Replies

"...shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual union?"

FaithPressesOn, I can appreciate your good motives.

However. There are sevferal false underlying assumptions as well as factual errors in just that one partial sentence above--- I don't say "lies" because I think surely they were inadvertent. You really should read the news more carefully so you don't fall into the traps set by reporters with an agenda.

First --- I assume you're talking about the October Synod on the Family --- it was not a meeting of all the bishops. There were 253 bishops out of nearly 3,000 bishops worldwide --- but (since some were retired)only 181 voting members. So that's roughly 6-9% of the bishops, many invited by the Secretary General Lorenzo Baldisseri, who I can confidently say, would have been picked to reflect Baldisseri's "progressive" agenda. So this was a somewhat lopsided lefty slice, ~8%, of the bishops as whole.
They did not vote on doctrine; doctrine was set off-limits as non-negotiable. There was "no suggestion" that the Church was going to give approval to same-sex marriage or to change its teaching on sexual morality (LINK)
What did they vote on, then? This was Part 1, a kind of "pre-Synod", with the business part to convene in 2015. This Synod voted on what would be on the agenda to be discussed at the big 2105 Synod.
Out of the 62 paragraphs of the final report, 3 failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote to be included in the report (which, I report, is not a vote on "doctrine" but a vote on what will be discussed in 2015.) All of the controversy swirls around these 3 paragraphs. The objections were not that they changed doctrine (impossible.) The objections were that the language was so "welcoming" of people in irregular unions (homosexual, divorced/remarried, cohabiting) that "Hey, we pastorally love you" was drowning out "You're living in habitual sin and you must, through God's grace, stop it!!" The language was too fluffy, every "i" dotted with a heart, so to speak --- and too ambiguous.
Second, there was HUGE controversy that those paragraphs appeared in the Relatio summary at all since bishop after bishop got up and said they did not reflect the actual discussion and debate at the Synod. In other words, they were accusing Card. Péter Erdő, who prepared the summary, of sticking in liberal sentiments favored by members of his committee.
The disputed paragraphs were rewritten to be slightly less fluffy and still didn't pass, but Pope Francis said they should be in there for future reference anyway, since it was only for discussion. This was worrisome. But again, the problem was not "change of doctrine." It was that damned ambiguity, which appears to be deliberately crafted. Red flags go up on this, and rightly so.
This "craftiness" electrified opposition in an open, outspoken way not seen amongst the higher clergy in 50 years. That is the GOOD news of the relatio. This gives the African, Asian, Eastern European bishops time to consolidate what is going to be HUGE opposition between now and the 2015 Synod. The bishops themselves are going to beat back the (mainly German) liberal bishop-weasels and their weasel-worded statements. (Some of the Germans I think do want to change doctrine: they WILL be beaten back.)
Almost nobody in the media noticed that even the controversial paragraphs (like p. 53) opposed the international LGBT "agenda" and gender ideology per se: "Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology."

What's my take on the situation? Cardinal Burke, the #1 hoppin-mad opponent of the Synod's weaselly ambiguity, was asked about Pope Francis' position and replied that he had no evidence regarding "his [the Pope's] alleged support of a relaxation of the Church's teaching."

That being the case, my own opinion is that Pope Francis wants the "progressive" soft-on-irregular-union faction to have the fullest possible oipportunity to get their views and their agenda out there in the open, because it galvanizes the faithful orthodox Catholics, the Christifideli. He wants the bishops to come to the Big Synod in 2015 --- especially the Australians, the Africans and the Poles--- and soundly beat back the wicked Kasper (German liberal)agenda.

That's my take: Pope Francis wants the true doctrine upheld, and he wants it done by the faithful Bishops soundly thwacking the "progressives." It's well underway: Cardinal Burke said the 10 working groups (which were essentially language subgroups) have already written their own critiques, and have refused to hand them over to Fr. Lombardi (the suave Press Secretary) for blenderization. They're getting savvy.

So the Shepherds are going to thwack the wolves-in-shepherds'-clothing. And then POpe Francis is going to come in and ratify the result. It's Jesus' mandate to Peter (Luke 22:32-32):

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

>>”...shouldn’t Christians conclude there’s something very wrong with the Catholic Church when almost two-thirds of its leaders vote to approve homosexual union?”

FaithPressesOn, I can appreciate your good motives.

