Clarity from Collins and Chaput - they see a lot that is wrong with this sham of a Synod

With all the insanity coming out of Rome, let us be thankful that we are finally getting some of the facts. I will also give credit where it is due since the Ordinary in my diocese Thomas Cardinal Collins, though technically speaking, I am a Maronite) has been exerting his influence along with Archbishop Charles Chaput, the of whom are good friends. 

Note in bold the obvious concern that is expressed by these two prelates.

Released this morning in Rome.

[01661-EN.01] [Original text: English]Relatio – Circulus Anglicus “D”Moderator: Card. COLLINS Thomas ChristopherRelator: S.E. Mons. CHAPUT, O.F.M. Cap. Charles Joseph
Those of us taking part in Circle D are grateful to Pope Francis for calling for this synod, and we are honored to be part of the process. We also want to express our gratitude for the hard work embodied in the Instrumentum Laboris (IL). We suggest that the document should start just as we begin any celebration of the Mass – with a kind of Confiteor, putting ourselves in the midst of the failures of the members of the Church, rather than judging them from the outside. We need to acknowledge and ask forgiveness for our own mistakes as pastors, especially those that have undermined family life.
We had two general observations:
First, while various elements of the IL are admirable, we found much of the text to be flawed or inadequate, especially in its theology, clarity, trust in the power of grace, its use of Scripture and its tendency to see the world through overwhelmingly Western eyes. Second, we felt limited in our ability to respond by not knowing clearly who the audience of the document is. In other words, are we writing to the Holy Father, to families of the Church, or to the world?
Most of our group felt the IL should begin with hope rather than failures because a great many people already do successfully live the Gospel’s good news about marriage. Our group expressed concern that readers will simply ignore the document if it begins with a litany of negatives and social problems rather than a biblical vision of joy and confidence in the Word of God regarding the family. The huge cloud of challenges pervading the first section of the text unintentionally creates a sense of pastoral despair.
Several group members felt that Section II should precede Section I. Others supported the current arrangement of the text. A shared concern was that most people won’t read a dense or lengthy document. This makes the IL’s opening section vitally important; it needs to inspire as well as inform. Additionally -- recalling the work of Aparecida -- members stressed that the focus of the text should be on Jesus, through whom we describe and interpret the world’s present situation. We should always begin with Jesus.
If marriage is a vocation, which we believe it is, we can’t promote vocations by talking first about its problems.
As the Trinity is the source of reality, and because all communities originate in the community of the Trinity, some thought that the Trinity should be the document’s starting point.
Members noted that in his letters, St. Paul would often write a prologue of praise to people whose sins he would then critique. This was a common style in his epistles, and effective.Our group thought there were a number of elements missing from the text: a serious reflection on gender ideology, more reflection on pastoral care for the differently-abled, the role of fathers and men as well as the role of women, and a deeper treatment of the destructive nature of pornography and other misuses of electronic technology.
Members criticized many of the paragraphs in the first section. Some thought the presentation was chaotic, without inherent logic. Sentences seemed to be tossed together without any organic connection to one another.
Some thought the text worked well because the family today does, in fact, face serious problems. That’s why we’re here at the synod: to deal with those problems; and people who suffer want to see their reality touched by what we say. So it’s important to speak in a way that will draw people’s attention.
Still others thought that the text lacked anything that would attract people. If the document is destined to the general public, they felt that stories from family life, or the lives of the saints along with illustrations, should be included to make the material more compelling. They stressed the need to review the language of the document and ensure that it appeals to both men and women, leaving no one out.
Members worried that the English translation may not be faithful to the official Italian text. Others complained that many of the document’s statements were too general and not specific enough. Still others felt the text had many inaccurate generalizations, was verbose and repetitive.
Members said that some of the sections seemed narrow in scope and excessively inspired by West European and North American concerns, rather than a true presentation of the global situation. Some of the members thought that terms like “developing nations” and “advanced countries” were condescending and inappropriate for a Church document. Others thought that the language of the text was too careful and politically correct, and because of that, the content was unclear and sometimes incoherent. Wonderfully good points were made in some paragraphs, but they were addressed too briefly and in a poorly developed manner. 
They seemed to be simply pulled together and listed, rather than presented logically.Overall, members felt that Pope Francis and the people of the Church deserve a better text, one in which ideas are not lost in the confusion. Our group suggests that the text should be turned over to a single editor for clarification and refinement. The current material is obviously the work of a committee. Because of that, it lacks beauty, clarity and force.
Finally, members felt strongly that even in difficult situations, we need to underline the fact that many Christian families serve as a counter-witness to negative trends in the world by the way they faithfully live the Catholic vision of marriage and the family. These families need to be recognized, honored and encouraged by the document. Thus the first section of the IL text, which is about “observing” the facts, ought to highlight the good as well as the bad and the tragic. Heroic holiness is not a rare ideal and not merely “possible,” but common and lived vigorously in much of the world.

In other words, the whole blood I.L. is a sham and this whole Synod is an enormous waste of time and energy.

Hey Pope Francis. how's Asia Bibi?

Who?

We have a word for those who would give credence to the disgrace of Danneels

Jorge Bergoglio became Pope with the help of Godfried Danneels. Damian Thompson summarises the very serious matter which we have recently, that Danneels who supports sodomite/lesbian marriage protected a pervert bishop who sodomised his own nephew and then chastised the nephew and failed to report the crime.

It is impossible to believe that the Pope did not know what follows. We have this report from the National Schismatic Reporter write in 2010?

Audio recordings leaked to the Belgian media this weekend reveal Belgium’s Cardinal Godfried Danneels urging a sex abuse victim not to make public that his abuser was his uncle Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges, Belgium. The recordings show Danneels pressuring the young man not to force Vangheluwe to resign. Cardinal Danneels asks if the nephew wants Vangheluwe to resign and adds: ‘But that is his decision. I can mention it but that’s all. You expect me to do something that I cannot do. I don’t know what more to do. Or perhaps I have to find some other way to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.’ When the nephew stresses that the cardinal must speak to pope and that Vangeluwe must be sanctioned by the church, Cardinal Danneels responds ‘Yes but… You can also ask forgiveness and, well, you can also acknowledge your own guilt.’

Nephew: ‘Whose forgiveness do I have to seek? I am not the one to ask for forgiveness.’

Danneels: ‘He can do that. That’s correct.’

Later, Cardinal Danneels asks that the conversation not be made public and suggests to the nephew: ‘You can figure that he will resign next year and that he agrees to make no more appearances on television, that sort of thing, and before you know it a year has gone by.’

Nephew: ‘No! I am putting this in your hands and the two of you have to make a decision.’

[Danneels replies] ‘So you can grab us and try to blackmail us, huh, and say: ‘you have to do something!’

Jorge Bergoglio talks a good story when he says that there is no tolerance for abusers and those who protect them. 

Some say that I, as a layman, cannot judge the Pope. Then condemn me for my judgment of his decision to appoint, over age, this retired pervert protecting Cardinal. I am judging Jorge Bergoglio. I am judging his action and I am judging his lack of prudence.

The secular and most Catholic media, in their idolatrous treatment of this Pope, ignore this fact and refuse to report on it. We have a word for it and the man who would appoint such a prelate to the Synod on the Family. A Synod where priests and prelates seek to undermine the faith and the truth, doctrine and dogma.

St. Matthew tells us clearly what Our Blessed Lord thought of these men using language and words that show that those who would change "language" do not follow the Lord Jesus Christ's example but preach a false gospel, a gospel of feelings.

Have these men no respect for Our Lord? for his Apostles and Evangelists?

