jump to navigation

Secular news sites get it, even if many prelates do not: Changing moral doctrine spells the end of the Church’s moral authority October 21, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.

OK, John Zmirak is a serious Catholic, so it’s not an entirely secular piece, but it is from a secular site.  And his analysis is spot-on with what so many of us have been saying for months now: if the “Synod,” which now, given the rejection by the overwhelming majority of bishops of every radical notion proposed, really means “The will of Francis,” undermines even just ONE aspect of the moral doctrines it has been formulated to offend against, it will mean the end of the Catholic Church’s moral authority for decades, and its certain descent into just one more discredited, worldly, money- and affirmation-chasing sect.

It’s a good piece, I steal most of it, but please click on the link and read the rest (my emphasis and comments):

…….Rather than speaking prophetically in defense of the uniqueness and holiness of marriage, the task of Christians today includes “recognizing positive elements” in “imperfect” unions such as cohabitating couples, divorced couples living in what Jesus called “adultery,” and even homosexual relationships.

As for those, the Church must find a way of “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation,” a condition which the Catholic Catechism still (for the moment) calls “an objective disorder” for very important reasons: It “orders” people to activities which the Church has always reasoned are unnatural and sinful. By the laws of logic, the Church cannot welcome and value such an “orientation” without accepting what it orients people to crave: erotic relationships that are incompatible with marriage.

How we wish that the universe worked Synod-style, that its Creator answered our whims like an obsequious restaurant waiter angling for tips. Wouldn’t it be pleasant if God looked on our sins and saw only the gifts which He gave us, instead of the miserable ways that we use them? Like a child who stuffs his brand new Lego blocks down the throat of the family dog, we’re surprised by praise for our endeavor’s “positive elements.” Were God like the leading Synod fathers — that is, a senile grandfather in heaven — he would nod and tell us: “That’s quite an obedient dog. And those Lego blocks are shiny. Look how very many of them you have managed to fit inside of Fido. What an energetic boy!” [Heh…….nailed certain Daneels and Mahony types]

I am sick at heart, like millions of Catholics, to hear shepherds of our Church fall over themselves to sound like liberal Episcopalians. [Yes!] We know from recent history precisely where this leads: To gapingly empty churches, ecumenical services with Islamists — and gatherings like the Anglican synod some years ago, where an openly gay bishop squirmed in his shoes, as an old-fashioned Christian prelate from Africa accosted him and prayed over him to drive out the “demon of sodomy.”……[I’d like to see Cardinal Burke whip out a pre-conciliar Exorcism on Kasper and many others]

There is so much wrong with the statements that came from the highly educated, privileged leaders of the universal Church that it would take a book to explain it — in fact, a series of books, which will surely appear in the next 12 months from outraged, desperate Catholics. They will rightly be trying to shoot down this reckless progressive trial balloon. But it’s too late. The damage is done. 

The media are completely justified in posing the kind of question that would have made people burst out laughing 40 years ago: “What will the Catholic Church teach next year about extramarital sex?” [Yes, this is the key.  Even if every single crazed synodal proposal is shot down, a huge precedent has been set.  The Catholic Church, at its highest levels, debated whether sodomites should receive the Blessed Sacrament, whether adulterers and fornicators should not have the very same dignity as those who remained faithfully married for 60 years.  Look, the 2014 Synod brought heretofore unmentionable topics to public scrutiny. 2015, even if the Synod rejects these proposals, has seen much more coverage and many more now inculcated with the idea that the Church just might – perhaps not this year, but soon – “change” its Doctrine on marriage etc. That in and of itself is an incredible breakthrough for the radicals – but one that could, conceivably, be reversed by a future orthodox pontiff.  But even if Pope Francis does not act on his threat to devolve doctrine (perhaps a last-ditch gambit to sway the working groups?), enormous damage has already been done.]

……You would think that the clerics might….insist that marriage is the basic building block of society and the safest refuge of helpless children. Instead they are treating marriage as some utopian ideal, which it’s foolish to think that everyone can attain — so we must learn to love, value, and learn from the grotesque failures which we sinners, in our weakness, accept instead: shacking up, second unions unblessed by God, and even homosexual partnerships, whose central activity used to be called a “sin that cries out to heaven.” [That’s the other thing that really torques me off.  These prelates decry the present day culture when they try to argue that being chaste is just too hard nowadays.  Oh, it’s this terrible rotten culture, they say.  But who makes culture?  Culture doesn’t just fall from the sky, it’s made by people.  And the culture has very visibly declined at an accelerating pace since Catholic bishops and priests decided it would be a lot easier, for them, to not teach doctrine anymore.  And so modernist bishops are being quite hypocritical decrying a cultural situation they have done all in their power to create, just so the culture would conform more to their political (and likely, sexual) orientation, and the mean ‘ol nasty Church of the past could be turned into a lavendar-mafia run pink palace.  You would think they might contemplate where Dante assigns the hypocrites in hell]

Oh well, times change — why shouldn’t eternity? As progressive humankind charges forward like a pack of rogue elephants, we will leave it to God and His Church to follow with brooms and shovels.

The men who are leading the Synod……

…. like the Pharisees, they already have their reward — their attaboys from the New York Times and their Methodist and Unitarian golfing pals.  The Synod leaders have neutralized the nastiest attacks from homosexual activists, and bought peace with the secular state for the next ten years or so. Like Henry VIII’s compliant bishops, they will be “safe.” For a decade at least, they will keep the hundreds of millions of dollars gathered in Germany from the “church tax,” and in the U.S. from federal contracts to agencies that are Catholic in name only, such as Catholic Charities and diocesan immigrant offices. Bishops will get to pretend that they preside over powerful, consequential institutions, and the world will pretend to believe them. For now. Until the hatred of Christianity ratchets up another notch, and demands an even more craven surrender. [Look to the Anglican church to see how that plays out. Some of the prettiest museums and coffee shops I found in posh west London were former Anglican churches.  I think you and I would be shocked how much prurient interests like those described above motivate a good portion of clergy and the episcopate]

Bishops who are so inclined — including the Bishop of Rome — can continue to garner headlines for their attacks on a mythical “unregulated capitalism,” their demands for radical redistribution of the wealth and the dismantling of borders. They can praise the mass influx of Muslims into Europe, and cash a check every time an illegal immigrant arrives in America. As men without children, they don’t need to worry about their descendants. They are confident of eternity, since they don’t believe in hell………. [And since they apparently don’t care a whit for the institution they have been given the amazing grace of holding charge over, why not just cave on Doctrine so you can live it up?  In actuality, while I am still very far from edified by episcopal leadership overall, I do see in the rejection of 3/4 of synod bishops of the anti-Catholic proposals of the modernist cabal something hopeful, or potentially so……I did not think it would happen. These men really have every reason to cave, including enormous pressure from above, and yet, they apparently have not.  Answered prayers?  I hope.]

[After a bit of discussion on how the Church, by pointing to the Orthodox as leaders in moral doctrine, will surrender all moral authority to the Orthodox position.  It’s really very interesting, go read it.……..And on marriage, the Orthodox are wrong. But Rome has no such wiggle room. The claims of the papacy are brave, expansive — and empirically falsifiable. If Rome adopts the Orthodox practice of marriage, that will falsify them……

If this happens, it would not prove that Luther or Calvin were right. Instead it would show that papal claims are false, that God has not left the Church with a central authority for the interpretation of doctrine, and that the Orthodox model is the only viable choice for sacramental Christians……..[Well, I think there would be enormous repercussions the ramifications of which are really impossible for us to discern at this time.  From a contradiction of solemn dogma and the repudiation of the infallibility of Peter literally a million flowers may bloom, all of them noxious and poisonous.  It would wound the Church in ways that are unforeseeable, but universally bad.

……. If Pope Francis demolishes marriage, he destroys the throne that he sits on. Future popes might claim to be the “Vicar of Christ.” But then, Queen Elizabeth claims to be the “Defender of the Faith.” We all know how much that means.

Exactly. But I fear, that is the very point.  Look, this is a man who makes no bones of his enormous admiration for protestantism, especially the American, evangelical variety.  He seems to be very comfortable with the kind of doctrinal chaos that invariably inhabits these false, man-made sects, and seems to even prefer that chaos to the kind of clarity the Church has always provided. I won’t hazard a guess as to why that is, I think a discerning soul can make that out for themselves.  The kind of doctrinal devolution to very fallible, very novel episcopal conferences (and there’s the Orthodox model again) seems modeled on these haphazard sects, where anyone can find what he wants but not necessarily what he needs.

The anonymous critic at the Synod is right, and Zmirak makes it clear: by devolving doctrine and promoting chaos, Pope Francis is basically attempting to obliterate the entire Magisterium from Pope St. Gregory the Great onwards.  That doing so would irreversibly smash the Church’s moral authority appears to matter not a whit.  Of course, extreme modernists have advocated a return to the “pure” earliest Church, primarily because they feel that early Church was sufficiently doctrinally unclear to allow all their progressive pet projects to be adopted.  But less ideologically warped minds know that would only result in a Church torn asunder from herself, and left totally unmoored from those two pillars of St. John Bosco’s dream.  It would be the end of the Church as she has been known since her inception.

There is a word from Scripture for the man who would so wound the Church.  That word has been much on my mind of late.



1. tg - October 21, 2015

“Look, this is a man who makes no bones of his enormous admiration for protestantism, especially the American, evangelical variety. ” – who are you talking about here – the man who wrote the article you quote?

I think that some people may admire evangelical protestants now is because many are coming out stronger against sodomy than most Catholic bishops and priests. They use stronger language than Catholic clergy use. I’m so sick of term – same sex attraction.

Tantumblogo - October 21, 2015

Pope Francis

2. Frank - October 22, 2015

Is “anethema” the word you are thinking of?

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: