This past summer I promised a rebuttal to Save A Family Plan’s (SAFP) form letter they have been sending out to their donors and supporters.  SAFP’s letter (written by its executive director, Lesley Porter) is in response to Socon or Bust’s allegations concerning some non-Catholic ideas of gender ideology which SAFP has been disseminating in their literature.  I have reproduced the letter below and interspersed my commentary.  The SAFP letter was received by one of Socon or Bust’s readers who then asked for my opinion on the points raised in it, which I now gladly provide.

Excerpt:

In the document under consideration, for instance, there is a definite “male aggressor” meme – as part of the overall assault on masculinity, paternity, and fatherhood.  Needless to say, such a “frame of reference” is completely foreign to what the Catholic Church teaches.  According to the above document, “masculinity is constructed with dominating and aggressive traits” and it “encourages men to abdicate the negative aspect of Masculinity“.  But masculinity is something the Creator has endowed men with. It is not “constructed” by systems or social or cultural environments.  It is inherent to men.  Dominating and aggressive traits are the imbalance in men caused by original sin.  And the corollary to the Christian understanding is that it’s the behaviour and not masculinity itself (which is good and divinely ordained) which needs to be corrected.  But are the feminists really seeking to curb real violence against women?  Or are they really trying to emasculate men to the point where a male’s natural and healthy drive and ambition is completely snuffed out; where men are made to feel “guilty” and “ashamed” that they have these natural impulses – all to serve a political ideology that seeks to make a woman functionally another man.

 

Dear Mr. —————,

Thank you for your note and also for your ongoing committment to the Kochuthottathil and Jesammal families in India. Since 1965, Save A Family Plan (SAFP) has been “partnering with the poor for a just world”. SAFP is a Canadian based international non-governmental organization (NGO) that continues its commitment of seeking justice and walking with the marginalized and poor of India irrespective of their caste, creed, gender (male or female), or political affiliations. One of SAFP’s guiding principles is that it “believes in families, the basic development unit of our society where parents are able to support their families”.

Wonderful.  But “belief in families” must be associated with the Catholic Church’s understanding of what is “family”.  The irony of how gender must be defined as referring to biology with the insertion of the parentheses above demonstrates (unwittingly) how SAFP has adopted this multiple (i.e. more than 2) gender definition.

In December 2009, Save A Family Plan became aware of serious questions being raised about our programmes and policies via the internet, particularly with regard to certain pro-life issues and the concept of “gender mainstreaming”. In order to dispel these misunderstandings and misrepresentations of our work, and to clarify where we stand on these issues, we would like to offer our friends and supporters the following information for their consideration:  We emphasize that SAFP clearly stands for promoting life from conception to the end of life. We do not provide any resources or support activities that promote abortion or contraception.

Socon or Bust has never alleged that SAFP has promoted abortion or contraception.  Nevertheless, mere assertions of orthodoxy on the part of the Catholic Church’s social justice cartels don’t go very far at all these days.  Development & Peace, for instance, also denies providing “any resources or supporting activities that promote abortion”. Technically, they don’t support “activities” that promote abortion or contraception, either.  They just fund the groups that do.  It’s unfortunate that the Development & Peace abortion scandal has caused Catholics to be rightfully suspect of any Catholic agency claiming to work for “social justice”.  Socon or Bust, of course, is not making any allegations against SAFP because of the conduct of D&P.  The allegations against SAFP stand on their own.

In our 2010-2011 fiscal years approximately 94% of our funds came from individuals, families, groups (such as the C.W.L, Knights of Columbus, etc), churches and schools. The remaining 6% came from the Canadian Federal Government (SAFP has received these funds for over 31 years). None of the funds received from the government are used for any activities that would conflict with our own mission/vision and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Save A Family Plan’s programmes take place under the auspices of, and in active collaboration with, the Catholic Church in India at all levels. The patron of our work in India was the late Eminence Cardinal Varkey Vithayathi (who recently passed away this past April) and is now newly installed Major Archbishop George Alenchery, and our initiatives in India are established in conjunction with the Catholic bishops of India, through over 60 local dioceses in which we work.  The Catholic Church in India both endorses and participates in our work.  The governing body of SAFP India is led by its President, Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath, who had been the Executive Director of SAFP Canada for fourteen years, and who understands the Catholic concerns from the Indian side of the Church and its emerging needs.

Normally and in saner times, having the endorsement of the local bishop or group of bishops would have been sufficient to exonerate any concerns raised about a Catholic organization.  But sadly, today, that is no longer the case in light of the “social justice” fraud that has been gripping many, if not most, Western countries where the Catholic Church operates these “social justice” agencies.  Development & Peace (Canada) and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (U.S.) are only two of many examples.  The recent dismissal of Carol Knight of Caritas Internationalis further exposes the great lack of Catholic leadership because of the “loss of Catholic identity” in our Catholic social justice industry. 

Having the endorsement of Catholic Bishops is virtually meaningless because of the way these agencies “report” to bishops.  The bureaucratic layers make it very difficult for a bishop to actually know what’s transpiring “on the ground”, unless they take a pro-active role in the organization. Few of them actually do which really shows the stewardship problem the bishops have as well.  If something is fundamentally wrong with any “social justice” association, as in the case of D&P or the CCHD, it’s either because the bishops are being deceived, because they want to be deceived, because they were “born yesterday”, or because they are neglecting their stewardship role.  Having a mere endorsement from a bishop or even a whole National Conference, in and of itself, means next to nothing – even when two bishops go to investigate “allegations” and issue a report “exonerating”  accused organizations.

So what does this all mean? It means that having an endorsement from any bishop today is only of marginal worth when the evidence contradicts the endorsement and when a reasonable or sufficient explanation is not forthcoming which addresses the evidence.

It is India’s Catholic bishops who themselves have identified the empowerment of women as a central priority for the Indian Church today, and have urged “gender mainstreaming” in their own official documents. These documents repeatedly highlight gender inequality, violence against women, and widespread social discrimination against women as major religious and social concerns. As a Christian development organization which has been active in India for more than 46 years, we work hand-in-hand with local and regional groups in addressing these issues, to promote the full, equal dignity of India’s women, and their active participation in Indian culture and in the Church. We do this in ways which are inspired and guided by Church teaching, especially the social teachings of Vatican II and recent Popes.

Unfortunately, today, in the Catholic Church, having the stamp of approval from Catholic bishops does not in itself guarantee that a particular activity or group is in conformity with Catholic teaching.  The stark reality is that these organizations and commissions are headed by people far removed from Catholic thought.  And that includes “gender mainstreaming”. In point of fact, although I am not certain which Indian bishops Ms. Porter is referring to when she says that the Catholic bishops have endorsed this practice, the bishops in the region of Kerala, India (a region that SAFP is involved in) certainly demonstrate that they favour “gender mainstreaming” in their “Gender Policy” document.  That’s a great tragedy for the Catholic Church in India.  I have taken the liberty of excising a few parts of this rather lengthy document and posted it at the end of this blog entry as “Exhibit A”. 

Our principal objection was that SAFP was promoting the idea that gender was socially constructed:

Much more troubling evidence, however, comes from their own newsletters.  In their Winter 2006 Newsletter, for instance, SAFP covers their “gender equality” objectives and activities.  While there is nothing overtly anti-Catholic or anti-family in the newsletter per se, the euphemisms and jingos employed are the same kind of language used by the secular feminist NGOs to advance the anti-family agenda.  They also point to the idea that gender is a socially malleable concept, being “socially constructed”.  (Emphasis added)

Secondly, and more importantly, it is the Catholic Church itself (at the highest levels) which has condemned gender mainstreaming and the gender ideology on which it is based:

 The head of the Vatican’s delegation to the UN has identified “gender ideology” as “violent” to the unborn and to the “integral needs of women and men within society.” In a speech to the fifty-fourth session of the Economic and Social Council’s Commission on the Status of Women, Archbishop Celestino Migliore said that the concept of gender is becoming increasingly “ideologically driven, and actually delays the true advancement of women.” Speaking at a UN meeting this week discussing the topic, “Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century,” Migliore said that the goal of equality between men and women is being considered largely in the “context of gender equality.” Recent documents by the UN, he said, have used the gender concept to “dissolve every specificity and complementarity between men and women.” “These theories,” he said, “will not change the nature of things but certainly are already blurring and hindering any serious and timely advancement on the recognition of the inherent dignity and rights of women.” The archbishop praised the improvements around the world in women’s education, the work against poverty and laws against domestic violence, but warned of “shadows” encroaching on the work to support women’s rights. He cautioned attendees not to ignore violence against women “in the form of female feticide, infanticide, and abandonment.” Gender ideology, or “gender theory” is a key concept in the radical feminist and homosexualist ideologies. It proposes that the concept of “gender” is distinct from biological sex and that it is a learned set of behaviours or models that can be changed either at will or by social environmental factors. Gender ideologues have proposed that there are not two, but as many as eleven possible “genders” for human beings. They hold that the belief that “gender” is synonymous with biological sex is the foundation of homophobia and bigotry. In 2008, German author Gabrielle Kuby wrote in an essay that “gender mainstreaming” is a force that is being used to “dismantle civilization.” “The gender ideology,” she wrote, “is in the process of creating a new man, whose freedom should include the choice of his sex and sexual orientation.” “This view of freedom and sexuality, according to the will of the UN, EU and most European governments is to be imprinted onto the minds of children from the nursery onwards.” Demonstrating the commitment of many western governments to this concept, Kuby cites the homepage of the German government’s Ministry of Science, which said: “The Federal Government has established an equal opportunities policy based on the political strategy of gender mainstreaming as a universal guiding principle and horizontal task. The Federal Government is thus participating in world-wide activities aimed at the more effective implementation of an equal opportunities policy.” (Source)

Readers can learn more about the secret revolution of  “gender mainstreaming” here.

While some people may understand “gender mainstreaming” as implying abortion and artificial birth control methods, this is emphatically not SAFP’s understanding of this term. For SAFP, “gender mainstreaming” involves concrete projects and initiatives aimed at such things as:

  • ending the practices of female foeticide (including sex selection through the use of ultrasound) and female infanticide (allowing the killing of girl babies because they are often valued less than boys);
  • addressing the epidemic problems of domestic violence, spousal assault, dowry related violence (i.e. a newly married Indian woman is burned to death by her in-laws for failing to meet the demands for a larger dowry, the traditional gift given to the couple by the bride’s parents), prostitution, bonded labour, rape and human trafficking which many impoverished Indian women face;
  • promoting greater literacy among Indian women (official government statistics show that the literacy rate for women is dramatically lower than for men in India); encouraging educational opportunities for girls and women (more than 25% of Indian women do not have access to schooling);
  • encouraging the inclusion and leadership of women in local decision-making, often through small groups called sanghams, which function as cooperative lending institutions and allow women to meet, to discuss their concerns, and to work toward possible solutions for their families and communities;
  • spreading information about government laws and policies aimed at supporting and assisting women;
  • sharing information about the Church’s social teaching, and the Indian bishops’ initiatives in this area;
  • highlighting the necessary interrelationships between the welfare of individual women and the welfare of their families, the communities in which they live, and the natural environment;
  • encouraging reflection on these relationships, and incorporating them as criteria in decision-making processes at every level, to ensure the long-term well-being of all concerned.

We know that SAFP’s supporters appreciate the importance of these critical issues, and we work collaboratively with our Indian partners in fostering solutions that are locally decided upon, and which meet the concrete identified needs of families and communities. We do this in a way which promotes integral, sustainable development, and which attempts to bring Gospel values to bear on these challenging issues.

The above list may be well-intentioned and good.  However, like all trojan horses, it’s not what’s on the outside that counts but what’s on the inside.  The core elements of “gender mainstreaming” have a definite objective to overturn the divine relationship between men and women, even if it is not explicitly stated by or even endorsed by SAFP.  No responsible aid organization uses the phrase of their opponents to define their own beliefs.  The Catholic Church does not go around promoting “reproductive rights”, for instance, since obviously that is the euphemism of pro-abortion forces.  Are we really to believe that SAFP’s tacit acknowledgement and endorsement of “gender reconstruction” will not lead to the secular and anti-Catholic meaning of “gender mainstreaming”?  That’s rather hard to believe.   Gender mainstreaming is all about blurring the distinction between men and women, making them functionally the same.  It is hard to understand how this objective can be obtained without at least a tacit support of the suppression of the unique reproductive role women play.  If you want women to play the exact same role as men, they can’t really be “dragged down” with motherhood, can they? 

We are saddened that some people have chosen to criticize Save A Family Plan without taking the time to contact us to discuss these issues and our work. As an organization dedicated to transparency, we always seek to respond to any question in an open, accurate and honest way that promotes understanding and respect. If you have any further questions, we would welcome the opportunity to answer them, but especially to reassure SAFP’s friends that we remain utterly faithful to the mission of our founder, Msgr. Augustine Kandathil (“Father Gus”)—a mission of solidarity and compassion, uniting the peoples of India and Canada in the search for a more just world.

Catholics have a right to criticize the Church’s bureaucratic structures and “development and aid” organizations when the evidence supports that criticism.  Certainly, SAFP has a right to defend itself, but Socon or Bust does not accept general denials and talking point answers when particular evidence requires a specific response.  After all, a good politician never answers a question directly when it can hurt his chances of victory.  But we’re not asking SAFP to be like a good politician.  We’re asking them to answer a simple question:

How does SAFP reconcile its belief that gender is “socially constructed” with what the Catholic Church teaches about the immutable, distinct, and complimentary gender geniuses in men and women?

These are the things Save A Family Plan has always stood for, and we will never compromise on them. The Catholic Church in India—and in North America—stands firmly behind SAFP’s work, and provides much of its energy and growth. We are proud of this central and longstanding partnership, and take pride in our place firmly within the Church. We ask your prayers for our ongoing work, and we rely upon your continued support for the poor in India.

It’s great that Save A Family Plan refuses to compromise on some (or even most) of what the Catholic Church teaches.  But not compromising on some things is not the same thing as not compromising on any thing.  As Catholics we cannot depart from one single doctrinal or moral teaching of the church and still call ourselves Catholic (Cf. James 2:10).   Unless SAFP distances itself from what its own literature has stated on this matter (as illustrated above),  Catholics can only assume that it accepts the premise of gender as socially constructed and not divinely ordained and immutable.  This is important because holding to such errors does not remain merely an anthropological error in theory (which, by the way, is the single most important challenge the Church has in our time), but translates concretely into policy matters in practice which can only mean departing from even more Catholic teaching in the future.  It’s a freight train headed for certain derailment.  In fact, truth be told, that derailment has already begun.

I invite SAFP to recant, “clarify”, or admit the difference they have with Catholic teaching. No doubt SAFP does much good work, and Socon or Bust respects and lauds such work.  But the facts remain under the specific allegation under consideration.  SAFP must address its apparent views on gender deconstruction (and its fundamental relationship with deconstructionism in general) which conflict with Catholic teaching.

EXHIBIT A

As I mentioned earlier, the bishops in the region of Kerala, India (a region that SAFP is involved in) certainly demonstrate that they favour “gender mainstreaming” in their “Gender Policy” document.  It is likely that Ms. Porter was referring to this particular document (or one close to it) in support of SAFP’s position.  This may indeed “legally” exonerate SAFP insofar as agreeing with the Bishops’ document, or at least the name that goes by it, but that does not necessarily mean that Catholic teaching is being upheld.  Below I’ve reproduced some very troubling parts of this document that all Catholics should find problematic.  My remarks on their problematic nature follow afterwards:

Citing the teachings and actions of Christ in the context of Palestinian Judaism, we see how the evangelists not only highlight Jesus’ concern for women, but also his radical re-defining of their place and role in their society. (p.2)

Through dominating social structures, right from the family onwards, men own, control and manage financial, intellectual and ideological resources as well as the labor, fertility and sexuality of women, and thus perpetuate gender discrimination. Such a culture produces stereotyped notions of how a woman or man should behave (in thoughts, words and actions), whereby they themselves become transmitters of the above value system. Consequently, women become both victims and victimizers. The negative impact of these patriarchal values has, as a natural corollary, resulted in the inadequate participation of women in the Church and Societal life .  A s a result traditionally women used to be kept away from all decision-making processes and from the Church Bodies. Masculinity is constructed with dominating and aggressive traits which runs contrary to the image of the Loving, Patient, Compassionate and Self- Sacrificing model of Christ and other members of Holy Family. (p.2-3)

But this is due to the differential roles, duties, rights, responsibilities, resource distribution (physical, social, intellectual, technological, political resources and invisible resources like mobility and freedom), based on sex. In Kerala the ratio, between female and male in the decision making structures, reads as: MLAs 17/133, Higher Court Judges 1/23, IAS officers 17/150, University VCs 1/6 and MPs from Kerala 2/28. (p.3-4)

7.2 MISSION Gender Equality through Gender Equity (p.4)

7.4 OBJECTIVES 1. To ensure Gender mainstreaming in the Commissions, Bodies of Church , institutions, families and formation houses. (p.4)

VIII. PRINCIPLES OF KCBC GENDER POLICY

Realizes that gender differences are socially and culturally constructed and reinforced by caste, class, ethnicity, language, age, region and religion and that restructuring gender relations to reclaim the dignity of girls and boys, men and women are essential. Believes that gender equality can be achieved through a partnership between men and women and strives to provide models in such partnership within the Church life that civil society can emulate. (p.5)

9.2. Education:  To foster gender sensitivity, prepare and use appropriate modules and audio/video materials for various groups. This will be especially helpful for those with little or no formal education. (p.6)

9.5. Participation in Apostolate: Conduct Institutional Analysis / Gender Audits to identify the extent of gender mainstreaming in the structure, systems, strategies and processes of the Church. To encourage as far as possible Gender wise rotation of top posts [President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer etc] in all organizations. (p.7)

9.8. Spirituality: Encourage men to abdicate the negative aspects of Masculinity (p.8)

9.9. Formation of Seminarians and Women Religious: Include Gender sensitivity courses as one of the subjects in Seminaries.  Promote women Spiritual Directors.  Include in all formation courses the language which respects equally the dignity of women.  Provide theological, biblical and canonical studies that promote gender justice and an ecclesiology of partnership;  Provide scholarships and part-time courses to appropriately qualified lay and religious women for theological, biblical and canonical studies.  Provide opportunities for theologically-trained women to contribute as pastoral workers, researchers, faith formatters, professors in theology and spiritual counsellors.  Affirm the pastoral work of women –lay and religious- as catechists, lectors, and animators of Basic/Small Christian Communities, counsellors, liturgists and Community workers through the recognition of these as Ministries.  Assure the representation of Scholarly Women with Gender perspective and knowledge in ancient biblical languages  Ensure that the contents of the homilies and publications are Gender Sensitive.

9.19. Social Awareness:  To promote gender sensitization by observing March 8 as International Women’s Day, September 8 as Girl Child Day and November 25 as Anti-Violence Day

The concept of bringing gender issues into the mainstream of society was clearly established as a global strategy for promoting gender equality in the Platform for Action adopted at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995. The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is an international statement that outlines minimum standards for governments to meet and ensure an end to gender discrimination and to promote gender equality. The Declaration also addresses “the equal rights and opportunities of women and men” and pledges to combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). India has ratified CEDAW and hence meeting international standards becomes mandatory. (September 2000 UN Millennium Summit) The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 insists on the representation of women in the decision-making bodies and the involvement of women in the Peace negotiation processes.(p.15)

(Source: Gender Policy, Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council)

First of all, we must first understand the environment, the meme of how social justice operates.  It is a matter of fact that the whole “social justice” industry today is underpinned by what I call victimology.  That is, the belief system that in order to advance a particular cause, a particular constituency must be a victim of society in some great measure.  Looking around the sexual revolution scene these past 40 years, indeed that is exactly what has transpired.  The feminists and the homosexualists have used this strategy very effectively in aggressively promoting their agenda.  In the document under consideration, for instance, there is a definite “male aggressor” meme – as part of the overall assault on masculinity, paternity, and fatherhood.  Needless to say, such a “frame of reference” is completely foreign to what the Catholic Church teaches.  According to the above document, “masculinity is constructed with dominating and aggressive traits” and it “encourages men to abdicate the negative aspect of Masculinity“.  But masculinity is something the Creator has endowed men with. It is not “constructed” by systems or social or cultural environments.  It is inherent to men.  Dominating and aggressive traits are the imbalance in men caused by original sin.  And the corollary to the Christian understanding is that it’s the behaviour and not masculinity itself (which is good and divinely ordained) which needs to be corrected.  But are the feminists really seeking to curb real violence against women?  Or are they really trying to emasculate men to the point where a male’s natural and healthy drive and ambition is completely snuffed out; where men are made to feel “guilty” and “ashamed” that they have these natural impulses – all to serve a political ideology that seeks to make a woman functionally another man.  “Gender audits” and “gender sensitivity courses” (as mentioned in the document above) are not about reducing violence against women or increasing a man’s respect for a woman.  They are ultimately about shaming society into forcing women out of the home, and into societal and economic power structures.  It’s social marxism with a 21-century face:

But this is due to the differential roles, duties, rights, responsibilities, resource distribution (physical, social, intellectual, technological, political resources and invisible resources like mobility and freedom), based on sex. In Kerala the ratio, between female and male in the decision-making structures, reads as: MLAs 17/133, Higher Court Judges 1/23, IAS officers 17/150, University VCs 1/6 and MPs from Kerala 2/28. (p.3-4)

The other rather glaring issue in the document is that it states that “gender differences are socially and culturally constructed”.  The obvious attempt by the document is to propose that gender can be divorced from biology.  But this belief is a direct assault on the Catholic Church’s teaching that gender is part of the natural law and an inherent and necessary complimentary orientation of the differences between men and women.

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out. “In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.” “Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2332-2334)

Therefore, gender is not merely socially constructed.  It is divinely structured, absolute, and therefore not subject to change.  Rather it is behaviour which is socially and culturally constructed.  The trojan horse here is to blame masculinity for tensions between the sexes, instead of the behavior itself.  Why?  Because behaviour is specific to particular men or particular social and cultural environments, and cannot really be universalized.  But masculinity is different.  It’s universal to all men, and if it can be changed and made malleable and viewed as “constructed”, then it can be deconstructed and therefore severed from biology.  Then and only then can it serve a much wider and broader agenda:

The gender ideology is in the process of creating a new man, whose freedom should include the choice of his sex and sexual orientation. This means to arbitrarily decide whether he or she wants to be man or woman, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (GLBT). This view of freedom and sexuality, according to the will of the UN, EU and most European governments is to be imprinted onto the minds of children from the nursery onwards. (Source)

Indeed, this agenda has infiltrated much of society already and has established itself within our education system too:

Much of homophobia and heterosexism is based on perceptions of what it is to be “masculine” or “feminine” in our society. These gender-role standards and the pressure to adopt gendered patterns of behaviour converge on children from a range of sources: from family, peers, schools, popular culture, authority figures, and the media. Students who do not adopt gender-stereotyped patterns of behaviour are often the targets of homophobic and heterosexist bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Therefore, challenging homophobia and heterosexism needs to be initiated with students in a direct and grade- and subject-appropriate way that helps them to develop critical thinking skills necessary to decode and resist biased messages. (TDSB)

Needless to say and rather unsurprisingly, it is not just SAFP which has bought into gender ideology.  I would venture to say that a large part of the Catholic social justice cartel is firmly entrenched in it:

To further address the challenge of diversity, we need to address barriers. In order to understand the barriers, we need to understand racism.  Racism, like sexism, is based not on biology, but on a “social construct”, an ideology which fosters exclusion.    (In the same way, in order to understand how women have been excluded, we have to understand that societies have created the notion of gender, which is the foundation for sexism). (Development & Peace)

Over the past decade, much of our contemporary culture has been subject to sexual re-definitions to the point where our culture is in the midst of a total moral and social collapse with serious repercussions coming in the way of attacks on religious freedom for the Catholic Church and even societal freedom generally, among other things.   And yet the Catholic Church and its institutions and bureaucracy have been lapping up these lethal re-definitions and deconstructions without even a modicum of sober discernment or reflection about the most basic questions like 1) Is social gender deconstruction really what Catholicism teaches?  and 2) Who is behind this deconstruction?  This is the stuff that my 7-year old can call out as just plain wicked and evil.  And still…our church-o-crats and our bishops can’t even see these basic moral and anthropological errors.  Is there anybody out there?  Anyone?

Instead of evangelizing the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we’ve bought into the “social and gender justice gospel” that the world, through its political structures like the U.N. and the E.U., and ungirded by a wicked and radical feminism and communism, have offered to our Church.

This must change.  And it will change.  Because either SAFP, D&P, and the rest of the social justice machine will turn their orientation back to a distinctly and completely Catholic identity, or it will simply formally assume the genderless and sterile positions of the Church’s enemies.  In fact, it’s already happening.

2 Responses to “Calling Out SAFP’s Support for the Social Reconstruction of Gender”
  1. I doubt that position on Gender by the Bihops of Kerela was written by them…I’ve been to Kerela, that is not the way the Bishops think down there… hmmm… who could have written it, for the Bishops to sign off on, so they can get North American $… SAFP maybe?

  2. John Crosby says:

    An awful lot of information that for most people is near impossible to figure out the actual Bottom Line. So what actually is the bottom line? Are they working against Church teaching or not?

  3.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>