The First Poisoned Fruits of the German Synodal Path

Source: FSSPX News

Mgr Georg Bätzing et le Dr Thomas Sternberg

The first meeting of the Synodal Path was held in Frankfurt on the first Sunday of Advent. It mainly dealt with organizational and procedural matters. Parallel to these beginnings, the Commission for Marriage and Family of the German Episcopal Conference (DBK) met on Wednesday, December 4 in Berlin.

The DBK website explains that the meeting is a specific consultation on the subject of human sexuality, considered from scientific, theological, and legal angles. It is a contribution to the German synodal path.

Divine Revelation Replaced by Science

The chairman of this commission, Msgr. Heiner Koch, Archbishop of Berlin, clarified that the synodal path must be undertaken without prejudice and without already fixed positions, but in no case without recognizing the state of the science. This is why the meeting, which was held in Berlin, was organized in collaboration with the Institute of Christian Ethics and Politics in the same city, with the participation of sexologists, theologians, and specialists in canon law.

A consensus emerged saying that “human sexual orientation is expressed at puberty and implies heterosexual or homosexual orientation [sic]. Both belong to the normal forms of sexual predisposition, which cannot or should not be modified by a specific socialization.” These words are an explicit endorsement of gender theory. Since the trend is normal, therefore natural, it would be criminal to oppose it through education.

The commission statement continues: “The question of whether the prohibition of homosexuality by the [Church] teaching authorities is still appropriate today has been the subject of controversy,” similar to the question of the legality of the use of artificial contraceptives in or out of wedlock.

Finally, two bishops recalled the importance of a confrontation between the humanities and theology. They welcomed the notable developments in the exhortation Amoris laetitia, from which they deduce that “sexual intercourse after divorce and remarriage should no longer be considered a serious sin and that no one should be excluded from receiving the Eucharist.”

The Negation of the Magisterium

The “prejudices” or “already fixed positions” that the Archbishop of Berlin allows himself to dismiss are nothing other than the teachings of the Church. The result of this commission, which will be added to the file on the preparatory forums of the synodal path, is directly opposed to the constant Magisterium of the Church, Holy Scripture, and all of Tradition. Despite its shortcomings, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published under John Paul II, correctly takes up this irreformable teaching. It suffices to quote section 2357:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (cf. Gn 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ (CDF, Persona humana 8, December 29, 1975). They are contrary to natural law…Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

An act contrary to natural law and inherently disordered can never and under no circumstance become lawful. It cannot be regarded as “a normal predisposition” which “cannot or must not be modified by a specific socialization.”

Theology characterizes this sin as mortal ex toto genere suo, i.e., from its whole nature. In other words, an act of this kind is always mortal, unless it lacks an essential condition for mortal sin: full knowledge or full consent. For example, if the act were committed in a state of semi-consciousness. But the German bishops completely exempted it from moral connotation and malice, and made it good by itself—because what is natural is good.

When Pastors Become Sheep

The affirmations of this synodal path commission are actually heretical, because they are opposed to the constant magisterium of the Church, and to Holy Scripture in a teaching that is certainly infallible. They lead to the logical conclusion that the Church must accept that the sacrament of marriage can be given to sodomites.

They shatter the whole of moral theology, because, as Saint James says, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ja. 2:10).

To qualify as permissible what is forbidden by the law of God is to refuse the entire moral law.

They are a negation of reason and of the most elementary philosophy, in the name of human sciences subverted by the perverse ideologies which are at the origin of gender theory. They are proof of an incredible weakness of intelligence on the part of the pastors—unless it is a question of complicity,—who believe themselves obliged to follow just any intellectual trend like Panurge’s sheep*.

They are an abomination before God and before the Church, scorned by pastors yet charged with feeding the flock entrusted to them by leading them towards good pastures, and not by presenting them with poisoned dishes.

Instead of this forfeiture, they should have recalled what should be the attitude to have towards those who are slaves to their flesh and the ignominious passions of which Saint Paul speaks (Rom 1:26).

As for those who may present homosexual tendencies as deeply rooted, they must confront this test by trying to follow the will of God who desires not the death of the sinner, but that he turn from his way, and live (cf. Ez 33:11).

This is why true charity consists in helping them to live a Christian life, by uniting themselves with the sacrifice of the cross of Christ, by frequently resorting to prayer and the sacraments of the Church, bearers of grace, by practicing chastity and by surrounding themselves with true friends, capable of encouraging them on the path of Christian perfection.

Instead, the synodal path has already turned into a race to the abyss. In doing so, it misses true charity by denying sinners the means to get out of their sin and save their soul.