Monday, August 22, 2011

Contraception-Becomes-Gay From Cipher-Anthropology

Interview With Monsignor Livio Melina of the Lateran University ST. PAUL, Minnesota, MARCH 18, 2004

We have now not only the crisis of moral norms or crisis of marriage or families, but we are losing the meaning of the sexual difference -- the importance of sexual difference for the unique identity of each person.

Assertion of Sexual Difference as "Hate Crime." Then, the legal persecution of Christianity.

To assert the reality of sexual difference such as in a Christian wedding, there will be liability for hate crime.

Consider the reach of prosecution for “hate crimes:”

'‘Hate crimes’ laws are a key part of a long-term strategy by homosexual activists to use ‘sexual orientation’-based policies and laws to suppress dissent, radically redefine marriage, and, ultimately, to criminalize biblical morality.'"


If hate crimes laws are passed, we’re going to see the wholesale erosion of
our freedoms as has never been seen in the history of this nation.



The presupposition behind the notion of “hate crime” is the radical equality of men and women as non-relational sexless individuals, or individuals in whom sex is meaningless and trivial as relation. The meaninglessness of it has long been established in the prevalence of the contraceptive and the contraceptive culture for at least the last 50 years.

Having established “equality” as the defining characteristic of men and women and having jettisoned “unsameness,” then the badgering tool becomes “discrimination” against equality. Once the bodily relationality of sex is removed from the intellectual landscape of understanding men and women, you are mired in a gay culture that will be enforced by law. The constitutive relationality of the human person is obliterated, and the theological notion of imaging God as such becomes material for hate crimes and the persecution of Christian religion.

Consider Ratzinger:

Gnostic Character of the Gay Culture

“Mary is the believing other whom God calls. As such, she represents the creation, which is called to respond to God, and the freedom of the creature, which does not lose its integrity in love but attains completion therein. Mary thus represents saved and liberated man, but she does os precisely as a woman, that is, in the bodily determinateness that is inseparable from man: ‘Male and female he created them’ (Gen. 1, 27). The [biological’ and the human are inseparable in the figure of Mary, just as are the human the ‘theological.’ This insight is deeply akin to the dominant movements of our time, yet it also contradicts them at the very core. For while today’[s anthropological program hinges more radically than ever before on ‘emancipation,’ it seeks a freedom whose goal is to ‘be like God’ (Gen. 3, 5). But the idea that we can be like God implies a detachment of man from his biological conditionality, from the ‘male and female he created them.’ This sexual difference is something that man, as a biological being, can never get rid of, something that marks man in the deepest center of his being. Yet it is regarded as a totally irrelevant triviality, as a constraint arising from historically fabricated ‘roles,’ and is therefore consigned to the ‘purely biological realm,’ which has nothing to do with man as such.

Accordingly, this ‘purely biological’ dimension is treated as a thing that man can manipulate at will because it lies beyond the scope of what counts as human and spiritual (so much so that man can freely manipulate the coming into being of life itself). This treatment of ‘biology’ as a mere thing is accordingly regarded as a liberation, for it enables man to leave bios behind, use it freely, and to be completely independent of it in every other respect, that is, to be simply a ‘human being’ who is neither male nor female. But in reality man thereby strikes a blow against his deepest being. He holds himself in contempt, because the truth is that he is human only insofar as he is bodily, only insofar as he is man or woman. When man reduces this fundamental determination of his being to a despicable trifle that can be treated as a thing, he himself becomes a trifle and a thing, and his ‘liberation’ turns out to be his degradation to an object of production. Whenever biology is subtracted from humanity, humanity itself is negated. Thus, the question of the legitimacy of maleness as such and of femaleness as such has high stakes; nothing less than the reality of the creature [my emphasis].Since the biological determinateness of humanity is least possible to hide in motherhood, an emancipation that negates bios is a particular aggression against the woman. It is the denial of her right to be a Woman. Conversely, the preservation of creation is in this respect bound up in a special way with the question of woman. And the Woman in whom the ‘biological’ is ‘theological’ – that is motherhood of God – is in a special point where the path diverge.”

[1] J. Ratzinger, “Mary, The Church at the Source,” Ignatius (2005) 32-33.

No comments: