Gender theory and religious beliefs

The ones I've seen are primarily solitary practictioners, as let's be honest, many of them are too narcissistic to form any kind of hierarchy.

Sorry to requote this but I just want to reiterate that not all groups are handmaidy and not all solitaries are “narcissistic”. There are plenty of down-to-earth pagan types who practice their faith quietly (either alone or in groups) or even noisily but without the attention-seeking.

Please don’t tar us all with the same brush 🙂

I can’t add to the Catholic viewpoint as I only have a vague background there. But I have noticed that those who are most strongly TWAW are those a) who are extremely anti-religion and sneer intolerantly at anyone “stupid” enough to “worship sky-fairies”, and b) whose adherence to gender ideology apes that of a religious belief. Oh, the irony.

Outside of Methodists, you don't see a lot of "conformist" trans people into religion, often it's new agey shit with that plasticky, tiktok veneer of mysticism. Tw very into witchcraft, as worshipping Diana is about the most woman-centric you can do, and all the groups and covens are handmaidy. The ones I've seen are primarily solitary practictioners, as let's be honest, many of them are too narcissistic to form any kind of hierarchy.

There are plenty of us witchy types - whether we refer to ourselves as witches, pagans or whatever - who have no time for gender ideology at all. It is a nature-based religion and those of us who have our roots in the natural world and/or farming know that sex is immutable, non-binary and fundamental.

One of the central tenets of paganism and witchcraft is the duality of deity; the worship of the God and Goddess who, while they may have various forms (e.g. the Maiden, Mother and Crone, or the Oak King and the Holly King, as reflected through the seasons) are immutably male and female. Anyone with the most basic understanding of nature will know this to be the case.

However, paganism and witchcraft have always attracted those who have sought to be visibly and noticeably “other”. If I’m being cynical I’d say that they aren’t in it for the relationship with deity or the worship of nature, it’s just another facet of “Look at me, I’m special and different”. They rarely last on the path and it’s noticeable that their intentions aren’t true. But we get tarred with their brush and it gets right on my wick(cca).

Thank you for that about Pope Benedict the XVI, how interesting. Would that people had listened. I wonder if Tony Blair might have paused the GRA if he had read this?

I just saw this was Pope Benedict’s motto:
Cooperatores veritatis
( 'Cooperators of the truth')

*MaterDei^· Today 20:41

ScrollingLeaves · 13/05/2023 12:34

Re: Catholic literal belief in transubstantiation

For clarity, St. Paul says the risen body is “spiritual ” (15:44)MaterDei

As I know perfectly well there is no actual body or actual blood, for me, transubstantiation must be spiritual, like the spiritual body of resurrection in this reference from MaterDei yesterday. Or perhaps the Platonic ideal of Christ’s body and blood?

Hello!
There's a thread on transubstantiation in the philosophy/religion section of mumsnet you might find interesting!

Thank you very much, I’ll go and look.

Pope Benedict XVI called out the transgender agenda nearly 40 years ago in his 1984 interview with Italian journalist Vittorio Messori (published as The Ratzinger Report), then Cardinal Ratzinger called out the embryonic transgender movement before anyone else even realized it existed. In the interview Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “It is not by chance that among the battles of ‘liberation’ of our time there has also been that of escaping the ‘slavery of nature,’ demanding the right to be male or female at one’s will or pleasure, for example, through surgery, and demanding that the State record this autonomous will of the individual in its registry offices.” He noted, however, that changes in appearance to make a male look like a female and vice versa do not alter biological reality: “Incidentally, one must realize that this so-called sex change alters nothing in the genetic constitution of the person involved. It is only an external artifact which resolves no problems but only constructs fictitious realities.” Ratzinger then remarked how quickly governments were giving in to the transgender agenda and changing the legal sexual status of a gender-confused person.

Hello!
There's a thread on transubstantiation in the philosophy/religion section of mumsnet you might find interesting!

Yes, ScrollingLeaves, if I'm understanding you properly, things like illness are seen as a kind of deviation from the proper pattern of the soul. Not that they are somehow evil, but they are a result of the separation we experience from God, just like psychological or spiritual illness, and death itself, are a reflection of our lack of perfect union with God.

So in the Eastern Church, they say that the Church is the hospital for sinners, where the ultimate goal is perfect union (theosis) which would mean healing for all kinds of illness, be it physical, mental, or spiritual. This is why it's not just about abstract beliefs, but also sacraments and connection with others, and practices involving the body - it's a holistic union.

From this POV you could have something like a DSD, where there was a problem with your physical body, just like being diabetic. Or like classic sex dysphoria, where you had a psychological problem. But the idea of an unmatched soul and body would be impossible.

Actually my name is Mary...hope this clears the username issue up! 😅

SorryO meant to say “At one point even children knew it in Latin. “

Thank you, DemiColon. That example of the mathematical pattern is a helpful analogy.

I think of it that if, say, I had been born blind, even accepting that with the right sort of faith that still would have meant I had a perfect body with its own purpose in the eyes of God, my soul would be beyond such details. My soul wouldn’t just be an exact blue-print of a physical state.

Also, if my mind and character were to disintegrate physically due to dementia before I die, my soul would not just be the formula of that end state.

However, I am very interested in what you say, and open to knowing what you people with theological knowledge say in general as I never heard the details philosophically discussed in depth at all.

……………………………………………………………….

Though it is a bit difficult for me to understand everything at liwoxac, DemiColon and MaterDei’s level of discussion, I happened to recognise what liwoxac · Today 10:16 said in Latin:
Meanwhile would it be blasphemous, or just sacriligeous, to ask you, qua Mater Dei (atque Sancta Maria?) orare pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae?

If anyone wandering on this thread doesn’t know what that was about, it was just lixoxac joking to MaterDei.

MaterDei means Mother of God. (Quite a user name, MaterDei, but a fine one!)

So, liwoxac asked MaterDei,

“Which mother of God ([the one] otherwise [known as] Holy Mary?) pray for us sinners now and for our death?”*

The prayer says:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

This simple prayer is very important to Catholics, and at one point even children knew it.

MaterDei may also have meant their name to express simple exasperation as in,
”Mother of God! Look at this mess!”

No, the Catholic perspective does not think the soul is sexless, if it were, the body would also be sexless.

If you had a soul apart from a material body, things like it's sex, or it's other physically instantiated elements, would be in a certain sense without meaning.

One way to think of it is that the soul is a sort of mathematical pattern, from which the material elements of the individual take shape. It's the pattern that makes us this, and not that.

Thanks @MaterDei. You have a good day too. I'm sorry I'm busy now for a while.

Meanwhile would it be blasphemous, or just sacriligeous, to ask you, qua Mater Dei (atque Sancta Maria?) orare pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae?

Well I'd like to hear your response.

@liwoxac it's a shame (for me) that you don't want a long discussion because I would very much enjoy that! However, I will respect your wishes.

I hope this isn't coming across as me trying to have the last word, I just wanted to thank you for your considered response and wish you a wonderful day. 🙏

Scrollingleaves, you feel what you feel and that is that!

Am I correct that what you are asking me is whether or not the soul is genderless/sexless (from a Catholic perspective)?

I've been pondering the answer to this question for 24 hours now and I haven't found a moment just yet to formulate my response!

I will get back to you; until then enjoy your day!

I don't want a long discussion. But as it's Sunday, a little (and then you can have the last word, if you wish).

(Since you ask, I am a lapsed Catholic. Perhaps that makes me a kind of Catholic in the same way being a trans woman makes a man a kind of woman. Or perhaps not.)

I don't think what I wrote was incorrect. Let me try to explain.

There is a difficulty Christians who take an Aristotelian view of souls have when faced with all that "stands before God in judgement" schtick you explain so well. The difficulty is that an in re soul may not have quite the substantial kind of existence required for standing anywhere - by contrast to an ante rem soul which needs no body to underpin its existence and so can stand alone.

