Changing what cannot be changed

David Warren has several essays on the kerfuffle of the synod.

In today's essay, he notes this was one possible way to get a fraudulent vote:

Google translations are treacherous, as I’ve learnt the hard way. But given a dictionary, an Italian grammar, a few other reference books, and a month or so, I think I could get a good hold on a document the length of the final Relatio Synodi. The Fathers had a few hours.
 Those who could read Italian would have noticed that more than a thousand amendments, proposed in the various linguistic committees over the previous three weeks, had been ignored; and that the content of the original Instrumentum Laboris had been largely reimposed, including paragraphs which had failed to get sufficient support for passage at last year’s preparatory Synod.
 In other words, the Fathers had been wasting their breath and jetlag for three weeks. And now, after whatever overnight fixes, the final document would be coming up for a vote on Saturday, paragraph by paragraph.
 Bishops both Italian and non-Italian had one more chance to look at the text, now slightly revised but still exclusively in cumbersome Italian. So far as I can see, from translations since available, each one of the paragraphs contains multiple complex and arguable propositions. Any one of them might be hiding, and on past experience might well be hiding, clever legalistic tricks, designed by the liberal draughting committee to spring open doors that for twenty centuries the Church has kept methodically locked and bolted. For this has been the usual method of the “reformers,” since Vatican II: planting deceitfully ambiguous language in Church documents, or half-truths that can provide escape hatches later on.

he goes on to note that every pundit has a different interpretation of what was passed...and alas maybe this was the point.

he then refers one to this report at the Rotate Caeli website (a valuable source of Catholic analysis of what is going on. (It was a coup, not a democratic decision).

read both articles.

then say your rosary....

I am being hypocritical here: My husband was divorced... but married outside the church to a non Catholic so we didn't need an annulment.

But sociologically, giving in might help those in second marriages, but will just emphasize the problems for the future generations, who already see marriage (or are told by society to see it) as a temporary linkage to be broken when they fall out of love, and hey, it doesn't mean being faithful.

Sigh.

the society is failing, and it should be the church's job to reform society, one person at a time...

not just about marriage, but about drugs, but preaching responsibility for family, and making God part of our decision making.

Life begins at 30?

Instapundit links to an article about voter patterns in a California paper.

Don't ask me: I live in the Philippines and don't follow it that closely.

But this quote caught my eye:

To be sure, mllennials will likely stay more liberal than boomers (about as many are conservative as liberal), but they could shift further to the right once they enter their 30s and start earning a living.

silly me. I thought one became a grown up at 18....

most people get a job and work for a living after graduation, be it 18 or, for college graduates, 22. (for doctors, yes it is 26).

So what does it say about the milleneals? That they are lazy? That the writer asssumes that only the lazy liberal arts graduates who are too proud to work at McDonald's or in construction are representative of their generation?

Don't ask me. I worked constantly after I graduated from medical school, until I retired early to move here with my already retired husband.

theologians vs Catholic christians

Bit kerfuffle when a usually liberal Catholic writes an essay in the NYTimes and  points out how the "progressive reform" arm tried to hijack the Bishop's synod by stacking the Deck.

AmericanConservative has the story and links about the theologians who are shocked, shocked that a non theologian dared to write about this.

for later reading .

Yes, the family matters

The sexual revolution of the 1960's insisted that any sex was okay (the rabid lesbian feminists are often push back against being used as prostitutes, i.e. paying for cheap dates with sex)

Living together, no problem (even though often the woman feels she has to be nice all the time or lose her lover and ends up doing most of the housework and biting her tongue when he has an affair).

Marriage is just a piece of paper (so why bother with paper that would guarantee your children together will be financially cared for, or that the woman who cut back her job to accomadate you and do your housework would be compensated).

And no fault divorce (hey, hit a bad patch? No problem. Lots of women out there. On the other hand, a middle aged woman with a couple kids? Meh).

So abort the kid. And when you are old and no one is there for your care, well you are INDEPENDENT! Kill yourself.

Uncle Sam will give you welfare so no responsibility.

But in the third world, it is the family who is the social umbrella for all these things.

"Gay" marriage is a code word to okay male pedophilia by uncles/employers/teacher and alas pastors. It is the same in the USA, although no one wants to talk about it.

So Father Z quotes African Cardinal Sarah: (Father Z's comments are in red)

I feel a strong need to invoke the Spirit of Truth and Love, the source ofparrhesia in speaking and humility in listening, who alone is capable of creating true harmony in plurality.

I say frankly that in the previous Synod, on various issues one sensed the temptation to yield to the mentality of the secularized world and individualistic West. Recognizing the so-called “realities of life” as a locus theologicus means giving up hope in the transforming power of faith and the Gospel. [“realities of life” is code used to slither into the Kasperite position, which subjects theology to polls and fads and shifting mores, which in theology replaces philosophy with politics.] The Gospel that once transformed cultures is now in danger of being transformed by them. Furthermore, some of the procedures used did not seem aimed at enriching discussion and communion as much as they did to promote a way of seeing typical of certain fringe groups of the wealthiest churches. [read: Germany] This is contrary to a poor Church, a joyously evangelical and prophetic sign of contradiction to worldliness. Nor does one understand why some statements that are not shared by the qualified majority of the last Synod still ended up in the Relatio and then in the Lineamenta and the Instrumentum laboris when other pressing and very current issues (such as gender ideology) are instead ignored.  [Because the rules were changed to obtain a rigged outcome.]

The first hope is therefore that, in our work, there by more freedom, transparency and objectivity. For this, it would be beneficial to publish the summaries of the interventions, to facilitate discussion and avoid any prejudice or discrimination in accepting the pronouncements of the synod Fathers.

2. Discernment of history and of spirits

A second hope: that the Synod honor its historic mission and not limit itself to speaking only about certain pastoral issues (such as the possible communion for divorced and remarried) but help the Holy Father to enunciate clearly truths and real guidance on a global level. For there are new challenges with respect to the synod celebrated in 1980. A theological discernment enables us to see in our time two unexpected threats (almost like two “apocalyptic beasts”) located on opposite poles: on the one hand, theidolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. [If I remember correctly Benedict XVI used a similar approach in his first Message for the World Day for Peace.] To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS”. Islamic massacres and libertarian demands regularly contend for the front page of the newspapers. (Let us remember what happened last June 26!). From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West through quick and easy divorce, abortion, homosexual unions, euthanasia etc. (cf. Gender theory, the ‘Femen’, the LGBT lobby, IPPF …). On the other hand, the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy, female subservience, sexual slavery, child marriage etc. (cf. Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram …)

Several clues enable us to intuit the same demonic origin of these two movements. Unlike the Spirit of Truth that promotes communion in the distinction (perichoresis), these encourage confusion (homo-gamy) or subordination (poly-gamy). Furthermore, they demand a universal and totalitarian rule, are violently intolerant, destroyers of families, society and the Church, and are openly Christianophobic.

“We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood ….” We need to be inclusive and welcoming to all that is human; but what comes from the Enemy cannot and must not be assimilated. [NB]You can not join Christ and Belial! What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion Ideologies and Islamic Fanaticism are today.  [Get that?]

3. Proclaim and serve the beauty of Monogamy and the Family

Faced with these two deadly and unprecedented challenges (“homo-gamy” and “poly-gamy”) the Church must promote a true “epiphany of the Family.” To this both the Pope (as spokesman of the Church) may contribute, and individual Bishops and Pastors of the Christian flock: that is, “the Church of God, which he has obtained with his own blood” (Acts: 20:28).

We must proclaim the truth without fear, i.e.  the Plan of God, which is monogamy in conjugal love open to life. Bearing in mind the historical situation just recalled, it is urgent that the Church, at its summit, definitively declare the will of the Creator for marriage. How many people of good will and common sense would join in this luminous act of courage carried out by the Church!

Together with a strong and clear Word of the Supreme Magisterium, Pastors have the mission of helping our contemporaries to discover the beauty of the Christian family.[NB] To do this, it must first promote all that represents a true Christian Initiation of adults, [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] for the marriage crisis is essentially a crisis of God, but also a crisis of faith, and this is an infantile Christian initiation. [infantile!] Then we must discern those realities that the Holy Spirit is already raising up to reveal the Truth of the Family as an intimate communion in diversity (man and woman) that is generous in the gift of life. We bishops have the urgent duty to recognize and promote the charisms, movements, and ecclesial realities in which the Family is truly revealed, this prodigy of harmony, love of life and hope in Eternity, this cradle of faith and school charity. And there are so many realities offered by Providence, together with the Second Vatican Council, in which this miracle is offered.

Corruption at the Vatican

Damian Thompson has an article reminding readers that one of the Cardinals high on the list of those in charge of the "synod of families" was involved in a pedophilia coverup

. Five years ago, Cardinal Danneels tried to cover up a revolting case of family sex abuse.
As the National Catholic Reporter revealed on August 30, 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.

why? connect the dots.

At the launch of his authorised biography in Brussels last month, Danneels claimed to have been part of a ‘mafia club’ of senior cardinals opposed to Benedict XVI who wanted to ensure that a liberal pope succeeded Benedict XVI. Jorge Bergoglio was their favourite candidate. Perhaps we shouldn’t read too much in to this – the papacy was hardly in the club’s gift. But when I asked a senior Vatican source this week why Francis had invited Danneels to the synod – on the face of it, a grotesquely inappropriate move – he replied: ‘As a thank-you for the votes he helped deliver.’ That is guesswork, and assumes a degree of cynical calculation that we don’t associate with Francis. I mention it because this explanation is taken seriously at such a high level within conservative circles in the Vatican.

Thompson has another article HERE.

Conspiracy theories about the Vatican?

Yet Ignatius press just published a book that documented the attempted coup against Catholic dogma...

Intrigue or inexperience? Did key leaders of the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops try to manipulate the outcome to support a change in Catholic practice and perhaps in Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage and same-sex activity? Did they undermine Pope Francis' vision of an "open" discussion? Critics claim Cardinal Baldissieri, the man Pope Francis trusted to oversee the Synod’s discussion of family issues, along with some of his associates, tried to predetermine the outcome of the Synod’s deliberations and its documents. Supporters say Cardinal Baldissieri was inexperienced at running a synod and any missteps were innocent mistakes. International reporter and analyst Edward Pentin investigates the allegations, accusations, and facts surrounding the controversial meeting of select bishops of the world.

and this dissident (i.e. still believing in Jesus) Jesuits who run the publishing company has published several books to influence the synod, or at least to give the lap dog press a "headsup" that the hippie Cardinals are not the only ones in the church.

A report on Catholic world news discusses the problems. Bookmarked for later reading.

Of course, I am a hypocrite: My husband was divorced.

But in the pre vatican II days, he married outside the church (and back then it meant he was excommunicated because his pious manipulative fundamentalist wife refused to get the marriage "blessed" by the Catholic church, which she hated).

Since it was not a sacramental marriage, we didn't need an annulment.

But she was crazy, so it probably would not have been a problem for us. (OCD, bipolar, and probably borderline personality disorder).

But because he was "catholic" he didn't divorce her either, but stuck with her and did the traditional thing: He had mistresses. And I would have done the same thing: been his mistress, or  married him outside the church, because in pre Vatican II days we knew it was wrong, but we also knew of God's mercy. So I had two pious aunts who attended mass but didn't receive communion, knowing it was a sin.

The problem? Post Vatican II people  don't recognize sin.

Despite the press, sermons about such things are rare: We heard one by a visiting priest, and my son was astonished that the Catholics believed the same thing about sex and marriage as "Brother Fetterman", the principal of his Christian school.

Of course this was in a diocese where the bishop covered up pedophilia, and where our overworked pastor sighed when one of his priests ran away with a woman Sunday school teacher, saying philosophically that "at least it was with a woman".

A lot of traditional Catholics are worried that Francis is the anti pope who will destroy the Catholic church.

Professor Podles, who is active in documenting priestly abuse cases,  has a more cynical take: Francis the Fixer.

Benedict did more than any pope in centuries to deal with abuse, but it was not enough.Francis is a fixer. Whenever a parish or diocese experience a disaster, a fixer is sent in, as O’Malley was to Boston. Francis is the papal fixer. He is changing the subject from sexual abuse by his charm, hominess, and willingness to let people indulge their minor vices without a censoring voice from the clergy.A fixer differs from a reformer in that a fixer does not address the roots; he is not radical. He merely papers over the problem, merely puts a poultice on the cancer.

yeah. It's like here: talking of "green" items and his love of the poor who were hit by the typhoon, but not telling the politicians point blank that taking bribes and siphoning off charity money given to assist the poor to rebuild their homes etc. is a sin.

And in the USA, he condemned "capitalism" and quoted those beloved by the anti war communist left in the church: Dorothy Day (beloved of the hard left) and Merton (who had a girl friend at the end of his life...only a poorly wired fan probably kept him from leaving the church and insisting celibacy was a crime).

What? No mention of drugs? No mention of anti family policies? no mention of abortion? NO MENTION OF THE PEDOPHILE COVERUPS?

sigh.

Our Lady of Victory

October 7 was once called the feast of our Lady of Victory but in the PC days after Vatican II it was renamed Our Lady of the Rosary.

Why?

The Battle of Lepanto. More HERE

Military history report with factoids about the battle can be found here.

Cervantes, author of Don Quixote, was there, and it was the last battle using galleys.

At the Battle of Lepanto, the Holy League lost 50 galleys and suffered approximately 13,000 casualties. This was offset by the freeing of a similar number of Christian slaves from the Ottoman ships.

Christian slaves? Heh who wudda thot?

 In addition to the death of Ali Pasha, the Ottomans lost 25,000 killed and wounded and an additional 3,500 captured. Their fleet lost 210 ships, of which 130 were captured by the Holy League. Coming at what was seen as a crisis point for Christianity, the victory at Lepanto stemmed Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean and prevented their influence from spreading west.

Of course, a lot of modern folks would like to change the feast of our Lady of the Rosary to October 13th....the only ones who dare to recognize that Mary at Fatima, rosaries, and John Paul Ii brought down communism are traditional Catholic sites and, of course, Art Bell type conspiracy shows.

And how many here remember that Marcos was overthrown by people praying the rosary and singing hymns?

 but churches and legends and common law are ways that people remember the past, so David Warren points out

For long before the secular historians, the Church, through her faithful, did understand what was at stake: the preservation of Christendom. And long after the historians have decided that remembering the Victory is politically incorrect, the Church will recall it in her Mass. For she understood, and understands, that the issue hinged on an Act of Faith. And that our fate will always hinge on that.

So the victory a century later over the Turks in the Seige of Vienna also is remembered on Sept 12 as the feast of the holy name of Mary. LINK

Thousand of little old ladies like my mom had prayer meetings to pray the rosary and other prayers weekly for peace and for the conversion of Russia from communism. Hmmm...seems to have worked...

Of course, after Vatican II, the rosary, refraining from meat on Friday and fasting during Lent, along with statues and decent music, were thrown out by trendier than thou nuns and priests who advised the bishops on "reform".

So Greeley's law kicked in: Andrew Greeley once quipped that as soon as the Catholics discard an old tradition, one of the protestant churches pick it up. So now it is Pentecostals (along with a remnant of Catholics) who pray and intercede for peace in the world.