|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Alan, is that rule in the presence of male admirers? Dysphoric indeed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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?
I think Ingo's position AIUI is that even if you allow Diego to have gender reassignment, he's still "really" a woman so can't marry one. And even if he is a sort of man, he can't get one up the duff so it's still verboten.
Yeah, but it's not like Diego is trying to have sexy times with the Pope. Unless you count a hug as foreplay...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It has the potential to cause much scandal among the faithful fof start. A bishop should not be the cause of scandal. But then Francis is a pope in the image of JPII. Both talking much meaningless gobbledegook (JPII philosophical mumbo jumbo and Francis "warm fuzzies") and the cause of much scandal among the RC faithful. I'm laying money on on Francis to be the first person to be canonised whilst still alive, btw. I can see it already, because most people are thick.
I am at a loss to understand what you mean by all of this. It looks fairly insulting both to the pope specifically and to a broad sweep of humanity in general.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, weak, hostile 'Christianity' in response to strong, benign.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It has the potential to cause much scandal among the faithful fof start. A bishop should not be the cause of scandal. But then Francis is a pope in the image of JPII. Both talking much meaningless gobbledegook (JPII philosophical mumbo jumbo and Francis "warm fuzzies") and the cause of much scandal among the RC faithful. I'm laying money on on Francis to be the first person to be canonised whilst still alive, btw. I can see it already, because most people are thick.
I am at a loss to understand what you mean by all of this. It looks fairly insulting both to the pope specifically and to a broad sweep of humanity in general.
t
Apart from the typos it's quite easy. Both have been a cause of scandal. Both have been surrounded by a personality cult, partly of their own doing, which in the case of Francis will probably see him fast tracked to sainthood even faster than JPII, no doubt whilst he's still alive. Both are with little substance. That's what the papacy has become, it seems, except that brief period in between when the bishop of Rome (much under appreciated) seemed almost orthodox.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Sigh. For Pope Francis to become a canonised saint during his own lifetime, the canonisation procedure would have to be changed fundamentally - for him. And unless then he would be emeritus, he would actually have to declare himself a saint! It's the pope who canonises saints. It doesn't really matter just how badly one thinks of Pope Francis, given that he cultivates an image of humility, this is simply not going to happen.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You do recognise sarcasm, don't you?
If you keep repeating things, people will eventually assume that you mean them.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
As far as being born with your body somewhat mixed up:
Woman Born With No Womb Gives Birth To Miracle Twins
Some of the medical info is over my head, but AIUI: Hayley Haynes found out when she was 19 that she's genetically male--she has XY chromosomes. She also has androgen insensitivity, which meant she has no reproductive organs.
She really wanted to have a baby. But she doesn't have the plumbing to do it. She went to various doctors. Eventually, one found that Hayley had a very tiny womb, a few millimeters long. The doctor thought that if the womb could be enlarged, Hayley might be able to have a baby through IVF. She was put on hormones to grow her womb, and they worked, and the IVF worked, and she's got twins.
Those of you who think Diego's outward female gender was what God had in mind, and that Diego is still female: What do you think of Hayley's situation? Is she female or male? She identifies as female. Was she wrong to try to fix her body, to the extent that she could? (Putting aside, if you can, the question of whether IVF is right or wrong.)
And how does this compare with Diego's situation?
[ 31. January 2015, 11:44: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Real life (you know, that which we all, including celibate theologs, actually live in) has such a nasty way of not being tidy. It never quite conforms to the rules which men or women make up.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Addendum: Hayley is married to a man. Given that she's genetically male, is she in a same-sex marriage?
Like some posters think Diego is in a same-sex marriage.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The proposition that any person who (1) appears outwardly to be a woman, and (2) who grew up believing they are a woman, but (3) who turns out to have androgen insensitivity must be labelled as a "man" is fraught with enormous difficulty.
The most obvious reason to me is that until the whole notion of chromosomes was discovered, many such people would have had no clue that they were genetically male, would have lived out their entire lives as women and would have been just fine with that.
And furthermore their local churches would have been just fine with that. Although the inability to bear children might have created some issues in some minds, but that throws open all sorts of questions about views of women generally, not just women who turn out to be genetically XY once anyone knows there's such a thing as X and Y.
[ 31. January 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Those of you who think Diego's outward female gender was what God had in mind, and that Diego is still female: What do you think of Hayley's situation? Is she female or male? She identifies as female. Was she wrong to try to fix her body, to the extent that she could? (Putting aside, if you can, the question of whether IVF is right or wrong.) And how does this compare with Diego's situation?
First thing to say, I am not aware of any official statement on this. All the rest you will be getting is my speculation based on my understanding. Take it FWIW.
The second thing to say is that I would make a distinction between a truly indeterminate gender, and one where we simply have a hard time determining it, practically speaking. If there are people with a truly indeterminate gender, then I would say they can neither be married nor ordained, nor in any other way be assigned a gender arbitrarily before church law. The Church deals in realities, not in human declarations. If we say that there is no way of determine the reality of someone's gender, then we are saying that they cannot qualify in any way for those things that make demands on gender. It is also not at all unheard of for the Church to not allow people to partake in sacraments due to their embodied condition. For example, those that are permanently impotent (impotent, not sterile) cannot marry.
Is Hayley's gender indeterminate, or just hard to determine? That obviously depends on what you would judge this by. Here's my suggestion, which takes its cue precisely from the just mentioned impediment of impotence. Marriage is "the" gender-based sacrament. Well, what does it actually seek to do? It seeks to contain the conjugal act ordered to procreation. Mechanically speaking, it seeks to contain the particular act of human beings where a penis is inserted into a vagina, and the ejaculation of seminal fluid from that penis is brought about. Impotence is considered an impediment to marriage precisely because it means that this act cannot be performed by these people. So I would take this further here and say that whoever can play the "penis insertion and ejaculation" part should be considered a "man", and whoever can do the "reception into a vagina" part should be considered a "woman". This is still far from complete (what can count as a penis, what can count as a vagina, etc.), but it will do for the case at hand. Please note that fertility is not required, and that sterility is not an impediment to marriage.
In Hayley's case apparently she presents as "woman", i.e., she has a vagina. So I would say her sacramental marriage to a man would be licit, because they can have regular vaginal intercourse with each other. I think it is also licit for her to seek medical treatment to alleviate any deficiencies in her reproductive abilities, i.e., hormonal treatment to grow her womb. Though there it is starting to get a bit shady, because one can argue that in some sense she is making her condition worse. After all, she has a vagina and a rudimentary womb because of a disease that blocked the androgen that would have turned her into a man. However, we are now saying that we practically speaking will judge by the "plumbing". So we are saying that she is a woman, and hence from this perspective this is trying to cure a deficiency in her fertility as woman.
However, it is at any rate not apparently possible to cure her infertility by medical means such that natural conception can occur. The hormonal treatment enables impregnation with IVF, but not naturally. But IVF is itself not licit, hence the corresponding treatment is pointless (if we are set to avoid illicit behaviour), and hence in reality the question simply does not arise.
In summary, I would say Hayley is a woman, is licitly married to a man, but the way she has had a child was illicit. Yet not so because of the hormonal fertility treatment, but so because of the IVF.
In the case of Diego there is in fact no question of his "real gender". He remains a "biological woman". It is possible that at some future point in time medical technology will have advanced so much that Diego could fully and naturally act as a man in the sex act - but this is not the case with current medical efforts. By my criteria at least if we reach this future point, we would then have to say that Diego has indeed been turned from a woman into a man. This change itself may or may not be illicit (that's a different discussion), but at the end of it Diego would in principle be able to marry a woman, or be ordained a priest, at least as far as the question of gender is concerned. (One could still argue, for example, that someone who has sought a change of gender is not in a fit mental state to be a priest. But that's a different kind of argument.) Anyhow, we are not at this point. So for now Diego still counts as a woman before church law, and hence cannot marry another woman or be ordained, even just based on a consideration of gender.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church deals in realities, not in human declarations. If we say that there is no way of determine the reality of someone's gender, then we are saying that they cannot qualify in any way for those things that make demands on gender.
Inhuman, that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In Hayley's case apparently she presents as "woman", i.e., she has a vagina.
The fact that you think men and women can be reduced to looking at a single location in the body is just mind-boggling.
Do you realise how much other evidence about the differences between men and women - even at a biological level of other organs and leaving the workings of the brain completely out of it - you're throwing away? Do you have any idea of how complex the presentation of intersex people can be?
You don't even seem aware of the fact that it's possible for someone to have both a 'penis' and 'vagina', albeit in both cases the formation will be underdeveloped.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
No, orfeo, I'm only theoretically aware of men and women. I have never encountered any living human entities, and was completely unaware that they had any other features than their genitals. Nobody has ever mentioned intersex people to me, and I have time and again proven myself incapable of looking up information on the internet.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Classification is not about capturing the complexity of the world, but about reducing it to a useful level. And the sacraments are simple interventions in the world. Their consequences may be as complex as the world is complex, but they themselves have simple purposes. Classifying for sacraments does not require "doing justice" to all what people can be. It merely requires "doing justice" to how people can achieve these simple purposes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Classification is not about capturing the complexity of the world, but about reducing it to a useful level.
I completely disagree, in that any classification that fails to reflect the actual world is not useful.
Is this not the essence of much of scientific work, that the model being used to explain the world has to be changed once it's realised it doesn't accurately capture reality?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I completely disagree, in that any classification that fails to reflect the actual world is not useful.
But that's not what's going on here. Newtonian gravity is a perfectly useful theory that you can use to answer the majority of questions (at least ones that relate to gravitational forces...). In most cases, you'll get the right answer. If your question is about the orbit of Mercury, or about the frequency of the clocks in GPS satellites, you'll be slightly wrong, and if your question is about rotating black holes, you're lost in space.
For most people, two binary biological sexes is a perfectly reasonable model (total incidence of intersex people is about 2 or 3 in 1000). Transgender or non-binary gender presentation people could be about an order of magnitude more common (possibly about a percent or so, although these estimates aren't easy).
There's nothing wrong with the traditional theory, as long as you have a way of noticing that you're trying to calculate Mercury's orbital dynamics and doing something else in that case.
[ 01. February 2015, 04:53: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I completely disagree, in that any classification that fails to reflect the actual world is not useful.
But that's not what's going on here. Newtonian gravity is a perfectly useful theory that you can use to answer the majority of questions (at least ones that relate to gravitational forces...). In most cases, you'll get the right answer. If your question is about the orbit of Mercury, or about the frequency of the clocks in GPS satellites, you'll be slightly wrong, and if your question is about rotating black holes, you're lost in space.
For most people, two binary biological sexes is a perfectly reasonable model (total incidence of intersex people is about 2 or 3 in 1000). Transgender or non-binary gender presentation people could be about an order of magnitude more common (possibly about a percent or so, although these estimates aren't easy).
There's nothing wrong with the traditional theory, as long as you have a way of noticing that you're trying to calculate Mercury's orbital dynamics and doing something else in that case.
But that's precisely it: we're not noticing. It's not simply the case that we have a system that categorises people into male and female which works for 99% of people but the system allows an adjustment when necessary, we have systems that positively insist that people comply and be neatly male or female, even when they're actually not.
This is precisely what transgender and, above all, intersex people constantly have to fight for, a recognition of the reality that male and female are not logically exclusive categories and thereby the only options. "Female" does not mean the same as "not male", and "male" does not mean the same as "not female".
A system that insists that "male" and "female" are the only possible options is problematic precisely because it doesn't line up with the actual situation. To say that it works most of the time merely is a statement of how often it falls over, which is hardly helpful if you're the person affected when it does fall over. It's rather like responding to the fact that my car just spontaneously exploded by saying "well, most of our cars don't do that".
There's been a landmark court case recently in Australia where a person won the right to have no gender recorded on their birth certificate, and the High Court's starting point was that transgender people are real. The very first sentence of the judgement is: "Not all human beings can be classified by sex as either male or female." The rest of the judgement is about whether the particular law can handle a person that is neither male nor female. At no point in the judgement is there any hint that if the answer is no, the law cannot properly handle such a person, then everything's hunky dory and the intersex person should just adjust to the system. The clear policy of the judgement is that for an equitable outcome, the system needs to adjust to the person.
[ 01. February 2015, 05:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Might I add I'm particularly aware of this because I have to deal with the same kind of logical gap all the time in work, with other contexts.
A couple of months ago I had to point out to a client that their policy was flawed because it had a rule for people with "less than 365 days" service and a rule for people with "more than 12 months" service.
The system was going to fall over any time they were dealing with someone who had been in service for exactly 1 year (and I didn't even want to think about leap years, given their decision to use "days" in one rule and "months" in the other). There was going to be an opportunity for an argument over which rule applied, and it was pretty clear to me that if a situation arose where one rule was more beneficial to my client and the other rule was more beneficial to the other person, it was a recipe for trouble and expensive litigation.
Sure, the system wasn't going to fall over very often, but is that going to be a useful response when things don't work? Better to fix it so that it does work in every possible case. Better to recognise that "more than" and "less than" are not, in fact, the only 2 possible options.
All you have to do, really, is recognise that the logical opposite of "less than" isn't "more than", it's "not less than" (or "at least").
[ 01. February 2015, 05:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
At no point in the judgement is there any hint that if the answer is no, the law cannot properly handle such a person, then everything's hunky dory and the intersex person should just adjust to the system. The clear policy of the judgement is that for an equitable outcome, the system needs to adjust to the person.
Exactly right. And, in this instance, the system is the Catholic Church.
The title of this thread is 'Titanic struggle for the soul of the Catholic church'
What would the soul be worth if it put the system before the individual?
It was what Jesus spoke against, time after time. That people matter and if they are different then the religious institutions should find ways to change and cope. Remember - we are not talking about how people behave here, we are talking about who they are and the way they were made.
The Church likes to play these things as 'choice' so that people can 'repent' and fit into neat boxes. Tough. They don't.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Having a sex change operation isn't a choice? Nonsense.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Boogie, I think you've nailed it perfectly. Yes, that's exactly what 'choice' language is about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Having a sex change operation isn't a choice? Nonsense.
No, being transgender isn't a choice.
And just like with homosexuality, the church's solution to people being transgender has often been to tell them to 'repent' and stop being transgender. Telling them to go ahead and be normal. Just... *hand waving* switch off your brain somehow.
[ 01. February 2015, 08:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Maybe this will help...
(And apologies in advance if my crude way of putting this offends any trans folks. Absolutely not my intent.)
Let's say...Gerald..was born with a problem: his feet were on the wrong legs--i.e., right foot on the left leg, and vice versa.
As you can imagine, this caused Gerald all sorts of problems: walking was very difficult for him, running was impossible, even standing was hard--and he was in constant, severe pain.
To make things worse, most people didn't even believe anything was wrong. They didn't see it. When he was a kid, he was constantly getting punished and harassed for "pretending" (as they thought) that he couldn't walk. No one would give him any pain relief.
He kept trying to survive, to deal with a problem no one could see. His parents sent him to a camp that was supposed to cure him of his strange ideas. It was not a good experience.
When he grew up and moved away, he made some friends who could see that he was a bit different. Some thought he was acting up for laughs, others that he was a bit quirky. And some began to suspect that there was more to the situation. These, he trusted and told. They didn't all fully get it; some were deeply uncomfortable about it; but they all began to see his tangled legs, and realized that he was in great pain.
One day, when he was rubbing arnica salve into his feet, his close friends came by with a magazine article. It was about the growing recognition that some people really are born with mismatched feet. There were even doctors who tried to remedy the situation. (When he shrank back, his friends assured him that this was nothing like that "curing" camp.)
Some doctors had success with removing, switching, and reattaching the feet. Some even tried transplants. Others, when the situation was critical, would remove the feet and replace them with prosthetics. Different things worked for different people.
Gerald realized that he couldn't continue the way he was, and there just might be a chance for him to walk. If he didn't get relief soon, he feared he would kill himself.
He decided to have surgery.
Would it be wrong?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Church deals in realities, not in human declarations.
The traditional Catholic philosophy recognises a soul as well as a body. So one might have thought that the idea of a male soul in a female body (or vice versa) would be at least conceivable.
In the event of such an extra-ordinary occurrence, the evidence would be necessarily limited to the self-reported experience of the individual concerned, to "human declarations".
In matters of the mind, the only way to the reality leads through what people say. Which doesn't mean that people cannot be duplicitous or deluded, just that engaging with what people say is the only way to a resolution.
Statisticians have a useful concept that you've probably come across - Type1 and Type2 errors. They're interested - for any statistical test - in the probability of accepting a hypothesis which is false, or of rejecting a hypothesis that is true (and how to reduce those probabilities). I never remember which error is which...
The ideal of the justice system where I come from is that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than that one innocent person is punished. A relative weighting of >10:1 on Type 1 and Type 2 errors...
So why can the Catholic church not listen critically to Diego and to anyone else with similar issues, and make a judgment in each individual case (bearing in mind the >10:1 preference for not burdening the innocent) as to their assumed gender for administrative purposes ?
Why do you hanker for a church that hands down judgments from on high, not listening, heedless of whatever suffering it causes, refusing to recognise the possibility of error ? Why does the answer have to come from a theologian in an ivory tower, rather than from a healer of minds - an educated and experienced parish priest with understanding of the psychology of sin ?
Can you not see that there is a better way ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The unintended irony is always delicious.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I completely disagree, in that any classification that fails to reflect the actual world is not useful.
A classification needs only to reflect those aspects of the world relevant to its purposes. At a fair, you might see a sign with a line on it saying "only people with a height of 140 cm or above may take this ride". This splits all of humanity in people too short to take the ride, or not, and that's perfectly fine. Now you might come with a special case, an adult who has but stumps for legs. He does not reach the height standing on the ground, but this seems not quite right. So we look at what the purpose of the rule really is. We find it actually is about whether you fit into the security system holding you at the hips and shoulders during the ride. The simple line is just a proxy that works almost always because people have certain proportions. So we can go back to the person having no legs and say "looking deeper into what this rule is about, you are actually large enough for the ride". This however does not mean that we now have to change the sign and measure all the thousands upon thousands of visitors in much detail. It means that the person guarding the entrance has to be aware of special cases.
This is what I have done above. I've asked why the sacrament of marriage uses the simple "man" and "woman" classification in the first place, which works in the vast majority of cases, and asked how he can extend this to a special case, guarding that purpose. To say "but the world is more complicated" is really quite meaningless. The complexity of the world is exactly what I have dealt with, but I only need to deal with it in regards to the purposes of the sacrament.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not simply the case that we have a system that categorises people into male and female which works for 99% of people but the system allows an adjustment when necessary, we have systems that positively insist that people comply and be neatly male or female, even when they're actually not.
But I have proposed precisely such an adjustment. I have concluded that Hayley - for the purposes of the sacrament of marriage - counts as a woman, even though this could be considered doubtful. I have done so in a reasoned manner, by evaluating the purpose of the sacrament. What I have not done it to say "well, your case falls between the cracks, bye now". It remains true that Hayley is not a woman like most women, e.g., she has unusual genes for a woman. And nobody is denying her any sort of emotional or intellectual stance towards that. However, if she wishes to partake in the sacrament of marriage, then she will have to do so as a woman. And it would be dishonest if she sought sacramental marriage, but didn't mentally agree with being a woman at least for the purposes of the sacrament. In the case of Hayley, however, that appears to be not a problem at all.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The very first sentence of the judgement is: "Not all human beings can be classified by sex as either male or female." The rest of the judgement is about whether the particular law can handle a person that is neither male nor female.
We may assume in favour of this Australian High Court judge, and mentally add here "for the purposes of Australian secular law, concerning which I have been given authority". If we cannot add this mentally, then he is clear overstepping the boundaries of his remit and there's no guarantee whatsoever from his position in the judiciary that his statement has any validity or force.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It was what Jesus spoke against, time after time. That people matter and if they are different then the religious institutions should find ways to change and cope. Remember - we are not talking about how people behave here, we are talking about who they are and the way they were made.
Jesus the anarchist is nowhere to be found in the bible. Against the background of Jewish law at the time, as personified by the Pharisees, he can be seen to bind more tightly in some case and to loosen in others. And where he provides a discussion, it is exactly along the lines of "what is the deeper purpose here". It is from such analysis that for example he loosens the rules of the Sabbath to allow charitable action and tightens the rules of marriage to re-establish the union of one flesh.
Now, it would be presumptuous in the extreme to declare that I have spoken as Jesus would have. But I do not accept that what I have done is in principe at odds with Jesus' own approach. I have assumed that people matter, and I have suggested how the Church could change to cope with specific difficult cases. I have looked at who people are and in what way they are made. What your presumably don't like is that I have focused on anatomy and physiology. But that is what is in my opinion relevant for deciding matters here. And it is false to consider the body just as some arbitrary chunk of matter under the command of the mind. Who we are and in what way we are made is to a significant degree determined by our embodiment. In this case, certain bodily features are in my opinion decisive.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The traditional Catholic philosophy recognises a soul as well as a body. So one might have thought that the idea of a male soul in a female body (or vice versa) would be at least conceivable.
Traditional Catholic philosophy is not Cartesian dualist, but hylomorphic dualist. It recognises the soul as the form of the body. Gender is an essential accident (not in itself the essence of a person, but something a person has by virtue of that essence, which is to be a rational animal). Each and all problems with gender would be a mal-form-ation, some privation in the forming of the embodiment. This includes psychological problems with gender, which form part of this embodiment.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So why can the Catholic church not listen critically to Diego and to anyone else with similar issues, and make a judgment in each individual case (bearing in mind the >10:1 preference for not burdening the innocent) as to their assumed gender for administrative purposes ?
There are two different questions here: 1) Is the "change of gender" morally licit itself, and 2) is it effective concerning conditions on gender the Church imposes? I think the answer to 1 is "possibly, it will depend on the case", and the answer to 2 is "no, not with current medical technology, but maybe some time in the future". So a judgement concerning 1 indeed requires looking at every individual case, but a judgement concerning 2 does not at this point in time. It may be that Diego committed no sin in undergoing gender reassignment therapy, but currently this therapy is not in fact capable to turn him into a man for the purposes of marriage. Hence the latter require no discussion with Diego (unless he wants to make a case that the Church is not aware of a radically new treatment that he has undergone).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Having a sex change operation isn't a choice? Nonsense.
No, being transgender isn't a choice.
And just like with homosexuality, the church's solution to people being transgender has often been to tell them to 'repent' and stop being transgender. Telling them to go ahead and be normal. Just... *hand waving* switch off your brain somehow.
It's an interesting comparison, as I suppose historically homosexuality was pathologized by, variously, the law, psychiatry, medicine and theology; in short, declared to be unnatural, or just mad and/or bad.
I don't think that transgender people will go through such a prolonged trauma; for example, the NHS in the UK now declares that transgender is not a mental illness, and that medical therapies such as hormone treatment and surgery are efficacious with some people.
I'm not sure if there is a theological problem with it or not - would some versions of natural law state that it's against God's design? (I'm assuming that that's what 'unnatural' means in this context). It's obviously not literally unnatural!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I completely disagree, in that any classification that fails to reflect the actual world is not useful.
A classification needs only to reflect those aspects of the world relevant to its purposes. At a fair, you might see a sign with a line on it saying "only people with a height of 140 cm or above may take this ride". This splits all of humanity in people too short to take the ride, or not, and that's perfectly fine. Now you might come with a special case, an adult who has but stumps for legs. He does not reach the height standing on the ground, but this seems not quite right. So we look at what the purpose of the rule really is. We find it actually is about whether you fit into the security system holding you at the hips and shoulders during the ride. The simple line is just a proxy that works almost always because people have certain proportions. So we can go back to the person having no legs and say "looking deeper into what this rule is about, you are actually large enough for the ride". This however does not mean that we now have to change the sign and measure all the thousands upon thousands of visitors in much detail. It means that the person guarding the entrance has to be aware of special cases.
This is what I have done above. I've asked why the sacrament of marriage uses the simple "man" and "woman" classification in the first place, which works in the vast majority of cases, and asked how he can extend this to a special case, guarding that purpose. To say "but the world is more complicated" is really quite meaningless. The complexity of the world is exactly what I have dealt with, but I only need to deal with it in regards to the purposes of the sacrament.
But the one thing you won't countenance is the possibility that the sacrament, with its simple binary classification, was developed at a time when it simply wasn't understood that there was anything else.
My entire point was that fixing the classification has to be one of the options.
Yes, it's possible to create conscious special exceptions so as to fit people who aren't really in the classification system so that they are now deemed to fit - a pertinent example is that the RCC has developed quite a system of marriage annulments to avoid difficulties with divorces.
Yes, it's also possible to just flatly deny any evidence that the classification system is incomplete or imperfect. I think that happened far too long with both transgender people and with homosexuality, by viewing these things as choices rather than something innate. It is increasingly difficult to maintain such positions and indeed it seems fewer and fewer churches are trying to maintain such positions.
The third option, though, has to be to actually revise the classification system, to work on the system instead of working on individual cases all the time.
This is pretty much the kind of discussion I end up having in legal and administrative contexts rather than theological ones. And frankly, people can be deeply, deeply attached to legal and administrative frameworks and often don't want to revise them even when they have told you that there's a problem. People usually want to fix the individual case and say there we go we've solved "it", but it's often part of my job to point out to them that either they haven't really solved "it", or the solution is a band-aid that doesn't deal with a bunch of other cases that stem from the same more systemic source.
In my view, that's what is happening here. Sure, it's perfectly possible to hem and haw over each individual case of a person that can't immediately be put into the "Male" box or the "Female" box, make a decision as to which box they belong and happily announce that 'the problem' is solved. But it's only solved for that one person - and quite possibly not even to that one person's satisfaction. Such an approach is never going to finish solving the problem because there will always be another individual case and it will most likely be different in some way to the previous one.
A long-term solution can only be arrived at by asking, well hang on, why exactly is it necessary to put this person in a "Male" or "Female" box anyway? Despite your claim that you're examining the purpose of the rule, I'm not personally convinced that you're examining it very deeply because you come back very quickly with a response that yes, the rule is perfectly fine.
Perhaps, though, it's simply inevitable so long as you see marriage's prime purpose as procreation rather than relationship that it's very easy to declare that yes, absolutely, we need one person in the "Male" box and one person in the "Female" box and raising the possibility of a system that has a third box just doesn't compute.
[ 01. February 2015, 14:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS It was not one male High Court judge. It was 5 judges, 3 male and 2 female. 4 heterosexual and 1 homosexual. Just so you know.
And no, there is absolutely no warrant to limit their statement that "not all people are either male or female" by saying "for the purpose of Australian law".
The very point of the case was that Australian law might not reflect the reality that not everybody is either male or female. They deliberately started out with a direct statement of fact, not of law. The rest of the judgement was about what the permissible categories were in the relevant Australian law. They in fact concluded that the relevant law only had 2 categories, and that it was NOT permissible to put "intersex" on a birth certificate in the State concerned. But they also concluded the law allowed you to pick neither of the 2 categories.
In other words, not only did they state that not all people are male or female, they actually stated that for the Australian law in question, people ARE either male or female, with no other category conceived. So your assertion is doubly wrong.
[ 01. February 2015, 14:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A classification needs only to reflect those aspects of the world relevant to its purposes. At a fair, you might see a sign with a line on it saying "only people with a height of 140 cm or above may take this ride". This splits all of humanity in people too short to take the ride, or not, and that's perfectly fine. Now you might come with a special case, an adult who has but stumps for legs. He does not reach the height standing on the ground, but this seems not quite right. So we look at what the purpose of the rule really is. We find it actually is about whether you fit into the security system holding you at the hips and shoulders during the ride. The simple line is just a proxy that works almost always because people have certain proportions. So we can go back to the person having no legs and say "looking deeper into what this rule is about, you are actually large enough for the ride". This however does not mean that we now have to change the sign and measure all the thousands upon thousands of visitors in much detail. It means that the person guarding the entrance has to be aware of special cases. ...
All airlines have restrictions on what size and type of items you can bring into the cabin. If you look on their websites, you'll see a variety of ways of describing these ideal carry-on items - the dimensions, the sum of the dimensions, whatever. When you get to the airport, however, there's no measuring tape. There's just a metal sizer that your bag has to fit into. If it fits, you can carry it on. If it doesn't, you can't.
So, yes, it appears that the airlines DID change the sign. They still have a person "guarding" the entrance, but that person is checking to see if the luggage can be stored safely in the cabin, not measuring to see if the luggage meets some arbitrary standard that may or may not be an accurate proxy for whether it fits or not.
The sign posted by the RCC says that only baby-making-sex is allowed, and that is why it has to impose all this medieval reasoning and Procrustean rules about who can have sex with whom. None of it tells us anything about the depths of love and devotion that two humans can bestow upon each other. It's the equivalent of a sign saying, "You must be at least 150 cm tall to fall in love."
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the one thing you won't countenance is the possibility that the sacrament, with its simple binary classification, was developed at a time when it simply wasn't understood that there was anything else. My entire point was that fixing the classification has to be one of the options.
The Catholic sacrament of marriage - unlike the secular, romantic notions of marriage - actually has a very clean and precise purpose. It is basically a process of granting exclusive license for the kind of intercourse (vaginal, with ejaculation) that can lead to procreation. More can be said, of course, a lot more. But at the core, it is just that. Likewise, in my analogy the height rule at its core has the concern of having security devices grab a firm hold of the passenger. The only reason why one would have to revise such clear rules is if there was some fundamental change at the core. So if the ride had completely different security devices installed, then one would likely have to revise the height rule, or even abandon it. Likewise, if the way in which people naturally make babies with each other would have fundamentally changed, say by a global mutation of mankind, then one might have to rethink the sacrament of marriage. But this is simply not the case. Nothing whatsoever has changed concerning the core concern of the sacrament of marriage, indeed, as far as the "mechanics" go that core predates humanity. It is hence perfectly appropriate to simply analyse special cases in terms of the unchanged core concern, which is just what I have done.
The reason why you think I need to do something here is not because I have done anything wrong or inappropriate in terms of the Catholic sacrament. The reason is rather that you think the Catholic sacrament as such is wrong or inappropriate. But that's a different discussion, and one that has proven entirely useless to have, time and again. What you ultimately cannot deny is the logic of what I have done in terms of what I - not you - consider appropriate. And that is the only thing I'm arguing here. I'm not trying to convince you of the rightness of the Catholic sacrament. I'm only saying that in terms of it (or at least: in terms of my take on it), what I have suggested is appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Perhaps, though, it's simply inevitable so long as you see marriage's prime purpose as procreation rather than relationship that it's very easy to declare that yes, absolutely, we need one person in the "Male" box and one person in the "Female" box and raising the possibility of a system that has a third box just doesn't compute.
Exactly!
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nothing whatsoever has changed concerning the core concern of the sacrament of marriage, indeed, as far as the "mechanics" go that core predates humanity. It is hence perfectly appropriate to simply analyse special cases in terms of the unchanged core concern, which is just what I have done.
Even when those special cases, through no fault or choice, can never meet the criteria required?
I am sure the Church has much more grace and charity to people who are different in other ways than sexually. Could this be because it's run by celibate men?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And no, there is absolutely no warrant to limit their statement that "not all people are either male or female" by saying "for the purpose of Australian law". The very point of the case was that Australian law might not reflect the reality that not everybody is either male or female.
First, apart from their role in the Australian judiciary, these High Court judges are just random people to me. Based on their role, I can guess that they are highly educated and intelligent in a way that facilitates a career in the judiciary. But that's it. They certainly do not wield any authority I would recognise, given that I'm currently not under Australian law. Second, I have in fact done above exactly this glorious thing that you are so proud of in your Australian judges. The very first thing I stated was actually not what one should look at in doubtful cases. The very first thing I have stated was what should be done in cases where gender is truly indeterminate. By which I mean both senses of determining things: neither being able to recognise gender, nor being able to impose it. And the simple answer is that someone who truly has no gender is not qualified for sacraments that make demands on gender. Obviously. Now, I think the number of people who are truly indeterminate in our times is either zero, or very close to it, other than by choice. Because we do have hormonal treatment, surgery and the like which can push indeterminate gender one way or the other. But I do not have the knowledge to exclude that there are still cases where gender can neither be recognised nor imposed. And it is of course possible that someone with indeterminate (in the sense of unrecognisable) gender chooses to not have gender imposed on themselves (or, more likely in practice, that their parents choose not to impose gender on them). And so I stated at least as a matter of principle what follows then.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The sign posted by the RCC says that only baby-making-sex is allowed, and that is why it has to impose all this medieval reasoning and Procrustean rules about who can have sex with whom. None of it tells us anything about the depths of love and devotion that two humans can bestow upon each other. It's the equivalent of a sign saying, "You must be at least 150 cm tall to fall in love."
Medieval reasoning happens to be a term of praise to me. Anyway, you are quite right, it tells us nothing about the depths of love and devotion possible in marriage. But neither does it deny these or rule them out. Thus your rendering of the rule is simply unfair, since it really says no such thing. It simply says that if you want to take the ride, you have to be at least of that height. Whether you want, can, should or will fall in love while taking that ride is not a matter this rule itself is concerned with.
Now, here's the thing: there is no rule whatsoever in the Church about people falling deeply in love with each other, and being devoted to each other. They can do that with somebody of the other sex, or the same sex, or two people, or a hundred. You can start loving and stop loving as you see fit, as many times or as few as you want. If the Church says anything concerning this at all, then basically that you should love everybody. The Church however does have rules about love-making. If all that love and devotion culminates in you wanting to have sex with someone, then the Church says that there is exactly and precisely one way that is pleasing to God (and no, I'm not talking about sexual positions...). Consequently, the sacrament that the Church has to deal with that situation - marriage - has clear demands.
Now, you can rail against that. But believe me, I've heard every single argument you might make, and I remain entirely unimpressed. And yes, I know that this is mutual. Yet we should be clear here that all this blather about love and devotion falls short. We are simply not talking about that. Nobody stops you from loving anybody, least of all the Church. But if you want to have sex with them - be it as the highest expression your mutual love and devotion, or because you are just horny as a goat and want to fuck - then the Church says that you need to do so in a "procreational and exclusive way" as sealed by the sacrament of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even when those special cases, through no fault or choice, can never meet the criteria required? I am sure the Church has much more grace and charity to people who are different in other ways than sexually. Could this be because it's run by celibate men?
If people truly are incapable of doing something, then it is neither graceful nor charitable to let them perform a charade to pretend to themselves or others that they can. And if the Church is kept from doing so because it is run by celibate men, then that would be a very good reason indeed why one should insist that the Church be run by celibate men.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If all that love and devotion culminates in you wanting to have sex with someone, then the Church says that there is exactly and precisely one way that is pleasing to God.
It flies in the face of all rational concepts of God that he should create something capable of being enjoyed in dozens of different ways, and then tell us to forget about the dozens and concentrate just on the one -- especially when the one can lead to all sorts of misery (read: unwanted children or [shudder] abortion).
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Reading this post in Bilgrimage , which deals with how being brought up Jesuit might affect Pope Francis and his dealings with some deceased equines, I noticed this quote of Ignatius de Loyola: quote:
Ignatius advised to obediently follow the Church, even if it meant believing "that the white I see is black, if the church hierarchy says so" — or words to that effect (it's at the end of the Spiritual Exercises).
I have a distinct feeling that people outside the RC church may not be aware of this attitude. There is another post by Bill Lindsay today dealing with his own experience of Jesuit education.
This certainly impacts on the discussion of changes.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If all that love and devotion culminates in you wanting to have sex with someone, then the Church says that there is exactly and precisely one way that is pleasing to God.
It flies in the face of all rational concepts of God that he should create something capable of being enjoyed in dozens of different ways, and then tell us to forget about the dozens and concentrate just on the one -- especially when the one can lead to all sorts of misery (read: unwanted children or [shudder] abortion).