Read what Our Lord Jesus Christ has to say as recorded by St. Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist in the 23rd chapter and the words He uses to describe the clericalists of His day. Truly, He would not be welcomed at the Synod on the Family.

A Reading from the continuation of the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew beginning at the 23rd chapter 13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. 14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. 15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. 16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor. 17 Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor. 19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:21 And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it: 22 And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. 23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean. 27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, 30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? 34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. 36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. 37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? 38 Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. 39 For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

More Synod scandal - Gay activist lobbyist has press credentials - priest journalist stripped of his. What is going on at the Synod? Who is behind this?

The Synod of Shame continues. It is an affront to the faithful that this secretive and manipulative sham should be allowed to continue without openness and debate for all to see. What is this darkness that the Synod is operating under? This is without precedent. Synods, by their nature, are open and there is voting. This is an affront to Christ and His faithful.

Michael Voris reports that the Executive Director of New Ways Ministry, condemned by bishops as not being Catholic, had press credentials listed to his "blog." Yet, the priest journalist who challenged Canadian Archbishop Durocher's ignorant and disgraceful comments about dogma and doctrine was stripped of his.

Michael Voris reports at The Vortex—Gay Press Conferences | The Vortex with a full transcript if you are not able to view/listen. 

Here is a snippet; you'll want to read the rest there:

I've been corrected that Federico Lombardi, S.J., the head of the Vatican's communication bureau does speak English and yet, he hired Father Tom Rosica to be the spokesman. Does Father Lombardi monitor what is going on in the English press?

The mask is quickly dropping.

Because the LORD really cares about baseball

Idiotic.

Imprudent.

Moronic.

Insulting to every Christian persecuted by Muslims; to Asia Bibi. A disgrace to those expected to shell out over one hundred million dollars to this Archdiocese. 

We have a Synod going on where heresy is discussed and tolerated; and this is what the Communications Department in the Archdiocese of Toronto has time to do?

It won't work though. 

It didn't work for the Leafs.

Sorry, Your Eminence, it's out there. What can I say?

Panamanian Francis Cardinal Jose Luiz Lacunza Maestrojuan spouts heresy

One needs no more proof than what follows that the the Vatican's communications experts are manipulating this Synod. 

You have not heard this from Rome. 

You've heard this from Toronto Catholic Witness, as Barona reports: 

Cardinal Jose Luiz Lacunza Maestrojuan, the president of the Panamanian Bishops' Conference, and Rapporteur at the Synod of the Family suggested on October 5, 2015, during his alloted three minute speech, that the Law of Christ be overturned and the Church adapt a position on divorce following Moses. The Cardinal was quoted by Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki (translated by Toronto Catholic Witness) as saying:

There we have it: a priest of Jesus Christ, a bishop, a Prince of the Church openly before his brother bishops, before the whole Church: contradicting Our Lord Jesus Christ!

"Moses drew near to the people and gave way. Likewise today, the "hardness of hearts' opposes God's plan. Could Peter not be merciful like Moses?"

Pure. Unadulterated. Heresy. It seems that this red-hatted wonder was just appointed by Francis  was "astonished" and not "deserving" of being made a Cardinal. 

I couldn't agree more, Eminence!

Heresy. Doing away with the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ for a return to the Mosaic Law and from a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and not reported on by the Vatican. How do we know this? Because Barona in Toronto translated it from the blog of Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki in Poland.

So what was the result?

Barona has it here.

Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB has become "THE STORY" to the disgrace of Federico Lombardi and Pope Francis himself!

Father Thomas J. Rosica, the Vatican's English-language spokesman for the Synod, has committed the greatest error of any media spokesman or communications expert -- becoming the actual story.

Consider this screenshot from PewSitter.Com taken at 11:00PM, EDT on October 7.



