Exposed: The Missing Link Between Evolution and Effeminacy

by Kennedy Hall

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

It is one of the ironies of modern times that the alleged “hard science” of molecules-to-man evolution has greatly contributed to an epidemic of “softness” and “effeminacy” even among the members of the Mystical Body of Christ. In many Catholic circles, a firm supernatural faith in God’s Word as it has been believed from the beginning and “without which it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6) has been replaced by a soft, natural belief that rests as much on fallible human reasoning as it does on Divine Revelation.  In this essay we will begin by examining some examples of this trend before exposing the missing link between evolution and effeminacy and exhorting our readers to cherish the supernatural gift of faith as the only firm foundation for a life of true holiness.

Nowadays it is not difficult to find a multitude of Catholics who justify the teachings and practices of the Faith on “scientific” grounds.  When the question of fasting comes up, for example, many Catholics refer to recent “empirical research” about fasting and weight loss, as if the Church’s traditional dietary practices are at least partially justified by their health benefits.  With regard to pornography addiction, we are consistently directed towards the evidence of what happens to our brain when we become addicted.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with appealing to various natural truths to bolster our faith, but it is quite another to look to the natural sciences as a reason to believe the Faith.  We should fast because Christ said so, and we should not watch pornography because Christ told us not to commit adultery, even in our minds.

Is it helpful to have an OBGYN appeal to our knowledge of embryos and DNA to see the fully alive human person in the earliest stages of pregnancy?  Of course!  But let us not be fooled into thinking that even the most wonderful scientific advances will ultimately solidify our faith.  It is supernatural faith that we require—the assent of our intellect and our will to the revealed mysteries of God and to His inerrant WordWe are not required to place our trust in man-made myths, like evolution, but to trust in the authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and in the truths that they contain.  And if the world and its materialistic wisdom contradict these truths, we must reject the wisdom of the world.

It is important to reflect that our faith is unchanging—whereas the natural sciences are constantly in flux.  “Science” can be defined as “an organized body of knowledge”; and theology, the knowledge of God, is the highest of the sciences.  If we Catholics remember these facts, we will stop appealing to natural science to prove theological truths.  We will acknowledge that if we believe in the Virgin Birth, we are being “unscientific”—if, by “scientific” truth we mean only those things that can be known through observation and repeatable experiment.  We must stop appealing to microscopes over the Magisterium, and cease trying to reconcile our divine Faith with the fallible human science and flawed philosophy of molecules-to-man evolution.

Indeed, the molecules-to-man evolution hypothesis rests on a mass of wild extrapolations from small changes that are observed to huge changes that have never been—and never will be—observed because such changes would contradict the nature of things as we do observe them.  For example, the evolutionist extrapolates from small variations in populations of birds and reptiles to the conclusion that a reptile evolved into a bird.  But none of the observations that he cites demonstrates the production of a single bit of new functional genetic information in the genome of any reptile or bird that was not present in the genome of its ancestors.

Faith in molecules-to-man evolution is nothing but a fallible human faith in something that has never been observed nor ever will be.  For Catholics, it is a faith that God used death, deformity, disease, and suffering to create His own image and likeness in the world before the Fall.  It entails the belief that God evolved the bodies of our first parents, and that Adam was born of a sub-human primate mother and suckled at her breast. These new humans then had to survive an onslaught of environmental challenges and competition from less intelligent and more vicious hominid relatives.

It is true that our Faith requires us to believe in a First Couple who propagated the whole human race, but these were the first created human children of God, not the randomly occurring children of soulless animals.  In some fashion, the evolutionary Adam would need his soul to be infused into him either at conception or during gestation.  He would be destined for a life with God, while his own mother, in whom he was gestating, remained soulless and destined for eternal annihilation.  It is nothing less than a blasphemy to imply that Our Lord would use an ape to achieve the miraculous conception of the first human being, and that the “son of an ape” would prefigure the “Son of Man.”

Without a soul, Adam’s mother would be just an animal, no matter how intelligent, and Adam, the “son of God,” would be raised by a beast.  This Evolutionary Creation Myth is nothing but a perverted parody of the Immaculate Conception to come.  The idea of a bestial mother of the evolutionary Adam is a demonic attack on the most Holy Mother of God who brings us the New Adam.  The bestial mother of the Evolutionary Adam would be animalistic and anything but chaste, whereas the Blessed Mother is the Virgo Potens, the Virgo Castissima, and the Dei Genetrix.  The First Adam would be the antithesis of a Son of God, visited not by Magi bringing Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh, but by monkeys bringing death, disease, and destruction.  There would be no animals in a manger to watch the birth of the First Adam, but instead the animals would be his mother and his father, his brothers and his sisters.

The very fact that the molecules-to-man evolutionary hypothesis can be debated proves that it is not empirical.  You cannot debate the hexagonal shape of snow flakes, as that shape can be observed in any snowflake, anywhere, at any time, by any observer; but one can debate whether apes became man, because it is an inference from small changes that can be observed to a huge change that exceeds the limits of possible change within the biosphere.  It is a crime against common sense that any evolutionist could claim that Christians believe in a “god of the gaps”—as there are no gaps in the Mosaic account of creation in the sacred history of Genesis.  But there are convenient billion-year gaps in the molecules to man evolutionary mythology.  The majestic Fiat of Our Lord at the beginning of creation brought into existence a plenitude of perfection, all the way from the simplest molecules to the first man and woman, created in the image and likeness of God.

Nor should Catholics regard Big Bang cosmology and cosmic evolution any more favorably than biological evolution.  The evidence for stellar or galactic evolution is just as flimsy and contradictory to what natural scientists actually observe as the evidence for biological evolution.   It is tragic to see so many Catholic intellectuals embracing Big Bang cosmology because one of its inventors, Monsignor George Lemaitre, was a priest.  By the same logic, should we embrace sola scriptura theology because its inventors were also priests?

We are now ready to expose the link between effeminacy and evolutionism, and to explain why it is extremely effeminate to believe in evolution.  We can be certain of this because evolutionism exhibits every marker of effeminacy.  To be clear, effeminacy does not mean “femininity,” as femininity is a perfection, like masculinity.  Effeminacy is a different word entirely, and in its etymology, we find a definition for things like “softness” in its Latin usage.  The Greek word for “effeminate” in the New Testament is “malakoi” (μαλακοὶ) which means “soft”—although it is linked to sodomite behavior in First Corinthians where St. Paul warns that:

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

From this we can see that effeminacy is the opposite of masculinity, not a complement like femininity.  Indeed, St. Teresa of Avila appealed for “manly” nuns, to embrace and implement the rigors of the Carmelite reform.  Masculinity requires suffering and responsibility, as Fulton Sheen once said, whereas effeminate men (and women) seek to avoid any difficulty in the pursuit of truth and virtue.

The vice of effeminacy can be broken down into four categories: volitional, intellectual, appetitive, and sensual:

  1. Effeminacy contains a volitional element, namely in the fact that it has to do with the will.
  2. Effeminacy also appeals to intellectual restlessness, in that an effeminate man does not make form, concrete decisions because they are too hard.
  3. There is also and appetitive aspect to effeminacy, as it is our appetites that we seek to please when we are effeminate, which has much to do with our fortitude or lack thereof.
  4. There is also a sensual aspect to effeminacy, which is similar to the appetitive aspect; but the sensual aspect is more strictly related to bodily pleasures and their satisfaction.

Evolution fosters the volitional aspect of effeminacy because the evolutionist tends to blame the environment for his personal failings.  If something is not his fault, he is not culpable.  The evolutionist has a wonderful way of blaming external influences for his personal problems.  This is very effeminate.  Effeminate men love to marvel at the predetermined nature of their lot in life, as this helps them to justify their contempt for sacrifice and to cultivate dissipation in place of a work ethic.

