This was written before Archbishop Carlo Viganó’s testimony became public. There is nothing, except for extra links at the bottom, that needs any change.
The belief that there are such things as homosexuals is now accepted by almost all in the West. It is a false and recent belief, as pointed out here. Homosexuals are seen as human creatures that are like males and females, but different, like they are a third natural sex. The current fad is to say homosexuality is akin to a superpower not possessed by males and females, powers that it wielders should take pride in. When, in fact, sexual deviancy has always been with us.
Incidentally, calling the belief that homosexuals are human creatures different from males and females “recent” is a criticism, but won’t be seen as such by progressives who value ideas much more for their novelty than for their truthfulness. Innovations used to be suspect for the very good reason that the whole of human history weighed against a philosophical novelty usually found history winning.
Homosexuality spreads largely by contact, which is to say, by introduction of the idea and practices to the young from the old. Those so introduced and who in turn embrace the practices (which is not all those who are introduced) largely come to say, after the fact, that they have no choice in desiring the practices themselves. And this is true. It is true in the same way that a man introduced to the bottle will eventually come to say he has no choice but to desire a drink. The difference is that society will tell the drunk to shape up but will tell the man desiring to simulate sex with another man that he deserves protection of his “orientation.”
There is no evidence homosexuals are “born that way”. The multiple identical twin studies alone prove this, in which not every pair of identical twins identify as homosexual when at least one of the pair does. See inter alia “Gay Is Not All in the Genes“, a Science paper linked from The New York Times, so you may take it as gospel. Too, a propensity for a thing does not make on engage in the thing. Not all mathematically adept people become statisticians, for example.
Now society says there are not only such creatures as homosexuals, but there are also bisexuals. And there are lesbians, queers, furries, pansexuals, demisexuals, varioriented and all the many and multiplying “orientations” (nobody has an exact count). The people cloaking themselves with these terms claim the same status as homosexuals; which is to say, they claim they are separate kinds of human creatures, too, and just as deserving of protection and recognition.
There is certainly no evidence these people are born that way, but there is overwhelming evidence all come to adopt these labels via introduction of various practices and holding of certain ideas. They are enculturated.
And then there are not only varioriented et cetera but also pedophiles, zoophiles, objectum sexuals (those desiring simulated sex with inanimate objects), necrophiliacs, and other curious “orientations.” These people, like homosexuals, claim they have no choice but to desire as they do, and, of course, they should be believed.
It should be obvious that the mere claim of having a desire is not in any way itself a justification for the practices resulting from the desire. If homosexual acts are considered morally good because those who engage in them say they have no choice but to want to engage in them, then it follows pedophilic and zoophilic acts are also morally good for the same reason. Nobody believes that.
What then separates necrophiliacs from homosexuals? Only the objects of their intrinsically disordered lusts. What unites them? They both desire non-procreative or simulated sex. Even the most ardent supporters of homosexuals, and therefore also necrophiliacs, as separate kinds of human creatures, acknowledge that homosexual acts do not lead to conception. Neither do necrophilic acts etc.
Homosexuals, zoophiles, masturbators, and all the rest are thus acting against human nature because it is human nature to reproduce via male-female pairing (ask your parents for confirmation; I include in the procreative idea the notion of a natural biological family raising children; rape can lead to procreation but not parenting). Sexual acts outside this pairing are in this sense broken. Sexual health is directed toward procreation; acts directed away from it are unhealthy by definition. Thus to say, as some do say, that there are “healthy homosexuals” is like saying there are disease-free cancer patients.
Homosexuality and all the other non-procreative “orientations” are thus unnatural sexual aberrations (the old word was perversions, but modern ears cannot tolerate it). This is a fact of biology and of natural law. Because the people who engage in the acts of their “orientations” are largely introduced to these acts, it follows that if the introductions were removed, so too would a great majority of the people claiming to hold the “orientations.”
In this way, a society that wishes to minimize non-procreative sexual acts must always discourage them, which would reduce the number of introductions. The opposite is also true. A society that encourages pride in non-procreative sexual acts will see greater numbers of people holding various “orientations.”
We can test these claims. There are before us the acceptance theory which says (or should say) all non-procreative sexual acts are moral because they are driven by unimpeachable desire versus the natural law theory which insists on biology and say introduction is the main (or sole) cause. The acceptance theory largely rejects introduction as cause, and says the orientations are made that way in unspecified ways. It could be a virus, but then there would seem to be one for every orientation, or it could be birth, but the evidence is against it, as seen.
Some hold that homosexuals (and necrophiliacs etc.) are not yet fully accepted, and thus at times must mask their “orientation” and so sometimes they engage in procreative sex, and hence reproduce, and so pass on the relevant “necrophiliac genes”, if any. This is true: some claiming exclusive homosexuality etc. “slip” and reproduce. For many, “orientations” are not rigidly fixed, and can be bent as the opportunities present themselves (say, all the choir boys are on an outing leaving only a few girls). We have all heard of “gay” men who fathered children (and so on).
Here is the test. If the acceptance theory of homosexuality (and all other “orientations”) is correct, then the greater the acceptance of homosexual behavior the fewer homosexuals there will be. That is because homosexuals free to engage in non-procreative sex-like activities will not reproduce. We should therefore see a steady reduction of homosexual behavior the freer people become to express homosexuality. There won’t necessarily come a “bottom”, because of the possibility something else in addition to genetics controls sexuality (like those undetectable viruses).
But if the natural law theory is correct, the greater the acceptance of homosexual behavior the more homosexuals and other non-procreative sexualities there will be because of introduction. If left to go on like this, eventually an entire culture can embrace non-procreation. As has happened.
Which is right? I think we all know what the numbers say. The counter-claim to the numbers is that all the other “orientations” are still becoming free to act and display, hence the increase. This is a stretch, to say the least, especially since the numbers are now in double-digits. Of course, not all these new people (mostly kids) claiming non-procreative desires act on them. It is a fad, a choice. If so that proves “orientation” can often be a choice.
The impractical effect of accepting homosexuals are different human creatures is seen in the Church. All must read Fr. Edwin Palka on how priests use blackmail (which we can agree is a worse crime than so-called consensual homosexual acts) and introduction to perpetuate themselves in the Church: “Why Don’t the Priests Blow the Whistle?“, “How Bad Can Blackmail Be“, “An Apocalyptic Pandemic“, and finally “One Proposed Solution.” Do not comment on Church goings on if you have not read these.
See also “Bishop Morlino condemns ‘homosexual subculture’ in the hierarchy“. And by “Cardinal Tobin: ‘No one…has ever spoken to me about a “gay sub-culture” in the Archdiocese of Newark’” by Joseph Sciambra, a man who gave up homosexuality.
Whose fault is all this? Yours and mine, dear reader: yours and mine.
It’s worse now than it’s ever been: “In fact, the fact that we have only one saint repeatedly quoted on this topic from 19 centuries before our own proves to me that we have never had an epidemic of so many homosexuals in the priesthood as today.” He says “60% of the priests his age are gay and 80% of the bishops are gay.”
We still have to handle the odious Father James Martin, and his satanic enablers, which will be saved for another time.
That homosexuals are seen as different human creatures by “conservatives” (outside the Church) is verified easily. For recent activity, see NRO’s Kevin Williamson who writes of “The Compulsory Society” who sees acceptance as an economic question. And don’t miss “Politico Takes Heat for Blaming Roy Cohn’s Death by AIDS on His ‘Decadent Homosexual Lifestyle’“, where the usual cast of characters pretend to be horrified that decadent homosexual acts are called decadent. Under natural law all non-procreative sexual acts are decadent by definition.
Archbishop Carlo Viganó’s testimony must be read by all (if you do not read it, do not comment). Besides details about Pope Francis covering and protecting Cardinal McCarrick etc., there are details confirming the “gay” or “lavender mafia” inside the Church is real. E.g. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone “notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions of responsibility”, such as the elevation of Bishop “Nighty Night Baby” Tobin, who was just appointed by Francis to the Youth Synod, and so on.
What will happen? My guess, crude as it is, is that Francis does…nothing. Because that is what he has always done in crises. It will take God Himself to remove Francis, if that is what He wants.
Update Eberhard Wagner has translated this post into German in two parts at his site Ambrosius Konnotationen: Part I, Part II. The other good news is that Wagner has asked some associates who might be able to translate Pope Benedict’s new paper. Stay tuned.
Update A follow-up to this post will appear on Monday, September 3rd.
Update. Many readers have sent in this. Please listen.