, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With a topic on my mind for today’s post, I read the Harvesting the Fruit blog of Louie Verrecchio and the post titled Money, sex and modernism (see here), and most of what I wanted to say, Louie already said. The part that I would like to draw your attention to is the following two paragraphs:

The question remains, if not exclusively to protect the interests of those who profited from the Vatican Bank’s lack of transparency, what exactly was the primary motivation for those who wished to see Pope Benedict XVI removed?

The general answer, it seems, was to promote doctrinal and liturgical liberalism, but the more specific and far more relevant answer can be summed up in a word: homosexuality.

Which is exactly what the Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology (see here) has been indicating since 18 December 2014, when we laid out the case that the Stealth Sex Synod of Bishop’s is about nothing more than changing Catholic doctrine and ecclesiastical law with respect to aberrant sexual practices, i.e. “intrinsically disordered” behaviour (see here). Or to put it another way, the Synod of Bishops’ is about introducing GENDER IDEOLOGY into the Catholic Catechism and Code of Canon Law. (see here)

More confirmation come from none other than Hilary White at her newly created site What’s Up With the Synod? (see here). In a post titled This goes in one ear and out the other (see here), we get the following exchange:

A year ago, someone told me that the whole thing was going to dissolve down into a big homo-hoedown…

… and for some reason that completely escapes me right now, I was skeptical.

Can’t imagine what I was thinking…

Yes, it was hard to believe that Francis would actually call a synod to introduce GENDER IDEOLOGY into Catholic doctrine. I even had a hard time believing it. But the Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodology didn’t. Once again…

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate

But this is not all the confirmation that has reached your humble blogger’s radar screen. On the secular front, and this is war, over at Rush Limbaugh’s website, we read transcripts from last Thursday’s show with the following titled: Why Transgenderism Tops Obama’s Agenda (see here)

“Patil ( White House Chief Data Scientist DJ Patil) helped launched the initiative in order to quantify the desires from the transgender community so that the federal government could reach out with assistance.” Now, you have to ask yourself something.  What percentage of the population is transgender?  Anybody want to take a wild guess, just a stab in the dark at this?  I think it is so small you can’t even assign it a number.  You can’t even assign it one-tenth of 1%, it’s that tiny.  So what’s going on here?  I mean, if you’re gonna reach out to the transgender community — oh, speaking of which, the Drive-Bys are fit to be tied over the pope meeting with Kim Davis. 

As to Kim Davis, we know how that story ended. But I digress…

The reason that I am bringing this to your attention is that this issue is not something limited to a few crazy heretical prelates, but is a much, much wider phenomenon.

And if you don’t believe me, check out this: (see here)

This report comes in the wake of recent United Nations initiatives to advance LGBT human rights, such as the UN Free & Equal campaign and the ‘Being LGBT in Asia’ initiative. In the last few years, top leaders of the UN, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, have been ardent advocates of the need to protect and promote the rights of LGBT people. The new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the first from an Arab country, Zeid Ra’ad Al Husseinhas also been a supporter of equality, saying that there can be no justification for discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Reading the above, it becomes quite evident that what we have here is a full frontal attack on natural moral law and natural law itself. This attack is being directed at ANY AND ALL INSTITUTIONS which do not adhere to GENDER IDEOLOGY. In fact, the entire effort is designed to not only promote GENDER IDEOLOGY, but also to break any resistance to this insipid ideology.

And just to give a sense of just how insipid GENDER IDEOLOGY is, we return to Rush’s article where he describes the abuse meted out to a child at the hands of his mother intends on “making” this child into a TRANSGENDER. Here are the gory details:

Look, can I give you the real answer?  It is indeed about crisis invention, and it’s about legacy, but it’s in your face, is what this is.  This is Obama himself basically flipping the bird to middle America and to flyover country and the bitter clingers.  This is Obama basically just getting in everybody’s face and saying, “Screw you.”  This is exactly what this is.  This is as in your face as anything else that this man has done and his administration.  No question about it. 

Now, another companion story here from Breitbart.  Headline: “Video of Mom Giving First Hormone Shot to Transgender Teen Goes Viral — The video of a mother giving her young teenager the first doses of hormones needed to continue a transgender transformation has gone viral. The video, first posted to YouTube, explained that the teen had been waiting 2-1/2 years for doctors to approve the hormone treatments, and had been waiting months for a ‘readiness letter’ to be sent to doctors in Chicago.”

This boy is now 14.  They have been trying to transgender this kid for two-and-a-half years.  That is to say, since he was only 11-and-a-half, they have been trying, his mother has been trying to transgender him.  “The mother went on to note that the teen ‘had no idea on a timeline of when it would actually happen.’  Mom picked up the hormone medicine when the teen was at school, and sprang the news later that evening, while recording the teen’s reactions.

“‘Sorry, I had to stop recording because we were both blubbering, sobbing fools,’ the mother wrote. The video was picked up by Buzzfeed and soon went viral, gaining over 2 million views in only three days. The mo[ther] told BuzzFeed that the incident was ‘the most pivotal turning point in [the child’s] life, and we both knew it.’ She also said that if there is any negative backlash, it would be worth it to help even one child.” Folks, the world has gone mad.  It is official.  So what do you think happened here? 

Can it get any more debauched than this?

Where are the authorities?

And where is the Catholic Church, who is supposed to protect the little ones?

I will leave these as open questions.