Francis Must Correct Synod Distortions

The presentation of the so-called “mid-term report of the extraordinary synod of bishops on the family (the Latin headline of which, relatio post disceptationem, may seem to the unenlightened to give it an authority it doesn’t in fact possess) aroused a predictable level of interest in both the Catholic and the non-Catholic media.

Their general assumption has been (and the report’s half dozen authors clearly intended that the assumption should be) that what it conveys is that the Catholic Church is gearing up, not for any change in pastoral strategy, but for fundamental changes in the Church‘s teachings (hitherto immutable) on important questions to do with marriage and with sexual morality.

Have a look at this from the Mail Online. The headline reads as follows: “Massive Vatican shift on gay sex: Summit on ‘family life’ says unmarried couples living together can be ‘positive’, gays and divorcees must be welcomed and contraception ‘respected’.” Beneath that is a four-part standfirst:

  • Catholic Church adopts rare progressive tone during talks of family issues
  • Two-week summit reached midway point today with the release of a document summarizing the extent of the closed-door debate so far
  • Meeting is the first time Catholic Church has held a family synod’ since 1980
  • The summit has been described as a ‘step in the right direction’ by activists

That this “progressive tone” reflects the unanimous views of all the synod fathers is taken for granted by the Mail’s writer, John Hall, who went on to say that “Catholic bishops meeting to discuss ‘family issues’ at a two week summit have said unmarried couples living together can be ‘positive,’ and gay relationships and divorces must be welcomed. Displaying remarkably liberal attitudes for a Church famed for its conservatism, bishops meeting in the Vatican today also said that a couples’ decision on the use of contraception should be respected. The summit, which reached its midway point today, has been described as a “step in the right direction’ by activists and boasts all the hallmarks of the notably progressive attitudes the Catholic Church has adopted since the ascension of Pope Francis last year.”

So there you have it. The fact that actually there was considerable resistance to these views at the synod was in no way reflected in the relatio post disceptationem, an effusion which bears all the hallmarks of an attempted PR coup (the word “coup” isn’t over the top here: spin, in our time, is one pathway to the seizure of effective power). Many would assume that of course the Mail must be misreporting the document: but the Mail, as it often does, is reporting the “report” accurately and fairly.

What’s inaccurate is the synod document itself. And that is precisely what the bishops who produced it intended. Consider the following: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, (my emphasis) without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? [the answer is “no”, but we are supposed to say “yes”] The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension….”

In other words, it’s now time to junk everything the Church has ever said on the matter, clearly spelt out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (article 2357): “….Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (In the following article, the CCC goes on to make it clear that homosexuals themselves “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”)

Cardinal Raymond Burke has been outspoken on the way the synod is being reported: its reporting is, he says, being “manipulated…. The interventions of the individual Synod Fathers are not made available to the public, as has been the case in the past. All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the relatio post disceptationem ….

While the individual interventions of the synod fathers are not published, yesterday’s relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church…

While the document in question … purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.

As he says, “the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.”

The writer John Thavis describes the document as a “pastoral earthquake,” and reports that following its presentation in the synod hall, 41 bishops spoke about the content, and several pressed for clarifications on specific points: Some asked whether, in the section on homosexuality, there shouldn’t be mention of the teaching that “some unions are disordered,” a reference to the phrase the Church has used to describe homosexual relations.”

Is all this really what Pope Francis intended? He has now added another half dozen bishops to the drafting committee, forming an expanded group which will now go on to produce the next “report”: but is that an adequate response? If there is an adjustment in the reporting of the synod, it will take time: and this needs to be done quickly. Things are getting seriously out of control now. The Holy Father clearly doesn’t like being “dogmatic”: but it’s part of what he’s for, and he needs now to assert himself, for if he doesn’t, everyone will go on thinking that what has happened so far is what he wanted all along.

That’s what Cardinal Burke is now calling for, and he needs support: there’s a life-and-death struggle going on here:

Catholic World Report: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?

Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position. The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.

“Long overdue” is a mild expression; what needs to be said is that such an intervention is needed with desperate urgency, and that if it does not come soon, this pontificate could spin entirely out of control.

The liberal clique which has seized power over the way the synod is being presented to the faithful have to be repudiated: if they’re not, it’s back to the most destructive period of the post-conciliar years. I think we should all be very worried indeed.

This column first appeared October 17, 2014 on the Catholic Herald website and is reprinted with permission.

Dr. William Oddie

By

Dr. William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    In his closing address, the Holy Father has warned against temptations that all parties would do well to heed:-

    “- One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

    – The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

    – The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

    – The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

    – The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…”

    http://tinyurl.com/mog32my

    • Objectivetruth

      Thanks for posting this, Michael. So, after reading it, and being the simple man that I am:

      What in the world is the Holy Father trying to say? Is he for the initial draft of the Relatio, or against it? Someone, please interpret.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Indeed… none of this makes any sense. It can be interpreted any way one wishes. Popes simply don’t speak this way. Only politicians do. This is nothing but silly “sound bites.” And even at that, it is cleaned up to make Francis sound better. In addition to the above gibberish, he called those concerned with orthodoxy “goodie-goodies.” His name-calling is just one facet of his juvenile, petulant behavior.

        • Daniel P

          Huh? He called people tempted to liberalism and laxity “do-gooders”. I don’t see any other name calling there.

          • Daniel P

            Oh, I see, you’re say he said this elsewhere. My bad.

        • Objectivetruth

          Agreed. Here’s a quote from Pope Emeritus Benedict. Simple, clear:

          ““Truth is not determined by a majority vote.”

          Maybe it’s time to have the the retired Bavarian start warming up in the bullpen.

        • jacobhalo

          Not in this speech, but he also called the EF a fad, and Traditionalist ,nostalgic. It is not a fad, because the EF is growing everyday, with many young people. We are not nostalgic. We just hold true to the teaching of the church, and hold true to the true mass, not the protestantized mass, even though it is valid.

          • fredx2

            He reportedly called it a fad. Best not to rely on third hand reports.

            • jacobhalo

              Where else would get info? He is not going to tell with a telephone call.

          • Tim Danaher

            It won’t be long until the TLM is outlawed if things keep progressing at this pace. BXVI’s appointments are being removed from the Curia, traditional orders and bishops are being censored and removed. Seems that anything the reeks of tradition or orthodoxy – regardless of its many successes – must be suppressed. After Cdl Mueller is removed from the CDF (that’s coming), the Moto Propio will be rescinded. Mission Complete. While we’re at it, lets remove the Deuterocanonical books from Sacred Scripture as a concrete gesture of ecumenism with our separated Protestant brothers. Pray the Church and its fearless defense of truth and orthodoxy.

            • jacobhalo

              You might be right.

            • Mara319

              And remove Paul Letter to the Romans, which is very offensive to practicing homosexuals. While we’re at it, let’s revoke Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher’s martyrdom and canonization. Let’s invalidate St. Peter Damian’s tome that made him “Doctor of the Church.” Let’s do away with Reconciliation as a sacrament and watch all other sacraments fall down like domino tiles – the Eucharist desecrated, matrimony mocked. Extreme unction? Who needs it, when there’s no more sin nor hell – everyone goes to heaven after death. Therefore there will be no need for the priesthood nor the papacy. The Church would then just get caught up with the world. And in the end, there would be no more need for Church, either.

              • We’ll all be Anglicans then.

              • Julia Soler

                Actually Romans can be, and has, been interpreted what we know of hormones in fetal development–men turned from their natural urges toward women to each other, implying heterosexual men (who have natural urges to women) fooling around with each other.
                Daniel Helminiak’s book, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, is one of many that give other interpretations,and is a good place to start.

            • jacobhalo

              I’m praying that this pope resigns.

              • jeremiah_methusela

                So you want three popes ?

        • GG

          I would like to be a fly on the wall when the good Cardinals are talking about this behind closed doors. You know full well they are deeply worried about what the Pope has been doing.

          The soft right spins and spins to the point it has become so intellectually dishonest they sound absurd.

          • John Byde

            That’s the problem – all the talking behind closed doors. They need to say it in the open like Burke did.

        • publiusnj

          I agree that this Pope sounds like a politician. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was produced under JPII and got a lot of input (I’ve heard) from BXVI. The CCC says homosexual conduct is wrong but calls for sensitivity towards homosexuals. So, his predecessors have already taken the pastoral step he claims would be new. We need faithfulness to the Magisterium, not manipulation.

          • Glenn M. Ricketts

            The Pope also sounds like man who dislikes the office he holds and the institution he heads.

            • DE-173

              Are you suggesting he wants a “fundamental transformation”?

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                I honestly don’t know what he wants.

                But so far, he’s declined to speak as Dr. Oddie and Cardinal Burke have correctly insisted that he must. He could clean up the secular media mess very quickly by correcting their “misinterpretations,” but he hasn’t come close to doing so. If he himself doesn’t want a “fundamental transformation, ” it’s very clear that many of the men he’s appointed do. And he’s said noting to rebuke or correct them.

                I felt bad all of last week, and I’m not feeling any better right now.

      • Daniel P

        I think the statement at the very least makes clear that he does not support either of the most extreme positions. The key point being that he does not support watering down the Church’s teaching on sin in order to treat spiritual illnesses without curing them. (Reading between the lines, he thinks one can change the rhetoric without changing the teachings.)

        • Objectivetruth

          I know what you’re saying, Daniel. But what is an “extreme position” when discussing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and unmarried cohabitation (fornication)? Isn’t there “the” position/teaching on those issues?

          • Daniel P

            I’m talking about positions on the rhetoric, not positions on the content. (Although, yes, the “progressive” extremists want to change content).

            So one might ask whether more remarried or gay people will be willing to humble themselves and submit to the Church if (a) they are given only harsh rhetoric, or (b) they are given more mild rhetoric, and the harsh rhetoric is reserved for pastoral situations. The very big difficulty is that the press — and the ravenous progressives in the Church — will see any milder rhetoric as an indication of the Church signaling a future change in teaching.

            That’s a big difficulty. But it’s not the only consideration. My own prayer is that we DO find a way to bring more people to the Church through our rhetoric, though we somehow make it very clear that the teachings themselves are not up for debate. (The synod didn’t accomplish the second part of this goal very well, in my estimation.)

            • Objectivetruth

              Clarity is needed from the Holy Father. He can easily declare the doctrinal teaching “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Why can’t he declare as clearly the teaching “homosexual acts and fornication are sins”? Let this be the starting point for the evangelization and pastoral discussion. The best and most charitable way to respect anyone living a life of mortal sin is to give them the clear Truth. The Church’s job is to save souls, not to be warm and fuzzy on whether we’re hurting someone’s feelings,

              • jacobhalo

                Because the pope doesn’t agree with what is taught about homosexuality. Cardinal Kasper said that the pope agree with him about these issues when he met with him.

                • Daniel P

                  Citation?

                  • jacobhalo

                    Daniel, I’ve read it in the “The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and elsewhere, but I can’t remember. Apparently, you are not reading too much.

                    • Daniel P

                      I wondered because I want to know exactly what Kasper meant by “these issues”. If I had a direct quote to look at, I could see more exactly what Kasper might have been referring to.

                    • Mara319

                      Do a search of Cardinal Kasper. He says he has everything cleared by the Pope, in reply to the book compiled by five Cardinals challenging his position. In fact, the Pope has called Kasper’s theology, “serene theology composed while on his knees.” Kasper is this Pope’s mouthpiece. He claims it and the Pope confirms it by his unqualified support of Kasper.
                      To which Card. Burke says [words to that effect], “Why is Cdl. Kasper speaking for the Pope? The Pope doesn’t have laryngitis.” Father Fessio [the book’s publisher], told Kasper, “You started this!”
                      Sorry, Daniel, where have you been all these weeks?

                  • jacobhalo

                    the publication, “Il Mattino” Cardinal kasper told it, “I spoke with the Holy Father twice. I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement.” log onto thecatholicthing.org. and read that article.

              • jacobhalo

                Objective, the church of nice began with Vatican II.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                That is why the Holy Father warns against “a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots.”

              • Mara319

                The law of the Lord is perfect, enlightening the eye. This Pope calls those who respect the law as “rigid, legalistic ideologues” and he himself seeks to tamper with the law. If he does that, the law loses its clarity and his vision becomes clouded. That’s why the Pope is unclear in what he says – Pope Francis, the Unclear.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            No doubt there is “the” position/teaching on those issues; the Synod Fathers have been engaged in a process of dialogue and discernment to find out what exactly it is.

            • Objectivetruth

              Here, below, from the Catholic Catechism. Someone get this to them, this might help them frame the discussion:

              “396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”

              • Daniel P

                What I wish, personally, is that we could have the document include this sort of statement *alongside* statements of radical understanding and mercy. Something like, “There is nothing good or holy in acts of sodomy or masturbation, and there is nothing good or holy in the desire to commit them. Nevertheless, the Church, like any good father, recognizes that sinful relationships may include seeds of redemption. Homosexual ‘marriages’ must be condemned, but homosexual relationships do often involve real and deep filial love and self-sacrifice, and we realize that. There is no contradiction between acknowledging these good seeds and rejecting the weeds that have grown up alongside them.”

                • DE-173

                  “homosexual relationships do often involve real and deep filial love and self-sacrifice, and we realize that”

                  NO!

                  Love is by definition, a willingness to look out for another person’s best interests; even to the point of sacrificing our own.

                  A homosexual relationship is a co-dependent counterfeit and a spiritual suicide pact, which involves two people obtaining temporal pleasure and company at the price of their eternal souls and the compromise of their health and removal from the gene pool.

                  • Daniel P

                    I agree 100% with your definition of love. And I agree that it cannot be manifest in actions — like sodomy — that harm the bodies and souls of the participants. But it *can* be manifest in friendship, and homosexual lovers are often genuinely friends. This is why I called it a “deep and FILIAL love”. Many gay supporters would bristle at the term “filial”, but it is important.

                    If you think that the goods of friendship cannot be manifest in a gay relationship, then what would you say to cases where men or women continue in gay relationships despite sicknesses that incapacitate sexual function?

                    (To be clear, I think the goods of friendship are very much impeded by conspiring with another to commit sin. But I don’t think this means that these goods disappear entirely.)

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “homosexual lovers are often genuinely friends.”

                      Can I use the same thinking to explain that to my wife about my relationship with my mistress?

                    • Daniel P

                      Explain? Sure. Excuse? No way!

                      The desire for deep friendship often does drive people into adultery. But the fact that adultery is a completely inappropriate and sinful way to meet that need does not undermine the fact that friendship is a need. We can never use genuine needs as excuses for our disobedience to God. Nevertheless, these needs can explain why we made these choices rather than other choices. The first wrong choice, though, is always to abandon God — and that can only be explained by our free choice to disobey.

                    • DE-173

                      “The desire for deep friendship often does drive people into adultery. ”
                      Oh please. The desire for affirmation, novelty and good old concupisience do much more to explain adultery.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      “The desire for deep friendship often does drive people into adultery. ”
                      Not in your life. What drives people to adultery is original sin ending in lust.

                    • DE-173

                      “homosexual lovers are often genuinely friends”

                      You can find that sort of friendship among gangs or bank robbers. Deeps bonds among people engaged in wrongful acts aren’t terribly unusual, they just aren’t genuine, friendship or both.

                      “If you think that the goods of friendship cannot be manifest in a gay relationship, then what would you say to cases where men or women continue in gay relationships despite sicknesses that incapacitate sexual function?”
                      You are very confused. Codependent relationships are often extraordinarily durable.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Two narcissists looking at a mirror.

                  • jacobhalo

                    Did you hear about the gay midget? He came out of the cupboard.

                • ForChristAlone

                  “sinful relationships may include seeds of redemption” In that case, I am going to get really busy with my redemption.

            • ForChristAlone

              you mean they don’t know…isn’t their munus to teach?

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                Often enough, the Church only renders her beliefs explicit over time.

                St Thomas famously disputed the Immaculate Conception. Pope St Pius V simply forbad public disputations on the subject, whilst allowing the Dominicans to dispute it amongst themselves, as there was no consent of doctors on the queation. It was only in 1854 that Pope Bl Pius IX defined the doctrine, in a way that met the traditional Dominican objections.

                Nevertheless, we can find the roots of the doctrine in Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus.

                Again, it took about four hundred years for the church to settle the question of the validity of heretical baptism and , as late as Vix Pervenit, Pope Benedict XIV left open some questions on usury.

          • jacobhalo

            Does the church have religious parties, like we have political parties? Unlike political parties, we have one platform, with the same teachings. If you don’t agree with one teaching, find another denomination. Objective, I’m not addressing you, only those who have a problem with the teachings, such as our eminent clerics.

        • JP

          What are the extreme positions of the Traditionalists? Am I missing something? Did Traditionalists call for the branding of adulterers, or the excommunication homosexuals? Please enlighten us.

          • Daniel P

            From “most extreme”, one cannot logically conclude “objectively extreme”. Just like, from “most just” one cannot conclude “objectively just”. The most just option debated on a particular issue might not be just at all. The most extreme position in a debate might not be extreme at all.

            • DE-173

              If something is most extreme, but not objectively extreme; the warning against that extremity seems as useful as enjoining one to care in drinking luke warm water.

              • Glenn M. Ricketts

                This is all extremely confusing – sorry, couldn’t resist.

          • jacobhalo

            I am a traditionalist and I follow the teachings of the church, something many of those in the synod don’t do.

        • jacobhalo

          There is only one position in the doctrines and teachings. If aCatholic has another position, please find a denomination with which you agree, including the heretical Modernists clergy

          • Daniel P

            When did I suggest anything else?

            • jacobhalo

              Dan, I was just making a post to everyone. I didn’t mean to reply to you alone

              • Daniel P

                Understood.

      • jacobhalo

        Isn’t it a shame that we have to interpret what the pope says? As I said in many of my posts, the Modernists purposely use language to confuse the people. Listen to the liberal politicians in the USA

        • GG

          Excellent point.

        • Salvelinus

          Exactly true!
          Just like even I read the catechism of John Paul II against, say the catechism of Trent.

          I hope for a return of simplicity, instead of gobblygook

    • jacobhalo

      “wanting to close oneself within the written word, and not allowing one to be surprised by God” I think we were surprised by the Devil, the Modernists.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Cor 3:6)

        • Objectivetruth

          If I’m correct, I think the “letter” Paul is mentioning is probably the Torah, the Old Testament. Notice how Paul frames it with “the new covenant.” The Gospels were not put to parchment yet, no New Testament canon of scripture. My point being, the bishops of course will look to scripture for guidance.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            That is why the Holy Father also warns them against “The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]”

            • Mara319

              He must be speaking of himself.

        • jacobhalo

          If we still cling to the Old Covenant, why did Paul mention a New Covenant. Apparently, there is a new agreement which replaced the old agreement.

    • Ford Oxaal

      Great stuff from the Pope. He really believes in the divine nature of the Catholic Church and is willing to shake it up and get everyone’s cards on the table. Have a big bar fight, see who is for what, and then provide succinct, clear material for examination of conscience. No undecipherable “churchspeak”. I had to laugh at the National Enquirer style headlines in the Guardian and the New York Times — as if they know the mind of the Pope — they just make stuff up when it comes to reporting on the Catholic Church.

      • DE-173

        The problem with bar fights is that stuff gets broken, and teeth get knocked out.

        • Ford Oxaal

          And St. Nicholas goes to the Vatican jail for punching out Arius. But this is the reality — the Church Militant. Let’s see where everyone stands — everybody show your hand. If the smoke of Satan is in the sanctuary, let’s get clarity. No more sneaking around.

          • GG

            The ends never justify the means. One does not encourage error in some glib way as a means of pointing it out.

            • Ford Oxaal

              Correct. The ends do not justify the means, and encouraging error is bad.

          • DE-173

            Arius was the Martini of his day. Nicholas had a moment of intemperance.

        • ForChristAlone

          aka outside agitators

      • GG

        Sounds not Catholic, but Machiavellian.

    • Mara319

      The law of the Lord is perfect, enlightening the eye. Any tampering with it will cloud your vision.

  • JP

    “The liberal clique which has seized power over the way the synod is
    being presented to the faithful have to be repudiated: if they’re not,
    it’s back to the most destructive period of the post-conciliar years. I
    think we should all be very worried indeed.”

    The author, as well as many in the blogesphere and media are making the assumption that Pope Francis is a bystander to all of this and not an unofficial participant (behind the scenes). Cdl Belessari, Archbishop Forte and an additional 6 Cardinals appointed nine days ago are all his hand picked members of the Synod. Belessari in fact set down the rules and approved the draft report. In his closing remarks he warned against “extremes” on both sides. That is a rather disingenuous statement, as the side of “Traditionalists” is sticking to doctrine established by Christ himself; it was Belessari et als. that inserted radical changes that in fact had nothing to do with Catholic families and everything to do with normalizing divorce, homosexual unions, and sacrilege of the Eucharist.

    The last week was an unmitigated disaster for Pope Francis. Either he allowed the Synod to get highjacked by the “liberal clique” or he was an active participant.

    • GG

      Very true. For years we have heard there is no left or right in the Church only orthodox and heterodox. Well, if one buys that then one should not affirm heterodoxy. Such errors should be rebuked.

      But, if one sees error as good then anything goes and orthodoxy is seen as “rigid”.

    • fredx2

      Or, he may be a proponent of creative chaos, where he allows all forces to let fly and he stands back and sees what comes of it. He may not seek to control it at all, but merely observes, and once in a while something remarkable happens that is helpful

      • JP

        Maybe. Maybe not. From a personnel stand point, he got the people he wanted. At a very late date (the Saturday before the draft report was published) he added 6 more Cardinals to the Synod; additionally, the Pope’s reaction to “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” was luke warm to say the least (from what I read, the book is only a reaffirmation of Church teaching). But, what stands out the most is the elevation of retired Cardinal Kasper to the position of unofficial spokesman for the Synod. Kasper’s heterodox ideas concerning marriage, birth control, and homosexuality are well known. Yet, Pope Francis not only appointed Kasper but gave him a huge endorsement. Kapser was allowed to go on a 6 month speaking tour that pushed for radically heterodox teachings on marriage.

        The Synod in my opinion is nothing more than pretext to make much of the Church’s teachings on sex, marriage, and the family a dead letter.

      • So much for affirming and strengthening his brethren in the Faith!

      • John Byde

        Creative chaos – Oxymoron for today. I wonder what it is in Latin?

      • Minnesota Mary

        I guess you could call that the “shit and run” style of Poping.

    • ForChristAlone

      It’s just a good thing he’s not reigning over an earthly kingdom. In lesser venues heads would have been lopped off by now.

      I am beginning to think that someone sent him a copy of Saul Alinsky’s book to read.

      • jacobhalo

        This pope is the clerical version of Obama.

        • MJD

          You know, the first time I heard that, even though I was never fond of him, I thought it was rather unfair to the Pope. But now let’s see the similarities:

          1) They both induced a wave of good feelings upon their election strictly on account of their novelty;
          2) They are both left-wing, in fact, the most left-wing of any of their predecessors in an absolute sense;
          3) They are both doing objective damage to the institutions they were elected to fix; and
          4) Genuine conservatives knew from the very start that both of them would be disasters.

          Upon further review, the similarities are, in fact, alarming.

        • RufusChoate

          No he isn’t. Even a cursory examination would prove it false. Obama is an unaccomplished non-entity who rose to prominence solely on the adoption of the race of his dead beat abusive polygamist father rather than the people who raised him.

          He is also wicked to the core.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      Right, there’s simply no way to spin this as anything except a train wreck.

    • John O’Neill

      When the Francis church ordains its first lesbian priest; then I am out of here. No way to stay and we are getting closer and closer.

  • jacobhalo

    The pope might be an Indian. He speaks with forked-tongue, as do many Modernists (liberals)

    • HenryBowers

      You’re going to Hell.

      • GG

        Are you God?

      • ForChristAlone

        See what I mean?

      • Erika Allen

        Yep, homosexuality doesn’t send you to hell, political correctness does.

        • jacobhalo

          Homosexuality doesn’t send you to hell. It is the practice of it.

      • jacobhalo

        Is there a hell? I haven’t heard it mentioned since pre-VaticanII

        • HenryBowers

          It’s hard to hear, in the place where your head’s been . . .

          • John Byde

            According to this synod, the place you’re referring to is no longer hell but something wonderful!

            • HenryBowers

              Gross! I could have been talking about a sandy beach . . .

            • HenryBowers

              Not true. You’re committing calumny. Repent.

    • ForChristAlone

      Don’t you mean Native American? Remember the thought police are on the prowl.

      • jacobhalo

        Escuse me!! LOL!!

        • John Byde

          That’s you for the re-education camp, sonny!

  • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

    Over on the Rorate Coeli blog, the following interpretation is given for the pope’s words:

    2 + 2 = 4 (too rigid)
    2 + 2 = 6 (too lax)
    2 + 2 = 5 (aaah, perfect!)

    Perfect indeed!

    • FrankW

      Some day soon, there will be a serious debate, probably ending up with a court case, which attempts to redefine the laws of mathematics to be whatever each person wishes.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Common Core is half way there.

        • DE-173

          Being as CC is paying for an act of vice, I think we should call it Common Wh*re.

      • Tamsin

        No, they won’t redefine 2 + 2 so that it equals 5, they’ll just invoke the 14th amendment right to equal protection under law for those who give the answer that it equals 5. Which of course, will never mean that anyone ever would dream ever of giving the answer 6. Or 2. or – pi.

    • Objectivetruth

      It’s almost like the synod had Zig Zigler in to do a two hour session on “How to make friends and influence people.” That they want to please all the people, all the time.

      • GaudeteMan

        I wish it were simply a case of Ziglerisms but tragically it is much more insidious. “Remember Lot’s wife.”

      • RufusChoate

        Dale Carnegie was the apostle of “How to make Friends and Influence People”. I know this definitively having fail his course repeatedly . Cheers.

        Zig Zigler was actually a pretty serious Christian in an Evangelical sense and stuck to pretty tight moral line about deceiving people. A session with him might have proved beneficial for the Synod.

      • jeremiah_methusela

        Not quite, I fear. They would like to make a certain genre of people very very happy and others less so.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      I think it is more like the parlaimentary answer in Bagehot, “”Without committing myself to the tenet that 3 + 2 make 5, though I am free to admit that the honourable member for Bradford has advanced very grave arguments in behalf of it, I think I may, with the permission of the Committee, assume that 2 + 3 do not make 4, which will be a sufficient basis for the important propositions which I shall venture to submit on the present occasion.”

    • GG

      We are told our Lord is a God of surprises. See, your formula works.

      • fredx2

        What did he mean by that? That flummoxed me. “Surprise! Jesus did not mean what he said!

        • GG

          I have no idea.

        • jacobhalo

          Since Vatican II, they are reinterpreted Jesus’s words, and the doctrines of the church. Now, the pope knows that God loves surprises. I’m sure God is surprised about this heretical synod.

      • Methinks that the god of surprises is a false god and is followers, idolaters. Just saying…

      • Fred

        I like good surprises. I don’t like surprises that sound like “ha, all that stuff I told you, don’t take it too seriously”. You know, that sounds a lot like Muhammad and his made up abrogation in the Q’ran “know ye not that God is able to do all things including changing his mind”.

      • C.Caruana

        Sure God can surprise – what He cannot do is contradict Himself. What is sad tragic and about this whole synodial debacle is that many loyal Catholics are losing their respect for and trust in the personality of Pope Francis, if not in his Office.

    • Fred

      Ha, a language I can relate to. Agreed about common core too. The answer isn’t right or wrong, it’s how you think about solving the problem that matters. I pity these poor kids who grow up in the mess then who go off to become accountants, engineers, or whatever. Maybe that’s the approach I should take with the IRS, sorry the math isn’t right – but you know, I was thinking about it properly.

    • fredx2

      Hilarious, and I am afraid a bit too true.

    • HenryBowers

      You’re just insulting the charisms that made these men priests. You should prove to us that these issues aren’t over your head, for I think that they are.

      • GG

        What?

        • Fred

          I’ll second that. I think Dr. Tim was perfectly clear in his point, what is yours?

      • RufusChoate

        It is math and rudimentary logic, Sparky. Try it some time. It is liberating and enlightening.

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        ??

        • HenryBowers

          Hey, the Antichrist called, and he wants his hat back.

      • ForChristAlone

        Where’d that come from? I think you need a hobby.

      • jacobhalo

        Henry, continue to be fooled by these mavericks. Modernists (liberals) have no common sense. As Voltaire said, “common sense isn’t so common.” They are not only fools, but heretics.

      • jacobum

        Since when is being a homosexual cleric and/or approving/supporting or defending homosexual practices considered insulting a “charism” for being a priest?. Guess we should just ignore 2000 years of dogma, scripture and tradition aka Magesterium. Oh wait a minute, that’s what the termites are already doing.

      • “Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.” (Benedict XVI)

        • Julia Soler

          Thus spake the man inseparable from ( the very handsome) Georg Ganswein and who dressed in a style Liberace could only aspire to–actually very similar to Cardinal Burke’s attire. (See the book “The Pope is Not Gay,” by Angelo Quattrocchi.). My theory is that Pope Francis is like Nixon going to China; only a Republican could have done it; the Democrats would have been seen as soft on Communism. The same thing is going on–on an unconscious level–re: homosexuality. Had Benedict really studied it he may have had to “come out” to himself. Francis doesn’t have to be so avoidant–he seems pretty “straight”–and so can think more flexibly about homosexuality

      • C.Caruana

        Charism is a slippery eel. Where was it when priests and bishops abused children? There is also abuse of souls and the truth of course, but that might prove too far over your head.

        • HenryBowers

          No, I mean there are charisms that led them to be ordained, and thus to be the decision-makers. And there are a lot of jealous, restless, ambitious, meretricious, busy-body, lachrymose, puerile sheep at Crisis… chew that grass, Crisis, not the hands that feed you.

      • The Messenger

        Well, Judas was a follower of Jesus, and what happened to him, Henry?

        Arius was a priest that introduced the Arian Heresy and what happened to him, Henry?

        Martin Luther was priest and what happened to him, Henry?

        Kasper is a cardinal who is OPENLY PROMOTING SACRILEGE! And he is going book tour…going strong….anybody stopping him?

        How do you remove a heretical cardinal???
        Anybody got an idea?

        This is why Laities need to know theology!

    • ForChristAlone

      ’bout sums it up!

  • Fred

    What the heck does it mean “God is not be afraid of new things”? Are we talking about a new spinach souffle, or that the catechism is open to new interpretations? Surely he’s not talking about being more open minded towards the acceptance of sin? Not that I really care much about the MSM, but it is interesting to see their embrace.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/19/pope-homosexuality-church-gay_n_6010904.html

    • fredx2

      It was a very strange statement. New things? So well settled doctrine should be cast aside? That is hoe people are going to view that statement. It is a very odd thing for a Pope to say

    • Ford Oxaal

      The Pope does not want the faithful to fall into the error of thinking they completely understand revelation — that the Church Militant does not confuse itself with the Church Triumphant. Best is always to find the full text and context of comments which the press quotes, and then a more clear sense will emerge. This Pope speaks quite clearly, and in today’s media world, we can listen directly instead of going through the press — which is sometimes accurate and oftentimes not, but always truncated.

      • Fred

        Could not agree with you more. But as many have said here and elsewhere, he seems to create more confusion every time he opens his mouth. It’s not what you say often times but what you emphasize that people cling to. Originally I thought it was just a case of him trying to find his voice in the new exhalted position, but as time moves on it seems more clear that this is his persona.

      • Martha

        “This Pope speaks quite clearly…”

        Haven’t heard that one before! If he does speak clearly, it’s a very opaque kind of clear, and one in which he ‘clearly’ is not orthodox. Media spin is hype. The Pope says things (quite purposely) that are either outright heterodox, ambiguous, wishy washy, or all of the above, with a scant peppering of orthodoxy for a nice veneer.

      • ForChristAlone

        This Pope speaks quite clearly? Huh?

        • Ford Oxaal

          Surely those concerned about the disfigured society we live in fit into one of the temptations below. We should acknowledge that. This is well said, and very clear. I probably tend toward the first one and so I need to work on that, but I am also happy to see the Pope call out the “do-gooders”, and the ones who try to dictate the Deposit of the Faith instead of serving it. I think the stone analogy is really worth meditating on as well:

          – One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

          – The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

          – The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

          – The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

          – The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

    • jacobhalo

      He means that the IR should have been passed. Don’t forget, Cardinal Kasper said that the pope agreed with him concerning those issues.

      • Fred

        I guess that makes me afraid of new things then. Personally I’m thankful for the 3/4’s of the Cardinals that are too. Maybe his style is just different, but saying everyone is welcome and who am I to judge is a little disingenuous in saving peoples souls. Kind of like a leader who says walk with me but doesn’t say where he’s going. What is so hard about sharing God’s love, which includes making commitment to his commandments, which we do out of love, not fear of punishment? Is this the behavior of an enabler?

    • jeremiah_methusela

      I remember being taught as a little boy – “God is omniscient”.

  • fredx2

    What worries me is that this Pope started off with a bang – encouraging all to become Evangelists.

    He told us that we should start serving the poor and those on the peripheries. He excited everyone with this approach. Everyone in the world could get behind those ideas.

    Then rather than telling everyone to support the poor, he shifted to criticisms of capitalism. started telling everyone that Capitalism was bad. “help the poor” has morphed into “hate the rich” Extreme, outrageous statements which might make sense to an Argentinian mired in a faux capitalist system, but make no sense at all to a first worlder.

    And now, rather than evangelizing we are stuck in silly minutiae regarding divorced and remarried people.

    Those early, powerful themes have been dropped in favor of tenth rate ideas.

    • jacobhalo

      Did you ever hear Charles Stanley preach? He sounds like a cleric from the pre-Vatican days.

  • Mike

    Anyone who believes that gradualism is a post-vatican II phenomenon is deluded. The church has been nullifying doctrine through legalistic loopholes forever. 

    The truth of the matter is the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not follow the teaching on contraception or take the churches moral laws seriously, particular those related to human sexuality. This is not to say the church is wrong on these matters. The decline of the traditional family and the contraceptive mentality have indeed been harmful to society.  However, the bishops aren’t stupid. They are well aware that Church law will not be followed as long as the culture of death reigns. They also know very well that if they don’t water down doctrine to conform to modern realities, people will move away from the church in droves more so then they already have. Ultimately, as administrators, they are more concerned with the money going into the collection plate then being faithful to doctrine, no matter how personally orthodox they may be . So what they will do is what they have always done, create loopholes while still claiming to have not changed their teaching, to keep both the “conservatives” and “liberals” at bay. 

    “Conservatives” need to realize that the reasons for the decline of traditional values are economic and cultural. It has absolutely nothing to do with the loosening of Church discipline post Vatican II.  If the church did not go in a more merciful direction, it would be significantly smaller then what it is right now, and would be hard pressed to survive on a financial basis. 

     What the church should be focused on is attacking the CAUSES of the culture of death and find ways to reach out to sinners in order to allow the grace of Jesus Christ to transform their world view from a secular to a Christian one. Not arguing over legalistic nonsense that will solve nothing. 

    As long as the culture of death reigns, catholic teaching is next to impossible to follow. Any “Conservative” Catholic who thinks that their above the divorced and remarried and thus worthy to receive communion need to look at the sins in their own eyes. Participation in the usurious, unjust war mongering, abortion/population control inducing economy makes us all guilty of soul damning excommunicable sins by default. 

    Also, if marriage has always been considered sacred and irrevocable, then why on earth did the church allow for “annulments” in the first place? Sounds to me like it was the churches way in the past to make “exceptions” for rich people and kings.

    Pheraps the is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees, but showed mercy to the common man. It’s because the Pharisees were merciless to the lay folk while they rewrote the law to cover for their own crimes, while claiming to be the guardians of “infallible” doctrine. This is  what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 19.

    • Scott W.

      “Also, if marriage has always been considered sacred and irrevocable, then why on earth did the church allow for “annulments” in the first place? Sounds to me like it was the churches way in the past to make “exceptions” for rich people and kings.”

      Because annulments are not divorces. Annulments are a judgment that there was a defect in the form or matter of the marriage, meaning there was no marriage in the first place. If the marriage is valid however, it is indissoluble and divorce and remarriage in that case would be adulterous. That’s not legalistic hand-wringing, that’s Divine Law. There is nothing merciless about the process because one needs to not only think of the person remarrying, but the person being abandoned. No need for the scare quotes in infallible. That’s just gratuitous cynicism.

      • Nestorian

        Gratuitous cynicism? To the contrary, the evidence that the annulment process is a hypocritical farce is abundant for those who care to look closely. A good place to start would be Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s book, in which she protests vehemently against the Catholic Church declaring to be non-existent her marriage, when she herself knew it to be very real indeed. She includes stories of other aggrieved former spouses upon whom the Church has foisted the lie that their marriages were never real as well.
        .
        That’s pretty much par for the course. It falls right in with the long tradition of subterfuge and legerdemain with which the Church has granted innumerable exemptions, dispensations, etc., for all sorts of particular alleged exceptions to what are supposedly universally binding moral precepts.
        .
        No, Mike is not gratuitously cynical. The evidence buttressing his jaded view is readily available. Rather, it is you who are deeply naïve about the way these sorts of things really work.

        • Scott W.

          I’m not going to argue with cherry picking. Have a nice day.

          • DE-173

            I prefer St. John Vianney’s technique for dealing with the diabolical.
            Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hardee-har-har.

            • Mara319

              Love it! Hah, hah, hah, han, hardee-har-har. No other Frenchman can top that.

  • Salvelinus

    News Flash…..
    Pope Francis intends to liberalize everything and unfortunately wanted all of this.
    He orchestrated everything and is firmly in the corner of modernism, unfortunately.
    The bishops, in general, stopped the bleeding, but Francis is an agent of cardinal Kasper et al

  • Guest

    As someone this change would greatly effect I hope they DO NOT change our traditional teachings regarding homosexuality. I have accepted God’s and the Churches teaching long ago (as I have stated here before). I do not think we can go and rewrite the parts of the Bible that we disagree for whatever reason. The statement regarding the sign of the times can cut both ways; maybe the signs are telling us to stay the course! I will continue to pray for Pope Francis and the Synod that the Holy Spirit will guide them.

    • Julia Soler

      It will affect you how?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Ford O. likened the present state of the Church as a tavern fistfight. Dear Mr. O:

    Divinity as a bar fight! The fellowship of the Trinity as a brawl!

    We
    are getting close to another Christological Controversy. Maybe that’s what
    coursing, brewing under all this dust-up over homosexuality – and
    attempt to redefine the nature and person of Christ.

    As we (the Church) accepts Queer Theory language to any degree (regardless of the pastoral nuances and justifications) we are yielding to that Theory’s redefinition of pe3rsonhood, let alone Being. By going hog-wild over its revolutionary language (for, that is what it is) we will be recalibrating our understanding of the nature and person of Jesus Christ.

    The smoke of disordered language – which almost had its day in the Synod Hall, smarting the eyes of all – chokes the received Word. The Word then cannot be heard – except among the exiles on the banks of Babylon.

    • Ford Oxaal

      It is indeed interesting how Abraham wrestled with God, as did Jacob (who got physically hurt) — we all do. And the most amusing, St. Nicholas, yes, Santa Claus himself, duking out Arius as collateral damage in the wrestle with God at the Council of Nicea. And that’s what priests are for — pleading with God for their disordered flock. The priest intercedes for us, and wrestles with God in many ways… This is why Christ hates the lukewarm — no engagement with Truth. And look at Mary — she would have God change His Mind!! The wedding at Cana is an incredibly pregnant revelation of a creature interacting with God.

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        “Creatures intact with God” within the Natural Law of being created creatures. There is – however deformed by the Fall – a stability of their creaturehood. (Their primary sign of stability being the stubborn fact of being male and female.) There is, actually (pace Pope Francis), very few surprises in how (and in what direction) human nature can unfold.

  • Objectivetruth

    A quote (and clarity) from Saint Pope John Paul on homosexuality. Quite clear, yet pastoral teaching.

    ““Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.””

  • Am I missing something? Or is this article seriously out of date? It appears today 10/20, but contains no mention of the bishops’ FINAL report which would appear to change the whole argument. Please enlighten me here?

  • RufusChoate

    I am sorry I am all “gayed” out in tolerance after 1.5 Billion USD stolen from the poor and paid out to about 1,200 cases for what was largely a Homosexual abuse crisis with many of the “victims” complicit in the affair or fabricating their stories for profit and we are supposed to greet homosexuals in the same fashion as they were greeted into our houses of formation in the 1960’s and 1970’s and act like nothing ever happen.

    A prudent man would be silent while reforming our houses of formation, methods of catechesis and purge every homosexual and sexual latitudinarian from any position of authority but Francis isn’t a prudent or wise man he is a Rock Star.

    The culture of the West is in terminal decline and moral collapse but the best Francis can come up with is “Let’s be easy on them”.

    Peter Damian nailed it in the 11th century.

    I doubt Francis will have the title of “Great” tacked on his name.

    • Objectivetruth

      Agreed. I’m all “gayed” out! I believe the final John Jay report said that 88% of the priest sex abuse victims were boys. Heterosexual men don’t molest boys, only active homosexuals. Decades of sacrificing part of my income dropped Into the collection basket every Sunday went towards paying off the sins of “gays.” Perverted men who chose the side of the satanic one. Active homosexuals or “gays” brought sewage and filth to Christ’s bride. As with the Pope John Paul quote I posted earlier, the Catholic Church needs to call out that the gay lifestyle is a mortal sin taking a soul down the road to perdition, not something to be accommodated.

      • ForChristAlone

        The rot starts at the top. I once had a bishop in my office referred to me for counseling on account of “depression.” What he revealed to me SHOULD have made him depressed. He was having sexual relations with one of his priests. I had a choice – either vomit or leave the Church. I excused myself.

        • Daniel P

          That’s awful. It does point to a flaw in the modern notion of depression. How often do we “treat” depressed people and thereby deprive them of their proper and fitting guilt?

          • ForChristAlone

            Good point. I could not imagine in heaven’s way of measuring things, all the harm done by this man’s actions…how it perverted the very fabric of Christ’s church.

        • RufusChoate

          I understand very well from intimate experience and I won’t burden you with the details but in New England it is wretched still.

      • jacobhalo

        That is correct. Most of them are homosexuals, not pedos.

      • RufusChoate

        I have noted a pattern of most of the Odd-boy Priest and Bishops are:

        1. Heterodox is the teaching of sexual morality.
        2. Lazy and Indolent lovers of creature comforts.
        3. Doing more than mere homosexual acts in their lives like abusing drugs, alcohol and any other vice you might call to mind.
        4. Vindictively intolerant of any virtuous orthodox Priests or Laity.
        5. Promoted quickly.

    • ForChristAlone

      “Peter Damian” Now THAT is a name that if Beroglio had chosen on his assuming the papacy would have been most comforting to many of us.

    • jacobhalo

      The pope wants to use gradualism on the clerics. Slowly stop molesting children. Maybe this week only 5, the next week 4, etc.

  • FrankW

    Any change to the teaching of the Catholic Church on divorce and remarriage (with no annulment) or on homosexuality will result in the Catholic Church completely discrediting itself in terms of being infallible when teaching on the issues of faith and morals.

    The Church has spent the last two millenniums teaching that adultery and homosexual behavior are gravely sinful. To have the Church reverse course on that teaching would be an admission of teaching in error on these issues for 2,000 years. Why any Catholic bishop would fail to grasp that is inconceivable.

    Our Church leaders need to realize that taking a stance for God and for the Truth taught by His Church is going to result in the world scorning them. Pope Francis has enjoyed an almost rock star like image in the world’s secular media since ascending to the chair of St. Peter. The world fell in love with him in large part due to his desire to care for the poor and neglected.

    Now that same world is trying desperately to pull the Church down the path of political correctness, practically begging the Church to find some redeeming value in homosexuality. It’s chilling to think that even a few of our bishops might fall for such a temptation in exchange only for the desire of getting good press, and the approval of the secular world.

  • Mara319

    “Francis Must Correct Synod Distortions”
    You’re kidding, right? Those “distortions” were the Pope’s idea all along.

    • ForChristAlone

      nailed it!

  • Glenn M. Ricketts

    I am worried, very VERY worried indeed. I have been for quite a while, actually.

  • ForChristAlone

    Earth to the Holy Father:

    Satan’s ultimate goal is to destroy fatherhood. Satan hates fathers because God is Father and the Father sent His Son to redeem what Satan had corrupted. If Satan destroys fatherhood among men he will have wiped out every vestige of how men are called to pattern their earthly fatherhood after that of God’s. And so, Holy Father you, more than most, should be very wary of Satan trying to corrupt YOUR fatherhood.

    All the following corrupt fatherhood:
    homosexuality
    pornography
    divorce
    masturbation
    contraception
    abortion

    Satan loves all of these.

    • Fred

      Well then, Satan must be having a good howl right now because the trending is up on all these leading morality indicators. Time to invest more stock in Christ.

    • Julia Soler

      Masturbation corrupts fatherhood? How so. Some would say it prepares for it by acquainting boys with how their body works–girls learn about their sexuality too, while we are at it. One thing a person learns is his or her sexual orientation. If persons could discern this before entering into (heterosexual) marriage, there would be fewer (unintended) mixed orientation marriages and fewer consequent broken homes.

