Pope Benedict predicted gender ideology would be final rebellion against God
Pope Benedict XVI predicted that gender ideology would be the next great challenge to the Church and the final rebellion against God, a US moral theologian has revealed.
Dr John Haas, a former member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the late pope made the “unsolicited” observation during a private conversion at the Vatican in 2014, the year after Benedict relinquished his petrine office.
He said the Pope Emeritus told him that “the next great challenge the Church is going to face is gender ideology, and it will be the ultimate rebellion against God the Creator”.
Dr Haas told 114 students during his commencement address at the 2023 Christendom College graduation ceremony in Front Royal, Virginia, that he was “surprised” by Benedict’s remarks because they were so spontaneous.
But he said he could now see his words were “prophetic”.
“We have been hit with a tsunami of transgender ideology,” Dr Haas said, adding that today “Catholic health care institutions are being sued because they refuse to perform mutilating surgeries on men who want to be surgically altered to look like women or women who want to appear as men”.
“Catholic academic institutions are also being sued and attacked as they simply try to continue to give witness to the truth of their students being either male or female,” added Dr Haas, the former president of the US National Bioethics Center.
One of the final acts of Pope Benedict’s pontificate was to speak forcefully against the emerging threat of gender ideology, which dismisses biological and scientific categories of male and female in favour of an individual constructing a “gender” of their own choosing.
In an address to the Roman Curia given at Christmas 2012, less than two months before he stepped down, the German pope noted that “the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question”.
He said that according to the “new philosophy of sexuality”, sex is “no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.”
He said: “The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.
“People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.
“According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God.
“This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves.
“Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will.
“The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.
“Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.”
Pope Benedict added: “When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being.
“The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”
His successor, Pope Francis, has also repeatedly spoken against gender ideology, implicitly condemning it in paragraph 155 of Laudato Si, his 2015 papal encyclical on the environment, and describing it publicly as part of a “global war on the family”.
The Pontiff’s most recent criticisms came during a speech in Budapest, Hungary, last month when he denounced gender ideology as an examples of “ideological colonisation”.
Some senior figures within the Church believe, however, that the gravity of the threat posed by gender ideology warrants a papal encyclical to clearly elucidate Catholic teaching on the truth and meaning of human sexuality.
They include Cardinal Willem Eijk, the Archbishop of Utrecht, who specifically requested an encyclical earlier this year when he went to Rome for the four-yearly ad limina visit of the Dutch bishops.
“I have asked if it would not be good for the pope to issue an encyclical on gender thinking”, the cardinal said at a press conference afterwards.
“Gender theory is being pushed in all kinds of organisations and we as a Church have not said that much about it.”
His request was formally lodged with Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the American prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life.
Gender ideology is convulsing western societies in particular, with record numbers of young people asking for drugs or surgery that will enable them to live in the so-called gender of their choice.
Cardinal Eijk, a former hospital doctor and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, made a similar call for an encyclical during a speech in Oxford in 2016, arguing that the Church had a duty to remind Catholics of the truth of its teaching about the human body.
“Perhaps a document only on this problem might be an urgent question,” Cardinal Eijk said. “It is spreading and spreading everywhere in the western world and we have to warn people,” he said.
“From the point of moral theology, it’s clear – you are not allowed to change your sex in this way,” he added.
Remind me Detterling. What is the C of E position on Gender Ideology?
ReplyDeleteGENE
There is, of course, no such thing as “gender ideology”, given that transexuals have no control over their condition and hence no need to believe in it as if it were actually an ideology. You might as well talk about a metabolic ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe term gender ideology has been coined to allow bigots like you a fig leaf of intellectual respectability for their spite, nastiness and lack of Christian charity. It was devised to carry as its subtext a malicious sneer.
That said, the following document, published by the House of Bishops and approved by the General Synod in December 2018, makes the position clear, and is clearly based on the words of St Paul in Galatians 3:28.
“New guidance for parishes to welcome transgender people has been published by the Church of England. The pastoral guidance for clergy on how to use the rite of Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition has been published and will be referenced in Common Worship, the Church of England’s prayer book. It encourages clergy to be “creative and sensitive” when approached by transgender people requesting a way of marking this transition in their lives.
It details how elements including water and oil can be used with the prayers and makes clear that trans people should be addressed publicly by their chosen name.
As part of the service trans people could also be presented with gifts, such as a Bible inscribed in their new name, or a certificate.
“The Church of England welcomes and encourages the unconditional affirmation of trans people, equally with all people, within the body of Christ, and rejoices in the diversity of that body into which all Christians have been baptized by one Spirit,” the guidance emphasises.
The document - approved by the House of Bishops - follows a motion overwhelmingly adopted at General Synod in 2017 recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in churches. It was produced in consultation with the Revd Dr Tina Beardsley, the Revd Sarah Jones and the Revd Canon Dr Rachel Mann, who have a personal interest in this matter and who have also consulted widely with those directly affected, and their clergy.
They said: “Collectively, we have sought to ensure that these new Pastoral Guidance notes provide a rich and generous space for trans people to locate their lives in the existing liturgy for the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith.” The rite for the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith is not a second baptism. The Church of England teaches that the sacrament of baptism is only to be undertaken once.
But this service enables people to renew the commitments made in baptism and in a public setting and provides space for those who have undergone a major transition to re-dedicate their life to Jesus Christ. As a central part of the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith the minister lays their hands on the candidate or candidates, addresses them by name, and prays for them.
The Bishop of Blackburn, Julian Henderson, Chair of the House of Bishops Delegation Committee, which oversaw work to produce the guidance said: ‘We are absolutely clear that everyone is made in the image of God and that all should find a welcome in their parish Church. This new guidance provides an opportunity, rooted in scripture, to enable trans people who have “come to Christ as the way, the truth and the life”, to mark their transition in the presence of their Church family which is the body of Christ. We commend it for wider use’.
He (Pope Benedict XVI) said: “The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.
DeletePeople dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.
Well said Pope Benedict
GENE
Also, I do acknowledge that anomalies in nature occur and there is nothing wrong in correcting, or trying to correct, such.
DeleteBut that is not what the gender ideologists want. They want gender fluidity - gender simply a matter of choice.
GENE
"But that is not what the gender ideologists want. They want gender fluidity - gender simply a matter of choice."
DeleteBalls. Name me six people who have said that.
And in any case you asked what the Church of England's view of transexuals is and I have told you.
The rest of your post is your usual incoherent sex obsessed piffling. When are you going to grow up?
What a strange application of St Paul in Galatians 3:28.!!!
ReplyDeleteThe original Greek makes it clear how wrong your interpretation is:
οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ouk eni Ioudaios oude Hellēn, ouk eni doulos oude eleutheros, ouk eni arsen kai thēly; pantes gar hymeis heis este en Christō Iēsou
GENE
Nonsense, Gene: when you feed stuff into Google translate you need to read the result.
ReplyDeleteοὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ translates as
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
and you are so ignorant of Greek that you didn't realise that this
ouk eni Ioudaios oude Hellēn, ouk eni doulos oude eleutheros, ouk eni arsen kai thēly; pantes gar hymeis heis este en Christō Iēsou
is a phonetic rendering of the Attic Greek as it would be spoken. Gene, you are a total fuckwit.
"And you are so ignorant of Greek that you didn't realise that this ...
ReplyDeleteis a phonetic rendering"
How can you write such Rubbish? In fact I studied Latin and Greek at Cardinal Vaughan - where both are still taught!
Gene
In which case you should ask for your money back, as the Greek text you copied from Galatians translates precisely as I have given it - there is nothing strange or even interpretative in the English version - St Paul’s contention that “all are one in Christ Jesus” is the clear and essential message. And this applies to trans-sexuals as precisely as it does to you or me. And when Joseph Ratzinger lays down the law about sexuality I’m afraid I stop listening: a man who shielded priests in his diocese and later in the Vatican from prosecution for raping small children has no credibility at all when pronouncing on sexual matters. “Abuse ideology” such as Ratzinger’s is a travesty of Christian priesthood.
ReplyDeleteSaint Paul here never meant a man who changed into a woman or a woman who changed into a man. Indeed here we are approaching arsenokoitai territitory - and we know of Paul's warning to the arsenokoitai.
ReplyDeleteGENE
"Saint Paul here never meant a man who changed into a woman or a woman who changed into a man." - but you have just endorsed an article that says explicity that a man cannot change into a woman and vice versa. How the hell can St Paul be making an exception of something that according to you can't happen, you silly sod?
ReplyDeleteAnd in any case, show me where in the phrase "all are one in Christ Jesus" there is room for exceptions to be made.
You can't, because there isn't.
And don't start bleating about malakoi and arsenokoitai - there is no textual proof that Paul here is referring to homosexuality - a term which wasn't even coined until the middle of the 19th century. Typical Gene - bogus, ninth-hand scholarship based on ignorance, malice and spite.
And in any case, you are on very thin ice when it comes to malakoi - your lack of self-control, weakness, cowardice, and laziness are a paradigm of malakoi. And did you know that the text in Corinthians and Timothy only began to be associated with same sex relationships in the nineteenth century? In other words it is yet another example of bigots like you twisting scripture to mean what you want it to mean.
ReplyDelete"Saint Paul here never meant a man who changed into a woman or a woman who changed into a man." - but you have just endorsed an article that says explicity that a man cannot change into a woman and vice versa."
ReplyDeleteOf course a man cannot change into a woman or vice versa. But you and others claim this can happen and that St Paul in Galatians 3:28. includes that impossibility. Paul could never have meant to include something that can't happen.
GENE
Don't be ridiculous, you simpleton. And the arrogance, for Christ's sake - reading St Paul's mind - are you, seriously, already pissed?
ReplyDeleteGalatians 3:28 reads "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
This is what we scholars call a MET-A-PHOR [I've put hyphens between the syllables to make it easier to read]. Paul did not mean LIT-E-RA-LLY slave vs free, male vs female or Jew vs Greek - he was, for an unlettered audience, drawing the sharpest distinctions that he knew it would understand, in order to say that EV-ER-Y- NE has access to Christ Jesus, because Christ Jesus knows no barriers.
To say that St Paul is speaking literally here is to suggest that Christ is not available to anyone outside the Jewish and Greek races, and not even your Epsilon Minus clown's mind would entertain such a ridiculous notion. It follows therefore that St Paul's met-a-phor means that NO-ONE - whether St Paul knew of them or could imagine them or not - is excluded from the peace of Christ, and any church which maintains otherwise is blaspheming the love of God. Christ is available to all of us - slave, free, male, female, any of the sixty odd variants that make up the totality of the human race, heterosexual, homosexual, trans-sexual, Nobel prizewinners and moronic clowns [never ask me who], he broadminded, the tolerant, the bigoted and the nasty [and we are looking straight at you, Gene], and even popes and cardinals.
Give it up Gene, another thorough humiliation. Like I said, no-one cares for your pissy little opinions anyway, especially when they are as incoherent and bogus as yours.
And by the way, when is "Granny Barkes pissed herself in Harris and Hoole" being published?
ReplyDeleteAnd to save you the trouble:
ReplyDelete"Ooh, Matron."
And no men who claim to be women and no women who claim to be men shall ever enter the Kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteGENE
Is that from St Gene the Casuist’s Epistle to the Bigots? It is certainly not in the New Testament.
DeleteHumiliatingly defeated in argumen. So reduced to making stuff up. What else is new?
"St Paul’s contention that “all are one in Christ Jesus” is the clear and essential message. And this applies to trans-sexuals as precisely as it does to you or me"
ReplyDeleteNo so. Trans-sexuals would fall within the arsenokoitai category. Ergo no entry to the Kingdom of God.
GENE
Absolute nonsense. As I have pointed out, it is far from clear as to whom the term arsenokoitai applied, but it cannot be translated as “homosexual”, as the word was not coined until 1800 years after St Paul. And to equate trans-sexuality with homosexuality simply reveals the embarrassing depth of your pig ignorance, like the time when you claimed that only homosexuals were paedophiles.
DeleteOnce again, routed in argument in a humiliating display of moronic ignorance, Gene resorts to pure invention and transparent lies.
And when is “Granny Barkes shat her pants in Sainsburys” being published?
And in any case the scripture in question is Galatians 3:28 - “all are one in Christ Jesus”. No exceptions, no exclusions, no small print, no footnotes.
DeleteI suppose now you will tell us that St Paul didn’t know what he was talking about. I don’t know which more deserves a kicking - your arrogance or your ignorance.
No sodomites in the Kingdom Of God. Got that?
DeleteMen who have turned themselves into women (sic) are ipso facto sodomites.
GENE
That's it, you are either pissed or mad - either way, you have just thrown away what little there was of your argument.
DeleteMen who have turned themselves into women have undergone surgery to remodel their genitalia. Without a penis, how would you set about buggering someone?
You stupid, loutish ignoramus.
Oh! my God! Do I have to spell it out? A man who turns himself into a woman (sic) can be sodomised by a man. Indeed maybe that was the sole intention of such a so-called transition. Remember it is not just the penetrator - the passive homo is also a sodomite. Yes, this is arsenokoitai territory.
DeleteGENE
Gene: you are demented. That a transsexual man CAN be sodomised by a man does NOT mean they WILL BE as a matter of course. That is what your use of the term IPSO FACTO means, you bigoted clown.
DeleteAnd how, in the phrase “you are all one in Christ Jesus” does St Paul exclude homosexuals and transsexuals from the kingdom of God. And don’t trot out the arsenokoitai again - no theologian apart from bigots, homophobes and repressed homosexuals like you sees that as a reference to homosexuality.
Another humiliating defeat for Gene Vincent.
“Gene Vincent: Humanitarian, Educator, Novelist and Humorist - to know him was to love him….”
ReplyDeleteChrist, what tripe.
“Gene Vincent, Bigot, Nonentity, Failed Writer, Humourless Bore - to know him was to marvel at his loutish ignorance, his moronic nastiness, his malice, spite and stomach-churning hypocrisy.”
That’s better!
"That a transsexual man CAN be sodomised by a man does NOT mean they WILL BE as a matter of course. That is what your use of the term IPSO FACTO means, you bigoted clown."
ReplyDeleteOh! For God's sake! You really have lost it Detterling. If such trans - sexuals are celibate none of this applies. We are talking here about sexual morality.
GENE
No, you are the one who has lost it. You said (without qualification) that trans-sexuals are ipso facto sodomites. Those are - ipso facto - the words of a fucking idiot.
DeleteThey are ipso facto sodomites if they engage in sodomy - being trans - sexual does not change that.
DeleteGene