Minnesota school shooting gunman kills 2 children, injures 17 others during Catholic mass

[Nanny1935]

No. You are making assumptions contrary to the reality of the situation.
The person was male. Disturbed, perhaps. But that does not entitle them to their own reality.

I think you are over-impossing your sense of reality on other people.
There is no real base to associate certain behaviors with biological gender.
Like, men are better at math or abstract thinking. Or men are more calm than women, or they are less emotional.
There is no base what so ever for gender roles.
There is no reality in that.
From where do you derive authority to say what people are entitled to?
You are making your own arguments, presenting them as if they were part of catechism.

Just plain incorrect.
The church has never considered the proclivity toward a particular a particular sin to be a sin.

In 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) of the Catholic Church published Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder".

Although not written in the catechism, at that time, there was a general belief that homosexual children could be the result of bad families, especially divorced or separated parents. There was a lot of blame lay on parents- for example a father that did not represent well the gender role of a male, and that resulted in homosexual children. I know of marriages that fell apart because of this, both parents blaming each other.
The attitude changed when research showed that it was not a choice to be homosexual and that it was determine at gestation. at that point. it was accepted that it was not a disorder. The Church changed the pastoral mission to support parents and helping them accept their children. (Pastoral letter in 1997, for example)
I can't say how grateful I am for that change, because it made the church a more compassionate place.

Truth also means speaking truth. Not using confusing language to support a delusion.

No one here has made such a judgment. But it would be unwise to pretend that the condition of this individual did not play a part in these events.

to say that Robin Westman was delusional because she felt like a woman, is judgemental- as there is no base to make such claim. There is no point explaining because you will proceed to attack

Supporting a delusion is not charitable. It is, in fact, a lie.

Yet you consistently use confusing language to support the delusion that this individual was not male. And then claim to know what this individual wanted.


That means speaking truthfully.
There are ways to speak with compassion the truth. But supporting the delusion is not one of them.

As I stated above, you do not have authority to proclaim this a delusion and respecting people's choices is the only proper way.

Doctrine does not change.

Actually doctrine has changed. You will probably argue that Vatican II is not valid. (not real?, a delusion?)
Lucky me, I can always count on Galileo.
There are naturally, many other changes. In most cases, it is called a reinterpretation in light of new circumstances- like the case of usury and charging interest rates for loans. This was a controversial topic once. I graduated from a Catholic University, economists had to take a course on Social doctrine of the Church. There was one class dedicated to interest rates and that discussion. So, yes, scientific results that become accepted mainstream can trigger reinterpretations of Catholic Teachings.

But I really do not care to have a discussion with you, it is conducive to nothing as all you want is hammer your opinion on me and are not willing to consider any argument, which I know is accepted by good Catholic theologians, if it does not accord with your view of the world. Fair, you can chose how you live your life. Just do not call it truth, to have the truth, one has to be willing to consider all options and be open to change, because knowledge is updated, just as Catholic teaching is. Truth requires us to be willing to get out of our comfort zone and listen with true compassion- that is why truth and compassion are one and the same.
I answered because I was appalled at your lack of compassion, at the arrogance of thinking you know better than everybody what reality is, and at your willingness to ignore relevant facts in the case of Robin Westman, in order to push a narrative with little base that transgender people would be very probable to do mass shootings.

 

[vz71]

I think you are over-impossing your sense of reality on other people.

The reality is that men do not become women no matter how hard they try. Medical science bears this out. Every single cell that carries your chromosomes carries with it the biological fact of male or female. Is it really your position that reality changes from person to person? That somehow calling oneself a woman makes it so? That calling oneself a man likewise makes it so?

If that is really your position, then I am afraid there is no further I can take this. Your logic fails, and I doubt you will perceive why.

From where do you derive authority to say what people are entitled to?
You are making your own arguments, presenting them as if they were part of catechism.

I do not claim any special authority. I simply am stating fact. This individual was born a male, lived their life male, and died male. Medical interventions cannot change this.

The catechism covers morality, not science. Morally speaking, we are called to truth. Using confusing language to support a delusion is not truth, it is dishonest. Those that experience this delusion need help, not harm.

In 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) of the Catholic Church published Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder".

It is odd that you bolded everything but the part most pertinent to what you claimed. Perhaps you simply do not see it. Let’s see if I can make it more clear.

Your claim was “Thus, an homosexual orientation is no longer considered a sin” your defense of this is a statement from the CDF stating, quite plainly “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin,…”

So. On the one hand, we have you stating that the church claimed the orientation itself to be a sin, and on the other hand we have your own provided source showing us otherwise.

You very effectively removed any leg that your own particular argument can stand on.

to say that Robin Westman was delusional because she felt like a woman, is judgemental- as there is no base to make such claim. There is no point explaining because you will proceed to attack

That has never been my argument.

I say that this individual was disturbed because he shot up a church full of children. Do you really want to make the argument that this individual was not disturbed?

I say he was delusional because he was trying to identify as something he was not. Making claims that are not reality is the very definition of delusional.

My apologies if you believe this to be a personal attack, it is not. This is an attack on the logic and arguments you have thus far provided. This individual is not a ‘she’. He never was female. He never could be changed into a female. And it does not matter what the individual believed they felt…it did not line up with reality, it was a delusion. Further, the conflict between the reality and his feeling played a part in all of this.

As I stated above, you do not have authority to proclaim this a delusion and respecting people's choices is the only proper way.

What is reality does not depend upon my proclamation thereof. I am simply stating the obvious.

As to respect for the choices an individual makes, I can respect it fine. Until such respect requires me to lie. I draw the line at immoral behavior. I draw the line at hatred.

When someone is delusional, it is not compassion to play into it and support their delusion.

If someone were to delude themselves into believing there is no God, do you really think it compassion to support that belief? In fact, it is more akin to hatred to support that.

If someone were to delude themselves into believing they can swim unassisted across the Atlantic Ocean; is it really compassion to support that belief and watch them drown themselves. Again, I would think it more a hatred of that person.

Actually doctrine has changed. You will probably argue that Vatican II is not valid. (not real?, a delusion?)
Lucky me, I can always count on Galileo.

Although you have not the evidence of my take on VII, it would seem that you are taking offense. And taking the liberty to try and dig at me on a personal level as well. Do you have some evidence of my own take on VII? Or is this an example of hypocrisy in which one must support delusional behavior involving sexual organs but must condemn any viewpoint about church history that does not align with your own.

I will let you decide which direction your argument collapses in.

 

[Nanny1935]

The reality is that men do not become women no matter how hard they try. Medical science bears this out. Every single cell that carries your chromosomes carries with it the biological fact of male or female. Is it really your position that reality changes from person to person? That somehow calling oneself a woman makes it so? That calling oneself a man likewise makes it so?

If that is really your position, then I am afraid there is no further I can take this. Your logic fails, and I doubt you will perceive why.

I do not claim any special authority. I simply am stating fact. This individual was born a male, lived their life male, and died male. Medical interventions cannot change this.

The catechism covers morality, not science. Morally speaking, we are called to truth. Using confusing language to support a delusion is not truth, it is dishonest. Those that experience this delusion need help, not harm.

It is odd that you bolded everything but the part most pertinent to what you claimed. Perhaps you simply do not see it. Let’s see if I can make it more clear.

Your claim was “Thus, an homosexual orientation is no longer considered a sin” your defense of this is a statement from the CDF stating, quite plainly “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin,…”

So. On the one hand, we have you stating that the church claimed the orientation itself to be a sin, and on the other hand we have your own provided source showing us otherwise.

You very effectively removed any leg that your own particular argument can stand on.

That has never been my argument.

I say that this individual was disturbed because he shot up a church full of children. Do you really want to make the argument that this individual was not disturbed?

I say he was delusional because he was trying to identify as something he was not. Making claims that are not reality is the very definition of delusional.

My apologies if you believe this to be a personal attack, it is not. This is an attack on the logic and arguments you have thus far provided. This individual is not a ‘she’. He never was female. He never could be changed into a female. And it does not matter what the individual believed they felt…it did not line up with reality, it was a delusion. Further, the conflict between the reality and his feeling played a part in all of this.

What is reality does not depend upon my proclamation thereof. I am simply stating the obvious.

As to respect for the choices an individual makes, I can respect it fine. Until such respect requires me to lie. I draw the line at immoral behavior. I draw the line at hatred.

When someone is delusional, it is not compassion to play into it and support their delusion.

If someone were to delude themselves into believing there is no God, do you really think it compassion to support that belief? In fact, it is more akin to hatred to support that.

