At its annual Spring Assembly to be held this week in Orlando, FL (June 14-16, 2023), the hirelings that comprise the USCCB will vote on whether or not to amend the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” to include commentary aimed at regulating Catholic institutions’ participation in what godless leftists call “gender affirming care.”
Specifically, the bishops will proffer a voice vote, yea or nay, on a “Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body,” a 5,000 word text that could easily be reduced to several hundred words or less.
Let’s take a look at the highlights (and lowlights) with citations in boldface.
The text begins by lauding the degree to which modern technology has “provided the ability to cure many human maladies and promise to cure many more.” It goes on immediately to warn, however, that it can also be used “for interventions that are injurious to the true flourishing of the human person.” (Para. 1)
Now, bear in mind the sorts of “technologies” being addressed by this text:
The removal of a woman’s or adolescent’s healthy breasts (what the godless call “top surgery”); the severing of a man’s or teenager’s penis and testicles, the creation of fake genitalia (one being an open wound), pumping the bodies of psychologically and spiritually ill persons with hormones and puberty blockers, etc.
In a text meant to address these utterly Satanic practices, the hirelings say, “Careful moral discernment is needed.”
This amounts to sheepishly suggesting, “We can understand how some persons of good will might imagine that these practices are beneficial.”
Clearly, a need does exist in certain cases for hormone treatments, specifically, high-dose testosterone injections. The first case that comes to my mind is the USCCB and its gaggle of spineless weasels. If ever there was a moral question that falls into the category of NO-BRAINER it is “gender affirming” mutilation!
The text goes on:
We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator. Nor do we “own” our human nature, as if it were something that we are free to make use of in any way we please. Thus, genuine respect for human dignity requires that decisions about the use of technology be guided by genuine respect for this created order. (Para. 3)
Not bad, I suppose, especially given the pathetic pandering contained in the opening paragraph. Notice, however, where the call for respect is directed:
In conformity with the conciliar proposition that “all things on earth should be related to man as its center and crown” (GS 12), the text encourages “genuine respect” for the “created order” and for “human dignity.” The hirelings couldn’t bring themselves to plainly and directly exhort genuine respect for God, much less for the God-man, Jesus Christ, who is King.
Some 700 words into the exercise, it does get better:
A soul can never be in another body, much less be in the wrong body. This soul only comes into existence together with this body. (Para. 4)
This is a praiseworthy enough statement. Missing throughout the entirety of the text, however, is any hint of refutation much less condemnation of the opposing view, the one being shoved down the throats of adults and school children alike. This too is well in keeping with the conciliar “medicine of mercy” program.
In a 5,000 word text, you would think that one might find at least some mention of the fact that subjective feelings and unfounded beliefs are powerless to alter the objective reality of one’s sex. More useful still would have been a firm condemnation of the transgender movement, its architects, and the purveyors of its propaganda, but clearly that’s asking too much of these geldings.
Many pages further, the text finally addresses the point – more or less – when it states:
What is widely in practice today, however, and what is of great concern, is the range of technological interventions advocated by many in our society as treatments for what is termed “gender dysphoria” or “gender incongruence.” These interventions involve the use of surgical or chemical techniques that aim to exchange the sex characteristics of a patient’s body for those of the opposite sex or for simulations thereof. In the case of children, the exchange of sex characteristics is prepared by the administration of chemical puberty blockers, which arrest the natural course of puberty and prevent the development of some sex characteristics in the first place. … These technological interventions are not morally justified… (Para. 14, 15)
Here, reference is being made to the sorts of physical and chemical mutilation previously listed, and the most forceful response that the United States Conference of Cowards and Bitches can muster is to say that they are “of great concern” and “not morally justified.”
But what you just read is even worse than it may initially seem.
Notice the reference to “gender incongruence,” an expression that appears later in the text – without quotation marks – as well:
Catholic health care services … must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who struggle with gender incongruence, but the means used must respect the fundamental order of the human body. (Para. 18)
What is this “gender incongruence” of which the USCCB speaks?
We are informed in a footnote:
The term “gender incongruence” was introduced in 2022 in the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization. (Footnote 32)
And what does the World Health Organization have to say about the addition of this make-believe condition to the ICD?
What is Gender Incongruence?
The bulk of the changes centered around the moving of “gender incongruence” from a classification of mental health to one of sexual health. In 2020, we have a better understanding of the issues surrounding this condition, and they are not related to a mental health condition. Treating gender incongruence in a mental health chapter was causing additional stigma for an already stigmatized condition. WHO officials added the hope that adding this condition to a sexual health chapter of the ICD codes would “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition.”
Do you see what the USCCB is doing here? They are legitimizing the fabulously false and utterly diabolical notion that so-called “gender incongruence” is a legitimate physical condition unrelated to mental health. Moreover, they are tacitly asserting along with the purveyors of this lie, even if only by stealth, that sometimes persons are born in a body, the sex of which is not congruent with their gender.
This is typical conciliar behavior, to state certain truths only to undermine them even within the same text. It is weak, pathetic, and incongruent with Apostolic behavior.
All of this said, my guess as to how the hirelings will vote this week?
The nays will win the day, with the message being that more “careful moral discernment is needed.” Even if I am wrong, however, keep in mind that approval of the text includes affirmation of the “gender incongruence” lie.
Either way, Satan wins again.
If you find the content of this blog helpful, please help us continue.
