Turning now to the post, Ed accurately states that “the debate about marriage and family is, at its heart, about the nature of the human person.”

Setting aside the usual comments often encountered whenever today’s “pet social engineering project” is discussed, I am continually struck by the fact that most people’s starting point is rarely “wonder”. How many people are amazed by the fact that men’s bodies are different than women’s bodies? Why does that difference exist? Does it signify anything? What role does it play in human reproduction? Did the word “gender”, prior to 1955, name and identify something tied to wonder in front of the real and not to an ideologically driven construct? