Liberal Spinners & Bishop McElroy

 I’m not so sure why the liberal spinners are doing what they do. They won the battle. Why are they all still spinning so incredibly hard? It’s looking a little manic at this point.

Lamb, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of the lapdogs are putting ridiculous things out there.  Examples? They’re still trying to deny that the Pachamama is Pachamama, even though the Pope and about 100 people from the Vatican have already admitted it to be so.

Next, they’re still trying to desperately convince us there’s this huge devotion (similar to Our Lady of Guadalupe) to “Our Lady of the Amazon”, because  Charles Lamb found a little chapel in South America with that title. He suggested you Google the title. I second that, because it gives you zip except what comes from them. Guys, the VATICAN has said it is not “Our Lady of Anything.”

They are even trying to say that nobody was bowing down to anything. I’m still scratching my head on this one. Again, the VATICAN put it out on video. Hello! Are they trying to insinuate everyone was down on their knees with head to the ground just looking for a contact? Smelling the flowers? Doubled over in pain?

The most ludicrous thing I’ve seen come across my screen is this tweet from Luke Hansen, SJ (with bonus video in the link!): https://twitter.com/lukehansensj/status/1188565636227747842?s=20

Luke Hansen

Uh, hello. To clarify, it was “the majority of the bishops” INVITED TO THE SYNOD. For those not paying attention, this wasn’t some open event. Attendees were carefully chosen to vote on something that the masterminds of this ridiculous synod wanted.  They wanted married priests and they wanted women deacons. When the majority you invite are your voting bloc, you are going to win the vote. Duh.

If you watch the video, Bp. McElroy says something we already knew: he’s not an expert on women in the diaconate.  Some of us would argue that he’s really only an expert on dissent, but whatever.  Let’s just look at this typical Bp. McElroy transcript from Youtube.

The core what the synod is about, I don’t see challenges to an authentic reception.

This reception idea is some knew reality the liberals are trying to float for a year or so. If it’s not received, it’s not really binding. If it is, it is.  It’s totally subjective.

Now I do think there will be peripheral issues of substance and some that are of caricature that will become a focus of debate around the synod but those are different questions. Those who were advocating for viri probati interventions specifically said we are in favor of celibacy and maintaining celibacy.

Um, sorry?! You cannot be both advocating against maintaining the celibacy of the priesthood and saying it should be maintained. Talk about double speak!

So they were bringing this forth not as a as a contrast with celibacy or as an alternative to celibacy they kept reiterating “This is an emergency situation for a faith communities that only get the Eucharist once a year.

They’ve created the “emergency situation” themselves by being such poor catechists that they’re not making converts, much less priests!  This, however, is what good liberals do. They create emergencies all of the stinking time so they can implement horrible measures to “save people.”

The key to me is what holds together the commitment to celibacy that was the consensus you know among the bishops and the wider body of the church.

Uh, no.  Can we stop this ridiculous lie that this somehow was representative of the Church at large? There is no “consensus” among bishops and cardinals around the world. Let’s all remember that Cardinal Kasper couldn’t wait to get rid of the Africans because they were an obstacle to his plans. So, if you don’t normally pay attention and something seems a little off about this synod, let me clarify: it was a complete and utter power play. Nobody went into this wondering what the outcome would be, barring a complete and utter miracle that would have had to include a lot of fire and brimstone to convert these guys.

On this question that’s that seems undiluted at the Synod it was not opened at all.

Pause. There were really two questions here. One small group asked, “How can we save the Church in the Amazon?”, but the overwhelming majority’s question was, “How can we use the Amazonian region to get what we want?” Let’s remember the infamous quote of Bishop Krautler that he has not baptized an indigenous person in 30 years.  And then there’s Bishop Mori, who lived in the forest with the indigenous people for a month but never taught them, because he needed their help to survive.  And our problem is that we don’t have married priests? Yeah, give me a break.

The sentiment among the bishops of the Synod (emphasis mine) was in favor of, the majority bishops were in favor the permanent, employment of women in the permanent diaconate. My own view is that I’m in favor of opening any ministry we have in the church to women which is not clearly precluded doctrinally so my own assessment of it is, and I’m not an expert in this field (Thanks for stating the obvious which is why we were wondering why you were there at all.) that what has come out so far indicates that the current diaconate for women is not clearly prohibited by doctrinal considerations so they, my hope would be that they would find a way a pathway to make that a reality and I think there’s a good possibility that’s the direction it’s gonna head. I, I don’t see, the Pope added his comments yesterday. The fact he did that makes me think there’s a good chance that some positive action will come out of that.

Honestly, how many more of these “Studies of Women in the Diaconate” are we going to have to endure? In 2002, their conclusion was that women were excluded: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/clarification-on-itc-study-on-the-diaconate-2276 2016? No consensus that this was allowed: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/women-diaconate  It has been done to death already!  I know, how about a synod on it where we only invite Sr. Mary Pantsuit and friends to attend and vote? Sigh. 

I would hope the discussion will be about the substance of the questions not about caricatures because if it’s about caricatures then we all lose it’s about the substance of the questions that that’s very legitimate and I think we should have that set of discussions.

I’m not sure Bishop McElroy would know what substance is. He’s an ideologue, a caricature himself.  Believe me, we all lose when he has a hand in it.

So, please, dear liberal spinners, you’re over selling. Just say you were able to run away with it and admit the truth. It’s been refreshing (yes, refreshing, but disgusting) seeing the prelates saying it like it is. “So what if it was a pagan rite?” “Yes, it is not Mary and is Pachamama!”   Follow the admission train and just admit it is what it is.  You’ll get a lot more sleep at night when you can be free from trying new ways to spin EVERYTHING.

I for one can quite peacefully say that this synod was the disaster many of us thought it would be. No surprise in the least. There is a positive take-away.  Everyone’s cards are on the table (well, except the poor lapdogs who know that’s not the best thing for them) and the slumbering are awake now – like they just had a bucket of ice-water dumped on their heads. Ice bucket challenge, anyone? We pick ourselves up off the battlefield, nurse our wounds, and live to fight another day. We know how the war ends so we can have peace.  Ivereigh, Lamb and Faggioli? They’ll just keep spinning until they crash. We’re just called to fight the battles of our age, win or lose. Discouragement and bailing are not an option. I will wake up tomorrow and do exactly what I did today. I’ll pray and hope that I get it right.