Thread by @masterjedi747

Welp, promised myself I would read that Marquette document today... so, here it goes. 🧐 (I heard it doesn't explicitly mention pronouns, so theoretically it's at least one order of magnitude less cringe than the documents from Lansing and Arlington, right?)

...three hours and one handful of distractions later, I've got 12 pages dripping in multi-colored handwritten notes. Gonna take a break, but then 100% coming back to The Bird App and... processing.

tl;dr – It's strangely mixed bag. Could have been worse. Lots of room for growth.

So let's pull a "the last shall be first" flex, and start with Appendix 2: Pastoral Resources. Because honestly that desolate wasteland of 5 (five) whole pastoral resources... speaks volumes.

What Appendix 2 desperately needed: @EdenInvitation + all of the following and more:

Returning to the beginning:
I. The Art of Pastoral Accompaniment

There's a lot of good things in here, but one major flaw that really bothered me was the emphasis on "we must be patient and lead others step-by-step along the way", and the repeated framing of "leading" others.

It's nothing inherently wrong... but especially in THIS context, it's missing a critical equal-emphasis on the *mutuality* of this "leading". It seems to frame its "accompaniment" as a fundamentally one-sided relationship – essentially the relationship of a teacher to a student.

Thus it says things like: "Only then, can we shepherd people step-by-step to embrace and live the fullness of truth." And sure, there is a time and a place for that sort of relationship. But there's no way in hell you're going to survive this conversation with that attitude

If we want to accompany trans people, we have to not only listen, not only refrain from presuming what they mean by certain words, and not only "lead" them, but ALSO allow ourselves to BE LED by them in certain respects, accompanying them as equals on a complicated journey.

The document helpfully – though it seems, almost accidentally – highlights this element when quoting Pope Francis' reference to "this 'art of accompaniment' which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other". But practically everywhere else...

...it carries this implicit lens of accompaniment merely as "shepherding" others: as if we are coming down to them from a place/posture of superiority.
And it's complicated, because in SOME sense that does have to be true; but it downplays the humble *mutuality* of this posture.

Which is to say: However much we think we know about Christian anthropology and theology, the one thing we DO NOT know is the lived experience of the trans person. We have to learn this FROM them, and BE LED BY them to better understand their experience before we can speak to it.

Phenomenologically, THEY have the superior position from which to teach us their lived experience. Full stop.
Failure to emphasize this mutual leading within the relationship gravely risks transforming our well-meaning accompaniment into something prideful and/or condescending.

The document confuses this when presenting two examples of how Jesus engages with the Samaritan woman at the well, and Zacchaeus.
Jesus' relationship with these persons not ideal for us to model: because WE are not JESUS. We are not the full source and possession of Truth.

We cannot SIMPLY lead others to the-Truth-which-is-ourselves, as Jesus could. We are not SIMPLE bearers of "good news to a broken world" as Christ was.
Instead we are PART of that broken world. We must ALSO allow other broken persons to bring certain truths to us, and teach us.

My only other 🙄 with Section 1 in my notes here has to do with that whole stupid flourish toward blaming "the sexual revolution and the breakdown of marriages" for every evil – as if the listed problems did not PERVASIVELY exist throughout human history prior to the 1960s? But.

II. The Meaning and Purpose of Human Sexuality

This is where some 💩 really hits the fan, because IMMEDIATELY we get thrown into the Christopher West-ian framework of "permanent, faithful, fruitful, total", and all of the terrible, no-good, suspect nonsense that flows that lens.

"This is how Jesus loves us." Great, and? His love for us is not *sexual*, so how is this a useful framework in the context of human sexual ethics? It stands far better as a model for the (perfectly non-marital) love that exists between FRIENDS. Indeed, Jesus loves us AS friends.

But no, apparently we HAVE to put marriage at the center here, so Section II presses into this deeply uncomfortable framework where The Sacrament of Matrimony is borderline-idolized as THE prototypical framework for human sexuality, as if Christ and St Paul didn't hint otherwise.

The focus given to "expressing permanent love" is just bizarre, and deeply unnecessary. It doesn't matter if "permanent love" can [it can] exist or be expressed outside of marriage, if we simply affirm that sexual activity is not a *moral* expression of love outside of marriage.

The rest of this "How do you want to be loved?" framework can simply be swept away: because that's not the right question.
There's just a strange failure of imagination happening when we get seem to be fixated on human marriage, despite our rich tradition of singleness/celibacy.

Tangentially, this fixation on "permanent love" reminded me a WHOLE lot of the discourse that occasionally pops up regarding vocations and "vowed commitment". It's the same nonsense: exalting permanence/vows without a coherent basis.
More on that here:

https://twitter.com/masterjedi747/status/1293434754583465985

BUT WAIT, it gets weirder! After pointing to marriage as an archetype (rather than as a shadow of something greater), we get THIS gem: "Because our bodies are integral parts of us, so is our fertility." Spouses must therefore (we read) also "give their fertility to each other".

Look, I'm a canon lawyer who works in a marriage tribunal. I know EXACTLY what they MEANT to say by "fertility", and in a few other places they actually phrase it much better (referring to "acts of the procreative kind"). But what they SAID here was VERY wrong and VERY cringe.

And STILL nobody seems to notice that this framework – "only sexual intercourse [in marriage] that is open to life can express a total and fruitful love" – logically implies that celibate priests are incapable of perfectly "expressing" or "giving themselves totally in" love.

Yes, the document attempts to course-correct away from a few of these horrors, particularly when giving reassurances to men and women who "may have struggles with infertility". But maybe, and hear me out here: maybe shouldn't have EVER framed "fertility" as the key to begin with.

There's a funny (at least it was to me) moment in the last sentence of this section, where it says that homosexual sex "cannot participate in the expression of God's total and fruitful love (CCC 2357)". I laughed, because I knew THAT terminology wasn't ANYWHERE in that citation.

My point is: Section 2 is very sloppy, and thus deeply unhelpful, if not flatly counter-productive. This is not a well-articulated Christian anthropology. The Christopher West-ian brainworms have deeply compromised the foundation, and it's neither solid or safe to build on.

III. General Approaches to the Accompaniment of Persons with Same-Sex Attraction and Gender Dysphoria

We're in the thick of it now, and there's not a ton of light in the forest. But there are some strange glimmers of hope: such as the technically-VERY-correct but NEVERTHELESS...

...surprising choice to VOLUNTARILY read the words "and gender dysphoria" into the message of CCC 2358.
And don't hear what I'm not saying. It's great, praiseworthy, shockingly good. But that concept is, once again... absolutely *nowhere* in the actual citation given? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But then that glimmer fades, and immediately we're off a cliff again and into the weeds regarding the alleged importance of "not being defined or identified by" our sexual attractions or identity. And this has been done to death, so I'm not going to rehash it all here. Instead...

Here are a list of resources that you can-and-should dive into, if you're not already up to speed on the whole "LGBT identity-language" debate, starting with Misty Irons...

https://twitter.com/masterjedi747/status/1466601999919636491

...and Jeremy Erickson (himself linking to well over a dozen other pieces on this same issue)... spiritualfriendship.org/2018/09/05/how…

...and this simple piece, which IMHO distills the heart of dispute down very efficiently (also referencing and linking to Ron Belgau, who reflects at greater length): blog.ayjay.org/christian-lang…

And sure, this document doesn't dwell on the identity-language issue as others have. Arguably it even gestures accidentally toward the correct path, when it qualifies its recommendation "to avoid identifying persons MERELY using [LGBT] labels". But it's just not helpful, at all.

III-A. Same-Sex Attraction

Surprisingly? Another bright spot of light, or at least what feels like one in this context. My notes reflect a handful of quibbles pointing to room for improvement, but honestly there's a lot of GOOD statements here, and it's hard to be bothered.

My only real ⚠️ was attached to the loose usage of "disordered desires", and the corresponding critical necessity to: parse out various desire(s) from each other, and DISTINGUISH which ones are morally "disordered" vs. which ones are redeemable. Like so: spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/12/sam…

III-B. Gender Dysphoria

Not a super great section, but that's unsurprising because we're driving headfirst into the complexities of distinguishing "sex" vs. "gender", which this document appears to barely acknowledge or know how to navigate, preferring to just... ignore it?

Take this claim: "the sex of the person and the sex of the body are the same". Uh... sure? Does anyone ACTUALLY dispute that?
Or do many not *distinguish* gender (internal identity) from sex (external identity), and raise zero objection to that notion of person-body unity?

Or this claim: "we are to embrace our bodily sex". Great, sure. Some people certainly disagree with that, but it's NOT always because they are "in denial about" the fact of their bodily sex. If (if) they seek to change their bodily sex [citation needed], is it not because...

...they DO recognize the factual existence of their bodily sex, are simply not convinced that it is immoral to seek to change it? Is it not rather we who are in denial about their factual experience of an internal identity (gender) which they are trying to match their body with?

Look, I'm not saying this is simple. Unpacking the philosophical notion(s) of what constitutes-or-defines "gender" as something distinguishable from "sex" (to say nothing of: what can-or-cannot morally be done in light of that) is a complicated discussion. But we have to have it.

And it seems (to my mind) more than a little silly to suggest that any sort of coherent distinction between sex and gender is impossible – particularly when we have at least one 1975 Rotal decision (CLD 8:759) which explicitly entertained a concept of "psychological sex"...

...in light of the fact that sometimes "a radical disassociation is found between the psychological sex on the one hand and genetic, gonodal, hormonal and somatic sex on the other hand".

What is "psychological sex" understood in this sense, if not our modern "gender identity"?

Anyway, the document advances this REALLY awkward "good analogy" to anorexia nervosa, which just... kinda falls apart, the moment you start to unpack it?
All it takes is one trans person to affirm: "my sex is A, and my gender is B, that's literally what being trans means"...

...with precisely zero element of "being in denial about" the fact of their biological sex, and suddenly this "lack of correct self-perception" angle goes up in smoke. And maybe not all trans persons would happily make that concession, but I've seen enough who would, and do.

All that to say, anorexia nervosa is probably an incredibly dangerous analogy through which to attempt to understand the trans experience, and maybe we would all benefit from listening more, and letting them present their own analogies. Not like this.

And we haven't even touched the claim that: "Every one of us is created as either male or female." As if it really were that simple, as if intersex conditions did not exist, as if the entire world and the Church ITSELF had not gone through a period of believing that full-blown...

...human hermaphroditism was a real and possible thing: "not only organic but also functional so that those affected by it could, as regards generation, act at will either as a man or a woman [and even choose to] be joined in marriage as a man or as a woman" (CLD 8:759).

Let me repeat this: There was (apparently) NO world-ending theological crisis when the Church WAS historically confronted with the idea (which turned out to be medically false) that a person was SIMULTANEOUSLY biologically male AND biologically female. The Church navigated that.

If we can navigate that, then we should be VERY capable of handling a less-extreme transgender theory that downgrades "I have two biological sexes at the same time" to the relatively simple "I have one biological sex, and one psychological sex in tension with it".

And if (if) we subscribe to a traditional Aristotelian-Thomistic concept of nature as being "always or for the most part", then we should have no difficulty framing the male-female binary as simply what happens "for the most part", with no crisis if some exception is proposed.

Anyway, this document grapples with precisely NONE of that nuance... and that's the problem. It just takes one sloppy claim after another, and cobbles them them together without any rigorous attempt to build on solid philosophical principles or theological sources.

IV. Guidance for Select Pastoral Circumstances

This section begins with something perfectly true: "if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal... such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion".

Sure...

...unfortunately, this whole approach is very much begging (or: dodging) the critical rubber-meets-the-road question: What precisely is the "objective sin" that requires conversion? How much are we really talking about "sin", and how much are we arguing about "erroneous belief"?

While the starting principle is true, there is just so MUCH to unpack here, and so much that could be interpreted in divergent ways (e.g. "A is a sin and must be repented" vs "A is not a sin, but B is")... and we're not even building on a particularly solid foundation.

And the problem is immediately compounded when we begin pulling on notions of "the potential of scandal", (which the document correctly frames as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil") and/or "behaviors that are objectively gravely sinful".

Identifying *which* behaviors are evil and gravely sinful (and coherently explaining *why*) is critically important here... but we're really just dodging past all of that. Maybe for the best. Yet those issues will inevitably explode (from a certain point of view) as we proceed.

A. Sacraments of Initiation

A-1 here is *correct* regarding the canonical posture for baptism of children. But it stumbles BADLY in the explanation: "Unlike a man and woman who are cohabitating or in an invalid marriage, the status of a same-sex couple can never be regularized."

That claim (while PERHAPS true) has properly-speaking absolutely NOTHING to do with the baptism of the child. WHETHER OR NOT the relationship of the parents can be regularized, the core question here is the existence of a "founded hope" for Catholic education, full stop.

I'm highlighting this, because the explanation alleges this obvious non-symmetry between same-sex couples (cannot be regularized) and opposite-sex couples (can be regularized). But this is NOT a safe distinction. And I don't *only* mean to refer to the practical hurdles...

e.g. the opposite-sex couple that *cannot* regularize their union due to prior marriages in which a claim of nullity is ultimately considered not proven (or: not provable). You might respond to this: "Okay maybe it's not PRACTICALLY possible for them to overcome those hurdles...

...but THEORETICALLY their prior marriages could be found null, or (at minimum) their former spouse(s) COULD die, freeing them to marry each other!"
No, I'm taking deeper: about opposite-sex couples who *literally cannot* regularize their civil marriage, because (for instance)...

...the man is a war vet who is *absolutely* canonically impotent due to a serious battle wound. He lost the entire lower half of his body, in such a way that canonical consummation is NEVER going to be possible for him. Yes he still found a lovely woman who married him civilly.

Whether it's a practical-and-unlikely-to-resolve hurdle or an absolute hurdle, NOT EVERY opposite-sex couple is inherently in a relationship that "can be regularized". That's just not the right lens/distinction here; and it's why ideas like the "brother-sister" solution exist...

...precisely for when the relationship of an opposite-sex couple cannot be "regularized".
But then, is there a parallel "brother-brother" or "sister-sister" solution on the table for same-sex couples? This is a question that needs further development, but frankly, IMHO: yes.

And the National Conference of Catholic Bishops 1973 document "Principles to Guide Confessors in Questions of Homosexuality" basically admitted as much.

For a deeper dive: spiritualfriendship.org/2015/02/04/cha…

Anyway, that was a big tangent, but it speaks yet again to the philosophical sloppiness of the arguments that this document is using for its foundation.
But we're not done with A-1 yet! Because it closes with a reference to resisting "the redefinition of marriage and parenthood".

Now I think a complaint with "the redefinition of marriage" is entirely fair, even if I have a lot of IDEAS about how it's really the straight couples that redefined marriage BEFORE same-sex couples were in the picture.
But I have a HUGE issue with the "and parenthood" clause...

...because: Adoptive parenthood is *morally* equivalent to natural parenthood. Full stop. If someone has untaken to fulfill all of the practical and moral duties of a natural parent, then their parenthood is REAL. There is NO insidious "redefinition of parenthood" here.

A-2. This is great. Short and sweet, no problems. Note that it keeps its focus (rightly) on the disposition of the child, not getting distracted with the parents.

A-3. The first line is great, and the critical qualification of a *sexual* relationship is what solidifies it.
Just one quibble regarding the phrase "publicly living" (which resurfaces again in A-4, B, and D)... what the heck is the adjective "publicly" doing in this sentence?

Because I'm pretty sure that it's 100% meaningless, in this context: If they were "only" PRIVATELY living in a sexual relationship, they ALSO shouldn't be serving as a sponsor? You can't say "oh yeah it's totally cool if you just keep it PRIVATE, then you're in the clear"...

...and if it (presumably) becomes "public" in the relevant sense upon the fact of being make known to any third parties, then, this word is practically meaningless. If it's EVER known to others then it's "public", and if it's absolutely hidden then it's still not actually-okay.

It also suddenly occurs to me that applying this restriction equally to a "sponsor" AND a "Christian witness" is strange, and perhaps silly? Just because IIRC the qualifications for a simple "Christian witness" are extremely low, given the extreme simplicity of the role. But 🤷‍♂️

Pushing on to the second half of A-3 however, we run straight back into our old friend: the sex vs. gender distinction that this text can't figure out how to handle, or if it wants to even acknowledge it at all. (This re-surfaces in sections A-4, B, and D.)

Because now we're IMPLICITLY being told that "publicly identifying as a different gender than [your] biological sex" is sinful (requiring "repentance"), as is having attempted "gender transitioning"... but the text doesn't want to really commit to DEFINING these things?

"Transition" can be something medical (surgical, hormonal, or both) or merely social (appearance, name, pronouns) without any medical component. Which ones are *sinful* and *why*? Even if you want to say "all of them", you're going to need lots of different REASONS...

...and this text really isn't even dipping its toes into examining or unpacking the particulars. And again, maybe that's supposed to be a feature rather than a bug, but it doesn't really inspire confidence that the author(s) really know what they're talking about.

It also doesn't help that the text is comfortable *gesturing* at a loosely-existing sin, but doesn't really know how to handle the "repentance" bit.
Happily (although almost inexplicably) the text seems clear that repentance DOES NOT require any sort of medical "de-transition"...

...but it doesn't really offer ANY helpful insights into what forms "repentance" is supposed to take? But this makes sense ~ I guess ~ given the overall reluctance to clearly specify what the "sin" element/object(s) consisted of, in the first place? Just consistently frustrating.

One central element in the text SEEMS to center around the final line of A-3, referring to "behaviors to redefine one's sex"... but again, this is borderline incoherent (is "redefining" = or ≠ "changing" one's sex? what if they AGREE that their biological sex is not changing?)

...and almost certainly not what any trans person is ACTUALLY trying to do: i.e. theoretically BOTH one's biological sex AND one's gender identity are effectively immutable. So even "complete" medical transition is not ACTUALLY changing (or "redefining") EITHER of these things.

Hence the language of "gender confirmation surgery", and the fact that trans people don't claim to CEASE to be trans, even after a "full" transition. Again, they KNOW what their biology is: they aren't in denial about their sex, it's part of the equation that MAKES them "trans".

So presumably what the text MEANS to say is not "behaviors to redefine their sex", but something more like "behaviors to express a social-gender identity different from their biological sex". And yet, that way lies thorny questions, which I guess we're not ready to grapple with.

A-4. Other than a bunch of repeated quibbles from A-3, the valuable phrase "a[n ecclesiastically recognized] marriage" mysteriously vanishes from the parenthetical, but I'm PRETTY sure this was just a mistake, as it's included in every other instance (as it should be).

Meanwhile the critical qualifier "sexual" is (intentionally? but unhelpfully) lacking from the phrase "has repented and withdrawn from the [sexual] relationship". Requiring "withdrawal from the relationship" wholly is simply taking it too far, and being overly-broad. It does...

...remain POSSIBLE that complete "withdrawal from the relationship" COULD be the most prudent course of action that the individuals discern, but this is not a universal rule that has to be imposed. If they CAN simply live chastely, in accord with the moral law, we have options.

The key here is: not demanding more than the moral law (or: the ecclesiastical law of the Church) demands. If they can live chastely and in accord with their canonical state in life, then we ABSOLUTELY have paths for them to access the sacraments. Danger of death is not required.

B. Reception of Holy Communion and Anointing of the Sick

This is all mostly FINE, just containing another remix of various unhelpful ambiguities. (WHERE is the brother-sister solution, ESPECIALLY in this context? How are you cashing out "sinful behaviors" and "repentance"?)

C. Marriage

"Persons of the same sex invalidly attempt marriage."
lol, can't dock points for this one because it's a bridge too technical even for a document like this, but (while we're here) TeChNiCaLLy that is incorrect....

Because (by canonical definition, for this argument) marriage is INHERENTLY a type of procreative-oriented male-female union.
Same-sex parties are NOT attempting ANY sort of male-female union: they're doing something ELSE entirely. So canonically, it's not even an "attempt".

The real gem, though: "So-called 'gender transitioning' does not alter one's sex." I just... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ YES?
Isn't that WHY we're not using the term "sex change"? Literally EVERYONE in the conversation agrees with this? (Seriously is anyone ACTUALLY disputing this?)

And another sloppy omission of the qualifier "same-sex [sexual] union"... which is doubly unfortunate because that qualifier "relationships... that involve sexual activity" was the one REALLY GREAT THING about the 2021 (lol not 2022) CDF Response that they're trying to pull from.

D. Liturgical Ministries and Leadership Roles
~ nothing big here, just recycled minor issues

E. Sacramental Records
~ A whole lot that COULD be said here, but they're just dodging the specifics. Can't really say I blame them.

F. Catholic School and Religious Education

F-1... is EXCELLENT, and (to my great satisfaction) the exact OPPOSITE of Archbishop Naumann's terrible, no good, very bad 2019 policy which I commented on at length here: chrisdamian.substack.com/p/failed-forma…

Now the proposed solution to avoid scandal (the parental relationship "is not to be presented in a way that gives semblance to marriage") is... wildly fuzzy and indefinite, to the point that I think it's going to cause more harm than help. But I understand the impulse?

And +1 big repeat criticism here about how "students are not to be led into error regarding the nature of... parenthood". Just, come on.

F-2... is also VERY good, and the explicit mandatory-intolerance of bullying is delightful.
Super WEIRD phrase here about leading the student "into a deeper union with the Blessed Trinity" which is... weird, and should have just been deleted to make the whole sentence perfect.

F-3... Happily shares the above pros-and-oddity of F-2, and then kinda just... drive off a cliff with 3b. Because I'm sorry but an obligation "to avoid behaviors ASSOCIATED WITH the attempt to redefine one's sex" is just horribly framed, and asking for endless trouble.

WTH is "associated with"? At least list examples. Or just list prohibited behaviors like a normal school would? But don't frame it like this. Seriously if you don't define what it MEANS (to say nothing of WHY it's bad) it's GOING to devolve into some VERY stupid arguments.

F-3c... The requirement to use a person's legal name is... good, I guess? But also seems like it SHOULD be unnecessary, and gets dumb if you're strict about it because because nicknames obviously exist?

And then the pronouns thing... look [sigh] I'm not going to delve into this now, except to note that the rule is POTENTIALLY very obviously stupid here, insofar as – follow me now: If a kid has a trans parent, and if that parent HAS "fully" transitioned to female, perhaps even...

..."passing" as a cisgender female, AND this parent has legally changed their name to Barbara, but you discover they ARE trans: Are you REALLY going to call her "Barbara" in conjunction with he/him pronouns? I'm not even touching the charitable-accommodation argument yet, I just,

F-3d and 3e... bathrooms and locker rooms and sports in the high school context, I don't really want to delve into this right now either, but if YOU want to:

And that closing plug for Courage, which... well, it's very complicated, but let's just say this explains A LOT about the horrific resources page, that Christopher West-ian theology fluff, and the identity-language lens.
More on unpacking that, here: chrisdamian.substack.com/p/christopher-…

And I guess that's enough for today.
Probably too much.
Definitely-probably too much.
But now I have a TON of material to spark opinion and workshop into future pieces? So I'm considering it an investment. Anyway...

@ThreadReaderApp unroll this beast please