¡Hagan lío! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!



Apparently the bishops at the Synod are tired of being manipulated.

They created a little lío of their own.

In full view of the Pope, they rose up pretty much as a body and rebelled against the way Card. Baldisseri, who seems to be the chief architect of what may have been a pre-determined agenda, has been handling them.

I am reading Marco Tosatti’s piece at La Stampa.

My translation:

Synod, more censorship, protests

The General Secretary of the Synod [Card. Balidsseri] announced the decision not to publish the reports of the Circuli Minores [subcommittees by language groups, tasked with contributing elements to the final report]. The announcement provoked the protest of Card. Erdo [the president or chairman for this Synod], and numerous other Synodal Fathers. The Pope, silent and very serious. At last, Fr. Lombardi announced that the reports of the commissions would be made public.


Erdo took the floor, implicitly distancing himself from the report that bore his name, and saying that if that “disceptatio” had been made public, then the others of the Circulo Minores ought to be made public.

His speech was followed by an avalanche from many others along the same line, underscored by thunderous applause.

The Secretary of the Synod, Card. Balidisseri, was watching the Pope, as if in search of advice and lights, and the Pope remained silent and very serious.

Silent also were the Under-secretaries of the Synod, Fabene, Forte, Schoenborn and Maradiaga. [What a list.]

Kasper wasn’t there.

Finally, Fr. Lombardi announced that the reports of the Commission would be made public.

This is a big deal because the bishops didn’t simply roll over and let the appointees running the Synod run them over.

This Synod has been characterized by an unusual amount of information control.  There has been little transparency about the workings of the Synod.  Instead, the outside world was “informed” about what was being discussed through summaries.  Sure, the leadership of the Synod said that the participants could talk to the press on their own, but that’s not the same thing as knowing what went on the Synod hall.   Then, what one might be able to imagine was a pre-positioned midpoint report was sprung on everyone, with weird and disturbing paragraphs that didn’t seem to reflect the workings of the Synod over all.  That caused Card. Erdo, who had signed it, openly during a presser to give up Archbp. Forte as the perp.

Then Card. Balidisseri determines that the reports of the subcommittees wouldn’t be published.  That was a bridge too far.

This in full view of the Pope, who seems not to have shown his hand, but also who seems not to have been pleased at what was going on.

Meanwhile, Nicole Winfield of AP, who seems never to tire of calling Card. Burke a “hardliner” or something like, has a piece about the origin of the language in the infamous midpoint Relatio about homosexuals:

Erdo has already named the official who wrote the section on gays, Monsignor [Archbp.] Bruno Forte, appointed by Pope Francis as the special secretary to the synod. Forte is an Italian theologian known for pushing the pastoral envelope [that's one way to put it] on dealing with people in “irregular” unions while staying true to Catholic doctrine. [Oh?]

Technically speaking, Forte and all the members of the drafting committee had access to far more material than the bishops themselves since they had the lengthy written speeches each synod “father” submitted prior to the meeting. Those written speeches factored into the draft report, even if the bishops didn’t utter them during the four minutes each was allowed to speak. [Or see them at any point.  This was another procedural point that some expressed concern about before the Synod.  Everyone was to submit their speeches to Card. Baldisseri ahead of time.  Who knows what happened to them then?]

In fact, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he recalled only one speech out of about 265 about gays during the debate.

So it’s not surprising that bishops didn’t recognize everything in the draft report since these written submissions weren’t made public or distributed to the bishops themselves, and the oral presentations only reflected a summary or particular point that a bishop wanted to make. But at the same time, there is no real way to know which bishop or bishops had proposed such ground-breaking language or whether it was more a reflection of Forte’s view. [The controversial language was "ground-breaking" but Card. Burke is a "hardliner".  Just so we're clear.]

Left-leaning Religion News Service has also taken up the standard liberal line (big surprise).  They also never tire of calling Card. Burke a “hard-liner”, through they use a hyphen.  Perhaps liberal outlets are comparing notes.  I was amused at the beginning of a piece by RNS’s Josephine Mckenna:

After two days of fighting between happy liberals and angry conservatives, the Vatican dispatched a leading moderate from the US Church to tell both sides to temper their expectations about impending changes in Church doctrine.

The problem is that the speakers at the presser were scheduled a few days in advance.

Notice how Left-leaning outlets always describe “conservatives” as “angry” or “hardliners”. They are clearly meanies. “Liberals”, on the other hand, are happy!

Meanwhile, ¡Hagan lío!

Little known fact…

Did you know that Card. Baldisseri, before he was elevated to the College of Cardinals, was first the Titular Archbishop of Dioceletiana?

Who else has been the Titular Archbishop of Diocletiana?

  • Adolph Gottfried Volusius † (22 Jun 1676 Appointed – 17 Mar 1679 Died)
  • Jan Kazimierz Opalinski, O. Cist. † (8 Jan 1680 Appointed – 17 Nov 1681 Confirmed, Bishop of Chelmno (Culma, Kulm))
  • Maximilien Bormann † (6 Apr 1682 Appointed – 1687 Died)
  • Cristoforo Arduino Terzi, O.F.M. † (10 Jul 1945 Appointed – 11 Jul 1971 Died)
  • Annibale Bugnini, C.M. † (6 Jan 1972 Appointed – 3 Jul 1982 Died)
  • Pietro Rossano † (7 Dec 1982 Appointed – 15 Jun 1991 Died)
  • Lorenzo Baldisseri (15 Jan 1992 Appointed – 22 Feb 2014 Appointed, Cardinal-Deacon of Sant’Anselmo all’Aventino)
  • Wojciech Zaluski (15 Jul 2014 Appointed – )

What is interesting about this Synod is the role of the media and social media.

Had the social media existed at the time of the Second Vatican Council, it would never have been possible to ram through the radical liturgical “reforms” of the 60′s and 70′s.

UPDATE 16 Oct: 1454 GMT

Apparently, Card. Pell was the first one to rise up against Card. Baldisseri. When Baldisseri made the announcement, Card. Pell took the floor and said that the reports had to be published and that they were tired of the manipulation.

From that point, the bishops also rose up. When Baldisseri repeated his position, he was effectively shouted down.

At that point, Card. Baldisseri turned to the Pope and got the nod to publish.

UPDATE 16 Oct: 1530 GMT:

The reports of the Circuli Minores are available on the Vatican website.  HERE

Card. Burke’s would be in Anglicus A.  Sample:

For example, where the Relatio appeared to be suggesting that sex outside of marriage may be permissible, or that cohabitation may be permissible, we have attempted to show why such lifestyles do not lead to human fulfillment. At the same time, we want to acknowledge that there are seeds of truth and goodness found in the persons involved, and through dedicated pastoral care these can be appreciated and developed. We believe that if we imply that certain life-styles are acceptable, then concerned and worried parents could very easily say “Why are we trying so hard to encourage our sons and daughters to live the Gospel and embrace Church teaching?”

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark
Posted in The Coming Storm, The Drill, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence, ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged , , | 75 Comments

VIDEO: Holy League – Trailer

Alas, they took no account that in the Extraordinary Form the Feast of Christ the King is the last Sunday of October. Still!

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Semper Paratus, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , | 6 Comments

13 October? I’m just sayin’

A priest friend sent this (with editing):

Makes one ponder…

  • Oct. 13, 54 Nero becomes Roman Emperor
  • Oct. 13, 1884 Pope Leo XIII’s vision leading him to write the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel
  • Oct. 13, 1917 The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima
  • Oct. 13, 1973 Apparitions at Akita: “cardinal opposing cardinals, and bishops against bishops…”
  • Oct. 13, 2014 Relatio post disceptationem of Extraordinary Synod

The Rosary and St. Michael: a powerful duo.

Posted in The Coming Storm | Tagged | 22 Comments

Card. Kasper’s observations about Africa – UPDATE: Interview REMOVED!

UPDATE 16 Oct 1700 GMT:

Card. Kasper’s interview at ZENIT has, as if by magic, disappeared.


Card. Kasper denied giving the interview, but Pentin had openly recorded it and it was on the record!


Pentin posted it.

Card. Kasper has been at the epicenter of the controversies surrounding the ongoing Extraordinary Synod.  He set the ball rolling in a speech to a consistory of Cardinals in which he made now infamous proposals.  For example, he suggested allowing the civilly remarried access to Communion under a “tolerated but not accepted” model.

Now Card. Kasper has been interviewed by ZENIT.  He made curious comments that have me scratching my head.

First, some background.  As I observed the other day, Pope Francis appointed some additional members to the committee to draft the Relatio the Synod will turn in.  None of them were from Africa.  Today, Marco Tosatti made the same observation.  HERE  That seems… odd, since Africa is exploding with Christians.  However, the fact is that African Catholics are far more doctrinally conservative than their counterparts in the 1st world.

Perhaps their contributions would have … muddied? … the desired results.

Anyway, today Card. Kasper speaks again.  Here is the relevant section:

It has been said that [Pope Francis] added five special rapporteurs on Friday to help the general rapporteur, Cardinal Peter Erdo. Is that because he’s trying to push things through according to his wishes?

I do not see this going on in the Pope’s head. But I think the majority of these five people are open people who want to go on with this. The problem, as well, is that there are different problems of different continents and different cultures. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.

But are African participants listened to in this regard?

No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].

They’re not listened to?

In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.

What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod?

I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. [NB] But they should not tell us too much what we have to do. [?!?]


Here is the inverse argument.

Kasper’s view reminds me of when Augustine tried to convince Donatists that the Church wasn’t just in Africa.  The Donatists thought they were the only Church and anyone in contact with Catholic bishops was tainted.

I respond that the Catholic Church in Africa is older than the Church in Germany.  Not only that, the Church doesn’t subsist only along the Rhine.

The only things missing from what Kasper said here are the words “tribal” and “primitive”.

If I recall correctly, Anglicans tried this too, at the their Synods.  They needed to exclude Africans who weren’t going along with their groovy new ideas.  How that’s working out for the Anglicans now?

UPDATE 16 Oct 1548 GMT:

From a priest friend:

A few years ago Cardinal Kasper compared London to a Third World country.  HERE

And he did not mean it as a complement.

He refused to apologize – and then flew back to Rome claiming to be ill.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged , | 76 Comments

Is the leadership of the Synod dealing from a stacked deck?

Italian journalist Marco Tosatti, who writes for the Italian daily La Stampa,  hit it directly on the head today.  He points to some facts. You decide.  HERE in Italian.  My translation:

 Un Sinodo un po’ taroccato? A Synod a bit “phoney”. [Italian "taroccato" is hard to get into English with the right nuance. It can mean "counterfeited" or "falsified". But the origin of the word has to do with a deck of cards, card games. "Taroccato" carries the sense of dealing with a "stacked deck", having an "ace up your sleeve". The implication is that the Synod's outcome is predetermined through cheating.  One might, for example, try to imagine how the 6000 word Relatio post disceptationem was so swiftly produced, in tolerably good translations, in several languages seemingly by magic, overnight. Is it possible that some of the sections were written in advance?  Now back to Tosatti...]

When the [Synod's] supervisor, a Cardinal of holy Roman Church, disowns more or less explicitly his paternity of a report that bears his signature, there’s a problem.

When the same Cardinal, in referring to a passage of the text, certainly more interesting and abounding with problems, having been asked for an explanation, tosses the response to an Archbishop [synodal] secretary added (by the Pope) to the Synod because he is the author, there’s a problem.

When many bishops and cardinals, from Poland, Africa and Australia, complain that the report, as it is written and presented to the press, does not, according to them, reflect what was said in the Synod hall, and that it adds things that were never said, there’s a problem.

When the text is called “unacceptable” by Cardinals and Bishops, “irredeemable” by another, and when it is said by the Circuli Minores [subcommittees] that “we are working to review the test, strikeout some phrases and so forth, but that it is a sick text [un testo malato] and it isn’t known how many of its proposals can be accepted, there’s a problem.

When there are bishops – and there are more than one – who are saying that they don’t want to come to future Synods if they are conducted like this, because they are turned into a farse, there’s a problem. When the South African Cardinal Napier confirmed on Twitter, namely in the public way, that [Tosatti quotes in Italian but I think Napier would have written in English] ““mentre è possibile che alcuni elementi stiano cercando di adeguarsi all’opinione del mondo, la maggioranza vuole restare fermamente con la verità… while it is possible that some factions are trying to adapt to the opinion of the world, the majority when to remain firmly with the truth” [which sounds much like the title of the "Five Cardinals Book"]; namely, he asserts exactly the contrary of the proposals that some journalists, for various reasons, are trying to confirm, there’s a problem.

