Welcome to the War

If you've been paying attention to coverage of the Catholic Church lately, you might have noticed a spike in the appearance of terminology borrowed from the bellicose arts, with words like "conflict," "battle" and even "war" being used to describe the goings-on in and around the Vatican these days. While such talk is pretty standard fare for faithful Catholic publications, it has recently spread beyond the narrow borders of Catholic blogdom and entered the mainstream of polite society: Tess Livingstone of The Australian, Tim Stanley of The Telegraph, Ross Douthat of The New York Times and now Damian Thompson of The Spectator have all come to the same conclusion: we are on the brink of civil war.

Just more media spin? A bit of hyperbole to increase revenue? Some would like you to think so. Cardinal Donald Wuerl recently appeared on World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo in part to assure viewers that there exists "no division on the core teachings of the faith" among the bishops. We are, I suppose, to ignore voices such as that of Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser, who recently stated that "some bishops [...] do not even accept the official teachings of the Church." And if we don't ignore them - if we reject the "Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows" narrative - and instead view events within the framework of a "politically partisan narrative," then we deserve to be silenced, as Ross Douthat found out after his commentary provoked the ire of a gaggle of progressive Catholic intellectuals and university professors.

That is, if it weren't for the fact that such talk of war is not limited to the authors of newspaper editorials. Just yesterday, Cardinal Maradiaga informed reporters that Pope Francis is "prepared to battle" his own Curia in order to push through his desired reforms. And in this morning's homily, the Pope himself trained his sights yet again upon the "Doctors of the Law" and fired off a characteristically veiled yet effective warning shot:

God has included us all in salvation! All! This is the beginning. We with our weaknesses, with our sins, with our envy, jealousies, we all have this attitude of excluding which - as I said - can end in wars.

While I congratulate Douthat, Thompson and the rest for refusing to go along with the official narrative and calling it like it is, I have to ask: Where the hell have you guys been for the last 50 years?

For the record: civil war is already upon us. Anyone paying attention knows that the walls have been scaled, the gates have been breached, and the enemy has set up camp in our own court. All that's left is the castle keep, surrounded on all sides by men brandishing torches. And now you think we are on the brink of civil war? Tell that to the three generations of Catholics who have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve every scrap of Sacred Tradition they can get their hands on from the corruption of the grand Aggiornamento. Tell that to those who were reduced to tears as sanctuaries were being desecrated, statues removed, altars broken, and communion rails torn out. Tell that to the scores of good men who were turned away from the priesthood because they objected to the rampant homosexualism of the seminaries. Tell that to the faithful who were cast out of the Church for having the gall to demand that she remain loyal to Christ's teachings 30 years ago.

The only thing new about the 2015 Synod was the brazenness with which the heretics and apostates pushed their revolutionary agenda. They're not even trying to prop up a 'Hermeneutic of Continuity' anymore. It's a rupture, a break - in other words, a schism - from Catholic Tradition. They know it, we know it, and it's time you guys start reporting on it.

Welcome to the war. It's about time you showed up.

(For my Spanish readers: Ahora en Español)

On the Condemnation of Error and the Grace of God

When asked to comment on the paragraphs of the Relatio Finalis which treat the matter of the so-called "divorced and re-married" and permission to Holy Communion, Cardinal George Pell remarked:

There's nothing in the paragraphs as they stand that is heretical or false doctrine or advocating a false practice.

Do you feel comforted? Me neither.

The Chinese have a saying:

不进则退

(bù jìn zé tuì)

To fail to advance is to retreat.

That is to say, if you are not advancing into enemy territory, if you are not capturing his troops, cutting off his supply lines and destroying his infrastructure, if you are not in some way compromising his ability to conduct war, you are losing.

Granted, the heretics and apostates attending the 2015 Synod were held in check insofar as they were prevented from injecting outright heresy into the Relatio Finalis. A great catastrophe was averted, and for that we should be thankful. But merely defending the truth, while absolutely necessary, is not enough to win this battle. The opposing error must be ruthlessly and relentlessly condemned, and those who proffer it obstinately must be excommunicated, anathematized, cursed and damned. Upholding truth and condemning error are two sides of the same coin; to attempt the one without committing equally to the other is to fail in both.

"But," I hear someone whine, "we can't do that, as it will drive people away from the Church. After all, as St. Francis de Sales said, 'You catch more flies with honey than vinegar'."

With all due respect to that great Saint: Offering honey to flies has brought us little more than an infestation of maggots.

Snark aside: If you are genuinely concerned that the condemnation of error could drive people away from the Church, I would like to familiarize you with a Catholic doctrine which has received far too little attention over the last 50 years: the Universality of Grace.

(As it seems full disclosure is all the rage these days: I do not possess a Ph.D. in theology. I'm just a Catholic blogger, and the following is my opinion.)

The doctrine of the Universality of Grace can be summarized in four short statements (all of which can be found, with ample source material, in Ludwig Ott's classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 238-242):

• Despite men's sins, God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men.
• God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the Divine Commandments.
• God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficient grace for conversion.
• God gives all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation.

We hear much these days regarding God's desire to see all men saved from sin and the damnation it rightly deserves. Pope Francis, for example, brings it up at nearly every opportunity - something which is, in itself, perfectly laudable. But we hear virtually nothing of the corollary of this truth, i.e. that God always and everywhere gives everyone the sufficient grace they require in order to observe His Commandments, repent of their sins and seek out the means for achieving eternal salvation. This means that everything a person needs in the way of grace to eventually attain heaven is given to him in precisely that measure which he requires, and no one on the Day of Judgment will be able to say that God did not provide him with the sufficient grace to attain sainthood. In other words, if people fail to observe God's Commandments, repent of their sins and seek out the means for achieving salvation, they ultimately have no one to blame but themselves. Not me, not you, and certainly not God. (Which casts an entirely different light on the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, but that's another conversation for another day.)

But, what if someone takes offence at the words or actions of a Catholic?

Well, what of it? Are we to suppose that a layman or prelate who strongly condemns sodomy, adultery, pedophilia or any such sins, and thereby offends the sensibilities of another, could possibly thwart the will of almighty God in ensuring that such a person receives sufficient grace to effect his conversion? Not even the devil himself can accomplish such a feat. How, then, could any effort on our part bring about the same? If God always gives sufficient grace - and He does - then, regardless of whatever circumstances a person may find himself in, failure to attain heaven falls to him and his unwillingness to cooperate with that grace. Having an abusive father, an alcoholic mother, or a perverted uncle - or even, heaven forbid, a pedophile priest - does not grant you a Get Out of Jail Free card. It's on you and you alone to respond to God's gratuitous gift of grace.

But what of scandal? If, by speaking plainly regarding sin and forcefully in the condemnation of error, we drive people away from the Church, are we not effecting evil by our actions and thus guilty of giving scandal?

Hardly. Scandal is an action which is evil in itself and performed with the intent to bring about another's spiritual ruin. If your condemnation of sin occasions another person's either leaving the Church or refusing to enter her, the evil resides not in your having condemned the sin - which is always and everywhere good - but in the person's inordinate love of the same.

So, for heaven's sake, stop worrying about "offending" people by speaking plainly and emphatically in the condemnation of sin and error. To do so is to doubt both the sufficiency of God's grace as well as man's freedom and the moral culpability which results from it.

St. Anthony of Padua, Hammer of Heretics
proving that love of Christ requires hatred of error
since AD 1195

On the Proper Treatment of Ambiguities

If Jesuits made doors....

In moment of refreshing candor, Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ made the following statement on the widely reported differences of opinion - even among Synod Fathers themselves - regarding the meaning of the Synod's Relatio Finalis  for the issue of the Communion of the so-called "divorced and remarried" (emphasis mine):

So what does it mean? A conservative might interpret it as closed to Communion because it was not mentioned in the text. A liberal might interpret it as including Communion since it is not explicitly excluded in the text. I think that the truth is that Communion was not mentioned because that was the only way the paragraphs could get a two-thirds majority. Like the Second Vatican Council, the synod achieved consensus through ambiguity.

If there remain any doubts about the status of the Benedictine Hermeneutic of Continuity, let them be put to rest: The proponents of the Hermeneutic of Rupture have the reigns of power firmly in their grip, and are so assured of their control that they are no longer ashamed to admit how they came to it, i.e. by way of ambiguity.

I suppose I remain somewhat naive insofar as the notion of a Catholic priest approving the use of intentional ambiguity as a tool of subversion never fails to cause in me a certain sadness. I just can't get my head around how a man who has dedicated his life to the One who is Truth shows no qualms in twisting the same to achieve his ends. It seems to be a deeply ingrained characteristic of mine, for I am no stranger to the history of the Catholic Church. But why, then, does the present situation cause in me such consternation, while the tales of the Arian Crisis merely tickle my intellectual curiosity? Perhaps it is because, unlike those heretics of old, who have long since gone on to their eternal reward, these souls still hang in the balance.

Be that as it may, we may nonetheless draw useful lessons from the past. In particular, this talk of synodal ambiguity calls to mind the 1786 Synod of Pistoia and the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, written by Pope Pius VI in 1794, which condemned it. The whole document is worth studying, but the following passage seems especially pertinent (emphasis mine):

We have determined, in order to meet this probable calumny, to make use of the wise counsel, duly and cautiously applied, which several of our most holy predecessors along with highly esteemed bishops and even general councils had left attested and recommended with notable examples when they had cause to restrain the rise of dangerous or harmful novelties of this sort. 

They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. 

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual - such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. [...]

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.

Indeed, it is as Solomon said:

What is it that hath been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Synod 2015: Initial Media Reactions

Within minutes of the release of the much-anticipated Relazione Finale, as well as a surprise address made by Pope Francis to the Synod Fathers, the media spin went into overdrive. Like most faithful Catholics, I will withhold any detailed comment on the document until an official translation has been provided. Until then, we can poke fun at the huge spectrum of spin being put on the matter. Here are the major headlines published to date. The articles can be accessed by clicking on the link in the titles:

• Bishops Hand Pope Defeat On His Outreach to Divorced Catholics - Francis X. Rocca, The Wall Street Journal
• Synod Verdict: The Catholic Church Is Still Catholic - Tim Stanley, The Telegraph
• The Vatican Synod On The Family Is Over And The Conservatives Have Won - Damian Thompson, The Spectator
• Final Synod Document Strongly Backs Church Teaching, Beauty of Family Life - Elise Harris, Catholic News Agency
• Catholic Bishops End Divisive Synod of Family - Caroline Wyatt, BBC
• Synod Ends With No Consensus on Communion or Homosexuality - Elena Curti, The Tablet
• Catholic Bishops Call For Church To Be More Welcoming Towards Gays, Other Groups - Nicole Winfield & Daniela Petroff, Time
• Vatican Synod Holds Its Line On Gay Couples But Offers New Hope to Catholic Divorcees - Rosie Scammell, The Guardian
• Tense Vatican Summit Ends By Opening Door For Divorced, Punting On Welcome To Gays - David Gibson, Religion News Services
• After The Synod, Can Catholics Put Humpty Dumpty Together Again? - John L. Allen, Crux
• Synod Offers Striking Softening To Remarried, Proposing Individual Discernment - Joshua J. McElwee, National Catholic Reporter
• The Synod Approves Final Document, Leaves The Door Open For The Pope To Move Forward On Key Issues - Gerald O'Connel, America

Perhaps nothing captures the spirit of subterfuge and obfuscation permeating certain strains of coverage of this event as does the following tweet from Austen Ivereigh:

For the record, synod doc does not open door to d&r Catholics to receive Communion. But nor does it shut it.