So, let's (cut matters short and) try to have our cake and eat it by thinking of in re souls that nevertheless are substantial ... of (Aristotelian) substantial forms (or Forms). Perhaps then, we can maintain that "the soul is the (in re) Form of the body" and yet allow the substantial Form to stand bodiless before God. Aquinas is our man for this.

Now, it's true, as Patrick Toner has it, that
"According to a common and venerable interpretation, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that human persons cease to exist at death and come back into being at the resurrection. This view - which I shall henceforth refer to as "the standard view" - has many defenders. Some recent authors who endorse the standard view are Anthony Kenny, Robert Pasnau, Patrick Lee, Robert George, Brian Davies and Leo Elders. ... [T]here are decisive reasons ... to accept the standard view."
(See Patrick Toner, Personhood in Death and St. Thomas Aquinas; History of Philosophy Quarterly, 26, 2; April 2009.)

Of course it's this 'standard view' that gave rise to the eleventh (iirc) article of the Creed, 'the resurrection of the body': live humans being essentially embodied souls (or ensouled bodies), the soul requires the body for its eternal life. And this is what I offered as a standard Catholic (Thomist) doctrine.

However, if you don't like this standard view - of a gap in human life between death and resurrection - because of the immediacy of "standing before God" after death (but prior to resurrection), don't worry. All is not lost. You're not necessarily a heretic!

Remembering that God himself, after all, exists outside of time, we can fill the gap by considering the substantial Form of the body - the soul - to be sufficiently substantial to stand alone ... albeit just not in time. For the soul (and contrary to the body), no time passes between death and resurrection, even though it be nevertheless substantial enough to stand before God.

Aquinas can be read as a kind of dualist in this way, so as a Catholic, you can take either the standard view or the 'out of time' view (or both - see how?) while still maintaining your justification by scripture and Church tradition. (Where 'justification' there means ... oh, enough.)

Of course many reading this will think it a load of nonsense. (A 'crock of shite', I may have said rather unmanneredly in an earlier post.) That's fine. Even Catholics have learned to live with non-believers, over the years. But we no longer allow Catholics to tell us what to believe, to indoctrinate our children or inculcate notions of substantial forms and the like into our laws.

-- Or Protestants. Or Buddhists. Or Zoroastrians. Or Muslims ... But trans believers? ... Aargh!

Please, trans believers, stop telling us what to believe. And leave our children and laws alone. There is no such thing as gender identity. And trans women are men.

Thanks for the chat.

Transubstantiation doesn't mean the bread and wine "literally" become the body and blood of Christ - if you are allergic to wheat or wine it will still cause an allergic reaction. If you put it in a mass spectrometer it will still read as wheat or wine. But it's also not just a symbol, that's why we genuflect towards the tabernacle when we enter a Church, it's why the tabernacle is kept locked outside of Mass so that the Eucharist can't be stolen and desecrated, and it's why the Mass is so important in Catholicism. The technical terms are "substance" and "accidents" but I don't fully understand the metaphysics.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/savage-minds-podcast/id1535634480?i=1000612882890

This podcast was really interesting Julian Vigo interviews Paul Kingsnorth, English author, living in Ireland, an (ex?)environmental activist, convert to Orthodox Christianity. They discuss gender identity. Absolutely fascinating in my opinion.

Re: Catholic literal belief in transubstantiation

For clarity, St. Paul says the risen body is “spiritual ” (15:44)MateeeDei

As I know perfectly well there is no actual body or actual blood, for me, transubstantiation must be spiritual, like the spiritual body of resurrection in this reference from MaterDei yesterday. Or perhaps the Platonic ideal of Christ’s body and blood?

MaterDei · Today 11:57
Thank you for taking g the time to explain these points on the basis of your evidently considerable knowledge.

Would I be wrong to feel, as I do, that my soul is one with me, but it is beyond being male or female? Not that I think of it very much.

(I am female, to be clear.)

Quite a lot of Catholics do believe in transubstantiation. It's very much tied in with the Catholic view that the physical world is real and good.

@liwoxac you wrote:-
It's a little misleading to describe this as being 'in the future'

I didn't actually use the term 'in the future'. The bold writing in my post with the words 'in the future' are a direct copy of @sequin2000 's post. Hope this makes sense! 🙏

Can I ask @liwoxac are you Catholic? You have written:-
"The soul, you see, does not exist in time between death and resurrection. Does it exist outside of time? Well, ...

... It's probably simpler to say the soul does not exist at all between death and resurrection, since after all body and soul are inseparable; the soul is the (in re, remember)Formof the living body, after all."

I ask because what you have written is incorrect!
As Catholics, we believe that when a person dies, the soul separates from the body. He then stands before God in judgment. Remember that the soul is really "who" we are: while the body lies in death, our soul — who we are — lives on and returns to the Lord for judgment. The Catechism clearly teaches, "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of Heaven — through purification or immediately, — or immediate and everlasting damnation" (No. 1022).

Let's dissect this teaching: When we die, our soul stands in judgment immediately. We will have to account for our lives, for the good that we have done and for the sins we have committed. We call this the particular judgment because it is particular to each person. If we are free of all sin and the hurt caused by sin, we immediately will be welcomed into Heaven, where we will enjoy the beatific vision, seeing God face to face. If we have died with venial sins or the hurt caused by sin, our Lord in His love and mercy will first purge and heal the soul in the place called Purgatory; after this purgation and healing, our soul will then be welcomed into Heaven. However, if we have died rejecting God, with mortal sins and with no remorse for those mortal sins, then we will have damned ourselves to Hell; the firm rejection of God that we made in this life, will continue on in the next. This teaching is substantiated by our Lord's declaration to the repentant thief, St. Dismas: "This day you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). (Note that this teaching on the particular judgment was defined at the Second General Council of Lyons in 1274.)

At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. Our Lord taught in the Gospel of St. John: "The Father has given over to Him [Jesus] power to pass judgment because He is the Son of Man; no need for you to be surprised at this, for an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to life; the evildoers shall rise to be damned" (John 5:27-29). Here again the Catechism teaches, "In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare. The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life" (No. 1039). Here is a judgment not only of the individual standing alone, but also as a member of society and before the whole community of mankind. Those who have already died and have been judged will remain in Heaven or Hell; those who have not died will now be judged and enter Heaven or Hell. Since after the final judgment, only Heaven and Hell will exist, St. Augustine and others speculated that all purification of the soul — for those already in Purgatory and now those faithful awaiting judgment at this final judgment — will be completed.

Yes (all this according to Catholicism), the soul leaves the body at the point of death. The human being constituted by body+soul dies, and no longer exists qua human being.

And, yes, body+soul (the human being) will exist post-resurrection. It's a little misleading to describe this as being 'in the future', however, at least as far as the soul is concerned. The soul, you see, does not exist in time between death and resurrection. Does it exist outside of time? Well, ...

... It's probably simpler to say the soul does not exist at all between death and resurrection, since after all body and soul are inseparable; the soul is the (in re, remember) Form of the living body, after all.

Apostles, yes, and Paul and succeeding theologians (Thomist or not), write of this stuff, faute de mieux, in metaphor - 'spiritual' and the like. (Faute de mieux: le mieux n'existe ...)

Some find all (or much, most, some ... ) of this hard to swallow. That's OK: no-one says you have to go to mass any more; no-one insists children are taught the Catechism as fact. If you think such metaphysical nonsense a crock of shite, you're allowed to say so.

Unless - here's the rub - unless the metaphysical nonsense, the crock of shite, involves gendered souls: then, we are told, we're not allowed to deny its sense in public; then we have to allow our children to be catechised.

This is unacceptable. We should treat gender-metaphysics/theology as we do others. Toleration does not - cannot - entail willy-nilly acceptance of others' beliefs.

I must maintain my right to say - and teach my children and grandchildren - this (the truth): there is no such thing as gender identity; trans women are men ... And so on.