Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm pretty sure Diego Neria Lejarraga would be more socially normal (and welcomed) in my circles than Pope Francis', but he still treated him decently.

---

Pope Francis did not treat him decently, in any simple sense. Rather he singled him out and arranged for an - inevitably public - demonstration of decency, if you so wish. It's a different kind of game that is being played there, a very public one, and I think Pope Francis should stop trading clarity on doctrine for the warm fuzzies from people who are at best neutral to the Church, if not decidedly inimical to her. Because that's effectively what he has been doing, in my opinion, whatever may have been his intentions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I think you are saying the Church should be neutral or inimical to Diego really and not vis versa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Because Diego is clearly not neutral to the Catholic Church despite what his priest apparently said. If he were, he wouldn't want to meet with its leader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Re decency and ways to interpret it, I think I addressed that in the part of my comment you snipped out.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
he singled him out and arranged for an - inevitably public - demonstration of decency, if you so wish. It's a different kind of game that is being played there, a very public one, and I think Pope Francis should stop trading clarity on doctrine for the warm fuzzies

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by IngoB:
But it would certainly also be possible for Diego to outright hate the church, and aim for her destruction, and still want to meet Pope Francis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And why, if this soul is as evil as you say, should the Pope be afraid of Diego? Is he going to brainwash the poor Pope? Give the mistaken idea that it's possible to uphold church doctrine and show people basic courtesy and respect due to the image of God in them? Warm fuzzies, my ass. This is simply being human before humans, just as Jesus did.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And why precisely should any Catholic, or for that matter traditional Catholic, care that you don't get Catholicism?

---

quote:

---

The pope is infallible only under very special circumstances, which furthermore need to be invoked by the pope explicitly and do not attach to his office automatically, much less to just every thing he does or says. Otherwise the pope is fallible, which means that he can get things wrong and make mistakes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What I don't understand, if these teachings are "right", is why God wants people with gender dysphoria to be miserable, rather than change their gender. Seems rather a mean rule.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Presumably, as a Catholic, one believes that the Pope is the person God has chosen to lead the Catholic Church. Isn't one therefore supposed to listen to what he says and look at what he does with discernment. Perhaps, yes, he might turn out to be mistaken. Even so, if he isn't doing something I'd do if I were Pope, isn't the first question I should ask of myself, 'might this have something to say to me?', rather than 'if I got the chance, I'd have something to say to him'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

But yes, according to most of you - I know - Diego is not sinning at all. So this is just the pope behaving a bit more like any decent person would, and acting as a good pastor should. So, warm fuzzies for you then. Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not difficult. Sinning is chosen behaviour chosen to hurt others. Our race, gender, eye colour and height (to name a few) are not chosen by us at all they are 'given' - by God if you believe that, or by chance if you don't. Either way, we can't sin by simply being black, tall, gay, male, female etc.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

You include "tall" and "gay" in one list as if there are no differences between those two. But there are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm a bit surprised that, after all the discussion upthread, you didn't consider "male" or "female" as orientational sins, since the possibility for confusion and "improper" assignation exists. Is it sinful to maintain a lie if one perceives that one is the "wrong" physical gender and stays the way one is physically, or is one supposed to make changes to bring one disjointed pieces together, therefore approaching a less inimical state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Plus I know some tall people who are really upset about that feature. Are they sinning by telling God that they disapprove of His choices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And "gay": is it sinful to attempt to hide gayness, thereby damaging oneself and the people around one, especially one's married partner, or is it sinful to admit to one's nature, thereby earning disapproval from the Pharisees* while improving one's own mental state? *See comments from Jesus on this matter

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Sinning is chosen behaviour chosen to hurt others. Our race, gender, eye colour and height (to name a few) are not chosen by us at all they are 'given' - by God if you believe that, or by chance if you don't.

Either way, we can't sin by simply being black, tall, gay, male, female etc.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And why, if this soul is as evil as you say, should the Pope be afraid of Diego? Is he going to brainwash the poor Pope? Give the mistaken idea that it's possible to uphold church doctrine and show people basic courtesy and respect due to the image of God in them? Warm fuzzies, my ass. This is simply being human before humans, just as Jesus did.

---

And so on, and so forth... Yes, the warm fuzzies - as on display here, with you, and Martin60, and plenty of other people either neutral or inimical to the Church. And the uselessness of it all is also on full display, because none of you people now feels compelled to join RCIA, isn't that so?

Of course, I cannot predict the effect on less prejudiced people. I don't know whether now many Catholics that were drifting away from the Church feel encouraged to stay. I cannot predict whether those more friendly to the Church indeed see this as a motivation to now finally join RCIA. But here's the thing: I don't need to. I can just wait. Let's give it five years or so, then we will see the impact Pope Francis has had on the numbers.

Meanwhile, none of you particularly cares about the pope sending mixed messages - if not outright causing scandal to the faithful - concerning key Catholic teachings on gender, intimate relationships, and marriage. Because you think these teachings are wrong, so who cares? Well, I do. And so do others who think these teachings are right. Jesus did not simply meet and greet with sinners. That is the false accusation of the Pharisees against him! Jesus brought sinners to repentance, he was working as doctor among the sick, healing or at least attempting to heal them. Where is the "go, and sin no more" in all this? If the pope is putting on a public show of WWJD, then where's the "what would a repentant sinner do" bit? Where is Diego crying on the pope's feet and wiping it with his/her hair?

But yes, according to most of you - I know - Diego is not sinning at all. So this is just the pope behaving a bit more like any decent person would, and acting as a good pastor should. So, warm fuzzies for you then. Enjoy, since that's all this will ever change in you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In the Old Testament, contact with the Holy obliterated sinners with extreme prejudice. In the Gospels, contact with the Holy heals sinners. Have we gotten so far out that contact with sinners can destroy the holy? Is faith really such frail stuff that one confused soul can destroy an entire institution? If so, where is God in this?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
And why, if this soul is as evil as you say, should the Pope be afraid of Diego? Is he going to brainwash the poor Pope? Give the mistaken idea that it's possible to uphold church doctrine and show people basic courtesy and respect due to the image of God in them? Warm fuzzies, my ass. This is simply being human before humans, just as Jesus did.

---

And so on, and so forth... Yes, the warm fuzzies - as on display here, with you, and Martin60, and plenty of other people either neutral or inimical to the Church. And the uselessness of it all is also on full display, because none of you people now feels compelled to join RCIA, isn't that so?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Why are you so fearful that a trannie could threaten God's kingdom by meeting with the Pope? You spoke of him as if he were some kind of dastardly villain, steepling his fingers and fancying the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Satan shall be cast down. Do not be concerned with the evil of this age, for it will pass away. Why is this one individual such a threat? How is that even conceivable?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm confused. The claim, earlier in the thread, was that the Pope was demonstrating to the public that we should behave lovingly towards people even if we disagree with them. And now you, IngoB, are calling it "useless" because no-one's feeling compelled to become Catholic as a result? Surely, even assuming that the RCC is the one true church that we should all join, in a situation where we AREN'T joining it,
a) influencing people outside the RCC to behave more lovingly
is still better than
b) not caring whether people outside the RCC behave lovingly or not
After all, if nothing else, option (a) could cause people to gradually move closer to Christ, could it not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
IngoB, whenever the topic of transgender people comes up it always feels to me as if you don't accept that gender can be anything other than a binary state, based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

This is demonstrably not true, because androgen insensitivity syndrome has conclusively shown that it's possible for a person to end up with a female body while possessing a Y chromosome. Gender is affected by several different things, just as height is affected by several different things.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some straw men here. No-one is saying "it's counter-cultural, therefore it's good", nor is anyone saying "I want X therefore X is good". It's more trying to find any way whatsoever in which this particular X, gender reassignment, can possibly be called not good, since it resolves a problem and harms no-one.

The definition of sin I struggle with is an action that does no-one any harm whatsoever but is decreed as "sin" anyway.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In the case at hand, I do not believe that there is any difficulty in determining Diego's biological gender?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In the case at hand, I do not believe that there is any difficulty in determining Diego's biological gender?

---

As partly outlined in the post immediately below yours, this is begging the question. It's highly problematic to describe 'gender' as stopping at an external examination that checks whether various lumps appear to be in the place you, an external observer, expects.

Is the brain not a biological organ? Is its functioning not a biological process?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As partly outlined in the post immediately below yours, this is begging the question. It's highly problematic to describe 'gender' as stopping at an external examination that checks whether various lumps appear to be in the place you, an external observer, expects. Is the brain not a biological organ? Is its functioning not a biological process?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As partly outlined in the post immediately below yours, this is begging the question. It's highly problematic to describe 'gender' as stopping at an external examination that checks whether various lumps appear to be in the place you, an external observer, expects. Is the brain not a biological organ? Is its functioning not a biological process?

---

Nobody is ignoring the brain here, but you are simply ignoring my point. In regular function, the gender of your genes, of your "lumps" and of your mind are one and the same. It is already a dysfunction if they somehow deviate from each other. I simply do not have to deal with gender identity disorder, people with various chromosomal abnormalities and whatnot to make statements about gender. Period. Once I have said something about gender in its regular function, I have to deal with the special cases presented by various dysfunctions. But then I only need to do so precisely in terms of these dysfunctions. I do not have to somehow generalise dysfunction to have the same status as function, and consider it on an equal footing. Dysfunction remains secondary to function, as some kind of privation thereof. And that's exactly how it should be dealt with.

(And before anybody jumps to conclusions: the above says in no way or form that people with gender dysfunction are secondary human beings. That is not the point at all.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But then you are saying it is a sin to resolve the dysfunction. Why is it a sin to resolve gender dysphoria, but not a sin to heal blindness or an inability to walk?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But then you are saying it is a sin to resolve the dysfunction. Why is it a sin to resolve gender dysphoria, but not a sin to heal blindness or an inability to walk?

---

This is the third time on this thread then where I say that I - personally - am not sure about the sinfulness of gender reassignment therapy. Not because I disagree with the RCC, but simply because I have not put in the necessary work to have an informed and coherent opinion. I actually do not even know what the official RC teaching is there, at least not at the nitty-gritty level. And I also repeat once more that I think a key concern has to be just how strongly, and in what way, gender/sex is part of our identity.

This does not change my concerns with Diego and the pope, and from the start I have indicated that I am focusing on his presumably intimate relationship with a woman there.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But then you are saying it is a sin to resolve the dysfunction. Why is it a sin to resolve gender dysphoria, but not a sin to heal blindness or an inability to walk?

---

This is the third time on this thread then where I say that I - personally - am not sure about the sinfulness of gender reassignment therapy. Not because I disagree with the RCC, but simply because I have not put in the necessary work to have an informed and coherent opinion. I actually do not even know what the official RC teaching is there, at least not at the nitty-gritty level. And I also repeat once more that I think a key concern has to be just how strongly, and in what way, gender/sex is part of our identity.

This does not change my concerns with Diego and the pope, and from the start I have indicated that I am focusing on his presumably intimate relationship with a woman there.

---

I don't get it. If you don't have a concluded position on gender reassignment, what exactly is there that is wrong about Diego such that there is a problem with Diego meeting the Pope?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are beaurocratic considerations which would justify calling sex and gender dysphoria a recognised medical condition. Though classing it as a mental illness seems very extreme.

In most places, someone (eg: a national health service, medical insurance) will only pay for a medical treatment if that treatment addresses a recognised medical condition and is expected to improve the quality of life of the patient. Which is why the beaurocrats need to be able to tick the box next to a list of recognised medical conditions.

---