— Austen Ivereigh (@austeni) October 24, 2015

Cardinal Schönborn: Continence Is Not Necessary

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

In an interview published by Vatican Insider today, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Moderator of the German-language Group attending the Synod on the Family, went on record as standing opposed to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and John Paul II's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. When asked to explain his position in light of the magisterial teaching contained in the latter document, which requires that divorced and civilly "remarried" Catholics practice "complete continence" if they desire to receive Holy Communion, the Cardinal - apparently speaking for the entire German delegation - said:

We don't believe that [continence] is the only way.

This is a plain and open rejection of two important teaching documents of the Church, viz. (emphasis added):

Catechism of the Catholic Church §1650: "Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence."

Familiaris Consortio §84: "Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples' (Homily at the Close of the Sixth Synod of Bishops, §7 [Oct. 25, 1980])."

The same teaching was confirmed verbatim by Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994, and as Pope Benedict XVI in a 2005 address.

To find that Cardinal Schönborn materially rejects the teaching of the Church on this matter is not new. What is new is that, when directly confronted with the authoritative teaching of the Church, confirmed by centuries of traditional practice, the Cardinal explicitly rejects the same, saying "I don't believe that," and then goes on in the same breath to propose the very opposite, i.e. that people living in a mortally sinful condition can continue in their objective sin and nonetheless be admitted to Holy Communion - a formally condemned thesis (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11). His only option to escape this condemnation would be to say that, in some cases, adultery is not a mortal sin. But this would be to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire, for the same stands directly opposed to the 6th Commandment, i.e. "You shall not commit adultery."

As laypeople, it's not our place to condemn the man. But it is our place to condemn his opinion as being directly contrary to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. Further, it is our place to inquire as to why this man is being allowed to spread his error without correction from his brother Bishops - including the Holy Father, whose primary task is the preservation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Am I beating a dead horse? Probably. But the only tool I have available to me is my voice, and I wish not be found guilty of having remained silent in the face of such a brazen repudiation of Church teaching, even if that repudiation comes from one claiming the office of Prince of the Church.

The Silver Lining in the Cloud that is Synod 2015

The good folks over at OnePeterFive were kind enough to publish an article I wrote on the creative potential contained in the fallout of the 2015 Synod. You can read it by clicking on the link below:

Rise Thou That Sleepest

Synod 2015: Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk

[Note: The following speech was delivered by Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Russia, to the participants of the 2015 Synod last Tuesday.]

Metropolitan Hilarion

Your Holiness!

Your Beatitudes, Eminences and Excellencies!

On behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Rus, I extend fraternal greetings to you on the occasion of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church on the theme of the family.

In our restless and disturbing world, the human person needs a firm and unshakable foundation upon which he can rest and upon which he can build his life with confidence. At the same time, secular society, aimed primarily at the gratification of individual needs, is incapable of giving the human person clear moral direction. The crisis of traditional values which we see in the consumer society leads to a contradiction between various preferences, including those in the realm of family relationships. Thus, feminism views motherhood as an obstacle to a woman's self-realization, while by contrast having a baby is more often proclaimed as a right to be attained by all means possible. More often the family is viewed as a union of persons irrespective of their gender, and the human person can "choose" his or her gender according to personal taste.

On the other hand, new problems are arising which have a direct impact on traditional family foundations. Armed conflicts in the contemporary world have brought about a mass exodus from areas gripped by war to more prosperous countries. Emigration often leads to a disruption of family ties, creating at the same time a new social environment in which unions of an inter-ethnic and inter-religious nature arise.

These challenges and threats are common to all the Christian Churches which seek out answers to them, proceeding from the mission that Christ has placed upon them: to bring humanity to salvation. Unfortunately, in the Christian milieu, too, we often hear voices calling for the "modernization" of our ecclesial consciousness, for the rejection of the supposedly obsolete doctrine of the family. However, we ought never to forget the words of St. Paul addressed to the Christians of Rome:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The Church is called to be a luminary and beacon in the darkness of this age, and Christians to be the "salt of the earth" and "light to the world." We all ought to recall the Saviour's warning:

If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13-14)

The salt which has lost its savor are those Protestant communities which call themselves Christian, but which preach moral ideals incompatible with Christianity. If in this type of community a rite of blessing of same-sex unions is introduced, or a lesbian so-called "bishop" calls for the replacement of crosses from the churches with the Muslim crescent, can we speak of this community as a "church"? We are witnessing the betrayal of Christianity by those who are prepared to accommodate themselves to a secular, godless and churchless world.

The authorities of some European countries and America, in spite of numerous protests, including those by Catholics, continue to advocate policies aimed at the destruction of the very concept of the family. They not only on the legislative level equate of the status of the same-sex unions to that of marriage but also criminally persecute those who out of their Christian convictions refuse to register such unions. Immediately after the departure of Pope Francis from the USA, President Barack Obama openly declared that gay rights are more important than religious freedom. This clearly testifies to the intention of the secular authorities to continue their assault on those healthy forces in society which defend traditional family values. Catholics here are found at the forefront of the struggle, and it is against the Catholic Church that a campaign of discrediting and lies is waged. Therefore courage in vindicating Christian beliefs and fidelity to Church tradition are particularly necessary in our times.

Today, when the world ever more resembles that foolish man "which built his house on the sand" (Matthew 7:26) it is the Church's duty to remind the society of its firm foundation of the family as a union between a man and woman created with the purpose of giving birth to and bringing up children. Only this type of family, as ordained by the Lord when he created the world, can forestall or at least halt temporarily modern-day society’s further descent into the abyss of moral relativism.

The Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, has always in her teaching followed Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition in asserting the principle of the sanctity of marriage founded on the Savior's own words (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). In our time this position should be ever more strengthened and unanimous. We should defend it jointly both within the framework of dialogue with the legislative and executive branches of power of various countries, as well as in the forums of international organizations such as the UN and the Council of Europe. We ought not to confine ourselves to well-intentioned appeals but should by all means possible ensure that the family is legally protected.

Solidarity among the Churches and all people of good will is essential for guarding the family from the challenges of the secular world and thereby protecting our future. I hope that one of the fruits of the Assembly of the Synod will be the further development of Orthodox-Catholic co-operation in this direction.

I wish you peace, God’s blessing and success in your labors.

Cardinal Marx Clarifies the German Position

Synod 2015: German Bishops Unhappy

Vatican Radio is reporting that the German Group has issued sharp criticism in reaction to the interventions of some of the other Synod Fathers. The Group's Relatio, i.e. the report documenting the work of the Ciculus Germanicus delivered to the plenary session on Tuesday, begins with the words:

The images and comparisons which have been made use of are not only lacking in differentiation and false, but also injurious.

The report went on relate that the Germans felt "great dismay and sadness" upon hearing the statements of certain Synod Fathers regarding the "individuals, content and procedure" of the Synod itself, and wished to clearly distance themselves from what they claimed stood in contradiction to "the Spirit of Accompaniment, the Spirit of the Synod and its fundamental rules."

In other news:

Catholics discover the meaning of Schadenfreude

Archbishop Coleridge: A New Language Free of Jots and Tittles

Archbishop Mark Coleridge

In yesterday's press briefing, Archbishop Mark Coleridge attempted to pass off as Catholic pastoral theology what can only be described as situational ethics in action:

In the case of the divorced and remarried, we're always dealing with sin. There's no news in saying that, so that's just taken for granted. The Church has traditionally spoken of the second union as adulterous, and I understand why, and I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same same time, not every case is the same, and that's where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the difference from situation to situation. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union - whatever you want to call it - is adulterous is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving, and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend. So, the rubrik "audultery" in one sense is important, but in another sense it doesn't say enough. And I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the Synod is calling a "genuine pastoral dialogue of discernment" with these couples. And the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story, and not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. That's crucial, obviously, as the overall framework of any kind of dialoge of discernment.

Just in case anyone stands in need of a refresher, let's review the words of Our Lord:

Whosoever [Latin: Quicumque] shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)

Could the flat contradiction between the words of Our Lord and those spoken by this successor to the Holy Apostles be any clearer? Quicumque doesn't leave any pharisaical loophole for permitting some objectively adulterous relationships, even if they appear to be enduring, stable, loving, and fruitful. Our Lord was very specific and very clear: whosoever, i.e. irrespective of all other considerations. Adultery is an objective sin of a particularly grave sort, as it violates both the Commandment of God and a Holy Sacrament of His Church. No amount of "pastoral attentiveness" can plaster over that incontrovertible fact.

When asked what the Archbishop hoped would result from the Synod, he said:

My hope is that we will move towards, without actually accomplishing it this Synod, a genuinely new pastoral approach. Now, at the heart of this, I think there has to be a whole new language. And here, I think of what's been said about Vatican II: that it was primarily a language event. That it was, therefore, something that was far from cosmetic. And I have in mind what the Bible says, that words create worlds. In other words, a new language that can open new doors that we might not even see at the moment, and can create new possibilities.

This matter of a "new language" is one which deserves more careful attention - particularly in light of the above comments from Archbishop Coleridge. We have been led to believe that the substance of Church teaching is not under attack at the Synod, and will not be changed; that all that is being sought after is simply a new mode of expression. But that is not at all what the Archbishop is describing here. His comment that "words create worlds" is a clear allusion, not only to the first chapter of Genesis, where God literally speaks the substance of the universe into existence, but also to the Word of God, through whom all was created. He is speaking of changing language in order to bring about a substantial change. He even tells us that the change being sought after is "far from cosmetic". He is talking - quite plainly, in fact - of preaching a new Word.

Accordingly, the faithful Catholics of Twitter gave the Archbishop the internet equivalent of a sound thrashing. I confess that I, too, joined in the fray with a few cutting remarks of my own. And I don't regret it one bit.

Today, Archbishop Coleridge took to the diocesan blog in defense of his comments:

The big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what's out there - by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn't look like the Holy Spirit to me - red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck's back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what's clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It's also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.

Jot or tittle. Where have I heard that before?

On Feminism, Homofascism, and the Errors of Russia: A Video Crash-Course

This post will be short on text, but rich in ideas. I present to you three videos, each one longer and of wider scope than the one preceeding it. It's a kind of intellectual journey into the heart of darkness, but one which will leave you with a much better understanding of what's actually going on in the Church and the world today.

The first is quite short - ca. 4 minutes - and offers a profile of the Minnesota chapter of the subversive "Catholic" group Call to Action. While there is plenty of interesting information to be found online regarding this group - including this blurb on its history - the video offers viewers some insight into how the people involved in the group translate their particular ideology into action. While watching the video, be sure to note how the views espoused by the members of Call to Action are shared by numerous bishops and cardinals currently attending the Synod on the Family, as can be gathered from the statements being issued almost daily from the Holy See Press Office. (A shout out to my #RosicaBlockParty compatriots.)

The second video is somewhat longer - ca. 20 minutes - and provides a brief yet very informative history of the concept of Political Correctness as a tool of social change, how it was introduced into the American educational system, and what it intends to bring about (H/T to Ann Barnhardt for the link). As should become apparent while watching the presentation, Call to Action and similar groups claiming to represent the "oppressed" within the Catholic Church were born from the ideology of the people discussed here.

The third video is considerably longer - ca. 100 minutes - but well worth your time, especially if you watch it to the very end. I discussed this video in some detail back in June of this year, but I consider its content to be so vital in understanding the course of western social politics in the post-Cold War era that I do not hesitate to remind readers of its existence. It contains the testimony of one Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas D. Schuman, an ex-KGB agent who defected to the West in the 1970's, on the topic of socio-political subversion. Mr. Bezmenov's presentation puts the ideology of the Frankfurter School of Marxism, discussed in the previous video, into its larger strategic context, which has as its goal nothing other than the subjugation of the human spirit and the acquisition of totalitarian power.

This, gentle reader, is what Our Lady of Fatima referred to as "the errors of Russia," and they are running rampant in the halls of the Vatican today.

Please share this material with your family, friends and loved ones - particularly with young people attending high school, university or college. It could well save them a life-time of intellectual slavery and an eternity of spiritual suffering.

I leave you with a brief but insightful excerpt from an article written by the recently deceased Solange Hertz (RIP), a true daughter of Holy Mother Church:

How do you get a cat to eat hot pepper? This question, a classic in Marxist training manuals, opens an exercise in revolutionary technique. The answer, to which the student is led by logic and common experience, explains how Communism has been able to take over a third of the world without serious opposition. 

How does one get a cat to eat pepper, a condiment as unpalatable to him as Marxist doctrine is to healthy human nature? The first answer to present itself, says the primer, is obvious: Force open the cat’s jaws and cram the pepper in.

Wrong, the student is told, because the cat’s willing cooperation is lacking. The second answer - to conceal the pepper in a tasty fish - is equally inadequate, because as soon as the cat detects the pepper he simply regurgitates it. 

The correct answer: Sprinkle the pepper all over the cat’s mat. When he lies on it, the pepper will cling to his fur and sting, so that he will soon be licking himself to get it off. This method assures perfect assimilation because (1) the cat is actually ingesting, (2) entirely on his own initiative, (3) and a completely conditioned initiative at that, (4) pepper, which he hates.

On Bishop Peter Doyle and the Queering of Theology

Vatican Radio just released an audio recording of an interview conducted by Philippa Hitchen with Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton, England. While you can listen to the whole recording here, I'd like to focus your attention to a two-minute section of the interview which dealt with so-called "LGBT" issues. The following is a transcript of that section (emphasis mine):

***

Bishop Peter Doyle of Northampton

Vatican Radio (VR): I know that you received correspondence from the LGBT Catholic community in England and Wales sharing their hopes for this Synod with you. What kind of response do you think you can take back to that group?

Bishop Peter Doyle (BD): I have to confess, I'm a little concerned that we don't seem - in the Synod - to have faced up to those issues. So, I'm very concerned for people in that group. It would seem to be that the majority of Synod Fathers are not regarding that as the main issue in their own situation, and the issues have been raised occassionally, but I've been surprised that they've been put into a siding.

VR: Is that because they're too difficult?

BD: I think it's a combination of it being too difficult and also the basic, I suppose, theological anthropology - what I mean by that is that our understanding, from the Scripture, of man and woman... there is no room at the moment for a same-sex relationship. And so, I think they've sort of said - well, they haven't actually said this, but in my heart I wonder if they're saying - "We don't know what to do." Now, that's not going to be very helpful for these good people, and maybe something will come out unexpectedly, but at the moment, it seems to be being parked to one side.

VR: So, a strong sense of denial?

BD: I'm not sure that there's a denial. There may be a denial in some parts of the world, or maybe it's just that they haven't got to that point. I don't think there's a denial in Europe, among the European Bishops or North America, but I just don't think people know what to do or how to respond at the moment.

VR: Would you be wanting to encourage greater theological exploration, as you say, of the anthropology?

BD: Well, I think that has got to happen, hasn't it? I think we can't leave people dangling in the air, and in limbo, and the Lord loves us all, so somehow we've got to find a way of embracing everybody. But it's a real challenge at the moment, and I just don't think we've really begun to deal with it in any serious manner. That would almost need a Synod all it's own, I think. I think it would be really difficult to embrace all these issues that have been brought to us at this Synod now.

***

If that last bit about an "LGTB"-Synod struck you as far-fetched, gentle reader, recall that Bishop Doyle's musings follow immediately upon the heels of Pope Francis' statement that "the journey of synodality is the journey that God wants from his Church in the third millennium" - as if the last 2,000 years of meticulously preserved and vigorously defended orthodoxy were just a warm-up for the heretical free-for-all currently unfolding before us. If they don't get what they want this time around, there's always next year's Synod. It could be a Synod on Technology, and Cardinal Marx & Co. would call for an examination of how advances in medical technology have "deepened" our understanding of the "flexibility" of human sexual identity. A Synod on Geography, you say? Simply unthinkable without discussing the complex tapestry of sexual spaces around the globe. (Think I just made that up? Think again.)

What troubles me most about the Bishop's comments, however, is his openness to a "theological exploration" of an "anthropology" which would "embrace" those in "same-sex relationships". This is Modernist-lingo for "finding a loophole to circumvent the plain and obvious meaning of Sacred Scripture." I suppose we can take some comfort in the fact that they don't feel confident enough to claim outright that Sacred Scripture supports sodomy. But give them time. Can there be any doubt that there is a team of Jesuits working overtime to produce just such a theological abomination?

The Voice of One Crying in the Desert

Pope Francis speaking at the
50th Anniversary of the Synod of Bishops

In his recent address commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis expounded upon the meaning of "synodality" as a "walking together" of the prelature and the laity - a laity which, as Pope Francis repeatedly underscored, is "infallible in matters of faith." That such infallibility is actually predicated upon "acceptance of the Church's teaching on matters of faith and morals, a willingness to follow the commands of God, and courage both to correct one's brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself" went unmentioned by the Holy Father. I suppose mentioning these vital dispositions would automatically render a great deal of the flock voiceless. How many progressives and revolutionaries in the Church actually uphold every de fide doctrine in its true and proper sense? I've yet to meet one. But I digress.

