They stayed, but did they fight?

I hoped they would stay, but I wonder how hard they really fought.

Regular readers here know that I was somewhat skeptical of the petition being circulated which requested that the good Bishops at the recent Synod simply walk out.  I was not convinced that it was the right move to make though I certainly did not and do not criticize the many good people who did sign it (and indeed they may be proven right).  It occurred to me that the good Bishops should rather stay and fight the hedonists and buggerists who had a dangerous agenda.

In the end they did stay, but judging from the results so far revealed I question how hard they really did fight.  If they did engage in serious battle with the Modernists then the only other conclusion to be drawn is that the majority of the Bishops who attended are ignorant, cowards or worse.  That a substantial majority voted for certain propositions that were unCatholic to their very core suggests that the rot that began to set in to Holy Mother Church in the mid-19th century has reached its near-zenith point and that, barring a miracle, we can expect no help at all from our Church leaders from top to bottom.  With the majority voting for propositions that would have horrified even a Paul VI the Church has now come almost - I say, almost - to the point of no return.

Barring a miracle, of course.

How hard did the good Bishops fight?  We will most likely never know.  Yet indications from some of them show that they still do not seem to realize the gravity of the situation.  Are they then mere "company men", ever unwilling to tell the Emperor he has no clothes? Substantive and Catholic are not words I would use to describe some of the comments by the "conservative" Bishops.  We have all heard and read some of them say things like, "Don't worry.  No doctrine was changed." (I had to laugh at that one.) Can these people be so naive as to think that that matters in the slightest?  As I have written on this blog time and time again, taking my cues from stalwarts like the late Hamish and Anthony Fraser, the villains are very careful not to openly touch doctrine but their ambiguous pronouncements, just like the debacle of Vatican II, leave enough room for all kinds of disastrous practices.  What doctrine was actually changed at Vatican II? None, of course.  But a cursory glance at the Church today shows us a Church that has almost completely turned its back on twenty centuries of teaching and tradition, a Church unrecognizable to anyone who might have suddenly awakened, like Rip Van Winkle, from a 50-year sleep.  So to those who chirp that the Synod did not change any doctrine we extend a hearty horse laugh.  We know perfectly well that the Synod just like the colossally unnecessary Vatican II left enough openings for a coach-and-six to drive through.

Brother Andre Marie asks:

Is the importance of getting a “consensus” greater than transmitting Catholic faith and morals in their integrity? For some of those involved in the recent Synod of Bishops, the answer seems to be Yes. For them, the Synodal process is a political “art of the possible,” and not a meeting of shepherds, spiritual fathers, and physicians of souls, who work for the salvation of those under their care.

It’s as if Heaven and Hell are not real.

What is really at stake here?  Some worried Catholic souls look at this fight for the Church as a mere Left vs Right issue.  The problems confronting us, however, have nothing to do with that false dichotomy.  Let me put it this way: the Devil can use the Right just as easily as he can use the Left.  To characterize what the Church is going through as a Right/Left issue is to miss the crux of the matter.  The spirit animating this rebellion against the Church is obvious to anyone who is paying any attention.  We are dealing with an Angelic Intelligence.  A fallen Angelic Intelligence, but a supremely intelligent force nonetheless.  When God banished Satan from Heaven He didn't remove the angelic gifts that He originally gave him.

Since what we are dealing with are satanic forces pure and simple any attempts to keep our eyes away from that obvious fact should be avoided.  George Neumayer recently wrote his sad take on the Synod, using the Left/Right scenario.  Good article.  Bad observation.  And he is far from the only one who sees it that way.

An example:  the current Pope constantly belittles poor, simple Catholics hanging on to the ancient practice of the Faith.  He is wrong to do this.  It is infantile, vindictive, stupid and, to be honest, laughable.  Is that a Leftist or a Rightist attitude on the Pope's part?  Of course it is neither; it is something else.

Another example: the current Pope, in his usual clumsy manner, speaks out against Capitalism. Leftists cheered when he said this and some Rightists cringed. Neocons like Michael Novak were having the vapors. But the Church's stand with regard to Capitalism, and Communism for that matter, is neither Leftist nor Rightist.  Though he might have said it better he was correct to view Capitalism as a problem simply because it is a problem. Instead of using the opportunity to explain the Church's long-standing opposition to both Capitalism as such (and usury, which Capitalism created) and the Socialism which is its mirror image, he instead blurts out cliches that would make a hippie's heart go aflutter. Instead of promoting Christ's Social Kingship our poorly-educated Pope chose instead tiresome boilerplate.  No wonder the Right was upset and the Left overjoyed.  Had he clearly and unequivocally taught long-standing Church teaching the whole world would have been edified. [NOTE: I am aware that buried in the Pope's notorious recent encyclical there is some sound, traditional Catholic teaching on economics which, though smothered under a mountain of platitudes, does present itself.]

