The work the synod is not doing and the evil of Pope Francis

One group of people who neither the synodal heretics in Rome nor the New Fagophiles at First Things give a damn about are Catholic parents, those of us trying to raise our children with a healthy understanding of sex roles and marriage in a world now actively hostile to such an understanding.  In a sane world, a Catholic meeting on the family would be devoted entirely to developing strategies to help us out.  Because, quite frankly, this is the single most important battle front of them all; if the Church exists at all in another generation, it will be because a few of us somehow succeed.  Making mortal sinners feel welcome and not “discriminated against” will do nothing (good) for the Church or for the souls of those appeased.  Pandering to the world will buy popularity for those prelates who do it, but it will buy no respite for the Church herself, whom the world knows it must destroy, because so long as she lives she will always be a potential nucleus of resistance to this world and its prince.

It would be wrong to say just that the hierarchy are doing nothing to help Catholic families.  They are in fact doing immeasurable harm.  They have stabbed us in the back.  They are actively helping perverts to corrupt our children and drag them down to hell with them.  I would rather have a child of mine exposed to pornography than to their documents.  And no one has done more evil, has whored himself to Satan more shamelessly, than that monstrosity of vanity, that filthy-minded cretin, that walking blasphemy, Pope Francis I.  He is responsible for this travesty.  He called the Synod, organized it, stacked heretics in all the key positions.  Rorate Caeli has called Monday’s report “the most embarrassing document in all of Catholic history“, which will presumably be true for a week, before the Synod has time to conclude with something even more egregious.  It’s no longer possible to claim that we’re just being misled by the media.  The mass media is itself intrinsically evil, as I’ve argued many times before, but when they now say that the Church is signalling an opening to remarriages and homosexual unions, they’re speaking the plain truth.  It’s Francis himself and the bishops who serve him who are the enemy.

21 Responses

  1. It isn’t just parents trying to raise Christian kids that they hate. They hate all of us who have struggled in ‘irregular situations’ and counted on the Church for support. They hate the very people to whom they pretend to extend ‘mercy’.

  2. In fairness, a ton of Synod fathers are calling foul on the Relatio, including Card. Muller, who called it “shameful” and “undignified” practically to Francis’ face just the other day. The offending passages appear to have been snuck in there by philosodomite Abp. Forte, one of the cronies Francis stuffed onto the preparatory commission after the Synod fathers voted to fill it with his fiercest opponents.

  3. Well said! Have you ever read the essay “The Forgotten Man” by William Graham Sumner? It’s social Darwinism with an attitude, but his basic point parallels yours. The hard-luck cases soak up all the pity of the world and schmos are left to look after themselves. So the Church will now be a little more welcoming to the minority who are in irregular relationships, and a little less helpful to the majority who are trying to steer their children away from irregular relationships.

    I was thinking along similar lines today after reading about the transgender-freindly ordinance ending single-sex public washrooms in Houston, Texas. In order to protect the feelings of a tiny minority, a far greater number of women and girls will have their feelings outraged by finding creepy men lurking in what used to be known as the ladies’ room. For this to pass even utilitarian logic, the utility to the transgendered man must exceed the disutility of hundreds of girls and women each year. But no one cares about disutility spread to hundreds of ordinary girls and women because they are just schmos who will have to deal with it as best they can.

    Looking around the congregation at mass on a Sunday morning, I can see some couples who I suspect are homosexual, although they may be chaste for all know, or only good friends. That’s none of my business. They are made as welcome as anyone else, so far as I can see, so long as they don’t demand that their sins not be denounced as sins. If the homilies are to be anything more than fifteen minutes of wind, we should all expect to hear our sins denounced from time to time. Just last week we had some wince-inducing words on intemperance, as well we should have. Intemperate Catholics are not proud of their intemperance, and even if not stunned with shame, properly yield to the majority when it comes to public pronouncements on the question.