  • jacobhalo

    This pope is so vilified that I am starting to think that this is a SSPX site. And he deserves it.

    • Glenn M. Ricketts

      But let’s never gloat about that – this is an occasion of great sadness and pain, that such criticisms are necessary.

    • Marcelus

      It aint far froom SSPX

      • ForChristAlone

        Their stance vis a vis the destruction of the liturgy by the post Vat II nazis makes more and more sense.

    • Mara319

      I am a “Summorum Pontificate” type. Not SSPX.

  • Francis’ bears responsibility for the interim report. He tried to hijack the synod to yield the outcome he wanted by controlling process, straight out of Lenin’s tactics book: promoting Card. Kasper and his ideas, overriding the bishops’ choice of redactors with his own like-minded choices, Card. Baldisseri’s betrayal of a possible collusion with the Pope, etc.

    These actions should be enough to cease any condescension towards Francis in the form of benefit of the doubt. Francis must be taken at his word, past and present: “who am I to judge”, granting permission to a divorced Argentinian woman to communicate, appealing to the failed theology on marriage of schismatic Orthodox, etc. The evidence about Francis’ heterodoxy is now rather clear.

    Thank God for protecting the Church from error by the pope only when he speaks IN UNION with the bishops, who were the shepherds defending the flock against the chief hirelings and his minions at this synod.

  • Caroline

    Can someone give us an example of milder rhetoric? Perhaps rewrite as an exercise in friendlier wording passages in the CCC which are considered harsh. Constantly I hear we should say things in a more appealing way; but how exactly. I need a script. Could someone really good with words write a little pamphlet giving us the milder expressions while staying faithful to the doctrine.

    • Daniel P

      I tried this below: “There is nothing good or holy in acts of sodomy or masturbation, and there is nothing good or holy in the desire to commit them. Nevertheless, the Church, like any good father, recognizes that sinful relationships may include seeds of redemption. Homosexual ‘marriages’ must be condemned, but homosexual relationships do often involve real and deep filial love and self-sacrifice, and we realize that. There is no contradiction between acknowledging these good seeds and rejecting the weeds that have grown up alongside them.”

      Looking back on it, I would probably replace “seeds of redemption” with “seeds of repentance”.

      • There cannot be real love, much less filial love, in homosexual relationships, since they are evil and any inclination towards evil is disordered itself.

        • Daniel P

          Can there be real love in contraceptive relationships? In friendships between thieves? In dysfunctional and abusive families?

          I’m not saying perfect love. I’m saying is there genuinely a desire for the best of the other person, however distorted one’s idea of the good of the other person is?

          • If there is no objective good, then one’s idea about it is irrelevant. Surely the loving couple contracepting kills life in the bud, friendly thieves rod their victims, abusing family members hurt. Al this is disordered and evil and any peripheral good, even if real, is irrelevant to its elimination or mitigation. If in doubt, ask the slain embryo, the robbed or the abused.

            PS: need we be graphically remind that there is nothing good in pumping poop or salivating on crevices?

            • Daniel P

              I have heard dozens of gay people say that they became celibate BECAUSE they loved their partner. Clearly, the love existed IN the relationship first, and that love was the seed of repentance.

              • Really, dozens? I find it hard to believe that one has heard of dozens of such cases. Regardless, celibacy is not the goal, but perfection in love. That in their imperfect love they came to understand that homosexual acts are using the other person – evident in the fact that only heterosexual acts both genital organs are involved at the same time as instruments of the act – is not necessarily a product of such love, but of grace.

                May grace perfect their will to turn away from such relationships.

              • GG

                Again, the love of friendship.

              • Fred

                No doubt there are those and that’s the life all who deal with that attraction must adhere to while they deal. However, you are talking about the 1% crowd, or maybe even the 0.1%. If you read the statistics and the research, this behavior disorder group is wildly and unsafely engaged is sodomy.

              • ForChristAlone

                Dozens of gay people (no such entity)

                Do you hang in coffee houses in the Castro?

                • Daniel P

                  No, I spend a good deal of time networking with other people who have same-sex attraction and are committed to living out Church teaching.

                  I realized that the plural in “dozens”, though, is misleading. I have heard it from at least 12 people, but likely not 24 or more.

          • Fred

            The one difference is that there is not a militant force in the world trying to close our churches and send us to jail to forcibly accept homosexuality and SSM. There is a militant force also trying to protect the murder of children as a choice too which is equally revolting.

            • Daniel P

              But we just make people more extreme when we refuse to vocally agree with someone, even though we honestly do agree with them. Please look at the way Robert George or Maggie Gallagher argue on this issue. They make concessions, but gay rights advocates know that they are their enemies.

              • Fred

                I understand what you are saying. So if you a results oriented kind of person then gauge the success? I have read actually that some churches are seeing an increase in attendance so maybe that’s a positive. I’ve also been in church when my priest talked about the sins of abortion and seen people roll their eyes and even get up and walk out during the homily. Are they there only out of a sense of obligation and really don’t have any idea who Christ is? I also see delight by those that despise the church in the divisiveness caused by this ambiguous language. Forget what I think, I see many more negatives than positives with this approach.

                • Daniel P

                  Well, I don’t support ambiguous language. But our language doesn’t have to be simplistic, in order to be clear. I think my statement above is quite clear (except for my mistake in using “filial”), but it leaves no doubt whatsoever about the sinfulness of homosexual activity, and it does not endorse the weird notion of “valuing orientations”.

                  • Fred

                    Plain speak is a gift that keeps on giving because everyone understands … otherwise it leads to obfuscation. What could be more straight to the point than God created you, loves you, and welcomes you to join him in heaven some day … and all he asks in return is that you love and glorify him by living the life he calls you to ? That may mean a life different than doing whatever you feel like doing because it feels good at the moment. Maybe a good parable would be in order.

                    • Daniel P

                      I think plain speech has a wonderful place, too. How can you bring up parables to support your point, though, since they were classic examples, in the Scripture, of speech that people objected to because of its obscurity?

                      I think both plain speech and complex speech can be used at different times, for different purposes. Thomas Aquinas didn’t speak plainly, but he certainly said some important things.

              • Fred

                Yeah I know, and in Idaho, and before that debated in the NJ state house. I think we’re in agreement that there is a militant force trying to destroy Christ’s mission on earth.

          • GG

            That is the love of friendship, not the love of husband and wife.

            • Daniel P

              I agree. That’s why I called it “filial”.

              • Filial means as from children to parents.

                • Daniel P

                  Eeek! Make it “fraternal.” Thanks for the correction!

        • Julia Soler

          How many married same sex couples do you know in any depth? I know three. Not a large number, but enough to see that these three couples have as much love and self sacrifice as straight couples that I know well

  • Marcelus

    Well. one thing the libs achieved is inflamming the world press agaist the trads, They knew the mid relatio was not going anywhere, reason why the had it out to the press and tv in a flash without knowledge of the fathers. If you had chance to look at online newspapers from all over the world, they all reported the same line more or less: “Pope defeated! reforms haulted by conservatives! and so on”. ANYWHERE Britain, South and North,America ASia etc.

    In my humble view, it was their only shot.

    Then Crdl Burke issued is now famous and , I believe , unfortunate comment on the Pope. “Pope Francis is causing harm to the Church”. Which was all over the press too. That sealed the view of traditionalist to the eyes of the press. It will also bring consequenses to Crdl Burke and the trad. side unfortunately

    Does or will it matter ? Time will tell

    • GG

      Is that the exact quote from the Cardinal? Not that I recall.

      • Marcelus

        “Pope has done a lot of harm by not saying openly what his position is” One way or the other, it’s pretty much the same. Sad a Crdl such as Burke fell for that

        • Card. Burke is right. The role of the successor of Peter is to affirm and strengthen his brethren in the Faith. Francis’ failure to state the position of the Church did great harm to the Body of Christ; he behaved as a hireling with an agenda.

          • Marcelus

            But being a Cardinal, honestly he is not allowed to speak like that. right or wrong, even if there is some legal gap that may allow him to do so. He was the only one who did that. Imagine you spoke of your CEO as “doing harm to the company”. how will it end. I think , no offense , in the long run, speaking like that will do no good to the trads.Privately he is free to insult the pope.

            • If I said that about my CEO and it were true would the company be better off if I spoke up or if I shut up, especially if I were an officer of the company, say, a member of the board?

              • Marcelus

                Sorrry Augustine. That is a lot of ifs.

                Hand over your heart.. you know he can not say that and go unharmed or pretend nothing happended or bussines as usual.. I do not know and not comparing here, there may have been others in the past, but the last I recall speaking something of that kind was Lefevre.

                Incidentally, that is also the trend righ now in the press, as reported today by Fr.Z blogs. Burke being equalled to Lefevre and his actions and words to schism.

                This is why I think it was a wrong move. No democracy here.

                • If apostates think that Card. Burke is schismatic, could it perhaps be just a break away from their church? Why do you care about what apostates gossip about?

                  • Marcelus

                    Well just commenting, if I may. As I said they were talking about it over at Fr.Z. take it easy

                • GG

                  Of course the revolvers says such things. They hate the truth.

            • ForChristAlone

              Not true at all (that is he not allowed to speak like that)

            • ForChristAlone

              BTW, Francis wanted a full and open discussion.

