Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)

[ReasonableFaith]

14 minutes ago, Luigi said:

You keep saying the same thing. You're not changing anyone's mind. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding. But that's fine - your repetition doesn't change the reality, either. 

The changing of minds may be a relatively rare occurrence on such a forum. 
 

There is always a chance of misunderstanding, especially when the only mode of communication is flatly read text. In this case the argument seems straight forward; A & B therefore C. 
 

The expression of thought  by some posters may be irritating or annoying to other posters or readers. It doesn’t seem every post by any particular poster is required reading for all posters or readers. 

[Credo in Deum]

10 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

The above quoted argument is quite clear and explicit in its premises and conclusion. There is no lack of understanding.  
 

 

These appear to be true. The use of such premises to support the conclusion of the above quoted argument’s conclusion would be ‘begging the question.’  What is demonstrated here is the lack of administration of said sacraments is not determinative of sex/gender. Rather, sex/gender is determinative of the withholding of said sacraments. 

 

 

Lmao, you are a stubborn individual!

 

That's fine. We can approach this in another direction to prove the point you're side-stepping. 

For hypothetical purposes let's just stay a FtM trans person was able to keep their biological sex a secret and received either of the two sacraments mentioned, in either case both Sacraments would be considered invalid.

So do you think you can deduce why that would be? 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[chrysostom]

14 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

What is demonstrated here is the lack of administration of said sacraments is not determinative of sex/gender. Rather, sex/gender is determinative of the withholding of said sacraments.

I took the argument to be that the lack of administration of said sacraments is absolutely indicative of sex/gender.

Edited April 5, 2021 by chrysostom

[ReasonableFaith]

On 4/5/2021 at 8:16 AM, Credo in Deum said:

Lmao, you are a stubborn individual!

 

That's fine. We can approach this in another direction to prove the point you're side-stepping. 

For hypothetical purposes let's just stay a FtM trans person was able to keep their biological sex a secret and received either of the two sacraments mentioned, in either case both Sacraments would be considered invalid.

So do you think you can deduce why that would be? 

There has been no side-stepping. The straightforward path was blocked by the premises and resulting conclusion of the offered argument. The argument necessitated an independent and preceding  determination of gender/sex, in this case being female. This has been much of the discussion contained in the thread...the determining factors of such a determination, leading to the withholding of said sacraments. 
 

In the proposed, hypothetical argument, concealing of female gender/sex, the church would regard the reception of said sacraments as invalid based upon an independent and subsequent determination of the gender/sex of the recipient as female. 
 

At some point it may be interesting to see the handling cases in which an ordained person wishes to live or express themselves as the opposite gender/sex the church is willing to ordain. 

[Credo in Deum]

9 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

There has been no side-stepping. The straightforward path was blocked by the premises and resulting conclusion of the offered argument. The argument necessitated an independent and preceding  determination of gender/sex, in this case being female. This has been much of the discussion contained in the thread...the determining factors of such a determination, leading to the withholding of said sacraments. 
 

In the proposed, hypothetical argument, concealing of female gender/sex, the church would regard the reception of said sacraments as invalid based upon an independent and subsequent determination of the gender/sex of the recipient as female. 
 

At some point it may be interesting to see the handling cases in which an ordained person wishes to live or express themselves as the opposite gender/sex the church is willing to ordain. 

This therefor proves that the Church views people's gender as being their biological sex since the validity of the sacraments is dependent on the person's biological sex. The Church will not tell someone like the OP that they are a male and then turn around and say they cannot validity receive ordination for being a biological female.  No, the Church is consistent that a person like the OP is female and will always will be a female. 

As for your last statement regarding an ordained biological male wanting to transition into a "female" it would not be an interesting case, imo. Such a person, I'm sure, would be laicized.

[ReasonableFaith]

9 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

As for your last statement regarding an ordained biological male wanting to transition into a "female" it would not be an interesting case, imo. Such a person, I'm sure, would be laicized.

Some readers may find certain ideas interesting while others may find the same ideas uninteresting. 
 

Loss/removal of the clerical state may occur in such a case. It could be done by the cleric’s own wishes or against the cleric’s  wishes. It may be the case hermited, otherwise enclosed or retired clerics would not necessitate such an action. Some ordinaries/superiors may respond to such case by the withdrawal of faculties and forgo the juridical proceedings needed to remove one against their own wishes. 
 

The loss of the clerical state removes all obligations of the same state, less celibacy. An additional dispensation may be sought to release the former cleric from this obligation. Also lost are all privileges of the state. Perhaps it is worth noting the removal from the clerical state still carries the obligation to hear confessions and/or provide absolution for those in danger of death. 

[LizzyLizLiz]

Ok so, you do know that what you have done is a sin, correct? I have not been on PhatMass for years but there should be some sort of buffer for these types of topics. God made man and woman. You don't have the goods on creation and what you are supposed to be. It is like saying that you are a duck, or an alien, or Thomas Jefferson. IT IS A MENTAL ILLNESS. If you have butchered your body in becoming a "man" when you are indeed a woman then you have heaped on more condemnation on yourself. The Catholic Church is not even crazy about tattoos because it is altering apart of your physical, God-given, body. You need to go to confession and try to stop this nonsense. Get a good counselor. However you are....listen carefully....NOT A MAN because God, who is not you, made you a woman. Seriously, I am not taking your mental illness lightly but seriously you need help. If nothing else stop touting yourself as Catholic when living out a sexuality contrary to the one God has gifted you with. 

On 2/26/2021 at 5:09 PM, PhuturePriest said:

"We might go back and forth on what the Church teaches on this issue, but what it absolutely teaches without ambiguity is that charity is the guiding principle of everything, and I am sorry that there has been a severe lack of it towards you."

 

Charity in it's correct sense is the guiding principal, but not in the woke culture that changes its standards every few minutes. 

Christ told Peter, "get behind me Satan," and turned over tables in the Temple. Charity is not "niceness." Charity is standing and fighting for the TRUTH.

No one should be physically/personally attacked. However when someone comes on here saying it is perfectly ok for a Catholic to live as a transgender then their views do need to attacked. Such thinking is completely contrary to 2,000 years of Church teaching. 

[LizzyLizLiz]

On 2/9/2021 at 6:11 PM, CuriositasEtFidem said:

3) I guess my question is, at one point did you decide to embrace the concept of gender as a true reality, as a compass point for your life?

I always knew I was somehow different from other girls as a kid, and when I discovered the transgender community, something clicked and I was like, "oh, that's me." I do think it's somewhat odd that some trans people assert that gender is a social construct, yet fight to uphold it. I don't really care either way. All I know is that I'm a man, and if I'm perceived as such, I'm happy.

 

 

This person thinks that she is a man. She says so herself. 

As Catholics we are called to the highest form of truth. Not Marxist, woke, fold like playdough truth; but REAL TRUTH. The angels in heaven are constantly contemplating on the truths and beauty God has made. 

God not only made man and woman he also made then with unique souls. Remember, we are not just fleshy creatures we have souls as well. What is of the spirit is more pure, more Godly. This woman can believe she is a giraffe but that does not mean she is because her soul is feminine as well as her body. 

This is sin and a disorder because it denies what God has made. Even living on the fence is not healthy if you want to be fully recovered. Some on here have touted that what this woman is doing is fine because she is just dressing/acting(?) like a man. If SHE is telling people to call HER him/her/he then she is working contrary to God's creation as revealed in her. If SHE is living the lifestyle of a man when she is not then this is not healthy for her mentally or spiritually. We don't tell alcoholics to hang around alcohol for a reason. -Those who leave the homosexual community are not told to hang out with ex-lovers or hang out at gay bars. Christ has very high standards. Waffling or encouraging someone to continue destructive behavior is not Christian. 

Honestly if this website was still Catholic THIS topic would not even be allowed on here except to apologize the truth. 

[Credo in Deum]

5 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Some readers may find certain ideas interesting while others may find the same ideas uninteresting. 
 

Loss/removal of the clerical state may occur in such a case. It could be done by the cleric’s own wishes or against the cleric’s  wishes. It may be the case hermited, otherwise enclosed or retired clerics would not necessitate such an action. Some ordinaries/superiors may respond to such case by the withdrawal of faculties and forgo the juridical proceedings needed to remove one against their own wishes. 
 

The loss of the clerical state removes all obligations of the same state, less celibacy. An additional dispensation may be sought to release the former cleric from this obligation. Also lost are all privileges of the state. Perhaps it is worth noting the removal from the clerical state still carries the obligation to hear confessions and/or provide absolution for those in danger of death. 

I'm well aware a laicized priest would still be able to hear confessions and/or provide absolution in an emergency situation where someone is near death.   This is due to the fact that a biological man, validity ordained, has an ontology sign on them which cannot be removed...I sign no biological woman can posses. 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[little2add]

Do you know what they say “ Beauty is in the eye of the beholder“

As far as I am concerned what A adult does is his own business, so long as said behavior doesn’t harm others, he or she will have to answer to his maker in the next life.  
however the altering one’s body with chemicals and or surgery of a pre-pubescent child is unconscionable.  

[Ash Wednesday]

12 hours ago, LizzyLizLiz said:

Honestly if this website was still Catholic THIS topic would not even be allowed on here except to apologize the truth. 