As many of you know, numerous laypersons have been invited by the Synod Fathers to speak as representatives of the "infallible laity" in order to facilitate the "dynamic of listening" (?) so vital to our Catholic Synodal Church. Quite a few of them turned out to be - quelle surprise! - advocates for changing Church discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion. One presentation, however, stands out as a brilliant example of what an authentic sensus fidei compels any God-fearing Catholic to say in the face of this potentially catastrophic Synod: that of Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea, President of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Bucharest, Romania. She made the following presentation to Pope Francis and the gathered Synod Fathers this past Friday, which I highly recommend to all my readers:

***

Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea

Your Holiness, Synod Fathers, Brothers and Sisters, I represent the Association of Catholic Doctors from Bucharest.

I am from the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. My father was a Christian political leader, who was imprisoned by the communists for 17 years. My parents were engaged to marry, but their wedding took place 17 years later. My mother waited all those years for my father, although she didn't even know if he was still alive. They have been heroically faithful to God and to their engagement. Their example shows that God's grace can overcame terrible social circumstances and material poverty.

We, as Catholic doctors, defending life and family, can see this is, first of all, a spiritual battle. Material poverty and consumerism are not the primary cause of the family crisis. The primary cause of the sexual and cultural revolution is ideological.

Our Lady of Fatima has said that Russia’s errors would spread all over the world. It was first done under a violent form, classical Marxism, by killing tens of millions. Now it’s being done mostly by cultural Marxism. There is continuity from Lenin's sex revolution, through Gramsci and the Frankfurt school, to the current-day gay-rights and gender ideology.

Classical Marxism pretended to redesign society, through violent take-over of property. Now the revolution goes deeper; it pretends to redefine family, sex identity and human nature.

This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent’s offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world. It's an error of religious nature, it's Gnosticism. It's the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger.

Seek ye therefore first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

The Church's mission is to save souls. Evil, in this world, comes from sin. Not from income disparity or "climate change". The solution is: Evangelization. Conversion. Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on. What the world needs nowadays is not limitation of freedom, but real freedom, liberation from sin. Salvation.

Our Church was suppressed by the soviet occupation. But none of our 12 bishops betrayed their communion with the Holy Father. Our Church survived thanks to our bishops’ determination and example in resisting prisons and terror. Our bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists.

Now we need Rome to tell the world: "Repent of your sins and turn to God for the Kingdom of Heaven is near".

Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other Christians to resist it.

Vaticanist Confirms Danneel's Ties to St. Gallen Mafia

The German Edition of Catholic News Agency published an interview with Vaticanist Paul Baade today, in which the latter reveals what knowledge he had of the St. Gallen "Mafia-Club" back in 2005, as well as few interesting details regarding the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The relevant section of the interview is posted below in an original Radical Catholic translation (to be updated if CNA puts out their own English translation):

Vaticanist Paul Baade
(Photo: CNA)

CNA: There's a minor scandal brewing in the background [of the Synod on the Family]: Pope Francis invited former Belgian Archbishop Godfried Danneels, who recently admitted before rolling cameras to having belonged to a kind of "Mafia Club" within the Church, to the Synod.

Baade: Correct. I'm not sure whether it's a minor or a major scandal. But it's certainly mysterious. Because it is indeed the case that Cardinal Danneels covered for a Bishop who had abused his nephew. He also pressured - supposedly - King Baudouin to sign into law a proposed bill on abortion, and to be less fussy on the issue. What advice this Cardinal is supposed to be able to give to a Catholic Synod discussing the "vocation and mission of marriage and the family" is a mystery to many, to put it lightly. In regards to the claim he made last month about being a member of some kind of "Mafia" in the College of Cardinals, I can confirm it from personal experience.

CNA: How do you mean that? Did you have information on this beforehand?

Baade: Yes. In April of 2005, I received a reliable tip according to which, a mere three days after the funeral service for John Paul II, Cardinals Martini of Mailand, Lehmann and Kasper of Germany, Bačkis of Lithuania, van Luyn of Holland, Danneels of Belgium and O'Connor of London met in the so-called Villa Nazareth in Rome with the no longer papabile Cardinal Silvestrini in order to formulate together a secret plan to prevent the election of Joseph Ratzinger. I then wrote an article for WELT, published on 17th April, 2005, referring to the meeting and that it violated the directives of the deceased Pope in the 1996 Instruction Universi Dominici Gregis, which laid down new regulations for the order of succession, including the strict directive that no agreements which could influence the outcome of the election were to be made, either befor or during the conclave. Three days later, Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope by a large majority. The retired Cardinal Meisner of Cologne could tell you how, exactly, that came to pass - if it weren't for the order of secrecy regarding all the proceedings of a conclave. But it is no secret that Meisner was, at the time, the most fervent opponent of this group - and especially of Cardinal Danneels. Now, however, it was not him, the old friend of Joseph Raztinger, who was personally invited to the Synod, but rather the equally retired Godfried Danneels, who is six months older than the Archbishop of Cologne. That's a fact.

On Archbishop Myers and Reductio ad Absurdum

As many of you might have read by now, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers recently instructed via official memorandum the Catholics of his diocese to refrain from seeking Communion if they publicly reject Church teaching and from attending events or supporting individuals in opposition to the same. The letter, distributed to priests last Friday, reads as follows:

Archbishop John J. Myers

Principles to Aid in Preserving and Protecting the Catholic Faith in the Midst of an Increasingly Secular Culture

I. The Church will continue to cherish and welcome her members and invite them to participate in her life to the degree that their personal situation permits them honestly to do so. Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments. Non-Catholics and any Catholics who publicly reject Church teaching or discipline, either by public statements or by joining or supporting organizations which do so, are not to receive the Sacraments. They are asked to be honest to themselves and to the Church community.

II. Parishes and other institutions of the Archdiocese should allow use of facilities only to persons and organizations which agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and its canonical legislation or, at least, not oppose them.

