What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The evil of the zero-sum game knows no bottom

One thing that we have to realize is that the homosexual and transgender agenda doesn't really have a bottom line to its evil. It's not like it's going to get "so bad and no further." It just keeps on getting worse and worse. I believe metaphysically that evil cannot create, but that doesn't mean in this practical world that evil people cannot get creative with evil.

This is why I really have very little patience with attempts to tone police talk about homosexuality and transgenderism. I can feel pity for perverts and gender-confused individuals. I feel more pity when they don't want to have these feelings and are attempting to affirm their normal identity rather than glorying in their abnormal identity. But I have no illusions about the activists among them and their "allies" who are trying to change society. And there are going to be many, many victims.

Social media has been keeping us informed about this horrific story about a 7-year-old boy, James Younger, whose mother wants to give him drugs to block puberty and, later, other drugs for his "transition." The poor kid is obviously deeply confused by his mother but not by his father.

Obviously, petitions have no legal force, and I have no idea whether the governor's investigation can do anything either. Family law courts have enormous power.

This would certainly be a case where parental "kidnapping" would be morally justified, as in the Lisa Miller case, but it would be very difficult as the custody is already at least shared, whereas Lisa Miller physically had Isabella with her. Plus there are two boys involved--twins, though I gather they may be fraternal twins? And of course travel is even more closely monitored than it was when Lisa took Isabella out of the country. Her odds of getting away were low. The father's odds here would be even lower, which means the odds of his being caught and sent to federal prison even higher. And as we know from the Miller case, anyone who helps them will be pursued with Javert-like obsession to the ends of the earth (literally) and brought back to be imprisoned as well. So it's unlikely that Mr. Younger can get away with it.

There is little to do but pray for him and for his son James.

And oh, btw, trollish comments to the effect that women in general are evil and that that's why this is happening will be deleted summarily. The mother does, in fact, appear to be evil in this case. But that's an individual. I also happen to be a woman, and I would love to see "heads roll" (metaphorically and legally speaking) for all of those who are abusing James in this way.

Comments (17)

Mind you, I don't put much stock in the latest ruling. I'm guessing that's a face-saving gesture to create the appearance of impartiality. The only person who has the ultimate say is the judge, and (to my knowledge) the judge has consistently sided with the mother.

But it's possible that the judge was caught off guard by the scale of the backlash, both at the popular level and other segments of the TX political establishment, and is now feeling the heat.

Right, since I posted this, new ruling: the father at least gets the right to put up some sort of fuss against actually giving this kid drugs and hormones, though the mom can continue to dress him in drag and confuse the heck out of him. Plus, unfortunately, there's a new gag order on the father, making it harder to get the word out.

The gag order is a very concerning development!
Courts can abridge the constitutional right to freedom of speech by issuing a gag order. Theoretically they do this to control the outflow of information about judicial matters, and facts being litigated, to preserve the fair trial rights of litigants. In practice such gag orders are frequently used to protect the judge from criticism for his outrageous conduct.

Theoretically they do this to control the outflow of information about judicial matters, and facts being litigated, to preserve the fair trial rights of litigants.

They have already had the trial, and it is public knowledge, what possible reason is left to assert a gag order?

Here we see (again) the horrific effects of the breakdown of the family along with any traditional mores: when the family is rent apart by internal disorder, the state cannot but step in and adjudicate at least some matters - preferably as few as possible, leaving the rest (so far as can be) to what is left of the common sense and decency of the parties. And in a normal, decent state, the state's authorities could assert the standard mores as a norm. What we are seeing here is that when the state intervenes its judgment into what should be normal family matters, and has no guiding principle other than whatever a certain judge decides is his or her guiding principle, you get the state running roughshod over one parent's entirely reasonable intentions.

While there may be no notional limit to how ghastly evil the horrors can get, one hopes that there is a practical limit at some point where society as a whole says "enough is enough" and repudiates the idiocy.

Allowing the dad to have a say is definitely good news considering how it appeared this case was going. However, my pessimistic side says it is just kicking the can down the road and they will be back in court when mom wants to use puberty blockers and dad doesn't.

In a case like this, supposing it had gone completely against the dad. If fleeing is not possible are there are any other morally acceptable options for the "non affirming" parent so to speak? Is even doing nothing at all and just accepting the legal decision morally ok? My inclination here is that a parent has a moral duty to protect their children, and all options to stop the abuse of puberty blocker or hormone injections are acceptable so long as the intent is protection, and not vengeance, and the method is proportional to the threat.

