A Hidden A-Gender: The Denial Of Reality

 

“Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense."---Eric Blair aka George Orwell, 1984.

I have often stated that sexual perversion and the occult are the two biggest threats to humanity in the time of Great Apostasy. Homosexuality, the sin of Sodom (hence "sodomites" correctly describes homosexuals), is one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance.  After Vatican II, sodomites were tolerated. Then, they were accepted. Now, they are openly celebrated and unnatural vice is promoted. In the alphabet of perversion ("LGBTQIA2S+"), "transgender" goes beyond the rest in its denial of reality itself. The sodomites deny God and His Natural Law. From that, now comes the denial of basic biology and laws of logic. 

Biological men win women’s beauty pageants. Biological men beat women in swimming and weightlifting competitions. Biological men demand to be called women and to be referred to with female pronouns and vice versa. Minors are given “hormone blockers” (they are not tame, but poisonous) and cross-sex hormones, and some have their genitals or breasts surgically removed. To oppose these outcomes earns one the title of “transphobe” — a made up word, signifying a bigot with a mental illness and in the immoral grip of hateful error. Welcome to 1984 forty years later. 

This post will expose the ongoing threat of "trans-mania" and the role of Bergoglio and his sect in advancing it. I wish to credit the myriad sources, both online and books/periodicals, that were used by me in the formation of this post. I take credit only for the formatting of said information into a concise and readable post. WARNING! This post contains sensitive matters that some may find disturbing. Reader discretion is advised---Introibo

What is "Gender Theory"?

 It is the false and unscientific idea that each person is made up of different aspects of each gender. It is broken down as follows:

• Sex has to do with the body/biology (genitals, chromosomes, etc.)

• Gender Identity concerns the "self-awareness" of who you are "in your head"

• Gender Expression is how someone presents themselves to others in terms of clothes, actions, mannerisms, etc.

• Attraction is who or what someone is attracted to sexually; men, women, even animals (beastiality)

Allegedly, everyone has a gender identity which may or may not conform with their biological sex. 

The Four Falsehoods of Gender Theory

1. Binary is bad.

The claim: There are more than two genders. 

The truth: God created male and female--period. It is the very basis of the sodomites' "LGBT" label. Lesbians are women attracted to other women. "Gays" are men attracted to other men. Bisexuals are men or women attracted to both men and women. Transgenders are men or women who want to live as the opposite sex, or an "alternative" (made-up) "gender."

2. Gender is a spectrum.

The claim: There are many different genders on a whole spectrum of identity.

The truth: There are many different ways we express masculinity and femininity because we are all different people. That doesn't imply there are roughly seven billion different genders. The reality remains that we are male or female. According to ABC News, there are 58 genders (See eroscoaching.com/2017/06/58-gender-options/). Does anyone even know what "Two-Spirit" means and how it differs from being "Genderqueer" or "Neutrois"? Sheer insanity.

3. Man and Woman are merely "social constructs"

The claim: The social roles of men and women differ according to time, place, and culture. There is nothing objective about those terms.

The truth: Social roles may change, but sexual differentiation is based on biological facts, not social constructs.

4. Gender identity is separate from biological sex.

The claim: How we live our lives is independent from our genitalia.

The truth: A comprehensive survey of the scientific evidence was published in 2016 in The New Atlantis. It discussed over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences. It concluded: 

The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex--that a person might be "a man trapped in a woman's body," or a "woman trapped in a man's body"---is not supported by scientific evidence. (See Meyer and McHugh, "Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences," The New Atlantic: A Journal of Technology & Society, 50, Fall 2016, pg. 8; Emphasis mine). Moreover, if gender identity has nothing to do with biology, why the demand for surgeries and hormone blockers? "I identify as.." translates to "I pretend to be..."

The Invented Vocabulary of a Warped Ideology

The following words and phrases are made up by gender theorists to make them sound as if what they are peddling is real instead of jabberwocky. 

Assigned at Birth: This made up phrase refers to the sex given on a person's birth certificate. It's as if some nurse puts a label in an arbitrary and capricious manner on a baby. The obvious attempt is to, once more, dissociate biological sex from gender. To label a child with male genitalia as a boy and female genitalia as a girl is biologically factual regardless of what that child may "feel like" in the future. Only in rare instances of a child born with a true intersex condition, having genitals of an ambiguous nature, would the term really apply.

Cisgender: "Cis" means "on the same side" implying that your gender lines up with your biological sex and plays into the lie that they can be separated. If anyone asks me if I'm cisgender, I always reply, "No, I'm a man." 

Preferred Gender Pronouns (PGPs) and Gender Neutral Pronouns (GNPs): This allows men who consider themselves women to call themselves "she" and "her" while women who think they are men can call themselves "he" and "his." Gender neutral pronouns such as "they" and "them"  are also used. A while ago, I was reading an article in the New York Times. A trans-pervert was stopped from going somewhere and it read, "They were refused entry." As someone who reads English it was confusing because I thought several people were prevented from going some place when it was just one person. There are also made up pronouns like ze (pronounced "ZEE") and hir (pronounced "HEAR.").

Transphobic: A fictitious mental disorder by which people who don't believe there are 58 genders and you can "pick your pronouns" are thereby psychologically unsound, hateful, and bigoted. It is a way to bully Christians and those with traditional values not to speak out or else they will face consequences.  

"Transgenderism" vs. Scientific Fact: Background

Transgenderism is an umbrella term encompassing any person who embraces an identity discordant with their biological sex, with or without emotional dysphoria. Transgenderism is an ideology, whereas gender dysphoria is a diagnosis. Previously known as gender identity disorder (GID), gender dysphoria (GD) is a diagnosis listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a compendium of mental health disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. The first time that the concept was published in the DSM was in 1980, when the term was listed as transsexualism (DSM-III version). In 1994, with the publication of the DSM-IV, the term was replaced with gender identity disorder (GID). In 2013, GID was replaced in the DSM5 by gender dysphoria, a term meant to eliminate the idea that identifying with a different gender than one’s birth sex is a disorder. Just as homosexuality was a disorder until 1973, the change has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology. 

Gender dysphoria is currently defined as a marked incongruence of at least six months’ duration between one’s experienced/expressed gender and “assigned gender.” It’s also accompanied by at least two of six additional criteria:

• marked incongruence between expressed gender and primary or secondary sex characteristics,
• a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics,
• a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender,
• a strong desire to be the other gender or an “alternative gender,”
• a strong desire to be treated as the other gender or an “alternative gender,”
•  and a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender or an “alternative gender.” (See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5-TR, rev. 5th ed. [2022]). 

The current version of the DSM, DSM-5-TR, made other changes, including replacing “desired gender” with “experienced gender,” “cross-sex treatment regimen” with “gender-affirming treatment regimen,” and “natal male/natal female” with “individual assigned male/female at birth.”

(See Michael B. First et al., “DSM-5-TR: Overview of What’s New and What’s Changed,” World Psychiatry 21, no. 2 [June 2022]). 

Historically, people with gender congruence difficulties could be divided into two distinct populations: very young children (said to have early-onset gender dysphoria) and adults (late-onset). The young children, usually males, often demonstrated gender-atypical behavior (e.g., boys who liked to play with dolls) at a very young age. Most of these children outgrew the behavior during or after puberty and became comfortable with their birth sex, although they were more likely to be homosexual than the general population. The adults were usually male who often lived successfully as men into adulthood.

Now, in addition to early- and late-onset gender dysphoria, a third population has emerged. This group consists of a population of adolescents (predominantly female) who have no history of gender dysphoria or gender atypical behavior and suddenly declare themselves transgender. The term rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) has been proposed to refer to this third group. 

The Intersex Justification

Transgender people are mentally ill. Their "allies" are morally depraved. You will often hear both discussing poor "intersex people" as proof that there are more than two biological sexes, and the need for "transgender acceptance." Intersex is almost always misunderstood and purposely misrepresented to give undue credibility to transgenders. 

New life begins at the moment of biological fertilization. Chromosomal sex is established at fertilization when a sperm containing either an X- or a Y-chromosome combines with an egg, which contains an X-chromosome, to produce an individual with either XX or XY genetics. If the genes associated with the Y-chromosome are present and functional, then development will proceed to create male physiology. If these genes are not present or are dysfunctional, then regardless of whether

there is one X-chromosome or several, development will proceed down the female pathway. Part of this pathway includes what are called bipotential or undifferentiated gonads, which form during the fourth week post-fertilization and are the structures from which either male or female gonads form.

Starting in the sixth week post-fertilization, these structures begin to differentiate along male or female lines depending on whether the genetic signals to develop into a male are present or not. Either male gonads (testes) or female gonads (ovaries) develop. The presence or absence of testes drives the rest of sexual differentiation. If testes are present, development proceeds along the male track. If testes are absent, development proceeds along the female track. 

 Although things may go awry in this process, at no point is there a third track. Likewise, although sexual development can proceed abnormally and may lead to unintended, largely dysfunctional combinations of male and female traits, it never leads to a third sex with its own physiologic function. Fetal development produces males and females, not all of which are entirely healthy and sexually functional, but there are no asexual, neuter forms of humanity.

Recently, intersex has been defined quite broadly so that even minor abnormalities in the genitourinary system, which do not result in any genital ambiguity, are included.  An oft-quoted statistic states that 1.7% of the population is intersex. (See Leonard Sax, “How Common Is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling,” Journal of Sex Research 39, no. 3 [August 1, 2002]).

However, when limited to the relevant sexually ambiguous cases, it has been estimated to be 0.018% of the population. (Ibid). Science confirms there are two, and only two, biological sexes, not three or more.

How Common is Transgenderism and What Causes It?

Prior to the year 2010, transgenderism was very rare. One study showed an overall prevalence among

adolescents and adults of 4.6 per 100,000. (See J. Arcelus et al., “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies in Transsexualism,” European Psychiatry 30, no. 6 [September 2015]).

 In the mid-2010s, however, the prevalence of overall LGBTQ identification began to skyrocket. In a 2021 Gallup poll, 15% of adult Gen Zers (born 1997–2003) identified as bisexual and 2.1% as transgender. (See Jeffrey Jones, “LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%,” Gallup, February 7, 2022, news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx). A 2021 Barna survey showed an even higher percentage: 39% of 18 to 24-year-olds identified as LGBT. (See George Barna, “New Insights into the Generation of Growing Influence: Millennials In America,” Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University (October 2021), arizonachristian.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2021/10/George-Barna-Millennial-Report-2021-FINAL-Web.pdf). 

Transgender ideologists will often attribute the cause of this massive surge to...being left-handed (!) "Even as the discrimination against left-handed people abated, more of them came out, as they were no longer afraid of the stigma and forcing themselves to be right-handed. That explains the rise in LGBTQ+ persons because society is more accepting, " they will sanctimoniously intone. However, is that true? The facts show otherwise. 

The factors causing transgenderism are complicated to sort out since there’s a lack of evidence for what, exactly, is transgenderism. There is no agreed-upon explanation, and there are likely multiple contributory factors. In childhood-onset GD, evidence supports the following:

• There may be a genetic component, although it is not determinative.
• Stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviors exhibit along a spectrum. Those with gender atypical behavior in childhood are more likely to identify as transgender.
• There is no scientific basis for sex discordance between the brain and the body. A newborn boy already has a masculinized brain due to the effects of testosterone during in-utero development.
• Studies to date indicate that brain activity in transgender persons is closer to that of their birth sex than their perceived gender. 

In people with adolescent-onset transgenderism, also known as ROGD, there are many associated factors, including mental illness, peer group influence, and social media.  Professor of psychiatry Paul McHugh observed in his clinic a group that consisted of conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw sex change as a way to resolve their inner conflict about being homosexual. (See Paul R. McHugh, “Surgical Sex: Why We Stopped Doing Sex Change Operations,” First Things (November

2004), firstthings.com/article/2004/11/surgical-sex). 

Multiple studies have found a higher rate of mental illness in people who identify as transgender. In one study, almost 50% of those pursuing gender-affirming treatment had at least one personality disorder (PD) at presentation, most commonly borderline PD.(See Annalisa Anzani et al., “Personality Disorders and Personality Profiles in a Sample of Transgender Individuals Requesting Gender-Affirming Treatments,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 5 [February 27, 2020]). Autism is also more common in young people with gender identity issues.

A systematic review in 2019 also showed a high rate of mental illness in adults presenting as transgender, including major depressive disorder (20.6%), specific phobia (10%), adjustment disorder (5.7%), generalized anxiety disorder (4.8%), and dysthymia (a mood disorder, 4.8%). (See Larissa Dias de Freitas et al., “Psychiatric Disorders in Individuals Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria: A Systematic Review,” Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 74, no. 2 [February 2020]). 

When quacks ("doctors") want to push "gender-affirming care" which will ruin someone's life, they will ask parents and/or loved ones, "Would you rather have a living (daughter/mother/female friend, etc) or a dead (son/father/male friend, etc)? Remember this: Over the long term, mental illness is significantly elevated in people who identify as transgender, whether or not so-called "gender-affirming care" is rendered. Also, the suicide rate is significantly elevated in the transgender population, whether or not gender-affirming care is provided. (See Cecilia Dhejne et al., “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden,” PLoS One 6, no. 2 [February 22, 2011]). 

Speak the Truth and Get Cancelled

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is mainly characterized by the age of onset during or shortly after puberty, predominantly in females. ROGD was proposed as a new classification of gender

dysphoria in a 2018 landmark article by physician-scientist Lisa Littman. Littman noted that parents in online discussion groups were reporting that their adolescent and young adult (AYA) children who had no history of GD experienced a perceived sudden or rapid onset of GD. She describes the sample of people in her study as “distinctively different than what is described in previous research about gender dysphoria because of the distribution of cases occurring in friendship groups with multiple individuals identifying as transgender, the preponderance of adolescent (natal) females, the absence of childhood gender dysphoria, and the perceived suddenness of onset.” (See . Lisa Littman, “Parent Reports of Adolescents and Young Adults Perceived to Show Signs of a Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria,” PLoS One 13, no. 8 [August 16, 2018]). 

In Littman’s study, a high percentage (62.5%) of adolescents and young adults identifying as transgender had at least one preexisting mental health or neurodevelopment disorder. A majority had high expectations that transitioning would solve their problems in social, academic, occupational, or mental health realms. The study also noted an association with a traumatic and stressful event (48.4%), an increase in social media use (63.5%), and belonging to a peer group in which at least one peer came out as transgender (69.3%). Littman’s hypothesis for explaining the phenomenon of ROGD included social influences, parental conflict, and maladaptive coping mechanisms. 

Littman received vituperative hate and rage for daring to say ROGD is learned behavior and stems from mental health issues and environmental causes. She was forced to print a retraction of sorts, in which she did not retract her findings or hypothesis based on those findings. A comparable study by professor of psychology Michael Bailey of Northwestern University received similar backlash (See J.

Michael Bailey, “My Research on Gender Dysphoria Was Censored. But I Won’t Be,” The Free Press ( July 10, 2023), thefp.com/p/trans-activists-killed-my-scientific-paper.). 

As Dr. Bailey himself wrote:

On March 29, I published an article in the prestigious academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Less than three months later, on June 14, it was retracted by Springer Nature Group, the giant academic publisher of Archives, for an alleged violation of its editorial policies.

Retraction of scientific articles is associated with well-deserved shame: plagiarism, making up data, or grave concerns about the scientific integrity of a study. But my article was not retracted for any shameful reason. It was retracted because it provided evidence for an idea that activists hate. (Ibid; Emphasis mine). 

The concept of ROGD became even more publicized with the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier. Shrier suggests that access to smartphones and social media in a population of young girls experiencing mental health crises has fueled ROGD. Read how she was cancelled by the "Lavender Lobby:"

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-books-are-already-burning

What Should Be Done About Transgenderism?

Transgenderism, when imposed on those under 18, is really legalized child abuse. We don't allow kids to drink alcohol under age 21, but now the medical-politically-correct establishment will make a confused adolescent "transition" rather than be treated for mental illness. As the incidence of GD has skyrocketed, so has the number of gender clinics. Although a parent should reasonably expect their child with GD to receive a thorough evaluation and to be presented with the least invasive options first, this is not what is occurring. Most gender identity treatment centers utilize the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines, which ascribe to the gender affirmative model (GAM) of care. 

Surgeries for females who desire to appear male may include mastectomy, hysterectomy, removal of ovaries, construction of a “penis” (metoidioplasty or phalloplasty), and implantation of artificial testicles. Surgeries for males who desire to appear female include genital surgery, breast augmentation, vocal cord surgery, throat surgery, and facial feminization surgery. These surgical interventions are not only fraught with complications and difficulties, but they result in permanent disfigurement and detrimental effects on sexual and genitourinary function. Add to this the side-effects of the cross-sex hormones and the increased mortality rates. 

Although one should expect that such drastic interventions should be based on high-quality evidence of benefit, this is hardly the case. The evidence for any benefit from these interventions is of very low quality. Long-term studies are lacking, and there are no randomized, controlled trials.

The Denial of Reality is Here

If one engages in non-heterosexual activities, what one does as a male or female violates God’s wise commands, but the fundamental ontology of maleness and femaleness remains in place and assumed. Not so with gender ideology, which assumes that ontology is entirely fluid and dependent on one’s erotic will. This insistent ideology further demands that third parties identify the transgender person as that person sees fit. To do otherwise is to “misgender” someone, which is taken to be as horrible as using a racial epithet. Thus, to inaccurately identify another person’s sex is considered hateful and may cost the offender their livelihood. Sodomites deny the Natural Law. Transgender ideology denies basic reality itself. Biology does not apply. Transgender ideology is destroying an entire generation, physically, mentally, and spiritually. It is the purposeful propagation of mental illness and perverted behavior. 

Bergoglio: Promoter of Perverts and the Denial of Reality

The record speaks for itself

July 2022: Pope Francis shows that he understands sexuality in more interpersonal and psychological ways. Francis explicitly connects sexuality to affectivity and relatedness, acknowledging that sex and gender are more connected to who and how a person loves another.

July 2022: Pope Francis holds a private audience at the Vatican with six trans women of “different cultural and social backgrounds.” One of the women calls this meeting an “important message” for Pride.

August 2022: Pope Francis meets with another group of transgender people who have been cared for by a parish church in Rome.

September 2022: Pope Francis meets with a group of Italian LGBTQ+ advocates to discuss building a more inclusive church, telling them to seek a church “that excludes no one.”

September 2022: For a community of trans women in Italy, finding welcome at a Catholic church—and from Pope Francis himself—has been life changing. 

July 2023: On a podcast answering young people’s messages, Pope Francis tells a transgender youth that “God loves us as we are.”

August 2023: At the World Youth Day opening ceremony in Lisbon, Portugal, Pope Francis says that “in the church, there is room for everyone,” leading the young pilgrims in a chant of “Todos, todos, todos!” which many interpret as including LGBTQ+ people.

August 2023: Pope Francis tells a transgender women that they “are daughters of God” and that God loves them as they are. 

(See https://www.newwaysministry.org/resources/pope-francis-lgbtq-issues/). 

That God loves us as we are, insofar as we are Created by Him,  CONCEDED. That He loves us without changing our lives and doing His Will, DENIED. 

Of course, who can forget, December 2023 when Fiducia Supplicans allowed Vatican II sect "priests" to "bless" same-sex couples and other couples who are not married according to Church teaching. 

Conclusion

Transgenderism needs to be treated as the mental illness it is, and all "gender-affirming" therapies outlawed. All homosexual activity must be criminalized once more. If serious measures are not taken, society will crumble even more quickly.  Once the created categories of male and female have been abandoned, along with the idea of the Fall, then anything goes concerning sexual identity and sexual activity (as long as the sex acts are consensual, says the secular "wisdom"). The sky is the limit when the heavens are emptied of God.  Earth becomes a new kind of "inclusive and diverse" madhouse. The Wisdom of God speaks thus: “For those who find Me find life and receive favor from the Lord. But those who fail to find Me harm themselves; all who hate Me love death” (Proverbs 8:35–36).

Catholic To A Certain Degree? The Heretical Ecclesiology Of Vatican II

 

With all the errors of Bergoglio abounding, the Vatican II sect apologists certainly have their work cut out for them. Yet all can be traced back to one huge heresy, as the root of the bad tree bringing forth bad fruit. At the heart of the Modernist heresy that imbues the sect is the false ecclesiology taught at the Robber Council in Lumen Gentium. Ecclesiology is that branch of theology which deals with the doctrine on the nature of the One True Church. Pope Pius XII and all of his predecessors in the Petrine Office always taught that the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. 

On November 21, 1964, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed and promulgated the heretical Dogmatic Constitution on the Church known as Lumen Gentium (LG). This document broke with all prior Church teaching and introduced what was to be known as "communio ecclesiology." A  new and heretical idea was adopted that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are not one and the same entity. The Church of Christ "subsists" in its fullness within the Roman Catholic Church, because it possesses all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, sects have some elements of the Church of Christ which subsists there "partially." To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is very good too, and are a means of salvation. 

Paragraph #8 of LG states: This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

My attention was recently brought to a couple of articles written last year for Crisis Magazine. The first article, written by Kennedy Hall, acknowledges the absurdity of  communio ecclesiology, yet he draws the false conclusion that the "popes" and Council which produced it cannot be illegitimate. A week later, Hall was criticized by Aaron Debusschere, who castigates Kennedy for not being Modernist enough and claims that communio theology was taught "long before Vatican II." 

(See crisismagazine.com/opinion/are-there-degrees-of-communion). 

This post will demonstrate that communio ecclesiology was never taught by the Church, and Vatican II propagated heresy, creating a new sect.  

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ

The greatest and most comprehensive exposition of traditional ecclesiology was put forth in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1943. The first sentence of said encyclical begins with the following affirmation: The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Hence, the doctrine is from Christ and is therefore true. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The One True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and co-extensive with it. 

In order to be a member of the Church, four conditions must obtain: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.(para. #22; Emphasis mine).  A member of the Catholic Church must therefore be (1) baptized, (2) profess the true Faith (not heretics), (3) not separated from unity (not schismatics) and (4) not excluded by legitimate authority (not excommunicated). 

Those are the members of the Church. As the encyclical explains, a person can be united to the Church by a desire to belong:

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (para. #103). 

These are not members of the Church, but they are within the Church by desire, but cannot be assured of remaining within the Church unto salvation for they are deprived of "those many heavenly gifts and helps" only available to members of the Church. Remember, the dogma is "Outside the Church, No Salvation," and not "Without Church Membership, No Salvation." 

This is summarized perfectly by theologian Hanahoe:

...in order to be saved, a person must in fact (in re) be visibly conjoined to the Church, i.e., be a member, or, he must, at least intend (in voto) to become a member of the Church. This intention to become a member of the Church may be explicit or implicit. The intention is explicit when a person is actually under instruction preparing to enter Catholic unity [i.e., catechumen]. On the other hand the intention is implicit if a person, while invincibly ignorant of the Church, possesses sanctifying grace. The fact that he is in the state of grace indicates that he has a sincere will of using all the means which God has established; even though he does not know explicitly single means, he implicitly receives all. This person is then unknowingly participating in the life of the Church---he is saved through the Church. 

Pius IX indicates what may well be considered an implicit intention of entering the Catholic Church:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, para. #7). 

(See Catholic Ecumenism, [1953], pg. 108; Emphasis in original). 

It must be noted that what matters is what state the soul is in at the moment of death. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). God can infuse anything lacking in such a person (Divine light of faith and grace) prior to the moment of death, ensuring salvation. Theologian Hanahoe goes on to explain exactly how hard it is for those within the Church, and not members, to be saved:

However, the position of such a person is not completely secure, because once his initial ignorance is no longer invincible and his conscience, under grace, moves him to enter the Church, or at least, study its claims, then the issue is formally presented to him. If he refuses to examine further or does not seek to enter the Church, his implicit intention is dissolved, because he has withdrawn himself from the sincere will of using all the means which God wills; his condition is changed because his will towards God is changed. If he perseveres in this condition he cannot be saved. (Ibid; Emphasis in original).

Does this mean that those who are within the Church by desire are "partially" Catholic? Debusschere, cited above, seems to think so:

Thus, for [theologian] Fenton and the neo-scholastics of the pre-conciliar era, they may not be members of the Church—this is black and white—but they do belong to the Church and are even within the Church. Such ones must have some degree of communion with the Church that is not “full.”

Wrong. There are members of the Church and those united in desire. Both are within the Church; some by virtue of baptism as members, and some by virtue of votum or desire. If they did not belong to the Church, salvation would be impossible. Hence, the difference is in the mode of belonging, not by degree or being "partially" in the Church. Note well, that those who are within the Church implicitly are there in spite of their adherence to a false religion and their  ignorance of the One True Church, not because of it. This teaching will change drastically at Vatican II. 

Here is an exemplary summation of Mystici Corporis by theologian King:

Thus the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are identical; the importance of the visible aspect of the Church is not to be minimized; all salvation is caused by the visible Church; there is a sharp distinction between membership and being  related to [within] the Church by desire, though in a given case either can suffice for salvation. (The Necessity of the Church for Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past Century, [1960], pg. 286; Emphasis mine).

The Modernist Attack on Ecclesiology Pre-Vatican II

With the ink on the document barely dry after the signing of Mystici Corporis, the attack on ecclesiology by the Modernist theologians began. The Holy Father hit back a mere seven years later with another theological masterpiece, the encyclical Humani Generis, in 1950. Its purpose was to condemn "some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine." 

In paragraph number 27, Pope Pius XII writes:

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

According to theologian King:

...the Holy Father regards these two errors as connected so that "meaningless formula" would, sometimes at least, involve incorrect notions concerning the identity of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mystical Body. By dissociating these two concepts, the former is easily made to appear as inconsequential. 

How can a theologian separate these two concepts? One such way is to:

...overvalue the "Catholic elements" present in non-Catholic religions, considering them means of salvation in themselves. This would effectively reduce the doctrine to a meaningless formula, since there would be no urgent necessity for union with the Roman Catholic Church.  (Ibid, pgs. 290-291; Emphasis mine). 

Also a problem was Leonard Feeney, a Jesuit priest who would react to the Modernists with a heresy that now bears his name: Feeneyism. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 for denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). According to him, no one could be within the Church by desire---not even explicitly. Salvation could only be achieved by Church membership through water Baptism. 

The Modernists would have their day at Vatican II.

It Depends On What You Mean By "Is"

Vatican II sect apologists, like "ecclesiastical Bill Clintons" are telling us the change at the Robber Council from "is" to "subsists in" mean the same thing. (N. B. In August of 1998, then President Bill Clinton was asked whether the statement by his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, to Judge Susan Webber Wright that, "there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton [and Monica Lewinsky]" was truthful, Bill Clinton replied, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." Clinton explained that if "is" meant "never has been" that is one thing; but, if "is" meant "there is none currently" then the statement by Mr. Bennett was the truth).

First, why the change of the verb? Why not say that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ as was always done prior to LG in 1964? The original schema on the Church used "is" until the Modernists scrapped it with the help of Roncalli (John XXIII). The reason is summed up in a single word: Ecumenism. Not Catholic ecumenism properly understood, but Modernist ecumenism which seeks to make a one-world religion stripped of the supernatural and ends up being little more than atheism in lofty sounding language. (Read the great Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis to understand the goals of the Modernists). 

Yet Vatican II apologists will insist that "subsists in" really means "is" but in a more precise manner. The following facts give the lie to that contention. Vatican II introduces two heretical novelties: (1) The Church of Christ is NOT co-extensive with the Catholic Church, but is found in false religions, and (2) because of this, the false religion itself--as a corporate body--is a "means of salvation." Remember what was said above, that it is ERROR to "...overvalue the "Catholic elements" present in non-Catholic religions, considering them means of salvation in themselves. This would effectively reduce the doctrine to a meaningless formula, since there would be no urgent necessity for union with the Roman Catholic Church."

The teaching of Vatican II in Unitatis Reditegratio para. #3, brings the teaching of Lumen Gentium to its logical conclusion:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false religions] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (Emphasis mine). 

The Church has never taught that false religions, as corporate bodies, can help anyone achieve salvation. Quite to the contrary, they are means of damnation.  

Heretical Theologians Admit the Difference and Rejoice

Avery Dulles: 

For ecumenical reasons the council distanced itself from the more controversial affirmations of Mystici corporis. Where Pius XII had said that the Mystical Body and the Roman Catholic Church were one and the same thing, Vatican II contented itself with saying that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church—an expression deliberately chosen to allow for the ecclesial reality of other Christian communities. At various points the council seemed to imply that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Body of Christ, and thus of the Church. (See Theological Studies 50 (1989), "A Half Century of Ecclesiology," pg. 430; Emphasis mine). 

Francis Sullivan: 

(N.B. Fr. Tromp, discussed below, was an approved theologian and anti-Modernist at the Council. Vatican II apologists will state that since theologian Tromp was one of the major drafters of LG and thought "subsists in" could be orthodox, it must be. They are wrong. Tromp was trying to keep out an even more perverse definition of the Modernists and thought "subsists" could be accepted). 

The doctrinal commission accepted Tromp’s suggestion to say subsistit in. Becker argues that it also accepted his understanding of it. But in fact there is good evidence that it did not agree with his understanding of it. For, having accepted the change from est to subsistit in, the doctrinal commission went on to approve another change that the sub-commission had made in the section dealing with the various ways in which the Catholic Church knows itself to be joined with other Christians. The 1963 draft had said of them: “They lovingly believe in Christ, Son of God and Savior, they are sealed with indelible baptism, indeed they recognize and receive all or at least some of the sacraments.” The revised text said: “They are sealed with baptism, by which they are joined with Christ, and indeed they recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.” The two previous drafts had recognized the presence of sacraments outside the Catholic Church.

Here, for the first time, a conciliar text uses the terms “Churches” and “ecclesiastical” of the communities in which those sacraments are received. The Relatio given for this text shows that the doctrinal commission realized that this language, of which Tromp could hardly have approved, needed to be justified. It said: “The elements that are mentioned regard not only individuals, but also communities; precisely in this fact is located the foundation of the ecumenical movement. Papal documents regularly speak of the separated eastern ‘Churches.’ For Protestants the recent Pontiffs use the term ‘Christian communities.’” If one considers the fact that the draft in which est had been changed to subsistit in was the first one that spoke of “Churches” and “ecclesiastical communities” that are found outside the Catholic Church, one can hardly escape the conclusion that the doctrinal commission did not agree with Tromp, who had forcefully insisted that subsistit in must be understood to be exclusivism, with the consequence that outside the Catholic Church there could be nothing but elements.  (See Theological Studies 67 (2006), "QUAESTIO DISPUTATA A RESPONSE TO KARL BECKER, S.J., ON THE MEANING OF SUBSISTIT IN," pgs. 400-401; Emphasis mine).

Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI):

In an interview to the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, at that time "Cardinal" Ratzinger states:


When the Council Fathers replace the word "is," used by Pius XII, with the word "subsistit," they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist." "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say: the being of the Church as such extends much further than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject. (Emphasis mine). 

As "pope," Ratzinger approved a document of the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic) on July 10, 2007 entitled Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. Over forty years after Lumen Gentium, he's still trying to tell us "subsists" means "is." It reads:

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, "subsistence" means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church,  in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth. It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church. (Emphasis mine)

We now have what an authoritative decision from a man the Vatican II apologists recognize as "pope." He regurgitates the same "elements" nonsense as in Lumen Gentium, and the text makes clear that the Church of Christ is not identical to the Catholic Church! The "Church of Christ" is concretely found on this earth in the Catholic Church, but it is (allegedly) possible for the Church of Christ to be present in the "churches" not yet "fully in communion" with the Catholic Church because of the "elements" of sanctification that they possess. Interestingly, the document does not cite to one single pre-Vatican II source--and with good reason. There is no Catholic doctrine before Vatican II which supports any of this novel (and heretical) teaching. 

Another Nail in the "Subsists in" Coffin: The Magisterium Cannot Teach Ambiguously

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

 Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

 In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw.  (Emphasis mine).

On this basis alone, Lumen Gentium can be dismissed, as almost six decades later, there are "explanations" from "theologians" trying to tell us the "true meaning." We are told "subsists" is a more powerful expression of "is" and nothing has changed--Bill Clinton couldn't have said it more disingenuously.

The Teaching of the One True Church

Here is the correct teaching on ecclesiology:

Pope Pius IX: None [of  false sects], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create. Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity. (See Iam vos omnes #3; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Leo XIII: Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " 'I believe in one...Church.' (See Satis Cognitum #4; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI: It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunctive members, whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (See Mortalium Animos #10; Emphasis mine)

• False sects do not help you to Heaven. If you have all the parts of a car engine except the battery, it takes you no place. Having 99% of a car engine is just as bad as having none. You don't have a working automobile. Likewise, the "elements of sanctification" are all necessary for salvation. Whatever Bible, valid sacraments, Creed, etc., is used by false sects, they are not efficacious unto sanctification and salvation because they are as stolen goods that are not meant to be used outside the One True Church. 

Pope Pius XI:  The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind. (See Mortalium Animos #11)

Pope Leo XIII: The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. (See Satis Cognitum #9)

• The True Church already possesses fullness of unity. It is not "divided," "separated," or "wounded" because of those who are not united and form false sects. The Church is One. She does not "need" the return of those outside Her fold; they need Her. False sects are just that--sects or groups of people with no right to exist. They are not a "church" and God does not recognize them. 

Pope Pius XI: And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. (See Mortalium Animos #7).

Pope Pius XII: Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected by other religions. (See Instruction "On the Ecumenical Movement" by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, December 20, 1949).

Finally, it must be remembered that while someone may be within the Church who is not a member, that is only known to God in the internal forum. Baptism of Desire is a rare miracle of grace and must not be presumed. Hence, the need for the Great Commission. 

Conclusion

It should be clear that the Church has never taught "partial communion" until Vatican II. The Vatican II sect is an ecumenical, Modernist monstrosity. Anyone who thinks they can be "partially Catholic," will be totally lost. 

The Four Temperaments---Melancholic (Part II)

 

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the third installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by the end of 2024, I will have done some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. 

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject. 

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

The Melancholic Temperament--Part II

This post will finish the examination of the melancholic temperament by looking at its "dark side" and how one with this temperament should self-train for spiritual advancement.

Dark Side of the Melancholic Temperament 

1. The melancholic by committing sin falls into the most terrible distress of mind, because in the depth of his heart he is, more than those of other temperaments, filled with a longing desire for God, with a keen perception of the malice and consequences of sin. The consciousness of being separated from God by mortal sin has a crushing effect upon him. If be falls into grievous sin, it is hard for him to rise again, because confession, in which he is bound to humiliate himself deeply. is so hard for him. 

He is also in great danger of falling back into sin; because by his continual brooding over the sins committed he causes new temptations to arise. When tempted he indulges in sentimental moods, thus increasing the danger and the strength of temptations. To remain in a state of sin or even occasionally to relapse into sin may cause him a profound and lasting sadness, and rob him gradually of confidence in God and in himself. He says to himself: "I have not the strength to rise again and God does not help me either by His grace, for He does not love me but wants to damn me." This fatal condition can easily assume the proportion of despair.

2. A melancholic person who has no confidence in God and love for the cross falls into great despondency, inactivity, and even into despair. If he has confidence in God and love for the Crucified, he is led to God and sanctified more quickly by suffering mishaps, calumniation, unfair treatment, etc. But if these two virtues are lacking, his condition is very dangerous and pitiable. If sufferings, although little in themselves, befall him, the melancholic person, who has no confidence in God and love for Christ, becomes downcast and depressed, ill-humored and sensitive. He does not speak, or he speaks very little, is peevish and disconsolate and keeps apart from his fellow men. Soon he loses courage to continue his work, and interest even in his professiona1 occupation. He feels that he has nothing but sorrow and grief. finally this disposition may culminate in actua1 despondency and despair.

3. The melancholic who gives way to sad moods, falls into many faults against charity and becomes a real burden to his fellow men:

a) He easily loses confidence in his fellow men, (especially Superiors, Confessors), because of slight defects which he discovers in them, or on account of corrections in small matters.

 b) He is vehemently exasperated and provoked by disorder or injustice. The cause of his exasperation is often justifiable, but rarely to the degree felt.

 c) He can hardly forgive offenses. The first offense he ignores quite easily. But renewed offenses penetrate deeply into the soul and can hardly be forgotten. Strong aversion easily takes root in his heart against persons from whom he has suffered, or in whom be finds this or that fault. This aversion becomes so strong that he can hardly see these persons without new excitement, that he does not want to speak to them and is exasperated by the very thought of them. Usually this aversion is abandoned only after the melancholic is separated from persons who incurred his displeasure and at times only after months or even years.

d) He is very suspicious. He rarely trusts people and is always afraid that others have a grudge against him. Thus he often and without cause entertains uncharitable and unjust suspicion suspicion about his neighbor, conjectures evil intentions, and fears dangers which do not exist at all. 

e) He sees everything from the dark side. He is peevish, always draws attention to the serious side of affairs, complains regularly about the perversion of people, bad times, downfall of morals, etc. His motto is: Things grow worse all along. Offenses, mishaps, obstacles he always considers much worse than they really are. The consequence is often excessive sadness, unfounded vexation about others, brooding for weeks and weeks on account of real or imaginary insults. 

Melancholic persons who give way to this disposition to look at everything through a dark glass, gradually become pessimists, that is, persons who always expect a bad result; hypochondriacs, that is, persons who complain continually of insignificant ailments and constantly fear grave sickness; misanthropes, that is, persons who suffer from fear and hatred of men.

f) He finds peculiar difficulties in correcting people. As said above he is vehemently excited at the slightest disorder or injustice and feels obliged to correct such disorders, but at the same time he has very little skill or courage in making corrections. He deliberates long on how to express the correction; but when he is about to make it, the words fail him, or he goes about it so carefully, so tenderly and reluctantly that it can hardly be called a correction. 

If the melancholic tries to master his timidity, he easily falls into the opposite fault of shouting his correction excitedly, angrily, in unsuited or scolding words, so that again his reproach loses its effect. This difficulty is the besetting cross of melancholic superiors. They are unable to discuss things with others, therefore, they swallow their grief and permit many disorders to creep in, although their conscience recognizes the duty to interfere. 

Melancholic educators, too, often commit the fault of keeping silent too long about a fault of their charges and when at last they are forced to speak, they do it in such an tuliortunate and harsh manner, that the pupils become discouraged and frightened by such admonitions, instead of being encouraged and directed.

Spiritual Self-Training for the Melancholic Person

1. The melancholic must cultivate great confidence in God and love for suffering, for his spiritual and temporal welfare depend on these two virtues. Confidence in God and love of the Crucified are the two pillars on which he will rest so firmly, that he will not succumb to the most severe trials arising from his temperament. The misfortune of the melancholic consists in refusing to carry his cross; his salvation will be found in the voluntary and joyful bearing of that cross.

 Therefore, he should meditate often on the Providence of God, and the goodness of the Heavenly Father, who sends sufferings only for our spiritual welfare, and he must practice a fervent devotion to the Passion of Christ and His Sorrowful Mother Mary.

2. He should always, especially during attacks of melancholy, say to himself: "It is not so bad as I imagine. I see things too darkly," or "I am a pessimist."

 3. He must from the very beginning resist every feeling of aversion, diffidence, discouragement, or despondency. so that these evil impressions can take no root in the soul. 

4. He must keep himself continually occupied, so that he finds no time for brooding. Persevering work will master all. 

5. He is bound to cultivate the good side of his temperament and especially his inclination to interior life and his sympathy for suffering fellow men. He must struggle continually against his weaknesses.

6. St. Theresa devotes an entire chapter to the treatment of malicious melancholies. She writes: ''Upon close observation you will notice that melancholic persons are especially inclined to have their own way, to say everything that comes into their mind, to watch for the faults of others in order to hide their own and to find peace in that which is according to their own liking." 

St. Theresa, in this chapter touches upon two points to which the melancholic person must pay special attention. He frequently is much excited, full of disgust and bitterness, because he occupies himself too much with the faults of others, and again because he would like to have everything according to his own will and notion. He can get into bad humor and discouragement on account of the most insignificant things.

 If be feels very downcast be should ask himself whether be concerned himself too much about the faults of others. Let other people have their own way! Or whether perhaps things do not go according to his own will. Let him learn the truth of the words of the Imitation (1,22), "Who is there that has all things according to his will? Neither I nor you, nor any man on earth. There is no man in the world without some trouble or affliction be he king or pope. Who then is the best off? Truly he that is able to suffer something for the love of God."

Important Training Points to Remember

In the treatment of the melancholic special attention must be given to the following points: 1. It is necessary to have a sympathetic understanding of the melancholic. In his entire deportment he presents many riddles to those who do not understand the peculiarities of the melancholic temperament. It is necessary, therefore, to study it and at the same time to find out how this temperament manifests itself in each individual. Without this knowledge great mistakes cannot be avoided. 

2. It is necessary to gain the confidence of the melancholic person. This is not at all easy and can be done only by giving him a good example in everything and by manifesting an unselfish and sincere love for him. Like an unfolding bud opens to the sun, so the heart of the melancholic person opens to the sunshine of kindness and love. 

3. One must always encourage him. Rude reproach, harsh treatment, hardness of heart cast him down and paralyze his efforts. Friendly advice and patience with his slow actions give him courage and vigor. He will show himself very grateful for such kindness. 

4. It is well to keep him always busy, but do not overburden him with work. 

5. Since melancholies take everything to heart and are very sensitive, they are in great danger of weakening their nerves. It is necessary, therefore, to watch nervous troubles of those entrusted to one's care. Melancholies who suffer a nervous breakdown are in a very bad state and cannot recover very easily.

 6. In the training of a melancholic child, special care must be taken to be always kind and friendly, to encourage and keep him busy. The child, moreover, must be taught always to pronounce words properly, to use his five senses, and to cultivate piety. Special care must be observed in the punishment of the melancholic child, otherwise obstinacy and excessive reserve may result. Necessary punishment must be given with precaution and great kindness and the slightest appearance of injustice must be carefully avoided.

Conclusion

This concludes what theologians Schagemann and Hock had written about the melancholic temperament. Once more, all of the content is theirs and none comes from me. I hope this post and the last gave you insight to the melancholic person--especially if you happen to be one. These were the major points the theologians made. When the fourth post in this series comes out, it will deal with the phlegmatic temperament.

Contending For The Faith---Part 29

 

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.

Are Atheists Smarter Than Believers?

A few years back, I had an argument with another lawyer with whom I worked. He was an atheist and about as arrogant as you can be. He challenged me on a point of law concerning one of my cases, telling me that the case would be lost unless I changed the particular process of service I was planning to use. He was the type of guy who couldn't let anything go, and gave me no small amount of grief by constantly asking me "Are you going to change the way you serve your summons and complaint"? followed by an argument when I said "no." 

Final outcome: not only was service fine, I won the case. The next time I saw him, I said, "Before you tell me something is wrong over and over, it might help if you actually understood the topic you were discussing." He turned red with anger. About a week later, he came into my office when the door was open, and slapped a paper on my desk. "If you were really so smart, you wouldn't be praying to imaginary friends in the sky, " he said as he turned and quickly left. 

He printed out an article, the headline of which read: "Atheists are more intelligent than religious people, finds study" It referenced this study: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations.

(See journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868313497266) . 

Here is the study Abstract:

 A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

As a result of this study, I find this alleged “fact” that regularly makes the rounds online: “Studies show that theists are less intelligent than atheists.”  Atheists, like my lawyer colleague, want to reinforce their claim that religion is for the poor, ignorant, unintelligent, and non-believers are well-off, well-educated, and super-smart. 

The purpose of this post will be to explain what this study (and those like it) really means. I will then show some very unintelligent attacks on faith used by atheists; attacks which only seem intelligent. 

I have taken this information from numerous sources, both online and in books. I wish to credit these sources and will take personal credit only for putting all the information into a terse and readable post. God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

What Studies Really Prove

First, many people should be acquainted with the power of  statistics to bolster weak arguments. To paraphrase and old adage, "There are three types of lies: white lies, big lies, and statistics." So let me say from the very outset that even if we could reliably measure which group is smarter, the answer wouldn’t tell us anything about the truth of Christianity. Intelligence doesn’t equate to always having the right answer.

