Holy Matrimony

 

To My Readers: This week's post, by John Gregory, reminds us of what a gift God has given us in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the most serious duties and responsibilities a married couple have to each other and to God. This post is indispensable reading  for those who feel called to the married state. It also serves as a beautiful and solemn reminder of what God expects for those of us who are married.

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Holy Matrimony

By John Gregory

Dogmatic Subject: The Sacrament of Matrimony.—There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee (St. John 2: 1). 

Moral Subject: The Duties of Married People.—Let love be without dissimulation, hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. . . . Being of one mind one toward another (Romans 12: 9, 16).—There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.  And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage (St. John 2: 1, 2) 

Marriage is a sacrament in which the couple gives their entire selves to the other and both accept that offering.  Our Lady and Saint Joseph did this perfectly.  Saint Joseph was not “just” the foster father of Jesus.  Jesus was conceived and born into that sacred bond without the instrumentality of another man.  The Holy Family is reflective of the Holy Trinity.  Our Lord entered that family, partly at least, due to the love his parents had for God and for each other.  This is a love unmatched by all creation.  Love begets love and the fruitfulness of this love was God Himself.  The eternal love God the Father has for God the Son, and God the Son has for God the Father, is the Holy Ghost which proceeds from them both.   

These three, father, mother, and child, are rightly spoken of as a human trinity; the child is a human holy spirit, the living love of those from whom it proceeds.  A realization of this makes plain the danger involved in planning a temporary exclusion of the birth of children at the very beginning of marriage, even though this be done by legitimate means; it is like keeping an infant from talking because we enjoy its gurgling.  (A Companion to the Summa, Volume IV, The Way of Life, Corresponding to the Summa Theologiae IIIA, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M., 1942) 

And now to the bastion of all Orthodoxy, the Catechism of Trent: 

Marriage Considered as a Sacrament 

It will now be necessary to explain that Matrimony is far superior in its sacramental aspect and aims at an incomparably higher end.  For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Savior. 

Thus when Christ our Lord wished to give a sign of the intimate union that exists between Him and His Church and of His immense love for us, He chose especially the sacred union of man and wife.  That this sign was a most appropriate one will readily appear from the fact that of all human relations there is none that binds so closely as the marriage-tie, and from the fact that husband and wife are bound to one another by the bonds of the greatest affection and love.  Hence it is that Holy Writ so frequently represents to us the divine union of Christ and the Church under the figure of marriage. 

MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT 

That Matrimony is a Sacrament the Church, following the authority of the Apostle, has always held to be certain and incontestable.  In his Epistle to the Ephesians he writes: Men should love their wives as their own bodies.  He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church; for ware are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall adhere to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.  This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. (Ephesians 5: 28, 32) Now his expression, this is a great sacrament, undoubtedly refers to Matrimony, and must be taken to mean that the union of man and wife, which has God for its Author, is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred sign of that most holy union that binds Christ our Lord to His Church. 

That this is the true and proper meaning of the Apostle’s words is shown by the ancient holy Fathers who have interpreted them, and by the explanation furnished by the Council of Trent.  It is indubitable, therefore, that the Apostle compares the husband to Christ, and the wife to the Church; that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5: 23); and that for this very reason the husband should love his wife and the wife love and respect her husband.  For Christ loved His Church, and gave Himself for Her (Ephesians 5: 25); while as the same Apostle teaches, the Church is subject to Christ (Ephesians 5: 24).  

That grace is also signified and conferred by this Sacrament, which are two properties that constitute the principal characteristics of each Sacrament, is declared by the Council as follows: By his passion Christ, the Author and Perfecter of the venerable Sacraments, merited for us the grace that perfects the natural love (of husband and wife), confirms their indissoluble union, and sanctifies them.  It should, therefore, be shown that by the grace of this Sacrament husband and wife are joined in the bonds of mutual love, cherish affection one towards the other, avoid illicit attachments and passions, and so keep their marriage honorable in all things, . . . and their bed undefiled (Hebrews 13: 4). 

One of the things absolutely necessary for marriage to be successful is for the husband to rule justly and lovingly and for the wife to be cheerfully submissive.  A head-strong woman or selfish man can be good for some things perhaps, but not marriage.  Disobedience is at the root of so many avoidable problems.  It turns a solid foundation into a mushy quagmire, destabilizing the children and ultimately wrecking society.  True love wants, and will do, what is best for the other.  It is true that one should not get married when lacking the maturity to enter into such a sacrament in a godly and fruitful way, but as we age, we get set in our ways and are more likely to justify disobedience or a tyranny of selfishness. 

The Duties of Married People 

The more easily to preserve the holy state (of marriage) from dissensions, the duties of husband and wife as inculcated by Saint Paul and by the Prince of the Apostles must be explained. 

DUTIES OF A HUSBAND 

It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honorably.  It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion.  The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion.  (Genesis 3: 12)  Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband. 

The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice. 

He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties. 

DUTIES OF A WIFE 

On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear.  Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God.  For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord.  (1 Peter 3: 1 ff.)  

To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention.  The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent. 

Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience. 

Duties of Husband and Wife 

The husband has authority over the wife in all things that pertain to their domestic relations and family discipline: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the Head of the Church.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things” (Ephesians 5: 22 - 24). 

Husband and wife are bound to show mutual love: “Husbands love your wives as Christ also loved the Church and delivered Himself for it . . . so also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5: 25; Titus 2: 5). They are bound to cohabitation (1 Corinthians 7: 10), to mutual maintenance—though by nature and law the husband is primarily bound to maintain the wife—to render conjugal dues when seriously asked for—even by implication—if there be no valid excuse for continence: “Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency” (1 Corinthians 7: 5). 

By English law the husband must maintain his wife according to his state and condition, unless they are separated through her fault.  A wife is not obliged by law to maintain her husband except that, if she has separate estate and her husband becomes chargeable to a Poor Law Authority, she can be obliged to maintain him in an institution. 

The savings which a wife, living with her husband or temporarily apart, may make out of money supplied to her by her husband for household purposes or maintenance, belong to the husband unless there is evidence that he intended such to be her property.  Since the year 1883 the husband acquires no rights over his wife’s estate except what she gives him.  If the husband refuses or neglects to supply his wife with necessaries, the law assumes that she has his authority to pledge his credit for them, otherwise she cannot pledge her husband’s credit.  A husband can refuse to pledge his credit for unnecessary luxuries or extravagant dress. 

The husband is bound to administer his property wisely so as to be able to support his wife and children, to have care for his wife’s Christian life, to reprove her prudently and temperately. 

The wife is bound to obey and pay respect to her husband’s authority, to see to the orderliness and comfort of home life, and to exercise reasonable economy in outlay. 

Though children are primarily subject to the father, the mother has an important and irreplaceable share in their upbringing.  The mother normally settles the religious and moral outlook of her children.   She will fail in her duty, if she teaches her children to disregard their father’s reasonable commands by sympathizing with them against their father.  It is thus that she undermines all parental authority, her own included.  

Serious sin is committed by husband or wife by serious injury in word or action, by grave negligence in respect of temporal goods that are necessary for maintenance, by hatred, by putting unreasonable obstacles in the way of the observance of the Commandments of God and of the Church. 

As a matter of counsel, parents may well be exhorted to encourage their children to become acquainted with the lives of their patron Saints, the ceremonies and practices of the Church, the history of Catholic activity, the sublimity of a vocation to the priesthood or to religious life and the work of Catholic Missions.  The good Catholic parent will consecrate his house and family to the Sacred Heart, and foster a devotion which establishes concord and happiness wherever it is practiced. (Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1958) 

Conception prevention is the antithesis of marriage as its primary purpose is procreation. Contraception redefined the primary purpose of marriage according to the whims of society from being for the procreation of children, to being for pleasure without responsibility.  “Marriage”, thus understood, has become a sort of formal and “acceptable” form of loyal fornication with one individual.  Some Catholics find it “necessary” to space their children as Montini recommends in his encyclical Humanae Vitae.  This brings me to a point on which countless sermons could be preached. 

That is on what people consider “necessities” these days and why these necessities are not necessary.  Such as countless visits to the salon and saloons.  How much money is spent on the gods, alcohol and vanity, which are considered to be more important than immortal souls?  Things which are not a necessity whatsoever, such as cable and expensive vacations, brand name clothes which are thrown out in less than a year, countless shoes, expensive cars with tons of extras that you can afford not to buy.  How many frivolous meaningless things we consider to be necessities, more important than the existence of our potential children, of your own children, who could spend all eternity with God, if only you would allow them to exist?  I say to selfish souls, “If your parents were as selfish as you, perhaps they would have considered the saloons and salons to be more important than your existence.”    

A COMPANION TO THE SUMMA: 

The goods of matrimony: Relative to its act: Progeny 

It is to be noticed that children come under the head of compensation,  not of burdens.  The child is the proximate end of the marriage.  There are, of course, other ends, such as mutual love, protection against temptation, and mutual help; but this is the immediate purpose.  At this time, it is the woman who looks forward most to a child as the final expression of love, an expression to be greeted much more joyously than the first distinct words of a baby after months of inarticulate gurgling.  For the child is a perfect expression of love; here is a union that is an embodiment of the mother and father; a surrender, for here is a master of them both; a consecration, for here is one that lifts them both to heroic heights of sacrifice. 

It is as though what had been so intangibly real before was to become incarnate, incarnate love.  These three, father, mother and child, are rightly spoken of as a human trinity; the child is a human holy spirit, the living love of those from whom it proceeds.  A realization of this makes plain the danger involved in planning a temporary exclusion of the birth of children at the very beginning of marriage, even though this be done by legitimate means; it is like keeping an infant from talking because we enjoy its gurgling.  Baby talk is a precious thing, but to insist on its preservation indefinitely is an injustice to the child; so also is the insistence that our love be robbed of its mature perfection. 

Let this love remain baby love and it becomes as helpless as an abandoned infant.  Limit its expression to husband and wife, and its chance for growth, fullness is definitely cut down; its acts of love, of sacrifice, of consecration, and of surrender are automatically limited, thus cutting off the normal source of strength for love, while the couple’s love is left open to the ruthless attacks of time, of hard reality, of pettiness, and all the elements of division inseparable from human communion.  This couple has fallen badly behind in an armament race for the defense of love; there is much more possibility that their love can be bluffed from its legitimate possessions by the dictators of sense appetite.  This love, which has been kept deliberately in an infantile state, is not merely a backward child; it is a perpetual infant, dribbling and gurgling after forty years in a high chair. 

Of course love suffers from being kept perpetually in an infant’s walking machine; it is never able to take its own full, free stride.  But it suffers nothing like the damage done to it by birth prevention, by the perversion of love.  For this not only limits and cripples love, tying it in a narrow infantile sphere, it destroys love’s foundation of justice by a consecration to injustice.  It fixes the eyes of both parties on themselves, sets them against each other in a perpetual duel of self-protection; whereas love, to exist at all, must be a consecration to another.  This sort of thing is an offense to physical nature, particularly to the physical nature of woman, and it meets with a deep, irreconcilable protest, in spite of the woman herself, a protest that eventually expresses itself in physical revulsion and positive hate. 

I believe most of us see that the world is not right.  A mere surficial, uninformed, glance at it can tell us this.  The question we must ask ourselves is: Why?  This answer is quite simple: Sin.  As the years progress less and less of the population will know what it was like to grow up in the 50’s (seeing the stark difference between how most dressed and acted then as compared to today).  Their earliest memories will be of slovenly and immodestly dressed, tattooed, body pierced people with their mask covered face in the phone, while driving to the shopping mall to get the latest gadget, after getting their hair changed a different color the fourth time this month.  

But even these people may be awake to the fact that double standards are not cool.  Allowing people to burn down cities and kill the elderly, while jailing people for running their business, is not the bright and beautiful thing to do, any more than letting criminals out of jail so they may be replaced by the innocent.  Yet, in case you are not awake [awake being the opposite of being “woke”], this is what has been happening.  Endless pages can be filled with the injustices in the world, and it is getting worse and worse.  There is no line in the sand anywhere, except when it prevents us from stopping the evil, or doing the right thing. 