As far as things getting worse, I agree...here are some of the worst possibilities that fit the logic and trajectory of the sexual revolution.

Mandatory puberty blocker and hormone regimen for all children, in the name of equality for "cis" and "trans" children. So that all can enjoy equal time to "explore their gender".

Parental fitness requirements that ban "LGBT non affirming" adults from caring for children. I believe this is already happening in some places for adoption and fostering children.

Parental fitness requirements that ban "LGBT non affirming" adults from caring for children. I believe this is already happening in some places for adoption and fostering children.

Yes, for adoption and fostering. In fact, it's becoming harder and harder for Christian or traditional parents to adopt. When you adopt children who are wards of the state, you have to jump through many hoops to be deemed fit, and in some states that is one of them--to be LGBT affirming. A near-universal one is that you have to agree never to use corporal punishment. In fact, in order to be a foster parent (which is often the simplest and least expensive way eventually to adopt) you sometimes (always?) have to state that you will not use corporal punishment even with your own biological children whom you already have in the home. I know of one family who felt that God had called them to adopt (they already have several biological children) but decided eventually that they could not, due to this requirement.

Is even doing nothing at all and just accepting the legal decision morally ok? My inclination here is that a parent has a moral duty to protect their children, and all options to stop the abuse of puberty blocker or hormone injections are acceptable so long as the intent is protection, and not vengeance, and the method is proportional to the threat.

There is ALWAYS some morally appropriate option - the universe would not be a universe with moral realities otherwise. But yes, sometimes the only moral option is to allow something evil to take place. Revisit the mother in Maccabees who had to watch her seven children be murdered - tortured - for their faith, who encouraged her children to willingly submit to the torture rather than to give in to idolatry. The fact is that God sometimes allows parents to be in a position where they are absolutely unable to do anything effective to help them (directly), and all we can do is indirect help: pray, sacrifice, and pray some more. Indeed, one of the most difficult things a parent does - and HAS TO do - is learn to let go when their son or daughter has chosen to do something horribly wrong and that they WILL regret (rather sooner than later, all too often), because the parent must allow others to exercise their free will, including their own kid.

That said, in a truly immoral regime of government (one that is worthy of being overthrow if only one had the means), it is morally legitimate to disobey, and to discreetly encourage others to disobey, evil directives, when one can disobey without being caught at it or one can escape still worse consequences (such as taking the child and fleeing) - if one can reasonably and prudently estimate that the benefits of taking such action outweigh the harmful effects. We are not in that situation, thank God.

It is (as I understand it, at least) more of an open question as to when it is moral to disregard procedurally valid directives, of a regime that is largely lawful, when the directives are themselves clearly wrong but are not demanding that you personally and directly do an intrinsically immoral thing. Inaction - merely not obstructing something - on your part usually is not intrinsically wrong (otherwise you would be morally obliged to fight the government even when you know you have no hope of success - but that's not what the Christian martyrs exhibited). Many Christians, including many of the Fathers of early centuries, were rather firm about just submitting to such an evil, teaching that by submitting to such chastisement from duly appointed authorities one is submitting to God's authority. I would submit that this represents an action of heroic virtue - in this case the virtue of obedience. It still requires the application of prudence, though.

Dear Tony,

You wrote:

"Many Christians, including many of the Fathers of early centuries, were rather firm about just submitting to such an evil, teaching that by submitting to such chastisement from duly appointed authorities one is submitting to God's authority. I would submit that this represents an action of heroic virtue - in this case the virtue of obedience. It still requires the application of prudence, though."

This is not, in my opinion, an adequate summary of the moral status of this situation. Just because a court appropriates an authority to itself does not, in fact, mean that it has that authority. God gives all authority, even to execute, as Christ noted, but no one can be given the authority to appropriate to themselves the decision to violate a law of nature - it would take a direct order from God, such as when Jesus told Peter to walk on the water. No human court can lawfully decide to allow a boy to try and become girl-like (for they will remain a true boy). The judge is gravely wrong to adjudicate the matter. Indeed, assuming the father is compos mentos (sane), natural law dictates that it is the father, as head of the household, who has the final decision in the matter. The court's ruling is irrelevant and an act of aggression and power, not authority. It constitutes an act of abuse. Since the father has the actual authority in this matter (which the court is not authorized by God to remove, since the father has not violated a commandment of God, merely the ideas of some human idiots), then in my opinion, his son is a prisoner of an unlawful system and he may use any method a soldier may use to rescue any prisoner. The court has not binding authority in this matter. Let me say this, again. The judge is blowing hot air. The father is not bound to an unjust, irrational decision by someone who has usurped the father's natural authority. If he had the force of arms, he would be well within his rights to stand his ground and tell the judge to go away.

