Majority of American Catholics support transgender rights

[rug]

by Jamie L Manson on Nov. 11, 2011

The Roman Catholic hierarchy rarely utters the word transsexual or transgender. And when it does, it's only to say that transgendered persons either don't exist or are suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

Add this latest statistic to the "discrepancy between hierarchical teaching and lay conviction" file: According to a recent study by the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute, a staggering 93 percent of Catholics in the United States support rights for transgendered persons.

The Public Religion Research Institute is also responsible for the study earlier this year that found that an overwhelming 74 percent of Catholics favor legal recognition for same-sex relationships, either through civil unions (31 percent) or civil marriage (43 percent).

That figure is higher than the 64 percent of all Americans, 67 percent of mainline Protestants and significantly higher than 48 percent of black Protestants and 40 percent of evangelicals.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/majority-american-catholics-support-transgender-rights

[Pirate Smile]

1. If individuals aren't allowed to distort it, the most basic thing taught in Catholicism is a very

strong sense of social & economic justice and fairness - which applies to EVERYONE.

That doesn't necessarily apply to the Roman Catholic hierarchy - especially with regard to any issues dealing with sex in any way but, frequently, probably to their own regret, the fairness trigger instilled can't be uninstalled later by the church.

Don't ask me to explain the RW Catholics. They seemed to miss the most basic lessons.

[laconicsax]

2. I thought the most basic thing taught is Christ's "sacrifice."

:shrug:

[rug]

3. It's Matthew 22:36-40.

[laconicsax]

4. So why isn't that part of the Nicene creed?

Also, don't you need some more basic things taught before that passage means anything? You know, like who Jesus is, why he's important, etc?

[rug]

5. Such excellent questions.

I am unqualified to answer these questions, especially considering how sincerely they're posed.

[e-mail]

Ask him.

[laconicsax]

6. When has a lack of qualification stopped you before?

:shrug:

[rug]

9. March 3.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Interesting. That makes me realize the degree to which I focus on the lessons Jesus taught and not

so much his existence itself.

I wonder if this has to do with some of the differences between at least some strains of Protestantism & Catholicism - where Protestantism is more about the individual's 'personal relationship' with God vs. Catholicisms emphasis on the importance of 'good works'.

I truly do not get the entire "born again" or the "personal relationship" stuff. It is completely foreign to me.

I always think it is so much more important how you treat other people - especially someone who may be different or struggling or need someone to stick up for them vs. your own relationship with God.

I know I'm out of my league in this discussion, however. I went to Catholic Schools. My kids go to them too because I like the social justice framework - which is what Glenn Beck so despises :) . But, other then that, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I have too many questions unresolved - too much ambivalence toward the Church - as in "simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action".

I just take what I view as the positive and "disregard the rest" as the song goes ~

The Boxer by Paul Simon ~

"Still a man hears
What he wants to hear
And disregard the rest."

Frankly, the "disregards the rest" seems to be a staple of the modern American Catholic.

[rug]

8. Thoughtful post.

There are no Catholic schools nearby but my kids are going to Mass and the religious education. I'm encouraging them to question and challenge what they hear and know why they accept what they accept. They all walked out of Mass with me a couple of times when the Bishop required letters of his to be read during the 2008 election. But they help out at the food pantry too.

The Catholic Church has a rich history and, taken at its core, it's a radical message. The horrible things done by many of us and its leaders notwithstanding. You may want to visit one of the Catholic Worker houses in your area.

http://www.catholicworker.org/communities/index.cfm

Click on the "Communities" bar. There are many in Iowa alone.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

10. So what's the Catholic church's official stance on

on LGBT rights? In particular what is the church's official stance on gay marriage?

[rug]

11. This is its statement to the UN three years ago.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2008/documents/rc_seg-st_20081218_statement-sexual-orientation_en.html

This is its position on same sex unions.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

[EvolveOrConvolve]

14. Certainly the Catholic church is highly enlightened compared to some

evangelical protestant and fundamentalist sects of christianity. But it still comes down on the wrong side of the battle.

Some highlights from your second link:

"...homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'."

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

"No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman..."

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty."

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

My guess is that it will be many generations before the church recognizes its error, if ever.

I applaud the church members for their progressive stance on LGBT issues, but until the underlying organization is forced to recognize its failings, it's unlikely that meaningful change can be effected.

[rug]

15. If it's any consolation, its position on heterosexual sex outside a marriage is similar.

Nor does it acknowledge as a sacramental marriage civil unions between heterosexuals.

[MarkCharles]

23. Ninety-Nine percent of Catholics are against pederasty, yet

I don't see surveys on THAT topic, only costly settlements and displacements of Catholic leaders (all men) who covered it up.

On the cutting edge? I think not!

[rug]

30. And?

[NMMNG]

26. It's not

Heterosexuals aren't denied the right to legally marry, then penalized because they're denied that right. Gay people are denied the right to legally marry then condemned for "premarital sex" and for entering into unions that are less-than marriage (as if they have any choice--and it's been shown that when they do have a choice they choose marriage). But then religious folk (much like their gods) are known for forbidding things then punishing those who dare to live and love anyway.

[rug]

29. That's incorrect.

The RCC is concerned and competent only on sacramental marriages, not legal marriages. The legality of any marriage, including same sex marriage, is the business of the state. Write your congresscritter.

[NMMNG]

33. Bull

If they were only concerned with "sacramental" marriages they wouldn't be so deeply involved in the efforts to ban legal same-sex marriage.

[rug]

35. You left out "and competent".

It has no more competence on the issue than you do. Vote your choice.

[NMMNG]

37. Why are human rights subject to a popular vote?

And why do religious people/churches think they should be? If your rights were on the chopping block would you be so casual about it?

[rug]

38. Ask Congress why it passed DOMA.

And no, I am never casual about rights.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

42. Pressure from anti-gay religious bigots

And no, I am never casual about rights.

If you weren't, you wouldn't toss off a comment like "vote your choice" on a matter so critical as basic human rights. You'd recognize that they don't belong on a ballot in the first place.

[rug]

43. But they are.

Venting on me doesn't change that.

[NMMNG]

45. It would help if you'd stop pretending the Catholic church is progressive in such matters

when the reality is they've been at the forefront of the fight to obstruct and remove LGBT rights since day one.

[CatholicEdHead]

56. Actually it is blame deflection from the sex abuse scandals

In ultra-conservative circles, homosexual = pedophile. This is also the definition used in the majority of clergy circles, epically clergy circles with influence. It is a blame deflection. The basic idea is that "the Church has never done and will never do anything wrong" so the sex scandal to them came form the outside aka "homosexual pedophiles". The Mother Church itself is and will remain blameless. So they spin it as a form of fighting pedophilia to those who will buy into it (ultra-conservative Catholics). So by doing it this way the "faithful" keep their wallets open and fight light zealots against those who they perceive as causing the scandal in the first place.

[skepticscott]

16. It's also unexplained why,

if the Catholic laity is so deeply committed to these issues, they continue belong to and support an organization whose official policies are so diametrically and hatefully opposed to what they believe to be right.

[rug]

17. Here's the survey and methodology.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/PRRI-RPTS-Transgender-Issues-Topline-Aug-Sep-Combined.pdf

You can draw your own conclusions.

[skepticscott]

18. Nothing at that link

addresses Catholics or the Catholic church in any way whatsoever. I can only assume this is yet another transparent attempt by you to deflect and avoid substantive questions concerning your "arguments"

Nice try.

[rug]

19. There's plenty at that link.

Did you miss this?

"The final sample was weighted to six different parameters — age, sex, race, geographic region, education, and telephone usage — to
ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total adult population."

Do you know how polling works?

Maybe you should read up on it before reverting to ad hominem remarks. You won't look as foolish.