No, no, no, silly one! That is the sin in the world and lure of the eEeVil one.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
It flies in the face of all rational concepts of God that he should create something capable of being enjoyed in dozens of different ways, and then tell us to forget about the dozens and concentrate just on the one -- especially when the one can lead to all sorts of misery (read: unwanted children or [shudder] abortion).
The fall has had horrible consequences, I agree. And the call to undo its consequence concerning sex while still in this world can impose a heavy cross, I agree. Yet there we are.
Horseman Bree, I'm not sure what you are getting at there. For liberal Jesuits - by now certainly the strong majority of the order - their Founder is a bit of an embarrassment in his ecclesial enthusiasms, really. If I see some cleric busy undermining the Church with all his strength, my first bet is always that it will be yet another Jesuit. The torch of "unquestioning obedience" certainly has passed on to others, both in reality and in Catholic imagination. These days it is groups like Opus Dei that would more readily come to mind... Anyway, if you are curious, here is the relevant chapter of the Spiritual Exercises. It is worth reading entire (it's all in the same spirit), but the quote comes from the Thirteenth Rule.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Sorry, I was thunderstruck when I saw that, and had to air it somewhere. No wonder Popes could run armies.
But, as in Lindsay's other example, the idea that the management could not be questioned is still an impediment in this day of better education and communication. I know how much trouble I would have been in in the last years of my teaching career, if I had done some of the things that were seen as normal at the beginning.
But the Magisterium is made up largely of men who are older than me, and who have had less feedback from outside than I did, while Pope Francis has clearly been exposed to much more "on the street", and that more recently, than most of the Cardinals and their advisers.
This is a significant part of the problem stated in the OP.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I've just been told to repost this from a now-closed DH thread. Seems appropriate here:
Bilgimage on the specific issue in the OP
and a quote from that:
quote: The first and obvious thing that strikes me is the hunger of many Catholics responding to this story at the National Catholic Reporter thread for Catholic pastoral leaders that would do such a thing: hug a transgender man. Isn't that an astonishing hunger — the hunger for real pastoral leaders who remind us of a Christ who told stories about a loving God who refuses to chide an erring son, but who folds that son in an embrace when he comes home again?
followed later by this rather sad one:
quote: The second thing that strikes me is the ferocity of the anger — I'll go further and use the word "hate" — some Catholics display at hearing such reports.
Pretty good meat for the discussion, wherever it leads!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Firstly, the the erring son repents of his actions. Secondly, the NCR is a publication by Catholics on the edge of apostasy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote: The second thing that strikes me is the ferocity of the anger — I'll go further and use the word "hate" — some Catholics display at hearing such reports.
Pretty good meat for the discussion, wherever it leads!
Born of fear, I imagine.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
As someone once said, "Anger is the child of fear".
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
That's a rather toothless ad hominem. Lots of people are angry with the conservative / traditional Catholic position on this thread, and I guess that they could be considered fearful of something or the other. But rather obviously they would claim that their anger and/or fear is fully justified. As would the people whom you call angry / fearful here - so what?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... If people truly are incapable of doing something, then it is neither graceful nor charitable to let them perform a charade to pretend to themselves or others that they can. ...
According to the rules, then, people with certain disabilities who get married are also playacting. If the nature of marriage is part of a titanic struggle in the RCC, it may not be acceptance of same-sex or trans relationships that turn the tide; it might just be Catholics rejecting the insulting theology and 'sucks to be you' pastoral care that are the current official response to those with imperfect bodies.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's a rather toothless ad hominem. Lots of people are angry with the conservative / traditional Catholic position on this thread, and I guess that they could be considered fearful of something or the other. But rather obviously they would claim that their anger and/or fear is fully justified. As would the people whom you call angry / fearful here - so what?
I feel no fear.
What is there for me to be afraid of? Nothing.
Those angry people are fearful of change, fearful for their positions and fearful of a 'slippery slope' into something 'less' than they have now.
I imagine.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
According to the rules, then, people with certain disabilities who get married are also playacting. If the nature of marriage is part of a titanic struggle in the RCC, it may not be acceptance of same-sex or trans relationships that turn the tide; it might just be Catholics rejecting the insulting theology and 'sucks to be you' pastoral care that are the current official response to those with imperfect bodies.
Insinuation 101: never say anything too concrete, always let the others jump to the worst conclusions. That is maximally effective, gives least purchase for a defence, and provides you with plausible deniability in case you get called on your rhetorics.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel no fear. What is there for me to be afraid of? Nothing.
Spoken in an Austrian accent, I suppose? You are the Boogieator B-800 Model 101...
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those angry people are fearful of change, fearful for their positions and fearful of a 'slippery slope' into something 'less' than they have now. I imagine.
Bulverism is alive and well.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was going to say that the purpose of human sex is clearly not reproduction, since if many adults have sex 2 or 3 thousand times during their lifetime, many of these occasions are not meant to make babies. In fact, talk of 'purpose' seems odd to me.
However, maybe this is diverting the thread extra mures, as they say in Rochdale, beyond these walls.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel no fear. What is there for me to be afraid of? Nothing.
Spoken in an Austrian accent, I suppose? You are the Boogieator B-800 Model 101...
Haha!
Of course I meant I feel no fear regarding any of this nonsense we have been discussing ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
