Britain’s human rights policies violate natural law, Pope says [Times-UK]

[JReducation]

those post motem mri’s show the brain differences of the genders and show the male to female transsex brain to be in line with those of a non transsex woman and viceversa

no they dont agree because many read what was written decades ago and go no further in researching the findings that have been coming out since , much of which is quite damning. what is observed is the natural neurological differences between the sexes and the transsexed clearly on the side of their true gender and not that of their birth sex.

but the biology of the person is beyond their control. the best she can offer is to accept the findings of modern science and not hide behind documents created decades ago by a man who was crusading against sex reassignment surgery based on his own prejudice against such people who require it.

We have to understand that moral law is based on natural law, scripture, sacred tradition and the magisterium. We have no authority to determine what is right and wrong. As a Church our job is to recognize what God has revealed as right and wrong, not to make the laws or god and evil.

Even if the above arguments can be corraborated, this still leaves a major question in the air. Does God want us to do this or has God allowed this to happen for his purpose? As long as we do not have an answer to that question, we cannot say that reassignment surgery is morally admissible.

while waiting for another means of truly helping these people why not accept the current treatment including surgery which has a 97% success rate at helping these people become fully contributing to and partaking of society.

The purpose of moral law is not only to help people be happy in this life, but also to please God above all things. Moral law is not about making people fully contributing and socially active. Moral law is about doing what God wants and avoiding what God has not authorized. It’s not a social system.

to not act when there is doubt would be not acting with almost everything there is as everything has doubts concerning it from one angle or another. a better way to look at such matters would be to look at the benifits to the individual and how to achieve a better outcome based on each predicament and with the 97% success rate it would be far more moral and ethical to accept this as the way to go.

Theology does not operate that way. It cannot. It is not social science. It is not meant to look at what benefits the individual. This would make it relativistic. It would have to change as individuals and social situations change. Truth cannot evolve. It’s application certainly evolves acccording to new situations that arise, but not the core itself. As long as truth says that males and females are what they are and they cannot be altered to be what they believe themselves to be, then it cannot be done.

first it isnt the gender being reassigned its the sex. treating that pre birth defect is no more violating natural law than treating any other pre birth defect.yes it is changing the outward appearance to match the persons core identity.

the problem there is that its not willing to look at any research past the writings of that one prejudiced person who was at one time a vatican adviser. much research has been done since but the church isnt interested in looking in to it so as a result many good minded people are unecessarily being lost from the church.

I don’t mean to sound lacking in compassion, because I’m not. I’m simply saying that we are not authorized to create new truths. We can only apply the truths that have been revealed to us as best we can. This dicussion is by no way over. The Church has never issued a conclusive infallible statement on this issue. She usually avoids issuing infallible statements on moral issues. The only infallible moral statements are those that come directly from scripture, for obvious reasons. Scripture is infallible. But for the most part, the Church has deliberately left many moral statements open to the possibility of revision and reworking should more knowledge come to the fore. But this knowledge has to be consistent with what has been revealed to us, because we cannot change revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manygift1spirit]

Yes. The Church is against “unjust” discrimination, but some discrimination is just. For example, the Church will not allow homosexual couples to adopt, marry, etc. I don’t know the details of the legislation, but if it requires the Church to act in a way that is contrary to dogmatically held beliefs, there is no way the Church can accept.

I agree with what you are getting at but wish to point out here that we should bury once and for all the canard that this is discrimination at all. It is not. Period.

Let me explain. Suppose I have an identical twin. Identical in all ways (same home municipality of residence, same (lack of) mental health issues which might preclude some situations, etc) except for orientation. One of us is gay and one is straight.

Now make a directory of all available marriage partners for myself. Then make one for my twin. They will be identical. The law (both secular and divine) makes no difference between us. Another way of saying that is, the law does not discriminate.

Now wait a minute. One of us will say “that’s not fair, you can marry who you want to, but I can’t”. That is in some sense true, but it is not discriminatory. It can’t be, the laws make no different provisos between us. But what this is is that one of us does not like the definition of marriage, and would like to redefine it to their personal taste.

Now that is a whole 'nother ballgame. We know what the (Catholic) definition of marriage is, and in principle one could evaluate the merits of a counterfactual definition. But that is what this is, a discussion on the definition of marriage. There is no discrimination here.

An analogy might be appropriate. Say someone said the rules of basketball were discriminatory against short people. Well, no, they are not, the rules make no stipulations that have anything to do with height, they treat myself and my 6-11 twin exactly the same way. But it is reasonable to think that a short person might not like that situation. OK I get that. That is why there are other games (i.e., vocations). There is no discrimination.

A great many well-meaning people have fallen for this ruse, it is true. But understand that somewhere upstream in history, someone not so well-meaning realized that by a careful piece of sophistry, one could exploit the western stigma against transparent bigotry (i.e., discrimination) and propagate a falsehood extraordinarily far into the public consciousness. We are reaping the consequences of their success.

 

[edwest2]

What is happening in Britain regrettably has taken place in Canada years ago.
Canada’s Supreme Court has already dictated legislated laws in the country making Homosexuals and Lesbians equal with the rest of citizens. Homosexuals can adopt children, get married and receive the exact same federal tax benefits and monetary support as heterosexual couples who are legally married. However their are federal laws in place that exempt Catholic priests, Jewish rabbi’s, and other Christian ministers from being bound to marry homosexual couples in their church’s and synagogues.

In Canada their are homosexual lobbyist still trying to pressure federal political constituents to have the religious freedoms exemption laws removed by the Supreme Court. More and more as years go by, religious freedoms are being eroded by country rulers who hypocritically fly under the proud flag of democracy which really in the end turns out to be communism in disguise. Is it really that cynical to say that you do not trust your own government anymore? Some wonder just how long it will be before the religious freedoms and exemption laws will cease to exist. Politicians always grease the wheel that squeaks the most. Why is it that the (“Silent Majority”) never speaks up until it’s too late.

The Silent Majority has spoken up. In the United States, in the 1970s, a group of highly paid lawyers went to judges and said we want it to be legal to sell images of prostitutes in Adult Bookstores. The judges said, OK. Go right ahead. Were there protests? Oh yes! But the lawyers shouted “freedom of speech,” "freedom of the press, " “First Amendment,” and we will spend more money if we have to to make this work. Their backers? Organized crime.

In 1972, women appeared on American television with impassioned pleas to save poor young women from dying in back alley abortions. The coat hanger was their visual reference. Please, we were told, this will ONLY be used in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court said, sure, fine, go right ahead. And the silent majority has been protesting to this day. That is why the heavily funded Planned Parenthood exists.

1980s. Cable TV appears, and with it, porn. I’m driving along and I see a Motel offering porn as part of its ‘services.’ Would you take your family there?

1990s TV in decades past was controlled and moral and wholesome. I turn on ABC in the late 1990s, and I see a warning that I’m about to see bare bottoms and hear some profanity. No one sent me the memo. No one polled the viewing audience and said, Ya know, we’re going to spring this on you next week, we do hope you don’t have a problem with it. Nope. It was just there. Just like a recent TV show that shows a young doctor going to a bar and picking up men for anonymous sex. Let’s see: A doctor, in an era of AIDs and other STDs, just picks up some random guy and does not even want to know his name. In real life, after the police find her body, her friends tell detectives she never caught the names of the various men she had sex with. This is entertainment? God forbid.

Then we have gay people. In the entire history of the United States, short, I know, one man and one woman, then I wake up one day and this marriage idea is on the ballot and in the courts. The only ‘progress’ they’ve made is by bypassing the silent majority and going straight to the courts and government leaders. What everyone appears not to be saying is that all laws discriminate – that is their purpose. We, the People, put limits on certain behaviors.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

I agree with what you are getting at but wish to point out here that we should bury once and for all the canard that this is discrimination at all. It is not. Period.

Let me explain. Suppose I have an identical twin. Identical in all ways (same home municipality of residence, same (lack of) mental health issues which might preclude some situations, etc) except for orientation. One of us is gay and one is straight.

Now make a directory of all available marriage partners for myself. Then make one for my twin. They will be identical. The law (both secular and divine) makes no difference between us. Another way of saying that is, the law does not discriminate.