Second, what do those 63 studies actually demonstrate? A breakdown reveals the following:

• 35 showed a significant negative relationship between intelligence and religiousness (the more intelligent a person, the less likely to be religious).
• 2 showed a significant positive relationship between intelligence and religiousness (the more intelligent a person, the more likely to be religious).
• 26 showed no significant relationship between intelligence and religiousness.

Therefore, roughly 55.5% of the studies found religious people less intelligent than atheists, but almost half (44.5%) found showed no such finding. The researchers of the meta-analysis wrote: The relation between intelligence and religiosity has been examined repeatedly, but so far there is no clear consensus on the direction and/or the magnitude of this association. (See study citation above).

Yet, the atheists are trying to show this as a definitive statement of fact that they are scientifically proven to be more intelligent than believers. They are depending on "sound bites" from the media that are misleading and the lack of checking by religious people as to the actual content of the meta-analysis. 

The validity of this meta-analysis is inconclusive. There are several major methodological flaws:

• Some studied precollege teens, some studied college students, and some studied non-college adults (people recruited outside an academic context).
• Sample sizes ranged from 20 to more than 14,000
• The studies were done over an 84-year span of time (the earliest study in 1928, the most recent in 2012)

How do you measure "religiosity"?  Some studies measured religious behavior (for example, church attendance and/or participation in religious organizations) and some measured religious beliefs (for example, belief in God and the Bible). This is very difficult to quantify. 

There are problems with the intelligence measurements. Twenty-three different types of tests were used to measure intelligence (for example, university entrance exams, vocabulary tests, scientific literacy tests, etc.). Details weren’t provided on how exactly each study measured religious behavior and beliefs, but that surely varied extensively as well.

Serious methodological concerns aside, The results suggest a negative relationship specifically between intelligence and religious belief for adults, but the mathematical magnitude of that relationship is very small. Religious belief has a very weak negative relationship with intelligence for college and non-college adults. (The higher the intelligence, the less likely a person is to have religious beliefs; the weak relationship is a -0.17 correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs for the college studies and a -0.20 correlation for the non-college studies). To give an example, I wouldn't consider someone with an IQ of 120 to be "less intelligent" than someone with an IQ of 125. The difference is not large enough to be significant.

When combatting this nonsense that is how to respond. You should not list the impressive geniuses who believed in God, such as Aquinas, Bonaventure, Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Bach, and Mendel, just to name a very few. It doesn’t matter if the 50 or even 1,000 most intelligent people on Earth are theists or not—that doesn’t statistically mean anything about the relative intelligence of theists as a group. Engage instead on the studies underlying the atheists’ claims by sharing this analysis.

Twenty (Vacuous) Statements

One of the many loathsome atheists doing all he can to take people away from God is Michael Nugent. Nugent is the chairman of Atheist Ireland. The group describes itself as follows:

Atheist Ireland is a democratic and successful advocacy group for secularism, rationality, pluralism and human rights. We led the successful campaign to Repeal the Irish Blasphemy Law, and we are the only national-level atheist advocacy group to have special consultative status at the United Nations.

Formed in November 2008, Atheist Ireland promotes atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism, and also promotes an ethical, secular society where the State does not support or finance or give special treatment to any religion.

Atheist Ireland has a democratic structure and is a major player in leading reform, promoting wellbeing, equality, justice, rationality and human rights in Ireland and abroad. We adhere to a policy of peaceful and legal advocacy via debates, media, information tables, lunches, education, lobbying and rational argument etc. (See atheist.ie/information/about/).

Just before Vatican II, Ireland stood with Belgium, Italy, and Spain as among the most Catholic countries on Earth. As of 2022, almost 15% of Ireland has no religion. (See https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpp5/census2022profile5-diversitymigrationethnicityirishtravellersreligion/religion/#:~:text=Census%202022%20Results&text=The%20number%20of%20people%20who,they%20were%20Agnostic%20or%20Atheist.)

Ah, the "New Springtime of Vatican II"! Moving things along, Nugent has frequently discussed "20 statements" that make "God improbable." While I have not been able to locate a list of all twenty statements, I have found some. Rather than "making God improbable," they make Nugent nonsensical. 

I will list a small sample of his statements against God, with a short response below. (N.B. Nugent blasphemously refers to God as "it.")

1. If God is changeless then "it" (God) cannot create anything because it would have to change in order to do so.

Response: That God cannot change intrinsically and substantially conceded; that He cannot change externally and accidentally, denied. God, considered in Himself, is changeless. He "changes" insofar as He created a world with people, and He can interact with them.

2. If it is all-perfect and all-good then it would have created a perfect universe. At a minimum a perfect universe would not contain suffering or evil. If the response is that even a perfect God can only do what is logically possible then it is logically possible to have a universe without suffering or evil.

Response: It is not true that if God is all-perfect and all-good then he must create a perfect universe. That is a false assumption. On the one hand, it may be that a perfect universe is impossible. It is not feasible for God to create a world in which there are free moral agents who always do the right thing and never go wrong. Secondly, there can be cases in which God may permit suffering or evil in order to achieve some greater good. So it is just not true that in virtue of God’s perfection he has to create a world without suffering or evil. Therefore, Nugent simply fails to reckon with this crucial distinction that philosophers make between what is logically possible and what is feasible for God.

3. If God is perfect but we don’t understand how then why did God have to intervene in this perfect universe through miracles?

Response: It is NOT true that we don’t understand what God’s perfection means. We don't fully understand his moral perfection and holiness. However, the reason for miracles is that they serve as signs to people of God’s existence and activity. When Jesus Christ performed His dramatic miracles, these were signs to the people of the arrival of the Messiah in His Person. Jesus’ miracles and exorcisms were signs of  Hid Divinity. 

4.  If God is all-knowing then it knows the taste of strawberry yogurt. Yet, if it doesn’t have a body or senses then how can it know the state of anything? If the response is that saying what it knows is the truth of the proposition then it is not all-knowing; it is less than all-knowing.

Response: When someone is tasting strawberry yogurt, there is a certain mental state that the person is in. Why can’t God simply put Himself into that same mental state without having a body or taste buds? I don’t see any reason to think that He couldn’t. If there is a mental state associated with the taste of yogurt or the feeling of a rough surface or the sound of something, God can put Himself into such a mental state and thereby have that mental experience even though he doesn’t have a body with eardrums and nerve endings and taste buds.

Conclusion

The so-called "scientific fact" of atheistic superiority in intelligence is really a bald-faced lie. The meta-analysis based on various other studies does not support that contention at all. Moreover, non-believers, like Nugent, merely display their gross and culpable ignorance when making statements that demonstrate a lack of understanding of theism. "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22).