Synod Sequel

THE SEQUEL TO THE SYNOD
What Happens Now?

Article 1
THE SYNOD'S "RADIOACTIVE FALL-OUT"

Barely a month before the Amazon Synod began on October 6th, 2019, on the September 4th flight from Rome for the beginning of a three-nation tour of Southern Africa, the pope was presented with a new book that details years of efforts by Conservative U.S. Catholics trying to influence the pope’s decision-making. Upon being handed a copy of the book by its author, Nicolas Senèze, who is the Rome correspondent for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, the pope said stated: “It's an honor that Americans attack me!” Pope Francis told Nicolas Senèze that he had heard about the book, published in France and entitled How America Wanted to Change the Pope, but admitted that he had yet to read it. After being handed by book by Senèze, Pope Francis passed it to an assistant, jokingly adding: “It's a bomb!”

The same could be said―but not jokingly―about the Final Document that emerged from the 2019 Amazon Synod of Bishops: “It’s a bomb!” ― though in this case, it’s a “time bomb” which will not explode immediately, but has been programmed to explore later.

Speaking of the Amazon and Trees…
Books are written on paper and paper comes is made from trees! The recent Synod of Bishops on the Amazon wrote on paper and read from paper documents. You could say that trees―whether Amazonian or not―played a great part in the Amazon Synod!

When you read a book, or a letter of complaint, or hear a criticism―the immediate reaction should be: “Who wrote it? Who said it?” Holy Scripture says: “They are of the world―therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them!” (1 John 4:5). The worldly produce worldly words. Our Lord, speaking in a similar vein, says: “By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them!” (Matthew 7:16-20).

Trees and Fruit―Clergy and Teachings
Applying this to subject being discussed―the current modern-day crisis in the Church in general, and Pope Francis and his synods in particular―it has to be said: “By their teaching you shall know them. Do men gather Conservatism from Liberalism, or Catholicism from Protestantism or Paganism? Even so every good Catholic tree bringeth forth good Catholic fruit, and the evil Catholic tree bringeth forth evil Catholic fruit. A good Catholic tree cannot bring forth evil Catholic fruit, neither can an evil Catholic tree bring forth good Catholic fruit. Every Catholic tree that bringeth not forth good Catholic fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their teachings you shall know them!”

Excellent trees bear excellent fruit, good trees bear good fruit, bad trees bear bad fruit, evil trees bear evil fruit, etc. This reminds us of the well-known phrase regarding the varying fruits produced by priests, which is found in the Soul of the Apostolate, by the Trappist monk, Jean-Baptiste Chautard: “A holy priest makes a fervent people; a fervent priest a pious people; a pious priest a fairly good people; a fairly good priest, a godless people.” Which you could expand to read as follows: “A saintly priest will produce a holy parish. Whereas a holy priest will only produce a fervent parish. A fervent priest will merely produce a good parish; while a good priest will produce a lukewarm parish. However, a lukewarm priest will produce a parish of devils.” The same applies in relation to parents (priest) and their children (parish), as well as teachers and their students. The same also applies to what is coming out the Vatican in Rome, whether from individuals such as the Pope, or from groups such as the Synod of Bishops.

Conservatives will produce Conservative fruit. Liberals will produce Liberal fruit. Modernists will produce Modernist fruit. That does not mean that a Conservative will not be guilty of Liberalism in some areas to a greater or lesser degree; nor does it mean that a Liberal will never hold some Conservative views is one or more areas; nor does it mean that a Modernist will never say anything Conservative or in line with Church Tradition. Original Sin hits everyone and everyone is mixture of Traditionalism, Conservatism, Liberalism and Modernism―because everyone likes some traditions, everyone wants to conserve some things, everyone wants to be free to think, say and believe what they want in one or more areas of the Faith, and everyone wants to change and modernize and update some aspect of their Faith. To deny that means that you are either a liar or insane. Yet, as with the “Four Temperaments”―of which we all have something from all four of them―there is one temperament that clearly dominates our personality. Likewise, there is one of the “Four Isms” (Traditionalism, Conservatism, Liberalism or Modernism) that dominates the way we see and live our Faith. This is true for clergy and laity alike―generally speaking, we fall into one of those four categories, not all of the time, but most of the time―we are either Traditionalists, Conservatives, Liberals or Modernists. Broadly speaking, the “good guys” are the Traditionalists and Conservatives; whereas the “bad guys” are Liberals and Modernists.