Now wait a minute. One of us will say “that’s not fair, you can marry who you want to, but I can’t”. That is in some sense true, but it is not discriminatory. It can’t be, the laws make no different provisos between us. But what this is is that one of us does not like the definition of marriage, and would like to redefine it to their personal taste.

Now that is a whole 'nother ballgame. We know what the (Catholic) definition of marriage is, and in principle one could evaluate the merits of a counterfactual definition. But that is what this is, a discussion on the definition of marriage. There is no discrimination here.

An analogy might be appropriate. Say someone said the rules of basketball were discriminatory against short people. Well, no, they are not, the rules make no stipulations that have anything to do with height, they treat myself and my 6-11 twin exactly the same way. But it is reasonable to think that a short person might not like that situation. OK I get that. That is why there are other games (i.e., vocations). There is no discrimination.

A great many well-meaning people have fallen for this ruse, it is true. But understand that somewhere upstream in history, someone not so well-meaning realized that by a careful piece of sophistry, one could exploit the western stigma against transparent bigotry (i.e., discrimination) and propagate a falsehood extraordinarily far into the public consciousness. We are reaping the consequences of their success.

Don’t fear the word discrimination. It does not mean bigotry. We all discriminate on a daily basis. There is just discrimination and unjust discrimination.

 

[edwest2]

Well put, Robert. Depending on the situation, we may or may not talk to a person in a public place. This is usually based on behavior. I’m not saying there is any evil in that. We all know, I hope, that if we are in certain situations, we should be cautious and sensible. We also avoid areas near where we live due to real reports of criminal activity. Once again, we avoid people and places whose behaviors place us in some level of jeopardy. On a spiritual level, we, as Christians, don’t want to encourage temptation so we avoid certain places that are known for lewd and immoral behavior.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well put, Robert. Depending on the situation, we may or may not talk to a person in a public place. This is usually based on behavior. I’m not saying there is any evil in that. We all know, I hope, that if we are in certain situations, we should be cautious and sensible. We also avoid areas near where we live due to real reports of criminal activity. Once again, we avoid people and places whose behaviors place us in some level of jeopardy. On a spiritual level, we, as Christians, don’t want to encourage temptation so we avoid certain places that are known for lewd and immoral behavior.

Peace,
Ed

Can you explain what this commentary has to do with the topic?

 

[edwest2]

I was responding to post #46. We all discriminate, daily. Laws are about discrimination - that is their purpose. Here, the discrimination is against a behavior, not the person. We, The People, decide what behaviors need to be discriminated against. As I’ve written before, people can and do whatever they want in the privacy of wherever they live. But when a behavior that is against natural law is turned into something permissable - legally -that means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

I was responding to post #46. We all discriminate, daily. Laws are about discrimination - that is their purpose. Here, the discrimination is against a behavior, not the person. We, The People, decide what behaviors need to be discriminated against. As I’ve written before, people can and do whatever they want in the privacy of wherever they live. But when a behavior that is against natural law is turned into something permissable - legally -that means there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Peace,
Ed

I read and agree with post 46. Yet, I still can not understand your commentary in relation to the topic. Please elaborate more for someone like me who is missing the point.

 

[Coleski]

Bring up slavery and say that was once legal. Why not promote sodomy now? They never understand limits. Things can go this far and no further as God explained to Job. Humans tend to vastly simplify everything. Thinking things go only in one direction further and further out in some insane idea of progress. Humans are quite limited. We have freedom to do good, as much as we can, in our limited way, but we think we are also be free to do evil, without any consequences. But there are consequences. We get into trouble; often in this world and ultimately in the next. Is it worth it to bait freedom to do both good and evil with impunity?
Sodomy is intrinsically disordered, but then so is the whole natural world ruled by Satan. Do you really think nature is all beauty and good? Go to any corner of the nature from ants at war in your back yard to lions and hyenas killing each other on the African plains. This is the nature you love so much, but from the beginning it wasn’t meant that way as Jesus said of marriage between man and woman. The gates to Eden are closed forever; the gates to Heaven will open only for some after the Judgment. The rest will fall though the trap to a prison ruled by a tyrant who proclaims ultimate freedom but who must brutally suppress the debauched souls he rules because he and they know only rebellion. He calls it his kingdom; where all are under the will of the will of the will. Life in a prison gang full of fear, hatred, intimidation, injury, and death is something like Hell will be; a pathetic futile existence where you are feared so much that you spend most of your time locked up in a cage. When your let out it is only to try to do some damage to what you have forever rejected. This not just about physical violence but even more so about the spiritual violence of those who claim to know good and evil as God does.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Bring up slavery and say that was once legal. Why not promote sodomy now? They never understand limits. Things can go this far and no further as God explained to Job. Humans tend to vastly simplify everything. Thinking things go only in one direction further and further out in some insane idea of progress. Humans are quite limited. We have freedom to do good, as much as we can, in our limited way, but we think we are also be free to do evil, without any consequences. But there are consequences. We get into trouble; often in this world and ultimately in the next. Is it worth it to bait freedom to do both good and evil with impunity?
Sodomy is intrinsically disordered, but then so is the whole natural world ruled by Satan. Do you really think nature is all beauty and good? Go to any corner of the nature from ants at war in your back yard to lions and hyenas killing each other on the African plains. This is the nature you love so much, but from the beginning it wasn’t meant that way as Jesus said of marriage between man and woman. The gates to Eden are closed forever; the gates to Heaven will open only for some after the Judgment. The rest will fall though the trap to a prison ruled by a tyrant who proclaims ultimate freedom but who must brutally suppress the debauched souls he rules because he and they know only rebellion. He calls it his kingdom; where all are under the will of the will of the will. Life in a prison gang full of fear, hatred, intimidation, injury, and death is something like Hell will be; a pathetic futile existence where you are feared so much that you spend most of your time locked up in a cage. When your let out it is only to try to do some damage to what you have forever rejected. This not just about physical violence but even more so about the spiritual violence of those who claim to know good and evil as God does.

Um, who exactly do you think was behind the whole slavery thing in the US? Nevermind the rest of your post. I think we need to go step by step here.

 

[StillWondering]

Sorry about the title. Won’t do it again

I read the article over and over again. He isn’t condemning them but he is asking catholic organizations to discriminate them. So, hate the sin, love the sinner, don’t condemn, just discriminate?

Well, the word discriminate without the connotation means to discern differences and response accordingly. The connotations are what the society adds to the word over time through use. So yes, the Church does teach us to discriminate – without the connotations.

If we see someone fighting in a bar, we should try to stop the fight if possible. If we see two actors on stage doing a fight scene, we should appreciate their art. That’s discrimination as well.

There are many things we are meant to discern the value, context, and where it fits in the rightly ordered world that God has created and entrusted His law into. This includes His teachings on sexuality, on violence, and on the structure of his Holy Church. Thus, the Church teaches against using embryonic stem cells and manipulating male bodies to have pregnancies. The Church also teaches against calling a women a man and making her a priest.

Finally, we are to discriminate between Truth and Lies and harmful discrimination and proper identification.

 

[StillWondering]

Um, who exactly do you think was behind the whole slavery thing in the US? Nevermind the rest of your post. I think we need to go step by step here.

I think the answer to that is that the practice was originally introduced by the Dutch in regards to American slavery. In the ~1550’s in the Far East, the Dutch needed skilled labor who were of a lower class then the labors they can hire. Thus they created a system of indentured servants who were specialized in only a limited skill-set preventing upward mobility and freedom from their contracts.

Over the next century, many Spanish trade groups followed the Dutch on this patterned and expanded the trade of human labor for goods – which along with the modern banking system of debts – became quite profitable. (Not all Dutch and Spanish groups moved into slavery, but enough did to make it a booming trade.) However, this did not prove to be effective at first, so they switched over to volunteer Native American servants (expanding the system already created by Spanish missionaries who treated the volunteers are villages working alongside the missions).

Then profiteers became greedy and made trade packs with a few of the Native American tribes to enslave other tribes. However, the system of servitude by the Native Americans were not as cruel as the Europeans, so this cause great conflict. In addition the dynamic between the Europeans and Native Americans were complex, with a number of these servants easily escaping into the woods. Few assimilated.

Thus the greed of the profiteers look else-wear and found the darken skin natives of the African coastal nations to be the most fitting in their dehumanizing eyes. These people were hardy, they lack the culture and experience of living in the Americas so were easily subdued. Also their skin and language made them easily identifiable as slaves. Over time, the practical reasoning (though morally repugnant already) gave way to more sociological and psychological reasons which dehumanized those in servitude even more.

That’s the rough history summery that I know of Slavery in the Americas relating to Europeans and particularly to the future United States. This excludes many of the existing servitude and war slaves that existed among the many civilization and trades in Americas.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think the answer to that is that the practice was originally introduced by the Dutch in regards to American slavery. In the ~1550’s in the Far East, the Dutch needed skilled labor who were of a lower class then the labors they can hire. Thus they created a system of indentured servants who were specialized in only a limited skill-set preventing upward mobility and freedom from their contracts.

Over the next century, many Spanish trade groups followed the Dutch on this patterned and expanded the trade of human labor for goods – which along with the modern banking system of debts – became quite profitable. (Not all Dutch and Spanish groups moved into slavery, but enough did to make it a booming trade.) However, this did not prove to be effective at first, so they switched over to volunteer Native American servants (expanding the system already created by Spanish missionaries who treated the volunteers are villages working alongside the missions).

Then profiteers became greedy and made trade packs with a few of the Native American tribes to enslave other tribes. However, the system of servitude by the Native Americans were not as cruel as the Europeans, so this cause great conflict. In addition the dynamic between the Europeans and Native Americans were complex, with a number of these servants easily escaping into the woods. Few assimilated.

Thus the greed of the profiteers look else-wear and found the darken skin natives of the African coastal nations to be the most fitting in their dehumanizing eyes. These people were hardy, they lack the culture and experience of living in the Americas so were easily subdued. Also their skin and language made them easily identifiable as slaves. Over time, the practical reasoning (though morally repugnant already) gave way to more sociological and psychological reasons which dehumanized those in servitude even more.

That’s the rough history summery that I know of Slavery in the Americas relating to Europeans and particularly to the future United States. This excludes many of the existing servitude and war slaves that existed among the many civilization and trades in Americas.

That’s a very sanitized version most likely taught to you in catholic schools? Were these people you talk about Christians?

 

[aussie_jaz]

So a man…Who goes around thinking he is a woman. Doesn’t have psychological problems Because he believes he is something he is clearly not. But because of people’s attitude towards them based on " the completely biased religious studies conducted from that view point of head in the sand"? I don’t know if its worth carrying on this conversation with you. Because it seems like any study that agrees with is a independent extensive study. Conducted by open minded scientist. While any study that doesn;t back up your theories. Are Done by intolerant religious bigots Who only focus on what they want to see.
You see we can both produce all the studies google will let us find. But we’ll just be going in circles. But the fact of the matter is this. If someone is born a man. then he is a man full stop. No amount of p.c jargon and rhetoric will change that.

the vatican takes its current stance on this issue from one paper written by a man thirty odd years ago who had a very biased and prejudcial view on transsexed people and has refused to look any further into the matter and so yes there is the head in the sand because they take that view and disregard all of the evidence that has come out since then which shows the opposite.

it seems quite clear that you will only accept natures mistakes of prebirth medical conditions only when they dont concern gender/sex so why are they immune to such mistakes of nature ?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

If only the Pope would condemn the following as strongly as he condemns homosexuals and transsexuals in this article:

• bigots who hurt people of other races
• promiscuous people who hurt family members
• priests who sexually abuse children
• pedophiles who hurt children

Er, they’ve already been condemed. This is not an either/or, he can condemn all those actions. However, most people already know those are wrong.

• big corporations that hurt millions of people in the name of profit/out of greed

I don’t think big corporations are inherently bad, but as for the greed aspect, I think he talked about that rather recently, suggesting a new business model. I heard about it on EWTN I think sometime within the last month.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

The biggest sin is that of being self-righteous…thinking that you are better than someone else.

The biggest sin is the radical refusal to accept God’s mercy, till the grave. The sin that shall not be forgiven.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s a very sanitized version most likely taught to you in catholic schools? Were these people you talk about Christians?

Yes…most of them were, but they were first and foremost fallen human beings…as we all are. btw…did you know that the US only consumed 3% of the slave trade. It was a terrible evil, but our portion of it is often overblown. Anyway, it is strange for you to focus so much on slavery and then question how edwest2’s post on discrimination was related to the topic at-hand.

 

[RobbyS]

I think the answer to that is that the practice was originally introduced by the Dutch in regards to American slavery. In the ~1550’s in the Far East, the Dutch needed skilled labor who were of a lower class then the labors they can hire. Thus they created a system of indentured servants who were specialized in only a limited skill-set preventing upward mobility and freedom from their contracts.

Over the next century, many Spanish trade groups followed the Dutch on this patterned and expanded the trade of human labor for goods – which along with the modern banking system of debts – became quite profitable. (Not all Dutch and Spanish groups moved into slavery, but enough did to make it a booming trade.) However, this did not prove to be effective at first, so they switched over to volunteer Native American servants (expanding the system already created by Spanish missionaries who treated the volunteers are villages working alongside the missions).

Then profiteers became greedy and made trade packs with a few of the Native American tribes to enslave other tribes. However, the system of servitude by the Native Americans were not as cruel as the Europeans, so this cause great conflict. In addition the dynamic between the Europeans and Native Americans were complex, with a number of these servants easily escaping into the woods. Few assimilated.

Thus the greed of the profiteers look else-wear and found the darken skin natives of the African coastal nations to be the most fitting in their dehumanizing eyes. These people were hardy, they lack the culture and experience of living in the Americas so were easily subdued. Also their skin and language made them easily identifiable as slaves. Over time, the practical reasoning (though morally repugnant already) gave way to more sociological and psychological reasons which dehumanized those in servitude even more.

That’s the rough history summery that I know of Slavery in the Americas relating to Europeans and particularly to the future United States. This excludes many of the existing servitude and war slaves that existed among the many civilization and trades in Americas.

When America was discovered, slavery was a regular part of Mediterranean trade. This was just a continuation of the practice of the Classical world. The institution had died, or at least mitigated in western Europe, in Christendom, and the general rule has been established that no baptised person could be made a slave–with the total degradation that implied. But Christians enslaved Muslims and vice-versa, and slavery remained a viable institution in Islam.Christian inhibitions on slavery led the Spanish crown to reframe from enslaving the Indians they conquered. But it did not inhibit them from enslaving black Africans, in part because blacks had always been part of the Mediterranean slave trade, while the indians were a new race, and the Spaniards were compelled to debate their status. It may seem odd that they could protect the indians and at the same time grow black slavery, but we humans seem capable of all sorts of cognitive dissonance.

 

[aussie_jaz]

We have to understand that moral law is based on natural law, scripture, sacred tradition and the magisterium. We have no authority to determine what is right and wrong. As a Church our job is to recognize what God has revealed as right and wrong, not to make the laws or god and evil.

Even if the above arguments can be corraborated, this still leaves a major question in the air. Does God want us to do this or has God allowed this to happen for his purpose? As long as we do not have an answer to that question, we cannot say that reassignment surgery is morally admissible

the problem there is that this knowledge has come around it is just that the vatican refuses to look past the the writings of a prejudiced man from thirty odd years ago to the many findings contrary to those writings that have come out since.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes…most of them were, but they were first and foremost fallen human beings…as we all are. btw…did you know that the US only consumed 3% of the slave trade. It was a terrible evil, but our portion of it is often overblown. Anyway, it is strange for you to focus so much on slavery and then question how edwest2’s post on discrimination was related to the topic at-hand.

Yes, indeed, Most black slaves were sent to Hispanic America, a huge proportion to the sugar plantations of the West Indies. The death rate was so horrendous that there was little natural growth in the islands, and their numbers had constantly to be replemished.
In North America, on the other hand. there was a very large natural growth from 1715 to 1775, almost as great as the growth of the White population. So the need for resupply was much less. Their numbers in Virginia were so great that they became a drain on the economy, and so owners sold them “South” to the Carolinas and Georgia where there was much greater need for them. In the 19th Century, as the indian nations were “removed”, the slaves were needed in great numbers to clear the forests and to cultivate vast cotton fields. The demand was so great that slave smuggling became common. Smuggling, because the English, who had controlled the trade during the 18th Century, turned against it and deployed their huge navy to suppressing it.