Though the Pope may or may not be a closet Lenin he is most definitely a Modernist and a martinet.  He is also very close to driving his children to despair, and that is something that transcends trite political labels.

Ironically some good may come from this recent Roman jamboree, something that is unexpected. It is emboldening the Church's enemies without....and within.  We will see more mincing churchmen proclaim their perversions.  It is always good to know these sorts of things.  This blog, with its small readership, can not claim to be particularly influential but we are glad to see others are now taking up some of the swords we have taken up.  Most probably it is a case of others coming to the similar conclusions but in any case it is good to see others taking up the cudgels. In particular, this blog has openly asked a few notable prelates if they are homosexuals.  Why not?  It's a fair question given some of their public pronouncements and actions. Recently the ubiquitous Father James Martin of America magazine has been prancing daintily around, noting gleefully that the Synod - and he, of course - will now deal with what he calls "haters".  A pitiful attitude from someone who is clearly troubled inwardly.  What is his trouble?  I'm afraid one look at his photo is more than enough to tell us what his troubles may be and his favorite proclivities are.  This writer has been noting his words and actions for awhile and I would be oblivious indeed if I did not recognize in him what his particular problem so obviously is. Faces, and mostly eyes, tell us much.  Therefore when we glance at a Cupich, a Wuerl, a Rosica, a Schonborn, a Mahony, and look at their eyes, we are justified in forming suspicions.  And their actions....well, actions speak louder than words, don't they?

I am glad that other writers and bloggers are now taking the gloves off and taking a close look at the buggery-pushers among the clergy high and low and asking them point blank if they are homosexuals.  I hope they keep at it. Let us have more full disclosure from the clerical promoters of poofery.

To us ancient ones who have been around that long, miserable block a few times it is also heartening to see the younger ones, the "newbies", if you will, beginning to see through the fog that is modern day Catholicism, making their views known through blogs and even on a few campuses.  I hope that they soon recognize that there is nothing new under the sun; that it has all been done before.  Thus, I hope the new young and aware Catholics see the Synod as a replay, a re-run, of the 1960s in all its smug and noisome euphoria, and in its end result: more dissolution of Catholicism.  Yes, it can be amusing to see some new kids on the block acting as if they were the first to see The Problem, and watching them look down their noses at those of us, the Great Unwashed, who were wandering blindly in the forest for fifty years until they came along to explain at long last how we came to this sorry state (A certain notable internet apostolate comes to mind.  Come to think of it, more than one comes to mind.).  One day they too will be older and will no doubt be confronted with their own newbies who will react the same way. This. however, is but a minor irritation and one we "aged parents" can easily forgive. After all, they are new soldiers who are badly needed reinforcements on the battlefield.

Soldiers old and new will now have to confront those Synod fathers, the noble ones and the destructive ones, who did so much to bring more potential ruin on the one, true Faith.  I had hoped that those who stayed would have had the fortitude to face the facts.  Amazing that it took a dignitary of the Orthodox Church in Russia to try to talk some sense into them.  His efforts as other blogs have pointed out did more good than most of the so-called Catholic Bishops there. Is that not truly astounding?  We wonder if anyone has realized the significance of this, on all its levels.

In addition to the Russian Orthodox churchman the only other calm, reasoned and forthright - more forthright than even Cardinal Burke - voice to comment on the Synod was from Bishop Fellay of the Society of St Pius X.  Having read with care his analysis I can find nothing in it that one could object to in the least.  If one hadn't known who wrote this analysis one would have believed it to be the voice of a great Pope of the past.  Has anyone thought about the significance of that, we wonder.

Did anything even remotely close to what Fellay said get stated at the Synod?  Unfortunately, we have to doubt it.

If recent history is anything to judge by, the fruits of the Synod, and the fruits in the Synod, will offer more of the same poison that has left the Catholic Church battered and bleeding for nearly half a century.  And, Oh how sick we are of that.



UPDATE: Roberto de Mattei has a few thoughts on the debacle: