Nearly all Catholic apologists are men (with all due apologies to Amy Welborn ), including the evangelical converts to Rome. They stress devotion to the Eucharist as the main thing that keeps them in. But I suspect that for devout female Catholics, the main thing is Marian piety. I assume they strongly identify with the cult of Mary. That's why keeps them in. Just my hunch.
> They stress devotion to the Eucharist as the main thing that keeps them in.
I appreciated the previous post that explained that with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, one of the main problems for Protestants is not that they disagree with it... it's that it's not possible to explain what the "it" is. What does it actually mean that the "host" both is and isn't the literal, physical body of Christ, such that it has none of the physical properties of that body, but somehow "is" it?
I have been thinking that the same observation can be applied to current transgender ideology. When a man proclaims "I am a woman", what does he actually mean by this? Why is the "I" that now (or always) "is" a woman? I think I know what a woman is. I'm married to one; I've witnessed baby girls growing up into them. But when Bruce Jenner suddenly says "actually, I'm a woman", what is this "woman" thing that he's talking about? It needs explaining; and the promoters of trans-ideology don't do that.
Good observation. There's a similarity in that I'm not sure what "woman" refers to. However, they would probably say there's something like an internal essence of the mind that corresponds to when we say "woman".
For the Real Presence folks, I have no idea what they mean when they say "body". For transgender folks, I think the main problem is epistemological. How would you know you are a woman on the inside if you're not a woman?
Let me explain this further. If I said "I am a tiger on the inside", how would I know what a tiger feels like on the inside. Once you remove biological basis for "woman" being essential you've removed any basis for knowledge.
Well, most transgender activists are materialists. The mind reduces down to brain chemistry. So it's still a physical property. How would they distinguish the belief that they're "really" woman, from a brain malfunction that is misleading them into that belief, when they're really not?
Probably in a similar way that a Roman Catholic could distinguish a communion wafer that's just a communion wafer, from one that's "really" the body of Christ - i.e. they couldn't, because their doctrine of something "really" being something else isn't sufficiently well formulated to make that even possible in theory.
> They stress devotion to the Eucharist as the main thing that keeps them in.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the previous post that explained that with the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, one of the main problems for Protestants is not that they disagree with it... it's that it's not possible to explain what the "it" is. What does it actually mean that the "host" both is and isn't the literal, physical body of Christ, such that it has none of the physical properties of that body, but somehow "is" it?
I have been thinking that the same observation can be applied to current transgender ideology. When a man proclaims "I am a woman", what does he actually mean by this? Why is the "I" that now (or always) "is" a woman? I think I know what a woman is. I'm married to one; I've witnessed baby girls growing up into them. But when Bruce Jenner suddenly says "actually, I'm a woman", what is this "woman" thing that he's talking about? It needs explaining; and the promoters of trans-ideology don't do that.
Good observation. There's a similarity in that I'm not sure what "woman" refers to. However, they would probably say there's something like an internal essence of the mind that corresponds to when we say "woman".
DeleteFor the Real Presence folks, I have no idea what they mean when they say "body". For transgender folks, I think the main problem is epistemological. How would you know you are a woman on the inside if you're not a woman?
Let me explain this further. If I said "I am a tiger on the inside", how would I know what a tiger feels like on the inside. Once you remove biological basis for "woman" being essential you've removed any basis for knowledge.
Well, most transgender activists are materialists. The mind reduces down to brain chemistry. So it's still a physical property. How would they distinguish the belief that they're "really" woman, from a brain malfunction that is misleading them into that belief, when they're really not?
DeleteProbably in a similar way that a Roman Catholic could distinguish a communion wafer that's just a communion wafer, from one that's "really" the body of Christ - i.e. they couldn't, because their doctrine of something "really" being something else isn't sufficiently well formulated to make that even possible in theory.