Bp Aguer : "The inclusion of error, ambiguity, and confusion against the great and unanimous ecclesial Tradition has a pernicious effect on the cultural climate"
In his opening speech at a session of the Synod on Synodality, the Supreme Pontiff hoped “that once the necessary repairs have been made, the Church will once again be a place of welcome for everyone, everyone, everyone.” This incredible expression is an implicit insult to the work of his predecessors and the disqualification of the history of katholiké, universal by its nature.
Indeed, Christ’s original mandate to the apostles was for them to make all nations – panta ta ethnē – disciples, that is, Christian peoples. That totality excludes no one. Unbelief is what excludes, and the world – the enemy – prevents evangelization. But now Rome uses a sociological (or social-psychological) criterion, developed because of the “shrinking” of the world, of its fads, and the imposition of “new rights.”
Now the argument is the inclusion of “trans” people. Who is “trans”? Fundamentally, I say, a homosexual who has tried to change his sex through surgery and hormones – an attack against his own identity. These cases reveal a contempt for biology as a reality that integrates personality and, in the theological sense, a rebellion against God’s plan by which we are made male or female.
It is enough to remember the biblical passage: “God said: Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. He created them male and female” (Gen. 1:26-27). St. John Paul II beautifully taught that the divine image and likeness lies in the diversity of the sexes, and in the referral of one to the other. That referral is an original value: “Then the Lord God said: It is not convenient for man to be alone. I am going to give him a suitable help (a complement)” (Gen. 2:18).
The story continues: “With the rib that he had taken out of the man, the Lord God formed a woman and presented her to the man. The man exclaimed: ‘This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh! She will be called woman [ishá in Hebrew – that is, female], because she has been taken from man [ish]’” (Gen 2:22-23). Mutual referral founds an institutional reality. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). The scene of the meeting and the man’s exclamation of happiness appears in artistic representations – mosaics, for example – which served as catechesis for simple people: the man extends his arms as a sign of reception and joy. These elements, text and images, have been the foundation of a Christian culture.
The “inclusive” mania is now inspired by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is attentive to the voices of the world, louder than those of the Bible. One recent issue is the possible admission of “trans” people to the sacrament of baptism, which is the door to being a Christian. The solution must be theological, and therefore it is worth remembering that, according to Tradition, access to baptism – I’m not talking about infants here – is linked to a conversion process which takes the form of a decision to change one’s life, to adopt the Christian way. The grace of the sacrament demands the exercise of freedom and crowns it with the gift of God.
I think the inclusion of a “trans” person has the same demands as that of a homosexual. It is true that he cannot remedy the damage he has done to his biological identity. But the seat of conversion is the will; he could decide to accept the Christian way of living which, among the virtues that constitute it, includes chastity. It is a fundamental change for him to not want to live in the pseudo-identity he assumed through a bad decision. It may seem difficult, but it is the demand of Truth.
“Gender issues” occupy a high place in the current culture of our world. The Church must speak out against its contempt for the metaphysical notion of nature and reiterate a perverse consequence: the “sex change.” This is a preamble to the exclusion of “trans” people if the conditions demanded by the gift of baptism are not met. This situation runs parallel to that of homosexual people. The pressure of worldly culture is being imposed, as we see in the German and Dutch Churches, for example.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses synthetically, and in an intellectually decisive manner, the question of homosexuals in paragraph numbers 2357-2359, in the section on the sixth commandment of the Decalogue dedicated to “chastity and homosexuality.” It notes there that the psychological origin of this depravity remains largely unexplained. Similarly, let us say that it is not easy to understand the process that leads a person to try “changing their sex.” The testimony of Holy Scripture leaves no room for doubt: they will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10). This passage, like 1 Tim. 1:10, refers to men (ársenes) who abandon the natural order – they are called arsenokoitais, that is, men who have intercourse with other men. In Rom. 1:24-27 it is said that they dishonor their own bodies. In the Old Testament the judgment against Sodom stands out (Gen. 19:1-29); hence homosexuals are also called “sodomites.” It is a disgrace, certainly, but it cannot be confused with misfortune.
The Catechism points out that these inclinations are objectively disordered; homosexuals are called to do the will of God in their lives and must be treated with compassion and sensitivity. This is the basis for their inclusion. They are called to chastity, to build up their inner freedom, and with the help of grace they can draw closer to Christian perfection. Objective inclination is one thing, but its exercise is quite another. Nowadays we talk about “gay pride,” which is the exercise of perversion as an ideal of life. Public propaganda is often overwhelming; in some societies it is imposed for the purpose of changing the minds of the majority population. “Trans” people and “sex changes” are becoming accepted as something normal, which is why the promotion of “inclusion” by ecclesiastical authorities has a pernicious effect on the cultural climate.
In Her teaching the Church vindicates the authentic humanity of mankind. In this regard we can cite the Persona Humana declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1976) and the Magisterium of St. John Paul II. But things have changed: that Sacred Congregation was transformed into a Dicastery that dedicates itself to the promotion of bad theology and refrains from condemning anyone. It represents the inclusion of error, ambiguity, and confusion against the great and unanimous ecclesial Tradition.
Pressure is being imposed worldwide to legitimize “new rights” into national legislation. The role of the Church is fundamental in building up resistance to these impositions which are contrary to Law and liberty. The UN’s 2030 Agenda represents the serious danger of a global spread of a new image of man; it is foolish to let it go uncriticized and, even worse, to adopt it (even partially). This situation presents disturbing analogies to that of the faithful in the first three centuries of the Roman Empire. Testimony (martýria) must confront the danger of a displacing, subtle persecution, like the one that just happened in countries dominated by the communist empire in the 20th century.
In some ways what’s coming will be worse. It is logical for the Catholic faithful to look to Rome, hoping that the light of Truth will come from the Petrine See. But will that hope be in vain?
+ Héctor Aguer
Archbishop Emeritus of La Plata