Some of you may well ask: “What about Progressives? Where are they on the chart?” Simply and broadly speaking, Progressivism lies somewhere between Liberalism and Modernism. It is born out of Liberalism and it is journeying towards Modernism. Wikipedia describes Progressive Christianity as a post-Liberal movement within Christianity that seeks to reform the Faith via the insights of post-Modernism. Progressive Christianity is characterized by (1) a willingness to question tradition; (2) an acceptance of human diversity; (3) a strong emphasis on social justice; (4) a care for the poor and the oppressed, and (5) an environmental stewardship of the Earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to “love one another” (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism. Progressive Christianity draws on the insights of multiple theological streams including Evangelicalism, Liberalism, neo-Orthodoxy, Pragmatism, post-Modernism, Progressive Reconstructionism, and Liberation Theology. The concerns of feminism are also a major influence on the movement, as expressed in feminist and womanist theologies. Though the terms “Progressive Christianity” and “Liberal Christianity” are often used synonymously, the two movements are different, despite there being much overlap. In essence, you could say that the Progressive is the child of Liberalism that has left home and is staying, increasingly, with the Modernist family.

Francis the Foreshadower
“Hmm!” you say, “That seems to sum up the agenda of the Amazon Synod!” Correct! It certainly does, doesn’t it? It also seems to sum up the characteristics of Pope Francis too! St. John the Baptist is called the “Precursor” of Christ and the “Good News” of the Gospel. Pope Francis could be said to be “Francis the Foreshadower” in that he foreshadows the “Bad News” and the time of the Antichrist. What is it to “foreshadow”? In foreshadowing, an event occurs because a later event is going to happen, and, in a sense, has already happened. You could call “foreshadowing” by the name of “backward causation”. Huh? How can something in the future cause something in the past? That’s sounds crazy! Well, if you are walking along the street and are approaching a street corner, you might see a terrifying shadow being projected from around the street-corner building. In fear, you turn and run. You are running from the future (encountering the bear or monster around the corner whose shadow you saw) even though the future has not yet arrived. The fearful future has caused you to run in the present moment. Thus the future influences what lies behind it―the past.

Pope Francis (and his Liberal/Progressive/Modernist/Liberation Theology crew) is casting a terrifying shadow of what lies around the corner. That shadow―or foreshadow of the future―should provoke true Catholics to emerge from their nonchalance, indifference, comfort zones and sloth, and do something for, not just the salvation of their souls, but also for the salvation of their Holy Mother, the Church. The past of Francis is the future for the Church―as they say: “Like father, like son!” For it the superiors who form the subordinates and not the other way round. Francis is forming the Church according to his own liking. Or as Holy Scripture tells us: “Every one that useth a common proverb, shall use this against thee, saying: ‘As the mother was, so also is her daughter!’” (Ezechiel 16:44) … “What things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6:8). Pope Francis is a Liberal / Progressive / Modernist and is also heavily influenced by the Marxist leaning Liberation Theology that arose in Latin America during his time―and it is that mixture or cocktail of seeds that Francis is now sowing. Those are the seeds that were sown in him in the past, those same seeds he is sowing now―in Synods and outside of Synods―and those seeds are producing and will continue to produce the fruits of Liberalism, Progressivism and Modernism in the future. “The apple (acorn) never falls far from the tree”―like produces like, and, as we can see, “birds of a feather, flock together”―whether or not the bird feather is Amazonian or not.

The “Feathers” of Francis―Don't "Duck" the Issue
The Indiana poet, James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916), may have coined the phrase when he wrote: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck!” A common variation of the wording of the phrase may have originated much later with Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer of the United Auto Workers, at a labor meeting in 1946, accusing a person of being a Communist: “I can't prove you are a Communist. But when I see a bird that quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks—I'm certainly going to assume that he is a duck!” The term was later popularized in the United States by Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr., United States ambassador to Guatemala, in 1950, during the Cold War, who used the phrase when he accused the Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán government of being Communist. Patterson explained his reasoning as follows: “Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says 'duck'. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he's wearing a label or not.” As the sayings go: “A bird is known by its feathers!” and “A bird is known by its song!” Let us take a closer look at the “feathers” and “song” being sung by the Latin American, pro-Amazonian, “bird” of the Church, Jorge Bergoglio―the future Pope Francis.

Jorge Bergoglio was born in 1936, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, graduated from a technical school as a chemical technician. He then worked in the foods section at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires, where his boss was Esther Ballestrino, a politically active member of the Socialist February Revolutionary Party of Paraguay, who was forced to leave the country, after which she came to Argentina and was Jorge Bergoglio’s boss at the Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires. Jorge Bergoglio, who would later become Pope Francis, remembers working for her and her attention to detail. He later commented that Marxists could be good people and he saw Ballestrino as a major influence on him. In 1977 Ballestrino contacted her former work associate, now a priest, Fr. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and asked that he come to give the last rites to a relative. The Fr. Bergoglio was surprised by this request, as he knew that Ballestrino was a Marxist. When he arrived, he learned that Ballestrino’s real intention was to have him smuggle out her family’s collection of Communist books. Ballestrino was worried that these books would lead to her arrest in the case of a house search. Bergoglio did as he was requested and smuggled out the books.

Going back a few years, to the late 1950s, Jorge Bergoglio decided to become a priest and began his training at the Diocesan Seminary of Villa Devoto. In March 1958, aged 21, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus. He entered the Jesuit order, around the time of the revolutionary ferment of the “spirit” of Vatican II, precisely because he wanted to push Liberal revolution in the Church. Being a left-wing political activist, who had been mentored by a Paraguayan Communist (Esther Ballestrino), Bergoglio naturally gravitated to the Liberal Jesuits because of all the religious orders, they were abandoning orthodoxy for “social justice” (which just meant the promotion of Socialism) and trendy psychobabble. This was in line with the secular formation and background that Jorge Bergoglio had been given in South America―and Socialism would profit from the “freedoms” being demanded by the Liberals―they would leech off it.

Pope Francis has described himself as “undisciplined,” implying that being undisciplined made him an odd fit for a religious order founded by the militaristically minded St. Ignatius of Loyola. But in the 1960s it was that lack of discipline that made him a perfect fit. The Liberal Jesuits were busy turning their back on the Traditional St. Ignatius and all of his “reactionary hang-ups.” Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises had been replaced by the works of Sigmund Freud. The Vatican II-era Jesuits were infamous for inviting destructive psychologists like Carl Rogers to hold seminars for them on “non-directive therapy” (repentant Carl Rogers assistant William Coulson once said to me that the purpose of those sessions was to make the priests “feel good about being bad”).

Fr. Pedro Arrupe, the disastrously permissive leader of the Jesuits, as it plunged into Socialism and modern morality in the 1960s and 1970s, saw Bergoglio as a rising Liberal star within the Jesuit order and elevated him to the top Jesuit position in Argentina, at the mere age of 36. The Jesuit Superior General, Fr. Arrupe, used Fr. Bergoglio as one of his Liberal enforcers against restless Conservative Jesuits. At a worldwide gathering of Jesuits in the early 1970s, at which Arrupe blessed the Liberal direction of the order, he asked Bergoglio to run off some Spanish Jesuits who had petitioned the Vatican for help against Fr. Arrupe’s Modernist dictates and direction. Fr. Bergoglio happily complied. “I was never a right-winger,” he said in an interview with Jesuit editors — the same interview in which he declared the Church too “obsessed” with abortion and gay marriage. That interview was conducted by the Jesuit, Antonio Spadaro (born 1966), editor in chief of Rome’s Jesuit-affiliated journal La Civiltà Cattolica since 2011, and one of Pope Francis’s closest advisers. Fr. Spadaro, in typical Socialist/Marxist/Communist fashion, has written articles in which he has criticized Conservatives for being uncritical of militarism, Capitalism and the arms industry and for disregarding the environment. Fr. Spadaro is openly heterodox (which means not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs), saying perhaps most famously that under the caring-and-sharing pontificate of Francis two plus two no longer equals four. In other words, the new orthodoxy is heterodoxy (not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs). Where did Francis learn his math? Who taught him his “new math”? That is what we shall now examine.

Modernistic Marxist Math―Communistic Calculations―Socialist Science
Malcolm Muggeridge and Pope Francis never met―yet there is a link. Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990) was an English journalist and satirist. An agnostic for most of his life, he became a Protestant Christian in 1969, before finally converting to Catholicism in 1982―aged 79. His father was a prominent Socialist politician and one of the early Labour Party Members of Parliament. In his twenties, Muggeridge was attracted to Communism but after living in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, he became a forceful anti-Communist. While growing-up, Francis came under various influences of Socialism, Communism and Marxism―but he never really became a forceful anti-Communist. In fact, he is on record as praising some of the Marxists and Communists in his life. A quote of Malcolm Muggeridge, that can be applied to Pope Francis, is: “The future casts its shadow backwards!” If the future casts its shadow backwards, then you can catch a glimpse of the future by looking at Francis’ past―you can see where he is heading by looking at where he is coming from. If you want to know the direction that he is taking with his papacy, then you simply have to look at the path he has walked beforehand―his “future casts its shadow backwards!”