Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Of Gender and Biology

There is a new  article on the America Magazine site discussing a document on the subject of gender theory, issued by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education,  "...which, while containing no new doctrinal elements or developments, seeks to present the Catholic Church’s position on the question in a non-polemical manner and expresses the need to dialogue on the subject."
From the article:


"The text is signed by the prefect and secretary of the congregation, respectively, Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi and Archbishop Angelo Vicenzo Zani. But nowhere is it said that Pope Francis has seen or approved the document. This would suggest that the text is meant to serve as a basis for dialogue and discussion for those involved in the field of education and is not meant to be seen as a final answer on this controversial subject."
"...The text explains that “gender theory” expresses an ideology that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.”
The America article is short, and worth reading.
I have a few random thoughts on the subject.  I'm not going to give the document a dismissive eye-roll, I think the authors had some valuable thoughts to add.  However, some things are problematic. Starting with, for instance the title; "Male and Female He Created Them". For the continuation of our species, we are divided into male and female.  However, God doesn't micromanage feelings and behavior.  Doubling down on a Genesis reading of anthropology isn't going to convince any skeptics.  It is pretty obvious that much of what we have associated with gender is in fact a construct of culture.  We have progressed in parsing this out; for instance, it is widely accepted now that women can be soldiers and cops, and men can be nurses and librarians.  The same with how we dress.  Women can wear slacks, Scotsmen wear kilts, and clergymen (some of them) wear lace, and the world doesn't come to an end. 
However, there is such a thing as biological reality.  Males and females have different body parts, and our biology is written into each of our cells, in the form of the configuration of our chromosomes.  This affects physiology and psychology.  People can be in denial if they want, but it isn't going to change reality.
Since this document is issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education, I think this part is worth consideration: 
“Catholic educators are called to go beyond all ideological reductionism or homologizing relativism by remaining faithful to their own gospel-based identity, in order to transform positively the challenges of their times into opportunities by following the path of listening, reasoning and proposing the Christian vision, while giving witness by their very presence, and by the consistency of their words and deeds.”
“The culture of dialogue does not in any way contradict the legitimate aspirations of Catholic schools to maintain their own vision of human sexuality, in keeping with the right of families to freely base the education of their children upon an integral anthropology, capable of harmonizing the human person’s physical, psychic and spiritual identity.”

21 comments:

  1. I mentioned that I watched this year's Tony Awards telecast. This article has photos of a couple of non-traditional men's outfits that appeared on television screens this year, from the Tony's and from a Met gala from earlier this year.

    https://qz.com/quartzy/1639987/tony-awards-proved-men-in-ballgowns-is-2019s-best-fashion-trend/

    My personal view is that I'm glad that those men feel sufficiently safe to express themselves this way. With no wish to disparage the Congregation on Education, I am not entirely sure that outfits like those call for any dialogue on my part. I certainly don't feel threatened by them.

    I guess I do have a little lace on the sleeves of my alb. I'll try to remember to snap a picture of it next time I'm in the sacristy, and I'll post it here, and then y'all can decide whether or not I have gender issues. Personally, I think it's nice craftwork by someone, and I take it in that spirit.

    To be honest, I'm more concerned about the fact that young people who abide by traditional gender and sexual norms, apparently are losing interest in sex. In other words, I'm not concerned about a genderless world, I'm concerned about an asexual world. I'd love to see any willing dicastery weigh in on that one.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, about the Tony Award outfits, it's not even Halloween!
      All the clergy albs in our parish have a lace insert above the hem. I don't think anybody gives it a second thought.
      You're young enough you probably don't remember the Carnaby look in men's fashions back in the early '70s. I cringe when I think of some of the clothes I gave my husband. He must have really loved me to wear them. There was a paisley shirt with balloon sleeves, and coordinating bell bottom slacks. He did say that after wearing military uniforms all through basic training, that he was up for a little pizzazz.

      Delete
    2. Yikes, about that Atlantic article! No wonder young people aren't into sexual relationships, if everybody is getting their ideas from porn. Seriously, choking sex, and worse, on a first date?
      Different world from when we we were young. My siblings and I were all married at age 21 (I guess one brother was actually 22). Our kids waited a lot longer. One of our sons was 27, the other 35. It's harder than it used to be to meet actual people. Back in our day we usually met our spouses at school, or work, or a friend introduced us. I guess people are more wary now.

      Delete
    3. There are no mediating social structures or frameworks. We've become a gas of individuals.

      Delete
    4. Speaking of men in dresses: http://www.awrsipe.com/Burke/index.htm

      Delete
  2. Some people say there's a continuum. That may be true but I'm pretty sure the distribution is bimodal in a many variable space, two peaks separated by a valley, with some very few in the valley. The two sexes are more a difference of emphasis than a difference in kind. After all, we're all the same species. Because of that, women priests make sense. I think at a higher spiritual level, we are the most alike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...at a higher spiritual level we are the most alike." I think you're right about that. It's even a scriptural idea, "...neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.."

      Delete
  3. Mary M. Doyle Roche in the latest issue of C'weal talks about praying with Queer people. Sounds more useful and Christian than endlessly "dialoguing" over what the Church has already decided is destructive of the family.

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/lingering-margins

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cardinal Burke would fit right in at the Tony Awards.

    http://queerchurch.com/?p=44962

    Pius Xii liked to get gussied up too

    https://resipsaetc.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/pius-xii-full-regalia-sedia.jpg

    Many "princes" of the church seemed overly enamoured of silk and gold thread and rings and lace and fur and trains (VERY LONG trains) and strange headgear and Etc

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capa#/media/Datei:Theodor_Kardinal_Innitzer_-001-.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. Katherine and all: Fr. James Martin has written a response to this new document. Well worth reading.

    https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/06/11/listen-lgbt-person-response-vaticans-gender-theory-document?utm_source=Newsletters&utm_campaign=d7ead78fbe-DAILY_CAMPAIGN_2019_6_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0fe8ed70be-d7ead78fbe-58652245

    ReplyDelete
  6. I get the L and G, and conceptually I can imagine the B, but I am quite sure we didn't have T or Q in my day. So "the latest scientific knowledge" has an uphill battle with me. It's sort of like peanut allergy -- where did that come from? I grew up in school cafeterias that reeked of peanut butter, and no one died.

    The Church -- not for the first, only or last time -- is in a bind because it can't say that some people are not born hetero because it once said everyone has to be. That assertion may have been possible before homosexuality lasted for millennia through most of which, and in most places, being homosexual could get one killed. A long time ago, being created male OR female joined the Flat Earth Society. But it stayed in Church. Which makes it impossible to talk gender, as the Church has always taught it, without sounding like you are saying, "Shut up, and eat your spinach." Because that, in fact, is what you are saying.

    For that reason I don't hold out much hope for the dialogue the new document talks about or Fr. Martin's efforts to bring sanity to the discussion. Both can help with the "respect(ing) every person in their particularity and difference," but I think most people in this day and age do that. It's just the Church that can't.

    Beyond that,I dearly love NPR and its standards, but I sincerely doubt that the first trans to read all of Shakespeare, the first trans to be elected sheriff, the first trans to head a Fortune 500 corporation and the first trans to hit three home runs in a 9-inning game against left-handed fastballers all deserve five enthusiastic minutes of NPR's time.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There definitely was "Q" in your day: Queer (that was right down there with fag, pansy, fruit ad nauseum) and Questioning (anyone who ended up L or G started out as that Q.

      The T was there, but it hid out in those back alleys where pre-RvW abortions took place. There was also a distinction between pre-op and post-op T (then called Transsexual).

      Delete
    2. But that is not the Q in LGBTQ, is it? Is it a back-in-your-face Q, like Dick Gregory titling his book with the N-word so all the racists would promote it every time they opened their mouths? Or is it an assertion of "fluidity," as I heard someone say? I can't figure out how you get more fluid than B, but I am old, and there may be new body parts I don't know about.

      Delete
    3. Tom, at the risk of being pedantic, there is gender on the x axis and sexual preference on the y axis. Endless potential combinations, including asexuals. Gender fluidity is the idea that someone may drift around those combinations.

      "Queer," as I understand it, is a blanket term for individuals not plugged into birth-assigned gender or heterosexuality 100 percent of the time.

      Delete
    4. I think both gender and sexual preference are mostly hard wired from birth. Proclivities like fetishes probably result from some early imprinting process. Basic drives need to be hard wired because they're too essential to mess around with higher psychological functions and their attendant uncertainties.

      Delete
    5. I tend to agree, but it's all just theory.

      Delete
    6. It's not a sexual preference as an orientation. How many of you decided that you prefer to be heterosexual? Neither did I "prefer" to be gay.

      Delete
  7. Tom, good point about the Church being in a bind.
    I thought Fr. Martin's article was good. I assume the comments on it are careening downhill, he draws lightning. The comments on America often go downhill. Which is hard for me to understand. Its usually the same people; if they don't like it, why do they keep coming back? I got weary of First Things years ago, but I don't hang around there making snarky irrational comments. I moved on.

    As a parent and grandparent, there was one area where I definitely agree with the Congregation for Catholic Education document. They favor the schools confining themselves to teaching that bullying, and excluding anyone because you perceive them as different, is never, ever okay. Especially in grade school I don't feel it needs to get more specific than that. Most parents react unfavorably to educators pushing a social agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Katherine: "As a parent and grandparent, there was one area where I definitely agree with the Congregation for Catholic Education document. They favor the schools confining themselves to teaching that bullying, and excluding anyone because you perceive them as different, is never, ever okay. Especially in grade school I don't feel it needs to get more specific than that. Most parents react unfavorably to educators pushing a social agenda."

    Absolutely agree.

    But, I'm also quite sure that Catholic schools would quickly expel a student who claimed any of the identities in LGBTQ or have a parent who does. So the schools themselves become the bullies. There have been numerous examples of schools refusing to enroll or re-register the children of gay parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne, no argument from me. Sometimes the institutions themselves are the bullies.

      Delete
  9. The comments to James Martin's article are at 136 and counting.

    The article he linked to by the deacon who has a trans child is worth a read too.

    http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201805/transgender-and-catholic-31392

    ReplyDelete