"theological structuring", ABERRO AGENDA, aberro-sex agenda, AIDS, Anal Cancer, anal fissures, anorectal traum, Big Gender, Card. Muller, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Schonborn, Catholic Church, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Francis Effect, Genderism, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Microsporidia, Modernists, MSM, narratives, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli blog, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Team Bergoglio, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, United Nations, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Viral hepatitis types B & C
Today we pick up where we left off yesterday, namely with a quote from our heterodox Cardinal Walter Kasper. Just to remind you dear reader, in yesterday’s post title Clinically Speaking, Your Eminence… (see here), we demonstrated that the heterodox Cardinal Schonborn’s statement that a “stable gay relationship” is better than a ‘temporary’ one”, is an OBJECTIVELY FALSE statement.
As the evidence demonstrated, the more temporary the “gay relationship”, the better. And the optimal “gay relationship” is a non existing one. Clinically speaking, of course.
Today we pick up with the Breitbart post that we linked to at the end of that post. In that link, we see a statement that is made by another of the heterodox cardinals, i.e. Cardinal Walter Kasper. In this passage, Card. Kasper makes the following claim:
Kasper advocates a more holistic approach to theology, while lamenting what he terms “a certain fundamentalism” in the Church. “You take one line of the Gospel and this becomes an ideology to support your case,” he said.
The statement above, in and of itself is an OBJECTIVELY TRUE statement.
Theology, or to be more precise, Catholic theology can be very much described as a theology derived through a “holistic” approach. If we recall from our post titled Discernment Guide for Dummies (see here), please recall that our Catholic faith comes from two sources, i.e. as known through (1) “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and (2) as known through “divine revelation”.
The second sentence is also quite correct in that if you take “one line of Gospel” you can create an “ideology to support your case”. This is an OBJECITELY TRUE statement due to the fact that Catholic theology is derived from two sources. With respect to the term IDEOLOGY, we recall from our last post that IDEOLOGY is defined as “body of doctrine, myth, etc. that guides an individual, institution, class, or large group”. A “system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation” and is confined to “theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature”.
Therefore, a citing of “one line of Gospel” definitely could not be considered CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, but by all means can be considered an IDEOLOGY. So from the above paragraph, we have determined that this statement of Card. Kasper is in fact an OBJECTIVELY TRUE STATEMENT.
Which brings us to yesterday’s post and the specific issue of GAY BOWEL SYNDROME (Gay Bowel Disease GBD). In yesterday’s post, we likewise demonstrated that the diagnosis of the condition refered to as GBD was also derived through a NON-IDEOLOGICAL manner. It was actually derived through what is termed “the scientific method”, a methodology that we Catholics refer to as Thomistic. But I digress…
Adding more data points to our body of evidence presented in yesterday’s post, we have a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from as recently as 2010 which states:
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States…”
And to finish this point, the reason that GAY BOWEL SYNDROME exists is due to harmful and dangerous sexual practices, sexual practices that the Catholic Catechism defines as “intrinsically disordered”. The reason that these sexual practices are termed “intrinsically disordered” is that “human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity”. Furthermore,” the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic”. “The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood.” “Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans. The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections.”
OBJECTIVELY TRUE clinical information.
Sounds like the kind of information that a physician would be advised to explain to his patient, a patient who might be in danger of contracting or even exhibited symptoms of the GAY BOWEL SYNDROME.
Furthermore, any medical services provider, who provides health information to individuals who are afflicted with this “intrinsically disordered” inclination, would want to inform these individuals of the health risks involved in engaging in this “intrinsically disordered” behavior. Especially in a highly litigious society like the one in the United States of America.
So let’s assume that the above is our BASE CASE SCENARIO and see what evidence we can find to support this HYPOTHESIS.
Over at the Mayo Clinic website (see here), in the Healthy Lifestyles, Men’s health section, in a post titled Health issues for gay men and men who have sex with men, the Mayo Clinic staff provides the following advice:
All men face certain health risks. However, gay men and men who have sex with men have some specific health concerns.