When in the choice of the leadership of the Synod an entire continent, in which there is taking place the greatest growth of Christianity and of Catholicism in terms of the faithful (as opposed to Europe and North American, or Latin America where evangelicals are gobbling up millions of ex-Catholics), and, thus, Africa is forgotten, there’s a problem. [I made this point the other day.]


There’s more, but that is enough to frame the synodal situation well.

Here is an example of coverage from a writer and organization that leans to the Left in their reporting on the Church, Nicole Winfield and AP.  HERE  The interesting stuff is is in the second part.  Watch what happens.  Winfield calls Card. Burke a hardliner – there’s a surprise – but then admits that “he has a point”.  Then she goes on to make his point for him.   Even the MSM can’t easily spin what is going on too far out of orbit:

Hard-line American Cardinal Raymond Burke, the head of the Vatican’s supreme court, told Catholic World Report that the document contained positions “which many synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”

He accused the Vatican press operation of releasing “manipulated” information about the synod debate that didn’t reflect the “consistent [in Italian, consistente, "large, substantial"] number of bishops” who opposed such a tone.

To some extent, he had a point. [!]

The Vatican has greatly reduced independent access to information about the closed-door proceedings, withholding bishops’ individual speeches from public view, much to the dismay of Burke and other conservatives [Interesting way to describe the situation.  So: liberals are okay with the lack of transparency.] who want their side known. The only information released has been summaries of the day’s debate by the Vatican spokesman, whose briefings have reflected a general a tone of opening and welcome.

[Watch!] The briefings made scant reference to gays at all, and yet the provisional report gave significant ink to the issue. The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said while he only recalled one major speech about gays out of 265, it was likely that bishops’ written remarks covered the material and were reflected in the document. [Surrrrrre.]

The big question looming is how the battle over the final document will shake out.

The bishops themselves elected a host of known conservatives to lead the working groups hammering out details of the final report. In an apparent bid to counter their influence, Francis appointed six progressives to draft the final document. [So, Francis opposed himself to the bishops?]



Whatever is going on at the Synod, it’s messy.

It seems as if it is messy in part because of attempts to orchestrate the outcome.

Meanwhile, no substantive response has been given to the arguments presented in the “Five Cardinals Book”.  Why is that?

Sure, by now, most of the Synod participants have seen The Book.  It is out in Italian, German, Spanish, French and English.  The English version, so I am told, wasn’t in print yet, when the Synod began, so pre-publication copies were run up for distribution to participants.  Surely they have made an impact.  I suspect that in the days ahead, we will hear from participants about the impact of the The Book.  It would take a bit to read and absorb.  That should be coming into play right about now, as the subcommittees are meeting.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged | 60 Comments

ASK FATHER: Is Jesus a human person? Catechism 101

From a reader…


Did Jesus Christ true God and true man, become a human person?


The Second Person, the Eternal Son, God from God, took our human nature into an indestructible bond with His divinity and was born of the Virgin Mary, who, with Joseph His legal father, named Him Jesus.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, now incarnate.  Thus, Jesus is a Divine Person, just as the Father is a Divine Person.  Though Christ had a human mother, He did not have a human Father.  He is a Divine Person, not a human person, as you and I are, having both mother and father.  Jesus has our human nature from His mother, but He is a divine Person.

Jesus is consubstantial with His Father.  Jesus is consubstantial with His mother.

Mary gave birth to the Divine Person, Jesus.  Therefore, since she is the mother of a Divine Person, and not just of His human nature, she is rightly called Mother of God, as defined by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

We do not make errors about this, as Nestorius and the Nestorians, who thought wrongly that Jesus was two persons, one divine and one human.  The Council of Ephesus in 431 settled this.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 further clarified that Jesus has two distinct natures, Divine and human, and that these two natures are inseparably joined in one Divine person while not being confused with each other.

Neither do we fall into the error of Monophysitism, which was a heretical overreaction to Nestorianism.  Eutyches, sharply reacting to the heresy of Nestorius that Christ was effectively two persons with human and divine natures, asserted that Christ was one person having one nature, a fusion of human and divine in some way.  In Greek, “one” mono, and “nature” physis gives us Monophysitism.

