Tuesday, October 14, 2014

EWTN Debunks Synod "Gay Super Powers" Document

EWTN's advice to Catholics upset over the synod document is for everyone to "do some centering prayer or pop a benzo."

EWTN claimed that the document is "no more official than a shopping list," but, rather, is just some anonymous notes scribbled down over the weekend.

The story chided the Catholic blogosphere for "freaking out over nothing." It added that just because "there's some document floating around about gay super powers the Church needs now more than ever, doesn't mean it's legit." ("Not that there would be anything wrong with that," the article added). In fact, the article claimed, no one is sure exactly where the document even came from.

"Furthermore," the article said, "there is absolutely no chance that the media will seize upon whatever this is to spin expectations on the Church's position on homosexuality and other matters. If we've learned one thing during this papacy, it is that the mainstream media completely ignores statements about homosexuality."


  1. I'm sure you realize the post is satire, but the EWTN article that prompted it is pretty bad. What would Mother say about a lot of things?

  2. Bear, you are on a roll.

    I for one welcome our new homosexual overlords. Classic! I think I'd rather be lured down into the underground sugar caves by Kent Brockman than to welcome these overlords.

    1. Thanks. On the topic of memes, I'm feeling like Charlie the Unicorn felt after his ill-fated trip to the Candy Mountain.

  3. Even if we take the word of the synod that these are just a collection of thoughts, ideas and concerns with no future binding, the fact that the content of the paper has little grounding in Catholic thought and morality is quite alarming.

    You must have done well in creative writing in school. I imagine this skill served you well as a defense attorney!

    1. The problem is, this is "who am I to judge?" writ large. The public doesn't understand or care about what's official, what's dogma, and what's glorified spit-balling. And that includes most Catholics. All they're going to hear is "Pope Demands Church Welcome Gays," etc. and that will become the reality. Meanwhile, Father Mario will keep talking about sheep-sniffing and how only Pharisees are wrapped up in pesky old rules. The Franciscan Church is doing an end run around the very concept of the magisterium.

    2. Does the Holy Father's frequent resort to smell-related metaphors strike anyone else as strange, perhaps even psychologically telling? Maybe it's an Argentinian or a Jesuit thing, but he seems to be exceptionally fond of invoking the "smell of the sheep" or "the fragrance of the Gospel" and like metaphors.

      It's probably nothing, and I have no idea what it would signify in any case, but it just strikes me as an interesting tic.

    3. Bear: I agree. That is my point. Even though the doc has no "real value" it is really quite valuable to the media and uninformed public and liberals. And any Catholic content and context of the ideas expressed are utterly absent. That makes the doc very dangerous, as we all know.

  4. Yesterday was Canadian Thanksgiving, so I had ample time on my hands to watch the debate over the relatio unfold on Twitter, and to marvel, once again at the seemingly deliberate obtuseness of our neo-catholic chattering class, particularly those found at the dreadful Patheos clickbait portal.

    On one hand, the liberals and the secular (but I repeat myself) were exultant at finding that the Kasperite machinations had indeed given them the upper hand, enshrining plainly heterodox sentiments into the relatio. On the other hand, traditionalists were discouraged to find that their fears had been exceeded by an even more problematic and one-sided "working document" than they had expected.

    And what of the neos? Well, the first rule of Neo Club is that every Francis event must be treated as if it were singular and standalone, as if this were the first time anyone had ever seen anything remotely troubling from this papacy.

    Armed with the correct perspective, the neos adopted their customary supercilious tone, as if conversing with a particularly dull-witted child. What on earth are all these people freaking out about? Where did all these panicky bedwetters come from? Why are people saying mean things about our unquestionably, pellucidly orthodox Holy Father? Don't you know that the Gates of Hell will not prevail?

    Never mind the fact that the bedwetters this time include Cardinals Burke and Napier and the head of the Polish Bishops' Conference, among other high-ranking clerics. Pay no attention to the fact that even Raymond Arroyo(!) is asking very pointed questions about the degree to which the Holy Father has backed Cardinal Kasper's proposals. Feel free to disregard the impenetrable Son of Vatican II chancery-bureaucrat jargonese of the relatio. Stand in gape-jawed incomprehension as liberal Catholics and unbelievers (but I repeat myself) perform a victory lap.

    It's almost like they've made an idol of unflappability. One wonders exactly what it would take to alarm them, but I think their main problem now is that they've spent so many months jeering at and scorning all concerns about the direction and many strange events of this papacy that they can't very well admit that the bedwetters may have a point.

    1. They know on which side their bread is buttered. (Is it my imagination, or did Mark Shea actually use the term "bedwetters?") I suspect there is nothing, repeat, nothing, that would get them to express shock at even the most unseemly tricks at the Turkish seal show. It's all about being Catholic AND hanging out with the cool kids, and not necessarily in that order.

      The genie is out of the bottle. They know it. They know the (temporarily) winning side and that's where they want to be.

    2. To be fair, Shea is so repellent that I don't know whether he used the 'b' word in relation to the working document, but otherwise, see for yourself.

      The neos are suffering defections right now, even some prominent--if perhaps temporary--personalities (like Arroyo and Fr Longenecker), but many of them have so much psychological investment in their self-perceived cool unflappability that it's difficult to see what could open their eyes.

      For my part, I know what it would take to change my mind about this papacy:clear statements from the Holy Father to definitively put an end to all ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the possibility of changes to doctrine or praxis. But the neos work so assiduously to avoid connecting any dots that I 'm really not sure that even an openly heretical statement would shake them.


Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...