Although your individual risks are shaped by many factors beyond your sexual orientation and practices — including family history and age — it’s important to understand common health issues for gay men and steps you can take to stay healthy.
Good start. Let’s read further to see what other advice the Mayo Clinic staff provides to individuals who would be in this group that exhibits heightened GBD risks. We read the following category titles:
Use a condom or other protection,
Limit the amount of alcohol you drink, and don’t use drugs,
Know the risks associated with sexual venues.
Get tested and have your partner tested.
Consider the drug Truvada.
Hmmm….. I do not see any evidence of what is usually considered “preventive health care”. For that matter, I do not see any evidence that the information provided on this site gives the visitor the impression that engaging in this “intrinsically disordered” behaviour could cause that individual grave health conditions.
Although the Mayo Clinic staff mention the OBJECTIVE FACT that “Men who have sex with men are at increased risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections, including hepatitis, human papillomavirus (HPV), herpes simplex, gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis”, they do not go into any further detail or even address the more basic concerns, concerns that would be addressed on a pack of Marlboro’s with respect to smokers and lung cancer or even on McDonald’s coupon booklet addressing the potential for the client to incur burns from drinking hot coffee.
Maybe this Mayo Clinic website is an outlier. Maybe other health providers are a bit more interested in preventive medicine and more accurately explaining the health risk in engaging in “intrinsically disordered” behavior?
Over at a United Kingdom website called netdoctror (see here), surely these types of preventive medical concerns will be not only stated, but even highlighted. Especially since the National Health Service exits in a perpetual state of underfunding and over extension. Surely preventive medical advise would be provided on the netdoctor website?
On the Anal sex page of the netdoctor website, we find the following passage:
Anal sex has always been a highly controversial subject, and the controversy that surrounds it looks set to continue into 2014 because evidence is accumulating that this practice may sometimes lead to anal cancer.
That’s a good start. Let’s see how the UK doctors answer the question that they themselves posed on their page, the question being about “anal sex being safe”. Here is what appears:
Anal sex, if practiced with care, is possible for most couples.
Which leads to the next self posed question, “How to try to keep anal intercourse safe.” And here is the answer:
It is possible for both men and women to ‘receive’ it, although care is needed for it to be safe and comfortable.
Ensure the anal area is clean and the bowel is empty. This is important both aesthetically and practically. If the bowel is empty, there is no risk of the receptive partner passing faeces.
Gentleness, care, adequate lubrication and anal relaxation are required. The insertive partner must be gentle with any thrusting, so as to give the receptive partner time to allow the sphincter to relax. With time and practice, this may become easier.
So there you have it.
With respect to our HYPOTHESIS asserting that a medical professional would discourage his patients from engaging in a harmful and dangerous behavior, behavior that could lead to said individual contracting GAY BOWEL SYNDROME, the two above cited source have demonstrated our HYPOTHESIS to be incorrect.
Using our earlier framework of SCIENTIFIC v IDEOLOGICAL medical professionals, it is self-evident that the medical professional who have identified and diagnosed GAY BOWEL SYNDROME would be considered SCIENTIFIC while the medical professionals who recommend how to perform the OBJECTIVELY harmful and dangerous “intrinsically disordered” behaviour as being IDEOLOGICAL.
Which brings us to our heterodox Cardinal Kasper. In another paragraph of the same Breitbart post, Cardinal Kasper makes the following statement:
On the eve of the Vatican synod on marriage and the family, progressive German Cardinal Walter Kasper has come out publicly against doctrinal “fundamentalism” in the Church, while expressing his hope that the synod will open a “dialogue” on contraception for Catholics and reconsider the situation of homosexuals.
Which leads to the following question: how can the Church “reconsider the situation of homosexuals” if the Church has always had and presently has an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT position with respect to “intrinsically disordered” behaviour, behaviour which encompasses homosexuals.
That is, unless the Church wants to transform Catholic THEOLOGY into an IDEOLOGY.
Which appears, prima facia to be what Cardinal Kasper is suggesting.