    It’s also true that one cannot reduce the shame attached to a sin without simultaneously reducing the glory of resisting that sin. You can’t give esteem to the divorced couples without taking it away from the couples who have managed, sometimes with great difficulty, not to divorce.

  4. JMSmith — I was reflecting earlier today on some of the bad homilies I’ve heard in my time as a Catholic. It occurred to me that I’ve heard about 4-5 homilies on how evil the bad old days of preconciliar liturgy were and exactly 0 homilies on the evils of sodomy.

    Which means sodomites are literally infinitely more welcome than me, a traditionalist Catholic, in at least the average central Texan parish.

  5. > Have you ever read the essay “The Forgotten Man”
    I envy your familiarity with all these sources. I get by on this blog knowing barely more than my readers (and sometimes much less).

  6. Proph@ I, too, have yet to hear sodomy denounced from the pulpit. Some of this omission may be owing to the fact that there are children in the pews who might be prompted to ask awkward questions at the Sunday dinner table. Some of it may be owing to the fact that it is not the most prevalent sin in our parish (not that the most prevalent sin, whatever it may be, is routinely denounced). And, no doubt, some of it is owing to a desire to be welcoming to this particular brand of (unrepentant) sinner.

    Bonald@ I envy your familiarity with physics and astronomy. We all can appear to be well read, provided we keep the conversation focused on topics in which we are well read.

  7. One of our permanent deacons gave a homily this past Sunday which was substantially composed of his reading lengthy excerpts from Humanae Vitae Afterwards a woman was berating him for this, not “because [she doesn’t] agree that it is the truth,” but because there were children present for whom hearing such things was or could be disturbing. I waited around until she had finished in order to offer praise to him for his fortitude in giving the homily, which I expressed as entirely appropriate even with my four young children in hearing.

    I can’t think of any sins that wouldn’t be appropriate to denounce from the pulpit regardless of ages present. There is no need for the homilist to go into detail of the hideousness of the acts, and if unknown terms used prompt children to ask questions, seems a parent should be able simply to say that the subject is one that you need to wait until later in life to know about, and leave it at that. I’ve done this many times with my children already.

  8. Wow. Strong words, Bonald.

    In related news, Cardinal Kasper apparently made “unbelievably racist and xenophobic” remarks about Africans consisting of things like “But they should not tell us too much what we have to do.”

  9. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Francis calls for a synod on Christology next. Many bishops will say, “We must cherish the Arian faith, and find ways to welcome the many contributions Arians can make to the life of the Church.”

  10. “and drag [others] down to hell with them”

    People throw around that sort of phrase and every time I hear it I have a massive attack of Ivan Karamazov theology in my bloodstream.

    In short: If, say, a priest ‘drags people down to hell’, but then repents later in life, will the priest’s victims (including those already dead) get dragged back out of hell? Or were they never in hell in the first place because God knew ahead of time it was all the priest’s fault? If neither is the case, wouldn’t it be wrong for God to forgive that priest, no matter how sincere the repentance?

  11. It seems to me that it’s never all the priest’s fault. Receiving scandal is a sin. No one can literally drag me down to hell, but he can tempt me and support my tendency to sin. This is especially wicked if it is done by a shepherd of souls.
    I don’t see how forgiving the sin of scandal is more wrong (unjust) than forgiving any other sin. The injury persists after absolution, e.g. the sin of murder. The victim is still dead, and perhaps was murdered while in mortal sin, and will suffer eternally, even though his killer repents and is absolved.
    I think ‘dragging souls to hell’ is a metaphor, which must sacrifice theological precision for literary effect.

  12. “I think ‘dragging souls to hell’ is a metaphor, which must sacrifice theological precision for literary effect.”

    Well, if you think that ‘dragging souls to hell’ is impossible, but is perfectly fine to use as a metaphor, it happens to be a metaphor that sacrifices so much theological precision that seeing it used makes me doubt I can trust anything a traditionalist blogger says about Catholic doctrine. What other convenient heresies can you utter and then turn around and just say I was doing so for ‘literary effect’?

