18 26, April, 2020 C omment catholicweekly.com.au blood of the lamb on the door posts and lintel of the house so that when the an- gel of death came that night and killed the first-born of the Egyptians, he would pass over the first-born of the Israelites (cf. Ex 12:1-13). This is an obvious symbol of the blood which Christ, the Lamb of God, would shed on the Cross of Calvary on Good Friday to redeem us and save us from eternal death. Christ referred to this in the Last Supper when he blessed the chalice and gave it to the apostles, saying “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). And just as the Israelites ate a lamb they had previous- ly sacrificed, so in the Mass we receive in Communion the Body and Blood of Christ, which have previously been offered in the sacrifice of the The Supper of the Lamb W hile, as far as I am aware, there is no official Church teach- ing on this point, it has always seemed clear to me that those words refer both to the Com- munion of the Mass and to the wedding banquet of the Lamb in heaven. The most obvious and im- mediate reference is to Com- munion in the Mass, which the faithful in the Mass will re- ceive a fewminutes later. But why the reference to the Lamb, when what is re- ceived in Communion is the Body of Christ in the host and the Precious Blood in the chalice? The answer takes us back to what the priest has just said when holding up the host: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the Supper of the Lamb.” The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world is Christ himself, pres- ent in the host. Those are the words St John the Baptist used when he pointed Jesus out to his disciples: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). It is Christ himself, the Lamb, whom the people will receive in Holy Communion. The reference to the Lamb also takes us back to the Pass- over, which was a figure of the Eucharist. As we recall, on the night before Moses led the Israel- ites out of Egypt he told them to slaughter a lamb and eat it roasted over a fire. They were to sprinkle the Mass. Thus, the Mass is not just a fraternal meal, a ban- quet, but a communion sacri- fice, in which the victim is first sacrificed and then received in Holy Communion. This is mentioned in the Prayer after Communion in the Mass for the thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time: “May this divine sacrifice we have offered and received fill us with life.” As regards whether the “Supper of the Lamb” refers also to the wedding banquet of heaven, we find practically the same words we use in the Mass in the Book of Revela- tion: “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9). Throughout the Book of Revelation we see the heav- enly worship offered to the Lamb, who is Jesus Christ. The two meanings are re- lated in that our Commu- nions on earth prepare us for entry into heaven, where we too will share in the heavenly banquet. Just as the Israelites ate the manna which fell from heav- en for forty years before they entered the Promised Land, so Eucharistic Communion is our “daily bread” which nourishes us on our journey through life to the Promised Land of heaven. At the same time the recep- tion of Holy Communion is accompanied by a promise of heaven. In the synagogue of CapernaumOur Lord said: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:54). And the Eucharist is an an- ticipation of heaven: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:56). To abide in Jesus is what we will experience in heav- en. We will be in communion with the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit, as we see God face to face. In fact, the Catechism de- scribes heaven in those very terms: “This communion of life and love with the Trini- ty, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed is called ‘heaven’” (CCC 1024).
[email protected] Trust us. We’re doctors I n Australia, as elsewhere in the developed world, doctors and parents are perplexed about an epi- demic of young people, most- ly teenage girls, who want to change gender. Back in August the Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt, asked theThe Royal Austral- asian College of Physicians (RACP) for advice on how to treat gender dysphoria in chil- dren and adolescents. The RACP’s answer, re- leased last week, is baffling. It responded that (a) this is a very complex issue about which we doctors know very little and (b) we mustn’t tell the public to know how ig- norant we are. Of course, it wasn’t quite so candid as that, but that is a bare bones sum- mary. First, the RACP candid- ly confesses that “evidence on health and wellbeing out- comes of clinical care is lim- ited”. In other words, it is not in a position to give definitive advice about treatment. Why? Because there is very lit- tle unimpeachable evidence — because of “the relatively small number of studies, the small sizes of study popula- The RACP has caved in to activists on children and gender dysphoria. The Royal Australian College of Physicians is surprisingly unscientific in its dogma on gender “Dear Father, When the priest holds up the host before Communion and says, “Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb”, is he referring to the supper of Communion in the Mass or to the wedding feast of the Lamb in heaven? Or possibly both? tions, the absence of long- term follow up and the ethical challenges of robust evalua- tion when control (no treat- ment) is not acceptable”. This is a sound comment. It’s great that the RACP has acknowledged the rudimen- tary nature of the medical profession’s understanding of transgender issues. It gives a much needed corrective to heavily slanted media cov- erage. Last week, the govern- ment-funded ABC ran a fea- ture on non-binary children on Four Corners , its flagship investigative program. Only two doctors were interviewed, both very supportive. One, a child psychiatrist, Dr Georgie Swift, told view- ers: “There are definitely strong critics to this area who would argue that the work I do is child abuse in allowing young gender diverse people and non-binary people to socially transition, to medically tran- sition. “In fact, not allowing someone to socially transition or to medically transition, not supporting them in their gender identity is a high, high chance of them having signif- icant mental health problems including high rates of de- liberate self-harm, high rates of suicidality and suicide at- tempts. That to me is much more abusive than support- ing someone in their affirmed gender.” Four Corners failed to con- vey to viewers that Dr Swift’s warning was based on limited “evidence on health and well- being outcomes of clinical care” and that many health professionals, both in Aus- tralia and overseas, dispute them. Clearly, the RACP’s honesty is a breath of fresh air. But then it slips into the kind of cognitive dissonance that psychologists see in heavy smokers or people who text while driving. The RACP’s second point was to say that notwithstand- ing the dearth of evidence, ex- isting guidelines should still be followed. These were written by the gender clinic at the Roy- al Children’s Hospital Mel- bourne and have been hailed as “the world’s most progres- sive”. They advise that children with gender dysphoria should be treated medically rath- er than with a cautious “wait and see” policy. This includes double mastectomies for 16-year-old girls. And third, astonishingly, despite the lack of unassail- able evidence and despite questions raised by many doctors and psychologists, the RACP demands that pro- posals for a national inquiry should be rejected. Why? It would “further harm vulnerable patients and their families through in- creased media and public at- tention”. Says who? This is not medical science. Why should anxious par- ents believe doctors who ad- mit that “evidence on health and wellbeing outcomes of clinical care [for their chil- dren] is limited”? It is white-coated bullying. It is saying to the public: “you are just a parent; you know nothing; trust us; we are doc- tors”. In any case, it is just plain wrong to say that there is a consensus. By way of example, Profes- sor John Whitehall, of West- ern Sydney University, ques- tioned the RACP’s advice. “The RACP boasts of inter- est in public health and that usually involves full and frank discussion of all side-effects as part of preventing harm,” he told The Australian . “Here, it is essentially (saying), ‘Be quiet and accept the experi- mentation’.” In his letter, RACP presi- dent Mark Lane told the Min- ister that gender dysphoric children experienced “self- harm, attempted suicide and suicide”. This is disputed by other doctors and he did not respond when questioned by The Australian newspaper. As The Australian reported, Canadian psychologist Ken Zucker, an authority on gen- der dysphoria and editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior , rubbished the ele- vated risk of suicide. “If you are depressed, your suicidality risk is going to be elevated, but you see that in kids who are depressed but don’t have gender dysphoria,” Dr Zucker said last year. “The idea that adolescents with gender dysphoria are at a higher risk of suicide per se is dogma — and I think it’s wrong.” The controversy over the RACP’s advice coincided with the launch of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Med- icine (SEGM). Its members – an inter- national group of nearly 100 clinicians and researchers — contend that “in view of the current dearth of evidence, the application of the model to children, adolescents, and young adults is unjustified outside of research settings”. If anything calls for a pub- lic inquiry, it is transgender medicine. The risks of using “existing guidelines” must be opened to public scrutiny. The Australian government should ignore the RACP’s contradictory and politically correct advice. www.mercatornet.com Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet Father Flader Columnist Michael Cook Comment