THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

Despite all the ominous portents, it seems
the 'youth synod' bishops have decided that
the Catechism still applies on the matter
of homosexuality and chastity
[And Deo gratias, if the pope upholds this decision in his post-synodal document]

October 24, 2018

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, 13 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 the synods were even held. Crowned by 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 2,8 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.”

Perhaps St Peter Damian, scourge of sodomites, whose feast day comes on February 21, the day this pope called the presidents of the bishops' conferences around the world to start a three-day meeting at the Vatican next year on the clerical sex abuse crisis, interceded early enough to forestall a 'normalization' of sexual deviancy by the church of Bergoglio. For the time being, at least.

But hold the champagne! We can't stop praying against that eventuality, because we never know what this pope may eventually decide to promulgate in his apostolic exhortation. After all, he's gone and done what he wanted in both Evangelii gaudium and Amoris laetitia, ignoring any pretence at collegiality in doing so, but imposing his own private will sovereignly.

P.S. Magister's 'news' and conclusion had to be too good to be true. On the same day as Magister, Edward Pentin explored apparent manipulations which would subvert the final synod document itself, both as to what it says on homosexuality and on the major issue of 'synodality' (a la Church of England) turning up in the final synod document even if it was never discussed at the synod (and was not even part of the precooked Instrumentum laboris...


Are the synodal managers trying to smuggle
rejected topics into the final document?
The controversial issue of homosexuality may be subtly introduced into the final document
by means of different language, and inclusion of the much-disparaged working document.

October 24, 2018

The Synod Fathers are currently examining and debating the final document of the Youth Synod, tabling amendments and propositions (modi) to the draft which will be voted on, paragraph by paragraph, on Saturday.

The general sense among the bishops, including those from Africa (whose voice some said had been “drowned out”) is that their views have been listened to and have found their way into the document.

But sources inside the synod hall say that efforts are currently underway to smuggle into the document by other means issues not expected to pass a two-thirds vote, and firmly opposed by a majority of synod fathers.

The most notable of these concerns the inclusion of the loaded acronym ‘LGBT’ which has been vigorously opposed by African bishops who have instead insisted on an emphasis on what the Catechism teaches and on better catechetics.

To circumvent this, some synod fathers, understood to be largely from the German language group, are submitting modi using alternative terms to ‘LGBT’ and homosexuality, such as “quality of human relationships” or the need to “clarify anthropology,” or “new anthropology.”

Perhaps more significantly, they are entering modi that would insert a sentence insisting that the final document be read together and in continuity with the Instrumentum laboris, the synod’s working document.

This would be another way of ensuring the inclusion of ‘LGBT’ as that document controversially mentioned the acronym — something roundly criticized by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia in his synod intervention. The Instrumentum laboris as a whole was widely panned before and during the synod.

Bishop Andrew Nkea Fuanya of Mamfe, Cameroon, told the Register Oct. 24 that a fellow African bishop told the Synod “very strongly” that the working document “is like a seed that has to die, so that the final document can germinate and grow".

“So we are all hoping that the Instrumentum laboris will die,” Bishop Nkea said.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, sought to play down the homosexual issue, saying he did not think the topic had been discussed in the German Church. “It doesn’t play a central role, although some would like to bring it right to the core of matters,” he said.

He acknowledged “different lobbies” and said he was “surprised” that he is “always asked about the same things as if these were at the core of Jesus’s message.” [But isn't it ultraprogressives like Marx who insist on highlighting the 'concerns' of the LGBTQ community and their advocates???]


But also during the press conference, the archbishop of Munich spoke of the need to “change our attitude.” The Church “needs to change, become different,” he said, adding that young people want an “authentic Church capable of listening.” Statements, he said, “must be translated into changes.” [There we are! What rank hypocrisy! All those code words screaming out the same message: Pay attention to the demands of the LGBTQs. Who do not just demand ad hoc 'rights', civilian and otherwise, but also some formal acceptance from 'the Church' (i.e., the church of Bergoglio) that homosexual practices, like the adultery which many remarried divorcees live in, are no longer considered sinful.]

In the debates in the synod hall, various Synod Fathers questioned why the working document should continue to be considered within the final document, with one saying it would cause confusion and that only one document should be considered official. If not, he questioned why the synod should be taking place at all.

Various other concerns were raised during the 44 interventions this morning, including the lack of any mention of Pope St. Paul VI despite him just being canonized and also the need for his encyclical Humanae Vitae to be included. Further demands were made for references to Pope St. John Paul II who is also noticeably lacking in the document. There is apparently has no mention of his Theology of the Body catechesis, nor of Familiaris Consortio, his apostolic exhortation on the family. These will also be proposed as modi. [Because for the church of Bergoglio, whose leading ministers ae running the synods, 'the new church' did not begin with Vatican II - it has begun only with Bergoglio, so who really cares about previous popes??? Bergoglio has nullified everything that came before him, as Fr Rosica so emphatically informed the world.]

Other modi included requests for the inclusion of chastity, references to Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est, a greater presence of women and families in seminary formation, the need for a “classical anthropology,” and a better definition of synodality.

One synod father said the concept of voting on doctrinal matters was “very dangerous” because it leads to unclear teaching. [And what is to vote for about doctrine? Either you are a Catholic bishop who accepts, upholds and safeguards the deposit of faith, or you are no longer Christian and have become a Bergoglian.] Other bishops called for a definition of “zero tolerance” as many were unclear about its meaning.

The document has been written principally by the Synod’s two special secretaries: Brazilian Jesuit Father Giacomo Costa, one of the main authors of the instrumentum laboris, and Italian Salesian Father Rossano Sala, professor of youth pastoral outreach at the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome.

The Italian text of the draft final document, which reportedly received enthusiastic applause when its outline was read out yesterday, has been rapidly translated into English at the request of a number of English-speaking bishops — something the secretary general of the Synod, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, readily agreed to.

The draft consists of 173 paragraphs and covers topics ranging from accompaniment and discernment, to synodality and formation.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier of Durban, South Africa, told the Register Oct. 23 that “quite a few of the concerns” raised in the small groups have made their way into the document, although he conceded that the final report “cannot possibly” cater for “everyone’s perspective.”

“A number of things are rather weak,” he said, such as references to the Church’s moral teaching, although the cardinal said he didn’t believe there was a reluctance to discuss “moral questions or moral issues.” He said the African bishops “pushed back very hard” against any inclusion of the homosexual agenda in the document.

The cardinal said he was generally “happy with the document” and welcomed a “noticeable absence of rancor and the bitterness” compared to the family synods of 2014 and 2015, helped in large part, he thought, by the presence of young people and a “completely new crop of bishops.”

Perhaps the most significant element to the final document is that it will be the first of its kind to have the weight of the papal magisterium — a crucial move towards decentralization which significantly places more power into the hands of bishops.

Some see such a development as a grave risk, but Cardinal Napier said this synod’s final document looks to be a “pretty good analysis” which points out “all the challenges that lie ahead.”

“The magisterium is what each bishop takes home to his conference,” and what is “implemented in their diocese,” he said, adding he was “very hopeful that we've got a very good foundation on which to build.”

Also revealed today was that the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops, which prepares the next synod, will be elected on Friday. The Pope has decided to raise the number of members from 15 to 21 to include not only bishops but also specialists and some dicastery heads.

The approved text of the final document is expected to be made public on Saturday evening.


Marco Tosatti has his say:

Behind the scenes at the 'youth synod'
Translated from

October 25, 2018

We have so far paid little or no attention to the ‘youth synod’, for which I apologize to our readers. But as you have read here, other matters that are more urgent take precedence over the tsunami of words coming from that synod everyday.

So today, we will speak about the synod, just a few days away from the votation on its final document, because we met a friend who is a respected personage in the Curia and has shared his impressions on the atmosphere among the synodal fathers.

Of course, many are convinced that the document hsas been ready for some time, at least in its essential lines. “Then they will sprinkle a few phrases here and there, taken from actual interventions during the synod, much as a cook may sprinkle sugar over a cake”.

It is always possible that besides sugar-coating the text, they will find ways to introduce less innocuous matter (about which our colleague Edward Pentin has reported along with other observations). Such as getting in the acronym LGBT even if, according to my friend, majority of the synod participants are against it.

Then he makes an interesting observation that says much about the ‘free and fraternal’ atmosphere there is in ‘the church’ today: “It is feared that the Synod Secretariat will know how each and every member voted because we vote with the same system we use to register our attendance in the morning, which indicates a number that corresponds to the registrant’s name”.

What is feared, of course, are the consequences that may follow from voting in a way that does not conform to the wishes and desires of the synodal authorities. The resemblance to a national assembly in the People’s Republic of China seems to be stronger than ever. Probably one of the results of the secret agreement with Xi Jinping?

A proposal for a new Dicastery for Young People found no consensus. “A minority proposal, because the Dicastery for the Laity already has an office for young people. Entia non sunt multiplicanda. But there may be a suggestion for permanent commitees on young people at the parochial, diocesan and Vatican levels”. [But is that not entia multiplicanda thousands of times???] Given this pope’s love for committees, this does not seem like an unlikely hypothesis.

The general sentiment seems to be that the Bishops' Synod [i.e., the central body comprising all the bishops of the world coordinated by the Secretariat under Bergoglio pet Baldisseri] has become a machine that is too big and oppressive.

And that there should be less people taking part in the assemblies – like one representative per nation. [They cannot be serious! And if each representative were handpicked according to a pre-determined criterion, then the very selection process would already predetermine the outcome, to the point that the synodal assembly becomes truly nothing more than a forum where participating bishops can bloviate and provide the rubberstamp for whatever the pope wants.

And that each synodal assembly should be preceded by a mail consultation with the bishops, a collation of their various proposals, of which the most important and ‘popular’ would be presented to the actual assembly in Rome, which would meet for only two weeks instead of three. [Then why even meet at all????]

According to the synod secretariat’s daily reports on what takes place on the Synod floor, not a few synodal fathers expressed their perplexity over the presence of Cardinals Cupich, Farrell and Maradiaga in the synod, given the still-raging tempest over the latest outbreak of the clerical sex abuse scandals. [A rather disingenuous ‘perplexity’, considering that Cupich was personally named a synodal delegate by the pope himself; Farrell is the prefect of the dicastery which has jurisdiction over youth affairs; and Maradiaga is, of course, Bergoglio's 'vice-pope' and coordinator of his 9-man Crown Council of Cardinals.]

Our friend added that there was also talk about the new Sostituto (Deputy Secretary of State Edgar Pena Parra of Venezuela) by delegates who had read the letter from laypeople of Maracaibo, Venezuela (Parra’s home diocese) detailing the many accusations of sexual misconduct, heterosexual and homosexual, against Parra throughout his career. [A separate story I yet have to post about.]

Meanwhile, Edward Pentin says that two chapters in the draft of the final document are devoted to synodality (the model of church governance followed by the Anglican Church), even if the topic was hardly ever brought up in a synod intended to discuss the problems of young Catholics.

It would mean, in practice, a ‘permanent revolution’ within ‘the Church’. Nothing to be happy about, if one thinks of the Maoist antecedents of ‘perament revolution’…

On the subject of homosexuality and the use of the acronym LGBT, of which Jesuit priest James Martin has been the most vocal advocate, Pentin says a way to go around it is being studied, such as using terms like ‘the quality of human relationships’ which require ‘anthropological clarity’, or using the term ‘new anthropology’ [to describe the variety of sexual permutations and combinations in contemporary society].

Or, to make sure that LGBT gets in somehow, a proposal that the final document should be read in continuity with the much-criticized Instrumentum Laboris which spelled out the working agenda of the synodal assembly and did use the term LBGT. [It is, of course, preposterous to append the IL in any way to the final document of the Synod. Might as well not have held the synodal assembly at all!]

Sandro Magister assures us that there ought to be no surprises in this area [more specifically, he says that the final synod document will reaffirm what the Catechism says about homosexuality], and he thinks that perhaps, Bergoglio, whom we all know (and tells us himself) to be rather cunning, has concluded that with the problem of rampant clerical homosexuality linked to the clerical abuse problem, legitimizing homosexuality in the final synod document would not be politically correct. [So he’ll do it anyway in his post-synodal exhortation, by which time he probably expects the double-headed homosexuality/sex abuse monster to have faded into the background, though it will surely surge back up in full cry once he legitimizes sexual deviancies in any way, shape or form, if the partners (even if there are three or more, or one may be a dog?] have ‘authentic love’ for each other.]

It is certainly interesting that Cardinal Ouellet, author of a disastrous reply to Mons. Vigano, told the assembly during his intervention that the Church should integrate more women in more ways into the life of the Church in order to confront the problem of clericalism and an exaggerated masculine posture in the Church. [What exaggerated masculine posture in a Church whose prelates seem to be largely effeminate wimps???]

Clericalism is a code word – used by the reigning pope, first of all, and then adopted quickly by his entire court, to the last thurifer and horse groom – to avoid using the word ‘homosexuality’, a word which, for some reason, seems to be taboo in this pontificate. One wonders why.