Blogs
Featured Image
 rawf8 / Shutterstock.com

November 16, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — One of the most consistently fascinating things about our ongoing gender revolution is the extent to which activists have successfully colonized institutions once considered more or less impervious to ideology. Most recently, there was the particularly egregious example of Webster’s Dictionary changing the definition of “sexual preference” in order to ensure that Senator Mazie Hirono didn’t beclown herself during the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.

More broadly, I’ve noted frequently in this space that the media have now entirely adopted the terminology required of the transgender movement — “gender affirmation surgery” or “sex change surgery” vs. genital reconstruction to imitate the opposite sex; using the “preferred female pronouns” of male rapists and pedophiles, etc. If you control the language of the debate, you inevitably control the debate. Culturally speaking, trans activists have done an incredibly effective job of doing this.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions
  Show Petition Text
22736 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 25000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.).

As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

"What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching.

In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions.

Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following:

"The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself."

It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin.

Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff.

Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]."

And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church."

But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming.

We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter.

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition

'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict

'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions

'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions

  Hide Petition Text

It was only a matter of time before National Geographic, the iconic magazine that transported generations around the world each month, would go woke as well. In January 2017, the people running the magazine published their “Gender Revolution” issue, and this fall, they’ve jumped the shark. Archaeologists recently discovered the ancient burial site of a woman who was interred in the Andes Mountains thousands of years ago and were excited to discover that she was buried with stone tools, indicating that she might have been a hunter. This is of particular interest because it is generally understood that men did the hunting. But not so fast, says National Geographic solemnly — this is 2020:

Back in the lab, however, close inspection of the bones suggested the physiology of a biological woman. To confirm, they analyzed a protein that forms tooth enamel and is linked to sex. Importantly, the team cannot know the individual’s gender identity, but rather only biological sex (which like gender doesn’t always exist on a binary). In other words, they can’t say whether the individual lived their [sic] life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them [sic] within their [sic] society as a woman.

The idea that hunter-gatherers in the Peruvian mountains thousands of years ago had time to agonize over their gender identity would be written off as manifestly ridiculous a few years ago, but the evolution National Geographic so vigorously promotes appears to be working backward, especially among its writers. The power of any ideology is its ability to force us to reconceptualize the past. National Geographic appears to be on board with the project.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

According to the Daily Mail, the Oxford English Dictionary appears to be following in the footsteps of Webster’s:

The Oxford English Dictionary has updated its entry for ‘woman’ so that it is defined as a ‘person’s’ wife, girlfriend or lover as opposed to only a man's following a gender review. The publisher has altered dozens of terms including ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘housework’ and ‘high-maintenance’ following a gender diversity review which concluded earlier this year. It was prompted by a 30,000-strong petition, led by PR consultant Maria Beatrice Giovanardi, which claimed that the dictionary was sexist.

‘Woman’ was previously defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a ‘man’s’ wife, girlfriend or lover — but this has now been changed to ‘person’s’. There are also several new terms used within the definition including ‘woman of the moment’ and ‘woman of the match’ as well as the working example ‘with that money, a woman could buy a house and put two kids through college’.

The definition of ‘man’has also undergone a similar revamp to reflect the modern age and now reads as ’a person’s husband, boyfriend or male lover’ … The move comes after Ms Giovanardi launched a petition last year calling for alterations to be made to the dictionary. The demands included altering the synonyms for ‘woman’ and called for the inclusion of the term ‘transgender woman’ to be used within the relevant definitions to ensure it was ‘representative of minorities’.

I was unaware — although I am unsurprised — that one can now get terms in the dictionary revised with a large enough petition (with, I’m sure, the right signatures and the right coverage. I doubt we could get abortion called murder with a million signatures.). The dictionary’s P.R. consultant (I had no idea dictionaries had those now) admitted that the reason for these changes is not only to reflect popular usage, but also because the Oxford Dictionary sets the standard and influences what becomes the norm.

If they change and delete words and definitions, trans activists can point to the Oxford Dictionary and explain to their ideological opponents that they are so unreasonable that not even the dictionary agrees with them. Jordan Peterson insisted that he would never bow to compelled speech. Trans activists simply want to change the definitions of words, to change the meaning of what we say. They are attempting to transition our society to a new way of understanding reality. They have recruited and colonized many of our most venerable and recognizable institutions.

We should be prepared to stand alone against all of this — even when we are made to look insane because everything has changed around us.

Jonathon’s new podcast, The Van Maren Show, is dedicated to telling the stories of the pro-life and pro-family movement. In his latest episode, he interviews Marjorie Dannenfelser from the Susan B. Anthony List to discuss the 2020 election results and why we need to have hope as Americans. Dannenfelser begins by giving listeners a behind the scenes look at the mood in the White House on election night. She also discusses the implications of the presidential race as well as the Republican wins in Congress.

You can subscribe here and listen to the episode below: 

Featured Image

Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States.

He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.