|Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia,|
a bishop with some common sense!
What an understatement! Not only that, but it's become clearer and clearer that the agenda for these events is to undermine Church's teaching on a whole panoply of issues. Journalist Edward Pentin who reported on the two synods on the family in 2014-2015 pointed that out at the alternative meeting in Dublin last week during the World Meeting on the Family. (What sad times we live in when orthodox Catholics have to stage alternative meetings to address the dissent and error of the "official" events.) Here's part of what he said in his talk:
Up until this pontificate, Synods never used to be the overwrought affairs they are today.
In fact, they used to be a joy to cover – they brought interesting Church leaders to Rome, were usually held in good spirits, and pretty much everyone was pulling in the same direction.
That all changed with the synods on the family, and the reason, many argue, is because of pressure from heterodox theologians to steer the debate, with some urgency, in a direction they wanted the Church to go.Pentin goes on to describe the machinations at the two synods on the family which resulted in the pope issuing the troublesome document Amoris Laetitia. He points out that past synods were about upholding orthodoxy, but these synods were about changing practice leading to confusion over whether doctrine was changing. He told his audience:
Cardinal [Walter] Brandmüller [of Germany], perhaps put it best, when he told me in no uncertain terms back in 2015 that those behind the synod had"'the aim to change the Church, to adapt it to modern thinking and public opinion.'" He also had no doubt that ideological reasons lay behind their agenda. “They have no arguments,” he said, “no valuable arguments, against orthodox doctrine, — they don’t. Their argumentation is rather illogical and inconsistent. And as they see more, as they recognize their lack of solid arguments, they become aggressive and try to deceive.”Many Catholics in the pew were not deceived by the machinations at the two synods, but saw exactly what was happening. Perhaps that has helped fuel the anger over recent revelations about the corrupt hierarchy. Ambiguity and confusion, such as that in Amoris Laetitia, is a vehicle for introducing heterodoxy.
Instead of having a youth synod, Archbishop Chaput proposed a synod to address the topic of the bishops themselves. “I have called on him (Pope Francis), in its place, to begin making plans for a synod on the life of bishops." An English bishop, Philip Egan of Portsmouth has suggested the same thing writing to Pope Francis, “I suggest the Synod be devoted to the identity of being a priest/bishop, to devising guidance on life-style and supports for celibacy, to proposing a rule of life for priests/bishops and to establishing appropriate forms of priestly/episcopal accountability and supervision."
Sounds like a good idea to me. Many of the bishops apparently don't have a clue about what it means to be an apostle for Christ!