<p>Donna, you are SUCH a lawyer! (Said with the greatest affection and respect.)</p>
<p>I’m just really not sure why ClareMarie’s opinons matter to anyone. I’m also really not sure why she has so much to say on this issue.</p>
<p>In real life my butt probably looks like Roseanne’s, but in my head it looks like Gisele Bundchen’s.</p>
<p>(sorry - I just thought we’ve all earned some levity at this point)</p>
<p>“1) If a close female friend of yours, of many years’ standing, finally confided in you that she had been male at birth and raised as a boy, would you abandon this friend, or refuse to continue to use her female name and to use female pronouns for her? Or would you accept her, and continue the friendship, and acknowledge that she was a woman?”</p>
<p>This is an unrealistic hypothetical, as it would be very difficult to hide such a history from a CLOSE friend of many years’ standing. I know my close female friends very well – have seen pictures from their childhood, met their parents and siblings, hung out at the pool or beach, shared pregnancy/childbirth/nursing experiences, etc. If such a friend were actually a man, that would require so much dishonesty as to make close friendship impossible.
But, to answer the more general question, the proper response is to hate the sin and love the sinner. I would not abandon such a friend, but would not support his or her efforts to be treated as a member of the opposite sex. Just as I would not attend the “wedding” or commitment ceremony of a homosexual person, or refer to their partners as “husband” or “wife.”</p>
<p>“I see nothing wrong with concluding that surgery for the purpose or result of living as a man or woman is appropriate while surgery for the purpose or result of living as an amputee is not.”</p>
<p>And one is appropriate while the other is not, because…?</p>
<p>LOL spideygirl!!
In my head by chest looks like Dolly Parton, but in real life… well… nevermind :)</p>
<p>“Birth control generally, including Natural Family Planning, is intended to prevent or impair the functioning of perfectly healthy reproductive organs. Does the use of birth control, including Natural Family Planning, indicate the presence of a mental disorder?”</p>
<p>Excellent question, but with a faulty premise. Natural Family Planning is not a form of contraception, because rather than attempting to use chemicals, surgery, or mechanical devices to frustrate the natural ends of sexual intercourse, it takes advantage of a woman’s fertility cycle to AVOID intercourse during the period when a child is likely to be conceived.<br>
With regard to contraceptive pills, Depo-Provera, the IUD, condoms, spermicide, etc. – yes, one could argue that their use is disordered. Just as a person suffering from an eating disorder will eat a normal meal and then induce vomiting to prevent the natural end of eating (the absorption of nutrition and calories by the body), so a person using contraceptives is attempting to circumvent a natural and healthy bodily function – the conception of a child from an act of sexual intercourse.<br>
But though the use of contraceptives is inherently disordered, clearly it’s not a function of a specific mental disorder, as such. Instead, it’s an indication of a disordered contraceptive culture, which tries mightily to pretend that sex has nothing to do with babies and, increasingly, babies have nothing to do with sex.
The result of this giant game of pretend is that 40% of all babies are born to single mothers (70% for blacks), half of all pregnancies are still unintended, and a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion.
Oh, yes, and millions of women who kept postponing children for more important things now struggle with the heartbreak of infertility, spending tens of thousands of dollars on failed IVF attempts and then tens of thousands more trying to adopt the dwindling number of babies available for adoption.</p>
<p>I had a relative who is a priest and was my mom’s first cousin. They were good friends growing up. When my brother got married, he chose not to do so in the church. My father died suddenly two weeks before the wedding (which we still held at my Mom’s request - she needed something to look forward to). </p>
<p>This “Man of God” decided not to attend the wedding, leaving an empty chair next to my Mom at the head table. Why did the priest not attend? Because of ARROGANCE, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to serve God. He hurt people that day, and then patted himself on the back for not supporting a wedding with which he did not agree. </p>
<p>In addition to her grief, my Mom had to suffer the embarrassment and loneliness of not having this person attend. My mother was also an only child (her cousins were like siblings to her). The priest’s presence was needed on more than one level that day.</p>
<p>WWJD? Jesus would have done what LOVE required. </p>
<p>When we hear people saying, “I will not attend this wedding because I am standing up for this or that”, notice the pronoun usage: I I I I I. “I will hate the sin and I will love the sinner”. </p>
<p>How about just getting down on our knees and asking God for the Grace to show love in all we do, and let Him handle the details about what is and isn’t a sin?! </p>
<p>When Jesus taught us how to pray (this is to Christians, of course), and about sin, the purpose was to take OUR OWN inventory and keep OUR OWN side of the street clean. His life wasn’t about using the information in order to judge and persecute other people, as we smugly preen over our own self-righteousness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are your feelings on whether use of contraception should be made illegal, claremarie? (And let’s not talk about contraception uses for non-contraceptive reasons, such as the pill to help with acne or bad menstrual periods)</p>
<p>If the culture would be better off without contraception, would you vote yes on a hypothetical bill to disallow the sale of contraception in your state?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I introduced the link and the topic many pages ago and then someone posted it again. I meant to discuss it in a thoughtful way for the reasons I’ve already stated.</p>
<p>claremarie, you danced around my questions a bit, so please bear with me and allow me to re-word them to make them “realistically” hypothetical. And with thanks to Pizzagirl, I’ll add hers, too:</p>
<p>1) You stated in post #225 that you would not support a transgender person’s efforts to be treated as a member of the opposite sex. If you served on a board or worked in the same office as a person who was open about the fact that she had been male at birth and raised as a boy, would you refuse to use her female name and to use female pronouns for her? If so, how would you refer to her in the normal course of a business day or meeting? </p>
<p>2) You wrote in post #212 that the purpose of surgeries that change one or more body parts or organs is “to IMPROVE or REPLACE a diseased or damaged organ.” You already stated that birth control (which would include non-disease related surgeries such as vasectomy and tubal ligation) is inherently disordered. But what about cosmetic surgery, such as breast reduction? Since the body part is not diseased or damaged, but is altered for reasons of self-image, is the person who chooses to have this type of surgery suffering from a mental disorder?</p>
<p>3) If the culture would be better off without contraception, the use of which you believe to be inherently disordered, would you vote yes on a hypothetical bill to disallow the sale of contraceptives in your state? Given your Catholic beliefs, I am sure you would be happy to see abortifacients made illegal, but what about other methods, such as the condom?</p>
<p>“But what about cosmetic surgery, such as breast reduction? Since the body part is not diseased or damaged, but is altered for reasons of self-image, is the person who chooses to have this type of surgery suffering from a mental disorder?”</p>
<p>It’s my understanding that most breast reductions are performed on women whose large breast size interferes with normal activities, such as sleeping or exercise, rather than for purely cosmetic reasons. But breast reduction/enhancement, liposuction, facelifts, nose jobs, etc. all fall into the category of improving the human body rather than destroying it. The woman who underwent breast reduction still has breasts. Changing their shape or size is not quite the same as removing them.</p>
<p>“If you served on a board or worked in the same office as a person who was open about the fact that she had been male at birth and raised as a boy, would you refuse to use her female name and to use female pronouns for her? If so, how would you refer to her in the normal course of a business day or meeting?”</p>
<p>That’s a tough one, but I think that courtesy demands that you address people by the names they are using. That doesn’t mean that you agree that a person who used to be a man is now a woman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m curious as to how you distinguish between “improving” and “destroying”. It seems like your principle is that it’s okay to do anything to a body part, as long as it continues to exist in some form. So, if (for reasons related to gender) I were to have my breasts surgically reduced until they were almost unnoticeable - say, an extremely small A - you would consider that an improvement… but if, for the same reasons, I had a bilateral mastectomy, that is destructive. Is that an accurate summary?</p>
<p>What about non-trans men who are diagnosed with gynecomastia and have their breasts removed, using the same surgeons and surgical techniques used by trans men? Are they also destroying their bodies? Is their sense that their breasts are incongruent also a “delusion” that goes against the natural form of their bodies?</p>
<p>“This “Man of God” decided not to attend the wedding, leaving an empty chair next to my Mom at the head table. Why did the priest not attend? Because of ARROGANCE, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to serve God. He hurt people that day, and then patted himself on the back for not supporting a wedding with which he did not agree.”</p>
<p>If your brother was Catholic and chose to be married outside the Church, then your mother’s cousin did exactly the right thing in declining to attend the wedding. (If he was raised Catholic and had left the Church for another or no faith, that’s a different story, of course.) A priest cannot let his personal feelings interfere with his duty to teach and live the faith. The Church teaches that Catholics may not marry outside the Church without special dispensation. A Catholic who thumbs his nose at that teaching and does what he pleases is committing a serious sin. A priest who attended that wedding would be giving tacit approval to what cannot be condoned. Indeed, ANY serious Catholic would have declined to attend that wedding. A priest has an even higher responsibility not to cause scandal or confusion by participating in an invalid or illicit marriage.