Why is society so messed up?”  The answer lies in the backbone of society.  The family.  A man and a woman, the only combination that can engage in the marital act, with the result from said act, not too few times, being children.  Yeah, this is news these days, but I digress.  The world is filled with people who form society.  The world or society is bad, because people are bad i.e., they do bad things frequently.  Why are people bad?  Because they grew up without either a mother or father home, and very few, if any, siblings.  They were not taught objective and intrinsic moral truths.  They were not taught the Catholic Faith.  Instead, they are/were raised by our communistic propaganda brainwashing machines, known as day care, and the public school system.  They come home to adore their god in the holy tabernacle in the center of the living room, known as the tele, with visions of perversion, violence and more propaganda dancing in their minds before it is off to bedy-by-bumpty-boo land.  

God’s way is the right way.  We must do what He wants, in the way He wants.  Just ask Adam and Eve.  How hard was it not to eat from the one tree in paradise they were told not to eat from? 

How hard is it to abstain from the marriage act unless you are married?  How hard is it when you are married to have children as God gives them to you?  These are not the questions asked by those who love God more than themselves.  We are to ask, what is God’s will, and then do it.  Doing this makes things so much better, and ultimately easier, for individuals, families and the world at large, both in this life, and after death. 

How do we know what God’s will is?  What is wrong with limiting the family if we stay married, and the mom stays at home to raise her children, and teaches them to know, love, and serve God in this life, so as to be happy with Him forever in the next?  We know God’s will; it is the natural and the divine positive law infallibly explicated to us through the Church He (God) founded on the rock of Saint Peter.  Any intellectually honest individual who studies authentic history knows that Christ founded one Church, and he knows when and where He founded it, and what Church that is.  All the proof of this fact in the world won’t suffice for those of bad will, but those of good will can read the book of Acts for some proof. 

The Church has consistently taught from Peter to Pius XII, and even Montini, back when the anti-popes were, at times, making an effort to appear Catholic — because the people hadn’t become as thoroughly de-Catholicized as we are — that the deliberate prevention of conception is a grave evil, (that means you will go to Hell if you die guilty of this sin). 

People think the Church just invented this teaching to be mean.  But why would the Church, which depends on financial support to a certain degree, willfully alienate her members and potential converts?  Why didn’t she cave in like the rest of the “Christian” churches?  Because she was divinely commissioned by God to guard, and infallibly explain, the deposit of Faith, to the entire world, until the end of time, that’s why.  She could not abandon that divine teaching, even if she wanted to, and remain the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

Why is this teaching true then?  It is hard to raise children, and it can be difficult for some to supply the basic necessities to a large number of them.  God created things pertaining to life, natural and supernatural, with certain purposes and functions.  In His graciousness he has made that which is necessary to be enjoyable.  Consider food.  It is absolutely necessary that we eat in order to survive.  Eating is enjoyable.  But what do we call the eating of food and then throwing it up to avoid gaining weight?  Bulimia, it is an eating disorder.  Notice that it is a disorder.  It is an abuse.  It is not proper.  It is not something conducive to health but rather works against it. 

Now consider the procreative marriage act.  It is absolutely necessary for the existence and preservation of the of the human species.  The procreative marriage act is enjoyable.  But what do we call a couple who engage in the marriage act while thwarting its purposes?  Mutual masturbaters.  This is not conducive to the preservation of the species.  It objectifies the human person.  It is misusing a great gift of God for your own selfish ends.  It is the taking of the sacred and making it profane.  It is mocking God and spitting in His face.  It deliberately prevents an immortal soul from coming into the world which is a very evil and selfish act.  It mocks the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the couple involved.  Does that make sense?  All those of good will just said yes.  Those who love themselves more than God said no.   

Before we end, might we take a glance at A TOUR OF THE SUMMA: 

MATRIMONY AS A SACRAMENT 

1. A sacrament is a sensible sign, instituted by Christ, to signify and confer grace.  Matrimony meets the requirements of this definition.  Hence, it is truly a sacrament.   

2. Matrimony is instituted for the begetting of children according to God’s providence and law.  It was established from the beginning, before the fall of man, as a holy institution of nature.  It was raised to supernatural rank by our Lord when he made it a sacrament.  

3. Like every sacrament, matrimony confers grace upon those who receive it worthily.  It also confers the special sacramental grace which helps the spouses to be faithful in the performing of all their duties.  

4. The actual use of marital action is not an integral element in the sacrament of matrimony. 

The claim is made that it is better to have two children with college degrees than several with none.  While it is true that one of the things we can take with us to heaven is knowledge, what is also true is that we must first exist before the possibility of enjoying the Beatific Vision can happen.  Depriving several of existence in order for two to grow more in knowledge is to eliminate the best (existence of immortal souls) for the sake of a good (increased knowledge and better chance of attaining material success). 

The claim is made that two well educated children contribute to the betterment of society more than several souls deprived of a full education.  The truth is that one must not do evil so that good (perceived or real) may come.  The thwarting of the existence of souls is intrinsically evil and cannot be done for any reason.  Society is composed of people whose existence is unique and unrepeatable, and whose value in the eyes of their Maker, equals that of every single drop of His Blood, which He spilled for all who come into existence, and the primary good, which is existence, contributes to the increase and betterment of God’s family which is the composite of society.  There are also secondary goods that result in the betterment of society when the existence of human life is not purposely thwarted, such as more children to support one another and their parents in old age (pensions, social security stability) and the lessening of the necessity for the importation of peoples to fulfill roles that cannot be fulfilled by those whose existence has been prevented. 

The claim is made that it is more expedient to supply two children with the best things in life than to deprive several children many of their wants.  The fact is expedience relates to the promotion of self-interest rather than the common good.  Salvation does not come from doing that which is expedient but from that which is right.  It was not expedient for Christ to die on the cross but most beneficial to those whom He saved.  It does not follow that two immortal souls existing with many material goods, which rust and moth consume, is preferable to the point of preventing other souls from existence within the family of God in the marital bond.  An “expedience” that leads to mortal sin and eternal damnation is not expedient at all. 

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.  And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.  (Genesis 38: 9 – 10).

One immortal soul is worth infinitely more than any temporal good or convenience others would obtain in this life had that soul’s existence been prevented. 

Conclusion

Let us conceive the Holy Trinity in the womb of our souls through a supernatural love of God and neighbor with a total self-giving to God in all we think, say and do, and let us unreservedly accept the will of God into the bridal chamber of our hearts by keeping the commandments and precepts of the Church so we may be birthed into the Triumphant family of God forever! 

Contending For The Faith---Part 32

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Eco-Paganism

There is much discussion going on around Jorge Bergoglio's ("Pope" Francis) statement that all religions lead to God. Vatican II sect apologist and the R&R movement are straining credulity (to say the least) to explain away his statement, or somehow "prove" that it does not constitute heresy.  This is not the first time Bergoglio has promoted the so-called "equality of religions." One of his biggest (and ongoing) attempts was in 2015, with the publication of Laudato Si ("LS") the "ecological encyclical on "Care for Our Common Home"--the Earth. Bergoglio states in para. #3, "In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home." Religion is irrelevant. That's because: " Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing." (para. #7).

With all the problems facing us, including (but not limited to) abortion, the occult explosion, sodomite/transgender perversion, the rise of militant atheism, and the threat of ever more fanatical Islamism, Bergoglio is concerned about Styrofoam cups and "climate change."  Bergoglio is not concerned with the salvation of souls because, like Freemasons, he's an adherent of Naturalism, "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." A serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). He adopts the pagan idea of deifying humans and nature with false and exaggerated claims of "human dignity" and "human rights." 

Beginning in 2012, the so-called Discastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (not spiritual development, more Naturalism) has begun a plan of implementing LS. 

(See laudatosiactionplatform.org). The purpose of my post is to expose the Naturalistic and pagan ideas in the "eco-menism" movement which has the Vatican II sect as one of its leaders. While a modest goal of protecting the environment is laudable, what is going on under the appellation of "ecological concern" is nothing less than a new belief system firmly grounded in paganism.

"Deep Ecology"

Deep ecology is the name given to an environmental movement and philosophy which regards human life as just one of many equal components of a global ecosystem. It is, by its own terms, anti-supernatural, and sees humans as "just another animal." Most deep ecologists are pantheists, and many explicitly embrace Hinduism, Buddhism or Confucianism. Deep ecologists are spiritual and religious in their attitudes toward environmental issues. Some actively seek to revive Druidism, witchcraft, Native American religions and―among feminists―goddess worship.

Drawing from both the Eastern religions and Darwinian science, they place man’s identity with the rest of nature in his ascent through the evolutionary chain of being. Thus, “one itinerant environmentalist conducts ‘workshops’ in which participants are urged to remember their alleged evolutionary history by rolling on the ground and imagining what their lives were like as dead leaves, slugs, and lichens.”

(See Robert James Bidinotto, “Environmentalism: Freedom’s Foe for the ’90s,” The Freeman vol. 40, no. 11; Yes, this was as far back as the 1990s and has gotten worse).

Today, deep ecologists collaborate more closely with politically active environmentalists, who tend to share the same basic worldview and communication strategy. A significant minority of deep ecologists reject any inclination to view nature as divine or indwelt by goddesses, animistic spirits, or other spiritual entities. They are thoroughly naturalistic, and rationalize their belief that plants, animals, and natural objects have intrinsic value by embracing a scientific, evolutionary starting point—although some admit this view is “often grounded in mystical or intuitive knowledge that is beyond the reach of the scientific method.” (See Bron Taylor, Dark Green Religion: Nature and Spirituality and the Planetary Future, [2010], pg. 14). In this quasi-scientific scenario, Homo sapiens’ evolutionary heritage—our alleged common ancestry with all life—has resulted in an interdependent, kinship relationship in which humans are merely one of countless other living things inhabiting Earth.

Hence, there are two views within deep ecology, one pagan and occultic, the other secular humanist. Both views reject and despise Christianity. They share the belief that Homo sapiens are only one ordinary organism inhabiting the Earth’s biosphere. All plants and animals, as well as inanimate objects, have intrinsic value equal to, if not greater than, human beings. In short, deep ecology endorses "ecocentrism." It puts the welfare of nature above human welfare. 

"Eco-Theology"

Carl Sagan (d. 1996), the famous astronomer, was also a pantheist; as his son Dorian said, "My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it." It was Sagan who helped to popularize nature worship. In his book, Cosmos (1980, pg. 243), he quipped, "If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?" No, it doesn't. We worship not some impersonal "power" but the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Creator of the stars and all things. 

 In his book, Earth in the Balance, former Vice-President Al Gore suggests that we return to the worship of nature and upholds various nature worshiping sects and Native American religions as a model:

"This pan-religious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned…Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth…All things are connected like the blood that unites us all." (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance – Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992, p. 258-259).

Gore goes on to declare that we need to find a new nature-based religion and quotes New Age, censured theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, in support of the “new faith” of the future:

"This point was made by the Catholic (sic) theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, when he said, ‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to re-sanctify the earth." (Ibid, p. 263). Teilhard was born in south central France on May 1, 1881 and was censured by the Church in 1936. He died in 1955, still censured, but not excommunicated. His secret disciples, who praised him openly after Vatican II, included Karol Wojtyla (JPII) and Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). His writings were considered so dangerous, even Roncalli (John XXIII) refused to allow any of his works to be used in the seminaries as late as 1962. Teilhard bragged about high ranking Modernists who were using their influence to prevent his excommunication, even though he could neither teach or write, and all his works were declared to contain errors.

Here are some interesting ideas of Teilhard that his proponents, like Al Gore, would like us to ignore:

"Rome does not want me to return to my professorship. They do not seem to have taken a dislike to me, far from it; but they want to save Religion…..I would take enormous delight in breaking all ties" (the reference here is to breaking all ties to traditional Catholic belief, and the Church as a whole – from letter written Feb. 14 1927)

"I do not think God should be worshiped" – from a conference given in 1947

"What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world……"(Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan 26, 1936; Emphasis mine)

"Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?" (Le Christique, 1955;Emphasis mine)

"Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore." (The Phenomenon of Man; Emphasis mine).

"No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites." (April 6, 1927 letter--pure racism).

Carl Sagan was a major proponent of Teilhardian ideas. Before his death in 1996, he quoted one religious leader quite favorably, "St." John Paul the Great Apostate, a Teilhardian disciple. He quotes Wojtyla:  "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish….Such bridging ministries must be nurtured and encouraged. Nowhere is this more clear than in the current environmental crisis…. It has the potential to unify and renew religious life. " (See Parade, March 1, 1992; Emphasis in original).

False ecological cataclysms have been manufactured to scare people into submitting to more government regulation in their lives, and worst of all, to adopt the false and pagan idea of nature worship and pantheism to unite the planet. There have been past "chicken-little-the sky-is-falling" impeding ecological disasters predicted before:

• By 1989, "contamination of the planet" will destroy the Earth https://www.nytimes.com/1969/08/10/archives/foe-of-pollution-sees-lack-of-time-asserts-environmental-ills.html

• There will be an ice age by the year 2000, as reported in the Boston Globe https://www.newspapers.com/image/435402308/

• In the 1970s, "Ozone Depletion" would wreak havoc by the 1990s, now hardly discussed, See https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html

Now, climate change is the latest "Eco-pocalypse" with a purpose; to bring all people into a worship of nature and a One World Religion. The stage was set for Bergoglio to enter next.

"Eco-menism"

At the end of his encyclical Laudato Si ("On Care of Our Common Home") 2015, Bergoglio sets forth two prayers:

At the conclusion of this lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling, I propose that we offer two prayers. The first we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator, while in the other we Christians ask for inspiration to take up the commitment to creation set before us by the Gospel of Jesus. (Emphasis mine). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite and mobilize against the "ecological threat" and engage in ecumenical prayer. 

In para. #87, Bergoglio omits the following words from St. Francis of Assisi's Canticle of the Sun:

Be praised, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of You;

through those who endure sickness and trial.

Happy those who endure in peace, 

for by You, Most High, they will be crowned.

Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Bodily Death,

from whose embrace no living person can escape.

Woe to those who die in mortal sin!

Happy those she finds doing Your most holy will.

The second death can do no harm to them.

Why were those words omitted? They teach the following truths Bergoglio wanted to leave out:

• the necessity of final perseverance in grace to arrive at a happy eternity
• death is inevitable and humans were NOT created for this world
• it warns of mortal sin and souls that die in the state of mortal sin will endure the "second death" of Hell

Bergoglio has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It progressed with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It goes even further with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters.

Laudato Si also tells us "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision. The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith "Pope" Francis. In paragraph #175, the false pope also tells us: The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. In other words, a One World Environmental "Police Force" putting us another step closer to a One World Government, with a One World Religion dedicated to recycling cans and praying to "Mother Earth." 

The New Religious Holy Day/Holiday: Earth Day

Pagans love Bergoglio's deep ecology, and claim "he got it right." As one modern pagan wrote:

Throughout the encyclical, Pope Francis accurately and powerfully describes our origins in the Earth, our dependence on the Earth, and our desecration of the Earth.  More importantly, he describes how our harmful actions flow from a “throwaway culture” that mistakenly seeks meaning in things, and how the negative results are borne predominantly by the poor.

If you think Laudato Si’ is only about climate change, you need to read it for yourself.  It discusses the problems the poor have with access to clean water, the loss of biodiversity, the decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society, global inequality, and the weak responses to these problems from governments and individuals.

What does any of this have to do with saving your soul, which is the whole purpose of Catholicism?

He continues:

It is one thing to describe a problem so immense.  It is quite another to propose a solution.  Pope Francis does not propose an agenda of specific actions.  Instead, as a spiritual leader he proposes a spiritual solution.

Christian spirituality proposes an alternative understanding of the quality of life, and encourages a prophetic and contemplative lifestyle, one capable of deep enjoyment free of the obsession with consumption. We need to take up an ancient lesson, found in different religious traditions [emphasis mine] and also in the Bible. It is the conviction that “less is more”.

"All religions lead to God"--remember? 

As a Pagan, I accept the challenge to help create and promote a Pagan and polytheist spirituality that will be at least as effective in building a society that is respectful, compassionate, and sustainable.  As a start – but only as a start – I recommend reading and signing the Pagan Community Statement on the Environment...Thank you, Pope Francis.

(For the entire article, See patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2015/06/the-pope-gets-it-a-pagan-look-at-laudato-si.html). 

Time magazine, had an article in 2023 advocating for Earth Day (April 22nd) a religious holiday. It was written by Paul Greenberg and Carl Safina, who describe themselves as a "nominal Jew" and a "recovering Catholic," respectively. Here's what they propose:

So, what would an earth-reverent belief system look like with Earth Day at its center?

To begin with, let’s take a look at what established religions get right and where we might take a cue. Perhaps the first step might be, um, unearthing the nature-centered origins of our existing religious holidays. Most of us know in the back of our minds that Christmas and Hanukkah fall around the time of the winter solstice; that Easter and Passover are celebrated in tandem with the arrival of spring; that Sukkot and Diwali mark harvest and summer’s last warmth, and Eid follows the path of the moon. These holidays have origins in gratitude. Gratitude for the sun returning. Gratitude for the harvest that could avert the starvation winter might bring. Thanks for when it did avert it. We could conceivably reframe these holidays as days of thanks for what the natural world gives and reminders that our responsibility for what remains is an ongoing covenant...We still don’t really know how nothing became something and formed a universe in which random pulses of energy and matter coalesced into beings writing op eds. In short, there’s plenty of mystery to go around. (Nothing became something; and Christians are derided for believing in "magic"---Emphasis mine)

In short, we must make nature central to our belief system with Earth Day or any number of earth-focused ceremonial days serving as regular reminders of what we owe our home planet.

(See time.com/6273684/earth-day-religious-holiday/).

Can this eco-mania of deep ecology bring together secularists and religious as the start of a One World Religion? 

Conclusion

As I have written before, the deep ecology of Bergoglio and his sect are being used by the forces of evil to further advance ecumenism and jettison Christ from society, replacing Him and His One True Church with a pagan One World Religion dedicated to "saving the planet," while its members lose their souls. A healthy concern for the environment is one thing, and making it the focus of our existence (pantheism or secularism) is another. Beware the Laudato Si implementation plan coming to a V2 sect parish near you, and shared around the neighborhood. 

Don't let Bergoglio and his false Vatican II sect lead you down that garden path; for those who worship "Mother Earth" would do well to remember the words of Christ, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do." (St. John 8:44).

