Relatio Synodi: First Impressions

Forte can't be seen in the photo, but he is there...

Forte can’t be seen in the photo, but he is there…


The Italian text is available on Rorate. 

This Relatio is the text that will be used for the next year, before the second part of the Synod begins in October 2015. All discussions will be based on this. 

I have just finished it. Accurate English translations will soon be available everywhere, so I base my comment on the Italian without my own translation.

My first impressions: 

1. It reflects a different religion than the Relatio post disceptationem. Whatever religion that text reflected, it wasn’t Catholicism. This one is. Yes, you can buy a good bottle. 

2. What comes out of this document is, as it was to be expected, bad Catholicism. But it is not “Francis-bad”, merely “pre-Francis-bad”. I could not detect any quotation from Papal documents before V II, which tells you all. 

3. Some paragraphs are weak, or, in my eyes, nonsensical. But they are never subversive (as in: Forte-subversive. V II is subversive..). They have the V-II-disease, not the much more aggressive, deadly Francis-disease. 

4. As already reported, the most unChristian paragraphs have been simply suppressed. Dead. Gone. Make it two bottles, then… 

Let us see some of the things that, without being a theologian, left me scratching my head. 

17. Love is “at the centre of the family”. Effeminate, emotional fluff. If love is at the centre of the family, when the love is gone it makes sense to divorce; or if the love is found outside of the family, it makes sense to transfer the family where the new love, which is its centre, is. The defense of the family is on very fragile ground, if one allows this fluff to take over.

Perhaps simple concepts like sacrament, sin, duty, and children would have helped more. People got them when illiteracy was ripe. They can’t be so complicated.   

35. This paragraph is ecumenical tosh. Serious ecu-maniacal tosh. Nothing new, though. This is a mistake of the last 50 years, not of the last six days. 

38. This is the Father’s short journey to Planet Socialism. It is clear the Fathers think the West is too dependent on “market economy”. Forty to fifty percent of the GDP of these economies is made of taxes, that is: it is largely meant for redistribution. Leo XIII would be horrified at the extent of such an entitlement mentality. The Synod Fathers think (though they do not explicitly say) that it’s not enough. 

41. Concubines. Wrong, sugary, V II tofu formulations. There is the implied affirmation that concubines have a “partial opening” toward the Gospel, and that a marriage of concubines is something good, but – alas-  not the fullness of it. I strongly suspect these are all formulations already used in former V II documents. No mention of mortal sin, or of the grave danger of concubinage for the eternal salvation of the souls involved.  

Then the Fathers complain marriage is challenged by modern society. Good Lord…

42. A  very strange idea is floated: some people are too poor to marry, but not too poor to be concubines. What? You don’t pay an extra USD 7/day in heating costs if you are married. If anything, in some legislations (like Germany) the tax burden decreases for married couples. Again, there is no courage to tell the truth. Or do these people think Christianity developed in wealthier times than ours, and marriage is now in a crisis because we are so poor? 

46. This is, in my eyes, the worst paragraph. Dangerous, wrong formulations. If Concubinage is to be looked at with “respect”, why criticise it? When did Christ walk on the road to Emmaus together with concubines? I thought they were faithfuls, not concubines. The idea of taking away one’s sandals in front of the “sacred ground” of the household of concubines is tosh fit for Anglicans. This seems to be the obligatory tribute to Francis, who is heavily quoted. Again, I have the impression this is nothing really new for V II documents, but it stinks mightily of Rowan Williams. 


What I found particularly good: 

53: “We must explain to the people, including some bishops and cardinals, why they can make spiritual communion but not partake in the Sacrament. There will be no charge. Not even for Cardinals”. 

55: This here is Poetry. 

–     No mention of gradualism in the “bad sense” floated on Monday. That’s gone entirely. 


These are my first reflections after reading once. I have certainly missed more than something. But in general, I can go to sleep knowing that the new religion has been expunged from this text. 

What we still have, is our religion badly explained and weakly defended. But we knew that and, with all its problems, it is a completely different animal than the wholesale of Catholicism and Christianity we have witnessed on Monday.

It is a great day. Bergoglism has been almost completely excised from this text, with the only exception of the tosh of par. 46, which to me sounds like a token tribute. Speakin gof par. 46, one should take away his sandals and give them to him, straight on the teeth. A great help to his salvation. Alas, this is not allowed.  


Last remark: Kasper and Forte should be defrocked.

They aren’t Catholics, at all.  




Posted on October 18, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. 1. Mr. M, if you’re happy then I’m happy.

    2. Isn’t it more than a little sad that bishops doing their job and defending the Church against clear heresy is a cause for rejoicing? It should only evoke a yawn, at best.

    • Yep.
      But it was the first time in more than 50 years. I do not remember anything of the sort in my lifetime. Not even when JP II launched Assisi I, say.

  2. So the whole ‘valuing the homosexual orientation’ thing is stricken from the record?

    • Yep.
      The paragraphs will be circulated, but they are not part of the document. Basically, they will be circulated as “this is what the Bishops decided like a man it is not Catholic”.

      It’s going to be a difficult year for the Kasperites. The world sees they are isolated. Cardinal Marx admitted as much.


  3. +++Nichols stomach churning rubbish on BBC Radio 4 religious programme this a.m.!

  4. Sorry, I cannot share your optimism ….not after thirty years of watching their relentless progress over the “voted down ” issues.

  5. I’m confused, where did this quote come from?:

    “53: “We must explain to the people, including some bishops and cardinals, why they can make spiritual communion but not partake in the Sacrament. There will be no charge. Not even for Cardinals”. “

  6. I understand that the voting figures to be the papers did not get the 66% to pass the progressives wanted. What did they get and and as the progressives still get to control the next part of the synod, how many changes amongst the ranks of the voters are necessarily to achieve their ambitions next time. I ask how many heads will roll under Pope Francis “Xavier?”, how many good guys faithful to the Magisterium will be replaced in the next few months? If we knew the votes for and against whatever we may see as for or against Church Teachings we can make a good guess. Will it be this way? Of course it will be unless the scoundrel cardinal who claimed how he set the tone for the Synod is pushed off into the obscurity of his titular see.

    • The main problem isn’t this Cardinal, but the one who put him in his place.#
      We know who the gang boss is. Let us not ger distracted by the hitmen.

%d bloggers like this: