Meeting Sinners… In the Gay Sauna?
I am continuing the reading of the reports of the “Language Groups”. I will possibly write more in detail about them tomorrow. What I can say for now is that apart from vague references to cultural differences and the necessity to adapt to them in the German version – by far the worst of what I have read up to now – there is no meaningful sign of any intention to “meeting people where they are, and keeping them there“.
This means that, from what I have seen up to now, if any perverted bishop has tried to voice his own rainbow “sensitivity issues” in any of the groups he has been either pelted with rotten tomatoes or, more probably, has been asked to shut up already and let the grown-ups work in peace.
The reports I have read have no meaningful reference to any of that Rosica rubbish. When there are indirect references, it is always stated – sometimes more directly, sometimes less directly, sometimes only vaguely – that doctrine must be reaffirmed, and practiced. It is all far from perfect, of course – there is still a vast amount of PC going on; too many bishops supports illegal immigration; and there is rarely a strong call for the defense of the Catholic doctrine – but on the whole, it is as if the Bishops would say that Rosica’s problems are literally neither here nor there, irrelevant, not worthy of even a mention.
The same, in a veiled manner, is stated in all those references to the Instrumentum Laboris being “confused”, or “chaotic”, or other ways of politely saying the IL is “a mess that confuses Catholics”. The implication here is clear: that the confusion and chaos come from the parts that have nothing to do with any Catholic understanding of the family, or of sexual morality. So much so, that they are completely ignored in the reports from the various groups.
I understand this report to be the last one from the groups. Therefore, the bishops knew that the moment to speak about rainbow things was this one, and no other. If you miss this, never again will you be able to say “the other synod fathers of my group shared my concerns”. Well no they didn’t. They actually didn’t care a straw. Which should be signal enough for you, Bishop Fag.
That Father Rosica looks much, much worse than stupid in all this is obvious. He is clearly untenable. He has become such an obvious ally of the rainbow faction that the stench must arrive to Siberia. The permanence of a clerical habit on the shoulder of this man should be put into question. He belongs in some drag show, not in the synod.
A word to the wise: he who wants to meet the sinner where he is but does not ask of the sinner to “go and sin no more” is not interested in the conversion of the sinner at all; actually, he might be interested in the very sin of the sinner.
I’d love to know what the heck this Father Rosica does in his free time. Which people does he see in the evening. Who are his friends. Who are the friends of his friends. Where he resides when he is in Rome. Who sees him going in and out at night, and where. And, in general, what the Rosica is happening here. Because truly, this here is getting beyond belief.
We have just had the case of a Monsignor, so vocal in his call for “inclusiveness”, “coming out”. The man was working for the CDF, of all things. How blind have we become? Don’t we know that the Vatican is full of homos? Does it always have to be “someone else”?
Giulio Andreotti used to say, with usual Italo-Catholic wit: “he who thinks badly of others may commit a sin, but he is often right”.
You know what I am thinking.
And I know that you think it, too.