If someone were to delude themselves into believing they can swim unassisted across the Atlantic Ocean; is it really compassion to support that belief and watch them drown themselves. Again, I would think it more a hatred of that person.

Although you have not the evidence of my take on VII, it would seem that you are taking offense. And taking the liberty to try and dig at me on a personal level as well. Do you have some evidence of my own take on VII? Or is this an example of hypocrisy in which one must support delusional behavior involving sexual organs but must condemn any viewpoint about church history that does not align with your own.

I will let you decide which direction your argument collapses in.

Nothing of what you have written here is an answer to what I wrote. You throw together words, without rhyme nor reason, unable to form a coherent, complete and consistent argument. Mostly you cherry pick parts of arguments, choose to ignore what fits your perspective
We had once a conversation, in which you chose to completely ignore facts from the CIA fact book, and chose to attack encyclopedia Britannica, distracting from the actual argument. You are doing it again. And that is why I do not engage in arguments with you.

It is not the province of the Catholic Church to define "disorder" nor delusional. Neither yours, you are not a qualified professional.
That is another reason not to engage in an argument with you. You talk about things without authority . You could put together an argument by citing proper sources, that is the honest procedure. Students are taught to do that in college. But you are not doing that either. It is not possible to develop an argument that way.

The official stance of the Catholic Church on homosexuality until the 1997 pastoral letter was a grave error. It brought incredible pain to many families- I mentioned a married couple collapsing because of that notion, blaming each other because of the condemnation of homosexuality by the Church ( "it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" these are powerful, damning words)
It was an error in compassion, which showed to be an error in truth- because science showed that it was not a choice and there could be no sin attached to it, that is there could be no "tendency to an intrinsic moral evil" and it was not an "objective disorder".

Our understanding (I mean the whole society, as instructed by proper science), will gain understanding of transgender issues. I think it will trigger an evolution in Church doctrine. As it has before.

 

[vz71]

It was an error in compassion, which showed to be an error in truth-

It is probably not the wisest of positions to argue the church to be in error.
Particularly in a Catholic forum with posters that could school both of us in the faith.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is a good discussion, if a vigorous and spirited one, and I just remind everyone to keep comments within the bounds of fraternal charity, without attacks on persons or their motivations. That doesn't seem, strictly speaking, to have happened yet. Let's all assume one another's good will and fidelity to Catholic teaching, whatever form that teaching may take, and however this person or that one may interpret that teaching.

I'm largely staying out of this discussion, as I think the various posters are doing a good job of covering all the bases, and there is really nothing I can add to it. The psychological dimensions of homosexual orientation and gender dysphoria are very complex, and taken all by themselves, neither phenomenon has a per se moral aspect, except insofar as they are both effects of Original Sin. We are all broken, just in different ways.

 

[Nanny1935]

It is probably not the wisest of positions to argue the church to be in error.
Particularly in a Catholic forum with posters that could school both of us in the faith.

why not? The Catholic Church has corrected errors- they corrected regarding Galileo.
They corrected attitudes regarding the Jews.
The Pastoral Letter, which you do not seem to have read, is a beautiful correction of path - "Always our Children" are words we needed to hear.
I respect the Catholic Church because if has the conviction to right a wrong and adjust.
I think you exhausted lines of attack and are trying to stir the conversation to a different focus. Please stop

 

[Nanny1935]

This is a good discussion, if a vigorous and spirited one, and I just remind everyone to keep comments within the bounds of fraternal charity, without attacks on persons or their motivations. That doesn't seem, strictly speaking, to have happened yet. Let's all assume one another's good will and fidelity to Catholic teaching, whatever form that teaching may take, and however this person or that one may interpret that teaching.

I'm largely staying out of this discussion, as I think the various posters are doing a good job of covering all the bases, and there is really nothing I can add to it. The psychological dimensions of homosexual orientation and gender dysphoria are very complex, and taken all by themselves, neither phenomenon has a per se moral

I have development no argument in the matter. If I had, it would be a long essay. As stated from the beginning, it is not my intention to get into a controversy on the topic of gender identity, which is just developing in science and is incredibly complex, and deeply sensitive matter. The shear fact that the transgender community endures incredible victimization, demands the issue be treated with extreme care and any argument developed properly representing all angles of the issue with respect and compassion.
Compassion and respect for the memory of troubled soul is what got me to react. Robin Westman is no more. Let her rest in peace, and do not use labels like "delusional". She is not here to defend herself. That is simply not done.
In the exchange, vz71 wrote that doctrine does not change. It is not the first time I see this statement on this site.
I gave examples of how doctrine had developed, or had been reinterpreted in light of new circumstances.
Can you comment on that?