Of course, he also had the duty charitably and kindly to explain to your mother why he could not participate in or attend the wedding, and if he failed to do that, he made a mistake.<br>
I’m not sure what this anecdote has to do with Chastity Bono.</p>
<p>I admit I haven’t read everything in this thread, so if this question was answered somewhere could someone please post the message #? Thanks.</p>
<p>Here it is: I don’t understand why some men like to dress up in women’s clothing – what it is about women’s clothing that gives them a thrill. Not all of them are gay (I’m thinking of the director Ed Wood. But honestly, what a pain it is to put on hose, high heels and carry a blasted handbag around! It is tiresome, I am forever leaving my bag hanging in some restaurant, and I take my high heels off under tables and desks.</p>
<p>Commensurately, I don’t get why little girls struggling with gender confusion have tantrums when forced to wear a dress. Why? What’s the psychology behind it? I don’t think it would be fun to wear a suit and tie every day either. I don’t understand why lesbians and FTM (that’s the term?) dig that.</p>
<p>I apologize for ignorance! Really, I am wondering. </p>
<p>Actually, I think we should just dress like in Star Trek (except with skirts a little longer, of course). Wash and wear, throw it on and go. It is sleek and simple. Or like the little Wii avatars – unisex!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>claremarie, I believe spideygirl’s comments were in response to your “hate the sin, love the sinner” comment. Clearly, what “love the sinner” means appears to be open to interpretation. Your view of what it means to “teach and live the faith” doesn’t appear to have much love in it.</p>
<p>Also, if you don’t mind staying off topic for another minute, I’m curious about this comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you think of Fr. Flader’s view that “where relationships are at risk it can be acceptable for Catholics to participate in a civil ceremony.” Is he not a serious Catholic?</p>
<p>[Catholic</a> parents can attend children’s civil weddings: Flader - CathNews](<a href=“http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12304]Catholic”>http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12304)</p>
<p>The issue is different where one’s children are involved, and I agree with Fr. Flader that IN SOME (not all) circumstances, attending a civil wedding ceremony would be acceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But why? Are one’s own children entitled to more love and understanding than another person’s children?</p>
<p>“So, if (for reasons related to gender) I were to have my breasts surgically reduced until they were almost unnoticeable - say, an extremely small A - you would consider that an improvement… but if, for the same reasons, I had a bilateral mastectomy, that is destructive. Is that an accurate summary?”</p>
<p>Well, if you’d like to split hairs in a lawyerly fashion, I’d say that if you could nurse a baby (even though some supplementation might be required), you still have breasts, regardless of size, and therefore the surgery would not be destructive.</p>
<p>“The issue is different where one’s children are involved
But why? Are one’s own children entitled to more love and understanding than another person’s children?”</p>
<p>The parent-child relationship is far more important than others.
But, more to the point, the individual in question is a priest, not a layperson, so the parental issue is irrelevant. The priest’s duty is clear.</p>