    Then again, I think this understanding of scandal is the weak point of the entire Catholic traditionalist view on the current state of the clergy. If the statements by Pope Francis and various bishops are not actually _causing_ anyone to choose sin rather than righteousness, and cannot do so in principle, why do you care at all about what they’re doing?

  13. Sorry, was halfway through editing one sentence in the last comment. That should read either

    “What other convenient heresies can I utter and then turn around and say I was doing so for literary effect?”


    “What other convenient heresies can you utter and then turn around and say you were doing so for literary effect?”

  14. No one has ever been dragged to Hell kicking and screaming, but neither has anyone ever gone to Hell without some help. And when the person providing the help speaks with the voice of Authority, the metaphor of dragging may not be altogether wrong. If my low-life brother-in-law encourages me to use heroin, and I do in fact become an addict, his encouragement merely helped me into that condition. If my physician gives me a prescription for heroin, we could say that his prescription “dragged” me into addiction. It’s still my fault. I could have thrown the prescription in the trash. But my physician would have been more culpable than by brother-in-law would have been.

    Of course we should mention here the important Catholic doctrines of invincible and culpable ignorance. In the case above I would be blameless if I did not know, and had no way of knowing, that use of heroin was harmful and at the very least conducive to sin. However, if my ignorance was the result of my negligence or deliberate avoidance if the truth, I am still culpable. So a lying pastor cannot “drag me to Hell” with false teachings on matters about which I am invincibly ignorant, since when such is the case I am not damned. Nor can he actually drag me in cases where I am culpably ignorant, but he can sure provide plenty of help.

  15. To the extent that St. Francis Xavier helped people get to heaven, Cardinal Kasper is helping them get to hell. The heretic and his follower both contribute to the heretic’s damnation, and both contributions are consistent with the soul’s reprobation from eternity.

  16. No one has ever been dragged to Hell kicking and screaming

    I think unbaptized babies are probably kicking and screaming on their way to Hell. Can’t imagine they are happy about it.

  17. If the statements by Pope Francis and various bishops are not actually _causing_ anyone to choose sin rather than righteousness, and cannot do so in principle, why do you care at all about what they’re doing?

    It seems, by these words of Jesus Christ, that statements (or any actions) can encourage others to sin.

    “But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. [7] Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.” (Matthew 18:6-7)

  18. Marissa @ I think it may be significant that Christ’s anathema against scandal was said with direct reference to children. A false teacher can lead a child to sin because the child does not, and in fact could not, know better. The child is in a state of invincible ignorance, and may well represent all those persons who, for whatever reason, are in a state of invincible ignorance. It’s harder for an adult to make the excuse that he was mislead by scandal, because he could have known better and he should have known better.

    If a medieval peasant was mislead into sin by a heretical priest, we may suppose that he would be forgiven on the basis of his invincible ignorance. This excuse is available for fewer and fewer people nowadays, although many of us may be trying to hide from knowledge of our sins in vincible ignorance.

  19. The hell of the unbaptized infants is not the hell of the damned.

    Most people are able to understand that “dragging souls etc. ” is a metaphor. Some literal minded people completely misunderstand what is plane to the rest of us. They are like the tone deaf, the color blind, or the humorless. It’s not their fault.

  20. JMSmith, it is true that adults have a duty to learn what they can about morality according to the best of their ability. However, the passage is not limited to literal children. Only a few verses before 18:6 Jesus tells his disciples to “become like children” and humble themselves like a child. The Catechism in 2284-2287 also doesn’t limit the passage to literal children.

  21. I agree that the relevance of the passage isn’t limited to actual children. I take children to be a symbol representing the innocent in general, and also the simple. Corruption of the innocent and the simple is an especially wicked form of wickedness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: