 |
| The Holy See is Under fire from the UN |
When the UN, or even the whole World, maintains that there is no sexual sin but child abuse, be sure that the World is just years away from condoning child abuse. If child abuse is the only remaining sexual sin a person can commit, then we should be certain that even widespread opposition to child abuse hangs by an incredibly loose thread.
Why do I say this? I say this simply because the terms of reference for the sexual morality of the age are grounded in nothing objective at all but natural revulsion against a minority who abuse children. Widespread revulsion at child abusers and abuse is understandable and natural, but for how long will it last? For the time being, at least, we can all agree that child abuse is a monstrous evil against the innocent child. What we cannot all agree with is the premise that this is the only sex-related evil a person can commit. Some reading this would balk at the suggestion that child abuse could become accepted in the West, but there is no real reason why it should not be. I say this for good reason.
The rejection of both natural and divine law
The vast array of sexual sins and vices that were once deemed to be 'taboo' in the West have systematically and overwhelmingly been overturned, leaving the World with such a blunted view of sexual ethics proposing that personal autonomy in sexual relationships is paramount and to be cherished. Any criticism of sexual behaviour that deviates from what was once the accepted norm - a monogamous sexual relationship within the confines of marriage - is now quickly dismissed as evidence of 'bigotry' - or a form of imposition of an alien, repressive morality to the majority. This is based in a wholesale, widespread rejection of both natural and divine law supported by the mass media and now even accepted in most schools.
As Western countries, we are deceived if we believe that the rejection of both natural and divine law by adults has no consequences for children. Notwithstanding that a culture that defines the limits of sexual morality to the subjective is in danger of becoming so permissive that children can more easily be brought into the realm of sexual excitement for adults, the single premise upon which rests the West's opposition to child abuse would appear to be the issue of 'consent'. Rape is deemed, rightly, to be an offense to the compliance of a party to a sexual encounter. Likewise, it is universally held in the West that child abuse is an evil because a child can never give 'consent' to an abusive sexual relationship in which the victim is weaker. The child, obviously, is in a position of vulnerabillity compared to the aggressor.
Yet, 'consent' is a particularly tenuous and precarious foundation upon which to build any society's sexual morality. Do we really wish to see, for the future generations, among whom are billions of children, a society so sexually liberal and so highly sexualised that any sexual relationship is perceived to be normal except any sexual relationship that does not involve consensual sex?
Consent has become the primary issue in recent times in the UK, with some adult 'campaigners', among whose number is the 'gay-rights campaigner' Peter Tatchell, calling for a lowering of the age of consent in Britain to 14. The State has become so all-pervasive in society that those who seek to change transform society through law cite evidence of underage sexual activity taking place among a highly sexualised youth as propaganda material for new laws recognising the 'sexual rights' of children. We live in an age - a new age - in which sexual relationships are framed in the language of personal and autonomous rights and 'freedoms'.
For full article click here.
7 comments:
unfortunately, this will probably happen. we already have children exposed to scenarios via the internet that would rightly shock a right thinking adult not so long ago. we are sacrficing our children to Moloch in more ways than one. this is not the dialogue of a Christian or even post-christian society. this is the stuff of a triumphant philosophical satanism. more euphemistically called the enforcement of secular beliefs.
https://www.embooks.com/blog/single/the-trojan-horse-of-british-secularism
I remember the HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority) talking about the "yuk factor" as being the only real objection to whatever new step towards a Brave New World they were taking. The idea is that one can overcome the yuk factor with a bit of practice. It is the yuk factor that alone prevents child abuse.
"Consent" is, as you say, a tenuous area. If a child is deemed not to be able to consent to say a necessary surgical operation then someone can exercise that consent on their behalf. Already the Belgians are proposing the legalisation of the murder of children. Will they be deemed to have consented or will some other person do it on their behalf? One could see the same happening with paedophilia.
Why should a child be discouraged from rotting his teeth with boiled sweets if he finds them enjoyable? Why should he be stopped from being used for a sexual purpose if he appears to enjoy it?
Read Aldous Huxley "Brave New World", it is all there.
No one is saying that there are no sexual sins except child abuse, but the point is that sexual abuse of children is a CRIME. Homosexuality (among consenting adults in private) is not. Your thinking is confused!
Sodomy is a natural crime and was recognised as such by most jurisdictions until all natural morality was rejected. No one commits rape or molests a child until they've first denied sexual morality and engaged in various sexual sins, getting more and more evil the greater sin they commit. Same with abortion. These are not starter sins, they are developments in sinfulness and rejection of God. These evil crimes do not just happen in a vacuum. Destruction of sexual and all morality leads inexorably to them.
The liberal-left are trying to reverse engineer Dostoyevsky's equation that "if there is no God, everything is permitted".
They've failed to eradicate God on either their own or anybody else's terms, so now they're trying to bring to fruition the second part of that formulation, namely a culture where there are no taboos, where "everything is permitted". Child-adult sexual relations is a lynch-pin of that plan. It will happen, if those in a position to stop it do nothing.
For some reason I can't stop thinking about those certain Catholic dioceses who've allowed Stonewall into their classrooms. It sometimes feels like the battle has already been lost...
The highly respected Gudrun Kugler informs us that consent is NOT required of the child about to be killed under the new Belgian law. Instead:
"In this new law, the decision to kill a child must be approved by the parents and the physicians in care. It is further necessary that the young patient is aware of the situation and understands what euthanasia means."
Can one imaging anything more terrifying for the child? He has to be aware that he is about to be killed by his parents and a physician. If he does not agree with what is about to happen would it not be kinder to ensure that he is not aware? This is mad and bad.
Sign the petition against this:
http://www.citizengo.org/en/4158-not-sign-legalisation-child-euthanasia
Post a Comment