Transgender and communion?

[Nigel7]

All those situations you describe (drunkenness, suicide) are objectively sinful.
You’re not making much of an argument for cross-dressing/transgenderism not being objectively sinful.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nigel, putting it in Big Bold Type does not make it somehow more correct.

There are a whole lot of things in Deuteronomy that the Church no longer teaches.

The Commandments are Jesus’ 2 Commandments and Moses’ 10 Commandments. THAT’S IT. We do not go picking through Deuteronomy, or any other part of the OT, looking for additional “Commandments”. The Magisterium would tell us if they thought there was a clothing issue other than Modesty that we needed to be aware of.

Clothing these days is expected to be modest, in keeping with the broad interpretation of the 6th Commandment.
“Modest” is generally interpreted to mean that you are decently covered. It could also be broadly interpreted to mean that your clothes should not draw undue attention to yourself, so you could perhaps make an argument that cross-dressing is drawing undue attention, but this is not always the case (nobody cares if a woman wears pants and the majority of people don’t care if a man is in a Utilikilt) and anyway, that’s not what you are arguing.

You’re just pushing your own personal interpretation of Scripture on everybody else here. Sorry, it doesn’t work.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You’re not making much of an argument for cross-dressing/transgenderism not being objectively sinful.

And you’re not making much of an argument that cross-dressing (you’re not discussing “transgenderism” when you talk about the clothing people have on - the two things are NOT synonymous, as has been discussed to death in this thread already) IS objectively sinful by cherry-picking Deuteronomy and repeatedly posting it.

You’re just coming off like some sola scriptura Protestant to be honest.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Have you studied any of the Jewish interpretations of this verse (the only one in the Hebrew Bible) regarding what kind of cross-dressing is alluded to and for what purpose? It seems that cross-dressing is detested when used for purposes of disguise so that a man hides among women so as not to fulfill his military commitment. Likewise, a woman should not disguise herself so as to carry weapons in military combat.

Do ALL Jews and Jewish denominations believe the above? Of course not. Some in the Orthodox Jewish community take the verse out of cultural context and apply it the way you apparently do. For example, cross dressing may lead to sexual promiscuity and so on. But even in this community, there are differences of opinion regarding its meaning. Jews are noted for disagreement among themselves.

What about the application of the verse to non-Jews? After all, women do wear pants, and not only for activities that make them the best choice. (BTW, even some Orthodox Jewish rabbis allow women to wear pants but ONLY for activities that require them.) Here it becomes trickier since this commandment does NOT neatly fit under any of the Noahide laws which non-Jews are required to fulfill. From the Christian, and particularly Catholic, perspective, I leave that to you.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Nothing to see here…move along…

Matthew 5:17-20

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In that spirit, let’s not forget Deuteronomy 14:8

And the pig, which indeed has divided hooves, with cloven foot, but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch.

Guess I better confess the bacon I ate for breakfast, and any pork sausages I might have eaten in my life, eh?

I better run and check my clothing labels too because Deuteronomy 22:11 says

You shall not wear cloth made from wool and linen woven together.

 

[BlueMaxx]

In context there are three different sets of Lawes in the OT…

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Jesus said that what goes in the stomach does not make one unclean.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, how can Jesus do that if he wasn’t changing “an iota” of “the Law”?

People just pick out the parts of “the Law” that they personally care about, and claim that those are the extra-special ones Jesus didn’t change.



I’m not even reposting all the parts of the Law about public stonings and having women drink some weird potion to prove if they were unfaithful.

Like I said, “The Law” is Jesus’ 2 Commandments and Moses’ 10 Commandments, as interpreted by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus.

Not strangers on the internet cherry-picking the OT.

PS. If you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.

1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Right.
I note we are not talking about homosexuality, or any kind of having of sex, on this thread.
The Sixth Commandment permits sex only within a valid marriage. If a transgender person is in a valid marriage (we have already discussed on the thread how this may well be the case), then their sexual activity, conducted within that marriage and being open to life, is not at issue.
Or if they are single and not having sex, then sexual activity is also not at issue.

All we are talking about in this conversation is whether a man can wear “women’s clothing” and a women can wear “man’s clothing”. Meltzerboy provided some helpful Jewish law context about the original basis for this law. I do not see clothing styles as parts of the “natural law” for the simple reason that clothing styles have evolved radically throughout history and changed many, many, many times and furthermore have been radically different in different parts of the world.

 

[meltzerboy2]

And the ritual and moral laws are intricately connected. All of the laws in the Hebrew Bible are linked to the Ten Commandments and help clarify each of the commandments, and particularly the Book of Deuteronomy is a recapitulation of the laws. Nonetheless, if they do not fit into the Seven Laws of Noah, they are NOT binding on non-Jews, according to Jewish teaching.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You must confess ONLY if you ate a living pig! LOL Otherwise no need.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The young girl wanted to wear the pantsuit because she wanted to dress like a Star Wars storm trooper. That would be fine except while receiving her first Holy Communion. If I remember right she received privately while the mother took the story everywhere.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Neither of my grandmother’s had a uterus: are women defined by that? Were they unwomen?

You made the false logical leap from my premise
“[Excepting in rare cases of a hormonal problem in utero,] a man will not have a uterus”
to the false premise “Someone without a uterus is not a woman.”
The latter does not logically follow from the former. Implying that it does is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

Deliberately slipping in the negative “unwomen,” clearly meant to imply an insulting and derogatory attitude in me with regards to your grandmothers, tips me off that this is not really an honest inquiry into my thinking. A discussion is fine, but I am not here to engage in an exercise in sophistry… but let me add a bit to address the second part of your post.

You’ll note it was specifically a question so I could find out where you sit on it, not an assumption. And I have indeed been watching Handmaid’s Tale, my bad But then you called women men, so I suppose I don’t see where you sit?

Likewise, when you say:

Alex337:

So now you do think people should tell others how they should refer to their past…?

You know very well that I was talking about people who have attempted to change their sex as treatment for their own gender dysphoria not being able to cope with it when other people with similar issues talk about their own pasts. Why? Because it challenges their delusion that they have not only actually achieved a sex change but that they have always had the opposite-sex persona they are now using.

Actually I found the lack of internal logic a bit confusing. In the same string of posts you seemed to say people both should and shouldn’t tell others how they are to refer to their past self. Which do you believe?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Alex, I’ll get to your PM in a day or two.

 

[PetraG]

All those situations you describe (drunkenness, suicide) are objectively sinful.
You’re not making much of an argument for cross-dressing/transgenderism not being objectively sinful.

OK:

The Church does not have any clear teaching that it is inherently wrong to dress in clothing proper to the opposite sex. At least as far as I know, the Catechism does not touch on the subject at all, and it is not because cross-dressing was unknown when this latest Catechism was promulgated. This is presumably because what is “clothing proper to the opposite sex” is cultural. The section of the Bible you referred to was referring to cultural norms. (Obviously: people in our time dresses in a way that people of that time would not find recognizable.) We know that not all the 613 mitzvot made it into the Didache, after all.

Is it OK to try to pass yourself off as the opposite sex? That is a subset of trying to pass yourself off as someone you are not. It isn’t a problem if there is no deceit involved: for instance, if someone is an actor and everyone knows the characters are made up. It would not be OK to do it as part of a deception: for instance, to gain entrance into an area in which you are not allowed. People who are trying to change their sex, however, aren’t trying to deceive anyone. They honestly believe they are dressing according to their real sex. Transvestites aren’t necessarily trying to deceive anyone; they just think their sex ought to be allowed to wear the clothing that culture reserves for the other sex. (Well, and they sometimes try to stay out of men’s bathrooms because they are not fond of the idea of getting beaten up.) They are also usually not dressing that way in order to subject women to ridicule. (I think most adults who dress up in costumes to look like priests or religious are doing that; the ones who do that and especially those who act in a way unbecoming a real person who wears that kind of garb are very wrong, and I mean far past bad taste wrong. It is a sacrilege and often it is meant as such.) Those who do try to deceive others in a substantial way–such as getting someone who would not date them to go out with them because they hide a fact the other person deserves to know–are telling serious lies, and that is wrong. The ones who mostly want others to mind their own business? It is harder to make a case for that being a sin. (This is not touching on the subject of sexual impurity; that is another matter entirely.)

What the Church does say is that a person cannot change their sex and that gender is not determined by one’s interior sense of one’s gender identity. The Church teaches that it is very possible to be confused about one’s sex, to have a mistaken notion of one’s sexual identity. The Church objects to pronouncements implying that it is possible to change sex. The Church also objects to surgical removal of organs that are not diseased when it is not absolutely necessary; this is not considered a medically ethical treatment for most people afflicted with gender dysphoria.

 

[Thorolfr]

What kind of treatment does the Church think is appropriate to treat GID? Does the Church consider itself competent to make pronouncements about science and medicine?

 

[PetraG]

What kind of treatment does the Church think is appropriate to treat GID? Does the Church consider itself competent to make pronouncements about science and medicine?

Yes, the Church employs scientists and experts in medical ethics.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

The Church hasn’t really said anything about it.