There were also Ebionites and Adoptionists who thought that Christ was merely human but was adopted by God for a great purpose.  But I have answered the question and we don’t have to deal with them.

Although… I wonder if we don’t have quite a few de facto Ebionites and Adoptionists in our pulpits and chanceries.  I wonder.  That would explain a lot of liturgical choices, certain suggestions about who can receive the Eucharist, etc. Sometimes you will hear modern day heretics or people in serious error float the notion that Jesus didn’t really know who He was, slowly figured things out, blah blah, which comes pretty close to a denial of His divine nature. So, what would Mass be? What would the Eucharist be? Adoptionism, a 2nd century heresy, asserted that Jesus was merely a human man adopted as God’s Son sometimes along the way, for example, at his baptism. Ebionites were Jewish Christians who thought Jesus was the Messiah but denied His divinity. These heretics thought that Jesus was a human person.

Don’t be an Ebionite!

Jesus is a Divine Person, who still has two natures, Divine and human.  Jesus is a Divine Person, not a human person.  He is a Divine person who shares our humanity.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.”

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , , , , , | 41 Comments

Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus

A few people have mentioned that Card. Burke suggested praying devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus.

I wrote to someone in Hong Kong (which I would like to visit), who put me on to a site dedicated to Devotion to the Holy Face.  HERE

Anyway, I was sent two documents, with English and Latin propers for Mass.

Here is the Collect.

Domine Jesu Christe, cuius sacratissimus Vultus in passione absconditus sicut sol in sua virtute relucet; concede propitius; ut tuis passionibus communicantes in terris, in revelatione gloriae tuae gaudere valeamus in coelis. Qui vivis et regnas…

The Latin has this, which is interesting.

Petitioni hodierni Moderatoris Provinciae Aprutinae Ordinis Fratruum Minorum Capuccinorum circa facultatem celebrandi, in Sanctuario Sacri Vultus D. N. Jesu Christi apud «Manoppello», Missa votiva ad normam nn. 374-375 Codicis rubricarum, adhibito textu Missae propriae «Humiliavit… » concessae, die 15 Martii 1957, Congregationi Silvestrinae O. S.B.

Sacra Rituum Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi a Sanctissimo Domino nostro IOANNE PAPA XXIII tnbutis, benigne annuit pro gratia iuxta preces, idest celebrandi praedictam Missam, eodem in Sanctuario, uti votiva II classis singulis per annum diebus, sed solummodo a sacerdotibus peregrinis, aut quoties Missa ipsa dicitur in favorem peregrinantium:  dummodo non occurrat dies liturgicus I classis, vel festum Domini II classis: servatis rubricis.

Archiep. Carpasien.
S.R.C. a secretis
Ex aedihus S.R.C. die 23 Februarii 1963.
Concordat cum originali approbato

Anyway, we all need to get out the spiritual armor, polish it up, and buckle it on.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Si vis pacem para bellum! | Tagged , | 15 Comments

ASK FATHER: Anointing in the Time of Ebola

From a reader…


I´m writing from Spain where sadly, a nurse is extremely ill with Ebola virus. She was infected while treating a Spanish missionary who was brought back from Africa to get treated.

My question is this: imagine she asks for the sacrament of extreme unction. [Anointing of the Sick, at the end of life, is "Extreme Unction".] Is there a protocol or any instructions as how to proceed? Can she be refused by a priest? Can she be refused by the Government?

Right now it seems like an absurd question, but since you always say to prepare for TEOTWAWKI and we don’t know how or when it will come, it doesn’t seem like such a far off question…

And we had therefore better immediately stop the Sign of Peace!   It’s far more likely to spread disease.

It is rare that one canon of the Code of Canon Law answers a question, but here we have not just one canon, but one paragraph of one canon: can. 1000 § 2:

“The minister is to anoint with his own hand, unless a grave reason indicates the use of an instrument”.

The danger of infection with Ebola provide a grave reason.

The anointing can be done with an instrument, such as a long-stemmed swab, or even, if the patient is quarantined, with those isolation glove box things.  I once anointed someone in an ER by reaching in with sponge forceps.

The related question is going to be: Can a bishop forbid Communion administered on the tongue during a pandemic?  We ran into this with the H1N1 scare.