III. Catholics, especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at public religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.

September 22, 2015

+Most Reverend John J. Myers

Metropolitan Archbishop of Newark

You can view a copy of the original document here.

Now, much ink is waiting to spilled over this letter - and spilled it will be, rest assured - but I shall leave this to actual journalists better equipped at dealing with the matter in a more fitting and erudite manner. I wish here only to focus on one reaction I ran across while browsing the interwebs: that of Charles Reid, Professor of Canon Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. In a North Jersey newsletter, he is reported to have said:

If Catholics followed the new document to the letter, even a football coach who loudly swears after a close loss or a parent who attends their gay son's wedding would be barred from seeking Communion. And the faithful would have to steer clear of rallies for presidential candidates who disagree with Catholic social doctrine - which includes many Demo­crats, who support abortion rights, and some Republicans, including Governor Christie, a Catholic who supports the death penalty and use of contraception.

In case you missed it, gentle reader, this is supposed to be an example of what's called a reductio ad absurdum or "reduction to absurdity," which is usually accomplished by demonstrating that adopting a given premise would lead - ceteris paribus - to patently absurd results.

Now, if you're like me - and I like to think that you are - chances are good that you find absolutely nothing absurd in the results mentioned by Professor Reid. In fact, they seem like good sense - if not common, then at least possessed of a healthy sensus Catholicus. If you commit a sin, you go to Confession to receive absolution before you go up for Holy Communion. My 8-year-old has this down pat.

The only absurd thing here - besides the fact that Professor Reid has the faculties to teach canon law at a Catholic university bearing the name of St. Thomas Aquinas - is that the good professor finds the idea of barring Catholics, including those who promote contraception and support abortion legislation, from the reception of Holy Communion unthinkable. So unthinkable that he actually uses it do demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum.

Let's review the teaching of the Council of Trent on the subject of receiving Holy Communion worthily:

If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a Sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated. (Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11)

Ouch! A professor of canon law one minute, an excommunicated heretic the next. That's gotta hurt.

Of course, I jest. I don't have the power to declare anyone excommunicated, nor to I wish to see the good professor's immortal soul put into such a deplorable state. But it did get me to thinking....

Perhaps one reason why the progressives always seem to have the upper hand is that the Hegelian dialectic is set up to grind conservative resistance into dust. If the only directional force being exerted is leftward, why be surprised at the continual leftward drift? So, what would happen if we changed things up by proposing something radically conservative - restorationist, even? For example, what would happen if a Cardinal or Bishop at the Synod started proposing that we require penitents to declare their mortal sins publicly before the entire congregation, kneel in the back during the Mass of the Catechumens, and then leave the Church before the start of the Mass of the Faithful? This was a common practice during the early medieval period, after all. If it was good enough for St. Theophilus, it's good enough for us, right? Maybe then the Church's present practice would reveal it's true character: as merciful as possible without overtly condoning sin. Or, conversely, maybe the cilice would make a comeback....

Petition: Synod Walkout

Esteemed Synod Fathers,

We thank you for your witness to and defense of the truth of Matrimony and Family proclaimed by the Church, in fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Ordinary Synod on the Family continues its work, confusion and scandal spread among the faithful. Catholics are concerned that some members of this body of apostolic successors, under the guidance of the Pope, are seeking to endorse homosexual relationships, effectively question the indissolubility of marriage, and permit the distribution of the Holy Eucharist to the unrepentant.

The current Instrumentum Laboris contains language in certain sections (§ 122 (52); §§ 124-125 (53); §§ 130-132 (55-56)) that is completely unacceptable from an orthodox Catholic point of view regarding divorce and attempted remarriage, homosexuality, and contraception. We have witnessed with profound sorrow the ongoing development of this crisis, beginning with last year’s extraordinary session in October, 2014, making it difficult to have confidence in the outcome of the Synod.  

The irregular changes to the rules governing the current synodal process practically assure that the existing Instrumentum Laboris will be largely adopted. This revised process also appears to reject openness, transparency, and collegiality, and the committee drafting the final document of the Synod seemingly rejects any substantive input from the Synod fathers. We note with regret that the highly visible and widely adopted filial appeals and open letters have not been acknowledged, and have produced no discernible amendment by the Synod organizers. Several high-ranking Cardinals have brought concerns to the Pope, only to have them summarily dismissed as unworthy of consideration – with unfair accusations against those who are legitimately concerned that their voices will not be heard.

We fear, evidenced by all of the above, that the Ordinary Synod will attempt to recommend changes in teaching and pastoral practice that are contrary to the Gospel of Christ and the constant teaching of the Church on the sacred mystery of Catholic marriage and the nature of human sexuality. This would pose a clear and present danger to souls.

The Code of Canon Law 212 §3 states that the Catholic faithful “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful…”  

Therefore, we faithfully request that each and every faithful Catholic bishop at the Synod, having made every effort to resist these attacks on Christ’s teaching, if its direction remains unaltered and those faithful voices remain unheard, do his sacred duty and publicly retire from any further participation in the Synod before its conclusion so as to prevent greater scandal and confusion.

Those bishops who remain as participants, accepting this process and its outcome, must certainly bear responsibility for whatever confusion and sin may result among the Catholic faithful from what would be the disastrous fruits of the Synod.

***

To sign the petition, go to: SYNOD WALKOUT at change.org

Synod 2015: 2nd German Language Group Report (English)

Moderator: Card. SCHÖNBORN, O.P. Christoph

Relator: S.E. Mons. KOCH Heiner

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

We extensively discussed the notions - repeatedly understood as opposites - of mercy and truth, grace and justice, and their theological relationship to one another. In God, they are not opposites: because God is love, justice and mercy become one in God. The mercy of God is the fundamental truth of revelation - one which does not stand opposed to other truths of revelation. Rather, it opens to us their deepest foundation, as it tells us why God revealed Himself in His Son and why Jesus Christ remains in His Church through His Word and His Sacraments for our salvation. The mercy of God thus opens to us the foundation and the goal of the entire work of salvation. The justice of God is His mercy, with which He makes us just.