            • Mara319

              So St. Paul was not allowed to correct St. Peter when the latter ruled for circumcision and kosher food for new converts from Judaism?

          • Mara319

            About time someone said so. Bravo, Cardinal Burke!

  • Aliquantillus

    I don’t expect Pope Francis to emphasize traditional doctrine or to correct in any sense the Synod Report. For he is the power behind Kasper. He supports Kasper, Schonborn, Marx and all the modernists of the German episcopate. Marx has already indicated that the Germans won’t go back to traditional sacramental discipline. The only way to restore order would be to dismiss the German bishops one be one and to put Marx under an Apostolic Administrator under threat of defrocking him if he should refuse to obey. Only a lion of a Pope can do such things, and Francis is anything but a lion. The German bishops are hell-bent on getting what they want, and it doesn’t bother at all if they go to hell at all, for they have long since given up any substantial faith. The only thing that concerns them is keeping as many in the Church as is humanly possible, because of the one thing they really care about: money, or, the Kirchensteuer, which guarantees them fat salaries of 10.000 a 15.000 Euros a month.

    • Given that the only German bishop to be removed from his see by Francis was an orthodox one under a guise of spendthrift, the only mortal sin to progressives, Bp. Tebartz-van Elst, it’s unlikely. In Paraguay it was the same, though under the accusation of being different from his fellow bishops, Bp. Livieres, which would actually be a compliment if Francis were orthodox.

      • Aliquantillus

        Exactly! Combine this with Francis’ merciless persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, with his demotion of the faithful and courageous Card. Burke which is in the air and confirmed by Burke himself, with his appointment of the extremely liberal Cupich, as successor of the faithful Card. George, to the seat of Chicago, and you get a picture of all ships sailing in the same fateful direction of more liberalism, more apostasy, more cheap “mercy”, &c, and less faithfulness, less heroism, less discipline, and less emphasis on the cultural war against secularism. The Church has the wrong Pope in the wrong moment of history and the whole constellation is very dangerous.

    • ForChristAlone

      Their chicanery was unwittingly played out in the Pentin interview with Kasper.

      A lot of posters here have referred to the Holy Spirit’s guiding the Synod. I see the movement of the Holy Spirit in the now-famous Pentin interview and tape recording.

      • jacobhalo

        Kasper said that he never talked to Pentin. Maybe Kasper is getting senile.

        • Once exposed, he tried to weasel out that the didn’t talk to Pentin on the record, which the journalist explained that it wasn’t the case, since the cardinal hadn’t started the interview by saying that it was off the record. Such calculation doesn’t suggest senility to me, but lying.

          • jacobhalo

            Good article on “thecatholicthing.org. about Kasper

  • jcsmitty

    “The liberal clique which has seized power over the way the synod is being presented to the faithful have to be repudiated: if they’re not, it’s back to the most destructive period of the post-conciliar years. I think we should all be very worried indeed.” EXACTLY, Dr. Oddie! Why is the Church always so unprepared for these guerrilla attacks by the liberals? When will we ever learn!

  • Objectivetruth

    Looks like archbishop Gadecki from Poland is on the road to sainthood. From an interview with Polish radio, cut and paste from Rorate Caeli blog:

    “Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, archbishop of Poznan, Poland, and president of his nation’s episcopate, is glad with himself and with the others who thought as he did for the determined criticism of the relatio post disceptationem of the Synod on the Family. The Polish prelate denounced a clear separation with the teaching of John Paul II on the issue, as well as the unclear vision about the purpose of the Synod itself.

    Speaking yesterday to Polish radio, Gądecki reiterated that many of the Synod Fathers shared his feelings, considering that text “strongly ideologized, because it considered more the sociological than the theological side,” but above all because “some of its theses seemed to devastate the magisterium of the Church.”

    “I am under the impression that, had I had not spoken up, things might have ended up even worse. I consider that there was a need to say something, because of the calls rising up from the families, they were terrified. Something had to be said, so as not to confirm to people the certainty that we were about to abandon the doctrine of the Church. Because everything had to have a more serious format, more detailed and analyzed.”

    • The sense of the faithful spoke and true shepherds heard, defending the True Faith from the hirelings.

      • Objectivetruth

        Also from Gadecki, to the synod. He’s turning out to have done heroic work:

        “- Let’s end this delusion that ‘mercy’ began only now, after 2,000 years! ”

        And…..

        “Mercy makes sense if it is related to truth,”

        • ForChristAlone

          Exactly what some of us here have been saying about works of charity. It’s not as if the Catholic Church has been in a deep sleep for two thousand years and we are now waking up to the need for charity. We invented the idea beginning with the Acts of the Apostles.

          • jacobhalo

            2000 years? I thought the church was established in 1962.

            • ForChristAlone

              I forgot.

    • publiusnj

      This is great input. We need a lot more information on the breakdown of the Synod vote. I am very concerned that the liberals are going to try to stack next Year’s Synod and I don’t know basic things like how big it will be; whether this year’s participants are automatically members, etc.

      • Objectivetruth

        The World Meeting of Families is next September 22-27 in Philadelphia. The Holy Father is almost certain to attend. Approximately 1 million people are to possibly attend. It will be interesting how this will play out. The Church would have an incredible opportunity on a world stage to proclaim clearly and joyously to 7 billion inhabitants of the planet that the family only mimics that of the Holy Family: A Mother, a Father and children. This is who we are, and this is Christ’s will!

        • ForChristAlone

          Based on the expectations about the World Meeting of Families, The Holy Father is not likely to show (unless he can bring his best buds from the Synod as advance men).

          • Objectivetruth

            Read “Familiaris Consortio.” Reading all that has happened over the last two weeks, it amazes me how far we’ve strayed from this beautiful teaching of Saint JP.

            • ForChristAlone

              will do…thanks

        • John Byde

          Except that it won’t use that opportunity. Expect an “There are all different kinds of families” banner

    • GG

      Common sense, logic, reason how refreshing.

  • Objectivetruth

    From Pope John Paul II’s “Familiaris Consortio” after the synod in 1980. The whole document is worth reading, absolutely beautiful. The great saint is both teacher and loving pastor. No new document is needed, Familiaris Consortio is timeless. Noticed how Papa Karol calls out remarriage for the divorced, non annulled Catholic as “evil”:

    “e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried

    84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.”

  • bonaventure

    He is the source of those distortions! How can he now correct them?

  • Basically, being Catholic is not special in anyway and in no way differs from the progressive Presbyterian church, which “keeps up with current events” or even a secular Gaia loving group, which is always trendy and caught up in whatever social and therapeutic winds are blowing. It’s all part of the slog toward conformity, and a completely State-defined definition of morality, which pretends to be “personal.” So why would anyone want to be devout today? “Membership” doesn’t seem to be anything special, that is for sure.

  • clintoncps

    “The same Peter who confessed Jesus Christ, says, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let us not speak of the Cross. This has nothing to do with it.’ He says, ‘I’ll follow you on other ways, that do not include the Cross.’ When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.”

    — Pope Francis (His first homily as Pope, March 14, 2014)

    • Mara319

      Right. And the Pope thinks the law of the Lord is a “burden” to the faithful that its practice must undergo some changes? Hah, hah, hardee-har-har! [St. John Vianney]

  • jacobhalo

    “Cardinal Kasper became a target of various conservatives when at the Feb. 2014 Consistory, he called for a new ‘pastoral’ solution to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion. In a drama unprecedented in my lifetime, five Cardinals counter-attacked Cardinal Kasper’s proposal in a new book titled “The Gospel of the Family.” … In response to these Cardinals, Kasper revealed to the Italian journal “Il Mattino” sept. 19, that he was only following the line of Pope Francis in this regard. “I spoke twice with the Holy Father, said a defensive Kasper, ” I agreed upon everything with him. He was in agreement. What can a Cardinal do, if not being with the Pope? I am not the target, the target is another one. They [the Cardinal’s opponents] know that I have not done these things myself. I agreed with the pope, I spoke twice with him. He showed himself content with it…” taken from “The Catholic Family News” Oct. 2014 edition.
    The writer of the article continues, “This confirms what many of us surmised all along. Pope Francis himself is the steamroller behind the scandal, the confusion, the irresponsible questioning of Catholic doctrine regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried.”

  • John Byde

    I joined the Catholic church last year and am now greatly regretting my decision. I left my local protestant church to get away from exactly this kind of thing. I put in a lot of time and study before I made the jump but now think I made a mistake. I have absolutely no faith that the Catholic church under the leadership of this man will uphold the teachings of Christ and remain a bulwark against a deeply insane society. Signing off and farewell!

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Sadly, the proponents of “the development of doctrine that would change the clear teaching of Christ on the INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE and seeing same sex relationships or behaviour as sinful may find themselves cast out. I encourage these individuals to read what Jesus said in Matthew’s Gospel 7: to those who chose to manipulate the truth. Interestingly, he begins this chapter with Judge not to be Judged. Yet, Christ clearly states we are required to do the WILL of God, or find ourselves cast out. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'”

    I encourage Kasper and his cohorts not to move away from truth to so-call provide progress in understanding. Kasper there are 6 passages in scripture that are clear on same sex behaviour as sin. I recall a conversation with Father Harvey, the founder of Courage, regarding the term “homosexual persons” being used in the catechism. He told me there was a group of psychologist/scientists who were in the process of encourage the Vatican to remove this term, as it infers someone could be their desires or attractions. No one is their desires, attractions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings or behaviour. Yes, we are responsible for how we respond to our impulses, and are encouraged to avoid sin. Do not attempt to progress doctrine to justify divorce and remarriage or any variant away from a call to Chastity for individuals with same sex attraction.

    Hold Fast to What You Were Taught: Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: “You have one teacher, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: “And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2); “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Tim. 3:14).

    However, this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in Christianity will ask, “What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that doctrine?”

    • “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.” (Heb 13:8-9)

      “So that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ.” (Eph 4:14-5)

      • Tomacz Tesla

        “Tossed by waves” that is the impression I got from the Pope’s “holy backpedaling” message. I don’t care what the media or the heretic bishops ask us to do: I AM NOT RECEIVING the likes of Gheogan and Maciel as moral equals with the Saints. “If this be error” God knows I am doing it convinced beyond any doubt that I am serving Him honestly.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Sadly, the proponents of “the development of doctrine that would change the clear teaching of Christ on the INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE and seeing same sex relationships or behaviour as sinful may find themselves cast out. I encourage these individuals to read what Jesus said in Matthew’s Gospel 7: to those who chose to manipulate the truth. Interestingly, he begins this chapter with Judge not to be Judged. Yet, Christ clearly states we are required to do the WILL of God, or find ourselves cast out. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'”

    I encourage Kasper and his cohorts not to move away from truth to so-call provide progress in understanding. Kasper there are 6 passages in scripture that are clear on same sex behaviour as sin. I recall a conversation with Father Harvey, the founder of Courage, regarding the term “homosexual persons” being used in the catechism. He told me there was a group of psychologist/scientists who were in the process of encourage the Vatican to change this term, as it infers someone could be their desires or attractions. No one is their desires, attractions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings or behaviour. We have the ability with God’s help to choose how to respond to our impulses, knowing we are encouraged to avoid sin. Do not attempt to progress doctrine to justify divorce and remarriage or any variant away from a call to Chastity for individuals with same sex attraction.

    Hold Fast to What You Were Taught: Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: “You have one teacher, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: “And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2); “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Tim. 3:14).

    However, this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in Christianity will ask, “What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that doctrine?”

  • Tomacz Tesla

    “Then Peron will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the
    extent that you did it to one of these brothers heretics of mine, even the least
    of them, you did it to me.’ Then he will also say to those on his right, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, go to a ceremonial post in Malta which has been prepared for those who have more talent and theological knowledge than me, the greatest!” From The Gospel of St. Erroneous.

  • jacobhalo

    The pope is going to correct its distortions? I think he is the main distorter.

  • jeremiah_methusela

    Can someone help me please ? What are the “”gifts and qualities” that [homosexuals] could offer to the Church ? The mind boggles.
    And I hate seeing the word “gay” in a Catholic document.

    • James Scott

      They are human beings made in the divine image thus logically they can have gifts and qualities to bring to the Table.

      • jeremiah_methusela

        You miss the point, I wonder
        why. Of course every person on God’s earth has
        individual gifts and qualities. Let’s not play around with words here, I need
        specifically to know what a sodomite or a lesbian can bring to the table, qua sodomite
        or lesbian. The answer is zero, nothing. This wishy-washy liberal twaddle is a
        pointless platitude designed to make us all feel good about something which is
        intrinsically disordered or unnatural.

        • James Scott

          First of all it is merely homosexual sex acts that are intrinsically disordered(thus evil and against nature). The CCC says a homosexual orientation is objectively disordered which merely means it is such that if followed leads to evil acts but it is not morally evil in itself.

          So I think you should re-examine your point.

          My point was rather straight forward. Persons with a homosexual orientation are still human beings etc…& certainly their unique struggle & suffering is of value. How can it not be?

          (You and I are lucky to have a lawful outlet to our sexual orientation specifically marriage to someone of the opposite sex. The gay person has no lawful outlet for his or her orientation which presents a challenge & burden neither of us have to carry. So I think some compassion is in order).

          Also with all due respect you asked “What are the “”gifts and qualities” that [homosexuals] could offer to the Church?”

          You did not ask “What gifts and qualities that “a person in the act of having sinful sex(natural or un-natural) could offer the church?”

          If that is what you meant you should have said it with all due respect.

          Not to quibble but a person doesn’t have to have a gay sexual orientation to sin sexually in an un-natural manner. One could just be drunk? Or one could primarily be straight but threw a perverse sinful obsession with novelty might experiment with this sort of behavior.

          Which is terrible but not to be compared to a person who at a very early age feels attracted to their own sex & doesn’t know why and in some cases can’t change this desire only resist it.

          It’s not wishy washy to feel compassion for such people.

          Of course if you want to hurl names some so called “conservatives” it seems only want to use the moral dogma of the faith as an excuse to shout FAGGOT.

          I don’t approve & FYI I am orthodox in my Catholic belief 100%.

          • jeremiah_methusela

            I asked a question, which you
            have avoided. Homosexual acts committed
            by homosexuals are clearly what I referred to here, not a one-off drunken
            episode and I ask again, what possible benefit is there for a practising
            Catholic ? Your beliefs are of no
            interest to me, neither should mine interest you, irrelevant and time-wasting. You know nothing about me, so don’t presume. Same goes for “compassion” , what are you on
            about ? It is irrelevant, homosexual “love”
            is better filed under the category “lust”. Charity
            (love) is one of the fruits of the Holy Ghost and has nothing to do with
            sodomy.

            Homosexual acts have very
            far-reaching consequences, nearly all of them deleterious. This whole “sexual orientation” thing is a
            blind, it first saw the light in South Africa, which has the most
            liberal constitution ever and it was insisted upon by the late “Saint” Mandela,
            along with abortion and more of the same. It is PC jargon and has no place in a serious,
            honest discussion.

            You have distorted my remarks about
            wishy-washy and you, indirectly, put the word faggot in my mouth, I didn’t. That is a low blow, a cheap shot, you would
            do well to withdraw it, it reveals more about you than me..

            All are welcome into the
            Church, without passing any tests.

            • James Scott

              >I asked a question, which you
              have avoided. Homosexual acts committedby homosexuals are clearly what I referred to here,

              No you asked an ambiguous question which I tried to answer to best of my ability& no it is not at all clear to those of us whose first language is the Queen’s English you where talking about homosexual sex acts & not persons with a homosexual orientation.

              At face value you question looked no different then asking “What are the “”gifts and qualities” that [Sinners] could offer to the Church ?”

              I have already stated homosexual sex acts are intrinsically disordered therefore evil.

              But as Cardinal Burke himself said that is not the same as saying the people themselves are evil.

              It seems you agree with me quote”All are welcome into theChurch, without passing any tests.”

              >You have distorted my remarks about
              wishy-washy and you, indirectly, put the word faggot in my mouth, I didn’t. That is a low blow, a cheap shot, you would
              do well to withdraw it, it reveals more about you than me..

              You sir are the one who all but accused me of defending the goodness of intrinsically evil acts (vs person who commit them). You are the one who accused me of advocating “wishy-washy liberal twaddle” & “pointless platitudes” & I am trying to “make us all feel good about gay sex act which are intrinsically disordered and evil”.

              So either you are inarticulate in your postings or you are the sort of person who makes no rational Catholic distinctions between the sin vs sinner as even Cardinal Burke does.

              So if you don’t like “low blows” don’t dish them out in the first place.

              Me defending gay sex acts & trying to get others to feel good about them. What nerve!

              >Your beliefs are of nointerest to me, neither should mine interest you, irrelevant and time-wasting.

              Then in the future use more theologically precise language then we can all get on.

              >This whole “sexual orientation” thing is a
              blind,

              Oh go learn some science. We don’t know what makes some people have a homosexual orientation. It’s a mystery of nature. It does not change the moral imperative not to perform gay sex acts but we don’t really know why some people have this inverted attraction to their own gender. Logic and the Catholic Faith compel us to compassion.

              The fundamentalist Protestant dogma that the homosexual orientation is a choice is silly, destructive, and overly simplistic.

              It most likely is not a choice. That doesn’t absolved these people so afflicted from following the moral and natural law but it merits our compassion.

              If that is “wishy washy” then not only Pope Francis but Pope Benedict and St John Paul II where “wishy washy”.

              • jeremiah_methusela

                James – Just answer my question.

                • James Scott

                  I believe I just did. If you can’t read plain English then there is nothing really to discuss.

                  To quote myself”I have already stated homosexual sex acts are intrinsically disordered therefore evil.”

                  If you are not the sort of person who can take “yes” for an answer I don’t know what to do with you.

                  • jeremiah_methusela

                    … Sigh …

  • James Scott

    >Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, (my emphasis) without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? [the answer is “no”, but we are supposed to say “yes”]

    Wasn’t that bold bit a mistranslated? Shouldn’t it have been translated “evaluating”?

    Also you could value a homosexual orientation in an accidental way like calling Adam’s sin “O Happy Fault”. In so much as it presents a challenge to the person to resist & by doing so obtain holiness. God tolerating evil so He can bring good out of it and so forth. Which is the only “Yes” answer you can give in light of the praise without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony..

    Of course you can “value” a homosexual orientation in essence.

MENU