Read those headlines - four specific articles about Father Thomas Rosica and what he has said and not said. One, is a republishing by LifeSiteNews of his interview with the heretic, defrocked priest, Vatican II expert and same-sex so-called marriage supporter Gregory Baum. Father Rosica has become the story. OnePeterFive writes, "Father Rosica's bias: Are we getting the full story?" Even Edward Pentin asks the question and gives the answers.

There is even more when one searches for what others have written on blogs and other social media. 

The public media has reported on the great discussions on sodomy and how the language for homosexuals must change in the Church. Rosica is quoted extensively. Yet, we have the proof, as I was tipped off early this morning and confirmed a few hours later by Archbishop Charles Chaput, that the number of points about homosexuality that came up at the Synod was "one or two." Yet, according to the global media, based upon comments in Zenit by Father Thomas Rosica, it was the preeminent issue.

Father Federico Lombardi, S.J. as Director of the Holy See Press Office and Jorge Bergoglio, the Pope have a responsibility to the English speaking world to ensure that we have the truth of what is discussed and what our bishops are saying.

Have you need for more proof that we are not getting the full story?

Barona, at Toronto Catholic Witness reports on Cardinal Jose Luiz Lacunza Maestojuan of Panama, being "rebuked" by the Greek-Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, His Beatitude Gregory III Laham. The Cardinal suggested that the Law of Christ be overturned for that of Moses. Yes, you read that correctly. How do we know this? Because Barona scoured the Polish blog of Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki. Yet, Father Rosica and Federico Lombardi did not feel that this example of "bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal" to quote Our Lady of Akita, should be known by you or me.

Do you need more proof? No one less than Archbishop Charles Chaput himself commenting that he can't read the official Italian texts and the English texts do not have accurate translations. The days are gone when Latin was the universal language to prevent this problem. All these prelates praising St. John XXIII and ignored his work on Latin in the seminaries. Fools.

Not acceptable!

A Synod, by its nature, is open and votes. The Pope has forbidden this. Adding to this the obfuscation of communication to the largest language group in the Catholic world is deplorable, scandalous and despicable that we, the Catholic faithful, should be kept in ignorance as to what is really being said.

The Synod is quickly becoming a sham and the proof is there for all to see and the Pope and Lombardi are responsible for it because they have set this up and allowed this scandalous charade.

Stating that the Holy Spirit is guiding it is an insult to Almighty God.

We must have full disclosure on what is being said without the filter of any agenda.

Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Was Cardinal Erdő's Catholic orthodoxy undermined by the Bishop of Rome himself?

I post, you decide.

HAS THE INTERVENTION OF POPE FRANCIS RETURNED SYNOD TO HETERODOX TRAJECTORY?

October 7, 2015

The Ordinary Synod on the Family moved much closer yesterday to a repudiation of the teachings of the Catholic Church on human sexuality. The hopes of faithful Catholics were raised on Monday by the reassertions of Catholic orthodoxy made in the relazione introduttiva of the General Relator of the Synod, Péter Cardinal Erdő, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest. Yesterday Erdő’s report and position were seriously undermined after an intervention of Pope Francis indicated to the synod fathers that the question of Holy Communion for the “divorced and remarried” was still open. Cardinal Erdő was also undermined by remarks made by synod fathers invited to a press conference organised by Holy See press spokesman Fr Lombardi S.J.

(...)

Fr Rosica’s summary of the “progressive” revolution against Catholic doctrine

At yesterday’s press conference Fr Thomas Rosica, English-speaking press spokesman for the Holy See, gave what he described as a summary of the interventions of the synod fathers. The interventions summarised by Rosica were almost uniformly “progressive”. ... One of the most disturbing aspects of Rosica’s summary was the suggestion that the question of Holy Communion for the “divorced and remarried” could be solved in different ways in different parts of the world. This would lead to different practices, and thus different doctrines, in different parts of the Church. Such division is, of course, inseparable from schism.

(...)

Conclusions

The opening report of the General Relator, Cardinal Erdő, raised hopes that it might be possible for the Ordinary Synod to be reoriented in an orthodox direction despite the heterodoxInstrumentum Laboris that serves as its agenda. The undermining of Cardinal Erdő’s report by the intervention of Pope Francis seems to place the synod back on a heterodox orientation. If theRelatio Synodi and Instrumentum Laboris continue to be the basis for the Ordinary Synod’s work, then those responsible for the synod, and those who follow their lead, will remain on a trajectory towards formal repudiation of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

http://voiceofthefamily.com/has-the-intervention-of-pope-francis-returned-synod-to-heterodox-trajectory/

Cardinal's Erdő's statement.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-cardinal-erdos-introductory-report-for-the-synod-on-the-family-67404/

Charamsa and Rosica - saying the same thing?

Let me begin by stating the old phrase, "hate the sin but love the sinner" and let me publicly acknowledge that I too am a sinner and in need of sacramental confession, grace and redemption from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me also state that persons who suffer from same-sex attraction, be they men or women, are our brothers and sisters. They deserve respect as individuals. I did not tell the cashier at the organic market on Saturday that he was a sodomite and that he was going to Hell. I do not have to accept the aggressive and fascist homosexualist movement that is undermining freedom and the family.

When priests engage in sodomy and advocate it and when bishops such as Raymond Lahey, are found with child pornography - of boys on their computers, they are sodomites and that is a valid word in the dictionary the bible and the catechism.

We call someone who murders a murderer, a bank robber is a robber and a thief. It would follow that someone who commits adultery is an adulterer and someone who commits sodomy is a sodomite.

Language is important. So is clarity. Some people think the Church should change its language in an effort to reach out. This is not Catholic. This is not what Jesus did and He said much about sodomy, unless you deny that He is God and was present throughout the fullness of scripture and speaking through the ancient prophets, so don't even think He did not say anything about "homosexuality" in the New Testament. The word wasn't invented until just over a century ago. 

Our Blessed Lord said plenty about it and so did his apostles and evangelists! They keep forgetting about "whitewashed sepulchres" and "murders of the prophets" and "vipers" and "go and sin no more." They want, as Father Oko so brilliantly stated, "a childish notion of a God who only soothes and caresses." they "have not grown out of this childish notion."

The sodomite priest, Krzyztof Charamsa  who will soon be forgotten, "truly, he has his reward" and his fifteen minute of fame issued a manifesto just prior to the Synod.

"We demand that the Catholic Church divest itself of activities, the mentality and language of homophobia, hate speech, humiliation and depreciating, marginalization, stigmatization and rejection of LGBT people. We demand the cessation of the Church of discrimination and soft persecution of these people so within it as well as beyond its borders."

Yesterday, Zenit carried an interview with Thomas Rosica, CSB the Vatican's English-language Synod spokesman in which it is reported that:

'There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations.'... 

"The importance of changing language used to address certain difficult situations, Fr. Rosica said, was highlighted. "The language must be renewed,"... 

"The Jubilee of Mercy requires a language of mercy," he stated. Father Rosica underscored how language ought to always be inclusive, rather than exclusive, particularly for homosexuals.

"In particular, when speaking about homosexuals or gay persons," he said, "we recognize them for who they are: They are our sons, our daughters, and brothers, sisters, neighbors and colleagues."

Clearly, Charamsa was a mole working deep in the bowels of the Church. His work in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been instrumental and influential for even Father Thomas J. Rosica seems to be saying the same thing.

This proves one thing. Charamsa was not fired for being in a relationship with another man and presumably violating his vows, he was fired because he "came out." They didn't care about the poor man's soul or what he did at night and with whom, they only cared about their image and the disruption and distraction that Charamsa caused.

The secular media has taken yesterday's Zenit report by Father Rosica, as well as the inane comments by the Archbishop of Gatineau in Quebec about deaconesses and had great fun with it. The morning papers in print and online will tout these great changes coming in the Church. It will be a rough day thanks to ill-advised words.

And yet, today; 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)."

It is diabolical in every way and it will lead to a loss of souls. We are living a repeat of Vatican II and Humanae Vitae. Careless prelates and priests are making statements, intentionally or not, and these statement are being used. Expectations are being raised. The Church is being mocked in the public square, Our Lord Jesus is suffering all over again and is being ignored in all of this. 

When all of this is done, Francis has two options. He can do what these men and the world demand and cause a schism and condemn himself and his history. Or he can uphold doctrine and refuse to change the Catechism and two thousand years of teaching which is essentially what they are asking, and thousands will fall away because their expectation were not met.

Either way, there are losses of souls. Our dear Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the "council of the media." We are living it all over again. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

God help us, please; and help the Pope.

Is Father Rosica saying that the Catholic Church should become Protestant?

Following last year's Synod and Kasper's disgusting comments about Africans that "they should not tell us too much what to do" lead me to think that what these men may suggest is a form of Church restructuring that would devolve matters to episcopal conferences. I was right.

Yesterday, Father Thomas J. Rosica, CSB is quoted as recorded in Zenit:

"Regarding the idea of divorced remarried Catholics being able to receive communion, he noted how some assert it would be more difficult to come up with a universal response, but instead makes sense to come up with a regional treatment. He said it may make sense to examine and perhaps treat the situation on a more local, regional, even continental level."

"Certain other issues, he shared, may also make sense to consider locally, such as polygamy."

Our disadvantage is that we do not know, because the Pope has prevented us from knowing, the daily discussions. We don't know if a bishop said this, which one said it or if this is just Rosica's interpretation of what was said. 

But let us consider for a moment exactly what it is that he has said.

The first is, that the Catholic Church could devolve into something akin to the quickly collapsing Anglican Communion with each bishops' conference, even on a "continental level," sorting out the matter of Holy Communion for the adulterists (let's call it what it is) individually. Good heavens, what is to stop each parish from deciding how it will go. This is a Congregationalist model, it is certainly not Catholic.

The second is what comes next. Is the Pope' spokesman saying that a bishop's conference could decide that "polygamy" is acceptable?

Is that what he is is saying?  Because if this is what he is saying then it is heresy. The Church cannot do this and be the Catholic Church. 

Bishop's Conferences have no authority, they are bureaucratic coordinators, that is all. Authority rests with the Pope and the Bishop in union with him. Period! 

Today's press conference did not have Father Rosica sitting beside Federico Lombardi, instead it was Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput who answering a question from an Italian reporters said:

“Diversity is always in the service of unity in the Catholic Church to be truly united. It would not be appropriate for certain bishops conferences to decide matters of doctrine and things like that because it would be counter the very notion of the Church which is always in the service of unity and faith” 

We also have now Father Paul Nicholson reporting that:

"Yesterday, during a press conference at the Holy See office, the English spokesman transmitted 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."

Father Rosica's words are not only, not Catholic, they are even heretical. But are they his words? The article certainly presents them as so. Are they the words of a bishop? Catholics have a right to know whose words these really are.

Do Father Rosica's words reflect accurately the discussion and if so, which bishop said it or are they his words and his own personal views or interpretation?

Pope Francis has a responsibility to provide clarity and he must do so now because the last time I looked, Tom Rosica was not wearing the papal tiera or the red shoes.

Father Thomas J. Rosica, Spokesman for Pope Francis says that "Certain other issues may also make sense to consider locally, such as polygamy."

I have nothing to say except to repeat what he has said himself:

"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?" 

The combox is open. You can say what you want.

Just remember, Tom Rosica was trying to sue me in order to prevent me from "directly or indirectly" referencing or even using an online link to anything he would say which would have prevented me from even reporting this to you.

Have a good sleep Tom.

And say your prayers.

