You will read many takes by Catholic bloggers on the relatio post disceptationem issued today by the Synod
First, the good news can be stated in its entirety as follows: the document is not binding upon the faithful. That is it. That is all of the good news in it, read it as often as you will.
The bad news is very bad. This document encourages the enemies of the Church; it tends to confirm persons in objectively gravely immoral relationships to continue in them. It notes positive aspects of sodomites, adulterers and fornicators living gravely immoral relationships. This problem is of the very text itself.
Of course, the "tone" of the thing is far worse than that. Ladies and gentlemen, says the Synod, "anything goes". Keep sinning, Jesus is merciful. If you can just try, maybe, to commit sodomy or adultery a little less often, maybe you can quit in 10 or 20 years. Don't be so hard on yourself.
I say this. IF this document were issued in such a way as to call for religious submission on the part of the faithful in any normative way, we are faced with an ontological and eschatological choice: Am I Catholic or not? Is the Church the Church Christ founded or not? Can any Pope or those behind whom he hides say that Christ didn't mean what he said?
Fear not the Chastisement. It is already upon us.
The modernist heresy within the Church is so close to triumphing that were it not for the promise of Our Lord that the gates of hell would not prevail against her, that triumph would be all but certain. Dear readers, these cowards and heretics within the bosom of the Church don't fear reprisal. The Chastisement is here.
That doesn't mean it can't get any worse. Short of Divine intervention, it certainly will.
You already know the paid shills for the status quo will publish their reassurances that this is no big deal-- it's great, actually!-- and anyone who is upset by this Synod is just a Pharisee who thinks he is better than everyone else. But beyond that obviousness, look to your family and friends. Catholic family and friends. There is a sorting going on, and if you are brave enough, or stupid enough, take your pick, to proclaim your disagreement with the new watered-down gospel of Low Expectations, you can expect a new level of ostracization you never before have experienced.
I would like to take on certain sections of this document-- a document that I have a hard time describing in any way other than putrid-- a document that the USCCB could not have dreamt possible even when they published the "Always Our Children" farce back in the 1990s. And though your favorite neo-Catholic blogger might have criticized that document, don't look for that treatment here.
I apologize if this goes long, but certain sections beg for comment, and I would like to draw a couple of analogies to make sense of the disaster.
In the first part of the document giving its statement of the problem the Synod is trying to address, the relatio discusses the "relevance of emotional life", and says this:
Faced with the social framework outlined above, a greater need is encountered among individuals to take care of themselves, to know their inner being, and to live in greater harmony with their emotions and sentiments, seeking a relational quality in emotional life. (paragraph 9)
Just imagine St. Pius X ever saying anything like that! People just need to get in touch with their inner child! Excuse me, but "to live in greater harmony with their emotions and sentiments" is just a really poor way of saying that people should just do whatever they want because they want to, morality be damned. And if you can stomach it, this type of psychobabble is to be found throughout.
Then, after paying some lip service to the teachings from Christ's own words and an unbroken two millennia of Church teaching on marriage and procreation, the Synod gets down to the business of destroying it all.
In so doing, the Synod has done the Church one favor, a favor so huge that it may be the key to truly restoring the Church in all her beauty and indefectibility:
The Synod explicitly ties this notion of abandoning the faith to the "hermeneutic key" of the Second Vatican Council. It makes the link explicit, and acknowledges it in a way that no SSPXer, crazy trad or progressive nut job has yet been able to do. And this link, I believe, if we are spared to see the day, will cause the Council's documents to receive the weight that the Council itself gave them.
The key paragraph:
17. In considering the principle of gradualness in the divine salvific plan, one asks what possibilities are given to married couples who experience the failure of their marriage, or rather how it is possible to offer them Christ’s help through the ministry of the Church. In this respect, a significant hermeneutic key comes from the teaching of Vatican Council II, which, while it affirms that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure ... these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity” (Lumen Gentium, 8).
Let me extend this analogy. Just as the fullness of the Faith “subsists” in the Catholic Church, so must the fullness of marriage “subsist” in sacramental (i.e., real) marriage. But just as we value those truths found in false religions, so we should value the truths in immoral relationships. You’re gay, great! Bravo! Good on you. You like to sleep around, but manage to make serial monogamy a priority? Fantastic. You are not far from the kingdom, my friend.
Remember when Christ told the woman caught in adultery to try to limit herself to just a few trysts per month? Me neither.
The Synod then gives a catalogue of the problems rampant in the world, due to the failure of the Church’s pastors and laymen to teach and live the faith for the last half-century. Following that, the document sets up what is going to follow, once the initial shock has passed. The tent is lifted up, and the camel’s nose is placed:
47. As regards the possibility of partaking of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, some argued in favor of the present regulations because of their theological foundation, others were in favor of a greater opening on very precise conditions when dealing with situations that cannot be resolved without creating new injustices and suffering. For some, partaking of the sacraments might occur were it preceded by a penitential path – under the responsibility of the diocesan bishop –, and with a clear undertaking in favor of the children. This would not be a general possibility, but the fruit of a discernment applied on a case-by-case basis, according to a law of gradualness, that takes into consideration the distinction between state of sin, state of grace and the attenuating circumstances.
I highlight the phrases above that are designed to soothe your conscience. The necessity of denying Holy Communion to those living in adultery is labelled “present regulations”, as though you change them like you change your socks. The abuse of Holy Communion will not be “general”, but “case-by-case”, as though that makes it better. And of course, it is a lie, as the “case-by-case” abuse of Communion in the hand shows us.
Regarding those inclined to the sin of sodomy, the Synod throws off all pretenses to Catholicism:
50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
52. Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
These two paragraphs make me wonder why we have not been obliterated by lightning falling from the sky. Obviously, God is merciful, but are we not begging for destruction? Valuing a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance? God forbid!
Do you remember the Pope “excommunicating” members of the mafia some months back? Well, let me apply the regime of fake mercy instead:
Truly, organized crime families are not the same as the natural family, but we must acknowledge the many good elements in them. Loyalty, code of conduct, industry, mental and physical toughness, and a place of welcoming that walks with gangsters where they are. It is important not to judge mafiosos, but to walk with them, experiencing the smell of the sheep, as it were. Will we welcome these criminals into the Church, accepting and valuing their inclination to violent crime, or will we, Pharisee-like, condemn the murders, bribery and racketeering that may sometimes occur?
I’ll stop there. It is bad enough, and this post long enough, already. We need to pray and prepare. Mary, come to our aid!