Monday, June 15, 2015

Mutilating The Body

 Former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner has been all over the media, having declared himself a "woman inside a man's body." After breast implants and hormone treatments, he has not undergone "genital reassignment surgery" (read: total bodily mutilation), but has not ruled it out either. He said during an interview in April with Diane Sawyer that life as a woman is primarily "a matter of mental state and lifestyle." Jenner claims he's never been attracted to men and had exclusively been attracted to women before his transition, but now identifies as "asexual" while using female pronouns to refer to himself. The sixty-five year old is now known as "Caitlyn." There are plans for him to get his own "reality show" or TV talk show that could make him hundreds of millions. 

 You might be thinking,"What do I care about what some messed up, aging former athlete does with his body?" The unfortunate reality is that Jenner will affect the "body politic" (government/society) in more negative ways than you could imagine. In 2007, the TV news show 20/20 aired an episode entitled Born With the Wrong Body. It begins as follows:

  "This past Christmas, Riley Grant received a present that can be described as bittersweet -- a video game that allowed her to morph a digital body into anything she wanted. Almost immediately, Riley, a 10-year-old transgender girl who is biologically a boy, adopted a virtual female persona. If only life were so easy, that she could punch a button and turn into a girl.

'She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis,' Riley's mother, Stephanie, told Barbara Walters. 'She talks about the day she'll have a baby. That's not in her future. But she sees herself as growing up to be a woman.'" (See; Emphasis mine)

 So having a penis is a "birth defect of the worst kind?"  You can be a female with a male organ? To refer to being born male as a "birth defect" when there is no congenital intersex condition is morally reprehensible. The effect of the mother's statements (and the show's slant) are very clear: become sympathetic to poor Riley (born Richard) and his "loving mom." The show continues:

"He said, 'Mom, I'm so mad at God, because God made a mistake. He made me a boy, and I'm not a boy, I'm a girl, Mom. Every night I pray that God gives me a girl body but when I wake up I'm still a boy. God won't take back his mistake, he won't make it right,' Stephanie recalled." The child was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. "So Richard, only seven years old, began to transition from a boy to a girl. He -- now she -- pierced her ears, grew her hair out, wore girls' clothing and took the name "Reggie." Her father, Neil, who once rejected her, took her shopping for dresses. He finally understood after seeing the look on his daughter's face. Reggie eventually changed her name legally to Riley."

So let me get this straight, you have a child with a disorder, but rather than treat the disorder, you indulge in it and the public should be sympathetic? There are many cases of children who outgrew Gender Identity Disorder and live normal lives. However, the purpose of the show is to eventually remove the stigma of "disorder" and make the abnormal OK.

 The effect of  Richard/Riley and Jenner on the public will be a lesser respect for the body and an encouragement of self-mutilation.  According to theologian Zalba, mutilation of the body is defined as: "the destruction of some member or the suppression of some function of the body." (See Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae moralis summa 2 [Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1953] n. 251). Fr. Zalba goes on to explain that this definition includes the amputation of a hand, the removal of an eye, vasectomy, etc.—in a word, anything that would destroy the radical integrity of the body. He excludes from the definition such things as blood transfusions and skin grafts because these do not permanently affect bodily integrity. Who wouldn't  think that a male getting breast implants and hormone treatments to look and act feminine is "the destruction of some function of the body" i.e., the ability of the body to be in accord with the shape and function God intended for those with an X and Y chromosome? Contrary to young Richard/Riley, God doesn't make mistakes.

 Now, it has been discovered that a prominent civil rights activist in Spokane, Washington, has been lying for years by portraying herself as black when she's really a white woman, according to her parents. Rachel Dolezal, 37, president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP is really white, but in "Jenner-esque" fashion claims she's black. (I immediately thought of the 1979 movie The Jerk wherein Steve Martin claims to have been "born a poor black child" and doesn't know he's white until his adopted black parents tell him on his 18th birthday. That was meant to be comedy, now it's real).  Race and gender are no longer objective but subjective. If someone "feels" black, then she is black even if her parents are white. If a male "feels" female, then he is female even when he has XY chromosomes and a penis. If you disagree, then there is something wrong with YOU. You're insensitive, bigoted, and (horrors!) religious!

