First, click this. It’ll cheer up your brain.

Our friend Jeanne Smits in Belgium (in crappy autotranslate from French, sorry): It’s not what’s in it. It’s what’s not in it.

Which reminds me of a conversation I had with a Synod bishop shortly after the end of Synod1. He asked how I was doing in Norcia (he meant financially) and I said it was great because it was the lowest rent I’d paid in about 25 years. And for a way nicer place than I’ve ever had before. He asked why the rents were so low here. I said, “Well, mostly it’s the early results of the Great Italian Die-Off.” Italians have about a 1.4/woman birthrate, and for this reason (and others having to do with a century of monkeying with the economy by socialists and feckin Freemasons) the population has nosedived in the rural areas. If you can figure out how to make a living in the little towns and villages (thank you, Lord, for the innernet!) it’s a great lifestyle. But it means that nearly all the country areas are dying, particularly of their native populations, and this has had the land values spiraling out of control.

The bishop listened to all this and said, “It’s amazing isn’t it? In two weeks of a Synod held in Italy, not a single mention was made of the demographic crisis, or what might have caused it…” He meant contraception, of course.

Yeah… “amazing”… that’s what it was …

Anyway, I give you the very moderate, not-a-trad, Jeanne Smits:

_“A very long text, very talkative, and harboring many ambiguities by multiplying casuistic considerations…it seems clear that many worrying aspects of the report are kept there. It is also widely quoted. But swathes of the issue of family crisis seems tragically absent.

…

“This is the case of contraception, mentioned above as a practice imposed by the government and not in its ubiquitous dimension in the Western world and elsewhere, including among the majority of Catholic husbands. Humanae vitae, too briefly quoted, had yet prophetically announced the destruction of the family and the collapse of social order and respect for women by this practice contrary to the laws of God … but can we still speak of God’s laws? Would not it be time to say the link between contraception and divorce?

The same question arises: will we be able to simply claim a reading consistent with the tradition, as was already the Brandmuller cardinal? Or [will we be obliged to] fight tooth and nail against the text itself?…

“…The question of the communion of remarried divorced is clearly left open to subjective interpretation in footnote 336. [“336 This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists. In such cases, what is found in another document applies: cf. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 44 and 47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040.”]

…

The pastoral concern of Pope Francis is no doubt. This is about the salvation of course, but here everything seems to be acceptable as a way of salvation.

~

I expect our ever-vigilant friends at Voice of the Family will be adding to the list of issues that are extremely grave that the document totally passes over. They were pretty good on that stuff at the Synods, much to the embarrassment of the pack of shysters they sent to do the press conferences. When VoF comes out with it, I’ll link to it. The negative space is often the most important, as anyone who has ever taken painting lessons will know.

~