Un lío sinodal - A Synodal Mess,
by Juan Manuel de Prada
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w9NVAIfJwd...aldez_Leal.jpg Juan Valdés de Leal
Finis Gloriae Mundi (1672)
Hospital de la Caridad, SevilleFew columnists writing in Spanish today (or in any major language) are as gifted as Juan Manuel de Prada -- and his holy wrath at what went on during the Synod, especially the Forte-Spadaro passage on homosexuality of the midterm Relatio (Report) is proof of it.
The partial Relatio, by the way, was not a partial report of anything, but a document written (and translated in several languages, as proved by the fact that the Final Relatio only now has become available in its first non-Italian version, in English) before the Synod Fathers even gathered, with the intent of causing "lío", a mess, and worldwide media sensation, along with paralysis and a sense of fait accompli within the Synod hall. This partial Relatio is incredibly still fully available at the Vatican website, as if it were a collective Synodal document, when it was just a fantasy cooked by Abp. Bruno Forte and allies based on his preferences and orientations, and not a reflection of what had actually been said in the first week of the Synod.
If you want lío, Juan Manuel de Prada seems to say in his column in the large, traditional and influential Spanish daily ABC, then here's even more lío, representative of the simmering indignation of so many Catholic faithful worldwide. This indignation will not go away.
***____________________UN LÍO SINODAL - A SYNODAL MESSJuan Manuel de PradaABCOctober 25, 2014
Considering that all persons, as God's creatures, have valuable gifts and qualities, what is the reason for this special mention of homosexuals?
It was asked of Catholics that we make a mess [lío], but at the moment all that they got was getting us caught up in the mess; and some joker could even add (and he would not be wrong) that they have made la picha un lío ["a big mess"]. In the relatio of the synod on the family, among other great pearls, there are sophistries and nonsense of this level: "Homosexual persons have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community." In order to uncover the nonsensical and at the same time sophistical nature of this affirmation, it is enough to replace "homosexual" with "fat", "black", "blond", "dedicated to the cultivation of mushrooms," or "with gastric ulcer"; any title or expression, that is, that complements the noun "persons" is good enough, from which it follows that any person can have (to give as well as to receive!) gifts and qualities that are very useful for the Christian community; and in particular for its bishops, who in the past had the eyesight of eagles (as its etymology implies), but who now seem to be as blind as moles, or who are maybe sending the pathetic winks of an old harlot in the direction of political correctness. This, in the language of Revelation, is called fornication with the kings of the earth [cf. Rv 17]; in the language of the Gospel, to render unto Caesar what is God's; and, in clear vernacular, to honor the world.
Considering that all persons, as God's creatures, have valuable gifts and qualities, what is the reason for this special mention of homosexuals? Is it implied that, by the sole fact of their being so, they are more gifted and qualified than the rest of mortals? Is it intended to affirm that, by being a homosexual, a person is freed from being envious, proud, vulgar, boring, an idiot, or completely stupid? Such a nonsensical and sophistic wording, so mellifluous and corrupt, reveals only a foolish eagerness, as that of a little puppy wagging its tail, to praise servilely the mindset of our age, to burn incense to Caesar; and, additionally, it dodges, in a very soft and pusillanimous way, the call to conversion of Christ -- who undoubtedly saw extremely valuable gifts and qualities in the adulterous woman, to whom he said nonetheless: "Sin no more."
But there certainly are homosexuals filled with gifts and qualities! Through the pen of some of them, the Holy Spirit speaks, and it would be good that the bishops, instead of reading kasperite monstrosities, dedicated themselves to read these illustrious homosexuals, in order to free themselves from their degrading slavery to political correction. Pier Paolo Pasolini, for example, in his Scritti Corsari [Corsair Writings], turns against the cynics and the moderates who have tried to adulterate the radical sense of the famous evangelical line, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's": "Because what Christ wanted to say could not be, in any way whatsoever, 'please them both, don't look for trouble, conciliate the practical aspects of social life with your religious life, try to swim and keep your clothes on while being in peace with both, etc.' " These bishops in the Synod could also read that sublime passage of the De Profundis in which Oscar Wilde, regretful for his sins, affirms: "Of course the sinner must repent. But why? Simply because otherwise he would be unable to realise what he had done. The moment of repentance is the moment of initiation. More than that: it is the means by which one alters one’s past. The Greeks thought that impossible. They often say in their Gnomic aphorisms, ‘Even the Gods cannot alter the past.’ Christ showed that the commonest sinner could do it, that it was the one thing he could do."
Pasolini and Wilde: two homosexuals filled with the divine gift of saying undeniable truths. Some swindlers wearing skullcaps could learn from them.
See how Rorate is very, very mild? But it is our obligation to bring to you what is being said and written elsewhere in the world. We wonder if highly-placed Spanish-speaking bishops have already read this masterpiece. If not, they should read the original piece here.
RORATE CÆLI: Un lío sinodal - A Synodal Mess, by Juan Manuel de Prada
