The Unconscionable Pastoral Malpractice of Fiducia Supplicans

In social media outlets like X and YouTube, many defenders of Fiducia Supplicans express disdainful outrage toward those who object to the document’s promotion of blessings for same sex and other “irregular couples” by condescendingly asking “what’s so wrong about simply blessing a same-sex or other ‘irregular couple’?”  Accepting the explanation of the document’s primary intention by Cardinal Fernandez, they also proclaim that such a blessing and “kind outreach” may provide just the right kind of spark that will eventually lead some or perhaps even many of the people who make up these couples to unite themselves more closely with the Lord, so they further ask “why would you want to deprive them of this kindness?”

Interestingly enough, only a few of these defenders of Fiducia Supplicans who mention the hoped-for closer union with Christ also mention that the blessing may lead to repentance, while many more don’t even pay lip service to this most important requirement of any sinner who seeks to be fully reconciled with Our Lord and Savior.  Sadly, Fiducia Supplicans itself does not call for the sinners to repent, plus it makes it clear that the intimate lives of these people are not even to be enquired about by a priest in providing the kind of blessing authorized by Fiducia Supplicans, and it is these absences which render the teaching in this document an exercise in egregious pastoral malpractice.  Why?

Any two people who make up a same sex or other “irregular couple” are in spiritual critical condition and in danger of losing their immortal souls to Satan should they die without repenting of and changing their mortally sinful ways.  As they are in such a spiritual critical condition, the absolutely first and most important duty of any priest who has the opportunity to do so is to offer them the eternal life saving “surgery and medicine” they need above and beyond anything else of a lesser nature such as a blessing promoted by Fiducia Supplicans in the mere hopes that it will gradually lead the two people to give up their mortally sinful defiance of the Redeemer and finally be reconciled to Him at some point in the future.

Accordingly, because of the immortal dangers involved, it must be recognized that any priest in a position to do so but purposely refuses to immediately offer the much greater blessing of repentance and reconciliation, and instead only offers a much lesser blessing, has shamefully failed as a priest in the true caring of souls even though such an abject failure of priestly duty is authorized by the Pope.  And it matters not if the priest and the supporters of his actions vigorously protest to the contrary, it is simply the case that such a priest does not love the sinners nearly enough to offer them the critical healing they need without delay.

Extending the medical and medical malpractice analogies a bit further, imagine coming to a doctor for some dietary advice to help you control your very problematic appetite, and upon noticing something wrong just from your appearance, the doctor conducts a few tests and determines that your appetite has indeed resulted in you being in need of some life-saving surgery and healing medicines right away because any delays in this regard could cost you your life.  However, since you only came to the doctor for dietary advice, the doctor says nothing about the dire nature of your condition, but he kindly provides you with an appetite-suppressing prescription in the hopes that the prescription will gradually help you enjoy greater health and not die as a result of the problematic appetite.  As the doctor is guilty of egregious medical malpractice in not at least advising you of your seriously dangerous condition and offering the most proper remedy, even more egregious pastoral malpractice is committed by the priest who follows Fiducia Supplicans and does not bother to at least offer a mortally sinful couple what they need most for their immortal souls.

Now, the serious danger of failing to at least offer repentance and reconciliation to a couple in spiritual critical condition may still seem to many to be much ado about nothing, but just imagine a real life scenario wherein two people approach a priest together as a couple, and they both make it clear that they have an ongoing sinful sexual relationship. Following the guidance of Fiducia Supplicans, and instead of offering the greatest “blessing” of repentance and reconciliation, the priest gives them an encouraging blessing in the hopes that such will eventually help lead them away from their mortally sinful status, but he says nothing about their spiritual critical condition. The couple leaves the rectory and both are killed in a car-truck accident a few minutes later. Dying with mortal sin on their souls, they are lost through eternity, and the priest who blessed them without at least offering what they needed most is guilty of unconscionable pastoral malpractice by not properly loving them enough to at least try to give them what they needed above all else and before all else.

Only two legitimate conclusions follow from all of the above: Fiducia Supplicans and the priests it inspires to engage couples who are in spiritual critical condition without at the very least offering them the opportunity to immediately heal their souls are both guilty of unconscionable and shameful pastoral malpractice.  Accordingly, all priests who truly care for the immortal souls of people should never practice what Fiducia Supplicans authorizes.