Our Mother The Church

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, reminds us of how the Church is truly our Holy Mother, in fact, not merely as a pious title. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Our Mother The Church

By Dominic Caggeso

Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit (Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8, Response 2). “Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it.” Another way to interpret this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas is with the phrase, “Grace builds upon nature.” Essentially, God’s grace perfects our natural temperaments and dispositions in our pursuit of holiness. Throughout Catholic history, saints have pursued holiness and perfection, each manifesting these virtues uniquely due to their individual characteristics and the diverse natural environments in which they lived. The natural world served as their starting point, but God’s grace elevated their natural traits towards heavenly goals and aspirations.

In a broader sense, the natural world provides a foundation for understanding the supernatural world. By using comparison and metaphor, we can build upon our understanding of the natural world to grasp supernatural realities. In this way, the expression “grace builds upon nature” applies not only to individuals but also to various aspects of the wider world.

In the Gospels, Our Lord often uses natural realities to illustrate supernatural truths. For example, the parables of the mustard seed, the sower, and the pearl of great price are metaphors from the natural world that help us understand the Kingdom of Heaven. 

By employing this method of analogy, frequently used to deepen our understanding of Faith, we can draw some striking comparisons to the natural realities of family and childbirth. These comparisons offer a way to view Our Heavenly Father, Our Mother the Church, and our birth into Eternal Life. 

The New Adam and New Eve

Our Lord is known as the “New Adam.” While the old Adam disobeyed God by eating from the tree, the New Adam gave His life in submission and obedience to God by being hung on a tree. The old Adam brought sin and death into the world, whereas the New Adam brought forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

Similarly, Our Lady is known as the “New Eve.” Just as Eve, through her disobedience, brought about the fall from grace, Our Lady, through her obedience, brought about our redemption. By saying “yes” to God’s plan at the Annunciation, She became the Mother of God.

Moreover, Our Lady is also considered a type of the Church, as she exemplifies the Church’s mission and identity. As Our Lady nurtured and brought forth Christ, the Church nurtures and brings forth “other Christs”. To illustrate this, let me quote St. Augustine:

“Come on now, friends, think of how the Church, which is plain enough, is the bride of Christ; what’s more difficult to understand, but is true all the same, is that she is the mother of Christ. The Virgin Mary came first as a representative figure of the Church. How, I ask you, can Mary be the mother of Christ except by giving birth to the limbs and organs of Christ? You people, to whom I’m speaking, you are the limbs and organs, the members, of Christ. Who gave you birth? I hear you answering to yourselves, “Mother Church.” This holy and honorable mother is like Mary in that she both gives birth and is a virgin. That she gives birth I can prove by pointing to you; you were born of her; she gives birth to Christ, because you are the members of Christ.”  (Sermons of St. Augustine 72a para. 8)

Thus, if Our Lady is a model for the Church, can we also say that the Church is a New Eve? Allow me to draw some analogies with the old Adam and Eve.

The first Adam was created by God before Eve was created. Adam was put into a deep sleep, and God opened his side to remove a rib, which He made into Eve. Eve was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh. Similarly, Our Lord preexisted the Church, His Bride. When Our Lord died on the Cross, His side was opened, and from it flowed blood and water, which is what the Church was formed from. St. Bonaventure illustrates this by saying:

“It was a divine decree that permitted one of the soldiers to open his sacred side with a lance. This was done so that the Church might be formed from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death on the cross”

Thus, Adam was put in a deep sleep during which his side was opened. God formed Eve from his rib. Likewise, during the sleep of death, Our Lord’s side was opened from which was formed the Church. Both Adam and Our Lord went on to “wake up” to meet their brides. 

With the establishment of the Church as Our Mother, we can now draw comparisons between natural motherhood and the supernatural motherhood of the Church.

In the Womb of Our Mother

A natural mother carries her child in her womb, nourishing the baby through the umbilical cord. This nourishment, provided by the mother, fundamentally comes from her husband, the father of the child. The husband sustains the mother, who in turn, through her body, nourishes the child in utero.

Similarly, Catholics are carried in the bosom of our mother, the Church. We are nourished through the Sacraments, which sustain us spiritually and help us grow in grace and virtue. These Sacraments, provided by the Church, are fundamentally given by God. The graces from God come through the Sacraments, just as a baby’s nourishment comes from the father through the intermediary of the mother’s body.

A natural child in the womb intimately knows its mother. The child hears her voice directly, feels her touch, and is comforted by her heartbeat, which forms the background of life in utero. In contrast, the father’s voice is muffled and obscure. The child is familiar with the loving father’s voice but not as intimately as the mother’s. The child hears the mother’s interactions with the father’s voice, understanding their love, but it is the mother whom the child knows through firsthand experience.

Likewise, Catholics intimately know our mother, the Church. We hear sermons, smell incense, and ponder the heavenly wisdom spoken through the Church’s words and writings. We can touch the Church and, in a manner of speaking, know its heartbeat. However, the voice of our Heavenly Father is more challenging to discern directly. We know the Church and Our Lord love each other, and we witness the Church’s response to our Heavenly Father.

Born into a New World

In the womb, a child is content with its familiar environment, seeing no reason to leave the only life it has ever known. If one could communicate with a child in the womb, it would be impossible to describe the outside world. One might tell the child about the wonders and experiences awaiting outside the womb—walking, tasting food, breathing, speaking, meeting people, and smelling flowers. However, the child would have no way to understand or conceptualize any of this.

Similarly, Catholics are content in the womb of our mother, the Church. The thought of leaving this world can be frightening, as it is all we have ever known. If someone from Heaven tried to communicate the joys of Heaven to us, we would not be able to comprehend them. This is most eloquently expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:9

“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”

As the mother begins the process of giving birth, the child’s life in the womb changes dramatically. The womb contracts, causing distress for the child. The only home it has ever known starts to shrink around it. Signs of trauma are evident as the child’s heartbeat increases and its body is flushed with adrenaline. Pushed by the contractions, fearful and crying, the child is born into the world.

Similarly, on our deathbed, we may fear the unknown. Our bodies begin to shut down, pushing us toward death, much like contractions. We are forcibly removed from our life on earth, the only life we have ever known. Finally, we die and are born into the new world of eternal life.

Just after birth, the father is traditionally invited to cut the umbilical cord, as the baby no longer needs nourishment from it, having entered the world.

Similarly, the Sacraments of the Church are available to us only on Earth, while we are in the womb of Holy Mother Church. Once we are born into Eternal Life, we will no longer need the Sacraments.

Meeting Our Father Face to Face

The voice of the father, often heard obscurely while in the womb, will now be heard clearly and distinctly by the child. The child will finally see his father’s face, be held by him, and live in his house.

Likewise, once we are born into the eternal life of Heaven, we will see Our Heavenly Father’s face for the first time. We will live in the house He has prepared for us and experience the bliss of His loving care for all eternity. St. Paul indicated this in 1 Corinthians 13:12:

“We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”

Conclusion

God has blessed me with a wife and children. Though it has been a long time, I still remember the exhilaration and anticipation of my wife’s first pregnancy. As young parents, we followed the stages of our child’s development in utero, speaking and singing to him, and preparing our home for his arrival. The experience of childbirth is unforgettable—witnessing the actual birth and holding the child for the first time. What a grace God bestows on us to participate in the creation of a new soul that will exist for all eternity.

As great as this experience is, it is but a shadow of our supernatural end in Heaven. A nine-month pregnancy might seem long, especially for the mother, but it is just a brief moment in the child’s entire natural life on earth. Likewise, our time in this world might seem long, but compared to an eternity in Heaven, it is absolutely short. Therefore, let us focus on Eternal Life and not on this world.

Destroying Children Body And Soul: "Gay Adoption"

 

As I've stated many times in my writings here, I believe that the two greatest threats we face in the time of the Great Apostasy, ushered in by Vatican II, are the occult and sodomite "rights." (By "sodomite" I wish to indicate the sin of Sodom--which is homosexuality. Additionally, due to the pagan times in which we live, I'm using it to designate not only all forms of sexual perversion but the mental illness of being "transgender"---Introibo).The homosexuals' continued acceptance and normalization in society requires recruitment of the young, now more than ever, as they continue to reshape what's left of "Christian civilization." 

Since sodomites cannot reproduce normally ("breeders" is the pejorative term they use for heterosexuals), they need to indoctrinate children directly or indirectly into either acceptance or joining in their sin. They do this primarily through "gay adoption."  To ignore the gender component of marriage is to violate God's design of marriage. While it is true the Church has always allowed those who are sterile (through no fault of their own) and the elderly to marry, the fact they cannot procreate does not change the gender component of what a marriage must be like. They still reflect God's design and some can adopt children providing them a father and mother; something sodomites cannot do. 

"Alternative families" is the made-up term for perverts making a mockery of God's design for humanity. When children grow up thinking having two women or two men as parents is "normal," they will embrace the sodomite lifestyle as something good. The brainwashing began in the late 1980s. Heather Has Two Mommies, a children's book originally published in 1989, was written by Leslea Newman and tells a story about a young girl who has lesbian "mothers." At Heather's playgroup, her family situation is discussed simply and positively, as are those of other children in normal families. Of course, sodomites can only have children by adopting from an agency, by a sperm donor for sapphists, or by a surrogate for men. Artificial insemination, contrary to both Natural and Divine Positive Law, is looked upon as a "gift." When artificial means are used, at least one person in the relationship is not biologically connected, but an "adoptive parent."

To be clear, artificial insemination is the evil and opposite practice of artificial contraception. God ordained that procreation should take place through natural intercourse in a valid marriage. Artificial contraception removes procreation from the sex act, and artificial insemination removes the act of sex from procreation. This idea must be seen as "good" if sodomites are to gain control of society. Next came Daddy's Roommate is another children's book written by Michael Willhoite and published in 1990, tells the tale of a young boy whose divorced father now lives with his sodomite lover. When the boy asks his mother about his father and his "roommate," the mother explains that they are "gay" and it's just "another wonderful form of love." 

It's apparent that children are being brainwashed into accepting unnatural vice, ungodly "families," and the asinine "LGBTQIA+" slogan that "love is love." That idiotic slogan is manifestly false and sick. I love my wife, I loved my parents, I love my best friend, and I love God. The love I have for each is both felt and expressed very differently. If you apply romantic love to your parents, it's not "love is love," it's called "incest" and is morally wrong and mentally sick. Applied to animals, romantic love is beastiality. Applied to children it's pedophilia (which the clergy of the Vatican II sect know all too well--both those in and out of jail). Applied to persons of the same sex, it's homosexuality; which is just as morally depraved, unnatural, sinful, and sick as the other perversions. 

A few months back, a new potential client came in to my law firm. He brought his ten year-old son with him. A polite, nice young boy, he seemed rather effeminate in his speech and mannerisms, not at all like his father. The boy went outside my office for some refreshments by the office help, while I interviewed the father. As I opened the door, walking out with the man at the end of our conversation, the boy ran to hug him. "Let's go home, daddy!" I asked him, "Do you want to be an engineer, like your dad, when you grow up?" He responded, "My dad is an architect; my daddy is an engineer!"  The man turned to me and said, "He calls me "daddy" and my husband "dad." I nodded my head, and said I had to go. I went straight to the managing partner and told him to give my case to someone else, which he did. It was the first time I had personally met a child being raised by sodomites, and my heart went out to that poor kid. 

The damage being done to children and society as a whole is inestimable. The time has come to speak out against "gay adoption" in all its evil forms. Write your legislators about a Constitutional amendment to ban it. God will not ask if we succeeded, only if we sincerely tried. 

There are several major talking points; "gay adoption" is to be rejected because :

• same-sex parents have inherently worse relationships than normal parents 
• pedophilia significantly increases
• they have problems that make them unfit per se

Each will be examined in turn. 

The Unstable Relationships of Unstable People

Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The sodomites claimed a great victory when they prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II -- its listing of psychological disorders. However, here are the facts regarding homosexual "relationships/marriages." They are both short-lived and full of promiscuity. Even in 2003, studies showed this to be the case:

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex “marriages.”

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research.Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

Same-sex “marriage” has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual “marriages.”

The Dutch study — which focused on transmission of HIV — found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships. In “The Male Couple,” published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity.

“Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” the authors said. “Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.”

Such findings show how recognition of same-sex unions would “erode the ideal” of traditional marriage, Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute.

“They’re redefining what it means to be monogamous,” Mr. LaBarbara said. “It’s just preposterous to claim that these relationships even approximate normal, steady relationships.”

