There are words and terminologies
in use today which hide the evil of sin and present certain evils as “goods
that ought to be achieved”. This presentation of evil as a good has the effect
of making good appear evil, which means we as Catholics have to be much more
precise in our language than we currently are, and require it of others. With words
re-labelling sin as a good becoming part of everyday vocabulary, many people have
lost the sense of evil and sin. It is appalling
that the education of Catholics in the Faith has been so poor they too fail to
recognise -and thus unconsciously cooperate with- sin and evil. For
example, some Catholic teachers have no problem giving sex education to young
children; some Catholic medics have no problem prescribing death-dealing contraceptives
or dangerous drugs to the dying in ‘Care Pathways’; some Catholic Counsellors
have no problem helping clients overcome feelings of guilt which would normally
bring the client to Confession, thus leaving the client objectively in a state
of sin. Some of the terms that hide the evil they promote are the following.
The
word ‘contraception’:
this is not onply the prevention of pregnancy but sometimes the killing of the
new life, and always an active preclusion of parenthood and children. Contraceptives
are the only drug Doctors prescribe which is directly geared towards attacking
a healthy, normal function; even chemotherapy is given only to kill diseased
cells.
The
word ‘termination’ hides the reality of direct killing of the unborn child: this is not the terminating
of a condition (pregnancy is a state of health, not a disease) but the killing
of an individual human life with its own DNA from the moment of fertilisation.
The
term ‘fertilised egg’ is (deliberately?) deceptive; it hides the reality of a
new, unique human life; a child -once
fertilisation has occurred there is no longer an egg by an embryo.
The
term ‘Pro-choice’ hides the reality of absolute power over the life of the
unborn child: his
or her life is ended in order that sexual instincts can be satiated without
responsibility being taken; allow a career to be continued, or evade the need
to care for an ill or disabled child.
“Care
Pathways for the dying” abuses the principle that we can give powerful pain-killing drugs to
those who are in pain as long as the dose is only enough to kill the pain and
not the person. That said, can we ever be sure that the drug given to our loved
one is only given in the amount needed to kill the pain? Is it possible that due
to the desire to end pain, coupled with the diminishing recognition of the
value of human life that these pathways procure death rather than accompany the
patient towards a natural death -how many patients become comatose rather quickly
rather than simply pain-free once a syringe driver has been connected..?
The
word ‘Euthanasia’ hides the reality of murdering the sick: to end the problem of
distress in the dying we are told we can kill the dying person. By application
this ‘logic’ would allow us to end the distress of poverty by killing the poor,
or kill the lonely who mourn for an irreplaceable loved one. Our duty is to eradicate
poverty not the poor, and to assist people through their grief, not help them
to avoid it.
The
phrase “we had a good time”
does not actually mean ‘good’ but pleasurable, and not all pleasure arises from
what is good.
“Happiness”
is another word that is often wrongly used; a may have a succession of pleasurable events but
remain deeply unhappy: having pleasure in life is not the same as being happy.
The
word ‘Gay’ hides the reality of a disordered behaviour: ‘gay’ describes a mood, not a
sexual inclination, but the word is being used to describe the disposition of
someone who is happy to live-out a misdirected sexual inclination.
Use
of the word ‘gender’ hides the reality of sexual identity confusion: this term permits for social
construction contrary to the biological laws of nature and the social
complimentarity and interdependence of the male and female.
The
term ‘gender reassignment’ hides the reality of genital mutilation so as to
simulate membership of the opposite sex since we cannot actually change a person’s
gender: the DNA of the ‘transsexual’ remains that of their birth sex. Even if
there came a time when DNA could be manipulated this would be an artificial process;
simulation of the opposite sex at a molecular level.
The
word ‘partner’ hides the reality of simply having a sexual collaborator: partnership means more than
just collaboration in sexual activity and shared living space.
The
legal term ‘civil union’ conceals the biological reality that a homosexual ‘union’
cannot exist: a
union exists between a nut and a bolt, not between two bolts or two nuts, which
cannot be united.
There are other terms used
which make wrongful acts sound virtuous, and upon which the above are established
as a house on foundations. These include being
liberated (which means choosing to put oneself in bondage to one’s
instincts and passions); being open-minded (which means having no moral
or behavioural boundaries) and being Non-judgemental
(which means allowing others to do what they want); it is a re-labelling of self-rule
in a way that makes it sound virtuous. In reality it is “I will be able to do whatever I want if I say you have the right to do
what you want” -it is not ‘other’ orientated at all, but fundamentally self-oriented
–and isn’t that the problem with every one
of the above?
Thank you for this. We have a family member who is seriously considering having "gender realignment" surgery. He's a lovely young man who has been completely taken in by the medical profession. He has changed his name, lives like a woman (actually a very unconvincing facsimile of one) He's been so miserable since admitting his problem. He avoids us like the plague I think because he knows we don't agree. But we've made it clear we love him. I would beg anyone who reads this to say a prayer for him.
ReplyDeleteChloe, thank you for this...
Deleteand be assured of my prayers for your family member and for the family, which will be offered (silently) during the Canon of the Mass over the Easter weekend. It is good and important both spiritually and humanly to have done as you have -make your love clear to him. I heartily commend and admire you for that. I don't underestimate the struggle anyone in this situation is going through.
Let us pray for a renewal of true life in this young man, and a recognition of the falsity of this possible action.
God Bless
That's the sad reality of Newspeak, and behind it, the more sinister forms of logical linguistic analysis which would have us believe that language and meaning are a matter of convention, that words do not correspond to substance, etc, etc. Which brand of philosophy is the main doctrine being taught throughout most British universities, where students have barely touched Plato and mostly dont know who Aquinas is.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Francis,
Delete'Newspeak' is a clear misuse of language, taking words and applying them in ways that require manipulation of the word from its original meaning, which is language distortion rather than language development. The loss of Aquinas from education is the loss of a foundation stone, so we must expect buildings to totter -and hopefully, fall like a house built on sand.
God bless.
The problem, Father, is that the continuous flow of money and funding means that in many places error is deeply entrenched in university departments. Whereas Catholic seminaries and colleges are being closed for lack of money and candidates. We need new Catholic universities to teach Catholic truth, not post-Vatican ii triteness and slavish papal cult of personality. Cf, Cardinal Newman's The Idea of a University.
DeleteThank you, Francis.
DeleteYou are right that we need new Catholic Universities, and they should indeed be able to form minds in ways consonant with the Faith, but in that today's Catholics are not well-versed in the Faith, one wonders where we would find the right faculty members.
God Bless.
I entirely agree Father Gary. It isn't just a matter of semantics but of the use of a word as clarified in the dictionary. I refuse to use the word 'gay' as it doesn't mean homosexual or lesbian. It is quite often said that 'gay' is just a word but so is 'homosexual' & lesbian. So is 'termination' but so is 'murder'. As you rightly say, let us use the correct word rather than a word which makes us feel less guilty.
ReplyDeleteThank you, David.
DeleteUnfortunately dictionaries tend to include new meanings for old words, so they aren't much help. All we can do is challenge terms that are deceptive whenever they are used. As a friend of mine used to say (God rest you, Frank) "Gender should never be used when we really mean we mean sex".
God bless
In the encyclical “Radiant Crown” (Fulgens Corona, September 8, 1953) No. 18 reads in part, “there is nothing ‘more sweet, nothing dearer than to worship, venerate, invoke and praise with ardent affection the Mother of God conceived without stain of original sin.’” No. 33 says “there exists a church in which the Virgin Mother of God is worshiped with more intense devotion” and No. 34 exhorts, “But let this holy city of Rome be the first to give the example, this city which from the earliest Christian era worshiped the heavenly mother...” It shows up at least three times: coluit, colere, colitur. Did the Roman Pontiff, urbi et orbi, mean to assert that Mary was entitled to the same adoration as the I-Am-Who-Am? Is Mary a goddess? Who is worshiped other than a goddess? The term would seem to present a case of “Re-labeling Blasphemy as Good”— by the Bishop of Rome.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church hates gay people. It will not pass up the faintest scintilla of a chance to malign them, for example, in choosing to adopt the word “gay” instead of a purely clinical designation such as homosexual. The word “worship” hides the reality of a disordered theology and since 1953 has been used to purport divine attribution in a mortal woman. The Catholics labeled “intrinsically disordered” are flayed for the trifling choice of a word like “gay” to describe themselves. Pius XII was able to inaugurate a major revamp of Christian doctrine with the word “worship” and no one even bothered to notice. Heterosexuality covers a multitude of sins.
Thanks for commenting, Dain.
DeleteYour point about the word ‘worship’ is accepted, but Fulgens Corona is clearly speaking about honouring the Virgin and not as we worship Almighty God. Still, that that translators have rendered colere (which can also mean to till and to cultivate) as ‘worship’ only confirms my point that words should be used precisely and according to their proper meaning. I use the word homosexual and not ‘gay’ because it is scientifically precise: it can apply only to the sexual faculty. The word ‘gay’ doesn’t relate to the sexual faculty at all, but to a lifestyle those with same-sex attraction choose to live out.
Dain, you are wrong to say the Catholic Church hates homosexuals. We certainly reject sinful acts but we do not hate persons; irregular sexual behaviours are deplored and rejected in whichever context they appear (including heterosexual buggery) because they endanger the person’s salvation. We reject contraception and abortion as much as we reject homosexual acts, but we don’t hate the people who use contraception or have abortions –and such folk don’t claim that we do. I think it lacks integrity for homosexuals to claim the Church hates them when it is clearly only the acts they engage in that the Church deplores.
God bless you and yours.
Jean-Paul Sartre said it best. “Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete.” In the Catholic Church lesbian women and gay men are not people with nerve endings and sentiments. By dint of natural law theory, they are a bloodless logical category, neatly upholstered with immutable essences and unchanging natures. For Rome they are an embarrassment. They are ontologically unsuited to model Christ because, as True God and True Man, He was heterosexual. They can never aspire to marriage; they can only default to indefectible, mandated celibacy for the rest of their lives. Since there is no parvity of matter concerning sins against the Sixth Commandment, for any transgression they are instantaneously transformed into the spawn of Hell, minions of darkness, pernicious limbs of Satan and enemies of God. Whether or not they are authentically expressed as lifelong celibates or whether or not such a life aids them in finding what Jane Austen called “rational happiness,” is disdained as not serious enough for consideration. That “species of person” exits to demonstrate the transcendent truth of Catholic moral theology and there had better be no wee slip-ups.
ReplyDeleteAt this point the kindliest thing that the Roman Pontiff could do would be to declare the invincible correctness of complementarity ex cathedra such that the orthodox in communion with him are exclusively and authentically oriented and only exclusively and authentically oriented to the opposite sex. Solemnly defined and promulgated, the Pope would once and for all settle the issue of who really belongs in the Roman Catholic Church. From the Code of Canon Law, Canon 333.3, “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff,” would offer comforting reassurance to the remaining heterosexuals. They may also derive some peace of mind from Canon 1372 which enjoins, “A person who appeals from an act of the Roman Pontiff to an Ecumenical Council or the College of Bishops is to be punished with a censure.”
Thanks again Dain.
DeleteThe expression of your frustration (annoyance?) with the Church is palpable; you obviously feel deeply wounded. Let me reassure you that the homosexual is not rejected as a person. Homosexuals are welcome in the Church; it is only the homosexual act which, like the acts of contraception and extra-marital sex, is the object of the Church’s disapproval. This has to be the case since it is contrary to natural law and to nature itself, which requires male/female sex acts for the survival of the species.
Actually Dain, those who have come to terms with their sexuality and practice celibacy are not excluded from priesthood or religious life absolutely, so they are not “a bloodless category unable to model Christ” –and definitely not considered “minions of darkness, pernicious limbs of Satan and enemies of God”. I must then, encourage you to make the distinction between the homosexual person and the homosexual act which the Church makes.
As for sins against the Sixth Commandment, sexual acts of a homosexual nature can be absolved in Confession as long as there is a purpose of amendment not to perform such acts again, which is the same requirement made of heterosexuals who have had a sexual encounter outside of marriage or used contraception, so there is every parity regarding sins against the Sixth Commandment.
I get the impression you have a theological background and so you will know that an ex-cathedra pronouncement is not necessary since the complimentary rightness of male and female is the constant teaching of the Church and of scripture, which constitutes infallible teaching of itself, making an ex cathedra statement superfluous.
Dain, please make the distinction between persons and acts; it is essential that we hold to the adage to “love the sinner but hate the sin”. ANYONE who refuses to see the Church making this age-old distinction is failing themselves (as a sinner like the rest of us) and being (unconsciously or consciously) unjust in their presentation of the Church and her teaching.
God Bless
By way of follow-up what I was making reference to was “parvity of matter” which in Catholic moral theology concerns the relative gravity of any particular sin. Some offenses are by their nature venial or no sin at all, such as a white lie telling your wife that no, she doesn’t look fat in that dress. Sins against the Sixth Commandment such as rape, irrumation, incest, fornication, ipsation and adultery have traditionally been considered mortal and that grievous quality renders the sinner an enemy of God.
DeleteI am not familiar with the moral concept of “parity” as it relates to distinctions between heterosexuals and same-sex attracted persons.
Dain, I am no moral theologian but my understanding of ‘parvity of matter’ is this: stealing is always wrong, but stealing a pen is not the same as stealing someone’s wage packet. ‘Parity’ indicates that there is no difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals are seen and treated by the Church for their sexual experiences outside of a natural marriage; she values and welcomes the homosexual as she values and welcomes the philanderer, but requires that both give up their sexual activities outside of natural marriage. This being so, it is wrong for homosexuals to say they are hated by the Church when it is only their sexual activity the Church rejects; to claim otherwise is to perpetuate a falsehood and perhaps even to generate paranoia among homosexual persons, which is not helpful to them and, if done intentionally while knowing it to be false, a subtle form of psychological abuse.
DeleteFinally, remember that mortal sin (which destroys our friendship with God) is not restricted to sins of purity, and ALL sins repented of can be forgiven when there is firm intent not to commit the sin again.
All the blessings of the season to you and yours.
I find the original post a little ill-informed and ill-thought out. However, I find the post about the family member who is considering gender re-assignment and your reply to it very disturbing. Many people struggle in the body in which they were born and find release when they are allowed surgery. Society's creation of stigma (exemplified in the derogatory reference to a facsimile) is often being underscored by the attitude of those who put dogma before loving kindness.
ReplyDeleteJames, thank you for commenting.
DeleteI believe the original post to be a simple explanation of the manipulation of language to hide realities; a blog is not an academic piece of work but a sharing of thoughts –which I do not think are poorly thought out. Can you provide some insight for me as to what you mean?
As for my reply to Chloe’s comment, in what way can my offering of private prayers and my affirming of the families continued love for this young man be disturbing? I would not pray publicly about a private situation, nor would I encourage the young man’s family to stop loving him: I want them to continue showing him the love they do now. I really cannot see how either of these is disturbing.
I think Chloe’s use of the word facsimile is appropriate in that the young man is giving an impression of who he feels himself to be; in no way can he actually be what he feels himself to be. I read the word as showing how painfully false the situation is for the young man’s family.
God Bless.
Father,
ReplyDeleteIn the church's eye, homosexual acts are akin to masturbation, no more or no less yet we don't hear the church continually vilify all those that masturbate.
If you don't believe that the church doesn't vilify gay persons, and create an environment where it is thought to do so, then just read most catholic blogs. They certainly stereotype and attack the individual not just their acts.
By the way, same-sex attraction is not a neutral term. The neutral term would be 'men that have sex with men' (MSM) or WSW which describes the behaviour in objective terms and does not attempt to define the motivation behind the behaviour as in same-sex attraction. Many heterosexual or bisexual men/women will engage in same-sex behaviour but would not self identify as gay or homosexual.
Dr Alan H
Thank you, Dr Alan.
DeleteThe first section of your comment has been deleted as inappropriate for a blog that is read by strangers all over the world. I am surprised that you would even go there, to be honest.
As for the Church vilifying homosexuals, I can only reaffirm what I have said before: that the Church does not vilify homosexual persons simply because it rejects homosexual acts; if some Catholic bloggers give the impression that homosexuals are less than everyone else then their misunderstanding of The Faith is wrong; the Catechism is clear that the dignity and value of the homosexual person is not diminished by their orientation.
Homosexuals or their supporters who claim the Church vilifies homosexuals either (a) do not want to see the Church’s teaching aright because it would prevent them from claiming the category of oppressed persons, or (b) are unable to make the distinction between the person and the act (which the Church makes about every person and every sin).
MSM and WSW may describe sexual behaviours without ascribing a motivation, but no sexual act is without a moral quality, and it is the moral quality of the act with which the Church is concerned.
God Bless.
A Note to Fr John:
ReplyDeleteYou have made unfounded and inaccurate assumptions in your latest comment, for which reason I am sorry, but cannot publish it. It also casts negative aspersions upon an innocent third party (which I do not think is useful or charitable) and is yet another reason why I cannot publish it.
We are trying to discuss issues and ideas on this blog, not personalities. If you would like to forward your thoughts on issues or reply to ideas on issues, you will find your comments continue to be welcomed.
God Bless.