Can a man become a mother? I asked in my previous article.
One hundred years ago this question was a figment of science fiction, with doctors and scientists playing God. Two months ago we read the story of Neil Hope, a transsexual, born a woman and surgically transformed into a man, carrying a surrogate pregnancy to term in his/her uterus and giving birth to a son last year.
This scientific advance involves the loss of Christian principles and the increasing secularism that is de-Christianizing Europe and the developed countries.
After the Second World War, traditionally Christian countries such as Spain, Italy, England, Germany, and Austria were invaded by an indifference that drew them away from their fear of God. The new generation, although born to staunch believers who had them baptized, preferred to refrain from going to church on Sundays, but still wanted their own children baptized.
As a result of discussions during the Second Vatican Council on this religious absenteeism, the new Canon Law of 1983 asked for a formal act from defecting baptized Catholics (canon 1117).
A simple withdrawal from practice is not equivalent to a public renunciation of the Catholic faith; a positive act of the will is required.
In Europe, only an insignificant number presented such a resignation. Millions of non-practising Catholics are still considered members without a formal resignation.
This is comparable to children of immigrant families not denying their ethnic roots, but professing more pride in Canada than in their country of origin.
In Vancouver only 15 per cent of the population is Catholic, and mixed marriages are common. Even in such unions, the Catholic who marries someone of another faith does not require his or her name to be erased from the pastoral records, and the non-Catholic party who (with the Catholic bishop's permission) marries a Catholic is not asked to defect from his or her original religion.
Another factor that prompted widespread absenteeism from religious practice in advanced and prosperous countries was the sexual revolution, which rebelled against the norms of the Decalogue regarding sexuality, with slogans such as "Make love, not war."
This revolution allowed a Protestant bishop to admit and defend his homosexual lifestyle, "marry" someone of the same sex, and still celebrate his church's liturgies, profaning the sanctity of marriage and disregarding the Biblical prohibition from fornication.
With this diminishing frequency of religious practice, permissiveness has taken religion's place and has subverted natural law regarding sex. The Catholic Church obliges her members to refrain from premarital sex since it is the best way to avoid its grave consequences.
Without these moral brakes everything is being allowed, to the point that there will come a day when even incest and bestiality will be tolerated, and the time of Sodom and Gomorrah will reappear.
No wonder this immoral shift and religious decline is found repulsive by the old cultures in Africa and Asia. They firmly resist acceptance of homosexual unions and other perversities which have come to be accepted by permissive countries.
Today the manipulation of generative experiments has reached absurdity. The arguments are false and bogus. Refusal to accept "same-sex marriage" is not unjust discrimination.
We can certainly enjoy the positive benefits of scientific advances, but we do not accept this challenge to the basis of the family.
Can we ignore the psychological effects on those who are the product of such sexual experiments as were used on Neil Hope?
Desperate to lose her femininity, yet wanting to retain the choice of being able to use "his" or her uterus, how will "he" now raise this child, as a manly father who amputated his female physical attributes and shunned the womanly tenderness originally given to him by nature?
What will happen to this hybrid offspring of whim and sensation?