The two most remarkable features of impurity, as with atheism, are its irrationality and its immense contemporary diffusion. We shall look at each in turn.
The sexual faculty is for procreation as the eye is for sight. When children are born they need a stable home in order to grow up as happy and well-balanced young people. For this purpose a father and mother are necessary – to love both them and one another. In this way we can see that human nature itself entails the necessity of marriage: in other words, marriage is an institution of the Natural Law. To defy marriage is therefore to defy the Natural Law, and Reason itself which it expresses.
Sins against purity have always been rife on account of the weakness of Fallen Nature, but such sins to-day enjoy enormous diffusion. The reason should be sought in the enormous diffusion of atheism, for if God and the Objective Good are no longer the guiding principles of morality, their place will be usurped by man and his subjective good. But if man and his feelings have gained the moral ascendency, then it is clear that sexuality will be given free rein on all sides.
Just as with atheism, it has always been the case that given intellectuals have attempted to justify sins against impurity, but to-day we are no longer speaking about the attitudes or the sins of individuals, but of the masses. Successive extramarital alliances of shorter or longer duration involving overt cohabitation, also in the form of civil ‘marriages’ combined with divorces, have by now become almost as conventional as marriage in the proper sense of the word.
The moral stigma attached to such evils has been largely effaced. The sense of shame has much diminished; modesty in comportment, dress, and speech is no longer practised; obscenity is found even in the mouths of children.
Fallen Nature forces itself on the attention from a billion posters and screens. It cries out in the streets and public places in an untiring and incessant stream of tainted music, telling of its joys and unquenchable loves and sorrows. It finds its ultimate expression and celebration in the ‘pop-concert’ with its screaming and howling fanatics, its Dionysian licentiousness and obscenity,
‘full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’ (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5).
The family disintegrates into ‘one-parent families’ or ragged and amorphous pseudo-families consisting of whole generations of persons related to each other as quasi-in-laws: fragments of broken homes clinging to fragments of other broken homes, like flotsam and jetsam drifting across the vast ocean of human misery.
Society itself, with the disintegration of its constitutive cell which is the family, itself disintegrates, like some vast glacier splitting, cracking, and decomposing into the self-same polluted and all-encompassing ocean.
C’est un univers morne à l’horizon plombé
où nagent dans la nuit l’horreur et le blasphème (Baudelaire, Les Fleurs du Mal).
The reason for the particular decadence and degradation of Western society is its former glory. For Catholic society is the highest form of society that exists, and the corruption of that which is the best is the worst: corruptio optimi pessima est. In this connection it should not surprise us that even Italy, the very heart-land of Catholicism, is also contemplating passing a law to introduce the infamous ‘Gender Ideology’ into its schools.
[if !supportLists]2. [endif]Unnatural Impurity
‘… they… worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into the use which is against nature. And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: man with man, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error’ (v. 25-7).
a) Unnatural Impurity in General
If fornication is itself contrary to nature and reason, this form of it is egregiously so. Not only are these acts performed outside their proper context which is that of marriage, but they are also deprived of sexual complementarity and are lacking by their nature in the very possibility of procreation.
A glance at empirical psychology shows us that this form of fornication is not only irrational in regard to the finality of the sexual act, but also in regard to the human psyche. According to a well and widely respected theory, the homosexual condition derives from a child’s arrested psychological development.
buy elavil online https://clinicaorthodontics.com/wp-content/themes/twentynineteen/inc/new/elavil.html no prescription
Take a boy for example whose father (whether by his absence or his unattractive character) does not provide the necessary model for his psychological masculinity and/or whose mother, for instance by her domineering or possessive character, does not allow it to develop. This boy, as he grows to adulthood and beyond, will be prey to the desire to appropriate to himself the masculinity of those of his own sex who realise for him the ideal of manhood, which he feels to exist in him only in a potential form. Clearly to engage in sexual activity with such mirage-like figures will do nothing to satisfy this desire. Rather, therapy is indicated, the purification of the emotional love and its sublimation into a life and activities consonant with the dignity of the human person.
We observe with regret that the break-down of the family tends to augment the homosexual condition, inasmuch as a) fathers are increasingly absent to their sons; and b) with the lessening of the spirit of self-sacrifice guaranteed by a well-functioning family, the fathers are increasingly less attractive as models for them, and the mothers less altruistic.
Although we must be compassionate towards those who suffer, we must never condone evil. With homosexual acts we are talking about sins of extreme gravity, that ‘cry to Heaven for vengeance’ and in the face of which, according to St. Pier Damiani, ‘even the devils withdraw.’ They abhor such crimes because they have retained something of the perfection of the angelic nature, so that crimes against nature of this enormity are repugnant to them.
[if !supportLists]b) [endif] Unnatural ‘Marriage’
A recent development in this shadowy domain is that of alliances between persons of the same sex being proposed as ‘marriage’ by the state authorities, with sanctions being proposed for the future on those who might be so bold as to object to them.
What we are witnessing is the public acceptance and approval, at least on the civil level, of that which is obscene and intrinsically perverted; and the purported elevation of the respective way of life to the dignity of a sacrament, in other words to that of a state willed by God and a source of holiness.
The irrationality of this way of life is manifest even in the name with it has been dubbed: ‘marriage’. The word derives from the Latin ‘matrimonium’, which, as the Catechism of Trent explains, signifies ‘matris munus’: the office of motherhood, which, when applied to two members of the same sex, is clearly a contradiction in terms. We as rational beings, and above all as Catholics, should refuse to call such alliances ‘marriage’ and should clearly instruct our children that they are not so.
Even if such alliances are not, and, on account of their perversion, will never be, widely diffused, we observe that one head-of-state after another is yielding to the pressure of approving them, under the influence of a small, if virulent, band of reprobates. These heads-of-state, when they are not simply evil, are weak. They lack courage and substance: they are like great white jelly-fish, invertebrate and poisonous, floating with the tide, and bringing death to all those whom they encounter.
It cannot have been easy for the promoters of such grotesque and bizarre abominations to find a pejorative term to describe the position of their opponents. They came up with ‘Homophobia’, literally ‘same-fear’, or by extension ‘same-hate’, suggesting that their opponents harbour fear or hatred towards them, which of course would be weakness and inhuman. In reply it should be said that the Church does not fear or hate any-one; but such actions and ways of life it condemns.
Even if such endeavours are rooted in the World’s defiance of God and the Church, we have, in the Synod on the Family in 2014, witnessed Bishops engaging with such worldly thinking, infandum! for example looking into ‘what may be good’ in these civil consortia. In this regard we limit ourselves to remarking that it is a waste of time, energy, and Church finances for a Synod Bishop to enquire into what may be good in that which is intrinsically evil.
Not content to degrade the human person and society in this manner, the same perverted band has now succeeded in introducing into a considerable number of European schools educational programmes promoting that which they are pleased to label as the ‘Gender Ideology’. These programmes are aimed at children from birth to adulthood. They elect the emotions and feelings as the guide of sexual conduct; they excite and promote them in the minds of the children. The programmes tend towards contraception, abortion, homosexuality, paedophilia, the further destruction of the family, population control, and in fine, or so it seems, a totalitarian ‘One-World-Order’.
Apart from its singular depravity, this enterprise is characterised by what we can only describe as stupidity to a heroic degree. Has any-one ever seriously suggested in any field that a man should be guided solely by his emotions or feelings? Man is not an animal: he possesses reason and a will. Indeed, as we have noted above, these are the two principal faculties of his immortal soul, the use of which will determine his eternal life.
How can it be, then, that heads of schools and teachers have accepted these proposals? Have they done so in order to obey the new civil law? In this case they should know that an unjust law is not a law but a negation of the law. Or have they done so in order not to lose their jobs? But that is a sin, for such courses constitute an objective moral evil, and it is never licit to do what is evil as a means for what is good. If they want to stay at the school, why do they not stay there and show the Gender course up for what it is? Will God abandon those who refuse to offend him by sin?
Perhaps we may be surprised that it is but a small group of persons that puts pressure on the heads-of-state and on society to effect that which is contrary to nature, to logic, to good sense, to the conscience, and therefore also to the majority (although it is of course presented in the name of democracy). But, there again, we have seen similar phenomena in the Third Reich, in the Reformation, in the Doctrinal and the Liturgical Revolutions (that is, respectively, the Second Vatican Council and the fabrication and implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae), and in all other Revolutions. A small group instigates the evil and only a small group actively resists. The rest go along, floating with the tide. In German one says that only dead fish go with the tide.
One of the more patent errors of the ‘Gender Ideology’ is the principle that natures can change: a man can become a woman for example, and a woman a man. The truth, by contrast, is that the notion of ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ pertains to the notion of ‘substance’ which is a first principle of thought: a principle without which it is impossible to think. Essences and natures do not change, unless of course God directly intervenes. A man remains a man whatever he does to himself, and a woman a woman. After a ‘transgender operation’ a man does not become a woman, but an ‘Attis’, a self-mutilating, female impersonator.
buy caverta online https://clinicaorthodontics.com/wp-content/themes/twentynineteen/inc/new/caverta.html no prescription
As Romanio Amerio states at various points in his magisterial work ‘Iota Unum’, the root of modern error is this very denial, or ‘loss’, of essences. The denial of essences is a consequence of radical subjectivism, which is the idolatry of the present age: the substitution of God for man which we have treated above. If I deny that things have essences, objective essences, then they assume for me the essences which I myself ascribe to them, that is according to my feelings or attitudes, essences which may therefore change, as my feelings and attitudes themselves change.
The original author of this blog passed away in July of 2016. RIP Father Carota.