Plenty to Mourn About

We read recently about a tragic event in Nashville, Tennessee, in which a transgender person killed six people in a Presbyterian school.

From the note that was left, part of the motive was suicide. It means that this person was severely depressed over a long period of time (for the act was planned months in advance).

Depressed about what? Is it possible that, after having arrived at twenty-eight years of age, she realized that changing her gender was a mistake, and was causing the grief she was experiencing?

The Guardian reports the following statistics for trans and non-binary youths who considered suicide: “56% in Texas; 54% in Florida; 50% in New York; 54% in Pennsylvania; 51% in Illinois; 54% in Ohio; 55% in Georgia; 53% in North Carolina; and 52% in Michigan.” Statistics vary, but nevertheless it is clear that there is a very serious tendency in these young persons to become depressed and to commit suicide.

Despite these dreadful statistics, the public schools, on the whole, are pushing transgenderism among minors, and even very small children. In many cases, if not most, the children are instructed not to tell their parents about their sexual choices.

It is needless to say that this is the most cruel form of child abuse imaginable.

Whom, for example, will these transgenders marry? Someone of the opposite sex? Or another transgender? The obvious answer is that they will find no one to love them since they have transformed themselves into something which would be repulsive to either sex. What woman would marry a woman who has changed himself into a “man?” What man would marry a “woman” who was originally a man? Or will a man-turned-woman marry a woman-turned man?

These persons are depressed precisely because they have attempted to change their God-given nature. Once they arrive in puberty, and understand love and marriage, it is too late to do anything about it.

Change in doctrine? In March, Breitbart reported that Novus Ordo Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich called for a change in Catholic teaching regarding sodomitic acts. This cardinal, it was stated, is a Jesuit recently appointed by Bergoglio to his inner cabinet of advisors. Hollerich is quoted as saying: “How can you condemn people who cannot love except the same sex?” “We can only charge people with moral conduct they can bear in their world.” “If we ask impossible things of them, we will put them off.” Hollerich also said that to prohibit sodomitic acts to homosexuals “is like saying that their life has no value.” The obvious implication is that human beings exist solely for sexual pleasure, and their life has no value if there is none.

Novus Ordo Cardinal McElroy of San Diego also called for a “more positive view of gay sex,” than what is portrayed in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II, which refers to it as “intrinsically disordered,” and “contrary to the natural law.” Cardinal Hollerich insisted that “the theological-scientific neither shalt thou be defiled with it. A woman shall not lie down to a beast, nor copulate with it: because it is a heinous crime. Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you, and with which the land is defiled: the abominations of which I will visit, that it may vomit out its inhabitants. Keep ye my ordinances and my judgments, and do not any of these abominations: neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all these detestable things the inhabitants of the land have foundation is no longer correct.”

Recently, as well, there was a conference in southern Germany in which a “theologian” spoke. His name is Bernhard Bleyer. The Diocese of Passau put up an article on the Internet from which I am quoting below.

Bleyer began his talk by emphasizing that “We must strive to understand the biblical texts, this is central to theology.” He said that theology is always dependent on dialogue with scientific facts.

There is no passage in the gospels, he said, that deals with the moral evaluation of homosexuality. Bleyer’s conclusion: There is not a single place [in the Bible], he says, that justifies the Holy See’s condemning of homosexual acts. “Homosexual sex between women is never clearly discussed in the Bible. There is no passage in the gospels that deals with the moral evaluation of homosexuality,” Bleyer said. His conclusion: The biblical foundation cited by the Magisterium and the violation of the natural moral law show “exegetical and logical-argumentative deficits”.

“For him,” the article continues, “the question also arises as to whether, in the current state of scientific debate, the understanding of what is “natural” needs to be thought further than it has been up to now, and whether reproduction should really be given the decisive moral importance and not also other dimensions of meaning such as relationship, desire and identity.”

Response. Let us look at Sacred Scripture.

(1) Leviticus XII: 22-30. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination. Thou shalt not copulate with any beast, neither shalt thou be defiled with it. A woman shall not lie down to a beast, nor copulate with it: because it is a heinous crime. Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you, and with which the land is defiled: the abominations of which I will visit, that it may vomit out its inhabitants. Keep ye my ordinances and my judgments, and do not any of these abominations: neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all these detestable things the inhabitants of the land have done, that were before you, and have defiled it. Beware then, lest in like manner, it vomit you also out, if you do the like things, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. Every soul that shall commit any of these abominations, shall perish from the midst of his people. Keep my commandments. Do not the things which they have done, that have been before you, and be not defiled therein. I am the Lord your God.”

(2) Romans I: 26-27 and 32: “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in them- selves the recompense which was due to their error….Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

Bleyer is correct in saying that there is no place in the gospels which condemn the sin of Sodom, but there are plenty of other places in which it is condemned. Our Lord saw no reason to bring it up, since the Jews abhorred the sin, based on the text of Leviticus. The same book, containing the law of God as revealed to Moses, calls for the death sentence for those who commit these sins. (Leviticus XX: 13).

The sin is, furthermore, contrary to the natural law. Therefore even without revelation, it is evident that sodomy is immoral.

The reason is simple: Sexual acts are clearly for the purpose of the generation of a child. The pleasure which is associated with them is placed there by the Creator precisely in order that human beings generate children. The same applies to food. The pleasure of taste in eating is placed there in order that we eat. We would never touch food if it were disgusting to eat.

The general principle is, therefore, that pleasure cannot be attained except as an accompaniment to some other act. Consequently, in order that the pleasure be in accordance with the moral law, it is necessary that the act which it accompanies be accomplished according to nature.

For this reason, gluttony is a sin, since the use of food in this case exceeds the natural need, and can actually cause disease and not health. But eating too much is not contrary to nature. It is merely an excess of a good thing.

Artificial birth control, however, is contrary to nature, since it positively thwarts the primary purpose of the marriage act, which is the generation of children. The same may be said of solitary sins.

Likewise sodomy and bestiality are contrary to nature, inasmuch as the acts posited could not in any way lead to the generation of children, but are sought merely for pleasure.

In moral theology there is a saying: Natura est quodammodo Deus. “Nature is in a certain way God.” This should not be taken in some pantheistic sense, but only in this sense: that what is contrary to the law of nature is contrary to God, since God is the Author of nature.

How they will change the doctrine. Bergoglio will not overtly change the doctrine concerning sodomy. He will do it in the same way that the condemnation of artificial birth control was changed, as well as that of fornication and adultery.

Although the official teaching of the Novus Ordo is that artificial birth control is a sin, nonetheless about 90% of Catholics think that it is perfectly all right. Why? Because no one enforced the teaching from the pulpit, in catechetical instructions, or in the sacrament of penance, which virtually does not exist any more in any case.

It is something like having a posted speed limit on the highways, but no police to enforce it. People would zoom down those roads as fast as their cars would take them.

A similar thing happened with adultery and fornication. Bergoglio, in his encyclical Amoris lætitia, effectively permitted adultery by permitting couples living in adultery to receive communion. He condoned fornication by saying that sometimes God wants you to stay and fornicate with your live-in non-spouse “in order to hold the family together.”

Something like this will be worked out for sodomy as well. The only thing left will be bestiality.

The underlying immorality in these attitudes is that the essential purpose of sexual relations may be cast aside in order to achieve pleasure or some other extrinsic goal. For example the “arch-conservative” Ratzinger, who proved his adherence to Roman Catholicism by wearing the fancy red shoes, taught that prostitutes, both male and female, could use birth control devices in order not to spread AIDS. Once you establish the principle, however, that something intrinsically evil (birth control) can be done in order to achieve some good which is extrinsic to the sexual act, you destroy all morality. For implicit in this idea is that the end justifies the means, a principle explicitly condemned by Saint Paul.

Why is the transgender agenda being forced down our throats? According to statistics, there are about 1.4 million people in the United States who identify as transgender. That accounts for .4% of the population. Why is there this mania to be concerned about turning people into other genders?

The reason is simple: Precisely because it is so outrageous. Transgenderism is the final battle of the Left against the natural law. If they can convince you to be accepting of transgenderism, then they have convinced you to have completely abandoned the natural law. Once this is done, the path is open wide to them for all of their agenda.

It is, furthermore, the ultimate slap in the face to religion in general, and implicitly to God, as Author of nature. It provides man with total freedom from God, religion, the natural law, and even common sense. “Ye shall be like gods,” the devil said to Eve, “having the knowledge of good and evil.” In other words, you decide, and not God, what is good and evil.

Now you even find pictures of transgenders on beer cans. It is a propaganda campaign of the Left, and they are victimizing children in order to achieve their ends. It is downright hellish.