Since the final document of the so-called Youth Synod was approved and made public on Saturday, among the paragraphs that has received the most attention is no. 150, which deals with homosexuality. Many things stand out as troubling in this treatment.
Right off the bat, the paragraph begins with a lie:
There are questions concerning the body, affectivity and sexuality which require a deepened anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, to be carried out in the most appropriate ways and at the most appropriate levels, from the local to the universal. Among these, those relating in particular to the difference and harmony between male and female identity and to sexual inclinations emerge.
In reality, no questions actually exist on these matters; not according to the mind of Holy Mother Church at any rate. As for the mitred bozos that approved of this text, their minds are another matter altogether.
That said, let’s not forget that the very purpose of the Synod of Bishops as established by Pope Paul the Pathetic (Rome’s most recent recipient of the Conciliar Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the Revolution) is to create questions – in particular, doctrinal questions – where none actually exist. According to his Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo, the Synod exists to:
… facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.
Of course, there were not then, and there are not now, any essential matters of doctrine about which valid disagreement exists among faithful Catholics, and neither are there any questions lingering about the things listed in the Youth Synod final document.
Even so, notice that one of the subjects that the text identifies as requiring the Church to “deepen” her understanding relative to “sexual inclinations” is “affectivity.”
In other words, the bishops have decided that the Church [sic] needs to take into greater account the feelings and emotions that serve to tempt the human person to act out sexually – bearing well in mind that the paragraph under review deals specifically with sodomitical acts!
NEWSFLASH: Those feelings and emotions that move man to sin have a name; it’s called concupiscence – a Catholic concept with which the majority of Synod bishops are apparently unaware.
The document goes on to state:
In this regard the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing its commitment against all discrimination and violence on a sexual basis.
It remains to be seen whether or not His Humbleness will execute the “authentic magisterium option” by affixing his autograph to the document as-is (see HERE), but either way, one wonders:
What does this portion of the text suggest about a pastor who relieves a teacher (or “Youth Minister,” or counselor, etc.) of his or her position following their “gay marriage” or some other public expression of LGBT activism – something that, in fact, has happened? Can that pastor expect to receive support, or a reprimand, from Bergoglian Rome?
Moving on, the document states:
It [the Church] also reaffirms the decisive anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it reductive to define the identity of persons solely on the basis of their “sexual orientation” (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986, no. 16).
So, the Synod is against the idea of persons being identified solely on the basis of their sexual orientation; i.e., they have no problem with people identifying themselves and others in part on their “sexual orientation.” The suggestion is clear; it’s who they are!
“Sexual orientation,” however, is like a rainbow colored unicorn; it doesn’t exist. God endowed humankind with sexuality, and it is oriented by His most wise design toward procreation, and it is properly expressed in just one way, in marriage, and it’s abuse is called vice – period.
Now let’s talk about that other unicorn; the so-called “homosexual person.”
According to several commentators, the Synod’s reference to the CDF’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons was a minor victory for the “good guys.” As reported by Edward Pentin:
Reference to this letter was not included in the draft document; its inclusion is therefore regarded as an improvement.
While the Letter contains much that is praiseworthy to the point that many in today’s episcopate would likely not allow it to be reprinted in their diocesan newspaper, if we apply the Scriptural caution concerning “a little leaven” (and it takes a special kind of arrogance to do otherwise given the Author of said warning) we must condemn the text as poisonous. Some victory, eh?
At under 4,000 words in length, the CDF Letter mentions the “homosexual person” more than two dozen times! And this in a 1986 document bearing the signature of the future Benedict XVI with the expressed approval of John Paul the alleged “great saint.”
In addition to this, the Letter states in one of its opening paragraphs:
…an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here.
Just to make sure the point is well and truly made, the Letter goes on to speak of “the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is…”
Nonsense; sodomy and similarly deviant behavior is no more a “complex issue” that requires further evaluation than infanticide is.
As such, let’s be perfectly clear; in proposing that the Church must deepen its anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration of human sexuality – in particular “homosexuality” – the Youth Synod is simply carrying on the Wojtylan-Ratzingerian program of deference to the core claims of LGBT activists.
And guess what? The Wojtylan-Ratzingerian program is nothing other than an extension of the Montinian program that is cited in article 3 of the Letter as follows:
Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence.
There is no such thing as the homosexual condition, as if a practitioner of sodomy is akin to a bleeding hemophiliac. This notion is, as the 1986 Letter suggests, an outgrowth of the 1975 Declaration approved by Montini wherein sodomites are presented as “those who suffer from this [homosexual] anomaly.”
While not using the phrase “homosexual person” specifically, the Declaration refers to “homosexuals” multiple times; precisely as if they truly are in possession of a distinct personal identity known as “homosexual.”
Furthermore, the Church is not “trying to understand” sodomitical behavior as the Letter insists it must; she has long been in possession of all that she needs to provide pastoral guidance in such instances.
Perhaps the most egregious portion of the 1975 Declaration is the following:
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. [Emphasis added.]
Think about what you just read: It is essentially saying that some homosexuals are such naturally and incurably. In other words, they were born that way!
In conclusion, while the Youth Synod’s treatment of sodomy is detestable in its own right and a sure sign of abhorrent things to come, it must be said that the text isn’t entirely Bergoglian.
Rather, it is very much a gift to LGBT activists from the hands of Giovanni Battista Montini; one dutifully passed along by both Karol Wojtyla and Josef Ratzinger after him.
It’s enough to make one wonder to what extent any of these men – Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger – considered themselves “homosexual persons.” I suppose it’s anyone’s guess, but who among us would be surprised if it’s at least two-thirds?