We also considered the consequences of this interplay for our accompaniment of marriages and families. It precludes a one-sided, deductive hermeneutic which subsumes concrete situations under a general principle. According to Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent, fundamental principles are to be applied with prudence and wisdom to the particular, often complex situation - whereby we are concerned not with exceptions to which God's word does not apply, but rather with the question of the fair and equitable application of Jesus' words - for example, His words regarding the indissolubility of marriage - in prudence and wisdom. Thomas Aquinas underscores the necessity of such a concretizing application, for example, where he writes: "To prudence belongs not only the consideration of the reason, but also the application to action, which is the end of the practical reason." (S. Th. II. ii. 47:3: "ad prudentiam pertinet non solum consideratio rationis, sed etiam applicatio ad opus, quae est finis practicae rationis").

Another aspect of our discussion was that spoken of frequently, particularly in the third chapter of the second part, i.e. the gradual leading of people to the Sacrament of Marriage, from non-binding relationships, to cohabiting unmarried couples, to couples married civilly, to those in a valid, sacramental marriage recognized by the Church. To accompany those who find themselves at these various stages is a great pastoral challenge, but also a delight.

It also became clear to us that, in many discussions and observations, we are too static and give the biographical-historical dimension too little thought. Historically, the Church's teaching on marriage has developed and deepened. Initially, it was about humanizing marriage, which manifested in the conviction for monogamy. In the light of the Christian faith, the personal dignity of spouses was better recognized and the imago Dei was clearly perceived in the relationship between husband and wife. In a next step, the ecclesial dimension of marriage was deepened, and it was understood as the domestic church. Finally, the Church became explicitly aware of the sacramentality of marriage. This historic path of deepening is also apparent in the biographies of many individuals today. First, they are touched by the human dimension of marriage; they allow themselves to be convinced of the Christian view of marriage in the habitat [Lebensraum] of the Church and thus find their way to a celebration of the Sacrament of Marriage. Just as the historical development of the ecclesial doctrine required time, so must the Church's pastoral approach allow time for the people of today to mature along their path towards sacramental marriage, and stop acting according the principle of "all or nothing." Here, the notion of a "step-by-step process" (FC §9) towards the present [auf die Gegenwart hin] should be further developed. The foundation for this was laid by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio: "The Church's pastoral concern will not be limited only to the Christian families closest at hand; it will extend its horizons in harmony with the Heart of Christ, and will show itself to be even more lively for families in general and for those families in particular which are in difficult or irregular situations." (FC §65) The Church thus stands in an inescapable field of tension between a necessary clarity of doctrine regarding marriage and family on the one side and the concrete pastoral task of accompanying and convincing those individuals whose lifestyle correspond only partially with the principles of the Church on the other. With these latter, steps should be taken on the way to the fullness of life found in marriage and family as promised in the Gospel of the family.

Here it is necessary to have a pastoral approach oriented to the individual which equally involves both the normativity of doctrine and the personality of each human being, keeping sight of his capacity for conscience and strengthening his responsibility. "For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths." (GS §16)

We request that the final version of the text consider two additional aspects:

Every impression that Sacred Scripture only serves as a source of quotes for dogmatic, legal or ethical convictions should be avoided. The Law of the New Covenant is the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the faithful (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1965-66). The written word is to be integrated into the living word residing via the Holy Spirit in the heart of man. This gives Sacred Scripture a broad spiritual power.

Finally, we have struggled with the concept of "natural marriage." In the history of humanity, the natural marriage is always culturally informed. The term "natural marriage" can imply that there is a natural form of human life without such cultural influence. We therefore suggest the formulation: "that marriage founded in creation" [Die in der Schöpfung begründete Ehe].

[Original language: German]

Germans Ready to Jettison Church Unity

Abbot Jeremias Schröder

At today's Holy See press conference, Abbot Jeremias Schröder, OSB, said the following:

I am from Germany, and it seems to me that, for example, the question of divorced and remarried people - or people who are divorced and who are living again in a stable union with children - is felt very strongly and very broadly in the German Catholic public; it seems to be much less of a concern elsewhere and that seems to an area where maybe regional pastoral solutions could be envisaged. I also have the impression that the understanding of homosexuality - the social acceptance of homosexuality - is culturally very diverse, and that seems to me also to be an area where Bishops' Conferences should be allowed to formulate pastoral responses that are in tune with what can be preached and announced and lived within a given context.

This merely echoes Bishop Franz-Josef Bode's position, as well as Bishop Kurt Koch's remarks to DomRadio.de regarding his expectations for the Synod:

Moreover, I would find it good if the decision in some matters were to be left to the individual Bishops' Conferences. I can't imagine that, given the different perspectives with which I am familiar, all such questions will be answered in Rome. The Vatican is not a pastoral office.

All of this was summarized by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in the German Language Group Report as follows:

I would like to make an additional remark in regards to the perception and evaluation of varying cultural realities. A synodal document must take proper account of respective cultural peculiarities and differences - especially when dealing with elements of today's cultural reality which are ambivalent or problematic from the perspective of the Church. A differentiated analysis and evaluation is absolutely necessary here in order to contribute to a proper and nuanced ecclesiastical-intercultural exchange.

Thus, as many predicted, it seems that the German faction indeed desires "regional pastoral solutions" - "solutions" which will, of course, result in nothing less than the dissolving of Roman Church unity in matters of faith and morals.

Actually, it only makes sense, doesn't it? We've already destroyed the liturgical unity of the Church by the promulgation of a rite which is celebrated differently, not merely from diocese to diocese, but from priest to priest, and - in some cases - from day to day. Why should it be any different in matters of morals?

Right?