Evolutionism also fosters intellectual restlessness, as it is totally acceptable for its devotees to have an ever-changing intensity of belief, even in the dogmas of the Faith, as in the end “the progress of science” can always shed “new light” on the “true meaning” of defined doctrine.  This is also very effeminate. Not even words from a “dead” language are safe in the hands of an evolutionist.  Teachings from Ecumenical Councils written in unchanging Latin or Greek are subject to “new interpretations” and “new understandings.”  To debate the meaning of the unchanging teachings of the Church to justify a personal aversion to the hard sayings of Our Lord is extremely effeminate.  Masculine men must follow the truth, no matter the personal cost.  Nothing but the Truth will set us free, and Catholic men must be prepared to hang beside Him on the Cross, while the world stands and mocks—counting this “shame” a great grace, reserved to the most beloved children of God.

Evolutionism also affords a convenient excuse for appetitive behavior, as it tells us that we are essentially beasts—so what is the harm in appealing to our animal instincts?  According to the Faith, these animal instincts must be subordinated to the dictates of our soul and cannot be exalted as powers that have evolved and that must be embraced.  It is the constant duty of any Christian to continuously quench the animalistic flame that burns within and to lift his will and intellect to God.  How are we to reconcile the supposed evolution of our animal nature as something that must be subordinate to our soul?  This would require an inherent dualism and equity between the things of God and the things of the world.

Finally, the sensual influence of evolutionism is most likely the strongest in our day.  The sensual temptation resembles the appetitive, but it is specifically related to our fallen obsession with pleasure.  Evolutionism ultimately makes an idol of the human body, apart from the soul.   When our body becomes our god, then pleasure becomes our worship. This could of course pertain to sexual pleasures, but it also appeals to our desire to avoid all suffering.  We see this with the advent of euthanasia and the purposeful extinction of Our Lord’s most treasured children, those with Downs Syndrome.  We are too effeminate to suffer, we lash out at the suffering around us, whether in our bodies or those of others, and we extinguish the most grace-filled moments of life and the most beloved of God’s people.

As we negate our human suffering, we also distance ourselves from the Cross.  It is a matter of justice that we suffer from the consequences of the Sin of Adam in our quest for sanctification.  In an evolutionary paradigm, whether theistic or atheistic, suffering is something to be avoided as we “progress” beyond the pressures of our environment.  Evolutionism is nothing more than a new form of the forbidden fruit that the Enemy offers us so that we can become gods “without God.”

An evolutionary origin and an ancient universe are also effeminate and blasphemous ideas that lead to the avoidance of responsibility.  Most college-educated Catholics can’t even fathom the idea that the Earth might be relatively young, as revealed in the Word of God as understood by all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching.  In spite of all the glaring problems with the various radiometric dating methods and geological conjectures, and all of the inconsistencies in Big Bang cosmology, the very idea that the Biblical chronology enshrined in the Sacred Liturgy of the Church could be true shocks the great majority of Catholics.  But are we so much smarter than virtually all the Saints of the past?  Are we so much more “evolved” than every single Doctor of the Church?  Many Catholic scientists are more than willing to debate whether the Big Bang actually happened, and many more are willing to suggest that the universe might be billions of years old, but, for most of them, a Biblical time-frame remains simply unthinkable.

Accept evolution over billions of years and the Earth and mankind are reduced to specks of dust, and God, if He exists, becomes very distant.  We are reduced to cogs in a machine who have a determined role in an ever-expanding chain of random events.  Evolutionism fosters effeminacy on all fronts.  It robs us of our manhood and encourages us to be beasts. It frees us from being sons of Adam, transforming Original Sin into a fantasy.  Indeed, molecules-to-man evolutionary mythology is unmistakably from Satan.  It is his theory, his Magnum Opus, and the greatest deception that he has ever used to infiltrate the true Church.

It is time for faithful Catholics to seriously consider these things.  Our species is not an accidental after-thought appearing on a speck of planetary dust in a remote corner of a vast universe after billions of years. We are the apple of God’s eye, inhabiting the only place in the cosmos where God became man, where He was born of a Virgin, suffered, and rose from the dead for our salvation; and where He gives Himself every day, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, through the hands of His priests in the Holy Eucharist,  to those who love Him.

Did not Our Lord warn His disciples, “the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8)  On that day, will we want to have placed our trust in the Word of God as believed in His Church from the beginning—or in the fallible myths and fables of sinful human beings?

The Second Coming may be much sooner than we think.

 

__________________________________

|

Featured image:  St. John the Baptist preaching to Herod