 Bruce Jenner's private acts will have very public effects--and none of them good. Likewise, we have a man in the Vatican who claims to be Catholic--and the pope. He's a total apostate who "feels" Catholic even though he does not believe and profess the Catholic Faith. Even one Vatican II sect blogger wrote:

  • From his very first day as Roman Pontiff,  Francis demonstrated that he is at great pains to avoid in any way offending the practitioners of the world’s many false religions, as if their version of “truth” is as of much dignity before the Lord as that which He entrusted to His Church.
  • In addressing Muslims, who worship a false god, plainly rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ,  Francis encouraged them to persist in their erroneous practices, and even went so far as to suggest that such would be blessed by the Lord whom he represents as Vicar.
  •  Francis has made clear his belief that there is no need to call others to convert to the one true faith as it can be found in the Holy Catholic Church alone.
  •  Francis maintains that religious diversity, with all of its contradictory and irreconcilable doctrines, is a gift to be celebrated. Though he stopped short of explicitly proclaiming from whence such “gifts” are bestowed, one can only presume that he imagines that these false religions spring from God Himself! (See Harvesting The Fruit of Vatican II, 9/25/13; I removed the appellation "Pope" from before the name of Francis found in the original)
 Yes, Mr. Bergoglio  pretends to be Catholic (and pope) even as Bruce Jenner pretends to be female and Rachel Dolezal pretends to be black. And, in each case, if you don't accept them, then there's something wrong with you.

 Beware of Jorge Bergoglio's taking the Faith away from billions and leading them to Hell. He's attempting the ultimate mutilation; to remove and destroy members of the Mystical Body of Christ.


  1. Am I the only one who literally cringes,when reading or hearing someone refer to Bergoglio as the "holy father"?

    1. No, I join you! Frankie is truly "His Wickedness"!

    2. I'd never refer Bergoglio as "your holiness", I'd probably vomit, but he's legally pope, as the heretic Nestorius was legally bishop that he was still refered with honorary titles a bishop would get, though everyone saw him as a culprit even before his condemnation.

    3. @anon8:51
      Bergoglio is legally head of Vatican City and nothing more. Many refused Nestorius submission PRIOR to his condemnation. When the priest Arius was proclaiming his heretical doctrines on Christ (even though they had not yet been condemned as such), there were many laity who did not follow him, even before a local council of bishops condemned Arius and his opinions (and this was well before a definitive judgment on Arianism was handed down at the Council of Nicea).

      If Bergoglio is “legally pope” he must be obeyed. You must accept Vatican II. Thank God he could never even attain to the papacy because he was a heretic. Heretics, by Divine Law, cannot become (or remain) pope.


    4. No, I meant that though Luther was not a Catholic when he became a heretic, he was only not legally Catholic at his condemnation. Before his condemnation, he was legally Catholic, but he wasn't Catholic.

      Similarly, Roncalli was not a Catholic. But he was legally Catholic even until death. Therefore, when he was elected, by virtue of being legally Catholic, he was legally pope. Then Montini, who was also legally Catholic and therefore legally pope and so on. I think everyone agrees Francis is legally pope.

      Being legally pope, however, is different from being materially pope, which I believe John XXIII and Paul VI (not their successors) are too.

    5. False. “Legally Catholic,” as you are using it means NOT FORMALLY DECLARED A HERETIC. Heresy is both a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against Divine Law. Hence, a pope cannot commit a true delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the divine law.
      It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority - “ having become an unbeliever [factus infidelis],” as Cardinal Billot says, “he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.” (De Ecclesia, 5th ed. [1927] 632.)
      The canonist Coronata explains: “If indeed such a situation would happen, he [the Roman Pontiff] would, by divine law , fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1950] 1:316)
      So, all the canonical requirements governing the delictum of heresy need not be fulfilled for a heretical pope to lose his authority - his public sin against divine law (infidelity) suffices.

      Pope Paul IV says the same in Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio.

      According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415)

      Bergoglio was never pope. Martin Luther was not Catholic prior to his condemnation by the Church. He could not have become “Pope Martin” prior to being DECLARED. A heretic for he was already outside the Church.


    6. I don't understand; do you mistake me as a sedeplenist? I'm a sedevacantist and I recently just commented on your latest post.

      I believe that it is lawful to attend an una cum Mass because Bergoglio is legally pope.

      Luther obviously wasn't Catholic before condemnation, but legally he was.

      St. Hypathius didn't place Nestorius' name in the diptych, but Bishop Eulalius, St. Hypathius’s ordinary, also rejected Nestorius’s heresy, but still commemorated him in the diptychs. And there's no evidence St. Hypathius condemned him, nor even sever communion from him. Because he was legally his bishop. And there's no obligation, not even divine, to remove his name.

      (I'm NOT a sedeplenist okay)

    7. @anon3:54
      Sorry for the misunderstanding. It sounded like a “Salza-type defense of Bergoglio.

      I now understand that to which you are referring.

      Mea culpa!