% of them belong to a religious group, while 52% of women do.

6% Mass attendance.

Before the Council, the Netherlands was considered more Roman than Rome

Anonymous said...

TJM, I am sure that if we just went back to pre-Vatican 2, all would be well with the world. The world never would have faced the liberal trends of abortion and divorce...same=sex marriage would remain unknown. The drug culture? Never would have developed. Women would never have been ordained by Protestants if we had just not had Vatican 2.. the Sunday blue laws would have remained in effect...we never would have had pro-choice Catholic politicians...oh for the days..........

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

The Church would have been a bulwark, instead of an enabler. No Catholic politician would have dared been pro-abortion or they would have lost the Catholic vote. In the meantime, please comment on the happy state of the Dutch Catholic Church and quit deflecting from the topic at hand.

Dan said...

A., you never know. You might be right.

Henry said...

Anonymous @ 11:39 am,

Inadvertently correct on all points, regarding the U.S., at least! Because, sans Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church would have remained our country's moral rudder.

John Nolan said...

We can argue until the cows come home as to whether Vatican II was a cause or a symptom of the disease, or a catalyst that merely hastened the collapse which would have happened anyway. What we cannot do is take it out of the equation altogether. Nor can we maintain that there was a dichotomy between the Council itself and the way that it was implemented (a false 'spirit of the Council') for the simple reason that the people who embodied that spirit were the same people who were the Council's movers and shakers.

It's easy to blame Bugnini for the horrible new vernacular Mass, especially since he himself claimed credit for it, but he was simply the monkey; the organ-grinder was Paul VI.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think we could look at the Eastern Orthodox Churches which really haven't changed at all. I suspect that their membership has dwindled too especially in secularized eastern countries like Greece, etc.

I don't know of any Eastern Rite or Eastern Orthodox (Greek being the majority in the USA) that have booming or growing memberships.

Anonymous said...

Re: Greek Orthodox Church in Greece: "Sakellariou’s assertions are backed up by statistics. In 2001 only 13.9 percent of Greeks polled by Greek research institute KapaVima said they weren’t religious — but the newest stats, from 2015, put that number at 45.9 percent. That’s more than a threefold increase in less than 15 years."

Anonymous said...

"We can argue until the cows come home as to whether Vatican II was a cause or a symptom of the disease, or a catalyst that merely hastened the collapse which would have happened anyway."

That Vatican Two and, specifically, the changes in the liturgy that followed it, was the immediate and indisputable cause of the decline in membership and participation by Catholic in the US and the West has been the claim made over and over by several commenters on this blog.

By changing the liturgy, it has been claimed, we have damaged or destroyed Catholic identity and priestly identity. The liturgical changes have left young people with a "banal" and "insipid" and "vulgar" form of worship that has been the direct cause of their departure from the Church. The changes were the reason that cardinals, bishops, priests, and lay Catholics abandoned the Faith as apostates.

John Nolan said...

'I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.'

'They [the reformers] did not want to continue the organic development of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of a technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.'

Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger - not, as far as I am aware, a regular contributor to this blog (unless he is one of the anonymous posters).

Most lay Catholics do not visit Catholic blogs, do not read the Catholic press, do not possess works on liturgy or theology, and have never opened the CCC. They will probably be unaware that there is a synod going on in Rome. Their contact with the Church is through the liturgy (Sunday Mass). So what they are served up with does matter.

However, those who may have been 'turned off' by the hastily imposed and ill thought out liturgical changes are no longer young. Young people have not 'departed' the Church; they haven't really joined in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Fr. M is right about the Eastern Orthodox Church----I saw a report linked to the Greek Orthodox Metropolis Website in Atlanta a few months, documenting the state of Orthodoxy in America and it was not particularly encouraging. I think in the entire state of Georgia, number of Orthodox was listed to be about 12,000----not even 1 percent of our state's 10 million+ population, and well below even the shrinking Episcopal Church in this state which is maybe 60,000 or 65,000 at most. You get the feeling a number of Orthodox parishes are having more funerals than baptisms of weddings these days. Conservative Anglicans who broke away from the Episcopal Church a generation ago have not grown to anything significant---they keep fracturing.

Some conservatives side with Putin in Russia because of his support of the Russian Orthodox Church. But even over there, church attendance is low.

Even Southern Baptists---who doubts their conservatism?---are not growing rapidly anymore.

Regardless of one's denomination, it is not good when 'nones" are the largest growing group of people in America.

Anonymous said...

As follow-up on the Orthodox---the number of baptisms in the Greek Orthodiox Church in America fell by more than a third between the early 1990s and 2013, and the number of weddings fell by more than half. The number of annual baptisms isn't that much greater than the number of funerals in that denomination.

The estimated Greek Orthodox population in the United States is less than half a million, and of all Orthodox in the US, perhaps a million. So not like the liturgically conservative Orthodox are expanding in droves....