I suppose a bishop can do so.

It would be petty, small, and nasty were a bishop to use the crisis of an infectious disease to push his personal ideological liturgical agenda.

I don’t buy that Communion on the tongue spreads diseases more than Communion in the hand.  In general.  Ebola virus is contagious, but not highly so. But it is really really horrible.

However, one of the ways that the Ebola virus is spread is through body fluids: including saliva.  Yes, it is possible to transfer saliva, but rare if the priest knows what he is doing and people present themselves properly for administration of the host.

People: Please!  When you want to receive Communion on the tongue, lift your chin a bit and stick your tongue out! Not just the tip of the tongue with your chin tucked against your chest.  Okay?  Okay?

Now that we have that out of the way, have any of you read Tom Clancy’s Executive Orders?

NUTSHELL: Iranians manage to weaponize Ebola and seek to release it in these USA.

A ripping good yarn and surely pure fiction.  Pure fiction.  I mean, no problems with Islamic fanatics these days.

All in all, I’d rather have a Pres. Ryan, if you get me.

But… what could go wrong?

And… pray for these poor people, those coming here and those in Africa.  Ask the Archangel Michael to contain and avert this horrible plague.

Historically, in times of plague, Holy Church has held public processions.  We should do so again.


I just received a note:

Hi. My heart is heavy. Our Bishop on Las Vegas is instructing the Priest’s at our Parishes to ONLY distribute Holy Communion in the hand, due to Ebola.
I know that the Church Documents, Cannon Law and even the GIRM, is clear and allows the Faithful to choose how to receive Our Lord themself. Our right is being taken away.
My Mother who is 88 was forced to receive our Lord today in her hands. The first time ever.
What is the best course of action?
I have emailed our Diocesan office, no reply yet.

If this is being done for ideological reasons, you might drop a line to the Congregation for Divine Worship.  However, I am not sure there is much recourse, other than besieging the man with prayers.

But hey! Who am I to judge? Maybe with so many people travelling in and out of Las Vegas, and going to various… places, there may be an outbreak there soon.

Also, no one is forced to receive Communion.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, TEOTWAWKI, The Coming Storm, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , , | 46 Comments

NEW Z-SWAG! (This one might surprise you.)

It’s time to have a little fun.

Over at the piranha tanks of Fishwrap‘s combox, you readers – you – were being ridiculed as …


For those of you who may not know, “Zed” is a British English way to name the zaggy last letter of the alphabet (and per se excluding the ampersand).

We should embrace this feeble attempt at ridicule.

Thus, I today roll out my new Z-Swag line for all you “Zed-Heads” and the wanna be “Zed-Heads” at Fishwrap.

Enjoy!  Click HERE and ¡Hagan lío!

The older ones among you can explain to the younger ones what’s going on in this.

There are, now, shirts, mugs, and a great round car magnet.  There are also some black and white items.


And I must thank our official photoshopper for his great work and help.  Be sure to patronize his store.  He is the one who has the marvelous Pius Clocks, with little Papi Pii as the numbers.

It is also a CAFEPRESS store, so when you buy some of my stuff, you can add one or two of his clocks.  They are great gifts!  HERE

Don’t let what’s going on today get you down.  Have some fun, especially when your humorless enemies sneer.

Posted in Be The Maquis, In The Wild, Lighter fare, The Campus Telephone Pole, ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged , | 30 Comments

Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?

We continue to watch the spin and the spinning of the spin after yesterday’s Synod… what can we call it?…. debacle.  Yes, debacle.  The release of the Relatio post disceptationem, an unprecedented mid-point summary document, was a debacle.   It has provoked “wonder”, which is old Church code for “shock, scandal provoking confusion”.

It was telling that, during yesterday’s presser, for the presentation of the Relatio, the chair of the Synod, Card. Erdö, tossed a question about the now infamous homosexuality paragraphs over to Archbp. Bruno Forte (whom some suggest might wind up as Prefect of a Franciscan CDF… if it isn’t Archbp. Fernandez), saying: “the one who wrote the passage ought to know what it means”.