–B. Michael Addison

If You Believe in Objective Reality and God’s Creative Order, then You Need to Do the Following to Help Win the Culture War:

The roots of the term gender come from the Latin genus, which means kind, or kind of thing. As such, one objective and legitimate application of the term ‘gender’ is the classification (kind of thing) of organisms based on their biological sex. This being so, everyone is a particular and non-changeable gender or kind of thing, which is either the biological male gender or the biological female gender.

Moreover, ever since the 12th century, the word ‘gender’ has been properly recognized and used as a synonym for the biological sexes, and this understanding/usage was made even stronger in the 15th century.*  As such, this rightful understanding of gender must not be surrendered to the “transgender” movement since they and their fellow travelers use their preferred yet still false definition of gender as a social construct and/or feelings a person has that may or may not coincide with their biological sex/gender to further promote their despicable agenda. It is also the case that the word ‘gender’ has been used as a grammatical term or category, BUT it is not limited to this usage, and so this false approach that wrongly separates biological sex from gender must also be avoided. We must always insist that gender and biological sex are synonymous to further demonstrate the folly of the “transgender” movement that proudly proclaims biological sex and gender are different.

Bottom Line: Male sex = Male gender. Female sex = Female Gender.
 
Many years ago the late, great Monsignor William Smith frequently advised that “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” The more we give in to the use of such malevolent and false terminology used by “transgender” advocates (no matter how many doctors, psychologists, church leaders, and so on believe otherwise), the more we help to normalize the abuse of properly recognizing God’s creative order of male and female.

*See https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender#etymonline_v_1349

In writing, always use quotation marks with “transgender,” “trans,” “trannie,” LGB”T”, etc. to signify that they are all faux terms since nobody can change their genders. In conversation, be sure to make it clear that the term is not accepted and won’t be acknowledged for the same reason. Don’t ever give in on this, even for so-called politeness reasons. Apply the same approach to the despicable, anti-freedom-of-speech insistence that people must deny objective reality and refer to other people by their “chosen pronouns” that do not coincide with their biological/gender realities.

Also, nobody can “transition from one sex to the other sex.”  Nobody has ever “transitioned from one sex to the other sex,” nor is anybody in the process of “transitioning from one sex to the other sex.” Such is completely impossible, so all declarations proclaiming that this absurdity is real must also be vigorously resisted by making it crystal clear that the belief is merely an irrational fantasy that also attacks objective reality and God’s creative order. And, because nobody can “transition from one sex to the other sex,” it is also flat out stupid to wrongly praise some people for allegedly “de-transitioning from one sex back to their original sex” as if they had indeed “first transitioned from one sex to the other sex” and have subsequently worked at reducing or eliminating any mutilation and so on from their ill-conceived efforts to change what cannot be changed. These people can be praised and encouraged for recognizing the error of their initial efforts to try to change what cannot be changed, and also their efforts to try to undo any mutilation imposed on their bodies, but in no way should this ever be looked upon rationally as actually “de-transitioning from one sex back to their original sex,” which is, again, simply impossible.

By the Bye:

People who claim that they are “transgender,” and that they “transitioned” tell the rest of us ad nauseum that gender is not really or ultimately about biological sex, and the fact that gender has been rightly used as basically a synonym or meaning virtually the same thing as biological sex should no longer be done.

But if they really believe that their claims are true, then why do the vast majority of these mentally ill people go out of their ways (includes physically mutilating themselves in one form or another) to appear more like the biological sex that they insist has nothing to do with their declarations to be the opposite gender than what their biological sex actually reveals?

—B. Michael Addison

The Scandinavian Bishops Get It Right On The Malevolent “Transgender” Movement

The short “Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality” (approx. 3.5 letter-size pages) that comes from the Episcopal Conference of Scandinavia is perhaps the best one of a handful of such documents issued over the past few years by various ecclesiastical bodies, including the Diocese of Arlington’s “A Catechesis on the Human Person & Gender Ideology” (August 12, 2021), the Archdiocese of Milwaukee’s “Catechesis and Policy On Questions Concerning Gender Theory” (January 20, 2022), and Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).

The primary reason why the Scandinavian pastoral letter is much better than the other documents mentioned above is because it does not make the same fundamental mistake that is repeated in those documents as set forth below.

The Arlington catechesis cites Amoris Laetitia, so it will suffice for both documents. In it we read the following:

“From medicine, natural law, and divine revelation, we know that each person is created either male or female, from the moment of conception. ‘It needs to be emphasized,’ writes Pope Francis, that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated….’”

And in the Milwaukee catechesis, we read:

“Therefore, while biological sex and ‘gender’ – or the socio-cultural role of sex as well as ‘psychological identity’ – can be distinguished, they can never be separated.”

Also of concern primarily in the Milwaukee catechesis is an accepted definition and use of gender dysphoria as “the state in which a person claims to experience an incongruity between psychological identity and biological sex.” Once again note how gender is considered to be merely a psychological identity. Also note that the term gender dysphoria is a term that was “secularly canonized” in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association as a substitute for what was the more objective reality known as Gender Identity Disorder. However, gender identity disorder was and remains the more accurate assessment of what’s involved, and it is rightly described as a mental disorder wherein a biological female is psychologically unable or unwilling to recognize that she is in fact female, and a biological male is psychologically unable or unwilling to recognize that he is in fact a male.

Now, even though it is rightly declared that gender and biological sex can never be separated, by not recognizing them as essentially synonymous with each other as has been done since at least the 12th century, and by also proclaiming that gender is how one views and manifests oneself as either a male or female (or perhaps some kind of a hybrid), a de facto separation between biological sex and gender favored by “transgender” advocates is unnecessarily put into play. As a result of this approach that is increasingly accepted throughout the world, we continue to witness the ongoing and increasing destruction that this view of gender as psychological identity has wrought throughout all of society, including the societal-approved abuse of women by many men who irrationally declare themselves to be women based on their insistence that gender as they and their fellow travelers understand it (subjective feelings) is the more fundamental reality than biology is in determining who is a woman and who is a man or whatever they may declare themselves to be.

Both the Pope and the dioceses apparently never stopped to think about how the meaning of the word “gender” has been purposely manipulated and abused to provide the “transgender” movement with ammunition to disqualify the accurate psychological diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” as a mental disorder that should be treated in the hopes of a cure. To be sure, job one of the “transgender” movement was to change the recognized meaning of gender as synonymous with biological sex, and too many people have indeed caved into this manipulation, including many members of the medical and psychological professions who engage in egregious malpractice by simply refusing to recognize the reality of their emperor patients without clothes and thereby help put an end to this objectively irrational behavior.

Thankfully, the Scandinavian Bishops have not fallen into the trap of making a bogus distinction between gender and biological sex. In a beautifully insightful statement from their “Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality,” they write the following regarding the “transgender” movement:

“We declare dissent, however, when the movement puts forward a view of human nature that abstracts from the embodied integrity of personhood, as if physical gender were accidental. And we protest when such a view is imposed on children as if it were not a daring hypothesis but a proven truth, imposed on minors as a heavy burden of self-determination for which they are not ready. It is curious: our intensely body-conscious society in fact takes the body lightly, refusing to see it as a significant aspect of identity, supposing that the only selfhood of consequence is the one produced by subjective self-perception, as we construct ourselves in our own image.

When we profess that God made us in his image, the image does not just refer to the soul. It is mysteriously lodged in the body, too. For us Christians the body is intrinsic to personhood.”

Awesome! The Scandinavian Bishops wisely refuse to promote or kowtow to any nonsense about gender being a subjective psychological feeling or a mere cultural role. They recognize that there is no real distinction between biological sex and gender, and note in particular how they employ the perspicacious term ‘physical gender’ to help drive home the point that gender cannot be distinguished from biological sex.

If only the Pope and other bishops were as clear-headed on this topic as their Scandinavian brothers are. Such clear-headedness that presents objective truth without accepting any of the false claims of the “transgender” movement would greatly aid the fight against the malevolent movement that is a direct assault on God’s creative order. For now, at least we have some wise bishops who get it right. May the good Lord help spread the clarity of their thought far and wide.

—B. Michael Addison

The Immorality of “Debt Forgiveness/Relief” by the Federal Government

In light of Joe Biden’s unconstitutional intention and actions to arbitrarily “cancel” $10,000 ($20,000 for some) of outstanding student debt personal obligations, the writing below provides an application of sound moral principles which illustrate that both Biden (the government) and any person who accepts the “debt relief” act immorally.
__________

A few months ago, a good friend of mine reached out to me because he was offered an opportunity by Uncle Sam to apply for remaining “debt cancellation” of his student loan despite still owing some $40,000 to US taxpayers, and so he wondered if Catholic moral principles would support or at least not find anything wrong with applying for the “debt relief.”  Being a Catholic theologian but not a recognized specialist in moral theology, I advised my friend that I would review applicable works of sound Catholic moralists like Germain Grisez, Monsignor William Smith, and also some pertinent statements made by a few Popes to provide him with a fairly substantive analysis for guidance.  What follows is a relevant part of that analysis which contains a brief Q&A that provides a moral assessment of personal “debt relief” by the federal government: 

Basic Assessment of the Morality of “Debt Forgiveness/Relief” by the Federal Government

Question 1: Is it morally just for the federal government to provide government loan “cancellations/relief” to any person or groups of persons who have freely entered into a government loan agreement to obtain and pay back all money provided by the taxpaying public?

Answer: No.

Analysis: With the possible exception of things like extreme hardship, extremely low income status, and so on wherein some forms of debt relief would definitively serve the common good, the federal government acts unjustly when it provides the temptation and opportunity for any person or group of persons to shirk his or her or their moral duty in justice to repay borrowed money from the public unless it can be clearly demonstrated (not just claimed) that the government action definitively benefits the entire common good.  This differs from a privately held debt obligation that a lender can forgive since only his or her money is directly involved, but a debt to the taxpaying public needs the full taxpaying public’s approval that would allow the government to cancel and/or provide other forms of debt relief since the burden of the unpaid money falls upon the taxpaying public in terms of unrecovered funds that could be used elsewhere for the common good. 

Moreover, there is an extreme likelihood that an even greater tax burden will be placed on the taxpaying public to make up for the lost revenue when many debts are cancelled that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars.  This being so, unjustly “cancelling” someone’s debt or a group of people’s debts owed to others is a form of wrongful discrimination in favor of the borrowers, and it is also a form of stealing (misappropriation of funds) that money from those who provided it and have a right to have it paid back. 

Nota Bene: This analysis provides some of the basic principles involved regarding the exceedingly unjust position of some politicians who favor “cancelling” all kinds of debt obligations arising from government loans held by many people, which would thereby place greater unjust burdens on all taxpayers in a serious violation of the common good. 

(See Germain Grisez’ Living a Christian Life: Volume 2, Chapter 11, Part 4:
The Common Good Is a Standard Which Governments and Citizens Can Use)
__________________________________________

Question 2: Given that it is morally unjust for the government to so discriminate and steal from some to give to others as set forth in the question 1 analysis, would it nevertheless still be morally permissible for a person to accept such “debt cancellation/relief” of a debt obligation?

Answer: No.

Analysis: When all of the relevant facts and moral principles are considered, then material cooperation with the wrongdoing of the government also comes into play, and so seeking and accepting “debt cancellation/relief” arising from the immoral practice of the government would also be immoral. Taking advantage of an immoral action of the federal government (that also features wrongful discrimination toward others) in order to obtain financial gain, even if not personally culpable for the discrimination, and even if the immoral action is considered legal, still violates precepts of justice in accepting the temptation to avoid fulfilling a personal obligation toward fellow taxpayers and the common good of society in general, and it also lacks basic charity and empathy toward others who will indeed suffer from the government action.  At the same time, cooperating with the government in such a manner weakens individual resolve to fulfill all personal obligations with honor, and it also promotes a wrongful sense of entitlement that works against cultivating one’s humility and solidarity with fellow citizens.  

(See Germain Grisez’ Living a Christian Life: Volume 2, Chapter 11, Part 4:
The Common Good Is a Standard Which Governments and Citizens Can Use)

Nota Bene (2): The Principle of Subsidiarity also has a significant and serious application to the current issue:

“Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.”

(See Encyclical Letters Quadragesimo Anno – 1931, and Centesimus Annus – 1991.  Also see Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1883)

Accordingly, “taking away an individual’s debt obligation” that can be accomplished by the individual’s own initiative and industry is also gravely wrong. 

Nota Bene (3): Also from the great encyclical Centesimus Annus is another important insight on the application of the Principle of Subsidiarity:“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (See Chapter V, #48)

Of course, depriving society of its responsibility includes depriving individual members of that society from fulfilling their individual responsibilities.  A loss of human energies pertains in large part to a direct attack on individual initiative and drive by fostering a mentality of “let the State do it instead of me.”
_________________

Additional Considerations:

From the brief assessment set forth above, it can indeed be concluded that offering “debt relief” in the manner proposed by Joe Biden is exceedingly immoral, and accepting that “relief” is also exceedingly immoral.  Moreover, even though legally it may not be the case, the fact remains that any person who has his or her debt wrongly “cancelled or reduced” by the State still owes that money to the people (taxpaying public) from whom it was borrowed. Personal obligations to persons XYZ cannot be waived by anybody (including those who claim to be speaking/acting on behalf of persons XYZ but demonstrably fail to act for the entire common good) other than persons XYZ.

Now, if and when the “debt relief” goes into effect, and it is claimed (i.e. rationalized) by anyone that the government “simply reduced my debt on its own, so there is nothing I can do…,” this person should be advised that his/her personal moral obligation cannot be relieved by the State, and so it remains in effect until he/she fully honors it.  And there is indeed something they can and must do to act morally, and that is pay the amount of the ill-gotten relief “back to the people” in the form of a contribution to the general fund, and there are many ways this can be done so that the money is directed as much as possible to where it would go without the immoral “debt relief.”

Alas, I fully recognize that many will act ignorantly and/or immorally in this regard, but hopefully there will also be many upright people who will not let Joe Biden and his government partners compromise their moral integrity in any way.

—B. Michael Addison

The Pernicious Lie and Unjust Bigotry Behind the Protest Slogan ‘Black Lives Matter’

I wonder how many people believe that the protest slogan ‘black lives matter’ is a legitimate declaration as it is employed in riots, protests, speeches, and articles, and also printed on billboards, posters, shirts, banners, basketball courts, streets, and so on.  On the surface, it looks like a fairly solid sentiment, but is this protest slogan as it is understood and used by those who wield it in protest truly one that expresses a legitimate sentiment?

NO IT IS NOT…and it is not even close to being anything other than a slogan of hatred and ignorant bigotry directed at the majority of white people and police officers of all colors.  In fact, the primary meaning of the protest slogan ‘black lives matter’ that is insisted upon by those who promote the protest slogan is that black lives are abused and killed in large numbers and/or too often by police officers and white racists, and white people en masse and the legal system do not really care when these particular black lives are abused or destroyed, but these lives matter. In this regard, then, the slogan means basically this: ‘Hey, white people and legal authorities! Stop ignoring and not caring about the ongoing slaughter and abuse of black people by racist police officers, the legal system, and white racists in general. Black lives matter, you immoral racists.’

However, this is an egregiously false and unjust narrative that is not backed up by any objective data and other facts about such killings and abuse that the protesters and rioters and fellow travelers intentionally ignore while also declaring that they want justice as they robotically chant calls for immoral violence in the form of ‘no justice, no peace’, but they refuse to act justly toward police officers and white people in general. As such, they either participate in immoral violence or encourage it from others, all the while pushing false narratives to support their immoral actions.

Even peaceful protests that feature the ‘black lives matter’ protest slogan and similar themes can indeed be legal, but being legal does not make the protests ethically sound, especially when they are based on demonstrable lies as these protests are.  Sound moralists have always made it clear that just because some things can be done and might be legal or even have some good aspects to them does not make all such things ultimately moral undertakings.

Accordingly, anybody who uses, defends, or supports the ‘black lives matter’ protest slogan (The hideously immoral, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-gender fantasies, pro-Marxist organization with the ‘black lives matter’ name is of course even worse in many ways.) as a legitimate form of protest is intentionally or unintentionally guilty of adopting a bigoted and unjust narrative toward white people in general, the legal system, and the majority of police officers based on the fundamental lie at the heart of the protest slogan.  Moreover, those who defend the protest slogan in part by claiming it does not diminish other lives are using the red herring fallacy to avoid admitting the bigotry of the primary narrative expressed by the protest slogan that automatically diminishes other lives based on the false stereotyping that comprises the essence of the protest slogan.

Among many possible sources of valuable information that can be consulted to further reveal the despicable lie behind the protest slogan ‘black lives matter’, I recommend a few very short, freely available online videos (~5 minutes) that clearly expose the utter nonsense behind the false police brutality narrative and widespread racism narrative behind the ‘black lives matter’ protest slogan and movement, and they do this by presenting objective facts and data that can be easily checked and confirmed. For instance, see the video by Heather MacDonald entitled “Are the Police Racist?” After that, try another short video by Larry Elder entitled “The Ferguson Lie.” This short video conclusively demonstrates that the rise of “Black Lives Matter” protests and rioting that followed the Ferguson incident is based on yet another lie, and this lie has also been turned into a false and bigoted protest slogan by people who ignorantly chant “Hands up; don’t shoot.”  Such an action that triggered the use of this bigoted protest slogan never happened as claimed, but of course objective truth means nothing to the misguided protesters and the evil-facilitating mainstream media and others who know better, but they don’t have the common decency to point out the falsehood behind this lie that serves to cause more people more unjust harm.  This highly immoral ‘ends justify the means’ attitude is also very much in play in the riots, protests, stealing, and false reporting of these events.

But in the pursuit of actual justice based on objective truth, fully recognize and inform others that the protest slogan ‘black lives matter’ fundamentally represents a racist narrative that wrongly accuses others of being bigoted toward black people. It should never be seen as expressing anything that can be agreed with because of its inherent immorality in its primary interpretation used in protest. And if you wish to test this claim, simply respond to anybody who chants ‘black lives matter’ as part of a protest with the highly moral ‘all lives matter’ declaration that does express a legitimate sentiment, and if you are not accused of being racist and dismissed or accosted, you will be quickly told what ‘black lives matter’ really means when used in protest, and then you will be treated to the bigoted and false narrative described above while also being told that ‘all lives matter’ misses the point and is also racist because it refuses to acknowledge the “real message” of ‘black lives matter.’  The protest slogan is pure rubbish that must never be accepted as anything other than false, malicious, and destructive propaganda that likely brings a big smile to the evil one’s hellish countenance.

—B. Michael Addison

Cry For the Children…

…unless they happen to be inside a womb.

Democrats and others crying about so-called “child abuse and ripping children from their parents” who purposely bring them across the US southern border in defiance of the law are of course the same people who have no problem in denying children in the womb the right to cross a border that should be open for them to enter life outside the womb.  Even worse is that they will not only deny them the right to cross the border of the womb, they will actually promote destroying them on the other side of the border within the womb.

That’s ultimate child abuse that they self-righteously and arrogantly deny takes place under their immoral “pro choice” nonsense that they spout as a moral position despite the reality that one of the choices they support is murder.

And when it comes to ripping children, abortionists know very well how to do this to the children themselves while also permanently taking them away from their all-too-willing parents who are also among the real perpetrators of child abuse.

OVV

Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam

So-called moderate Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser have repeatedly claimed in radio and television interviews that all Islam needs in order to get away from its violent elements and also modernize it…

Source: Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam

Logic, Science, the Existence of God, and Chickens and Eggs

One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument that deals with the reality of causation.  Skeptics of the argument insist that it is circula…

Source: Logic, Science, the Existence of God, and Chickens and Eggs

Some Much Needed Clarification on Creation and the Big Bang Theory

Recently Pope Francis made a statement about the Big Bang theory (part of which is inaccurate as will be explained below) that has sent many people into a tizzy over what the Church teaches or does…

Source: Some Much Needed Clarification on Creation and the Big Bang Theory

The Ongoing Surrender of Terminology to the Secular-Progressive Agenda

This past June 1, I posted an article imploring people of good will, common sense, and a respect for natural law (in short, ‘right thinking people’) to cease adopting and using terminology created and/or employed by Progressives in pursuit of their assault on objective morality.

(see https://vlogicusinsight.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/stop-playing-progressive-agenda-word-games-that-attack-objective-morality/).

Reviewing both verbal and print media over the past few months, it has become more painfully obvious that the unthinking and/or unwise use of progressive/leftist terminology by otherwise right thinking people opposed to the assault on objective morality continues with remarkable frequency to the point that almost nobody challenges the use of such terms, and, alas, the meaning behind them.

And sometimes even usually clear-headed scholars and medical people who should know better inadvertently make matters worse.  Case in point is the otherwise fine work of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) who have declared and published the following on their website:  

No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender(an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward.People who identify as ‘feeling like the opposite sex’ or ‘somewhere in between’ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.  (See https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children)

This referring to gender as merely an awareness of oneself as male or female and not an objective stand-alone category not only plays into the hands of subjectivists and others who wish to promote the irrational claims of “transgenderism,” it’s also etymologically inaccurate and misleading.  The roots of the term gender come from the Latin genus, which means kind, or kind of thing. As such, one objective and legitimate application of the term ‘gender’ is the classification (kind of thing) of organisms based on their biological sex. This being so, everyone is a particular and non-changeable gender or kind of thing, which is either the biological male gender or the biological female gender, and it does not matter what they are aware of at birth. For crying out loud, who is aware of much of anything when they are born?  Very sloppy work here on the part of the ACP that plays right into the hands of those who wish to make gender a subjective/fluid thing that can be determined by each individual instead of objective biology.

Similarly, the prefix trans comes from the Latin trans, which means to go beyond or cross over.  So anything that is trans X means something that crosses over or goes beyond X to something else.  Accordingly, to be “transgender” is to go beyond a particular gender, and those who claim that such is possible mean that a person has crossed over from one gender to another gender or to some hybrid or made-up fantasy gender merely by declaring him or herself to have done so.  But in the real world, nobody can cross over from one gender to another just like no human can cross over from the human species into another species and declare him or herself to actually be a “transbird” or “transwhatever,” and so once again it remains imperative for people of good will and right reason to stop misusing terminology and/or redefining terminology that denies objective reality in any way.

Bottom line: nobody is “transgender” or “transgendered,” because such is not possible by virtue of the way God designed the world and human beings (male and female He created them), and gender is not merely an awareness of one’s biological sex.  It is an objective category pertaining to either the female or male sex and nothing else.

What Approach Should We Take?

Repeating what I set forth in the June 1 article,… “right thinking individuals who oppose the attacks on morality and objective reality must cease using the misleading and/or false terminology of the progressives in support of their claims.  Secondly, the use of such terminology by progressives and others must be challenged at all times. The use and/or acceptance of the bogus terminology cannot be justified even as a matter of politeness or academic discourse protocol, and so on. As has been illustrated time and time again, abusing and manipulating terminology is a major weapon employed by progressives in the culture war, and whenever objectively false terminology is directly or indirectly treated as being even marginally legitimate in describing reality, those who use such terminology to aid their opposition to objective morality make progress in their ongoing destructive efforts, especially when the same terminology is also accepted and used by those who otherwise oppose the immoral nonsense.

The term “transgender” or its equivalent substitutes must never be used without employing quotation marks and/or otherwise indicating the objective falsehood of the term when writing about people who suffer from gender identity disorder.  In conversation with a person who employs the “transgender” term or its substitute labels, this must be countered immediately with politeness, but it must be clearly and forcefully explained that such a term is flat out false for the reasons set forth above.  In addition, it should also be pointed out that anyone who uses such terminology and/or accepts the false claims underlying such terminology are actually helping to perpetuate a psychological illness in the name of that other abused term tolerance – the high god of relativism.

Reclaiming a culture based on natural law, reason, and objective science starts with a relentless insistence upon and use of objective terminology that correctly reflects objective reality.

Let us always bear in mind the importance of words in service to the Word of God.

OVV