[skepticscott]

20. Sure there's plenty of stuff

But give me a quote from that link that says anything about Catholics. Or that addresses the question I posed in post #16 above in any way.

And while you're at it, tell me exactly how my remark attacked you, and not your lame, transparent attempts to deflect my question.

I'm guessing you'll be able to do all but three of those things.

[rug]

21. As to 16, I repeat, you can draw your own conclusions now that you've acknowledged "stuff" is there.

Given that the survey gathered demographic data on religion, how do you think they sorted the responses by religion?

Since you've missed all of that, it's no surprise you don't realize that "yet another transparent attempt by you" is an ad hominem.

Not to mention your last sentence.

You must find disruption more satisfying than discussion.

[skepticscott]

22. As predicted

0 for 3. You do realize that everyone here can see you have nothing, don't you? Apparently you find evasion and dissembling more satisfying than answering direct question in a relevant way.

You've been enough of a waste of time today, but thanks for playing.

[rug]

24. "everyone here can see you have nothing"

:rofl:

So long.

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

25. Uh-huh

The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided

You mean like the Pope calling gay people "Intrinsically Disordered" and calling for them to undergo "reparative therapy"?

In particular, the categories ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’, used in the text, find no recognition or clear and agreed definition in international law. If they had to be taken into consideration in the proclaiming and implementing of fundamental rights, these would create serious uncertainty in the law as well as undermine the ability of States to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards.

That's the same RRRW twaddle claiming that it's impossible to pin down what sexual orientation and gender identity are, so it's too burdensome to give LGBT people basic rights and protections. How does that jive with the premise of your OP?

[rug]

28. "it's too burdensome to give LGBT people basic rights and protections."

Got a link for that?

[NMMNG]

32. I already quoted it

from the link you provided.

[rug]

34. I read it. It's a 6 year old piece on new seminary standards.and gay candidates.

I did not see that quote, only your words.

What I did read was an article that focused on Ratzinger's role in trying to shift the church's approach on homosexuality.

"What had happened to the CDF between 1975 and 1986? Ratzinger had taken charge of it. His name, absent from the Declaration, was on the Letter."

There appears to be considerable controversy on this within the RCC.

What I decidely did not read in there were the words you typed.

[NMMNG]

36. Of course you didn't

But I've been hearing and reading anti-gay bigotry long enough to be able to decipher it no matter how well it's disguised.

[rug]

39. Well it's not here.

[NMMNG]

41. Says you

[rug]

44. That's right. Says me.

Go on. Say I'm a bigot.

[trotsky]

51. I don't think you are.

But the organization that you continue to promote, defend, and support with your time and money is full of them. Whenever anyone calls you on this, you lash out, or just retreat with one-liners and smileys.

[MarkCharles]

12. "once again, Catholics in this country are on the cutting edge of issues related to human rights."

Right behind those who are Atheists, where support for individual freedom of thought and of human rights is near 100%?

[rug]

13. That's good but it's not really a competition.

[MarkCharles]

27. See my post about the Ninety-Nine percent of Catholics, #23......

[rug]

31. I did.

[iris27]

46. Is it supposed to be encouraging that 93% of Catholics continue to support a hierarchy that denies

the very existence of anyone outside the gender binary, even though they don't agree with that stance?

[laconicsax]

47. +1

[MarkCharles]

48. Great question:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

50. If you read it, unbiasedly, you'd realize the 93% support transgendered rights, not the hierarchy.

One is not necessarily the other.

[trotsky]

53. Yet they remain in the institution run by the hierarchy,

supporting them with their time, money, and work.

[NMMNG]

55. They're Catholics

If they're still members of the church they support the hierarchy. :shrug:

[skepticscott]

54. If you're waiting for a substantive answer

from the OP, don't hold your breath. He spent all day yesterday avoiding answering essentially the same question from me. And then this morning trying to argue that our two questions weren't at all alike, along with more of his usual squirming, until that thread mysteriously got disappeared.

[LeftishBrit]

52. Good to know!