"What If My Daughter Insists She Is a Male?" How a Catholic Priest Answered This Mother's Question.

[Blue_Horizon]

I am sorry, (and I hate to be blunt), but that is a lot of bollocks, to be also very British about it.

I can be loving and supportive of my child, but that does not mean that I will bow to his/her pressure to address him/her by something that he/she is not. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Please quote my words where you believe I have derided your valid point of view .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I assure you that “we here at CAF” encompasses everything under the sun. And some express fervently held opinions (such as on the nature of and causes of homosexuality and gender dysporhia), believing they are inherently catholic views, when they are simply personally held views and/or views gleaned from a selective reading of a limited range of sources. Typically, one finds the Church expresses no view on the issue in question.

The Church does profess to know the cause of SSA or gender dyspohoria. The Church does not reject the idea that there might be biological factors in the mix.

Bump to that.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry. Where exactly?

Already provided, the Catechism. Here it is again:

*… the Church teaches that the actual cause of such issues is still largely unknown.
(2357 Homosexuality has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.) * Which means these things, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness. Strange how the Vatican has not seen fit to update things if the [latest] science on this important topic is as convincing as you weakly opine?

Genesis aside I agree completely with the Catechism. Once again, when printed, much less was known scientifically.

Why it hasn’t been updated I cannot answer.

 

[Rau]

Sure there was/is. Remember “born that way”? This caused science to look for a gay gene. None has been found.

“The gay gene” is a product of tabloid newspapers" and other amateurs.

Innate - born that way, unchangeable (like skin color)

OK, but it remains that we don’t know whether a person may experience an innate bias toward SSA.

What we should not be doing is letting our kids be indoctrinated and told this is normal and having school counselors encouraging or advocating it.

Once again - have any of your interlocutors suggested otherwise? These plainly true statements you make are not in debate on this thread.

What was in debate with you was why you appeared to reject - **on principle **- even the possibility of some biological component in conditions such as homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Your assertion in post #34 that such would be inconsistent with “God’s plan” is IMHO baseless. Your assertion in post #38 that “God created them male and female” rules out the possibility of a biological influence in homosexuality is IMHO baseless.

Did you overlook post #40? Perhaps you can elaborate your thinking (leaving aside what the science does or does not suggest).

 

[Rau]

Genesis aside I agree completely with the Catechism. Once again, when printed, much less was known scientifically.

Why it hasn’t been updated I cannot answer.

Updated to say what? “We still don’t know the cause of SSA” ?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. We here at CAF are not fundamentalist Christians. We are Catholics. Or simply Orthodox in communion with Rome like me.

I think you have confused the title (as in a protestant classification “Christian Fundamentalists”) with the adjective (“fundamentalist”) which can be applied to individuals of many different types of organisations with a certain simplistic or literal appreciation of their discipline.

1. Nobody is more “pro-science” here than us Catholics. So this idea that we might be possibly because we hold an opinion that does not line up with your non-Vatican approved stance is kind of silly.

So many personally incorrect assumptions here I do not know where to start:

• Yes, like you I am a Catholic and am actually part of your “us Catholics”. I go to mass three times weekly, do you? And many of us Catholics have very different views re the objective situation as you and Buffulo are now discovering.
• Where did I say anybody was against science? Though I am suggesting Buffalo’s “research” cherry picked assessment of the current debate is extreme and far from balanced. Further it rather obvious it is his own idiosyncratic “faith” that is somehow interfering with his objectivity on these matters…and along well worn tracks.
• My stance is exactly what the Vatican has stated:
  “Homosexuality’s psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And of course, that should read “The Church does **NOT **profess to know…”

Yeah, that’s what I thought you must have meant from the context.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree completely with the Catechism.

Great, we are agreed then that science may yet discover some form of biological cause for the sexuality issues of some persons as raised on this thread.

You still studiously avoid addressing our questions: e.g. you will not explain why such a possibility (that gender dysphoria, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness) is so abhorrent to you?

 

[RomanoAmerio]

Great, we are agreed then that science may yet discover some form of biological cause for the sexuality issues of some persons as raised on this thread.

You still studiously avoid addressing our questions: e.g. you will not explain why such a possibility (that gender dysphoria, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness) is so abhorrent to you?

There are interesting speculations on this subject in the field of psychiatry and neuroscience these days. It is entirely possible that gender identity disorder (“gender dysphoria” is a deceptive term, for it plays into the hands of the activists by making it a “feeling” rather than a “disorder”) has a neurodevelopmental origin, one that may share links to conditions such as autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There are interesting speculations on this subject in the field of psychiatry and neuroscience these days. It is entirely possible that gender identity disorder (“gender dysphoria” is a deceptive term, for it plays into the hands of the activists by making it a “feeling” rather than a “disorder”) has a neurodevelopmental origin, one that may share links to conditions such as autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Personally by a possible “biological origin” I have no predilection for genetics over in utero hormones over neurological flaws. I think we just have to wait for the science. It may be that causality is multiple - in addition to ideological or nurturing causes.

 

[buffalo]

“The gay gene” is a product of tabloid newspapers" and other amateurs.

OK, but it remains that we don’t know whether a person may experience an innate bias toward SSA.

