Secular progressivism has assumed the form of an institutionalized religion, complete with orthodox dogmas that may not be questioned, saints and demons, sacraments and rituals. It has become a church–not the beneficent kind, but the sort that squelches liberty and seeks to punish non-believers.
Roman Catholicism famously doesn’t believe in divorce. But it does believe in annulments, a procedure which determines that for one reason or another–immaturity, not knowing what they are getting into, etc.–a valid marriage never took place.
The implication is that many couples who had a church wedding and a marriage license, who have had children together, and who have lived their whole lives together are not really married. I suppose this comes out if the couple wants to break up the marriage and, if they are Catholic, receive an annulment, but even if they stay together, they can never really know if they are married.
I would say that, from a Lutheran perspective, this is another example of Roman Catholicism’s being not nearly sacramental enough. Catholics believe that marriage is a sacrament, but the objective sacrament doesn’t make the marriage, just the subjective experience of long ago when they first became married. Similarly, Catholics can’t really know if they have been saved, even though they have been baptized, received Holy Communion, etc.
This is also an example of legalism in religion, in which laws that are too difficult to fulfill are, in practice, weakened by creating technicalities and loopholes that make it easier to accomplish while defeating the whole purpose of the original law. (If you don’t believe in divorce because marriage is a sacrament and thus permanent, don’t have annulments either! These are just divorces by another name, even though they “save the appearances” of permanent marriage by declaring that a marriage never happened, though at the expense of your whole sacramental theology.)
Anyway, the Pope last week said that, because of the lack of commitment, “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.” His handlers later edited the original transcript to change “the great majority” to “some,” but still. . . .If so many people who have gotten married are really just living together, committing fornication and their children illegitimate (to use other Catholic categories), then the line between wedlock and cohabitation is fatally blurred. If marriage, however, is a VOCATION, a calling from God, it’s a different story. [Read more…]
Commenters on the Orlando shooting have been calling for more gun control. But now, in the aftermath of the attack, many gays are arming themselves for self-defense. [Read more…]
The sports world obediently accepts the new cultural mandates about gender. That means transgendered men can now compete, as women, in women’s sports.
Consider this case study: Fallon Fox is a man who has transitioned into being a woman. He, now called she, competes in women’s mixed martial arts. Fox has so far beaten–and beaten up–5 women, having lost only one match in a technical knockout. Here is an account of Fox’s last fight:
During Fox’s fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head. After her loss, Brents took to social media to fuel the controversy surrounding Fox’s perceived advantage: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…”
Is this kind of competition fair? Are those of you who are sympathetic to transgendered individuals OK with this? And can’t you wait to see how this plays out in the Olympics, which has opened women’s sports to men who have not had “gender-reassignment surgery,” just hormone treatments?
After the jump, a picture and a link to a discussion by J. Douglas Johnson. [Read more…]
Rachel Lu, writing in The Federalist, predicts that The LGBT Movement Will Self-Destruct. Signs that this might be the case: It keeps pushing the boundaries to the point of making itself ridiculous; it has to silence and persecute its critics; it hasn’t shown that it can create a positive culture that can stand the test of time.
Read her article, linked after the jump. Then read the rebuttal, also in The Federalist, by Jennifer Roback Morse, The LGBT Movement Will Not Self-Destruct. She sees the transgender movement as a culmination of the Sexual Revolution with a totalitarian ideology. (Samples from both articles after the jump.)
What do you think?