There is this notion that positive law has the force of divine law simply because the matter is adjudicated. This is not correct. There is a hierarchy of obedience. Indeed, the judge is bound, by natural law, to obey the father, not the other way around. To obey a human judge when he decides against the natural law is a form of what is known as indiscret obedience (The Summa Theologica article on obedience defines this and gives an example). One does not obey a lower authority when a higher authority countermands or opposes the lower authority.

No. Letting the judge rule is wrong and if we don't stand against such abuse of judicial authority, any stupid notion of society can gain respectability just because a judge, any judge, says so. The problem can be traced back to Calvin's misunderstanding of authority. It will be the undoing of this country, unless certain basic issues of Christian obedience are more properly understood and held within the law.

The Chicken

It's entirely possible that the father will be court ordered to refer to his son as a girl and to teach him that he is a girl. Obviously this would go considerably beyond "not resisting." This would be ordering him actively to cooperate in evil.

We are not in that situation, thank God.

If the boy were actually to be subjected to medical castration and, worse, the on-going propaganda that he is a girl simultaneous with permanent physical harm and the father could find a safe way to flee with him and his twin brother, then the father might very well be in that situation. It's actually unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be any good way to flee. We can just pray that the father will be able to continue to block the worst actions upon the boy.

Lydia, I meant that we are not in the situation that calls for overthrow of the current regime of government.

Chicken, that is what I meant by noting that it still requires the application of prudence: in discerning when active resistance is called for even though you will be caught and punished, and when inactive resistance is sufficient (not generating a positive disobedience to a putative "law"). In this case, (for example), if the father were to judge that he has 0 chance of escaping with the boy, he can actively flout the judicial demands that he call the boy a girl, for example, until he loses all parental rights (in the eyes of the state). He can then (arguably) go on petitioning the court for restoration of his parental rights, knowing that he will fail each time, or he can cease such petitioning as fruitless - either pathway being morally licit - but he is not morally obliged to try to "kidnap" the boy knowing that such attempt would fail, any more than the Christian martyr parents were obliged to attempt to take their children and flee Roman rule altogether. He can submit to the unjust actions of the state, just as the Christian martyrs submitted to the unjust (and, ultimately, unlawful) punishments for unjust demands of the state that they worship Jupiter.

Is fleeing even possible? Besides Russia and Nicaragua, where could a parent flee with their children; and be reasonably certain, that you will not be extradited back to the pro-sodomite nation from which you fled?

"Is fleeing even possible? Besides Russia and Nicaragua, where could a parent flee with their children; and be reasonably certain, that you will not be extradited back to the pro-sodomite nation from which you fled?"

I think this where I am stuck. If fleeing is not possible, and either continuing to plead in the courts or just doing nothing at all results in your kid being sterilized and mutilated, whats left? At least the dad in Texas is not yet in such a situation, but he could very well find himself in it very soon. There have been, and likely will be more, cases in which both parents are opposed to the "transing" of their child, and yet end up on the wrong side of judges ruling to sterilize and mutilate the child. I also dont trust the activists on the left to not push further and seek to use state agencies to harass families that are known to not be lgbt affirming, namely because this is in the logical progression of their movement.

The talk of banning puberty blockers is a good idea and long overdue. If successful, it could have many other upsides as well. That said, I am not confident any state will have the guts to do it, and even if one did...I expect the rage of the "blue states" and "woke corporations" would be a thousand times what it was when North Carolina passed HB2.

There have been, and likely will be more, cases in which both parents are opposed to the "transing" of their child, and yet end up on the wrong side of judges ruling to sterilize and mutilate the child.

Here is where I think united, sane parents can take the long view. Not sending your child to public schools is key. Within a solid, intact marriage of two sane people on this issue, it's the first and foremost step. Homeschool or send your children to a sensible private school that isn't going to indoctrinate with this nonsense. Second, move quickly if you see signs that someone is propagandizing your child. Change schools or take your child out of school and homeschool swiftly, while it is legal, while you aren't violating any laws. Be willing even to move to a different location within the United States if necessary while there are no judges or court orders involved. This might just be a different district, across a state line, etc. But parents need sometimes to ask whether they would rather have some relatively minor disruption in their lives *now* or have a nightmare later.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.