Bruce Jenner's Début as "Caitlyn"

[pete_29]

Exactly. I know gay and lesbian people who think that terms used in the catechism like, “respect, compassion and sensitivity” and “unjust discrimination,” are nothing more than platitudes. And I think they’re right. I have a friend who is a school psychologist for a Catholic Diocese and works at several high schools. What she told me is that the gay teens that she has worked with have no confusion about the Church’s stance on homosexual behavior as sin. She said what they are confused about is whether or not the Church really cares about them.

How would you have the Church prove that it cares about them ?

 

[gracepoole]

The Church does not see sex change as a valid therapeutic medical procedure. Go ahead, ask them.

First, I was responding to another poster’s claim that the Church never permits mutilation. That is a false claim according to the CCC, so what I posted was absolutely accurate.

Second, I’m seriously not going through this again. There are pages of posts addressing what the Church has and has not said about transgenderism.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

That quote actually doesn’t in any way address the pain of children who’s parents undergo this process, a pain which is understandable, but the quote doesn’t address this at all.

That was the ending paragraph of the article, but the article, which is not that long, does address the pain of children of a parent that undergoes transitioning and sex reassignment.

Click on the link.
,

 

[Jeanne_S]

Right, but does that answer the question?

“…however, encouraging our brethren to continue in disordered and destructive behavior, just so they will feel better, is unauthentic and harmful.”

Again, that’s so vague that it could include all kinds of behavior and just seems to give us an excuse for talking about people in truly deplorable terms.

Of course it includes any and all behavior that leads others’ from God.This particular issue included.Additionally,seeing BJ post pic of himself on a boogie board,in men’s swimming trunks,naked from the top down,exposing his “female breasts”,hardly engenders sympathy,at least not from me. It almost seems as though he is gleefully exposing himself.So on one hand it shows me that he is doing a lot of this for the shock value.Then again he is connected to the Kardashians

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Because of the kinds of judgmental and often harsh responses they get or got in the past, most LGBT people have probably been driven away from most organized religion and are hostile to it. And reaching out successfully to people in this community is very difficult for most churches, even those that are now more welcoming and accepting.

People who are in same sex relationships or transitioning like BJ, who are supportive of family members in said stations in life, come on CAF board. They read judgmentalism even when, where, there is none, but an iteration of the Church’s long standing teaching that

1. Homosexual acts are sinful and violate natural law. It follows that God and the Church would NOT be accepting of same sex “marriage” regardless that civil positivist law allows it. SS"M" is against the created order by our Creator.
2. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and body and soul is a unity. Popes BVI and Francis have articulated this in so many words. It is mystifying that there are those who insist in the name of compassion purportedly that SRS for the unambiguously male or female would or could be morally licit as changing of one’s physical sex is not specifically forbidden in the Catechism.

How is it and why is it that the above positions and teaching cause surprise and outrage? It is tiring to read that Catholics who speak in accord with the above are ramming their beliefs on unbelievers. You (generic you) are in a Catholic site that proposes the fullness of Truth, not in some sites like the New Ways Ministry or some shismatic or heretic group.
,
,

 

[Jeanne_S]

People who are in same sex relationships or transitioning like BJ, who are supportive of family members in said stations in life, come on CAF board. They read judgmentalism even when, where, there is none, but an iteration of the Church’s long standing teaching that

1. Homosexual acts are sinful and violate natural law. It follows that God and the Church would NOT be accepting of same sex “marriage” regardless that civil positivist law allows it. SS"M" is against the created order by our Creator.
2. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and body and soul is a unity. Popes BVI and Francis have articulated this in so many words. It is mystifying that there are those who insist in the name of compassion purportedly that SRS for the unambiguously male or female would or could be morally licit as changing of one’s physical sex is not specifically forbidden in the Catechism.

How is it and why is it that the above positions and teaching cause surprise and outrage? It is tiring to read that Catholics who speak in accord with the above are ramming their beliefs on unbelievers. You (generic you) are in a Catholic site that proposes the fullness of Truth, not in some sites like the New Ways Ministry or some shismatic or heretic group.
,
,

Exactly!

 

[estesbob]

Godwins law states that the longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely Nazi comparisons are going to be made. There is a similar law that afflicts threads on homosexuality. the longer the thread runs the more likely people will start invoking the Westboro Baptist Church

 

[estesbob]

Exactly. I know gay and lesbian people who think that terms used in the catechism like, “respect, compassion and sensitivity” and “unjust discrimination,” are nothing more than platitudes. And I think they’re right. I have a friend who is a school psychologist for a Catholic Diocese and works at several high schools. What she told me is that the gay teens that she has worked with have no confusion about the Church’s stance on homosexual behavior as sin. She said what they are confused about is whether or not the Church really cares about them.

Does you friend have access to the internet> If so she can find out about how the Church accepts and cares about all sinners in about 30 seconds of googling.

 

[Havard]

How would you have the Church prove that it cares about them ?

IMHO, it’s unnecessary and beside the point.

**@Sarah B Good: **

The Church doesn’t teach platitudes, period. The number of Catholics who follow any given teaching has absolutely no bearing on the truth or importance of said teaching. E.g., contraception. These issues are taken extremely seriously by the Church. The people who treat them otherwise do so not because they are Catholic, but in spite of that fact.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Godwins law states that the longer an internet discussion goes on the more likely Nazi comparisons are going to be made. There is a similar law that afflicts threads on homosexuality. the longer the thread runs the more likely people will start invoking the Westboro Baptist Church

 

[Havard]

First, I was responding to another poster’s claim that the Church never permits mutilation. That is a false claim according to the CCC, so what I posted was absolutely accurate.

Second, I’m seriously not going through this again. There are pages of posts addressing what the Church has and has not said about transgenderism.

:console:

The discussion needs a point-by-point sticky, imo. So you can just refer to it.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Exactly. I know gay and lesbian people who think that terms used in the catechism like, “respect, compassion and sensitivity” and “unjust discrimination,” are nothing more than platitudes. And I think they’re right. I have a friend who is a school psychologist for a Catholic Diocese and works at several high schools. What she told me is that the gay teens that she has worked with have no confusion about the Church’s stance on homosexual behavior as sin. She said what they are confused about is whether or not the Church really cares about them.

The Church asks nothing more from those with SSA than it does from heterosexuals in an unmarried relationship.That they remain celibate,unless married.Since the Church recognizes marriage as a Sacrament,it simply is not possible to afford this to same sex couples. They aren’t rejected by the Church or excluded from partaking in the fullness of our faith,so long as they remain celibate.It isn’t homosexuality that is sinful,acting on those desires is when it is sinful.
Before you reply how unfair that is,remember,these are God’s laws.Not man’s.

 

[Thorolfr]

You (generic you) are in a Catholic site that proposes the fullness of Truth, not in some sites like the New Ways Ministry or some shismatic or heretic group.

Non-Catholics always feel warm and fuzzy inside when they’re called schismatics or heretics

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

However that does not negate the original ‘feelings’ of autogynephilia. Once the libido is greatly reduced, could explain the high suicide rate after transitioning, as the original perceived want/desire to change has been taken away, or has been greatly reduced.

The suicide rate after transitioning and SRS drops. Transitioning and SRS don’t magically make everything better, they still have to deal with all the baggage they have.

This part was most enlightening:

*They are “autogynephiliacs,” men who (in Allen’s words) “fall in love with the idea of contemplating themselves as women.” Autogynephilia is “essentially an erotic response to the trappings of genetic womanhood.” Transgenders in this category act out of sexual fixation rather than out of an innate identity. They don’t take up crochet. They pose for Vanity Fair in slinky teddies. *

Blanchard’s ideas have been shown to be absurd.

Not true at all, first transition does not Equate to Surgery (SRS) , It could just involve Hormones so much of the libido returns after stopping hormones, only a minority of Transgender people go for SRS Surgery . As a result if they are disappointed with the loss of libido most have the option to stop the hormones.
Second hormones are taken for at least a year before surgery hence there is a enough of time to revert if Libido is such a big Problem .
Autogynophilia it typically associated with Transvestites not Transgender people.

Come now, we both know that if money was not a limiter many more transwomen would have surgery.

Well, there is the photo of the 65 year-old man on the cover of Vanity Fair.

That is the consequence of living with the Kardashians corrupting the concept of womanhood for anyone who lives with them.

Wrong. It actually permits mutilation for a valid therapeutic medical reason.

SRS isn’t mutilation.

From a daughter of a man who underwent sex change, waning BJ’s children of pain, mourning, and loss ahead.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/daughter-of-sex-change-man-warns-jenners-children-of-pain-mourning-loss-ahe/#ixzz3cgQFkICV

While it is clear from the article that she experienced pain it isn’t very clear how her father’s transition caused her said pain.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Non-Catholics always feel warm and fuzzy inside when they’re called schismatics or heretics

Yeah, it’s all about feelings, is it not.

Use protesters if you like, instead of schismatics and heretics.

Protestants may have a different term for break away groups, but the meaning is the same.

Your religious denomination in fact was originally united in the belief of the same teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism until a group or groups decided otherwise.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

While it is clear from the article that she experienced pain it isn’t very clear how her father’s transition caused her said pain.

Are you even clear on the pain (being) experienced by the family members of your transgendered and transitioning friends? Or, are you just hearing one side of this family dividing issue?
,

 

[JimG]

From a daughter of a man who underwent sex change, waning BJ’s children of pain, mourning, and loss ahead.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/daughter-of-sex-change-man-warns-jenners-children-of-pain-mourning-loss-ahe/#ixzz3cgQFkICV

Another quote from the article:
"And well-meaning neighbors didn’t help when we’d meet them in the grocery store and they’d ask, “How’s Harold … or Becky? I mean, is he … she doing okay?” I wanted to shout back, “What about Mom and me and my brothers and sisters? Do you care how we’re doing? Do you care that the dad I knew is dying, by choice, and leaving us? My dad is getting what he wants, or thinks he wants, and he has left us to pick up the pieces. Does that matter to you?”

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Come now, we both know that if money was not a limiter many more transwomen would have surgery.

Exactly! The transgender movement is moving towards a system whereby public funds / taxpayers would cover SRS.

…SRS isn’t mutilation.

Mutilate

—verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

How are penectomy and orchiectomy not mutilation of disease free organs?
,

 

[billcu1]

Nonsense. No one here is suggesting Mr. Jenner be picketed or publicly admonished. We are stating, correctly, that he is putting his immortal soul in danger and that a Catholic should in no way support his actions.

Are you saying that (s)he is putting his mortal sin in danger because of this “sex change”? People feel the way they feel. If he feels he’s a woman and you truly knew him and loved him you could say his thinking is confused because of sin. But so are we all. Here in the church too. We only have the luxury of guidance by the Holy Spirit. Other than that who are we? I don’t condemn people for feelings. Feeling aren’t good or bad. They just are you don’t trust them or pay attention to them.

Bill

 

[meltzerboy]

Exactly! The transgender movement is moving towards a system whereby public funds / taxpayers would cover SRS.

Mutilate

—verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

How are penectomy and orchiectomy not mutilation of disease free organs?
,

The language one uses makes a difference. Mutilation has the connotation, if not the denotation, of an inflicted injury which is violent in nature. Surgery is not considered violent in nature. Further, the term “mutilation,” when it is applied to SRS, reflects no doubt a pejorative meaning, which adds heat to but sheds little light on the discussion.