Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Out of the Lobby

The Holy Father asked for forgiveness for the scandals in the Church, without mentioning which scandals, it could be the latest episode of Vatileaks or more likely the removal two Discalced Carmelites, one of whom accused the other of homosexual acts after a male prostitute spent several months in hospital after being beaten up, and of course the opening scandal of the Synod with that CDF Monsignor 'coming out'. Presumably what he is not asking for forgiveness for is the pro-Gay Fr Rosica fronting the English language section of the media briefings who seems to introduce at every opportunity or Abbot Jeremias Schröder who took part in this mornings briefings wants and the issue of homosexuality to be delegated to local bishops' conferences to decide, who has himself long called for the Church to bless homosexual unions, nor Archbishop Forte who added pro-gay clauses to the Relatio of the extra-ordinary Synod last year and is on committee that will oversea the final document - which may or may not be published.

Some have suggested this should be called the 'Gay Synod', rather than the Synod on the Family, what is more than apparent is that what was once a shadowy lobby is now front and centre out of the lobby and sitting in the drawing room. The Synod presenters, if not the discussions themselves, seem to be obsessed by the homosexual issue. Perhaps this is a peculiar quality of the Roman Church, non- pastoral priests with 'issues', let go by their own bishops, sent there and failing to cling on to their vocations. . Perhaps the Holy Father needs to address his own diocese' problems, and perhaps the Synod needs to address chastity and fidelity with great clarity but then the Holy Father seems happy not to judge where gay issues are concerned.

There is a petition on-line suggesting right thinking bishops should walk out of the the Synod, I can't think of anything more foolish, now is the time for truth about the real position of the Church, for 'parhesia', the word much used by the Pope. 
Perhaps the problem is the truth tellers are purring rather than roaring and fighting.


Anil Wang said...

More thank likely, most truth tellers are just waiting out the Papacy.

They don't want to be another Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Erdo (who now seems to be barred from speaking at the Synod). This Pope has ruffled a lot of feathers and it's likely the next conclave will pick someone who is the polar opposite of this one with a strong mandate to clean up the mess. As long as the conclave isn't rigged (which I doubt will happen, since that would provoke another Great Western Schism), the Truth will be roared out.

That being said, good strategy doesn't make for sainthood and playing it safe will not likely be exalted in the next Papacy if it is what I predict.

Cosmos said...


Palincor IG said...

Maybe -only maybe - this bout of 'democratic' openess about these issues has one of the advantages of democracy namely that by openly expressing themselves unsavoury opinions and tendencies can be identified and challenged.

Greg J Ben said...

I have a question:

Knowing that any Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, and other titles, etc., but also knowing and acknowledging that the Pope is still a human being, not an angel, not Jesus, not God, I really find it amazing and hypocritical that many of us, laity and clergy, who duly criticize the Vatican (and implicitly the Pope), either under his direction and authority, or through the Vatican's Hierarchy, his Cardinals and Bishops, under his explicit agreement and authorization and support, we never criticize the Pope by name or never explicitly say that whatever we criticize comes directly from the Pope although we know for sure that it does.


Is the Pope superior than the Apostles?

Did we elevate the Pope to a rank higher than the Apostles who had discussions, problems and arguments as we see in the Bible, among themselves and also between them and the community of first Christians?

It seems to me that some Catholics honor (to the point of worshiping) the Pope, or any Pope for that matter, more than the Creator who created that Pope.

Again, why?

geneticallycatholic said...

I rarely sign petitions, but this Synod has me worried enough to seriously consider adding my name asking the orthodox Fathers to walk. I concur with every paragraph of the petition as it is currently written. Father, have you read it in its entirety? The only reason for my hesitation is that I am aware that this may be the beginning of a schism as it will be a 'non-confidence' vote in the Holy Father.

Father, you say "“Perhaps the problem is the truth tellers are purring rather than roaring and fighting.” What if the truth tellers are in reality roaring, but they are being muzzled at every turn by the organizers of the Synod who have the complete confidence of the Holy Father? This muzzling may make it seem that they are purring.

I quote Fr Hunwicke in his post of Oct 12th:

(Beginning of quote)"The Holy Father has frequently urged Parrhesia upon his venerable brethren in the Episcopate, and the same word had a prominent place in Cardinal Baldisseri's briefing last Friday. In my humble opinion based upon my own reading, this word means speaking out boldly and courageously without any fear of even the mightiest. It has never occurred to me that it might mean expressing, anonymously behind closed doors, views which, outside the "protected space", one would be afraid to be known to have uttered.

It is thoroughly disgraceful if it is true that a Polish Archbishop was made, a day or two ago, to take off his blog his accounts of what other Fathers had said. Disgraceful ...  Stalinist ... cuiuscumque auctoritate hoc factum sit, in quacumque dignitate constituti. " (end of quote)

The above [muzzling] was indeed true and is utterly disgraceful. Furthermore, what is being provided by the Vatican press office has no resemblance to the interventions in the Synod as evidenced by what the orthodox participants are publishing of their own intervention. They are not allowed to publish other participants interventions. Why not?

If you are being muzzled at every turn while you roar, what is the next best thing: to walk away? If one stays, they are lending legitimacy to something that is in no way, shape or form, legitimate.

Jacobi said...

It is true that the active-homosexual lobby/Mafia have succeeded in driving their particular agenda into a Synod on the Family, a subject hat has nothing whatsoever to do with that particular grievous vice.

Anthony Brankin said...

the loudest statement would be silently walking away. Nothing--absolutely nothing could match the drama of that act.
Anthony Brankin

Woody said...

I don't think it's time to take a walk. It may be time that some of the good cardinals/bishops take some of their fellow not-so-good bishops/cardinals out behind the synod building, take off their miters and have a go at it. Sometimes it takes a punch in the nose to get someone to stop doing bad things. At least that's what I heard St. Nicholas said once. I like St. Nicholas. He's needed at this synod. I understand if you don't publish this, Father.

Liam Ronan said...

Can anyone provide me with the link for the on-line Petition urging the bishops to walk away from the Synod?

Liam Ronan said...

Insofar as a walk-out of the Synod by the Bishops, I suggest these words of Our Lord are apropos:

"And wherever they will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that city or that house; I promise you, it shall go less hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah at the day of judgement, than with that city." - Matthew 10:14-15

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." Matthew 7:6

Deacon Augustine said...

"now is the time for truth about the real position of the Church, for 'parhesia', the word much used by the Pope."

I understand what you say, Fr., but for whose benefit is that truth to be roared out when the synod has been effectively silenced? The truth will never get past the gatekeepers of Hades - Lombardi and Rosica. The only ones who will hear the truth are the orthodox fathers in the synod, and the heretic sodophiles who reject it anyway.

The only reason to linger any longer before shaking the dust off one's feet at the whole charade is if there is going to be a serious attempt to depose an antipope.

John Vasc said...

I notice the advocates for divorced Catholics remarried outside the Church, always refer to them - as Abbot Jeremias did - as 'married, *or* in a stable union with children'. ('Or'??? Did you see what he did there?) Sometimes the children are referred to pleadingly as 'innocent'.
This is just advertising copy. You never hear them referring to the children of the first marriage, or to the faithful, continent spouse of the first marriage - these people (and their equally innocent children) are apparently in no need of 'mercy' or indeed any consideration at all. Why so? Because 'I am from Germany' that is a reason for... what exactly? A different church, a different faith, because 'I am from Germany' and 'it is much less of a concern than elsewhere'. Which is plausible-sounding nonsense.
In Corinth chastity was also 'less of a concern than elsewhere'.
'Regional pastoral solutions' sounds wonderful. Has the Abbot considered what happens if one or more dioceses were to take an entirely different line from that of Cardinal Marx? The bishops' conferences have no real legal jurisdiction over individual bishops and their 'pastoral' decisions.
And the same goes for Abbot Schroeder's special pleading for homosexual activity - the fact that 'the social acceptance of homosexuality is culturally very diverse' (apart from being truer than the Abbot might wish, in that outside metro-Germany it is not generally accepted) has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Christ. He did not at the end of His exposition on the nature of marriage add 'but in Samaria naturally you must give them leeway to break the rules because of cultural diversity'. Nor did St Paul give Corinth much leeway.
As you say, Fr Ray, they seem manically obsessed with the subject, but also (reading the German Catholic press) with the neurotic impulse for any kind of change for change's sake. The faithful in Germany and Austria are being driven almost underground.

J D Carriere said...

This petition?

viterbo said...

Truth is like a lion, offensive to hyenas.

On the feast of Teresa of Avila:

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: ‘This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'” (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

“I would give up my life a thousand times, not only for each of the truths of Sacred Scripture, but even more for the least of the ceremonies of the Catholic Church.”  (Saint Teresa of Avila, Life, Thirty-three, 3.)

Paul Hellyer said...

Liam. Look on Anne Barnhardt's blog. The link is there.
Regards Paul

Liam Ronan said...

@J D Carriere and Paul Hellyer,

Thank you for the link to the Petition.

Upon reflecting on the position of those Bishops asserting the Gospel and Catholic Doctrine are a collection of 'abstract moral principles' and otherwise occupying the 'soft centre' of this Synod, this citation from the Book of Revelation comes to mind:

"I know of thy doings, and find thee neither cold nor hot; cold or hot, I would thou wert one or the other. Being what thou art, lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, thou wilt make me vomit thee out of my mouth.

I am rich, thou sayest, I have come into my own; nothing, now, is wanting to me. And all the while, if thou didst but know it, it is thou who art wretched, thou who art to be pitied. Thou art a beggar, blind and naked; and my counsel to thee is, to come and buy from me what thou needest; gold, proved in the fire, to make thee rich, and white garments, to clothe thee, and cover up the nakedness which dishonours thee; rub salve, too, upon thy eyes, to restore them sight.

It is those I love that I correct and chasten; kindle thy generosity, and repent. See where I stand at the door, knocking; if anyone listens to my voice and opens the door, I will come in to visit him, and take my supper with him, and he shall sup with me. Who wins the victory? I will let him share my throne with me; I too have won the victory, and now I sit sharing my Father’s throne. Listen, you that have ears, to the message the Spirit has for the churches." Rev 3:15-22

B flat said...

Dear Father,
We were told that these Synods were consultative bodies, summoned by Papal authority to consider important questions which require clarification by the Magisterium of the Church, in the form of an instruction from the Pope.

So if this Synod is so manifestly manipulated, stacked against the Orthodox teaching of the Church, and controlled by supporters of heterodox opinions, what is a faithful bishop to do? The petition suggests walking out in protest. I suggest this is actually unacceptable to Catholic thinking, since any bishop is morally and canonically bound to attend any Synod to which he is summoned by lawful authority.

What every bishop, especially one with ordinary duties as pastor of a diocese or defined flock, must do now as always, is to teach the Truth, in season and out of season, with no fear of any man or the consequences to him personally. The flock know their own, and will not follow a hireling. Everyone will answer for the choices they make, and the words they speak - or even for their silence in the face of evil or the half-truths in which the Evil One is so expert.

Blessed are they who endure to the end.

TLM said...

Yes, for what it's worth the letter, I do believe does state that IF faithful Bishops CONTINUE to be silenced at every turn, it's time to WALK. IF the manipulation continues, time to WALK. That's to me, giving the organizers every opportunity to relent. For the record, I signed it.

J said...

I respectfully disagree, Fr Blake. Leaving (in my opinion) is the most powerful statement, and a line on the floor. Then we, the faithful, we will know who is who. That will be true parrhesia.
This is the Gay Synod, something diabolical. We are supposed not to dialog with the devil.
I think that even Pope Emeritus should leave the Vatican in this situation, and take shelter silently in a Monastery in a secure place.
This is pure evil. Time to run to the mountains.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

What you don't seem to grasp, Fr. Blake, is that, as others here have noted, a protest of the synodal farce is every part of telling the "truth about the real position of the Church, for 'par[r]hesia'". A parrhesia of the feet, if you will.

Fr Ray Blake said...

No it is opting out of the government of the Church, it is a schism.

Catholicus said...

I'm not advocating a walk out at this point, but Father, saying a walk out would be a schism is overstating it completely. It's a meeting of bishops which they are free to attend or not. If they walk out and set up a separate body and make claims, well that might not be a good thing. But even that isn't a schism.

John Vasc said...

I agree with Fr Ray. Bishops should stand and fight. And then protest if their words and opinions are misrepresented or ignored. Leaving "says" very little other than undifferentiated dissent.
Episcopal and clerical protest is much easier to express, publish and organize now in the internet age than it was in 1965-80 after VII.

Hugh McLoughlin said...

Having absolutely no training whatsoever in philosophy or theology, when I came across the word “parrhesia” a couple of weeks ago, I had to look it up. As with all new ideas, it took a wee while for it to sink in. But this sinking-in was greatly helped when I read a bit about Michel Foucault, about whom I had never previously heard. One bit in particular struck me forcefully.

On “Parrhesia and Frankness” he said: “To begin with, what is the general meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’? Etymologically, ‘parrhesiazesthai’ means ‘to say everything — from ‘pan’ (everything) and ‘rhema’ (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind: he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind completely to other people through his discourse.”

Note well: does not hide anything; opens his heart and mind. In other words: the parrhesiastes by definition cannot be a liar and a schemer because he tells the truth. All of it! I won’t name names but does that sound like certain Synod Fathers? Even certain Synod Fathers specially and specifically invited by Pope Francis himself? And certain functionaries appointed by him?

{For anyone interested:See: Foucault, Michel. “The Meaning and Evolution of the Word Parrhesia.” In Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia, edited by Joseph Pearson. Digital Archive:, 1999. Michel Foucauld}

Steve Skojec said...

"No it is opting out of the government of the Church, it is a schism."

What an odd thing to say. These bishops were invited to the Synod, not ordered to be there. How would their walking out as a protest to the continual manipulations and pre-ordained outcome of this event represent "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him"?

By being faithful to Christ and His teaching, are they not thus being faithful to the pope, whose job it is to guard and defend the Mystical Body of Christ?

Sandpiper said...

Yes! I love your sage advice for dear Benedict. He must not live within the squalor of the Vatican.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think the big question is how this Synod proceeds. If there is a final document where the Bishops are allowed to vote on each clause then I believe there will be an overwhelming majority in favour of orthodoxy as there was at the first session in 2014. Then the KasperKampf never seems to have had more than 30 votes in its favour at the very most and unless there has been a major change of heart by the vast majority then this will happen again. For anyone to walk out at this stage would be a disaster handing the Church over to the KasperKampf. If however no such final document is produced and/or no voting is allowed then the Synod itself will be totally discredited and seen for the colossal waste of time and money involved. It would no doubt go down in history as the 'suitable epithet' (to be chosen) Synod. It seems to be in the hands of the Pope and the Secretariat as to what happens. Pray!