Posted on 10/28/2018 5:04:42 PM PDT by ebb tide
In voting point by point on the final document of the synod on young people, on the afternoon of Saturday, October 27, in almost every case the synod fathers approved the text by a wide majority.
Out of 167 points put to a vote, fully 125 times the votes against were fewer than 10 and the votes in favor equal to or more than 240.
On only fifteen points were the votes against equal to or more than 30. And in only two cases were the votes against more than 50, in any case far from the threshold of the 83 votes not in favor, equivalent to one third of the voters, which if crossed would have entailed the non-approval of the paragraph.
In the first case, with 51 votes against, the question in play concerned the increase of “synodality” in the Church. Actually, the six subsequent paragraphs concerning this issue all received more than 30 votes against.
In the second case, with 65 votes against, the point under discussion concerned sexuality, and in particular homosexuality, a word that occurs only twice in the entire document - in paragraphs 39 and 150, which refer respectively to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the 1986 letter of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith - but in realty was the elephant in the room for the whole synod, even where the document is silent on it, for example with regard to the seminaries and the formation of future priests, or with regard to the scourge of abuse, attributed
instead to so-called "clericalism."
Paragraph 150 on sexuality and homosexuality, with 178 votes in favor, was also the one that crossed by the smallest margin the minimal threshold of 166 votes, equivalent to two thirds of voters, necessary for approval. In addition to this, only four other paragraphs got less
than 200 votes in favor: number 3 (on the appraisal of the "Instrumentum Laboris") with 191 votes, number 39 (on moral sexuality) with 195 votes, number 121 (on synodality) with 191 votes and number 122 (also on synodality) with 199 votes.
Presented here below are eight paragraphs from the final document, each of them the recipient of a few dozen votes against. With the caution that the votes against cannot be automatically attributed to one side or the other, progressive or conservative, but can also be the expression of both, for different and sometimes opposite reasons.
But first it is also helpful to point out that in the run-up to the vote on the final document the synod fathers elected 16 members of the 21 who will make up the new council of the secretariat of the synod that will prepare the next assembly.
They are:
For Africa: Dieudonné Nzapalainga, cardinal archbishop of Bangui, Central African Republic;
Gabriel Mbilingi, archbishop of Cubango, Angola;
Andrew Ikea Fuanya, bishop of Mamfe, Cameroon.
For Latin America:
Daniel Fernando Sturla Berthouet, cardinal archbishop of Montevideo, Uruguay;
Jaime Calderón Calderón, bishop of Tapachula, Mexico;
Sérgio de Rocha, cardinal archbishop of Brasilia, Brazil.
For North America:
Gérald Cyprien Lacroix, cardinal archbishop of Québec, Canada;
Joseph W. Tobin, cardinal archbishop of Newark, United States.
For Asia:
Luis Antonio G. Tagle, cardinal archbishop of Manila, Philippines;
Oswald Gracias, cardinal archbishop of Bombay, India;
Charles Maung Bo, cardinal archbishop of Yangon, Myanmar.
For Europe:
Christoph Schönborn, cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Austria;
Matteo M. Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna, Italy;
Juan José Omella Omella, cardinal archbishop of Barcelona, Spain.
For Oceania:
Anthony Colin Fisher, archbishop of Sydney.
For the Eastern Churches:
Ignatius Joseph III Yonan, patriarch of Antioch of the Syriacs
In addition to these, one head of a curial dicastery and four prelates of pontifical appointment will be part of the new synod council.
Bergoglio got everything he wanted from another one of his rigged Sin-Nods: homosexuals and synodality. And the fix is in for his next Sin-Nod: Joseph Tobin, Tagle, Schönborn and Oswald Gracias, have been "elected" to "prepare" the next assembly.
Ping
I would have a tendency to always assume "he got what he wanted" on general terms. After all, His Humbleness is apparently using a Delphi Manipulation (check out the link) to get whatever pre-determined conclusion he prefers out of the small group process.
BUT --- but in this particular case--- I'm not so sure.
The term LGBT doesn’t appear in the final document, which denounces “any discrimination and violence on the basis of sex” and encourages “accompaniment in the faith of homosexual persons.” Those conclusions can well be read in an unobjectionable, orthodox sense. Not what Francis prefers, of course, but I think he fumbled his own ball there. He really didn't get what he wanted.
"And the fix is in for his next Sin-Nod: Joseph Tobin, Tagle, Schönborn and Oswald Gracias, have been "elected" to "prepare" the next assembly."
That part is demonstrably true. He has no doubt given them a refresher course on "Delphi" and made it plain that THIS time, what he wants, they'd better deliver.
>>BUT -— but in this particular case-— I’m not so sure.<<
Did you see this (from Fr. Z’s Blog):
In par. 150 – again, now the voting members’ brains are leaking out their elbows – we get the SEX landmine. Trans. Lifesite. VOTE: NO 65. 248 total.
150. There are questions concerning the body, affectivity and sexuality which require a deepened anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, [Oh… yes. We are so profound. We will study more and than have “pastoral elaborations!”] to be carried out in the most appropriate ways and at the most appropriate levels, [Which are…..?] from the local to the universal. [AH! THAT cleared that up.] Among these, those relating in particular to the difference and harmony between male and female identity [Wait for iiiiiiit….] and to sexual inclinations emerge. [There it is.] In this regard the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing its commitment against all discrimination and violence on a sexual basis. It also reaffirms the decisive anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it reductive to define the identity of persons solely on the basis of their “sexual orientation” (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986, no. 16). [Do you feel a “but” coming? Sorry, bad image. Do you sense a hedge down the line?]
In many Christian communities there are already paths of accompaniment in the faith of homosexual persons: the Synod recommends that these paths be encouraged. In these paths people are helped to understand their own [personal] history; to adhere freely and responsibly to their own baptismal call; to recognize the desire to belong to and contribute to the life of the community; [What does that mean?] and to discern the best ways of achieving it. In this way we help every young person, no one excluded, to integrate the sexual dimension more and more into their personality, [leave it to a committee to produce word salad] growing in the quality of relationships and walking towards [“walking together”!] the gift of self.
The problem is, early in the document, we read that this must be read in conjunction with the awful Instrumentum Laboris which had all the “gay” stuff, you know, the LGBTQSJ stuff.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/10/ill-take-25000-words-of-blah-blah-and-landmines-for-200-please-alex/
Yeah, it’s bafflegab. ((((sigh))))
It’s more than bafflegab; it’s outright jury rigging and deception. The Instrumentum Laboris was prepared prior to the Sin-Nod, by Baldiserri, Bergoglio et al. with no vote from the synod bishops.
Before any voting took place, Baldisserri and co., declared that whatever the synod bishops voted approval of would have to be read in conjunction with IL. In other words the outcome was predetermined.
On top of that, Francis later came out and said the Sin-Nods can be considered official church magisterium; i.e., Instrumentum Laboris is now enshrined as magisterium.
Also, keep in mind that Baldiserri, who refused to produce translations of the paragraphs up for vote in this particular synod, was also responsible for the theft and destruction of hundreds of copies of the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” from the Vatican mailboxes of every synod participant in 2015, Francis’ first Sin-Nod.
The book, which consisted of essays by five Cardinals—including Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller—and four other scholars, was written in response to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s book The Gospel of the Family, and defends the Church’s teaching that Catholics who have been divorced and civilly remarried cannot receive Holy Communion. It was edited by Fr. Robert Dodaro, OSA.
And guess what we ended up with: the heretical Amoris Latitia.
In a way, it doesn't even matter what the words say. "This must be taken in the sense of Amoris" only means that whatever it says, we'll consider it Amoris reiterated. And what exactly does Amoris say about a or b? It's something like 2 years since he refused to give us a straight answer on that.
Pentin has it right, of course.
(Slamming head again.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.