So, which side is catholic, and which side protestant ?

[SerendipityJane]

Just browsing a couple of podcasts about the reformation, and I was suddenly struck by the parallels in language and commitment to a world view between the early reformation (crispy catholics etc) and the current spat with TRAs and science.

To the extent that either I am alone in my own little universe (which I am quite happy with, thank you) or someone else must have noticed.

Anyway it does provide for a brief distraction if you want to not only examine the parallels, but suggests which side equates to which.

I guess someone, somewhere is working on a PhD around the western christian manifestation of the current transgender discussions. If not they have have that one on me 😎

Might depend what board you did and when, as I definitely remember there being a load of tedious stuff about the Council of Trent in GCSE RE, but this was 30 years ago.

You see I don't - and never have done - believe in magic words. Probably connected to being a grown up and rejecting mumbo jumbo.

So all this faux horror over the "n" word. Or the "p" word. Or the "m" word or the "z" word is really just performative thicko signalling. People openly stating they have a problem with how language works. Which does raise questions about how it's taught.

It's the context that carries the offence. Not the word.

As a rule I prefer classification to censorship. And obviously reasoning to superstition.

So it’s hard to map one on the other OP but you’re not the only one to look at previous situations in history and think « Oh, look at that, they’re doing it the same way! »

Well I did google and ChatGPT before posting, and that suggested there were no big articles or studies. Which surprised me. And made me wonder what viper central would make of it 😀

To be completist, I suppose the discussion could touch upon how the free-fuel movement of the more extreme forms of conflict were eventually reconciled into what we have today (mostly in England) where the issue is one of many small divides in a generally cohesive community that includes non-participants. (I have no idea what a Islamic take on the reformation might be. Or Jewish.).

Incidentally, the Reformation was part of everyday history in an everyday London comp ages 12-14. We all learned it.

We learned a lot of things at school they don't teach now.

I agree
but I only found out about the intricacies of Catholicism from my History A level classes
despite doing RE in a Catholic school as a compulsory subject up to 16

can you imagine how I felt as an 18 year old vegetarian being told the host was indeed the real thing

I think you misunderstand me.

The point is that no amount of words will turn a man in to a woman. But hey I'm just a thicko

(I have no idea what a Islamic take on the reformation might be. Or Jewish.)

I imagine nothing whatsoever, the way Christians don't have a view based on faith of Reform v Orthodox Jewish beliefs or Shia v Sunni forms of Islam.

I’ve sometimes been guilty of thinking simplistically that catholics were the flamboyant, fun ones whilst the Protestants were dull but worthy. It was actually studying the reformation in England and Europe at A level and especially Martin Luther, not too long after completing confirmation classes, that gave me the intellectual reasons to reject religion that I had already become uncomfortable with.

I enjoy the parallels though. At its heart its powerful men, maintaining their power, riches and status. Always.

In my simplistic world view the flamboyant side would be believers in gender identity and the worthy side the anti-corruption believers in science and education. But that doesn’t work. Protestants punished non-believers and claimed all kinds of things to progress and become more powerful, just as Catholics traded prayers for people’s eternal souls. The historical lessons are about power and corruption - not the side anyone was on. You only have to look at what Stonewall was founded for, and what it became, to see what happens when the need to keep the money rolling in becomes more important than the people you are supposed to support.

What does give me pause though is why so many educated people fall for it.

The Council of Trent?
I can go one better from my very very intensive RE:
The Diet of Worms
😃[1521 in the city of Worms, where Luther was given the chance to recant and didn't; interestingly, he walked away unscathed and the rest is history - and an amusing moment for kids doing RE]

The non-binary, asexual and puberty-blocked might be good candidates for the monks and nuns role @Needspaceforlego (just in this fantasy mapping - no offence intended to real nuns!).

Fascinating thread, and I often muse about historical analogies myself. (Loved comparison by@Dwimmer of printed indulgences and Stonewall's diversity champions scheme raising funds for the "church".)

McCarthyism is the obvious one, with people losing their livelihoods overnight from blacklisting, guilt by association etc.

I can also see trans as a medieval heretical sect with increasingly extreme rituals and purity tests. Originally dismissed as a fringe movement but now gathering enough momentum and camp followers, including children, for the establishment to finally draw a line in the sand after indulging them for years.

In fiction, they remind me of High Sparrow's flock of fanatics from Game of Thrones. Highly judgemental, esoteric knowledge, and dangerous when they point their collective finger (cancelling).

They are also reminiscent of a millennial cult - the end of the world is nigh with climate change. They have nothing left to lose. The old ways haven't worked, so time to usher in a new age of queer, trans, non-binary youth. Love will save the day. And the self-soothing idea that GC's are dinosaurs, and will eventually die out.

I disagree.I think it is the other way round: men always find a way to use any belief system to exert their power and influence.

At the heart of Christianity is a message of giving up all power, money and influence and putting faith in God.

The political nature of Europe and the position of Luthers protector has a lot to do with that ..

Much as the Reformation in England had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with politics, power and the propagation of the Tudor line.

So to bookend this thread I am proposing that the current TRA situation is the same. Nothing to do with anyones rights and everything to do with male politics, power and the propagation of their privilege.

I'm delighted you included the "wee donkey" but disappointed that you didn't refer to "baby" Jesus.

Crikey, that was adventurous. And the Council of Trent is important, of course, since it is the RC's answer to the Reformation, clarifying doctrine - the Counter Reformation. I would have loved to have studied that - though in history rather than RE, I think.

You can't study history without religion. Any history.

It's only by trying to understand what people believed in that you can try to understand what they did.

Political uses aside, the people witnessing a witch burning genuinely believed, following their indoctrination education that they were saving a human soul. And if someone from this day and age were parachuted back then, we would be regarded as evil spirits with our talk of "human rights" and nonsense like that.

"She t'aint be human" you would be told "She be a witch".

Anything starting to sound familiar ?

There is a thread elsewhere that is up against the same problem. Trying to impose contemporary values onto a completely different society.

I've never forgotten a lecturers frequent comment that our ancestors were not stupid. They just knew different stuff.

At the risk of trivialising this heady discussion - would TRAs be more welcome at the tray bake or popping into the convent for a quick retreat ? I think we should be told.

Depends very much on whether they can make a caramel square, I would have thought.

I disagree.I think it is the other way round: men always find a way to use any belief system to exert their power and influence.

Yes, I agree.

Much as the Reformation in England had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with politics, power and the propagation of the Tudor line.

It did have to do with religion in the sense that both Edward VI and Mary I had very strong, sincere religious beliefs, one Reformed, one Catholic. I don’t know whether there is any evidence that Henry VIII had views on the likely direction of religion in England under Edward’s rule? but surely had Edward lived longer, a much more Reformed Protestantism than what the country actually ended up with under Elizabeth would have been embedded.

It did have to do with religion in the sense that both Edward VI and Mary I had very strong, sincere religious beliefs, one Reformed, one Catholic. I

I doubt their views would have been the same had the ideology said that Christ hated Kings and we should all be allowed to have a stake running the country.

"Sincerity" is incredibly easy when it's on your side.

I miss salted caramel brownies 😞

The world was a lot more uncertain in the past. Superstition wasn’t due to indoctrination or education (which very few got much of); it was largely due to trying to make sense of the world. Where scientific explanations are lacking, other explanations will fill the void, for example the belief that Black Death and other diseases were caused by miasma that could be warded off by a nosegay. In that situation it is easy to believe that the spasms, hallucinations, gangrene, pain and death of St Anthony’s fire was caused by bewitchment. It has been suggested this may have had a role in the Salem witch trials. Incidentally Ergot - the cause of St Anthony’s fire - a fungal infection of rye, was the source of ergometrine used to induce labour and is still used to control bleeding in childbirth today.

I’ve just remembered that it was an AIBU thread about transubstatiation that brought me to FWR. Until then, I had been sceptical about GI (in particular peaked by “ladybrain”) but had not realised people actually believed TWAW. Thank you to whoever started that thread (and OP for this interesting one).

We were always taught that the reformation played out differently in Scotland compared to England. It was much more religion-focused and doctrinal, but I have no doubt there were a lot of power dynamics too. James VI was quite the woman-hater from what I remember, as the witches issue illustrates.

The world was a lot more uncertain in the past. Superstition wasn’t due to indoctrination or education (which very few got much of); it was largely due to trying to make sense of the world. Where scientific explanations are lacking, other explanations will fill the void, for example the belief that Black Death and other diseases were caused by miasma that could be warded off by a nosegay.

You realise you wrote that in a country where this century the news reported that flooding was Gods punishment for tolerating gay folk ?

Who did that?

Absolutely agree with you! Moral anachronism is a huge problem with people viewing the past and deciding that the people they had learned were heroes or worthy of respect/interest, did interesting or wonderful things are not worthy of consideration, are suspect etc. and must be taken down, their sins made known etc. It makes me angry.
And indeed, you cannot study history without studying religion - and geography comes in very handy, too.

This guy (and lots of Americans, on various occasions):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Dow