The saddest thing about that picture is that we are most shocked by the woman in clerical garb as if there is nothing wrong with all of the other things crazy things going on in it.
The priestess is a shocking presence, but no more so than a group of people treating the House of God like a campsite and festooning it with pagan symbols. We are meant to respect the indigenous culture, but this is all happening in Rome, and ours is the indigenous culture there, but these Amazonians show no respect whatsoever for our culture. Had a brief glimpse at the website of this Ford Foundation. That was enough. Utterly antiChristian and utopianism is its main theme. Money like this always comes with a price attached and the receiver is inevitably compromised. Why, in the Name of God, does the Church need this money?
It reminds me of a comment a friend of mine made on FB this week. She was touring in Europe and visited the Cistine Chapel. They were followed by guards and told they were not allowed to take pictures inside, because the Japanese had restored the frescoes and now owned all the reproduction rights to them. You can only have pictures if you purchase in the gift shop and royalties go to the Japanese. She said the guards followed them around reminding them of that. $$$ it's all about $ anymore.
The Amazon Synod is a Sign of the Times https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/10/the-amazon-synod-is-a-sign-of-the-times The Synod of the Amazon is a sign of the times. So its Instrumentum laboris says. Who could disagree? And what times these are! Some are saying hopefully that the Synod of the Amazon will change the Church forever, that the Church will never be the same again. Others are saying that the Synod is an instrument of apostasy. In the grim humor of Dom Giulio Meiattini, “if there is still something Christian in this Instrumentum laboris, that is, a few words and expressions here and there, there is no need to worry: it is undoubtedly biodegradable!” Biodegradable Christianity—now there is a sign of the times, a sign of our times. For our times are times in which even the faith of the Catholic Church threatens to disappear into the wetlands of our own confused and decaying cultures. Our times are times when eco-theology in the Amazon basin and sexual theologies in the bowels of Europe can, with a “liberationist” flourish, flush the gospel of Jesus Christ down Leonardo Boff’s drain. The real problem here is not, as some suggest, the expensive German plumbers who, after all, are doing the flushing for free. The real problem is the Great Apostasy, now several centuries in the making, which has at last produced a global union of such plumbers—a union now so powerful that it can elect popes and conduct its dirty business in the name of the Church itself. The Amazon, we are told in the name of the Church, “is living a moment of grace, a kairos,” because it is “living the culture of encounter.” Encounter with the God and Father of Jesus Christ? No, encounter with itself and its own lands, peoples, and cultures, which are veritable sources of revelation. Encounter also with “the other,” with “love lived in any religion” and in every cultural space. Except that of the colonialists and neo-colonialists, of course, who do not know how to love. (The neo-colonialists, one would think, must surely include the European Marxists and Gramscians running this synod, but apparently not.) In this moment of grace, of encounter, the oppressive space of “petrified doctrines” is broken open. Old wineskins, to change the metaphor, are burst, that the new wine may flow freely. Dogma gives way to dialogue, christology to pneumatology, the exclusive to the inclusive: Many peoples of the Amazon are inherently people of dialogue and communication. There is a broad and essential arena of dialogue between the Amazon’s spiritualities, creeds and religions that requires an approach of the heart to the different cultures. Respect for this space does not mean relativizing one’s own convictions, but recognizing other avenues/pathways that seek to decipher the inexhaustible mystery of God. Insincere openness to the other, just like a corporatist attitude, that reserve salvation exclusively for one’s own creed, [is] destructive of that very creed. This is what Jesus explained to the Doctor of the Law in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37). Love lived in any religion pleases God. “Through an exchange of gifts, the Spirit can lead us ever more fully into truth and goodness” (EG 246). Now, a proper critique of this marshy stuff, which finds the divine in every weed and breaks no bruised reed, would require much more open space than I have here; more even than the eminent Cardinal Müller carved out in his own critique of the Instrumentum—the very fact of which, coming from a former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, should suffice to show what kind of times