Has it not occurred to you that the topic was allowed for this very reason? Nonbelievers, Protestants, cafeteria Catholics, gays, Muslims, Buddhists and all kinds of people have come on this forum and posted beliefs and opinions that are contrary to the Church, and their posts were never banned. I'm not sure how else people on the board are supposed learn or discuss Church teaching or discuss someone's point of view and give witness or correct them if they're wrong if we restrict the topic altogether. Just because someone posts a topic and the discussion is allowed does not mean that the site is validating anything contrary to the Church. 

Granted it's not a topic that's been on this board much up until recently, but I attribute a lot of that being due to the public landscape changing radically in even just the past few years. I don't think banning discussion of it is really the answer, sooner or later it has to be confronted.

[fides' Jack]

On 2/9/2021 at 4:50 PM, fides' Jack said:

But for all the faithful Catholics here: you should know that to not condemn this general attitude, to be silent about the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, and not to proclaim the Church's teachings, especially on a Catholic site, is mortally sinful.  Granted, this thread is young.  I hope the responses that are yet to come truly show that this site is indeed Catholic.  We will see.

If the point of allowing this thread to continue in order that Church teaching may be shown forth naturally, it has failed.  I warned in the beginning Catholics absolutely need to reject this false gender ideology, and most who have commented here haven't done so.  In fact, one "theologian" more or less defended it.  A few have condemned it.  Too few.

On 2/9/2021 at 2:20 PM, fides' Jack said:

Phatmass is under attack, morally.  There is clearly no good way to dodge this, either.  Best to go out in a blaze of virtue, of honesty and truth.

You all have my prayers.  For those who remain faithful, I will look for you in the afterlife!  (Assuming I accept the graces necessary to make it there, myself)

I still hold that Phatmass is under moral attack.  And I'm sorry to say this, but if you don't recognize the intrinsic evil of transgenderism, your moral compass is broken and cannot be trusted in other matters, either.

No, I will not call a he a she or a she a he, and if you insist that I do so, it is you who have sinned, not I.

11 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Has it not occurred to you that the topic was allowed for this very reason? Nonbelievers, Protestants, cafeteria Catholics, gays, Muslims, Buddhists and all kinds of people have come on this forum and posted beliefs and opinions that are contrary to the Church, and their posts were never banned. I'm not sure how else people on the board are supposed learn or discuss Church teaching or discuss someone's point of view and give witness or correct them if they're wrong if we restrict the topic altogether. Just because someone posts a topic and the discussion is allowed does not mean that the site is validating anything contrary to the Church. 

I have a lot of respect for you, and I would agree with you if we Catholics showed any kind of solidarity in this matter.  But we haven't.  We had a seminarian show up and offer charitable "encouragement", and a theologian argue that transgenderism is not against natural law.

We, as a Church, are broken.  We are about to undergo the most severe chastisement the world has ever seen, and many people will die in their false beliefs.  When it's said and done, the Church will be much, much smaller, but more faithful.  I pray that day comes, soon.  "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done!"

[fides' Jack]

I would just add one more thought...  In a world where censorship is the rule of the day, and just about all true conservative ideas are banned in all the popular online applications, one would think that allowing a free exchange of ideas is the answer.  I don't know.  Maybe it is.  But IF it is, then it falls on those who hold the true faith to speak it loudly, even at the risk of serious persecution.  Because if we don't, it won't matter. 

[Ash Wednesday]

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I have a lot of respect for you, and I would agree with you if we Catholics showed any kind of solidarity in this matter.  But we haven't.  We had a seminarian show up and offer charitable "encouragement", and a theologian argue that transgenderism is not against natural law.

We, as a Church, are broken.  We are about to undergo the most severe chastisement the world has ever seen, and many people will die in their false beliefs.  When it's said and done, the Church will be much, much smaller, but more faithful.  I pray that day comes, soon.  "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done!"

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback, I do agree that the Church is broken and share your concerns and frustrations. For me it's a symptom of our social landscape that we even have to have these conversations, and it's a frightening time. 

 

 

[Guest]

I am not afraid, but it certainly is a difficult stage we are travelling through.  I think that the simple Catholic seeks simplicity in an environment of increasing complexity.

Pope Benedict when still an Archbishop: Book "Faith and The Future" - and also a radio address in 1969:

Quote

 

https://www.madonnahouse.org/a-vision-of-the-future-church-by-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi/  From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity.

As the number of her adherents diminishes, so she will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more like a voluntary society, entered only by free decision.

As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. Undoubtedly it will discover new forms of ministry and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession.

In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion.

Along-side this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly.

But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world.

In faith and prayer she will again recognize the sacraments as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship.

The Church will be a more spiritual Church, not presuming upon a political mandate, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right.

It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek.

The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will have to be shed.

One may predict that all of this will take time. The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution—when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain—to the renewal of the nineteenth century.

But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church.

Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty.

Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times.

The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith.

She may no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.