If you read the Working Document of the so-called Amazon Synod, it seems that the intended outcome for the synod is a new religion. A kind of eco-socialism, an amalgam of ecology, climate change, ecumenism, viri probati, consecration of women and, oh yes, also a single mention of Jesus, but not as Son of God, Savior, but Jesus the philosopher, revolutionary and hippie. Jesus gets his place in the Pantheon, as one of the many. The bishop’s synod for the Pan-Amazon region curiously does not take place in the Amazon region, but in Rome. It is also remarkable that countless bishops and cardinals – all of the same signature – have been invited from outside the Amazon. And then there is something else: you will find numerous secular objectives in it. Integral ecology is one of them.
The Working Document embraces pantheism (which the Church has always rejected) and recognizes pagan superstition as a source of revelation (alternative ways that lead to salvation; thereby implicitly saying that Christ’s work of salvation is not unique; He is just one of many). All in all, the document – approved by Francis – removes the Church from its identity as it has always understood it. It is by no means a word about the work of redemption of Jesus, about repentance, sacrifice or sacrality. Embracing en cuddling trees are is more highly considered .
The pope recently noted that he wanted to start a debate with everyone. Except if your name is Burke, or Müller. Burke and Brandmüller are still waiting for answers to some simple questions (the so-called “dubia”). The amazing thing is that even the media cannot tolerate criticism of the pope. Burke et al. are denounced by the press. That is extremely surprising when you know that the same media criticized John Paul II and Benedict as a matter of course. However, anyone who criticizes Pope Francis is framed as part of a plot to get the Pope away, only because they have asked a few questions. You would say, just answer them, then you are done with it. To questions from journalists about the statement of Archbishop Vigano, the Pope replied that they should find out for themselves. And he regards criticism from America as an honour. He does not fear a schism, he told journalists on the return flight from Africa to Rome. If it turns out that way, so be it. I myself do fear a schism. That is really the worst thing that can happen to the Church. On the return flight from Mauritius, the pope added that criticism is beneficial. He then noted that “not only Americans criticize me, but there are also criticisms in the curia.” Why didn’t the pope just invite the four cardinals of the “dubia” to talk about it? As a bridge builder (pontifex) he would have come across more credible and he would have been able to prevent a great deal of confusion. However, the pope chooses to frame them for the press as rigid moralists and slipped ideologues.
Finally this. How often do I hear that it is all a matter of mercy. I don’t believe them. It is false mercy. One does not want to liberalize celibacy to sanctify the priesthood, but to set aside a rule that requires holiness. They do not want to change the doctrine of homosexuality, because they want to be merciful to the heavy burden of sin, but because they want to say that sin is no longer sin. They do not want to allow sex outside of marriage, because they are positive about sexuality, but because they do not want to recognize marriage (man and woman) as the only God-recognized marriage covenant. Be honest for once, and stop with hidden agendas.
Mgr. Rob Mutsaerts is auxiliary bishop of Den Bosch.
© Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.
Positions and concepts emitted in signed articles are the sole responsibility of their authors.