we are living in. But I will venture two observations of my own, briefly and bluntly. The first is that it is one thing to say with Thomas Aquinas that grace presupposes nature and quite another to say that, “as Pope Francis has affirmed, ‘Grace supposes culture’ (EG 115).” Or so it turns out, as the ambiguity in Evangelii gaudium is happily resolved by the Instrumentum. To say that grace presupposes nature is to say that the redemptive and perfective gifts of God, gratia sanans and gratia elevans, presuppose what Bernard of Clairvaux calls gratia creans. They presuppose the gift of creation, which already has its proper purposes and powers, its own order and goodness. It is in rescue of creation, which because of sin has been subjected to futility, and in realization of ”the glorious liberty of the children of God,” that new graces are extended, word of which is given through the gospel. To say that grace presupposes culture, on the other hand, is not merely to say that it belongs to the human being, as a social animal, to have and to generate culture, and that the gospel comes to human beings as those who are already inculturated. It is not merely to say that the gospel can and should take hold of a culture, affirming in it what conforms to divine design, while contesting that which does not. To judge by the programmatic paragraph quoted above—from which arise many like remarks about the revelatory status of the peoples, lands, and cultures of the Amazon (not to mention the Rhine) as authentic theological loci in their own right—it is to say something more than that and indeed other than that. It is to say that in these peoples, lands, and cultures we find discrete foundations for talk of God and his gospel. We find in them the seeds of new gospels. “Grace supposes culture” means that the culture in question is somehow divinely authored and designed, therefore good and revelatory in itself. Or at least that it is an appropriate response to divine design, hence good and revelatory—the fact notwithstanding that all culture, as Scripture and tradition have it, is the product of fallen people in whom the imago dei, so far from being on the way to perfection, is badly distorted and in danger of disappearing, but for Christ’s redemptive work. Let us leave aside here what Cardinal Müller notices about the Instrumentum; namely, the general absence of Scripture and tradition and the appalling misuse of both where they do appear. Or rather, let us admit that this is to some extent deliberate. For Scripture and tradition are the very font of the “petrified doctrines” that must be overcome. They constitute the very space that must be broken up. It is no accident, I suggest, that “what is missing in the IL is a clear witness to the self-communication of God in the verbum incarnatum, to the sacramentality of the Church, to the Sacraments as objective means of Grace instead of mere self-referential symbols, to the supernatural character of Grace.” For once we take all that into account it becomes clear, as Müller says, that “the integrity of man does not just consist in communion with biological nature, but in the Divine Sonship and in the grace-filled communion with the Holy Trinity.” It becomes clear that “eternal life is the reward for the conversion to God, the reconciliation with Him,” which every man and every culture requires. Let us notice instead—this is the second point, about which I will be still more brief and still more blunt—what Cardinal Müller politely does not. Let us notice that the maxim “grace supposes culture” is indeed a teaching of the current pontiff, a teaching that is being developed in this way, at this time, with his approval. The kairos, the culture of encounter, being lauded in the Pan-Amazon Synod is a Bergoglian kairos and culture. The church “called to be ever more synodal,” to be “made flesh” and “incarnated” in existing cultures, is a Bergoglian church. And this church, not to put too fine a point on it, is not the Catholic Church. It is a false church. It is a self-divinizing church. It is an antichristic church, a substitute for the Word-made-flesh to whom the Catholic Church actually belongs and to whom, as Cardinal Müller insists, it must always give witness if it means to be the Church. So where does that leave us? It leaves us, quite frankly, with the question of how both the true Church and the false can have the same pontiff, and what is to be done about that fact. Others are raising this very question in their own way. It is a most uncomfortable question, whether for the lowly layman or for the lofty cleric, against both of whom the Instrumentum takes aim if they give the least hint of petrification. I expect that it is a very uncomfortable question for the pontiff himself, who holds the office of Peter while using it to attack “petrification.” But it is the question raised by the Synod of the Amazon, which is indeed a sign of the times.