However. There are sevferal false underlying assumptions as well as factual errors in just that one partial sentence above-— I don’t say “lies” because I think surely they were inadvertent. You really should read the news more carefully so you don’t fall into the traps set by reporters with an agenda.<<

Mrs. Don-o, just for the record, I actually do read things carefully. I knew it was a vote of some hundred plus bishops and didn’t think there were so few as that worldwide. In something of a rush yesterday, I wasn’t as accurate about that point as I would have liked to have been, and didn’t realize I’d put it that way until you mentioned it, but I have to say how you describe it seems an attempt to inaccurately minimize many things, including what the actual numbers mean. Are you familiar with Titus 3:10-11, or did you go read it?

**10 After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, 11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned. **

So, what is a heretic? And are there open heretics in the Catholic Church, including in leadership?

I will also say that I’m familiar with everything you wrote about here. I haven’t felt led to temporarily set aside everything else and investigate all this as completely and thoroughly as I could, but I have nonetheless looked at things with sufficient thoroughness while picking things up day-by-day. And by looking at a lot of different things about the situation, again, the conclusion has to be reached that the Catholic Church is taking steps to accept homosexual unions, and in part, already has. You can not ignore the glass being either half-full or half-empty.

There have already been many de facto changes. And for the record, I haven’t believed that the 2015 synod would make any substantial changes in official doctrine. I believe a Catholic-written article posted here predicted no such changes, but that the actual changes would be de facto ones for the forseeable future. And the “duping” part, I may add, is that it seems many Catholics will take “no changes” in official doctrine as all that matters, despite the de facto changes - which is heresy allowed to room to oerate - that will continue to take place.

Now, I’m not going to take the time to go over Pope Francis’ many unorthodox words and actions, which have been reported on here. I know you participate here regularly so of course you’ve seen them. I will highlight, though, one remark that I posted an article about - Pope Francis, seemingly in the context of making “progressive” change - said that change takes time. And it has taken decades to alter people’s views on sexual matters as much as they already have been up to now. And I will also mention the Pope’s remarks at the synod’s conclusion, in which he didn’t hold himself with the traditionalists (not sure if he used that term for them) or seem scandalized by heretical liberals. He also spoke of traditionalists being rigid and about God “doing new things.”

On what you linked to from Wikipedia, I haven’t read that article, but just might sometime. But I will also add that the “no suggestion” quote in itself means nothing, and that part of the Wiki article violates Wiki policy about “no original research” on the part of editors there (in this case, the editor used a primary source, a cardinal’s remarks - and pulled out that quote - instead of using a secondary source with some expertise on the subject, who very well might have interpreted the quote differently). I’ve edited extensively at Wikpedia in the past, so I have a pretty good understanding of how this page on the synod would be written, including the politics involved. The “Talk” page discussions will give a reader quite a clear picture of how an article got to its present state.

Now, on the statements about homosexuality that weren’t adopted but Pope Francis included, I’ll say first that despite what you mention about that part not reflected in the actual discussion, it still almost got 2/3 approval of the voting bishops!

And as you gave your overall interpretation, I will give mine. Like much of what takes place where a leadership is involved, the synod was scripted for public consumption, as part of a larger agenda which the leadership knows will take time. You mentioned a passage that said something along the lines that coercion shouldn’t be used to promote “gay rights.” This, in your interpretation, is evidence of the faithfulness of your leaders. But has that conclusion been rigorously tested, or is it instead something to grasp at because it supports what those who believe in the Catholic Church’s infallibility want to believe? If someone has a change agenda and they’re committed to gradualism, doesn’t it benefit their agenda to concede many of the things they aren’t strong enough yet to defeat, because it provides them some cover to give their opponents something meaty which, if they want to keep believing in the leaders, they will grasp onto?

“Gay marriage” is close to being the law of the land, and even though it’s not, many people have already paid a price for not accepting it - yet wasn’t it only a few short years ago that Obama and Hillary Clinton came out in favor of it, and the Presbyterian USA only tentatively approved it this year. Prior to their approvals, they all officially disapproved. Yet everyone knows it was all a ruse, and there were many unofficial changes made before the official ones that all had a real impact. And with the Catholic Church, too, you can not simply assume that what’s going on is faithful and never seriously doubt it while never honestly and seriously investigating the scenario that what’s happening is unfaithful. There has been more than enough to trigger suspicions.