Proposition 146 of the 'final document' of the 'youth synod' contains something so preposterously insane that it could be Exhibit A to prove that the synodal
fathers who voted for that document 'paragraph by paragraph' really were braindead by the time they got to it (after that, there were 21 more
propositions to vote on). No one in his right mind would have approved it, for many obvious reasons. My own immediate reaction was: [And the synodal
flunkies approved that line of raving idiocy???? Excuse me, now some little committee somewhere - at the parochial, diocesan and Vaitcan level - whose Catholicism is
suspect at best, and who maybe know next to nothing about Catholicism will 'certify Catholic sites'???? For what? And by whose criteria?]
Fr Z was openly derisive and combative:
Certify Catholic sites? BWAHHHHAHAHAH! Yeah, that’ll happen. And guess who would be in charge of something like that.
If they want to know the meaning of total, unrestricted and asymetrical warfare just try that. They won’t know what hit them.
Just as important as the question of how such an insane proposition could ever have been made, to begin with, is how it was approved by 234
delegates, with only 6 No's, according to the Vatican's tally sheet. The six still mentally functioning voters who said NO deserve a special 'sense and sensibility'
medallion struck for them!
New Catholic at Rorate caeli had this commentary:
Liberal censorship: Synod asks Vatican
to create offices at every level to
'certify' acceptable Catholic websites
October 30, 2018
The most astonishing demand of the "Synod Fathers" who approved their final document without actually reading it is in paragraph #146...
Well, well, well... We know what those "certification systems of Catholic sites" mean:
a new form of censorship.
The old censorship, which was excellent in intent, tried to protect Catholics from books promoting heresy and immorality. But
this was when many in the Vatican itself were not themselves promoting heresy and living in utter immorality.
You can just imagine that a man in the shape of Uncle Ted McCarrick could be in charge of this "Vatican Digital Commission" that would promote the "Vatican Certification" of acceptable websites: those promoting sodomy would be accepted, while those promoting the Baltimore Catechism would be rejected...
Father Hunwicke went at it earlier...
Censorship-
The Bergoglians are at work on it ...
October 29, 2018
In the chaos of the 1960s, one notable casualty was the Church's system of the censorship of books. This disappearance was, I think, inevitable; in that febrile and aggressive atmosphere, it is inconceivable that the process of waiting for a diocesan Censor Librorum to read a book and make his comments, then for him to negotiate with an author about his/her ambiguities, and to agree a text ... then for the Ordinary or his VG to issue the imprimatur ... it is inconceivable that such a system could have survived.
Then add Humanae Vitae and the spate of dissenting books and articles which would have needed to be refused the Nihil obstat ...
There was undoubtedly rejoicing at the disappearance of the pre-modern apparatus of censorship; predictably, especially among 'liberals'.
Clandestinely, this development led to
a new and only semi-visible form of censorship. The dominance of certain 'schools' in Academe, especially in subjects such as Liturgy, Biblical Studies, and Moral Theology, made it increasingly difficult to secure publication of ideas which defended or explicated Tradition.
Although the boot was invisible ... it was now on the other foot.
But now comes the paradox.
The disappearance of Censorship preceded, at a polite distance, the emergence of the Internet. And in our own age it has become very difficult for anybody to monitor, let alone to control, the myriad ideas and opinions which can flicker across the World's computers.
And, among all this material, orthodox and traditional statements and ideas have as free an
access as everything else to the many fora of discussion. I very much doubt if the examination and critical assessment of this pontificate would have been as open and free as it has been, had the Internet not existed.
But now ... Synod 2018 Paragraph 146.
"The Synod hopes that in the Church appropriate official bodies for digital culture and evangelisation are established at appropriate levels ... Among their functions ... [could be] certification systems of Catholic sites, to counter the spread of fake news ..."
I very much dislike the look of this. It is no secret that some members of the CBCEW were, for years, very nervous about bloggers and especially clerical bloggers. The disgraceful episcopal suppression of one famous diaconal blog became quite a cause celebre. Management had lost a significant control. It is only a year or two since my friend Fr Ray Blake bravely put on the public record that he had found tanks parked on his lawn: tanks in the shape of his Bishop passing on the cheerful news that "The Cardinal doesn't like ...".
We seem to have come a long way from those broad sunlit uplands when Benedict XVI (remember him? The 'Rat', the 'Inquisitor', the 'Panzer Cardinal'? Yes, that one) encouraged blogging, and especially clerical bloggers. Now, the era of the boors and the bullies.
Shall we, in a few years' time
[Oh no, Fr H, not 'in a few years' time' - that wouldn't help the Bergogliac cause. How about 'just a few weeks from now'?] , discover that
we have Diocesan, National, and Worldwide systems for closing down free discussion in the Church? After all, the Synod will have "called for it", won't it?
"Synodality" sounds so democratic, modern, open and free. What's not to like? And this Synod has concluded with the usual flurry of synthetic Bergoglian rhetoric about the Holy Spirit. In such liberated and happy times, don't you need to be paranoid to be suspicious?
Don't you believe it.
Bullies are bullies are bullies.
Aldo Maria Valli had a more detailed commentary on Prop 146 on his blog today, but I have yet to translate it... Equally surprising, if not appalling, to me
is that other than the 4 above, so far I have seen no yelps of outrage elsewhere.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 31/10/2018 05:52]