Once again - have any of your interlocutors suggested otherwise? These plainly true statements you make are not in debate on this thread.

What was in debate with you was why you appeared to reject - **on principle **- even the possibility of some biological component in conditions such as homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Your assertion in post #34 that such would be inconsistent with “God’s plan” is IMHO baseless. Your assertion in post #38 that “God created them male and female” rules out the possibility of a biological influence in homosexuality is IMHO baseless.

Did you overlook post #40? Perhaps you can elaborate your thinking (leaving aside what the science does or does not suggest).

I think you misunderstand.

1. God’s purpose for the reproductive organs is clear
2. If a biological component is found, that would still be inconsistent with his design.
3. Therefore, we would look for some component that became defective etc.

We also know after the fall sin and corruption entered the world. This opened the door to disordered desires.

 

[buffalo]

Great, we are agreed then that science may yet discover some form of biological cause for the sexuality issues of some persons as raised on this thread.

You still studiously avoid addressing our questions: e.g. you will not explain why such a possibility (that gender dysphoria, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness) is so abhorrent to you?

It is not at all. Genetic entropy is causing every human generation to degenerate. This could be the reason, but current science is not supporting that. We go where the evidence leads.

It used to be thought of an illness until it was politicized. Dare say that now and there will be intense pushback.

 

[buffalo]

Personally by a possible “biological origin” I have no predilection for genetics over in utero hormones over neurological flaws. I think we just have to wait for the science. It may be that causality is multiple - in addition to ideological or nurturing causes.

You did not answer my previous question: Do you advocate homosexual acts?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not at all. Genetic entropy is causing every human generation to degenerate. This could be the reason, but current science is not supporting that. We go where the evidence leads.

It used to be thought of an illness until it was politicized. Dare say that now and there will be intense pushback.

1. If a biological component is found, that would still be inconsistent with his design.

Of course it would be, why do you assume anyone here disagrees with that? We all know mother nature in a fallen world regularly gets it wrong and produces results inconsistent with God’s design. From encephalics, to Downes Syndrome to hermaphrodites. So personal choice is not the only cause of such disorders in the world as your original position seems to imply

You did not answer my previous question: Do you advocate homosexual acts?

I most certainly did answer here…

Sorry, I don’t indulge posters until they have proven themselves of openness and good faith by appositely answering questions already put to them.

You have consistently ignored my questions and now ask inappropriate questions instead.
Nor do you respond to reasoned rebuttals but simply go off on tangents.
These are both typical evasive, rhetorical smoke screen techniques.

And here…

Yes, like you I am a Catholic and am actually part of your “us Catholics”. I go to mass three times weekly, do you? And many of us Catholics have very different views re the objective situation as you and Buffulo are now discovering.

 

[buffalo]

Of course it would be, why do you assume anyone here disagrees with that? We all know mother nature in a fallen world regularly gets it wrong and produces results inconsistent with God’s design. From encephalics, to Downes Syndrome to hermaphrodites. So personal choice is not the only cause of such disorders in the world as your original position seems to imply

I most certainly did answer here…

And here…

It is always a choice to act.

You didn’t answer yes or no and I have to wonder why.

 

[Rau]

I think you misunderstand.

1. God’s purpose for the reproductive organs is clear
2. If a biological component is found, that would still be inconsistent with his design.
3. Therefore, we would look for some component that became defective etc.

We also know after the fall sin and corruption entered the world. This opened the door to disordered desires.

Ah, I am relieved. It seems you do agree that there could be biological influences underpinning homosexuality and dysphoria and such possibility is not in conflict with catholic doctrine.

 

[Rau]

It is not at all. Genetic entropy is causing every human generation to degenerate. This could be the reason, but current science is not supporting that. We go where the evidence leads.

Keep in mind science has not found an explanation for a great many things, including why most persons are attracted to the opposite sex. Absence of scientific understanding is certainly not evidence.

There is no sound understanding of the causes of the conditions we’ve been discussing. There are hypotheses and there are threads of indications but nothing like a coherent understanding. Nothing to which one can attach a high probability of being correct.

 

[AClaire11]

On the original topic, I would urge parents of gender dysphoric children to keep in mind that while we don’t necessarily know the cause or what ultimately is the best form of treatment (right now the standard is delaying puberty or transition, but that could change), studies have shown that trans people who feel supported and accepted have lower rates of suicide. So please be kind to those undergoing this struggle, even if you believe they are wrong.

 

[buffalo]

Keep in mind science has not found an explanation for a great many things, including why most persons are attracted to the opposite sex. Absence of scientific understanding is certainly not evidence.

There is no sound understanding of the causes of the conditions we’ve been discussing. There are hypotheses and there are threads of indications but nothing like a coherent understanding. Nothing to which one can attach a high probability of being correct.

The evidence is leading to early childhood trauma.

 

[Rau]

The evidence is leading to early childhood trauma.

How early? Well, let’s say - “under X”. Of course, there are persons experiencing SSA, some who go on to homosexual relationships, who were never victims of such trauma. What do we conclude?

As I said earlier, there are threads of indications. Certainly there are reports that say there is an increased correlation of “childhood trauma” with “homosexuality”. But there are numerous such threads and reported correlations - including some with biological factors. We can’t point to each and say: “Aah - we’ve found the cause”.