Dangerous Ignorance, is the mental illness that you feel you are not what God made you,,,
Posted on 08/06/2016 7:43:44 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
On August 2, Pope Francis said a few words about gender identity—words that are not at all new with him. In a meeting with bishops that day, he observed:
"In Europe, America, Latin America, Africa, and in some countries of Asia, there are genuine forms of ideological colonization taking place. And one of these—I will call it clearly by its name—is [the ideology of] “gender.” [It is, in fact, an artificial construct, as is evident by the co-opting of a word that, in its normative meaning, refers to grammar.] Today children—children!—are taught in school that everyone can choose his or her sex.
"Why are they teaching this? Because the books are provided by the persons and institutions that give you money. These forms of ideological colonization are also supported by influential countries. And this terrible!
"In a conversation with Pope Benedict, who is in good health and very perceptive, he said to me: “Holiness, this is the age of sin against God the Creator.” [That is, people are in rebellion against the design of human creation, man and woman.] He is very perceptive. God created man and woman; God created the world in a certain way … and we are doing the exact opposite."
[Note how Pope Francis announces his consistency with, not his departure from, Pope Benedict XVI.]
Should Have Seen Just What Was There
Now, the pope has said this kind of thing so often in the past that I marvel that people marvel. (Dear heavens, the pope is Catholic. What ever shall I do? How can I go on?) I have, dear reader, documented such statements on this very blog.
I documented it here, on February 23, 2015, when the pope said the same thing in a papal interview in flight from Manila to Rome. (All anyone talked about was breeding like rabbits.)
Ideological colonization: I’ll give just one example that I saw myself. Twenty years ago, in 1995, a minister of education asked for a large loan to build schools for the poor. They gave it to her on the condition that in the schools there would be a book for the children of a certain level. It was a school book, a book prepared well, didactically, in which gender theory was taught.
This woman needed the money, but that was the condition. Clever woman, she said yes and did it again and again, and it went ahead, and that’s how it was achieved. This is ideological colonization: They introduce to the people an idea that has nothing to do with the nation; yes, with groups of people, but not with the nation. And they colonize the people with an idea that changes, or wants to change, a mentality or a structure.
During the synod, the African bishops complained about this, which was the same story, certain loans in exchange for certain conditions—I say only these things that I have seen.
Why do I say ideological colonization? Because they take, they really take the need of a people to seize an opportunity to enter and grow strong—with the children. But it is not new: The same was done by the dictatorships of the last century. They entered with their own doctrine … think of the Hitler Youth.
I documented it here, on June 25, 2015, when the pope said the same thing in Laudato Si 155. (All anyone talked about was the pope’s belief in global warming and his castigation of air conditioners.)
"It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.
"Learning to accept our body, to care for it and to respect its fullest meaning, is an essential element of any genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment.
"It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it."
And I documented it here, on April 11, 2016, when the pope said the same thing in Amoris Laetitia 56 & 285. (All anyone talked about was communion for the divorced and remarried.)
"56. Yet another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.""285. Beyond the understandable difficulties which individuals may experience, the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for “thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation… An appreciation of our body as male or female is also necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves."
You Couldn’t Be That Man I Adored
And yet in spite of all that papal consistency—documented here on this wery blog—the New York Times reports that “leaders of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups expressed dismay” at the pope’s words.
What had they expected? Under what weird delusion have their poor minds been burdened lo these many years?
“It is very troubling that the pope would say this,” cried Marianne Duddy-Burke, the executive director of DignityUSA.
How is it that she is “troubled” now, when the pope has said this wery thing before, many times, and consistently with his predecessor? Whence this expectation of some imminent departure? Surely it can not come from the actual record of history, available to anyone with a computer and a search engine and access to the Vatican and Catholic publications (or at least the few, fewer every day, that lack an ax and a grindstone).
But according to the troubled Ms. Duddy-Burke, the pope’s statement
"...also shows that he doesn’t understand the danger that his words can mean for gender-nonconforming people, particularly those who live in countries with laws or cultural pressures that put these people at risk for violence."
This is an unfortunately incoherent thing for Ms. Duddy-Burke to say. Does she really think that the pope is advocating violence? Does she really think that there are people sitting around waiting for the pope to say something about gender identity that they can then use as an excuse to go on a rampage in clubs or bathrooms? That, if only the pope would make a bold departure on these points, such people would suddenly experience a wave of brotherly love, hold hands, and sing Jackie DeShannon? LGBT individuals will not be safe unless the pope changes Church teaching? Is that what I am being asked to believe? This is strange.
“Francis, who is Argentine,” the Times goes on, “also did not offer examples of classrooms using such a curriculum.”
Oh, the Times wants examples? They doubt this? Well, the pope actually did give one during his flight from Manila to Rome, if anyone had been paying attention to more than just bunny rabbits. But here’s another: Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia. According to a plan for updating the schools’ seventh- through twelfth-grade mandatory health curriculum:
"Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime. Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences."
I mean, Google’s a handy, handy thing. Perhaps the pope means for us to use it. Perhaps he expects the media to have access to such things right at their very fingertips. Has the New York Times been robbed of all its resources for fact-checking? It must demand that the pope’s audiences come complete with citations and a bibliography?
“But church analysts,” the Times continues,
"...say [the pope] has long harbored resentment over so-called ideological colonialism, the notion that international groups offer aid to developing nations contingent upon the adoption of Western values."
This is true, but I would hardly call gender ideology “Western values.” In fact, it is opposed to “Western values.” If I be wrong about this, can I ask the Times to explain for us where the notion of gender fluidity has its origin in Western culture and thought?
“It’s not all that clear who he’s mad at and what’s upsetting him,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior analyst for The National Catholic Reporter [who is himself a touch mystified by all this odd and unexpected consistency from the pope]. “But there’s something underlying there. And I think it’s primarily that he feels that this kind of stuff is being pushed down their throats.”
Well, yes, some people do have a strange objection to being told what they must think, particularly on contentious issues like this one. It’s not like teaching people that the sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side.
Illusion Never Changed Into Something Real
“The pontiff’s latest remarks,” the Times continues,
"...represented a letdown for gay rights groups that were encouraged by the pope’s conciliatory remarks in June after the massacre of gay patrons at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Francis said at the time that gays were owed an apology for past mistreatment by Christians."
Sure; I don’t doubt that there’s been a “letdown.” But there are two separate issues going on here. Of course LGBT individuals should not be gunned down. Of course they deserve to be treated well and loved. Of course Christians should repent and apologize every time they fail in this regard.
But that is not at all the same as saying that all of their behaviors, and all of their thinking, is good or correct.
That the Times, and LGBT leaders, can confuse the two, helps to explain their muddled thinking, and their tendency to indulge in illusion with regard to Pope Francis.
One naturally wonders, however, why such wild hopes were never placed in Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in his letter to bishops “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”:
"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."
And in the very next paragraph, Ratzinger added:
"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground [such as gender ideology]."
That Pope Francis can say both, just as Ratzinger said both, is a mark of coherence and consistency with his predecessor in the Chair of Peter. Where the illusion of imminent departure comes from, in the specific case of Pope Francis, I confess I have no idea.
And likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexual persons, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” And that very same paragraph (2358) also describes same-sex attraction as “objectively disordered.”
But for some reason, every time Pope Francis says the one, the secular media and certain advocacy groups get all hot and bothered that he is about to deny the other. As the Times reports:
"Sarah McBride, a spokeswoman for the Human Rights Campaign, said the words sent a ripple of hope through the LGBT community that the Vatican might be embracing a broader stance on inclusion.
She added, however, “I think what’s clear in this last statement is that maybe those sentiments weren’t universally applied—that for transgender people, the pontiff is applying a different standard.""
Well, no, Ms. McBride, there is no “different standard” for homosexual people than for transgender people. The very same principle applies to both: Treat them with dignity and respect, and love them. Say you are sorry when you are cruel or dismissive of them. But none of that implies acceptance of everything they think or everything they do. That’s a separate matter.
But “LGBT leaders,” according to the Times, “said Wednesday that the pope had failed to grasp that one’s gender identity is discovered, often at a very young age, not chosen.”
In fact, it’s not so much that the pope does not “grasp” this—if by “grasp” it you mean understand the argument—it’s that the pope does not agree with it. It is a contentious argument, not one that has been in any way proven. But one would think that, by denying this, the pope is denying heliocentrism, or the sun’s morning appearance in the east.
“There have been times,” Ms. McBride concluded, “where [the pope has] demonstrated compassion. Then there have been other times where his words have been not only hurtful, and frankly harmful, but really demonstrating a misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender.”
A larger problem here is not the pope’s understanding “of what it means to be transgender” (or lack thereof), but Ms. McBride’s understanding of what it means to have compassion. That compassion, for her, seems to mean both “don’t kill people,” “be kind to people,” and “accept every false and reckless and destructive idea and lifestyle that occurs to them” helps to explain why Pope Francis is the cause of repeated dashed hopes on the left.
People like Ms. McBride work themselves up into a pitch of nervous excitement, and then wail in a jilted rage when reality sets in. Only to do it all over again next month.
This is Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome of the left.
`
`
Thank you, Jesus
All promoted by the unholy trinity; MSM, Academia and entertainment.
What the hell is the LGBTZQ talking about? Suffering from sexual disorientation and not realizing it after fondling your genitals one time is “ignorance.”
Dangerous Ignorance, is the mental illness that you feel you are not what God made you,,,
The Pope is a Marxist. That’s more dangerous than being butt-boy phobic.
no he isn't and no, it isn't.
This is a very good insight which covers a lot of different issues.
>>So it turns out Pope Francis is homophobic, transphobic, and heteronormative.
Well, this week anyhow.
“Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/
‘till the papal flip flops change feet again.
The Pope does not change Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, marriage, birth control or abortion in the paper.
In fact, he reiterates that marriage between a man and a woman remains the Catholic ideal, superior to other forms of union.
"In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full idea of marriage," he writes.
A "great variety of family situations ... can offer a certain stability, but de facto or same-sex unions, for example, may not simply be equated with marriage," he says. And he holds the line against artificial birth control, rejecting the phrase "safe sex."
The very wording, he says, operates as if "an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against."
`
Ever notice how there's often more truth in the body of the article than in the headlines?
What are these "other forms of union" that Francis speaks of? Are not all other sexual unions immoral in the eyes of the Church? Why can't the pope state this? Answer: because he doesn't believe it.
"It ... can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace," states the pontiff at one point in the document, released by the Vatican Friday."
"It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being," the pope writes later.
"Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits," states Francis. "By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-exhortation-radical-shift-see-grace-imperfection-without-fearing-moral
Francis warm greeting a "married" homosexual couple.
Which is more important to the homosexual “community” - doctrine or the perception manufactured by the MSM’s headlines?
“If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
http://time.com/3975630/pope-francis-lgbt-issues/
What did this mean to the homosexual community?
If I were ambitious enough, I could check with Melinda Selmys, Steve Gershom, Eve Tushnet, Gabriel Blanchard, Joshua Gonnerman, Ron Belgau,and others of that faithful (celibate) Catholic tribe --- except Melinda isn't celibate, she's married to a man. A man! And has kids! ---- and see what they think, since they're a Homosexual Community, all righty. But I suspect they're not who you had in mind.
My own thoughts? I know you didn't ask for them, but here goes:
I think he means that if a person were guilty of homosexual sins in the past, but now has changed course and is searching for the Lord in good faith and good will, I'm not going to beat them up for what they used to be.
That's my take, YMMV.
It's like hat poster-perfect cliche, which is evertheless true:
Which homosexual community?
The one they’re so proud of.
This reminds me of the Vatican II theology of "full communion" vs. "partial communion" (pre-Vatican II it was in communion or no communion).
What Francis seems to be implying/inferring here is that, although these other unions aren't equal with marriage (ie. full idea) they are not completely invalid. This is very similar to the Vatican II belief that non-Catholic sects are means of salvation...that they have "partial" communion with the "full idea" (ie. the Catholic Church).
>>they are not completely invalid.
Is that sort of like not having a complete case of Herpes?
The abomination of nature IS what it IS.
That’s not an answer. “Who’s ‘they’?”
The LGBTQWhatever “community”.
And who’s still on Third base.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.