Who Needs an Ecological Conversion? – and a Canonization Note Robert Royal | Monday, October 14, 2019 | https://www.thecatholicthing.org/20...cological-conversion-and-a-canonization-note/ We begin today – the delightfully incoherent “Columbus/Indigenous Peoples’ Day” in the United States – with several questions. Where has environmental harm to rivers, air, and soil been most reversed? And where is it now most difficult for factories to pollute streams, for farms to allow fertilizer and pesticide runoff to poison local flora and fauna, and for both companies and individuals to put soot and other unhealthy particulates into the air? And where, too, are the strongest advocates for taking care of both the 7-billion people on the planet, and the global ecosystem on which we all depend? Many people won’t like the answer: it is in the rich, developed, capitalist countries of the world. They aren’t perfect, because perfection in these matters is not possible. An intelligent environmentalism always looks at tradeoffs: What development will produce jobs for people; where do we locate heavy industries, necessary for our prosperity, so that they have the least harmful effects? And most important of all: How much do we spend now on installing relatively undeveloped renewable sources of energy, when investing in promising research will, in the longer run, give us far better overall outcomes? Now, another question: Where do the most prominent people in the Church at the moment think the problem is greatest and calls for “ecological conversion”? That’s easy. In the rich, developed, capitalist countries of the world. This despite the fact that the churches there already have extensive networks of environmental activism involving people who – mostly – mean well. So who needs an “ecological conversion”? That’s a major theme of the current Amazon Synod and among the well-intentioned people, but they don’t give the impression of understanding many key details, to say nothing of the big picture, though they talk about how “everything is connected to everything else.” A banal example: In Rome, where I am temporarily residing and this Synod is taking place, simple garbage collection is a painful process. There are three categories of garbage: organic waste, aluminum and other solids, plastic and glass. As to the last category, as my charming Roman landlord explained to me, you have to separate the two different substances – put glass in the glass slot and the plastic in the plastic slot when you go down to the large collection bins on the street. Oh, I almost forgot: and you also put clean paper in a basket that is emptied yet elsewhere. Now, what happens after that would be a comedy of errors if it weren’t such a disaster. The municipal government in Rome is inefficient and corrupt. It struggles simply to pick up the garbage, and the streets in these still warm October days smell. Even when the garbage is picked up, the city often has nowhere to put it because all the collection centers are overloaded. Some municipalities in Italy send their garbage to Austria, where German efficiency turns it into energy. Italians are relatively easygoing, but several of them have told me in recent years, with no little exasperation, that they’re fed up with their governments. If the Austrians can use current technologies to good ends, why can’t we? The answer is that not every place is Austria. Most are somewhere nearer to Italy. Even the best laid plans, eco-sensitive though they may be, have to be carried out in concrete ways. And governments, even in our developed countries, consist of politicians, people of no greater virtue than anyone else, who have to cater to popular whims to be re-elected, and are often corrupted by lobbyists and intoxicated by power. Men have long hoped for a reign of philosopher-kings with real backbone, but be careful what you wish for. Human history shows that virtuous regimes don’t long survive and neither do tyrannies, even if they’re run by idealists. It is the part of the wise person – including the wise churchman – to understand the reality of the political beast and to not expect the average government to be much good for anything. There’s been a lot of talk about “ecological conversion” in the Synod, relatively little talk – so far as an observer can tell – of real environmental questions. Church figures try to pour the issues into familiar religious categories: we must change our lives, live more simply, use less. That’s wise, for religious purposes. But from Plato down to the present, intelligent people have understood that asking the mass of people to live in a Spartan manner is a non-starter. It may not even be environmentally sound. There has been discussion, for example, of a large hydroelectric plant that the Brazilian government built in the Amazon, which diverted the waters of a river and displaced indigenous communities. In addition, the Brazilian government broke various promises to those communities, after assuring them that their interests would be respected. No doubt that happened, since governments in every country have a tendency to lie to get what they want. In almost every circumstance, I would put myself on the side of the small communities and of local control, especially in our time of imperious progressive regimes. But in this instance I’m not so sure. Deceit and brusque treatment of a people’s legitimate interests are wrong. There are inescapable tradeoffs, however, in questions of environment and development. Cities need electricity – and even the defenders of the indigenous communities openly admit that many from those communities move to the big cities to seek a “better life.” Overall something like 80 percent of “indigenous peoples” now live in cities. At this very moment, indigenous groups in Ecuador, part of which lies in Amazonia, are involved in protests against the government for allowing gasoline prices to rise. It’s unlikely that their voices – or other indigenous voices that don’t fit the stereotype – will play much of a role in the synod. In a country like Brazil, where population is growing, clean hydroelectric power is one of the best options available. The alternatives are even worse. You could switch to coal or oil, or natural gas-powered plants, but you would have to extract those from the earth (extraction is a dirty word at the Synod) and would save the waters of the Amazon at the cost of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, it’s necessary to take into consideration the condition of the whole Amazon region in these decisions, since the Amazon could potentially have a large impact on global conditions. When you drill down into that question, however, other questions pop up. Moral posturing does not resolve such complexities. Moral realism conscientiously accepts that there are going to be losses as well as gains in whatever path you choose. You could, I suppose, get very aggressive about population reduction, as the U.N. and other international bodies currently friendly with the Vatican would be only too happy to do. What is certain, however, is that no people on earth is going to accept remaining in – or returning to – poverty. The Vatican has been decrying the “technocratic paradigm” and promoting an “ecological paradigm.” In theory, as paradigms, these are opposed. In practice, if you want to live in greater harmony with the web of life on earth, it’s going to require pursuing smarter ecological ends by better technological means. And there are other considerations. There’s been talk about infanticide among the indigenous peoples over the past week at the synod. The partisans claim that it does not happen. But it does – or rather infant exposure happens, just as the elderly are often allowed to die. And there’s a simple reason: without the technological developments in medicine, a robust health-care system, and the whole infrastructure of materials like metals and plastics that all this requires, it would be impossible to take care of ailing newborns and the elderly, even if every god and goddess in the Amazon proclaimed the sanctity of human life. So weaker members of the group, who won’t survive very long anyway and are a drain on limited resources, are allowed to die. It’s something that’s practiced by indigenous groups in all parts of the world. If the Synod intends to be serious about ecological matters, then – and it’s not clear yet that it does – it will have to take a more sober path than the reckless approach it has already shown towards evangelization. It will need to make fewer easy moral pronouncements and to pay greater attention to some difficult realities about our world. ******* A Brief Note on the Canonizations ... It all reminded me of what a Protestant character in Newman’s novel Loss and Gain: The Story of a Convert blurts out, unexpectedly, about the Catholic liturgy: We have no life or poetry in the Church of England; the Catholic Church alone is beautiful. You would see what I mean if you went into a foreign cathedral, or even into one of the Catholic churches in our large towns. The celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon, acolytes with lights, the incense, and the chanting-all combine to one end, one act of worship. You feel it is really a worshipping; every sense, eyes, ears, smell, are made to know that worship is going on. The laity on the floor saying their beads, or making their acts; the choir singing out the Kyrie; and the priest and his assistants bowing low, and saying the Confiteor to each other. This is worship, and it is far above reason.
Oct. 17, 2019 Pro-Abortion Ford Foundation Major Funder of Key Synod Organizations The Register has learned that organizations belonging to REPAM, which has held the primary role in organizing the synod’s proceedings, have received millions of dollars in grants from the U.S. foundation. Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ford-foundation (For all hotlinks.) VATICAN CITY — A missionary council for indigenous peoples run by the Brazilian bishops’ conference has received almost $2 million from the pro-abortion Ford Foundation since 2006, a Brazilian journalist has revealed. Bernardo Küster, who publishes largely through YouTube and on the website OsLeigos.com, said two other organizations participating in the synod have also received funding from the foundation, which has actively lobbied for abortion rights and gender ideology. All are members of the Pan-Amazon Ecclesial Network (REPAM), an organization set up by the bishops’ conference of Latin America (CELAM) and Caritas, which has played the leading role in organizing the Amazon Synod that runs until Oct. 27. Archbishop Roque Paloschi of Porto Velho, Brazil, the head of the missionary council — called the Missionary Council for Indigenous Peoples (CIMI) — did not deny it had received such funding when the Register asked him at Thursday’s press briefing at the Vatican and presented him with evidence. The Ford Foundation is a private foundation in the United States, created in 1936 by motoring entrepreneur Henry Ford and his son Edsel, with a mission to advance human welfare. It is one of the world’s wealthiest charitable organizations with assets of $12.5 billion (2014) and its programs have focused primarily on education, science and policy-making for minorities and those suffering from poverty. But it is also well known for its overt support for abortion rights and gender ideology. In 2016, for example, it supported a rally outside the Supreme Court opposing Texas legislation that required abortion facilities to meet specific medical standards, which would have resulted in the closing down of state abortion facilities if the Supreme Court hadn’t subsequently struck down the law. The foundation is also a vocal supporter of gender ideology and LGBT activism. Ford Foundation spokeswoman Nicole Okai told the Register late Thursday that its mission is to “address inequality in all its forms” and support “low-income, rural, and indigenous communities in the Global South” to help mitigate climate change. Where local communities are protected and deforestation is lower, “there is less conflict and women are safer,” Okai said, adding that the foundation also sees reduction in corruption and better standards of trading natural resources as means to reduce inequality. She referred us to their grants database for information on which organisations receive Ford Foundation funding. Details of the funds CIMI received, first discovered by Brazilian journalist Küster, are clearly visible on the Ford Foundation’s grants database. It shows that since 2010, CIMI has received $739,269 from the Ford Foundation, but it is not clear where the funds were spent. In 2016, the foundation says the funds were spent on “Natural Resources and Climate Change” but for the other four years that it received grants, the purposes are not clarified. Only “Beyond Current Program Structure” and within the topics of “Urban and rural land management” and “Civil and human rights.” From 2006 until 2018, the Indigenous Council of Roraima, a local branch of CIMI, received $1,164,906 from the Ford Foundation. Roraima is one of the largest regions of Brazil, and although itself not wealthy, is the richest Amazonian region in terms of resources. It is also unclear precisely where these funds were spent. CIMI’s Founders CIMI was founded by Bishop Erwin Kräutler, emeritus of Xingu, Brazil, who is a supporter of women’s ordination and of ordaining married men in the Amazon because of a shortage of priests there. He is a key figure behind the synod and a member of REPAM. Also a co-founder of REPAM, according to its vice president, Cardinal Pedro Barreto Jimeno, is Cristiane Murray, the new deputy director of the Holy See Press Office. Murray is reportedly an old friend of Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the general relator of the synod and president of REPAM. At today’s press briefing, the Register showed the evidence of the funds received from the Ford Foundation and asked Archbishop Paloschi if he could say why CIMI is accepting funding from such an organization. The Register also asked if any of that funding was being used to fund REPAM and consequently this synod, as well. The archbishop said in response, “We already know the numbers that appear on the internet, they’re out there.” He said CIMI’s financial reports “are public and undergo internal and external financial auditing by the Brazilian government.” He acknowledged that CIMI is “connected to the Brazilian bishops” and that they “don’t have any disagreement about working together but we do not exchange resources.” Archbishop Paloschi continued: “REPAM’s resources belong to REPAM and CIMI’s resources belong to CIMI.” “It’s easy for him to throw out numbers like that,” Archbishop Paloschi said. “My personal bank account has already undergone a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry (PCI) [when Brazilian congressmen officially investigate a specific problem of public interest it passes through the PCI], conducted by the legislative assembly of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul. “This also happened to all the bank accounts of the regional councils of CIMI,” he added. “Until this day there has been two PCIs, one at the regional sphere and a national one. CIMI wasn't accused of anything. And like REPAM, the data is public. But there isn’t any formal accusation made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office nor by the Federal Police; wherever it is.” Küster told the Register he was “astonished” by the archbishop’s reply “but in some way I’m not surprised.” He said he expected he would avoid answering the abortion issue and the Ford Foundation, which the Register referenced in its question, “so he just said all the accounts were cleared by the government. “But that doesn’t mean anything because the problem is that this would be disapproved by the doctrine of the Church, by the Lord, by the Virgin Mary, by Our Lady of Fatima,” he added. Küster said this shows that not only are there “theological problems” with the synod, but “through the Ford Foundation, there’s blood money inside the Vatican” which he believes has “influenced” the Catholic documents, such as the controversial working document for the synod. Other Ford Foundation Funding Two other organizations not linked to the bishops’ conference but works closely with it and with REPAM have also received funding from the Ford Foundation. The Coordinating Body for the Indigenous People’ Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) received $4,097,535 from 2007 to 2018. Its coordinator general, José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal, is attending the synod and appeared at a press briefing last week. The Register asked him on Wednesday via email why his organization accepted funds from the foundation and what the funds have been spent on, but he has not replied. A second organization which also works closely with the Brazilian bishops and REPAM, the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), received $1,623,443 from 2010 to 2018. It’s also not clear how the Ford Foundation funds were spent but Küster says the bishops are involved with it through pastoral coordination and the World Social Forum. It is also part of the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum. “The funding is not transparent,” Küster said. “CIMI’s accounts are not published, it does not publish its financial reports.” He believes this is because CIMI does not want us to know “where and with whom they’re spending their money and what they’re funding.” He said the same is true for REPAM, which also does not publish its financial reports. “Why? What are they doing with their money?” Küster asked. “The Church needs to be more transparent.” The Brazilian journalist said the Ford Foundation is not the only dubious donor of these organizations, and cited the Rainforest Foundation and the Norwegian government as other major funders. “This must be made public to the world,” Küster said. *** The following is included in the article and can be read at the link above.
Incoherence in the Amazon? Robert Royal | Friday, October 18, 2019 | https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/10/18/incoherence-in-the-amazon/ Watch Robert Royal’s most recent appearance on “The World Over” with Raymond Arroyo by clicking here. In any large organization, but especially a global and universal one like the Catholic Church, the chief executive has to take special care about two things. There will, of course, be different views, perspectives, emphases, ideas on various sides, and the boss must, first, make sure that they are all contributing to the central purposes of the body. And second, he must be extremely cautious that he himself does not undermine those purposes. And that’s why the Synod on the Amazon, a region of considerable importance but not quite so unique as is being claimed these weeks, will go down in history, if a true history is ever written. Everyone has by now seen the naked pregnant female figure, painted red, that has popped up in the Vatican gardens, before altars, and in a formal exhibition in the Carmelite Church a few hundred yards from St. Peter’s Square. No one has the come forward or been able to delve into the reality to say what, exactly, that figure and other indigenous objects mean. Yes, she’s probably Pachamama, goddess of the earth or world/universe in some areas of the Amazon, fertility goddess in Peru, etc. To anyone who takes the First Commandment seriously, this is not kids playing with dolls, but the kind of idolatry or worship of “strange gods” that, from first to last, the Bible and our whole tradition warn against. That’s already one scandal, and there’s as second quite as bad. Everyone in the Vatican who has been asked about the presence of that figure at the synod passes it off as if it’s no big deal. In fact, there have been rather embarrassing, fumbling denials by official Vatican spokesmen. Paolo Ruffini, the prefect of the Dicastery for Communication, and his close collaborator Fr. Giacomo Costa, Secretary of the Commission for Information, have in the past referred some close questioners to REPAM (the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network), which organized the indigenous ritual. They try to smile and pass it off as some kind of celebration of “life.” Ruffini yesterday sought to diffuse concern by saying that it was “nothing more or less than” a tree-planting ceremony on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, openly transmitted live on Vatican television. And therefore not a problem? But here’s a further question: Should the leader of any organization show up to bless, implicitly if not explicitly, such an installation without knowing what he was blessing? Either Pope Francis knew and, like the spokesmen, didn’t think playing around with indigenous spirits is all that serious. Or he didn’t know – he doesn’t seem to take much interest in theological or liturgical matters – and has invited the controversy that now surrounds the synod, as he’s invited controversy at so many points during his papacy. Another interesting item cropped up at yesterday’s press briefing. It’s long been known that the German church provides the funding for the synod and probably also the REPAM displays. But our friend Edward Pentin pressed Brazilian Archbishop Roque Paloschi, the president of the Latin American Bishops Conference’s Indigenous Missionary Council, about over a million dollars that the Council has received from the Ford Foundation, which promotes abortion and gender ideology, some of which probably found its way into the coffers of REPAM. The archbishop responded that the Brazilian government had examined the donations, as well as his personal bank accounts, and found everything in order. But the question was not about the legality of international fund transfers or the archbishop’s personal probity. It was about the prudence of accepting large amounts of money from a foundation with quite different goals than those of the Catholic Church. This is not an isolated incident. Figures throughout the Church and close to the pope seem to think nothing of taking money from large American foundations that promote abortion and gender ideologies. And not only the Ford Foundation. At the same time, those same figures cry “conspiracy” because a few American journalistic outlets of traditional inclinations such as EWTN and the National Catholic Register – who are sometimes critical of the confusion (and worse) coming from Rome – have wealthy supporters like Catholic philanthropist Tim Busch or the Knights of Columbus. But enough of such double standards for now. There’s a temptation in reporting on an event like a synod to fixate solely on what seems to be going wrong – which gets readers’ attention. So it was refreshing to hear Bishop Pedro José Conti of Macapá in Brazil say the other day that “extractive” practices are not automatically wrong. The indigenous people too “extract” what they need from the rainforests but with as little damage as possible. After studying native peoples in several contexts, I doubt this. Everyone has heard, for instance, of how American Indians would herd hundreds of buffaloes off cliffs as the easy way to hunt them. And there are other instances – native peoples breaking whole branches off trees