(See washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r). 

More alarming facts:

• 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." 

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Does anyone with any sense of decency want a child living with such a "couple"? 

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

• Over 90% of child molesters are male

• 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

• 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual

• 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual

• In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual

• Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

(See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43). 

In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many "gay pride parades" with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases they use are removal of “oppression towards pedophilia” and gaining the “liberation of pedophilia.” It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a “civil right,” deserving of the same legal protections afforded to racial and ethnic minorities. The Vatican II sect is complicit in this goal, and covers up the obvious connection between homosexuality and molestation.

Even as I write this post, "transgenders" are breaking down the last rationale society holds for rejecting pedophilia, i.e., the child cannot consent. However, children who think they are members of the opposite sex are now being allowed by parents to dress, act, and even mutilate themselves with drugs and surgery to become "who they really are" because it's allegedly "in their best interests." So who needs consent? We make children eat healthy food and get vaccinated without consent, so if my child feels attracted to a man at 7 or 8 years old, it might be in his "best interest" to have a sexual relationship with that man; even if the man is "dad" or "daddy" in a sodomite relationship. 

God help us. 

Homosexuality and Mental/Physical Problems

Sodomites have a multitude of mental and physically problems that are disproportionately higher than any other group. 

Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) has noted these problems. For example, among men who identify as homosexual:

• Problems with body image are more common among gay men, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

• Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger cities. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines.

• Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. . . Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide . . .

• Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies.

(See Robert J. Winn, “Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider,” GLMA, May 2012). 

The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reported the following distressing facts concerning women who identify themselves as practicing lesbians:

• Among adults, a study that examined the risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals with same-sex partners found that, during the previous 12 months, women with same-sex partners experienced more mental health disorders—such as major depression, phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder—than did women with opposite sex partners

• Another study “found that lesbian and bisexual women who were ‘out’ experienced more emotional stress as teenagers and were 2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience suicidal ideation in the past 12 months than heterosexual women. Meanwhile, lesbian and bisexual women who were not ‘out’ were more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual women.”

• “Studies have found that lesbians are between 1.5 and 2 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual women.”

• “A number of studies have also suggested that lesbians are significantly more likely to drink heavily than heterosexual women.”

(See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Top Health Issues for LGBT Populations Information & Resource Kit. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4684. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012, C1-2). 

Homosexuality and the Mortality Rate:

A study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657).

 Pro-sodomite researchers actually tried to debunk the assertion that homosexuality is infested with disease and shortens the life expectancy of both male sodomites and lesbians. Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that "under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." Much to their chagrin, the study revealed "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." 

In addition to all these problems, what sodomites do in private is so contrary to nature, there can be no doubt they are seriously mentally disturbed and should never be left alone with children. 

Warning! The following section contains graphic descriptions of perverted behavior, and may be found too disturbing for some to read. Reader discretion is strongly advised. 

Homosexual Practices:

• Anal sex (sodomy properly so-called) is practiced by 80% of homosexuals. Tearing or bruising of the anal wall is common, and opens the body to reception of germs through the rectum.  According to J.R. Daling, et. al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (April 9, 1982) the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000% among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex also raises the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cryptosporidiosis, genital herpes, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis

• Rimming is the practice of licking and stimulating the anus of another. The amount of fecal matter consumed, and exposure to disease is significant over time 

• Golden showers is the practice of urinating on the other person. About 20% of sodomites regularly drink and bathe in their partner's urine

• Fisting is the practice of inserting the hand (and sometimes the arm up to the elbow, or further) into the partner's rectum. Many sodomites have the sphincter muscles so weakened they soil themselves. (See Darling cited above)

• Scat Sports involves ingesting your partner's feces and/or rubbing it all over the face and body

• Toys is the term used for inserting objects into the rectum. Most commonly used are gerbils, placed in plastic and inserted in the rectum until the animal suffocates and dies. The thrashing of the poor creature gives the sodomite his perverse pleasure. 

Normal behavior? Not prone to hurt others (or themselves)? Think again. Can you imagine a child walking in on his adoptive parents performing one of these acts? Lord, have mercy. 

Objections

Pro-sodomite adoption advocates point to certain studies that seem to justify letting homosexuals be adoptive parents. Cornell University has this published:

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. While many of the sample sizes were small, and some studies lacked a control group, researchers regard such studies as providing the best available knowledge about child adjustment, and do not view large, representative samples as essential. We identified four studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages. Since all four took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks, these studies have been criticized by many scholars as unreliable assessments of the well-being of LGB-headed households. Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children. (See whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents. Emphasis mine).

As one can see, I put this nonsense in the same category as the lies about COVID and the alleged efficacy about COVID vaccines. What genuine researchers/scientists do not consider "...large, representative samples as essential"?  On this basis we are supposed to consider "children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children"? 

Many governments of the world have condemned human cloning, by comparison, because of, among other things, potentially detrimental emotional and psychological consequences for those who would be cloned. If we can prohibit cloning with no prior studies conducted on clone subjects, based simply on common sense and fear of what might happen, how much more should we refrain from experimenting on our children, for fear of similar consequences? No run of inadequate studies will make up for the lives that would be damaged if we are wrong.

Some people may raise the objection that because the tests are inconclusive, reliable studies need to be conducted as soon as possible. One then can counter by inquiring as to whose children we are to use as guinea pigs. We are dealing with a group in which gross promiscuity, pedophilia, AIDS, suicide, and instability are known factors. The suggestion appears to be one more likely entertained in a barbarous rather than a civilized culture.

Conclusion

When discussing "gays" having children by artificial means or adopting a child outright, it is important to recognize that the highest good, or the child’s best interest, is not necessarily having parents, but having well-being itself. The two do not necessarily amount to the same thing. We would be loathe, for example, to grant a child to a known pedophile simply for the sake of supplying a parent figure. In light of the aforementioned data, we must face the very real possibility that having children growing up in same-sex homes will lead to incalculable harm both to the children and society. 

The governments of the world must ban sodomites from adopting or raising children conceived by unnatural means. It may already be too late, as those who commit the vilest sins against God and nature have begun raising the next generation. Pity those children who will grow up mentally, physically, and spiritually damaged having been turned against God from the beginning of their lives, and will bring down what's left of Christian society even faster.