 

[The_Reginator]

Doctrine does not change.

vz71, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT MANY PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET, or so it seems.
We must ALWAYS speak the truth, in a charitable way of course.
This poor man had many "demons". I put that in quotes because some things are merely psychological while others truly come from demons.
Let us not only pray for the families affected but also remember to pray for the souls of those who died, for they had all reached the age of reason. I hope that they all died in a state of grace. I also hope that maybe, just maybe, the kind of death (except for the suicide) may help them avoid purgatory, or at least tend to ease and shorten their purgation before they get to experience the Beatific Vision for all eternity.
(My only brother killed himself out of despair and apparent (undiagnosed) depression. I still pray for his soul in the hope that God's mercy and justice may have determined that he did this horrid act when "not in his right mind".)

 

[Nanny1935]

vz71, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT MANY PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET, or so it seems.
We must ALWAYS speak the truth, in a charitable way of course.
This poor man had many "demons". I put that in quotes because some things are merely psychological while others truly come from demons.
Let us not only pray for the families affected but also remember to pray for the souls of those who died, for they had all reached the age of reason. I hope that they all died in a state of grace. I also hope that maybe, just maybe, the kind of death (except for the suicide) may help them avoid purgatory, or at least tend to ease and shorten their purgation before they get to experience the Beatific Vision for all eternity.
(My only brother killed himself out of despair and apparent (undiagnosed) depression. I still pray for his soul in the hope that God's mercy and justice may have determined that he did this horrid act when "not in his right mind".)

Re-reading the arguments, I think that VZ71 has been confusing doctrine with dogma.
In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed.
Doctrine can and has changed.
As an example of the difference, and since you posted on the understanding in the Catholic Church about Mary mother of God (as different for example as Luther's understanding)- Concerning the Church’s teaching that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces, while this doctrine has been divinely revealed, it has not yet been—although could be—elevated to dogma. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains, “The doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition”

The only absolute truth is God. We strive to know Him and his creation. but it is presumptuous to think all that He is has been revealed to us. St Therese of Avila said: " God is the Supreme Truth, and humility is the truth of the soul, as it is by understanding our own nothingness and spiritual misery that we align with God's truth.

 

[vz71]

do not use labels like "delusional". She is not here to defend herself. That is simply not done.

Delusional is the proper word.
Robin was trying to be a woman. This is clearly against the reality.

I am interested in this incongruity in which one must support delusional behavior involving sexual organs but must condemn any viewpoint about church history that does not align with your own.

How exactly does this work?
How is it anything but an act of hatred for an individual to support a break from the truth?

You throw together words, without rhyme nor reason, unable to form a coherent, complete and consistent argument.

Others here seem to have no problem following my arguments.

you cherry pick parts of arguments, choose to ignore what fits your perspective

No. I just choose to stay within the confines of the subject at hand. I refuse to discuss Galileo in this thread.
Feel free to start anther topic in which the Galileo controversy is discussed.

We had once a conversation, in which you chose to completely ignore facts from the CIA fact book, and chose to attack encyclopedia Britannica, distracting from the actual argument.

Not exactly the truth, but whatever.

And that is why I do not engage in arguments with you.

And yet here we are.

Once the personal attacks start, it is very often an indication that the logic the attacker has been using has failed.

The logic that says we must utilize feminine language to discuss this individual is flawed and a cursory read of this thread shows this.
It is proper to utilize the precise language for this individual. That includes masculine language as well as a note to their mental instability and delusional behavior. All of which played a part in what happened.

 

[Nanny1935]

Delusional is the proper word.
Robin was trying to be a woman. This is clearly against the reality.

I am interested in this incongruity in which one must support delusional behavior involving sexual organs but must condemn any viewpoint about church history that does not align with your own.

How exactly does this work?
How is it anything but an act of hatred for an individual to support a break from the truth?


Others here seem to have no problem following my arguments.

No. I just choose to stay within the confines of the subject at hand. I refuse to discuss Galileo in this thread.
Feel free to start anther topic in which the Galileo controversy is discussed.

Not exactly the truth, but whatever.

And yet here we are.

Once the personal attacks start, it is very often an indication that the logic the attacker has been using has failed.

The logic that says we must utilize feminine language to discuss this individual is flawed and a cursory read of this thread shows this.
It is proper to utilize the precise language for this individual. That includes masculine language as well as a note to their mental instability and delusional behavior. All of which played a part in what happened.

There is no personal attack. I criticized your writing.
1. You can not make personal assessments on the mind of Robin Westman. We all agree on "troubled", because that is generic. But delusional is a specific condition that would necessitate a professional evaluation. As a general rule, we are discouraged from using such terms as "delusional" "narcissistic", which originated before psychology developed, because they carry a stronger meaning that lay people can not properly discern. I objected the use of delusional referring to Robin Westman, because we are not in a position to make judgements about the state of her mind. While the position of the Catholic Church is clear on gender re-assignment, and there is no agreement regarding gender theory, the Vatican dicastery of family has advocated to treat transgender people with DIGNITY. Negating what a host of professionals have considered a truth, is not recognizing the personal dignity of her feeling that way. People can genuinely have a mismatch between biological sex and their self-assessment of identity, not coming from mental illness ("objective disorder"). You may disagree with it, or you may think it is not correct from a moral point of view (doctrine is about moral principles), but it does not entitle you to negate that reality of the person, which research has found constant in otherwise healthy individuals. That is negating the personal humanity of Robin Westman. Jesus's second commandment (In NT) is to treat others as you would like to be treated. (The first is to love God above all) A parallel situation: the Soviet Union decided that religion was an "illness" (the opium of the people) and Christians were treated as second class citizens, damaging their personal dignity. Note: Doctrine is about morality, about our real spiritual lives, but not about what is real in the world around us. We might feel suspended on air by the love of God, but we are still limited by the law of gravity.
2. You do not develop arguments. There are proper ways of structuring arguments and to conduct a conversation. A good argument is one that starts with a clear definition of the working terms (in his case "delusional" was used very loosely, without the proper psychological.scientific context it needs). Then a good argument is one that considers all perspectives. You only consider yours, and when I answered adding perspective, unlike the rules of civility in debate which call to give honest consideration to the answer, you ignored what did not suit your arguments, redoubling the attack (more emphatic repetition of the original incomplete statement) , rendering your answer incoherent. When I provided examples of developments in doctrine, re-interpretations in light of new circumstances, you lost that focus. That is inconsistent arguing.
3. As the conversation goes along, you do not provide a new take, nor work on the argument of the interlocutor. Instead you repeat the initial, incomplete and underdeveloped statement more emphatically and resort to aggression. For example, you did so when responding to Vatican II example. I said, "you probably will not recognize it". Since Vatican II is an example of changes in doctrine and it is very well known (I assumed you were familiar with it), and you wrote "doctrine does not change", it is a logical inference that you probably do not acknowledge it. Because it is only an inference, I wrote "probably" (inference is used in statistic to extract information from data and is in nature probabilistic). I do not know what your position on Vatican II is and you could have answer that and explain how it fits with "doctrine does not change", but instead you accused me (erroneously) of saying something I did not. That is a diversion and one that is looking to get into aggressive arguments.
4. From the first response to your comment to my post I was clear, I do not want a controversy with you. You are aggressive, you are rude (ignoring arguments, cherry picking, taunting). You did not respect that request. Instead, you continued to push your one and only line of argument "delusional" for which you have no authority, as you are not a qualified mental health expert that completed a proper diagnostic examination of Robin Westman.

None of what i have written above is a complete analysis. It would take long to write the rules for debate, for communication, the principles for civil interaction (they exist, the National center for conflict resolution, for example, has them). I also have not developed the analysis on the Church position, gender identity research, and other context. I did that on purpose. As I said, I do not want to get into that controversy. We have no agreement on the proper way to communicate. There needs to be a framework for proper interaction. It is missing on this website.

I asked you to stop. I will not engage in arguments regarding the topic. Even if you taunt me (you wrote "I will let you decide which direction your argument collapses in.")

Here, I clarify how your way of engaging is not proper. There are guides for debate, proper online communication and ettiquette. please follow them. I ask again that you stop and I hope you will kindly follow my request.