Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Open Letter to Synod 2014 Attendees

October 14th, 2014, Promulgated by Diane Harris

St. Paul to the Galatians 1:8

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven,

should preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you,

let him be accursed.”



Open Letter to Synod 2014 attendees,

What were you thinking?  It could not have been about feeding and sustaining more than a billion faithful Catholics who know and live, sin and repent, in accordance with Church Teachings based on the true Gospel of Christ!  What in this world or the next do you mean by eleven times, including twice in the introductory, declaring “The Gospel of the Family.”  The Gospel of Matthew, I know. And of Mark, Luke and John. Consider for a moment the meaning of “Gospel.”  Good news.  Where is there a shred of “good news” in what you have floated for reaction and secular publicity? There is no such “Gospel of the Family”, except for what you’ve tried to invent, by pandering to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s book title.  You have shamed good Catholics who have consistently supported their Church in a very adverse world, and given the wolves in sheep’s clothing a pass into the sheepfold!   As you add up the costs associated with such a Synod, material expenses, time away from diocesan work, pandering to the media and governments who will thirst for more concessions and ultimately crucify the faithful into oblivion, be sure to research how many persecuted Christians died in just the Mid-East while you participated in writing a new “Gospel.”  And may God, somehow, forgive what you have done to the souls in His care.  (red text is amended based on additional input.)

I have read, though not fully studied or prayed over yet, the 58 points you chose to release to the world halfway through the Synod (perhaps appropriately pronounced “SIN-ODD.”)  Indeed, it is an odd paean you have written to caving in to secular pressures, an apt model for those fallen-away Catholics who want to keep their sins and even be respected for them.  President Obama, in his staunch support for a variety of sins, could not have written a better formula for what he’d like to see the Catholic Church become.  The secrecy with which the matters have gone forward, protecting the perpetrators who align with secular values, while outing the faithful prelates who cannot help but speak out against the outrage, without concern for their own risk, is orchestrated so that the sinful can hide in the cloak of the secrecy, but true shepherds must speak out.

Of course, you are not oblivious to Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit will be with the Church for its protection.  It seems like you have simply dared the Holy Spirit to try to act against you.  Having read all 58 points, I will continue by writing about some conclusions on specific points that strike at the heart of the matter, and ask good people of faith to consider the poison they are being asked to drink. be continued….


25 Responses to “Open Letter to Synod 2014 Attendees”

  1. avatar brother of penance says:

    Voris Asks A Pertinent Couple of Questions and the Prelate doesn’t answer what was asked!

  2. avatar brother of penance says:

    Peter Herbeck of Renewal Ministries wrote an article encouraging bishops to exercise Apostolic Courage. The article written in July can be accessed here:

  3. avatar brother of penance says:

    “The days of socially acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past. It is no longer easy to be a faithful Christian, a good Catholic, an authentic witness to the truths of the Gospel… To be a witness to the Gospel today is to make oneself a marked man or woman. It is to expose oneself to scorn and reproach.” Peter Herbeck, July 2014

    Diane, how so terribly tragic that the writers of that 58 point document are not one of those marked men who offer an authentic witness to the truths of the Gospel! May God be pleased to continue to strengthen you by Christ’s grace.
    Dominick Anthony Zarcone, your brother forever

  4. avatar militia says:

    The reason you keep seeing the words “Gospel of the Family” in the write-up of the Synod is because that is the title of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s book. I think to use the Synod for such a persistent commercial promotion of such a controversial book is, in itself, DISGUSTING.

  5. avatar JLo says:

    Pope Benedict XVI said that the Church would get small. My goodness, is this the beginning of that new world? +JMJ

  6. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Bishop Sheen prophesied that the laity would save the Church from its current crisis. Perhaps the faith and work of everyone here, organizations like Church militant TV and others will do the job.

    As Michael Voris stated today: A Catholic bishop said “We need you (referring to the laity) more than you need us!”

  7. avatar Persis says:

    Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax!
    Have faith that our Pope knows what he is doing, and for a little balance, try reading what Fr. Barron has to say.

  8. avatar Hopefull says:

    And NOW, if you’ve done that deep breath, be sure to listen to Michael Voris’s comments on the Synod, what isn’t being said, the challenge to Pope Francis, the truth spoke by Cardinal Burke and the criticism of Fr. Barron:

  9. avatar annonymouse says:

    I hate to say this, but I’m beginning to wonder if the real problem here is named Francis.

  10. avatar annonymouse says:

    Voris, whom I’ve been critical of in the past, is absolutely nailing it.

    Here is perhaps my all-time favorite of his – #ThingsJesusNeverSaid (to the adulterous woman):

    “Go now and slowly, gradually, eventually, begin to reduce the number of adulterous acts you are committing until you can feel better about yourself and we can meet you where you are on your faith journey.”

  11. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    I’ll take a deep breath because my eternal destination is based on how I respond to God’s grace – that’s up to me, not some Cardinals who have betrayed the Catholic faith. That said, Fr. Barron and others are flat wrong to pretend this isn’t a big deal. This is a huge deal and it will destroy the Church as we know it.

  12. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Persis, It was the Pope himself who appointed the 6 or 7 progressive liberals to the main committee. Cardinal Burke, a staunch defendent of the Church was dismissed right before the synod started. This is a conspiracy.

    Now, as far as Fr. Barron goes, he has stated that is is wrong to assume anyone can go to hell. I would not take much stock in what he states as church doctrine.

    Someone told one of the delegates that homosexual conduct could send a person to hell. The response of the delegate was: “The church does not teach that one can got to hell for homosexual conduct”….Clearly an erroneous statement.

    The errors, double talk, and misguided information smacks clearly of a radical revolution against Christ’s Church. It will not succeed but plenty of sheep will be misled by this purposeful comfusion.

  13. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I agree, Mouse.

  14. avatar BigE says:

    Nice article.

    OMG! Your questioning the Pope’s wisdom? 🙂

  15. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE – all I said is I’m beginning to wonder. I guess you’re rubbing off on me.

    Just like you judge yourself at liberty to reject the wisdom of soon-to-be-Blessed Paul VI (as proved here before, by the way, the infallible wisdom) in Humanae Vitae, I am rejecting the absolutely awful first work product of Francis’ synod on the family, which, thank God, is neither definitive, binding or infallible.

  16. avatar annonymouse says:

    The only good thing I can say about this first document, by the way, is that nobody seems to be advocating for a change in the wisdom of Humanae Vitae, at least not yet.

  17. avatar BigE says:

    I wasn’t criticizing your criticism (or wonderings)…I was just surprized at your response
    (actually shocked may be a better word…..)

  18. avatar Diane Harris says:

    After reading the 58 points, and the highly ambiguous language, one word in particular struck me in its usage: “Gradualism.” Hardly a common US vocabulary word in religion. Perhaps it has some place in the concept of [alleged] evolution, but in matters of faith?

    Well– hold on for the last few sentences. In researching the exact meaning, it turns out there is a Wikipedia entry, mostly applied to biology, geology, linguistics. Then, there it was: New World Order! And here is the text (hang in there for “religion”).

    Re NWO: Gradualism
    “Conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the League of Nations in 1919; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; the African Union in 2002; and the Union of South American Nations in 2008 as major milestones.”

    “An increasingly popular conspiracy theory among American right-wing populists is that the hypothetical North American Union and the amero currency, proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, will be the next milestone in the implementation of the New World Order. The theory holds that a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international elites are planning to replace the federal government of the United States with a transnational government. Therefore, conspiracy theorists believe the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of globalists whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in Washington, D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated E.U.-style bureaucracy.”

    “Skeptics argue that the North American Union exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and/or policy papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these get passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded xenophobic fears especially during times of economic anxiety.”

    SOOOOOOOO– what about Religion? Well, it turns out there is an entry for that as well. And –surprise– look how the Wikipedia language parallels the language issued by the Synod: And here it is (keep hanging in there): “Gradualism has also been used in a religious sense, especially in Catholicism (specifically, in ethics and moral theology), to describe the fact that certain individuals and families that make up a parish or community may be living anywhere along a sort of spectrum or line as concerns a state free of serious sin and error (living, or not, in the “state of grace”, able to receive the sacraments, specifically, the Eucharist). People can still not be living morally acceptable lifestyles, but even these people’s lives and relationships may have some merit and elements of good, even very good, relationships, such as sacrificial love and consistent respect. This is being applied most often to the debate over whether Catholics who were divorced and then remarried civilly, without an annulment of the first sacramental marriage, can receive the Eucharist. It is also being used to evaluate the church’s stand regarding a more positive and welcoming view of GLBTs and their relationships, and their civil unions and marriages and adoptions of children. A final area where gradualism is being applied by the church is its approach toward couples who cohabitate before marriage and/or engage in premarital sexual relations. This term should not be confused with moral relativism, which is a belief that no -or very few- things exist which are always and everywhere considered bad or good- wrong or right.”

    Wondering if the writers of the Synod reflection copied it from the NWO Wikipedia entries? Or was it the other way around? Hmmmm…. note that if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the Gradualism entry, the last Wikipedia entry date says: “This page was last modified on 14 October 2014 at 13:13.” Think there is no connection between the clergy sitting Synod in Rome and the New World Order? Maybe, think again?

  19. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    The thorough and steady-handed Jimmy Akin has a good analysis of gradualism:

    He also shares good news about the synod here:

    in which he sums up:

    11) Do these signs of hope mean that everything is okay and we can all just relax?

    Heck, no!

    (Though take what you read at the link with a grain of salt and be alert for spin.)

    12) What can we do?

    During the synod? Pray.

    After the synod? Study the results of the synod, pray, and then contact your bishop and—respectfully—let him know your views so that the Church’s pastors can be informed of the sense of the faithful (cf. canon 212).

  20. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    as to the date in wikipedia. It often happens that when a topic that is not in wikipedia (gradualism in religion) someone takes the time to write up an entry because all of the sudden there is a demand for it.

  21. avatar Eliza10 says:

    “Here is perhaps my all-time favorite of his – #ThingsJesusNeverSaid (to the adulterous woman):

    “Go now and slowly, gradually, eventually, begin to reduce the number of adulterous acts you are committing until you can feel better about yourself and we can meet you where you are on your faith journey.””

    Good quote, annonymouse.

  22. avatar Eliza10 says:

    Thanks for the link, BoP. Yes, this question needs a serious answer. “Is the senate proposing that the gifts and qualities flow FROM the sexual orientation of homeosexuals?” And what is wrong with the bishop that he could not give a straight answer to that? Is he daft, or is he a manipulator? Its one or the other. I fear its the latter! Because anyone could take that statement and say, yes, the church is saying it flows FROM the orientation, and thus begin to create, gradually [!] a new theology based on this.

    This is so unlike our Church, Who teaches every truth so clearly.

    The news media reports are making me feel manipulated. The synod is making me feel manipulated.

    Is Pope Francis standing behind these statements?? I cannot tell.

  23. avatar Eliza10 says:

    Omigosh, I have not been following this closely, just trusting Pope Francis to do the right thing. But I am shocked! The Pope himself put Cardinal Whuerl on the Family Synod, at the last minute?? Why? Its so wrong! Is our own Pope pro-abortion? God forbid! It’s American Catholic Bishops and Cardinals like Whuerl who show Catholics with their actions that is okay to support abortions without tax dollars and vote in politicians who are pledge to do that. Because they are “Good Catholics” right? Since the Cardinal/Bishop publicly gives them communion.

    This is the first time I have ever been worried about Pope Francis.

    I have trusted him to represent Christ for us. I feel betrayed.

  24. avatar Eliza10 says:

    All I can think, as a good motive for ope Francis, is he wanted these bad bishops to explicitly and publicly make clear to the world their opinion so the other bishops could explain why they are wrong. However, the “Bishops scrap welcome to gays” in the news means more persecution for the church. What is he thinking? It just seems like it will promote division.

    Can anyone find a positive spin on this??

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-