Why didn't Father Thomas J. Rosica report on these comments? We blog, you decide!

Edward Pentin who wrote the book, The Rigging of a Vatican Synod?, which seems to be happening again, notwithstanding, is an invaluable correspondent. He is the reporter, who, during last year's Synod to destroy the family reported on Cardinal Kasper's slanderous comments about Africans. Kasper denied it, Pentin proved it and then Kasper, Cardinal priest tried to discredit his career. Pentin is owed much thanks for his reporting.

Before moving on to the specifics, understand that by their natures, Synod's are public and open and there is voting. This meeting in Rome has no business being called a Synod. I have a right to know what my bishop, Thomas Cardinal Collins says and thinks. I have a right to know how he votes on each issue, each point. Yet, Jorge Bergoglio, the Bishop of Rome, our Pope, has decided otherwise. We cannot know which bishop said what. We cannot know how they vote because they cannot vote on each individual point or resolution but on the whole - and up or down vote. What kind of travesty is this on the Church of Christ and the Catholic faithful. The buck stops at the top, right at the desk of the Pope himself.

Now, let us get to the issue at hand. It is important for you to read again the following paragraph which needs to be deeply absorbed and understand so that you understand what is at stake.

"Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love?" Does he mean that "Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights?" Or does he mean that, "It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world?" Father Thomas J. Rosica, on video stating it numerous times without accreditation to the originator, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz.

The salt has lost its savour and the light is not shining because yesterday, when Father Thomas Rosica opined about different regions or continents or countries doing different things on communion for the divorced and remarried and mused in some way or another about polygamy and that we are mean in our language to "homosexuals" he didn't tell you all of these little points which follow. Why are these not highlighted? Is it because they don't serve the narrative?

But Pentin does:

* A number of synod fathers spoke in support of Cardinal Peter Erdo’s introductory speech, including one who underlined the importance of keeping fidelity to truth about marriage, the family and the Eucharist.

* A synod father asked “What are we doing here?” and stressed the synod is about the family, not other relationships such as homosexual ones. He also stressed that if the synod accepts the divorced-remarried issue, the Church effectively “supports divorce”.

* Another said the emphasis should be the sacrament of marriage, so the spiritual beauty of marriage is brought to the fore. Often the Church is not united around the “positive vision” of marriage and family. He said instability around marriage is “against its nature”.

* A synod father referenced St. Augustine, saying some of the baptized living in “irregular situations” don’t want to approach the Sacrament of Penance; he said the crisis of the family is a crisis of faith. He quoted 2 Timothy 4:2-5

* Another intervention noted the flock are too few, and that one should show respect for families which battle and try to remain faithful, those who in particular remain faithful to their marital vows given before God, although there are controversies and difficulties.

* A further intervention stressed that the Church has to defend that which God revealed about marriage and family and that the work of prelates is to support healthy families. A danger for families are “certain cultural dreams,” as well as a sociological approach. In order to serve the family one has to take point of departure the word of God.

The secular media has had a great time today making much over these statements. The homo-fascist sodomite lobby will use it all to their advantage to slander the Catholic faith and those of us who will take it, God-willing please, to our graves.

Yet, where is the truth? 

We find exactly what we suspected. That the communication from the Synod is, in fact, being manipulated because you are being lead to believe one thing when another is actually happening. To read the Zenit interview with Father Thomas J. Rosica, you would be lead to believe that every bishop stated those issues reported and specifically, on the matter of homosexuality. Yet, today from Rome, Father Paul Nicholson is reporting that:

"Yesterday, during a press conference at the Holy See office, the English spokesman transmitted to the media sentiments that sounded like consensus in the Synod.  He stated that there must be an end to "exclusionary language", "in particular in regards to homosexuals and gay persons" (We discovered today, October 7th, that in fact, only one or two bishops actually mentioned homosexuality, it wasn't a broad consensus as reported)."

Father Nicholson's comment is confirmed by none other than Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput. 

"One or two people that mentioned that, it was not a dominant part of the conversation."

Did you read that? "One or two," yet, we are lead to believe from the reporting that it was a major issue. The comment by Archbishop Chaput begins at the 35:00 minute mark with a question from the National Schismatic Reporter which has never been permitted to use the word "Catholic" in its name. So what we find is in fact, is that yesterday, there was not a complete and open reportage of the days events. 

There is no salt and there is no light, it has all lost its savour, it is all just pepper and darkness and it deserves to be trampled under foot.