The Holy See Press Office spun the Relatio this way:

Declaration of the Director of the Holy See Press Office on behalf of the General Secretariat of the Synod

The General Secretariat of the Synod, in response to reactions and discussions following the publication of the Relatio post disceptationem, and the fact that often a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature, [Is that so?] reiterates that it is a working document, which summarises the interventions and debate of the first week, and is now being offered for discussion by the members of the Synod gathered in the Small Groups, in accordance with the Regulations of the Synod.
The work of the Small Groups will be presented to the Assembly in the General Congregation next Thursday morning.

A good example of spin – and the massive damage inflicted by the release of the Relatio - is found at CNN, which has a few slanted points:

Under conservative assault, Vatican backtracks on gay comments

Rome (CNN) — Under furious assault from conservative Catholics, [Furious assault?] the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have “gifts to offer” the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give “precious support” to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships. [And yet it isn't supposed to be an official document, a final document.  It's just a working document.  Right?]

And that, even with its ominous language about conservatives and their furious assaults, is somewhat more responsible than what you will see at some other outlets, especially the even more openly pro-homosexual sites.

Again, my great worry is not so much what the Synod is talking about, but the expectations that are being raised because of gaffs, errors, bad decisions, weird language and, it must be said, the machinations of some within the Church.

So, let’s accept that the Relatio is just a “working document”.  Fine.

Did nobody in the Synod office or in the Press Office know that when the MSM got hold of it, people were going to go bananas?

Of course they knew that chaos would occur and that certain paragraphs would be read with strong reactions.  Of course they did.

Therefore, someone wanted the chaos.  Someone wanted those now infamous paragraphs to hit the press and then be spun into all sorts of false conclusions and false expectation.  They wanted to bump the needle, move the paradigm in a certain direction.  This seems like a classic exercise in creeping incrementalism.  They know that they are not going to get their way, or get everything that they want… this time.  But they toss things out, create the chaos, and then, even as they back away from it and do some clean up, they have managed to moved the paradigm a degree or two toward their goal.  That’s how they work.

Conservatives, by the way, don’t do this well.  They tend not to work together well and they tend to want everything right away.  It would be great were faithful Catholics able to work together better.  Meanwhile, the catholic Left is having a conga line dance, with noisemakers and little hats.

Anyway, a bright spot today occurred during the presser.  Card. Napier of South Africa said that he was surprised that the Relatio was released and that he clearly disagreed with some elements in the document.  He also is worried about the false expectations that are being created.


The moderation queue ON.

Meanwhile, TIME magazine – predictably – and purposely – misrepresented the facts.  HERE

The Bishops Are Catching Up To Pope Francis on Gay Rights [How many things are wrong with that.  First, "the bishops" aren't doing anything. Second, what has Francis really said?  Third, "Gays" don't have rights, other than basic human rights.]

Mercy must be the way forward for the Catholic Church.  [Which means, I think, you can stick anything where ever you want and eventually people will be forced to call it "good".]

Stunning news came from Rome today where the bishops [some few bishops] gathered for Pope Francis’s Synod on the Family issued a report suggesting that the Church should create a more inclusive space for gay Catholics to participate in the life of the Church.  [They already have it.]

In the [unofficial draft] document, the bishops [no... the writer of the draft] said without reservation [is that so?] that gay Catholics have “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” From that, they ask: “are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?”

This is a stunning language change from the Catholic Church on the question of homosexuality. [Is it?  Really?  Did the document say that it's okay to have homosexual sex?] Since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared in 1975 that “homosexual acts [ACTS!] are intrinsically disordered” Rome has been clear on where it stands on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex unions. As recently as January 2013, Pope Benedict — while affirming the dignity of the LGBT community — suggested that gay marriage threatens the world’s “justice and peace.” [And he was right, as we are seeing today more and more.]

The Church’s shift on LGBT issues began shortly after Pope Francis’s election in March 2013. In July of last year, Francis famously said, “[i]f someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” [Hang on!  That comment had a context. HERE]

But today’s document produced by the [tiny number of] bishops [in reality, the one's who wrote it... it wasn't a collaboration that all the bishop members of the Synod voted to approve] shows that Pope Francis’s personal vision [HUH?  No.] is slowly becoming the vision of the universal Church. [This babble is the personal vision of the writer.  Enough of this rubbish.]


This is the sort of trash that people are going to read about this Synod.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , , | 77 Comments