jump to navigation

El Paso Bishop Seitz: I’m down with whatever the Synod comes up with on “gays/lesbians”! October 14, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the return.

You know there will be a very large number of bishops who feel and act this way, whatever their motivation.  It could be due to that very prevalent hyper-montanism present in the Church today, due to their own preferences, or simply because they constitutionally simply cannot be seen as somehow in “opposition” to the Pope, even if the Pope makes no direct statement on this subject and continues to work through underlings at the Synod.  Nevertheless, this is probably something we’ll see quite a bit of.  My general impression of the episcopate today is that there are a few solid orthodox types who are strongly attached to the perennial belief and practice of the Church, there are probably even more wildly heterodox bishops, there are the career climbers who don’t care a whit for doctrine, and  you have those who are happy where they’re at and just generally go with whatever they perceive to be the flow.  I fear that perhaps a majority fall into that latter category, but I, of course, am not one to judge our ecclesiastical superiors (umm…..).

Nevertheless, Bishop Mark Seitz, formerly of Dallas and now ordinary of El Paso, has made his statement.  By the way, you should also see how the secular media is playing this story, just as many feared: that the “bishops” have decided to embrace sodomy, adultery, and all the rest, with nary a peep of challenge to these sinful acts.  This is totally false, the “Relatio” was produced in advance and didn’t represent the views of the Synod at large at all, but it was certainly a danged neat trick by the wolves, wasn’t it?  As for Bishop Seitz, he’ll blow with the wind:

Catholic bishops showed unprecedented openness Monday to accepting the real lives of many Catholics today, saying gays had gifts to offer the church and should be accepted and that there were “positive” aspects to a couple living together without being married.  [Right off the bat, the “Relatio” has done its work.  What a travesty.  This is of course probably not at all what the majority of bishops at the Synod believe, at least according to the few reports we’ve had, and there is no way on earth a 6,000 word document was developed and translated into several languages in a day, but these critical factors are ignored by the media, who want to turn the Church into another toothless, useless, unthreatening-to-the-leftist-agenda body like the episcopalians.]
A two-week meeting of bishops on family issues arrived at its halfway point with a document summarizing the closed-door debate so far. No decisions were announced, but the tone of the report was one of almost-revolutionary acceptance, rather than condemnation, with the aim of guiding Catholics toward the ideal of a lasting marriage. [And many individual bishops, and even some national conferences, have already said the “Relatio” is utterly unacceptable.]
Bishops clearly took into account the views of Pope Francis, whose “Who am I to judge?” comment about gays signaled a new tone of welcome for the church. Their report also reflected the views of ordinary Catholics who, in responses to Vatican questionnaires in the run-up to the synod, rejected church teaching on birth control and homosexuality as outdated and irrelevant. [I want to throw up.  The Synod members are going to have to have cast iron you know whats to keep from caving on this coup executed by the heretics in mitred hats]
The bishops said gays had “gifts and qualities” to offer and asked rhetorically if the church was ready to provide them a welcoming place, “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony.” [As Rorate has noted, it appears this addition to the document was written by one man, a man known for his extreme leftism and his comfort around the perverse]

[Now for the truly disturbing part]  El Paso Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz did not seem shocked that the church could shift its its approach to gays and lesbians.

“I think Pope Francis from the very beginning has signaled that he wants to reset the button a little bit and help people to see the church, not just as a place where there are certain knows [“knows?”  I think they mean “no’s]  thou shalt not,” Seitz said. “But as a place of love and welcome and mercy and that applies to every person. … It applies to people who struggle with same-sex attractions, with homosexuality. That is what the church is all about. And it’s our task to walk with people in whatever situation they find themselves.” [Lord have mercy!  And so it’s “love” to tell people in the gravest of sins that they are fine, that they don’t need to change, that everything is just wonderful, even as they walk their way to hell!  Do you even believe in hell anymore, Bishop Seitz, or that anyone actually goes there?]

A bishop who is a part of the Roman Catholic Church does not have leeway to not follow the new doctrine toward homosexuals if the bishop disagrees with the doctrine. [WAIT!  I THOUGHT THE SYNOD WAS ALL ABOUT “PASTORAL” APPROACHES, AND NOT DOCTRINE!  WHAT IS THIS?!?  Do you not see what will happen?  No matter how “pastoral” the Synod will claim to be, it will be turned into another danged super-dogma by the media and many willing collaborators in the Church!  We have been reassured again and again that Doctrine would not be touched – just as it wasn’t “touched” at Vatican II.  And how has that worked out for us?]

I’m a member of the church and a disciple of Jesus. And I trust that the guidance I receive from the teaching authority of the church – of which I am a part – is something that will be consistent with our constant teaching and something that I have resolved to follow whether I fully understand it or not,” Seitz said. “So, I have no problem saying whatever conclusion that the church comes to is something that I will gladly support.”

————End Quote———–

To be charitable to Bishop Seitz, in some sense, that is what a bishop has to say, I suppose.  Although I think it a very dangerous and sad sort of excuse.  What if, just supposing, the Synod “pastorally” declared that Jesus Christ – only for the purposes of “outreach” to those outside the Church, of course – was just a man?  Would Bishop Seitz go along with that?  I don’t think the old cop-out of “Oh, but that’s impossible, it would never happen!” holds anymore.  Who among us 2 years ago would have imagine a Synod document proclaiming that the Church should accept active sodomites as is, without any conversion or repentance, or toying around with admitting adulterers to the Blessed Sacrament?  Oh…….  But hopefully you get my point.  And from this potential cave on such a hugely important topic, how else can ANY remaining Doctrine of the Faith be taken seriously?

Not to mention the fact that I think it wrong to assign some kind of huge doctrinal significance – which Bishop Seitz seems to do – to a novel new body that consists of only a tiny fraction of all the bishops in the Church and has no authority to craft doctrine, anyway.  But he’ll go along with whatever they say, anyway?

Look, if these left wing Synod members and the rest of the crew want to chuck Church Doctrine, you have to chuck all of it.  That means many of their pet projects they love to beat people over the head about must be chucked, too.  Things like opposing “corporate greed,” capitalism in general, gerbal worming, having corporal charity for others, helping the poor, visiting the sick, engaging in their cherished “social justice,” etc., etc.  If we can chuck 2000 years of Doctrine and the literal, direct Word of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity on one subject, why can we not chuck the rest?  And you know, that is exactly what will happen – the Church will have absolutely no moral authority on ANY subject, not just the ones in which the media and their leftist fellow-travelers would like to see the Church change.

I mean it!  How on earth could the Church be welcoming to sodomites, of all people, not chastising or criticizing their behavior in the slightest, inviting them to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by receiving the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Savior in the Blessed Sacrament while in a state of wretched sin, and not welcome corporate raiders, abortionists, the most corrupt politicians, or even mafiosos?  Or is the Church, then, to be just what our Pope ostensibly opposes – just another worldly NGO? Because that is precisely what it will be if the direction outlined in the “Relatio” is adopted.




1. discipleofthedumbox - October 14, 2014

News like this makes me wonder when Papa Benedict finally will have had enough and come out of his retirement.

2. Dismas - October 14, 2014

Frankly it is my position that if any of us are surprised or shocked by any of this we should really sit down and examine what we have been doing or thinking over whatever period of time has elapsed since we individually became aware that there was a crisis in the Church. And if we have been led down a primrose path, did we go down it alone or was there someone helping us along that path? Just exactly how might we still remain in denial about apostasy at the highest levels?

Did we believe that Our Lord’s scriptural warnings were for another time and people? Did we really just believe in our heart of hearts that the message of Fatima was so much pious fiction?

Find me these “good orthodox” bishops and I’ll find you a bishop who allows the “Life Teen” mess in his diocese, “marriage encounter” “theology of the body”, overt heresy in “RCIA” and youth catechism and an endless number of other absolutely non-Catholic phenomena.

If this is not a line-in-the-sand moment, I’m not sure what might be.

But this thing called the “synod” is not over yet. Modernists may not be Catholic, but they are also not stupid. Their finger is in the wind. They will push this only as far as they can…at this moment…without abandoning what pretense they can maintain to still call themselves “Catholic.”

The rules of the game unfortunately place in the hands of those separating themselves from Catholicism the “power” to proclaim schism. They are not about to declare themselves schismatic, even if their actions reveal them as such. We cannot change this and we have to live with it, as far as I know, but we do not need to buy into it. This has gone so far now that only the Heavenly Host can save it, and until then, for me and mine, we stick to authentic Catholicism come hell or high water.

Get real used to being called “not in full communion” or “schismatic” if you do not sign on to all of this.

Tantumblogo - October 14, 2014

Eh, “solid orthodox types” is a relative term. I really cannot stand to caveat and carefully parse every single statement I make in every single post. It makes for messy prose (and mine is already bad enough) and just gets very boring for me. So the “good” bishops at the Synod are relatively so. They may not be terribly good out of continuum of bishops since the Apostles.

The point being, there are some bishops driving towards complete radicalism, some in the middle, and some trying to conserve as much as they can. Some may even be trying to restore a bit. And that’s the best we have right now.

Dismas - October 14, 2014

Right. Of course you cannot do that. We should all remember exactly what you say here, the moniker “good bishop” is a very relative term.

discipleofthedumbox - October 15, 2014

Being that this is a blog written by a Texan, I was pleased to read your ‘line-in-the-sand’ comment. 🙂

Baseballmom - October 14, 2014

Serious question here, because I really do not know the answer: Was Athanasius considered to be in schism?

3. steve - October 15, 2014

In regard to bad news (the Relatio) and Pope Benedict XVI having “had enough” and returning from “his retirement”:

Chaos and confusion flowed from Rome during Pope Benedict XVI’s Pontificate.

Time and again within and without the Church, it was noted by countless folks that Pope Benedict XVI was a poor manager.

It was also noted time and again that Pope Benedict XVI mismanaged the flow of information from Rome to the local churches and, for that matter, the world.

Everybody had hoped that the new Pope would improve greatly the Holy See Press Office. (How well has that worked?)

The collapse of the Church continued throughout Pope Benedict XVI’s Pontificate.

I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is a holy man.

Unfortunately, his reign was in line with his immediate predecessors…he had failed to quell the Church’s crisis of faith.

Pope Benedict XVI had his chance.

May God grant Pope Benedict XVI many happy and blessed years.

Dismas - October 15, 2014

Thank you, Steve. What you say here relates back to what both Tantum and I said, that the whole idea of “good” as it relates to priests, bishops and popes is very relative.Now a whole discussion could be carried out about Pope Benedict XVI and his role in the Second Vatican Council and afterward. Certainly, compared to many, and compared to the Bishop of Rome, he was far more faithful to Catholicism. For whatever reason, he was not able to stop the boulder he himself helped to begin rolling down the hill decades prior. I share your positive sentiments toward him.

4. CT Catholic Corner (@CtCathCorner) - October 15, 2014

“The gates of Hell will not prevail” against His Church… Jesus promised us this. It looks bad…terrible, but in the end, we know who wins. Trials and tribulations are before us.

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner

5. steve - October 15, 2014

Let us pretend that the chaos in regard to the Relatio never happened.

Prior to Monday, was anybody optimistic that the Synod would renew family life throughout the Church?

I ask that in light of the following:

From the first Synod in 1967 A.D., “Preserving and Strengthening the Catholic Faith, to 2012 A.D., “The New Evangelization,” when has a Synod accomplished its goal?

We have had Synods to renew penance…to renew priestly life…to renew catechetics…to renew the Church in Europe…on and on.

How has the above worked out?

Please, I really would like to hear from anybody who is optimistic in regard to the current Synod’s success.

6. Dismas - October 15, 2014

Well, maybe me. I guess it depends on which “success” we are referring to. To know that we would need to know the goals of the Synod, the real goals. Perhaps Kasper told us what they were. If those are the real goals, then, yes – it looks like it may be a success.

I also think it has the great potential to be a success in a way that perhaps Kasper, et. al. were not directly intending, although they are too smart not to have anticipated it. It might be a sort of backhanded “success” if it serves to galvanize those who are committed to authentic Catholicism and to draw more people from the neo-Catholic netherland into reality.

7. RC - October 15, 2014

This can’t really be a surprise to people, the result of the synod I mean. It could have been seen coming from a mile away, yet “neo-con” blogs continually said it was being overplayed in previous months…well, we see how that played off.
Personally, I am glad that Francis has officially shown his true colors, hes a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is the antithesis of the :spirit of VII”

Tantam, do you think this is all part of the great tribulation? I know prots always look at the tribulation and all that through the “Left Behind lens.” I, however, look at it through a Catholic lens and it seems like something major is going on.

8. RC - October 15, 2014

PS I’m sure you all have seen the news of the City of Houston banning sermons condemning homosexuality…

9. Mike - October 15, 2014

To many in Rochester, NY, this nonsence is old stuff. For 33 years we heard this garbage concerning homosexuality. In reality, the diocese at that time pushed and advocated gay propaganda and aligned itself with the group Dignity, an organization that advocated homosexual sexual acts were good. And then the diocese silenced their Catholic Physician’s guild who tried to advocate the Majesterial teachings on homosexuality.

This is heresy on a world wide nature.

Dismas - October 15, 2014

Right. In places like Rochester a person has to have had a frontal lobotomy not to recognize the crisis. In other places things have progressed more gradually and people were able to continue pretending that things were not really all that bad. And this is why what RC says above is precisely correct.

This Synod can do a great service if it takes the mask off. Honestly, I fear less that they will come out and proclaim clearly anti-Catholic “pastoral requirements” than I do that they will be constrained by prudence to not show themselves for what they are.

10. steve - October 15, 2014


The goal of the Synod, as announced in 2013 A.D. by Pope Francis, is to improve and strengthen the “pastoral care of the family in the context of Evangelization”.

Pope Francis added that the synod would address in particular two key issues:

— How the Church can best enhance Her mercy toward divorced/remarried Catholics.

— The annulment process.

Pope Francis emphasized that he and the bishops must enhance the amount of mercy that the Church had shown in Her pastoral care of the family.

By caring for Catholic families more mercifully, particular in regard to divorced/remarried Catholics and Catholics who sought annulments, the Church would strengthen families.

The strengthening of the Domestic Church would, in turn, enhance the Church’s Evangelization.

The Gospel would permeate the Domestic Church…the Gospel would then spread throughout the Church and world via the family unit…the New Evangelization would then achieve success.

Tantumblogo - October 15, 2014

I fail to see how encouraging divorce and making it basically “cost free” in the Church will strengthen families. It will result int he continued acceleration of the collapse of the family, as every single move away from traditional morality has already done.

Dismas - October 15, 2014


Sorry. I was unclear. What I should have said was the actual agenda, not necessarily the stated agenda. I would not expect the two to be the same. And so I think what we see surfacing is indeed the actual agenda, and in terms of that, it has the potential of being a success for its promoters, if not for the Catholic Church.

11. steve - October 15, 2014

RC is correct.

Review the archives of conservative Catholic blogs in regard to the Synod.

“Take it easy…everything will be fine at the Synod…Traditionalists are fear-mongers…the fix is not in at the upcoming Synod.”

Not surprisingly, when the Relatio was made public two days ago, conservative Catholics resorted to their old and tired damage-control tricks…

…the Relatio had been misinterpreted by the news media…poor translation…the document stated “X” but really meant to say “Y”…the Traditional Catholics have overreacted, ignore them as they’re talking conspiratiorial nonsense…the fix is not in at the Synod…”

However, the neo-con’s discredited damage-control tricks fell apart immediately as various Cardinals and bishops at the Synod reacted to the Relatio negatively and with the righteous outrage as did Catholic Traditionalists.

12. David - October 16, 2014

I am wondering if some of Bishop Seitz words were taken out of context. At one time, I remember that Bishop Seitz was a moderator for the group “Courage”, whose mission is to help Catholic men (and women) with same-sex attraction.

Please remember that the group “Courage” is not to be confused with the dissenting group “DignityUSA”. DignityUSA has a totally different mission.

DFW - October 16, 2014

True. He was involved when he was pastor of the parish to which I belong. I don’t know if he continued that ministry as a bishop. He was very pro-life as well.

Tantumblogo - October 16, 2014

It’s a valid point. In fact, it’s something that crossed my mind to mention but failed to do so.

Dismas - October 16, 2014

Watch and see. You will soon know.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: