Thomas Gallatin asks: Is the Pope Catholic?

The following essay by Thomas Gallatin* appeared in The Patriot Post today, 12/11/23. Walt hopes the author won't mind our passing it along. 

Trust demands consistency, yet what has come out of the Vatican recently is anything but consistent. Indeed, much of the confusion is due to the pontiff himself, as Pope Francis has repeatedly made statements that appear to challenge long-held church doctrine.

The issues most concerning to many Catholics are those surrounding the ongoing sexual revolution that has effectively taken over the whole of western culture and is now proliferating throughout the Christian church, both Protestant and Catholic. 

Recently, five conservative cardinals from five continents sent five questions to Francis seeking clarification. These formal questions, known as “dubai,” [sic - should be "dubia". Walt] Latin for “doubts,” included a question on liberal priests, predominately in Germany, giving blessings to same-sex couples. 

According to church doctrine, marriage is only between one man and one woman, in accordance with God’s intended design for marriage. Anything that deviates from this God-given design is viewed as sinful, and in the case of homosexuality, disordered. Therefore, since the church does not bless sin, and since homosexual relationships are recognized by the church as sinful, how can priests issue blessings to inherently sinful unions?

Francis responded to the question by reiterating church doctrine. Marriage is an “exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to conceiving children,” he said. “For this reason, the Church avoids all kinds of rites or sacramentals that could contradict this conviction and imply that it is recognizing as a marriage something that is not.”

However, rather than leave it there, Francis proceeded to muddy the waters. Concern for pastoral charity requires a “defense of the objective truth,” but that “is not the only expression of that charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, encouragement,” he said. 

"For that reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern if there are forms of blessing, solicited by one or various persons, that don’t transmit a mistaken concept of marriage."

In other words, Francis will not rebuke priests who have been blessing same-sex unions, while at the same time claiming to uphold the church’s doctrine. The problem is that just two years ago, Francis was explicit on the issue, denying that same-sex unions were permissible. Now he’s says that “pastoral charity should permeate all our decisions and attitudes” and that “we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”

If anything, it appears that Francis is trying to have it both ways. He’s clearly gotten soft on the issue, and appears frustrated by the conservative faction of the church, that keeps pressing for clarity and consistency with long-established doctrine. In short, the conservatives want the church’s practice to match its orthodoxy.

And this is where the rub is. According to recent reporting, Francis criticized the U.S. church for developing “a very strong, organized, reactionary attitude,” which he called “backward.” “Doing this,” he warned, “you lose the true tradition and you turn to ideologies to have support. In other words, ideologies replace faith. The vision of the doctrine of the church as a monolith is wrong. When you go backward, you make something closed off, disconnected from the roots of the church."

So, in an apparent effort to reinforce his views, the Vatican is holding a “Synod on Synodality” this week. National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty contends, “The aim of the Synod, rather plainly, is for a large group of bishops [led by the Vatican's "lavender Mafia" - Walt] to debate each other about survey material they guided some small number of lay Catholics through in their home diocese, and whether this pile of papers gives sufficient cover for the pope to begin chucking certain moral and dogmatic teachings of the church overboard in favor of newer understandings.”

He adds that Francis is “basically … going to ask a bunch of bishops to write up a document showing that the church in general has come to a new understanding of itself.” There is a clear divide developing in the Catholic Church, with the current pontiff siding with the liberal faction. One wonders how the church will bridge this growing theological gap. And this is no shallow ditch, but a deep crevasse.

*Thomas Gallatin is a history teacher and a staff analyst at The Patriot Post.

Hiring based on merit "not really helpful to diversity”, sez prof

A long time ago in a Ford Galaxy far away, one of Walt's agents went to school with a chap named (((Alan Lenczner))). "Black Al", as he was known to his classmates, was an early champion of equal rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriage and diversity in all its other forms. [A loaded phrase, that. Ed.] He is also a first-class litigator, and founder of the Toronto law firm Lenczner Slaght.

The SJWs at Lenczner Slaght have decided, a bit belatedly, to jump on the "blind hiring" bandwagon, and recently sent out a self-congratulatory press release celebrating their enlightenment.

The ultra-PC goal of blind hiring is to judge potential hires exclusively on their abilities. No personal information about the candidate is to be considered, so anything that might identify candidates by gender, race, ethnicity, nationality or virtually anything is carefully scrubbed from their résumés.

Lenczner Slaght plans to remove every name from every résumé submitted as part of its 2019 summer student hiring process. Partner Shara Roy says that should prevent unconscious bias from seeping into hiring decisions and knocking white women and men and women of colour out of the running on the basis of non-white and non-male sounding names. "It’s not a magic bullet," she says, but is the firm's way of "trying to translate diversity within law schools into diversity on Bay Street." And it's a good bit of virtue signalling, as well.

But does it work?Does name-blind hiring make it easier or harder to diversify industries dominated by white people? Professor Eddy Ng, of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, says the answer isn't that simple. "Name-blind hiring only works if you have implicit bias." In other words, if you're pure and righteous, colour-blind and gender-blind, it doesn't make any difference.

And there's an unintended consequence. If you're into affirmative action, not knowing the name, gender, race etc of applicants can defeat your efforts to put straight white males at the bottom of the totem pole. In 2017 the Liberal government of Canuckistan tried concealing personal information — name, citizenship, phone number, address, languages spoken, religious references, and educational institution — on job applications, and found fewer people of colour actually made it through the first screening round than when that information was front and centre.

That's where you have to really know why you're using it, says the good professor: Do you want to diversify or do you want to counter implicit bias? There's a risk of people using it to legitimize their hiring process without actually diversifying, he adds. "They can say, 'Hey look, we keep hiring certain groups of people but it's not our fault because we went through this process where we treated everybody fairly. It's sort of like hiring in the dark. You're hiring essentially based on merit and that's not really helpful to diversity."

I, Walt, added the emphasis to that last sentence. When it comes to treating people fairly in today's politically correct world, that's all ye know and all ye need to know.

VIDEO: Tanya Granic Allen dumped by Ontario "Conservatives"

Walt is dismayed -- make that pissed off in the extreme -- to have to report that the oxymoronical Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and its newly-minted leader, Doug Ford, have caved to PC [not "Progressive Conservative" but "political correctness". Ed.] police and won't allow Tanya Granic Allen to run under the PC [not "politically corect" but "Progressive Conservative". Ed.] banner in June's provincial election.

The announcement comes after the Liberal Party of Ontario -- led by proud-to-be-lesbian Kathleen Wynne -- issued a news release Saturday afternoon, citing a 2014 video of Mrs Granic Allen criticizing sex education and gay marriage. Here's the clip from Toronto's CityNews.



If you didn't hear clearly, Mrs Granic said, in a speech at a Croatian-Catholic Youth weekend conference, "You know, now what I hear about Hrvatska (Croatia) trying to push radical sexual education on the young or gay marriage you know I almost vomit in disbelief. Just 20 years ago we were liberated from this communism but now we are embracing these lack of values, these lack of ideals."

In a statement posted to her Twitter page, the only true Christian conservative in the field said she was disappointed that she had been declared no longer a candidate, and will have more to say about the decision and Ontario politics in the near future. Walt will be listening!

For now, I withdraw my endorsement of Doug Ford and his PC ["Progressive Conservative" and now "politically correct" too! Ed.] Party. To get back in my good books, Mr Ford needs to ignore left-wing identity politics and address the wants and needs of the silent majority of Ontarians (outside the GTA). Trying to win over the elites of Toronto could cost him a majority, perhaps the entire election.

Further reading (added 8/5/18): "How much more abuse can Canadian social conservatives take?", by Chris Selley, in the National Post, today.

VIDEO: British MP speaks clearly vs abortion, same-sex "marriage"

Last week, in a piece headed "The pinstriped populist", The Economist 's "Bagehot" opined that the selection of Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative member of the British Parliament, as his party's next leader (once Theresa May is defenestrated) would be a "calamity".

What is it that the ancient "newspaper" (as it still styles itself) has against Mr Rees-Mogg? Apparently they don't like him because he is rich, upper-class, conservative in matters both economic and social, and a practising Roman Catholic. Even with all those millstones around his neck, Bagehot fears that he has the "Moggmentum" to succeed Mrs May and lead his party into the next election. If he does, Bagehot asserts, the Tories would be wiped out because everyone knows there is no alternative to the liberal, secular humanist policies which have proven so successful in the AABC countries for over half a century.

Among other epithets, Bagehot calls Mr Rees-Mogg "eccentric". This would appear to be because, unlike most politicians, Mr Rees-Mogg is unafraid to state his opinions, however at variance they may be with the "conventional wisdom" or politically correct thinking. Case in point, an interview given early last September to ITV's Good Morning Britain in which the MP confounded the interviewers by stating, clearly and calmly, his opinions that (a) life begins at the point of conception, making abortion for whatever reason wrong, and (b) marriage is a sacrament and "the view of what marriage is is taken by the church, not parliament." Here's the clip.



For this precious minute alone, Jacob Rees-Mogg deserves (IMHO) the Order of Saint Thomas More... and if there isn't such a thing, there should be! If only Pope Francis would speak so clearly, and with such high regard for the tenets of the True Faith!

How will Christians explain support for "gay marriage" to Jesus?

Let's start with a quick review of traditional Judeo-Christian teachings on homosexuality, as found in both the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible. The Good Book -- doesn't matter whether you consult the Douay-Rheims Version or the King James Version -- condemns homosexuality as clearly and plainly as it condemns murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying, idolatry and other grave sins. For chapter and version, see "Homosexuality condemned in the Word of God", WWW 9/7/09.

Sheikh Ahmed al Tayyab is the Grand Imam of Egypt's Al Azhar University, the world's leading institution of Sunni Islam. As a theologian, he has read the Bible as well as the Qu'ran. Speaking during a visit to Indonesia this week, he asked how Christian leaders who accept same-sex "marriage" will explain their position to Jesus Christ, should they be not to be sent to Hell without being given a chance to defend themselves.

Sheik al Tayyab didn't say that last part. I did. According to Agenzia Fides News, what the Grand Imam said was, "Unfortunately some Heads of Churches in the United States accept same-sex marriages. I wonder what is left of the Bible in those Churches. And what will they say in front of Jesus, peace be upon him."

The Muslim cleric was referring to "churches" such as the Presbyterian Church USA, which has recently changed its internal statutes in order to recognize same-sex "marriages". The world awaits the Presbyterian leaaders' response. So far all we hear is crickets.

Footnote: The self-styled Christian minister on the left in the picture, waving to the pro-LGBTQ2S crowds at Toronto's "Gay Pride Parade" a couple of years ago, is none other than the "Rev." Brent "Chicken" Hawkes, the presbyter of Metropolitan Community Church, "a vibrant, inclusive and progressive church, where all are welcome to attend." Mr. Hawkes presided over Canada's first gay wedding in 2001, four years before the Canadian government legalized "gay marriage". For this and other pro-queer activities, he received the Order of Canada.

But according to Nova Scotia police, Mr. Hawkes' doesn't just support homosexuals from the sidelines. Earlier this month he was charged with sexual assault of a male, an offence which allegedly occurred some 40 years ago. The old bugger has been charged with offences from that era’s Criminal Code: indecent assault on a male and gross indecency. He is to appear in court in Kentville NS on April 13th. Click here for details from the Toronto Star.

The SPLC hates Judge Roy Moore... because he's RIGHT!

You might not think it from their altruistic-sounding name, but the Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group! What they hate with consuming passion is intolerance. Make that religious intolerance. More accurately, they hate Christian intolerance, since they rarely inveigh against Islamic fanatacism or (Gott in Himmel!) Zionism.

Can you be more specific (I hear you ask) about who the SPLC hates? Why sure. According to Wikipedia, the SPLC recently counted 784 American societies, churches and organizations that it describes as "active hate groups". These included:
72 separate Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups with 52 websites
142 neo-Nazi groups with 89 websites
115 white nationalist groups with 190 websites
119 white power skinhead groups with 25 websites
21 Christian Identity groups with 37 websites
37 neo-Confederate groups with 25 websites
113 black separatist groups with 40 websites
165 general hate groups (subdivided into anti-gay, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic and others)with 172 hate websites.

So let's see... If the SPLC is against groups which are anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, etc., then they must be for queers, immigrants, Muslims, etc... right? And if they're against "Christian Identity" groups, who are they for? That would be a good question to ask their CEO, Richard Cohen.

The "Christian Identity groups" most often targeted by the SPLC are evangelical Protestants and "radical traditional Catholic" groups. High on their fecal roster are Catholic Family News/Catholic Family Ministries, The Fatima Crusader/International Fatima Rosary Crusade, and The Remnant/The Remnant Press, all of which Walt endorses whole-heartedly. [WWW didn't make the list though. Maybe Walt isn't as widely read as we like to think. Ed.]

The SPLC doesn't restrict its hate to groups. They routinely indulge in ad hominem attacks against named individuals including Michael Matt (see "Further viewing" below), John Vennari, Rush Limbaugh and the late Father Nicholas Gruner+. Since these individuals have all expressed disappointment (to put it mildly) with Pope Francis, you might think the SPLC is pro-Pope, but you would be wrong.

The SPLC doesn't restrict its scurrilous attacks to Catholics. Evangelic Protestants are pilloried for their fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and particularly their insistence that the United States of America was created as, and should remain a Christian nation -- "one nation under God".

Their primary target at the moment is the Hon. Roy Moore, Chief Justice of Alabama. Judge Moore, who has the temerity to wear Christian symbols on his lapel and signet ring, won fame (or notoriety) for three actions he took while serving as a circuit judge.

He posted a hand-carved wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments in his court room, opened court sessions with prayers led by a local clergyman, and later installed a granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. For those acts, and for telling supporters at a rally in Tennessee that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that Christians should "take back our land", Judge Moore was removed from the bench in 2003. He was reinstated in 2012.

Now, from his position as Alabama's chief justice, Judge Moore is leading the fight against gay "marriage". On January 6th he instructed the state's probate judges not to grant marriage licences to same-sex couples. He argues that a prohibition of the Alabama Supreme Court last year remains in effect, despite a recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, because the USSC ruling involved four states other than Alabama.

Judge Moore has described homosexuality as "an inherent evil". Gay "marriage", he says, means "the destruction of the foundation of our country."

Richard Cohen, CEO of the SPLC, replies by calling the jurist "the Ayatollah of Alabama" and says his reasoning is "completely deceptive and legally bogus". Judge Moore's comment? "When you stand up for the truth these days, you are going to be attacked."

This week's Economist quotes Judge Moore as saying America was founded on "the God of the Holy Scriptures", and that those whose beliefs are contrary to God's laws live and worship in the USA on sufferance. He invokes Thomas Jefferson in holding that the religious freedom of Christians is granted by God, not by government. Thus, he says, social change, such as recognition of gay "marriage", "is not to be dictated by a court."

Millions of Americans agree with Judge Moore that their country's precepts have been forsake, and its greatness lost. That is why Donald Trump's slogan -- "Make America great again!" -- is resonating so strongly in Iowa, New Hampshire and America's heartland. And that's why the SPLC hates Judge Roy Moore.

Further VIEWING (Yes, it's a video!): "Michael Matt talks about the worldwide persecution of Christians, Vatican II and the victory of relativism", WWW 15/9/13.

New Canuck PM to have a little talk with Archbishop of Ottawa about what it means to be a Catholic

When Ed. told you on Sunday that I would be in Canada for the federal election on 19/10, he described two of the parties' leaders -- Justin Trudeau (Liberal) and Tom Mulcair (NDP) as "cafeteria Catholics". Some readers may think we (Ed. and I) are being judgmental. Others may have no idea what we're talking about. I will explain.

To be a practising Roman Catholic means more than just being baptized and calling yourself Catholic when the census-taker knocks at the door. [Do they still do that? Ed.] It means accepting and applying the teachings and commandments of Holy Mother Church in one's day-to-day life. Not just on Sunday, but every day.

When I say "the teachings and commandments", I mean all of them. You can't pick and choose, as you would in a cafeteria. That means you can't be a good Catholic and go along with the secular humanist orthodoxies of the modern age. Some ideas and acts which are now acceptable to society at large are simply wrong -- sinful -- for Catholics.

Abortion is wrong. Artificial birth control is wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. Same-sex "marriages" are wrong. Receiving Holy Communion or other Sacraments is wrong for Catholics who have remarried after being divorced.

That means that faithful -- full of Faith -- Catholics are almost by definition social conservatives. All those wrong are more or less permissible for the majority of "Christians", as well as non-believers. But there is one wrong which is dear to the hearts of a lot of social conservatives. That's capital punishment, which is a sin, condemned by God in the Fifth Commandment.

Yet there are political leaders of all stripes, in North America and Europe, who call themselves Catholics but ignore the commandments of God and His Church. One such is Justin Trudeau, the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada.

M Trudeau is nothing if not "progressive". As such, he supports abortion on demand, LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, the whole lot. (He's against capital punishment though.) Yet he goes to church every now and then, and receives Holy Communion. Whether he commits a mortal sin by so doing is not for me to judge. But Most Rev. Christian Riesbeck, Auxillary Bishop of Ottawa, has suggested that M Trudeau could be denied communion for his public stance on abortion.

The Church’s Code of Canon Law states (Canon 915) that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." On May 23rd, Bishop Riesbeck told LifeSiteNews, "Out of concern for safeguarding the reverence that is due Our Lord in the Eucharist, and to avoid scandal, one could possibly apply this norm even in the case of a pro-abortion Catholic politician who is extremely vocal about his position."

Now that he is the Prime Minister-designate, M Trudeau says that he is hopes to speak soon with Bishop Riesbeck's boss, Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, to clarify the implications of his public stance in favour of legal abortion.
Bishop Riesbeck's remarks in May were prompted by M Trudeau's declaration that all Liberal candidates must support access to legal abortion, regardless of their own beliefs on the matter. A day or so later, Abp. Prendergast told the Catholic Register that he would not refuse Trudeau Holy Communion without first having met with him.

The CBC reports that a date for the PM's meeting with Abp. Prendergast has yet to be established. They do not say whether the meeting will take place in the prelate's office or in the confessional.

Further reading: "Justin Trudeau 'looks forward' to meeting with Ottawa archbishop about receiving Communion"

Abp. Chaput feels "sense of hopelessness" about Synod on Family

As Walt told you a few days ago, there's a strong feeling that the fix is in at the 2015 Bishops Synod on the Family, in progress (???) at the Vatican this month. It is clear that, in spite of the opposition of bishops from America, Asia and Africa, the Pope and the Gay Mafia in the highest echelons of the Roman Catholic Church are determined to water down the traditional teachings of the Church on divorce, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, homosexuality and same-sex "marriage".

One of those battling for adherence to the Faith of our fathers is Philadelphia's Archbishop Charles Chaput. Earlier this week, in his address to the Pope and the bishops assembled, the prelate said that the Instrumentum Laboris (working document) for the Synod "engenders a subtle hopelessness".

The document, published by the Synod's general secretary, Cardinal Baldisseri, as a "guide" to the bishops' deliberations, has been criticized by many of the prelates. Abp. Chaput told the assembly that it fails to inspire a sense of Christian hope. Moreover, the Instrumentum does not convey confidence that Catholics, with the help of grace, can resist the pressures that are undermining marriage and family life. He continued:

This leads to a spirit of compromise with certain sinful patterns of life and the reduction of Christian truths about marriage and sexuality to a set of beautiful ideals, which then leads to surrendering the redemptive mission of the Church. The work of this synod needs to show much more confidence in the Word of God, the transformative power of grace, and the ability of people to actually live what the Church believes. And it should honor the heroism of abandoned spouses who remain faithful to their vows and the teaching of the Church.

Responding to a question about the demand for a Synod message that will make all people (read: not only divorced Catholics but the LGBT crowd whose lifestyle is objectively disordered) feel welcome in the Church, Abp. Chaput said that the need for attractive language must be balanced against the demand for truth. "We have to be careful with our language so that people don't get hurt, but also we must be faithful to Church doctrine."

Click here to read the full text of Abp. Chaput's address to the Holy Father and the Synod, on RNS (Religion News Service)

Further reading: "Synod. First Shot on Target Comes From the Conservatives", but the "progessive" innovators are already on the counter-attack, and counting on the support of the Pope. Sandro Magister in Chiesa, 8/10/15.

Conservative bishops strike first at Synod on the Family

Agent 10 has gone straight! Straight from Washington to Rome, that is, to be there in person while the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church deliberate on the family, marriage and sexuality in the 2015 edition of their synod. He shares Walt's opinion that the Pope's fix is in, but takes some hope in signs that the "conservative" bishops intend to go down fighting.

One such was an address Monday morning by Peter Cardinal Erdo, of Budapest, who, in summarizing the main themes of the "Instrumentum Laboris" (Working Document", came out strongly in support of the traditional teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality. The prelate stated that Catholics who are divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Communion as long as they remain in a second conjugal union. He also rejected the idea that homosexual relationships can be treated as similar to marriages.

Cardinal Erdo’s speech placed him squarely in opposition to the "Kasper proposal" -- generally thought to have the backing of (if it wasn't written by) Pope Francis and the Synod Secretary, Cardinal Baldisseri -- which puts forward a rationalization for admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, and advocates a "positive attitude" toward homosexual unions.

Noting that the Synod is taking place at a time when society is experiencing a "flight from institutions", Cardinal Erdo insisted on the duty of the Church to uphold the indissolubility of sacramental marriage. He said that while the Church must show mercy to people whose marriages have failed, the acceptance of Christ's mercy demands conversion.

In the case of Catholics who have entered into a second marriage, the prelate went on, the rule barring reception of the Eucharist is not an arbitrary prohibition but a recognition of the objective truth that their living arrangement is contrary to the Gospel. While divorced and remarried Catholics should be encouraged to take an active role in the life of the Church, he added, "that is different from admission to the Eucharist."

Regarding homosexual relationships, Cardinal Erdo said that it is wrong to suggest that same-sex unions are comparable to marriages. "There is no basis for comparing or making analogies, even remotely, between homosexual unions and God’s plan for matrimony and the family."

Cardinal Erdo also cautioned against acceptance of the calls from the "progressives" for "gradualism" in pastoral practice -- the suggestion that Catholic pastors could accept couples living in irregular unions, while hoping to guide them into a fuller acceptance of Church teaching. "Between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, there is no law of gradualism."

For that reason, the Cardinal told reporters in a press conference after his speech, the Synod should not consider any dramatic change in teaching. Catholic doctrine can and should be developed, he said. However, "development is not unlimited. We have to look at tradition."

Further reading:
"On Day One of Synod 2015, conservatives strike first" Crux, 5/10/15
"Synod Opening: Beautiful words, but then..." Christopher Ferrara in Catholic Family News, 5/10/15

Priest in Vatican's Gay Mafia outs himself, gets fired

Goodness! How embarrassing! On the very eve of the Roman Catholic Bishops Synod on the Family, already rigged to roll out a holy welcome mat for homosexuals (see "Synod on the Family: the Pope's fix is in" (WWW 2/10/15), a Polish priest, Monsignor Kyzysztof Charamsa has told the world he's "happy and proud" to be gay!

Well... no biggie, right? We all know there are 1000s of gay priests. Msgr Charamsa himself told a Polish newsmagazine "The clergy is largely homosexual [Walt's emphasis] and, unfortunately, it is also homophobic to the point of paranoia but paralyzed by the lack of acceptance for its own sexual orientation." The point of outing himself, he said, is to challenge Church's "paranoia" towards sexual minorities.

If Msgr Charamsa were just an ordinary priest, in a parish in someplace like Bilaystok or Bydgoszcz, it wouldn't matter very much. But he's not. He's a theologian who, for the past 17 years, has been living in Rome, where he worked as an official in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!

The CDF, formerly known as the Holy Office and presided over not long ago by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, is the department of the Church charged with interpreting and protecting the Roman Catholic Faith. It is the office which has stated time and again that the homosexual lifestyle is gravely disordered, but that being queer is not a sin. However, it teaches -- or used to teach -- homosexual acts are mortal sins.

Msgr Charamsa may have missed that when he learned his catechism for he confessed to Corriere della Sera that he is not only gay, but living in a loving relationship with a man. [The link includes a video, not recommended for readers who are easily nauseated. Ed.]

Msgr Charamsa's scandalous confession should give the lie to those (Hello, Jeff Mirus!) who scoff at claims by Walt and others that there is a Gay Mafia operating openly within the Vatican, indeed within the very part of the Church bureaucracy charged with protecting the Faith of our fathers.

Sadly, Msgr Charamsa is only a soldier. There are others, in much higher positions. Some of them will be taking part in, or even leading (!!!), the Synod on the Family which opens tomorrow. The meeting of nearly 300 bishops and Cardinals is set to last three weeks, during which these learned and pious men will review Vatican's "approach" to gay relationships and same-sex marriage. What do you suppose they will decide? Write your guess on the back of a postage stamp and send it to Walt at the usual address.

Footnote: Oh, nearly forgot... Vatican officials said today that Msgr Charamsa's personal situation "merited respect" (!!!), but added that his statements were "very serious and irresponsible" and might possibly "subject the Synod assembly to undue media pressure." So...he has been relieved of his duties at the CDF, and will no longer allowed to work at the pontifical universities. Has he been defrocked? Errr, no. He's still a priest.

"Church must include, not exclude" says chief Synod rigger

Two weeks ago, in "2014 Vatican Synod's 'Welcome gays!' moment was rigged!", Walt recommended, a new e-book by journalist Edward Pentin. In The Rigging of a Vatican Synod, Mr. Pentin lays the blame for the pro-queer "interim report" of the 2014 Synod on Family Life at the feet of the Synod's secretary, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri.

Walt predicts that -- having failed to silence the bishops opposed to gay marriage, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, and the rest of the "progressive" (read: anti-traditional) agenda -- the Prelate and those in the highest offices of the Roman Catholic Church who pull his strings, will have another go when the Synod resumes in October.

What would make me think that? Check out an address given by Cardinal Baldisseri to at a diocesan conference in Sessa Aurunca, Italy, on September 15th. As reported by L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican's version of Pravda) summarized under the rubric "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" on page 6 of today's edition, the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops said emphatically that the Church must "include" rather than "exclude".

According to His Eminence, "the crisis of the family is due also to the hiddenness of the Church", which is called to "listen", "accompany", and "include" rather than "exclude", so that all may experience the "incomparable beauty of matrimony."

Walt wants to know how many times one may experience "the incomparable beauty of matrimony". Traditional Catholic teaching -- the Faith of fathers, living still (although just barely) -- is that marriage is a Sacrament which may be received only once. So divorced Catholics who want a second helping would seem to be among those who should be excluded.

And what about homosexuals? Aren't they part of "all"? The Church teaches (or taught, once upon a time) that homosexuality is a grave disorder, and homosexual acts seriously sinful. Does Cardinal Baldisseri mean that, in the name of "inclusivity" we should "accompany" the sodomites on their quest for the "incomparable beauty" etc?

Ah yes... "accompany", that's the key word. One may translate "L'arte dell'accompagnamento" as "The art of the accompaniment". Let's go along with the poor tormented sinners, to keep them company. After all, they can't help it, can they? Perhaps they don't even know that their "lifestyle choice" is contrary to the laws of God and nature.

Walt wonders if Cardinal Baldisseri (and/or his well-travelled master) has read A Man for All Seasons, the play by Robert Bolt about the life and martyrdom of Saint Thomas More. Here's a short passage which seems a propos. The Duke of Norfolk is urging Sir Thomas (as he was before he was beheaded) to join him and all the other nobles or England in swearing to the Act of Succession, which was meant to validate Henry VIII's divorce and remarriage.

NORFOLK: Frankly, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names... You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

That would be a nice question to put to Cardinal Baldisseri. Would he repeat his call for the Synod to "rediscover the art of accompaniment". I wonder...

"Gay triumph now complete" - African journo mocks US Protestants' acceptance of Supreme Court gay "marriage" decision

African-born journalist Ken Mufuka writes a "Letter From America" every week in the Financial Gazette, one of Zimbabwe's courageously independent newspapers. This week his topic is Obergefell v. Hodges, the recent decision of the Supreme Court in which the dishonourable court, by a vote of 5-4, tortured the "equal protection" provisions of the Constitution into a finding that homosexuals (gays, lesbians, transexuals, bisexuals and queers in general) have the same rights as straight folk to marry and have their nuptials celebrated by society.

Gay "marriage" maybe be against God's law, but it's now the law of the USA. God save the United States of America!

Well, that's Walt's view. In "Gay Triumph Now Complete", Mr. Mufuka [pronounced with a long "U". Ed.] takes an even dimmer view of the decision, but he takes much longer to say so. Walt has excerpted some of the more acidic bits of his column. The words are Mr. Mufuka's; the emphasis is mine.

July 4, or Independence Day, commemorates the overthrow of the British imperialists by American patriots in the war of independence. It is big deal, as they say here. Citizens use this day to blow off steam, dance in public and generally engage in good-natured goofy behaviour, even disgracing themselves. It is all done in good faith. The police look the other way.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) “community” had the best July 4th celebrations ever. They say that such a joyous time as this comes only once in a millennium. Their celebrations started June 27, when the US supreme court announced two rulings.

A pro-gay reprobate judge, Anthony Kennedy, announced the judgment. The issue was whether same sex marriages were protected in the US constitution. To cut a long story short, marriage is not mentioned because it was assumed, supported by immemorial custom that a man shall leave his home to find a damsel and marry her.

Having failed to find a constitutional clause, the reprobate judge strained all sensibilities to create one out of thin air, calling it equal protection under law. Same sex partners, wrote the pro-gay judge, bring with them the hope that in their marriages they are not “condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, who disagreed with the decree, nevertheless, saw the earth shattering impact it had on the future of the world. The decision cannot be justified on moral or historical grounds.
The fact remains that United States is an exceptional, confirmed in its own righteousness. As such arrangements have been put in place for the advancement of the gay agenda to the world.

Protestant denominations...had foreseen the gay decision, they were unprepared for the onslaught within their own organizations.... Infiltrated by earthly philosophies over the years, they were left wondering in the wilderness, as gay forces outflanked and swiftly destroyed all opposition. South Carolina Methodists barely survived a gay resolution, but it was very close, 752 votes against 550. The pro-gay lobby promised that “they will be back, the fight is not over.”

The 3.8 million members Lutheran Church (USA) which split into two denominations over the issue revisited it with wisdom gained from experience. Each individual denomination will, after prayer, instruct their pastor whether they will permit gay weddings in their church.

The Anglicans, meeting in Utah, the home of the polygamous Mormon Christians, suffered resounding defeat, 173 delegates in favour, against last-stand motley of 27 resisters. There is another juicy change among Anglicans. Gays can now be married in the full communion of the church, and church wedding bells are allowed. Little boys and girls can walk in the isle to present flowers to a gay couple.

When the deputies took on another position on gender neutral religion, they suffered a worse defeat, 184 supporting the change against miserable 23. In this second resolution, God is no longer “Our Father in Heaven” but the Creator of the Universe. It is, however, alright to say: “God our Mother in Heaven” or to say: “The faith of our mothers.”

It's tempting for us Catholics -- especially traditional Catholics -- to sneer at the Protestants' capitulation to the homonazis, but Holy Mother Church is not immune from the cancers of moral rot and political correctness. The pro-queer agenda, along with weakening of the Church's laws on divorce and remarriage is being pushed relentlessly by the gay lobby in the Vatican and in the liberal churches of Germany and the low countries. This fall will see another Synod on the Family, at which same sex "marriage" will be back on the table. Stay tuned.

Note from Ed.: No, we don't know if Mr. Mufuka is a Catholic. Why don't you ask him? mufukaken@gmail.com.

African Cardinals strongly oppose "German strategy" on divorce and same-sex "marriage"

Sister Lucia, the seer of Fatima, wrote that "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc". In the ongoing debate about the significance and meaning of the "etc", almost everyone (except Agent 3) has overlooked the fact that, at the time Sister Lucia wrote that part of the Third Secret of Fatima, "Portugal" included a number of overseas territories and colonies, including Angola and Moçambique, rather large chunks of southern Africa.

Walt was thinking about this today while reading "Synod. Africa’s Hour", a report by Sandro Magister on the recent meeting in Ghana of the presidents of that continent’s episcopal conferences. The African prelates -- Robert Cardinal Sarah and four other cardinals, along with 45 bishops -- voted unanimously to oppose "the strategy of the Germans" on divorce and homosexual unions, and thus preserve the dogma of the Faith which the Europeans (including Pope Francis) seem ready to repudiate.

What is the strategy of the of their modernist colleagues from France, Switzerland, and especially Germany, who gathered a few days earlier at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome? Sig. Magister explains it this way: "Given that the maximum objectives of the blessing of second marriages and of homosexual couples appear to be out of reach, this 'strategy' would consist of opening loopholes that could be expanded later, naturally while affirming in words that there is no intention to change anything about doctrine."

From the remarks of Cardinal Sarah, Sig. Magister chose these quotes to summarize the Africans' contrary sentiments. Cardinal Sarah called on his colleagues to not be afraid:
- "of reiterating the teaching of Christ on marriage";
- "to speak at the synod with clarity and with just one voice, in filial love of the Church"; and
- "to protect the family from all the ideologies that want to destroy it, and therefore also from the national and international policies that impede the promotion of positive values."

Strong stuff! But will the modernists and the "gay mafia" embedded [geddit? Ed.] in the Vatican listen? Is the Pope Catholic? Be careful. The second is a trick (or tricky) question!

No wonder the Church is losing respect and influence

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, must be shedding rivers of tears in Heaven as she looks with profound sorrow on what has become of Her children in the last half-century. Two news stories this month confirm that the Church no longer has any significant influence on the morals and lives of the majority of people in two nominally Christian countries -- the United States of America and the once ultra-Catholic Republic of Ireland.

On 12 May 2015, a new study by the respected Pew Research Center revealed that in just seven years under Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, the number of self-identified Catholics in the USA has fallen from 23.9% (in 2007) to 20.8%. And now, for the first time, the "Catholics" are outnumbered by those claiming no church affiliation.

The study says that nearly a third of American adults (31.7%) reported being raised Catholic. The bad news, for the mainstream Church, is that fully 41% of that group no longer identify with Catholicism. This means that 12.9% of US adults are former Catholics, while only 2 (two) per cent of US adults have converted to the Church from another religion. No other religious group in the study had such a lopsided ratio of losses to gains.

Meanwhile... In Eire, what Patrick Buchanan called "the long retreat in the culture war" continued, as over 60% of Irish voters -- over 90% of whom would have been baptized Catholics -- voted in a binding referendum to legalize "gay marriage".

Irish bishops had urged them to vote "NO", but Pope Francis sat out the campaign, refusing to make any definitive pronouncement. Walt suggests Catholic voters read more into the Pope's silence -- "Who am I to judge?" -- than the appeals of their own church leaders.

Not that the Irish bishops were very strong in their condemnation of the abomination that is homosexuality. Most Rev. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, pointedly refused to preach on this one of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance, singled out in the Holy Bible (Genesis 18:20-21). Following the vote, Abp. Martin told the Irish state broadcaster RTE: "We [the Church] have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities.... I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution."

What Abp. Martin is really saying is: since the secular humanists and pushers of perversion disagree with God's commandments, God's Church must change the rules to follow the prevailing "morality". Here's a commentary from St. Peter's List on that astonishing proposition.

The “Sin of Sodom” is described as "carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex." Given modernity’s substitution of God and Nature with the will of the individual as an autonomous moral universe, sodomy – more specifically active homosexuality, not orientation – has become part of the new post-Christian norm. Neither Divine Law nor Natural Law form an external guide for the modern man; thus, the only boundary of autonomous individual is the autonomy of another. The boundary for what is and is not moral appears to be consent. Consequently, moral dialogue has been flattened to mere platitudes, e.g., this isn’t hurting anyone, it’s my body and my choice, love is love. Many often comment on the modern West’s apparent lack of morality, but few comment on the fact the West has lost the vocabulary to even discuss on morality.

Walt wonders if the Holy Father was properly instructed in the Catechism of the Church. "Who am I to judge?" he asks. And it seems he was a great fan of the notorious gay activist, radical priest, Michele de Paolis, with whom he is seen here concelebrating the Novus Ordo Mass.

Father di Paolis openly rejects Christian morality, pontificating: "Homosexual love is a gift from God no less than heterosexual." To claim that God is the author of evil is blasphemy, a damnable sin against the First Commandment. Moreover, Fr. De Paolis is a well-known promoter of the "anarcho-Catholicism" of the extreme left, which has been dominant since the 1970s in parts of Italy and South America, from whence comes Pope Bergoglio.

Getting back to the Irish vote... One could also interpret the vote in favour of "gay marriage" as a rejection by the Irish people of the Church that tolerated and covered up the perversions of sinful priests and religious who for decades assaulted Irish children in the most vile ways. So hostile had Eire become to the predations of the clergy that in 2010 its prime minister warned Benedict XVI not to include the Republic (or Northern Ireland) in a proposed tour of the "British Isles" because his safety could not be guaranteed.

But it's not just the paedophile priests who are to blame for the increasing rejection of the Church. Nor is it the lay gay Catholics or LGBT secular humanists outside the Church who are hell-bent (literally) on wiping out the Christian religion. No, dear Catholics, it is the Gay Mafia in the Vatican, and the Popes themselves! They are the stars pulled down from Heaven by Great Red Dragon, who stood before the "Woman clothed with the sun", when she was to be delivered, that he might devour Her son. (Apocalypse 12:1-4).

There is something seriously wrong -- dare we say immoral or even unChristian -- with the leadership of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church. It should come as no surprise, then, that people who once looked to the Church for guidance, direction and a moral code by which to live, are now deserting in droves.

Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady Help of Christians, Queen of the World, pray for us!

Further reading:
"Commentary on the 4 Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance", St. Peter's List, 1 February 2014.
"Pope Francis’ meeting with homosexual activist Fr. De Paolis: the unanswered questions", LifeSiteNews, 28 May 2014.
"Papal Silence: The Most Decisive Factor in Ireland's Same-Sex 'Marriage' Victory" by Roberto Mauro, in Catholic Family News, 27 May 2015.

"I can't bake you a cake, because I love you"

Suppose you're a Christian -- a committed Christian who takes seriously the teachings of the Bible and the Church, including the teaching that homosexual sexual acts are morally wrong and will lead those who perform them to face the judgment of God.

And suppose you're a baker, one whose business it is to create, among other things, wedding cakes for couples who are about to celebrate their marriage. According to the politically correct laws of the land -- many US states and all of Canada -- that would include gay couples intent on entering into a same-sex "marriage".

Advocates of same-sex "marriage" -- Walt puts the word in quotes because a union between two men or two women cannot be a valid "marriage" sanctioned and blessed by God -- want to force Christian bakers to bake cakes celebrating such "marriages". If they don't, they face civil or even criminal penalties for refusing to do what their religion and conscience forbid them to do.

In "I Can't Bake Your Cake, Because I Love You", published yesterdary on Aleteia, a website for searchers for the truth, Dr. Dennis Bonnette argues that the Christian's refusal to accept the custom of a homosexual couple is not an act of homophobia or hate, the PC lamestream media would have us believe, but an act of love.

Dr. Bonnette has been mentioned before here on WWW. Until his retirement in 2003, he was a Full Professor of Philosophy at Niagara University in Lewiston NY. He is the author of Aquinas' Proofs for God's Existence and Origin of the Human Species: Third Edition. He is presently teaching free courses in philosophy at the Aquinas School of Philosophy in Lewiston. Agent 10 (to whom much thanks for sharing this) attends regularly, and will send you details if you let me know your e-address.

Also by Dr. Bonnette: "What Marriage Is and Isn't, and What to Expect from a Redefinition"

Worth reading again on WWW: "Homosexuality condemned in the Word of God"

Political orthodoxy on same-sex marriage, pro-queer sex education harms parental rights, freedom of speech and religion

Who says so? None other than the Honourable Bradley W. Miller, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, who Canada's Conservative government has just appointed to the bench of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice.

Since he doesn't become a judge until next month, we'll just call him "Professor Miller" for now. "Progressive thinkers" and the liberal media in Canada are already pissing and moaning about his appointment. Why? Because Prof. Miller had the temerity to say, in "Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada" that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has harmed religious freedom and free speech, and led to the indoctrination of children in public schools.

In his article, Professor Miller writes that the "new orthodoxy" about gay marriage in Canada means that those who object to it are treated  [by the media, "human rights tribunals", and, worse, the courts - Walt] as bigots. They are denied their rights as parents, workers, pamphleteers or religious believers.

He also said that parents who do not want their children hearing discussions on the subject would have to pull them out of public schools. And this was written two years ago, before Kathleen Wynne (North America's first openly lesbian government leader) reintroduced her controversial "modernized" sex education bill.

Referring to her previous attempt to push the pro-LGBT agenda down the throats of children as young as 8, Prof. Miller wrote, "The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one's children from the public school system entirely."

Walt notes with alarm that in Ontario the term "public schools" includes all schools receiving government funding, including "Catholic" schools. Thus the only options for parents who don't want their kids to be persuaded to "re-examine their gender choices" is to send them to private schools or home-school them.

Prof. Miller said that while the goal of promoting tolerance of all people is laudable, "the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children's best interests."

The chattering classes are already branding Prof. Miller as a homophobic right-wing religious nut, and demanding that his appointment to the bench be rescinded. Too bad for them that the Canadian system doesn't require any kind of confirmation process. Once the appointment is made, that's it. So, beginning on January 15th, there will be at least one voice of liberty... and sanity... in Ontario's Superior Court.

Congratulations to Mr. Justice Miller (as he then will be)... and good luck to him!

A question of Biblical interpretation

Thanks and a tap on the beret to Agent 34. 
[Hope you got Walt's address straight now? Ed.]

Last gay toon standing? - Part 1

For over 40 years now, the large and influential gay lobby in the meeja and more liberal "Christian" churches have been trying to convince us that it's OK to be gay. Commendable, even, especially when someone who kept his/her gender preference to him/herself comes out of the closet. What good is being homosexual if you can't flaunt it?

That's why, beginning in 1972, TV shows in western, "Christian" countries have increasingly featured characters who are openly gay. This is especially the case in sitcoms, where it's become almost mandatory to have at least one gay character -- always the cleverest, coolest, funniest one -- to prove that it not just OK, but hip to be gay.

It all started with Peter Panama, a character in the mercifully short-lived sitcom The Corner Bar. [Was that the one with Sam and Woody and Cliff and Norm...all those gay guys? Ed.] NO! That was another corner bar and those guys weren't gay... at least, not all of them! Anyway, Peter Panama, played by Vincent Schiavelli, was "the first continuing portrayal of a gay person on American television".

In 1975 we saw the first gay couple, the lovely George and Gordon, in Hot l Baltimore. You can look it up. Inevitably, gay characters were introduced in cartoons. This was not done to influence impressionable children, of course, because we all know that modern cartoon series are really for adults. I speak of The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy, which I admit to watching and from which these examples are taken.

South Park's Big Gay Al is a stereotypical homosexual man, known for his flamboyant and positive demeanor. For example, he almost always responds to the greeting "How are you?" with an upbeat "I'm super! Thanks for asking!" In the episode which sticks deepest in Walt's Mind, he took the position of scout master of troop 69, for which he was super-qualified, having been in the scouts since he was nine years old. Was it then that he discovered he was a homosexual? We aren't told...

The kids' parents were uneasy about a gay scout leader, so Big Gay Al was fired. But the boys didn't like the new leader -- a person whose sexual tastes were a lot more threatening -- and rallied to get BGA re-accepted. But Al rejected this, saying the scouts are a private club, and have the right to exclude people if they choose to, just as he has the right to express himself as a gay man.

Big Gay Al last appeared in "The F Word", which originally aired on 4 November 2009. For all his flamboyance (etc etc), he was, on the whole, a sympathetic character, kind of a warm and cuddly...and gay...teddybear. It was hard to dislike him.

But there was a dark side to Big Gay Al. In "Follow That Egg", we find him getting engaged to Mr. Slave (pictured left), who previously was the homosexual lover of Herbert Garrison, the South Park kids' school teacher. (Remember the name "Herbert"; it'll come up again.) Mr. Garrison starts a campaign to ban gay marriage, but fails, and Al and Mr. Slave are united in unholy matrimony. (It's worth noting that South Park is set in Colorado.)

Mr. Slave is far being a benign and cuddly character. His first major role was in "The Death Camp of Tolerance", in which Mr. Garrison learns that he can sue the school board if he is fired for being gay, so he hires Mr. Slave as his "TA" -- "Teacher's Ass". The lessons become increasingly sexual, and degenerate in nature, culminating in Mr. Garrison inserting the class gerbil into Mr. Slave's rectum. Not exactly the sort of behaviour you'd want your kids to emulate, is it. But there was no "Don't try this at home!" warning.

Walt also found offensive Mr. Slave's catchphrase, "Oooh, Jeez Christ!" or "Oh Jesus, Jesus Christ!", always delivered in a quavering lisp. He was rarely heard saying anything else. He last appeared in "201", on 21 April 2010.

Note from Ed.: Walt has the bit firmly between his teeth, but owing to constraints of space (and my patience) I'm going to have to divide "Last gay toon standing?" into two or even three parts. Scroll down to the next post to read about the other Herbert.

Acknowledgment of source: The information about South Park, Big Gay Al, Herbert Garrison and Mr. Slave was taken from South Park Archives. Many thanks.

Breaking news: Majority of bishops reject "Welcome gays!" document

From the Vatican, AP reports that Catholic bishops have, by a majority vote, scrapped the "openness to gays and their gifts and qualities" set out in an interim report of the Synod on the Family.

The bishops failed to approve even a watered-down version of the section on ministering to gays, which stripped away the welcoming tone contained in a draft document published by the pro-LGBT Vatican Press Office earlier in the week.

Two other paragraphs concerning the other hot-button issue at the synod -- whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive communion -- also failed to pass.

BBC News calls the vote against the proposals a setback for Pope Francis. In spite of the vote against the revised sections, the Pope said the full draft document should be published. Walt guesses that's so the world can see how homophobic and reactionary are the bishops outside of the Vatican's gay mafia.

Stay tuned for great fits of pissing and moaning from not just the BBC but every "progressive" secular humanist commentator in the world. Walt will post some commentary from the other side -- the traditional Catholic side -- as it becomes available.

And here's the first one, the report of an interview Cardinal Robert Sarah gave to Catholic World News. Key quotes:
- The Church has never judged homosexual persons, but homosexual behavior and homosexual unions are grave deviations of sexuality.
- Let us pray for those pastors who leave the Lord’s sheep to the wolves of decadent and secularized society, far from God and nature.

In case you missed them, here are links this week's posts on the Synod:
Oct. 14: Catholic bishops say "interim report" asking Church to welcome homosexuals grossly misrepresented by pro-LGBT media
Oct. 16: Even a liberal Cardinal calls pro-LGBT Synod report "worthless"

UPDATED: Catholic bishops say "interim report" asking Church to welcome homosexuals grossly misrepresented by pro-LGBT media

Much backing and filling at the Vatican Tuesday night over jubilant lamestream press reports that the Synod of Bishops now in progress (if such a word can be used) has recommended that the Church welcome homosexuals and all the "gifts and qualities" they can bring to Her. Before we get to the update, please read Walt's initial reaction, posted here earlier today.

Walt is struck dumb [He means "speechless". Ed.] by this weekend's news from the Vatican. In a preliminary report halfway through their Synod on family life, Catholic bishops in conference assembled are recommending "accepting and valuing" LGBT [He means "queer"... Well, that's what they call themselves! Ed.] faithful and all the "gifts and qualities" they can bring to the Church. I will resist the temptation to make any snide or sarcastic comments, reminding myself that the true teaching of Holy Mother Church is to hate the sin -- see St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:24-29 -- but love the sinner.

Having said that, if homosexuality is to be regarded by the "new, improved Catholic Church" as something better than "disordered", and if homosexuals are to be made welcome in our communities, what about same-sex "marriages"? The bishops' report reaffirms the Church's teaching that marriage is for a man and woman only, but at the same time says the church must recognize the "positive" aspects of civil unions, with the aim of bringing Catholics who live together without benefit of clergy to a lifelong commitment in a church wedding. Would that be regardless of the gender of the partners? Walt awaits a clear answer.

While waiting, Walt remembers the words of Joseph Priestley -- no pun intended -- an English theologian, who said in 1761 that "in all controversies, it is better to await the decisions of time, which are slow and sure, than to take those of synods, which are often hasty and injudicious."

Footnote: Economists and marketers will tell you that the LGBT crowd is one of the most affluent "market segments" of North American society. Not having children -- well, most of them, anyway -- on whom to squander their incomes, they have oodles of money to splash around on nice clothes, entertainment, and so on. I'll leave the "so on" to your imagination. Of course the queers' affluence has nothing whatever to do with the bishops' willingness to embrace them.

And now the "correction", as reported in "Pushback on Synod document" on the Catholic Culture website. As their analysis is a bit lengthy for this space, I'll just copy the key paragrahs.

Controversy sharpened at the Synod of Bishops, as many prelates have complained that an interim report released on October 13 did not accurately represent the thoughts of the Synod fathers, and the Vatican press office hastened to announce that “a value has been attributed to the document that does not correspond to its nature.

The relatio post disceptationem, which was intended to summarize the discussion during the first week of the October synod, "is a working document," the Vatican observed in an unusual statement released on the day after the document appeared. The press office emphasized that the relatio was designed not to be an authoritative statement, but to be the basis for discussion during the second week of Synod deliberations.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, who has been consistently outspoken in his defense of Church teaching regarding marriage, charged that the relatio did not accurately reflect the Synod discussions but "in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept." The American cardinal reported that "a great number of the Synod fathers found it objectionable."

Many prelates observed that the early release of the relatio had triggered an enormous volume of media coverage, much of it inaccurate, conveying the impression that the Church would change her teachings. (BBC provided a vivid example of this sort of analysis, announcing that Pope Francis had "scored a first quiet victory" in the document and saying that the Pontiff had "convinced many Catholic Church leaders to moderate their formerly strongly critical language about gay unions.")

"We’re now working from a position that’s virtually irredeemable," said South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, referring to the media coverage. "The message has gone out that this is what synod is saying, that this is what the Catholic Church is saying," he said. "Whatever we say hereafter will seem like we’re doing damage control." [Indeed! Walt]

With a week still remaining before this session of the Synod concludes, it seems clear that critics of the relatio will organize a strong campaign to ensure that the Synod’s final document is very different from the interim report.

That was a close one, wasn't it... But if the bishops think they've dodged a rainbow-coloured bullet, Walt would advise them not to underestimate the power of the LGBT lobby, both in the lamestream media and within the Vatican itself!

Further reading: "The Secret Synod Does What We Expected: Evil", by Christopher A. Ferrara, posted on Monday on The Remnant website.