Synod15: Press Briefing Oct. 6th

Fr. Rosica Speaks on Synod Delegates, Fathers Discussing the Need to Embrace People Where They Are

Vatican City State, October 06, 2015 (ZENIT.org) Deborah Castellano Lubov | 1184 hits

'There must be an end to exclusionary language and a strong emphasis on embracing reality as it is. We should not be afraid of new and complex situations.'

These were words of Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, the Vatican's English speaking language spokesperson, this afternoon who was speaking at the briefing of the Synod's second day in the Vatican press office, with its director, Father Federico Lombardi, Italian Archbishop Claudio Celli, and Canadian Cardinal Paul-Andre Durocher.

The Oct. 4-25 meeting is being held on the topic "The vocation and mission of the family in the Church and the contemporary world." 

When giving English speaking journalists an overview of what's taken place since yesterday's press office briefing, Fr. Rosica shared that Pope Francis gave a short discourse this morning to the synod fathers and delegates following one given by Cardinal Baldisseri, who realizing many of those present this year had not been last year, explained to them the importance of working in the small groups and speaking freely.

Pope Francis also reminded those gathered of the three official documents, points of reference, from the last synod: his opening words, the first day last year in October, his closing discourse on Oct. 18, and the Relatio Synodi which was released at the end. Fr. Rosica also mentioned how the Pope also suggested that this synod and the one last year are in total continuity with one another.

The Holy Father stressed that discussing the question of giving communion to the divorced and remarried is not the theme of the synod, but one of many important priorities. The spokesman said the Pope's address was very brief, but very positive and encouraging, especially for those there for the first time.

Fr. Rosica gave some initial observations. First of all the brevity of the interventions has helped foster clarity of expression. "If you can't say it in three minutes, then you can't say it. And the three minutes have been very productive. They say what they want to say," he said.

Second, the family is the protagonist of the new evangelization and the main actor in renewing the sacrament of marriage as the family. Thirdly, the role of the priest is indispensable, especially with helping couples, and given this, his own formation is especially important.

Aiming to summarize the some 70 interventions given mostly in Italian, English and French as well as in Spanish, German and Portuguese, Fr. Rosica said the issues of migration, poverty, employment, war, and the major refugee problem and how to best react these challenges were greatly considered. Other issues brought up, he noted, included domestic violence, violence in the Church, and sexual abuse.

Regarding the idea of divorced remarried Catholics being able to receive communion, he noted how some assert it would be more difficult to come up with a universal response, but instead makes sense to come up with a regional treatment. He said it may make sense to examine and perhaps treat the situation on a more local, regional, even continental level.

Certain other issues, he shared, may also make sense to consider locally, such as polygamy.

The importance of changing language used to address certain difficult situations, Fr. Rosica said, was highlighted. "The language must be renewed," he said, noting how this is especially appropriate and linked to the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy which Pope Francis has declared, Dec. 8, 2015 - Nov. 20, 2015. "The Jubilee of Mercy requires a language of mercy," he stated. Father Rosica underscored how language ought to always be inclusive, rather than exclusive, particularly for homosexuals.

"In particular, when speaking about homosexuals or gay persons," he said, "we recognize them for who they are: They are our sons, our daughters, and brothers, sisters, neighbors and colleagues."

He noted how many expressed how a pastoral approach is needed for couples living together, to welcome and help them move forward toward a fulfilling married life, one which says: "Look, God loves you as and where you are, but God doesn't want you to stay there. He wants you to go further."

A common suggestion of the delegates, he  noted, was not only for greater preparation before entering into marriage, but to continue into its early stages to help couples adapt to their lives as spouses.

Moreover, the synod fathers and delegates spoke about the role and treatment of the elderly, especially for their importance in transmitting the faith and values with in families.

(October 06, 2015) © Innovative Media Inc.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/synod15-press-briefing-oct-6th

At least they were dressed properly

Pope Francis, did you admonish the sinners?

I would expect you to do it to me?

Mental illness invalidates a marriage; does it do the same for ordination?

It is all becoming clearer, isn't it friends.

Now Durocher wants women deacons? You're having a busy day on Vox, Bish!

Well, we can see that our Canadian Bishops are taking a nice leading role at the Synod. It wasn't enough that this one got in a dust-up over dogma (one post below), now he wants Deaconesses!

I thought this was a Synod on the Family.

Let's see, no dogma, now he wants to exalt women where they cannot be. 

Hmmm, what else does this Bishop dissent on or seek change in.


What's that about smoke and fire?

Here are his links to his blog Sing and Walk. Here is his BookFace and you can Tweet him here.

Bishop, you're a disgrace to the Church and a fool. You are a scandal and an affront to the Faith. 

Here’s his blog, Sing and Walk. Here’s his facebook page and you can Tweet him too.

You change your blog name to SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!

What a joke you are; what an utter embarrassment. 

O LORD JESUS CHRIST, SON OF THE LIVING GOD, GRANT US PEACE IN YOUR MERCY, WE BESEECH YOU TO DELIVER US FROM THESE UNFAITHFUL AND TREACHEROUS MEN DISGUISED AS SHEPHERDS; 

IN YOUR MERCY LORD, HERE OUR PRAYER!

By Carol Glatz Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Canadian Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher of Gatineau, Quebec, said the synod should reflect on the possibility of allowing for female deacons as it seeks ways to open up more opportunities for women in church life.

(...)

Discussing a number of proposals he offered the synod fathers to think about, he said, “I think we should really start looking seriously at the possibility of ordaining women deacons because the diaconate in the church’s tradition has been defined as not being ordered toward priesthood but toward ministry.”

Read the rest of the bile at http://cnstopstories.com/2015/10/06/synod-should-reflect-on-possibly-allowing-female-deacons-says-archbishop/

Paul-André Durocher, Archbishop of Gatineau! Canada's Catholics demand you uphold the Catholic Faith!

On just the second day of the Synod on the Family, or against it if you will, we have this Canadian bishop, and former President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Paul-André Durocher Archbishop of Gatineau, stating, "If you want dogma, go and read Denzinger!"  (https://archive.org/details/TheSourcesOfCatholicDogma). It seems that Durocher hasn't.

Here’s his blog, Sing and Walk. Here’s his facebook page and you can Tweet him too.

Michael Voris reports:

There were a few fireworks at the very end of today's press briefing that took place after the morning sessions. It's clear what's going on here is that there are an awful lot of bishops sitting in the Synod who are not really expressing theological thoughts about some of these issues. Obviously some of them are, but some of them are getting their theology mixed up. And in one particular episode right at the very end of the press conference, one last question came up from the press gallery, and on stage was the archbishop of Gatineau, Quebec, Paul-André Durocher, who was asked, "What about this question of the discipline versus the doctrine of administering Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics? Is it safe to say that this issue is still under debate? And if so, what does that say about the question of the dogma and the discipline?"And he gave an answer that stunned a number of us inside the press room. He said, 'If you want dogma, go read Denzinger. The Synod will be deciding and talking about whether this is a discipline or it's a dogma."That caused one priest who was sitting very, very close to us to sort of go into a rage. He actually confronted the archbishop on the way out of the door and said, "All you bishops, everything you're doing here, is this conciliarism, which is destroying the Church! You are confusing the faithful. You don't know the Faith."There was a very, very strong reaction; you could see the division between faithful Catholic journalists and the more liberal crowd reporting — for America Magazine and National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) and all this. There is quite the division here. It's really funny because every day they stand up and tell us there's no division. And then they stand up and say something divisive, and the whole thing falls apart again. This is very interesting, the way this is all playing out.But hold on! This is only day two. Day two of 21! And I am shocked. I cannot believe a bishop said, "Oh well, you want dogma, go to Denzinger. We'll decide whether doing the discipline differently affects dogma."