to harvest fruit, etc. But the good bishop identified a principle that is helpful in all contexts, though when some of the large industries needed to support large populations arrive, the picture gets complicated. A Venezuelan bishop complained the other day, for instance, that 35 corporations operate within his diocese without proper licenses and are “extractive” in the bad sense. No doubt his diocese is not the only one to suffer such abuse. But this is a case of poor regulation, or more likely bribery and corruption within Venezuela. It’s not so much an “ecological conversion” that’s needed as an internal effort to demand good government from public officials. If you misidentify the problem – as capitalism and lack of ecological consciousness – you won’t find a solution. In this instance, you need the rule of law. Good law. And there may also be better solutions to the problem of the lack of evangelizers – and hence the alleged need of ordaining married men and finding formal roles for women. A bishop with the grand name of Wellington Tadeu de Queiroz Vieira, of Cristalândia in Brazil, revealed the other day that there are different approaches being spoken of in the synod hall. But that for him the main obstacles to drawing new vocations are our sins, failures, and “incoherence” in the Amazon. Yes, he said, we need new ways, but ways of holiness, of faithfulness. If we live a faithful life of sanctity, of simplicity of life, with a missionary spirit, understanding suffering without losing reference to transcendent, we won’t lack for young men. Indeed, he concluded, formation is not just about numbers but the way existing priests work. *** Shepherds of a Wounded Flock Stephen P. White| Thursday, October 17, 2019 | https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/10/17/shepherds-of-a-wounded-flock/ “By the Grace of God”: a review Brad Miner | Friday, October 18, 2019 | https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/10/18/by-the-grace-of-god-a-review/ "Published on Oct 17, 2019 EDWARD PENTIN, Rome correspondent for The National Catholic Register reports on the latest news about controversial financial investigations at the Vatican. ROBERT ROYAL, editor-in-chief of TheCatholicThing joins us from Rome with analysis of the latest developments from Amazon Synod. DR. WALID PHARES, national security and foreign policy expert discusses the turmoil in Syria after the US announced a troop withdrawal earlier in October. LUKE GOODRICH, professor of law at the University of Utah and senior counsel at Becket discusses the proposal by some Democrats to strip churches of tax exempt status for failing to support same sex marriage and the threat presented to religious liberty by such proposals."
That confirms my worst suspicions about the Ford Foundation. Evil and its followers are so predictable. It's true what was said about the 'banality of evil'. The devil hasn't two original thoughts to rub together-how could he? He has never created anything and never will, all he can do is destroy that which has been Created.
After a very good interview for an interim job (delivery driver for Panera-Bread of Life Franchise), I just spent an hour & a half in Adoration. In lue of the mysteries, at each decade I offered select petitions: gratitude, the Synod and Pope Francis-the will of God to be honored, the Warning to come, for us to go forward is true confidence regardless what comes of the Synod, for those all who follow the changes, all those sick and those caring for them plus those who are away from the Church to return fully....NOT in THAT order Followed by St Pio's prayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the intentions of Cdl Burke & Bishop Schneider.. I must say I feel a real sense of peace now and different joy.
I also hope the job offer comes soon! I was in our Blessed Sacrament Chapel on Monday praying and I was looking down and saw something and noticed that it was a lizard! Lizards are common where I live, they crawl on the walls and like the shade of vegetation and bushes. The lizard wasn't moving so I thought ...okay when the other lady who was praying leaves, I'll pick it up with a bulletin and take it out of the chapel. In the meantime, I was just trying to pray and not let the presence of the dead lizard pointing at the tabernacle distract me. So the lady leaves and I get the bulletin and scoop up the lizard and head toward the door, but guess what? The lizard wasn't dead. I told my son the story and he and I both think the lizard was adoring and praying....so I kicked it out of the chapel for no good reason!
Yup, poor little gecko. I think they are cute, being from Michigan. Others hate them like I hate spiders.
At least the animals are loyal, they don't rebel. No kisses (licks, I suppose) of betrayal in the manger. That little donkey Our Lord rode on just did his job. They're only expected to be themselves, whether lamb or lion, and they just do it. In accordance with the Book of Revelation, I expect they'll all be present and correct in the New Heaven and the New Earth; I can only hope I will be myself.
I don't want to make too much of this but could that little gecko maybe at least foreshadow a response from the animals too many humans won't do? Hence, the stones will cry out!
