A male-to-female “transgender” drag queen performer in the city of Guadalajara, Mexico has received a new baptismal certificate affirming his female self-identity, with the approval of an official of the city’s Catholic archdiocese.
The issuance of the baptismal certificate in early February was followed weeks later by two articles affirming “transgender” ideology in the archdiocesan newspaper, which gave the articles the top headline on the front page and featured the face of a man wearing lipstick.
Following an outcry from Catholic priests and laity, the baptismal certificate has been retracted and the articles have been removed from circulation by archdiocesan authorities. But the incidents have caused great consternation among the faithful of Guadalajara regarding the direction of the archdiocese.
In recent years, in addition to its articles promoting transgenderism, the archdiocesan newspaper Semanario has also published articles that appear to promote feminist ideology, artificial insemination, and even the pro-abortion viewpoint. The Cardinal Archbishop of Guadalajara, Francisco Robles Ortega, has publicly endorsed the legal recognition of homosexual unions in recent years, contradicting the Vatican’s 2003 decree on the subject.
The incidents are particularly notable in light of Guadalajara’s historically strong Catholic identity. The archdiocese is historically linked to the Cristero struggle of the 1920s and 1930s, in which Mexican Catholics fought the government to protect the right to Catholic worship and education, and to stop the imposition of perverse sex education programs in local schools. Moreover, Guadalajara is reputed to host the largest number of Catholic seminarians in the western hemisphere.
The controversy has erupted in the context of an increasingly powerful LGBT movement in Mexico that has obtained legislation allowing “transgender” people to change their birth certificates to reflect their declared “gender identity.” Pro-family leaders in Mexico are now being successfully sued for “political violence” for referring to transgender “women” according to their real biological sex.
Drag queen is “legitimate daughter” of his parents, says baptismal certificate
The transgender birth certificate, which was published on the recipient’s Facebook page, contains his new legal name, which was changed from “Carlos Alejandro Rea Cano” to “Wendy Nayeli Rea Cano”, and refers to him as a woman.
“On September 6, 1987, Fr. Emilio Gutierrez solemnly baptized Wendy Nayeli Rea Cano,” states the certificate issued on February 3, calling Rea Cano “the legitimate daughter” of his parents.
Rea Cano, who performs a drag queen act at the Guadalajara nightclub “VIP Cabaret” and other venues, says that he went through a nine-month process at the offices of the archdiocese before receiving approval for changing his baptismal certificate, casting doubt on claims that high officials didn’t know about the case or its final disposition.
“After nine months I finally obtained the recognition of my identity by the Archdiocese of Guadalajara and the corresponding modifications for my ecclesiastical documents,” wrote Rea Cano on his Facebook page on February 3.
“Today I dedicate this great step to all of those who were not given the dignity and recognition of their identity when they died and those who in these years of struggle have accompanied me directly or indirectly,” he added.
Several weeks after Rea Cano publicized an image of the baptismal certificate on his Facebook page, and following numerous inquiries from local priests, the chancellor of the archdiocese issued a private statement to high-ranking clergy distancing the archbishop from the document and stating that it doesn’t have the “support” of the chancellor’s office.
In his recorded message issued to the episcopal vicars of the archdiocese and obtained by Catholic World Report, archdiocesan chancellor Fr. Javier Magdaleno Cueva attributed the decision to issue the baptismal certificate to the Vicar General of the archdiocese, Fr. Jesús García Zamora, who is second in authority to the archbishop himself.
Noting that he had been approached by concerned priests regarding the baptismal certificate, Magdaleno claimed that his own office had been opposed to its issuance. He also denied that the archbishop had given his approval, and added that the document would not be “supported” by Magdaleno’s office, which is charged with authenticating diocesan documents.
Addressing the “episcopal vicars,” Magdaleno Cueva stated, “I want to specify that what appears in the document was not ordered by archbishop. I haven’t given any such instruction. To the contrary, the opposite decision was given to the consultation.”
“I don’t know what the reasons are for presenting this document. Only documents signed by me are binding. Therefore, this, perhaps, good intention of the Vicar General, or this exaggeration in an extraordinary case, cannot count on the support of the chancery.”
However, photographic evidence obtained by Catholic World Report shows that permission for the issuance of the baptismal certificate was given on stationary marked “Cancilleria,” which is Magdaleno Cueva’s office. It asks Fr. Jose Luis Carrillo Vazquez, Rea Cano’s pastor at Guadalajara’s San Onofre parish, to “match the documentation” from Rea Cano’s revised birth certificate, which was changed in 2016 to reflect his new name and “gender.”
“To match the [birth certificate] documentation . . . please place in the bottom margin [of the original baptismal certificate]: ‘According to the official document issued in Mexico City on October 4, 2016 . . . that the name is Wendy Nayeli Rea Cano, and the name of the mother is María de los Ángeles Cano Ramirez.’” the letter states, adding, “At the request of the male (female) interested party, a copy of the certificate can be issued with the new information.”
The document is signed on stationary that has the header, “Archdiocese of Guadalajara” and under it, “Cancillería”, a term which in Mexico is used to refer specifically to the office of the Chancellor. However, it is signed by Fr. Josúe Zuñiga Rubio, one of five people listed on the archdiocesan website as an “official” of the archdiocese, rather than by the Chancellor himself.
In a brief interview with Catholic World Report, Episcopal Vicar Fr. Jesús García Zamora admitted that he had made the decision to place a footnote in Rea Cano’s baptismal record to note the new legal name of Rea Cano, but claimed that the permission to issue a new certificate was a mere “administrative error,” and that the archbishop hadn’t known. The prelate, who has the powers of an ordinary in the archdiocese, did not explain how such a thing could have happened after a nine-month process. He added that the baptismal certificate had been rescinded.
In his own recorded statement circulated by a fellow priest, Fr. Carrillo Vazquez recounted that he called the offices of the archdiocese to confirm that the order had been given to issue the new baptismal certificate. He stated that he spoke to the official who had signed it, receiving direct verbal confirmation from him that the order was valid.
“Legally, he’s no longer a man, right? Legally.” said Fr. Carrillo. “I don’t know if the Vicar General, or [the Chancellor] Magdaleno, or one of the auxiliary bishops authorized it.”
Fr. Carrillo also claimed that he had spoken to one of the auxiliary bishops about the matter after concerns were raised by fellow priests, who told him that he had “done the right thing” by obeying the order, but that the archbishop wanted to wait for a decision on the matter from the Mexican episcopal conference before issuing any more such baptismal certificates.
The auxiliary bishop also reportedly stated that a “circular” would be issued by the archbishop addressing the matter. To date, no such circular has been issued, and the archbishop has made no public statement addressing the issue.
Rea Cano initially told CWR that although he has removed the document and references to it from his Facebook page, it has not been retracted by the archdiocese. He later amended his claim and told CWR that his baptismal certificate continues to be “in process” at the moment. He is currently refusing interviews on the topic.
Archdiocesan newspaper promotes transgender ideology with front-page headline
The issuance of the baptismal certificate was followed several weeks later by two articles teaching gender ideology published in the archdiocesan newspaper Semanario. The articles were featured as the top headline on page one, next to a large image of a man wearing lipstick.
“Sex is the biological side: the physical body, the sexual organs,” one of the articles explains. “In contrast, gender is the emotional body: the internal sense of what you are. The relationship between sex and gender is what defines a person as trans or cisgender.”
The article declared to readers that “A brain that recognizes itself with a gender that doesn’t coincide with its biology, the sex of the body, is a brain with a variation. The variation in the brain of a Trans and Gender Diverse person is not a pathology. In 2015, the World Health Organization recognized that being trans is not an illness, nor needs a cure.”
The article admonishes parents that, “regarding minors who are Trans and Gender Diverse, the National Commission on Human Rights recognizes their right to [gender] identity and to live in conditions of well-being, and a healthy integral development. This means that parents and teachers have the obligation to accompany them in in the process of self-recognition.”
The article was met with protest from many of the faithful of Guadalajara, as well as from the Archbishop Emeritus, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, who had founded the newspaper during his tenure in 1997. Sandoval Íñiguez issued a video in which he condemns transgender ideology as “perverse,” and the articles an “offense” against the Catholic Church.
“As a bishop committed to the truth of the Gospel, and minister of the Gospel because I am a bishop, I have to clarify that this article is an insult, it’s an offense, and it makes common cause with the enemies of the Church and of human life,” said Sandoval.
Following the outcry, the editorial board removed the offending issue from circulation and a representative read a written statement in a video on the publication’s Facebook page, apologizing that “some sectors” of the Catholic laity had taken offense to the articles, and noting that the Catholic Church condemns transgender ideology.
The publication provided no explanation for how such articles could appear in a Catholic newspaper, and no retraction appeared in the newspaper itself but new articles appeared in the next issue criticizing gender ideology from a Catholic perspective. They were not given the same prominence as the pro-transgender articles, receiving a smaller mention on the bottom of the front page.
Many local Catholics were not convinced by the response. They responded with outrage and skepticism to the posting of the video apology on the publication’s Facebook page, posting over 100 replies in the space of a few days, almost entirely negative.
“This clarification is not strong. In no part of the edition of that day did there appear any disagreement [with gender ideology] that they state in the video. It sounds to me like this wasn’t a mistake…and it’s not the first time,” wrote one commenter. Another wrote that the articles were a “lamentable error from the heart of Cristero territory,” adding that it’s “very shameful that they published it.”
“Where is the Cardinal????? Why does he remain silent??” wrote another.
Critics have expressed concern that the articles represent a tendency in editions of recent years. In one recent issue, almost an entire page was created to expound on the pro-abortion position. In March of 2021, multiple articles spoke positively of artificial insemination, treating it as a range of options. An entire issue of the publication in early March of this year was committed to promoting feminist ideology to readers.
In its “special edition” promoting feminism, which appears to have been published on March 5 to coincide with the “International Women’s Day” marches that regularly include vandalism and physical assaults against Catholic Churches throughout Latin America, Semanario stated in an unsigned editorial, “Sorry if we women have caused discomfort with our cries, our protests, our graffiti, our demonstrations, but we aren’t going to be silent, we cannot take a step back nor stay shut up in our houses where they also rape and kill us. We cannot stay silent and no, we can’t be ‘nicer.’”
According to Alejandra Ramirez, Professor of Bioethics at the Bioethics Study and Research Center in Guadalajara, claiming such acts are accidental won’t hold water after so many similar incidents.
“Over time, the Archdiocese of Guadalajara has permitted a large number of articles, which some qualify as ‘politically correct,’ that come from people who don’t know true Catholic doctrine, but are in clear opposition to it,” Ramirez told CWR.
“The excuse that ‘it was just a mistake’ in the face of various articles, has now become normal and has become a way of evading any responsibility,” she added. “Their silence regarding various articles published in Semanario is blameworthy, because, consciously or unconsciously, they have harmed others, in this case, all of the faithful who faithfully follow the instructions and advice of their pastors.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Infuriating.
In Guadalajara, the achdiocesan newspaper appears to be documenting the insane, destructive, absurd delusions of the Catholic leadership there.
They obviously don’t identify as Catholics any more. Why don’t they transition to Scientology? Or Hinduism?
Or maybe even neo-bakhti yoga?
Some tradition that acknowledges that their brilliant leftist insights into gender vs. sex are far beyond our medieval Catholic theology of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, truth vs. deception.
But, but, but……..this can’t be. PF will surely take action against any priest or bishop or cardinal who waters down Catholic faith and/or morals very, very soon. I’m sure of it. Just you wait……….and wait………..and wait……..and wait.
Come Holy Spirit, renew the minds & souls of the leaders of the Church, as we are wallowing in the ‘Smoke of Satan’ and need all the help we can obtain.
God Created Man and Woman. not the alphabet soup variety of today’s woke agenda. it is a choice. God is the SUPREME CREATOR. will man ever realize that he is sinning against God and He will punish us.
Let’s never confuse the Church nor her leaders with God.
The Church and her leaders should forever be submissive to God.
When our Church and her leaders present themselves as if they were God, we should stop listening; they are not God.
God Created Man and Woman. not the alphabet soup variety of today’s woke agenda. it is a choice. God is the SUPREME CREATOR. will man ever realize that he is sinning against God and He will punish us.
IMPORTANT PIECE – “Why Do Heretics Remain in the Church?” Jennifer Bryson, Crisis Magazine
Stupidio
Estupido/Estupida
🙂
We read: “Following an outcry from Catholic priests and laity, the baptismal certificate has been retracted and the articles have been removed from circulation by archdiocesan authorities.”
An isolated incident? Or, is there an instructive historical parallel?
Of the ideological and organized railroading of European Jewry into extermination, is there a parallel to the creeping extinction of the NATURAL FAMILY, under the ideology and organized promotion by corporate leaders (400 amicus briefs in 2015 toward the 5-4 Obergefell v Hodges) accompanied/accommodated by hamstrung synodal “facilitators” within the Church itself?
In her 1963 study of “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (“A Report on the Banality of Evil”), Hannah Arendt also reports the FINDING that the six million casualties might have been cut in half if all of the organized (and rationalizing) leadership of the Jewish people had not facilitated their herding into ghettos and railroad collection points…
Fantasizing here, to what extent have our diocesan SYNODAL exercises become infiltrated and unwitting “railroading” collection points—for the long-term neutralization and extermination of the natural family”? Ambiguous language here and there, in step with the Statist redefinition of “marriage,” then LGBTQ redefinition of “human sexuality,” then more viral “gender theory,” and transgenderism?
The BENEDICT OPTION? Instead of the sanctuary of a post-War Jewish Homeland—instead of this, a pattern of smaller Catholic enclaves where natural families simply support each other? While awaiting liberation at some future date from outside the degenerate Western world? Or, will the difference be an early and unlikely “outcry from Catholic priests and laity?” Even less likely, would be manhood and clarity from team Hollerich and his harmonizing “experts.”
Of course, “it” can’t happen here! Betrayal of the “transcendent dignity of the Human Person” and the “Family”—the heart of all Catholic Social Teaching….Auschwitz, already der Synodal Weg, and almost the Archdiocese of Guadalajara.
The Deviant Movement aka LGBTetc has powerful global backers. It is become the New Order.
It has influencers everywhere who do not appear to lack resources to promote their «progressive» agenda.
The Church does need to wise up. Too many clerical patsies and suckers for comfort.
Alas, these terms seem familiar: “obligation to accompany them” . . . the question to ask is “where are we going?” Sow a thought, reap an act. Sow an act, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a destiny. The trans-gender phenomena is fundamentally NOT based on ontological issues. It is a MORAL issue. How one sees oneself as a creature of God runs parallel with ontology and compliments biology. How one wishes to be seen is a moral problem; likely also a mental health issue. The moral/ontological distinction should make clear that we are dealing with a behavior; one that seems to requires constant affirmation and confirmation. Why? Because it is fundamentally at odds with ones ontological reality. The church must teach this distinction clearly and it must condemn behavior that is DISORDERED. Clearly, trans-gender behavior is disordered. Faithful Catholics cannot insist others participate in a lie, nor can faithful Catholics uphold and support a lie. Finally, at some level, the trans-gender phenomena lends itself to a mockery of transubstantiation. Think about it for a moment in that context and it becomes clear.
While we are as rightly frustrated, just as St. Paul was with St. Peter for betraying his position to hold the Church in right unity in Christ (Galatians 2:11-13), we must also be as cunning as the serpents that attack us (Matthew 10:16-18). They are intent on pushing us to do nothing but bite at, blame, and undermine one another (and hence participate in further disunity), when all the while these things are happening because of well thought out, concerted, and targeted efforts to divide us and tear down our united witness to Christ. The starting point has been the “Lavender Mafia” that has infiltrated the seminaries since probably at least Kinsey’s time if not earlier (and the pushers of so-called “higher” education arrogance, which too often serves only to misrepresent and undermine Scripture and theology).
The truly revealing parts of this article are these two paragraphs:
“The incidents are particularly notable in light of Guadalajara’s historically strong Catholic identity. The archdiocese is historically linked to the Cristero struggle of the 1920s and 1930s, in which Mexican Catholics fought the government to protect the right to Catholic worship and education, and to stop the imposition of perverse sex education programs in local schools. Moreover, Guadalajara is reputed to host the largest number of Catholic seminarians in the western hemisphere.
The controversy has erupted in the context of an increasingly powerful LGBT movement in Mexico that has obtained legislation allowing “transgender” people to change their birth certificates to reflect their declared “gender identity.” Pro-family leaders in Mexico are now being successfully sued for “political violence” for referring to transgender “women” according to their real biological sex.”
These soldiers of Satan (who is in himself the very origin and fallen spirit of the “non-binary” hatred of our unique and eternally precious binary humanity from God) have been organizing, mobilizing and underhandedly attacking for a long time now, and concentrating their initially secretive, and dishonestly “humanitarian concerned” pressure attacks precisely in those places that have been Catholic cultural strong-holds (think of Ireland–about which even Rick Steves’ seemingly gentle popularity helps to sway people into thinking these directions are in line with “progress” and democratic “freedom”).
Instead of bewailing and further attacking our hierarchs we must speak of these Satanic, antihuman tactics and those who use them more openly with one another, and mobilize support for our Church leaders, both clerical and lay (especially the Bishops) who are bearing the brunt of these relentlessly withering attacks (which they can’t always bring out into the open so easily, as people use emotional appeals and family ties to sway initial sympathy from those those of good will or who want to avoid conflict, which is later betrayed; and they even use the seal of confession to psychologically trap and hamstring priests and bishops before our brothers even realize what is happening to them–trust me, I’ve seen it).
The article speaks to official church letterhead and documentation used, but does it ever occur to anyone how such things can be easily forged in order to make hierarchs look bad?…or how even a high ranking priest, vicar general, cancelor, or bishop can be blackmailed or outright deceived into putting their signature to something unawares?
The hasty retractions by those diocesan officials in this case may be signs of moral weakness and vacillation on their part, and embarrassment at then being called out for it. OR…they may point to sheer confusion on their part in the face of what seems like official documentation from “someone” in position of authority (or someone in the inner ring of authority really is on the side of Satan and deceiving with intent to undermine the episcopacy and the people’s faith in the episcopacy!).
The fact that the diocese paper aids and abets the Satanists against the Archdiocese means that the anti-humanists have infiltrated there. And it seems entirely plausible that those infil-traitors are using the hierarchy’s desire to uphold “freedom of the press” and free discourse (even freedom to disagree with the hierarchy) to further undermine that very hierarchy–using the hierarchy’s good intentions against them.
I’m not saying I know for sure, but these possibilities must be taken seriously and addressed openly together so that we may, “expose the works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11)! We must not be so dumb as to overlook such undermining. If it is the case, then our brothers need our help and our clear words to uphold them in doing what is right, as St. Paul did for St. Peter. They don’t need us to just add our attacks to those they are likely already suffering from our Satan-serving enemies.
May the Holy Spirit give us wisdom and gentle strength for this fight!
And, as for the fictional Kinsey Report (1948, 1953), mentioned in your first paragraph, which pretended to be a statistically valid survey of sexual practices in the West, this:
The report was later revealed to be based on non-scientific research of a very non-random survey, including willing prison inmates with a disproportionate share of abnormal personalities. The Kinsey findings are based 18,000 “sex histories,” all of whom were self-selected volunteers and a quarter to half of whom were prison inmates, and 1,400 of whom were sex offenders, apparently even including nine sex offenders who engaged in direct experimentation on children aged two months to fifteen years. Prostitutes and cohabiting females were classified as married, leading to the claim that a quarter of married women committed adultery.
Janice Shaw adds further that Kinsey himself “was promiscuously bisexual, sado-masochistic, and a decadent voyeur who enjoyed filming his wife having sex with his staff” (Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of People, Huntington House Publishers, 1990; see Janice Shaw Crouse, “Kinsey’s Kids,” at http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/crouse200311140923.asp).
Like in Germany, it seems like clerics and the institutional church staff members in many places are far more woke and secular according to the prevailing zeitgeist than they are faithful and committed Catholics. Reminds me of some years back when a photo was taken of the USCCB staff parking lot, full of cars with Obama stickers.
This would not have occurred unless there were a pervasive air of endorsement wafting from across the Tiber. Why bishops, in echoing the exemplary Saint Card John Fisher are obliged to openly endorse Apostolic tradition. Christ’s sheep for sake of justice are owed it.
You are absolutely right to call it out. One of my daughters is getting married in May. Last week her and husband to be had to attend a marriage preparation course conducted by a priest. The majority of the 5 hours was focussed on how to get an annulment. The things to say the things to avoid ‘if you do not want a protracted affair’ Honest to God you have to ask what is the point of marrying in the church.
Yes, the Church is geared more toward flux rather than permanence due to the implications of Amoris Laetitia. I’ll pray for their marriage, by nature a reflexion of the permanence of divine love.
If, when getting married, you do not presume the marriage to last until the death of one of the spouses, I don’t think it’s a valid marriage because it’s provisional.
Before we continue to discuss dogma and teachings of the past or attempt to understand old ideas in the light of new learning we need to understand: 1. that the Divine (God) is now and will always be beyond our genuine understanding or ability to understand. and 2. that before I tell you what God wants, what God says or what God demands, I need to be able to state clearly what I want, what I say and why, and what I demand. Failure to own my own opinion, point of view, or understanding of any issue means that I am spewing bias of which I am not conscious or perhaps projecting my own unconscious fears, desires, hopes etc with no ability to recognize the limits of my own preferences. How do I know when I am making that mistake? I can tell because God Always Agrees With Me and My Point of View. Give that some thought before you tell me what God says or wants next time.
“…that before I tell you what God wants, what God says or what God demands, I need to be able to state clearly what I want, what I say and why, and what I demand.”
Why? How so? That’s not what we see in the prophets, the saints, the mystics, etc.
Yes, God is completely Other and beyond understanding. But he has revealed himself—to the Patriarchs, Moses, the prophets, and then fully in and through Jesus Christ.
In the words of “Dei Verbum”:
The real question, as Jesus asked his disciples, is: “Who do you say I am?”
But, still, thank you for the mini-lecture and the magisterial tone.
Kate. Psychological personalism may assist in practical adjustment to the external, not in comprehending it. The latter requires humility rather than self reference.
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF ROOT CAUSES:
1. I remember during the papacy of John Paul II that so many of us thought that he was saving the Church from all the chaos, confusion, dissent, and sometimes outright heresy that had been flourishing in the Church ever since the Vatican II Pastoral Council.
2. But then we were always puzzled about how events, like those described in this article, were still going on within the Church, in the USA and in many other countries.
3. We always wondered: When is John Paul II going to finally put an end to all this chaos, madness, and evil? He’s the pope. He has complete, unlimited authority over every bishop, priest, nun, and monk in the whole Church.
4. Well, as we all know, abuses of this sort never came to an end in the papacies of John Paul II or Benedict 16.
5. We always wondered why that is.
6. And now, with a super-ultra theologically Progressive in the chair of Peter, these abuses are, I believe, at all-time high, and seem to have the at least passive endorsement of the highest Church authorities.
7. Only a few bishops, like Cardinal Burke, speak out against these abuses.
8. So why have all these abuses, and all this chaos, confusion, dissent, and evil prevailed in the Church since the Vatican II Pastoral Council? Why have the popes never said, “This madness stops now” and backed that up with all the disciplinary measures provided for in canon law?
9. I don’t know what theories others have to explain the last 60 years of unprecedented permissiveness within the Church.
10. My theory is that all the popes since Vatican II cannot reign this madness because they are determined to be faithful and obedient to the texts of the Vatican II Pastoral Council.
11. Those texts actually permit and encourage some of the madness (such as joint worship services with Protestant heretics and schismatics, and having some theology classes in seminaries taught by Protestant heretics and schismatics.).
12. Plus, those texts mandate that the Church be administered with the maximum level of permissiveness, so as to maximally respect the individual conscience, individual liberty, and individual human dignity of every person.
13. Furthermore, the texts of the Vatican II Pastoral Council strongly mandate that Church authorities and all Catholics be open to new things, new ways of living and new ways thinking. The essence of the “renewal” of the Vatican II Pastoral Council was being open to, and giving lots of consideration to, CHANGE–changes in liturgy, pastoral practice, customs, morals, and theology. The Pastoral Council did not mandate that all proposed changes be accepted in the end, but it did change the culture of the Church by mandating great patience with, much consideration of, new things of all sorts.
14. Also, the doctrine of “collegiality” as taught by the texts of the Vatican II Pastoral Council strongly mandate that Church authorities in Rome let local Church authorities in nations decide many or most things. The Council hugely pushed the practices of decentralization and the adaptation to wishes of local people.
15. So, my theory is that good and holy order can be restored in the Church only by setting aside the documents of the Vatican II Pastoral Council. The Church got by quite well for almost 2,000 years without those texts, so surely they are not essential. Plus, as we have been told so many times, they are just pastoral documents, not documents that contain permanent new dogmatic definitions such as were laid down in the First Vatican Council.
About your points #13, then #12 and #14, maybe some fine tuning:
#13 Cardinal Newman, “the Father of the Second Vatican Council,” said this about change: “old principles […] change [“in strange territory”] IN ORDER TO REMAIN THE SAME [….] here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.” Our strange territory is Modernism as the sum of all former and new gnostic heresies (and therefore totally forgetful of the words in caps), so perhaps no council in the previous 2,000 years is sufficient to meet the current situation…
#12 The Constitution, Gaudium et Spes, provides (however obliquely and buried!) “Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the Council wishes to recall first of all [!] the permanent binding force of universal natural law [!] and the all-embracing principles, Man’s conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles. Therefore, actions which deliberately conflict with these principles, as well as orders commanding such actions, are criminal [!]l” (n. 79).
The oft-misrepresented and lower ranking Declaration on Religious Freedom adds something else: “that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power [….],” and does not even include the assumed assertion for “freedom of conscience.” That is, “freedom from,” not licensed “freedom for” subjectivism.
#14 The Constitution, Lumen Gentium (Chapter 3, n. 22, and further clarified in the three-page Prefatory Note, Nov. 16, 1964 and part of the voted document), restrains “local Church authorities” by holding, instead, that local bishops and all bishops are to act collegially, that is, “Together with its head, the Roman Pontiff, and never without this head, the episcopal order is the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.” It is summarized in Benedict’s later writings that the relationship is not the papacy versus the bishops, but the papacy by himself or the pope with his bishops.
But, yes, all of us can see that there’s a train wreck (and probably many cases where the Documents were never even used in seminary training; now bishops and cardinals…). And, we can all agree, too, with the non-Catholic (!) theologian, “Mammy” in the 1939 film “Gone with the Wind”… Wasn’t hers the line: “all hell done broke loose!”
The gender bender pioneers inserted hundreds of gay, pedophilic, Marxist priests into the RCC, back in the 30s. This was after they had done work for the Nazis, in Berlin.
I assure you that it goes back further than Vatican II — making any type of ongoing debate rather suspicious if EWTN is the only talking about it and nothing is actually being done. Like Pope Franchise doesn’t know?
As I approach my 70th year in this vale of tears, I would never have thought that my default position regarding Catholic bishops would be one of mistrust until proven trustworthy. As far as the priests who educated me, well, the Jesuits are so far beyond the pale that they must now be ignored as poisonous nonsense.
The pope should demote of that Cardinal Ortega, plus Cueva and Zamora who had approved this!
Bergoglio should also demote himself. He has failed to respond to these heretical outbursts across the board, from Germany to San Diego, to South Bend, to France, to…
Well, let’s be honest. He hasn’t responded to any attempt to destroy the Church *anywhere*.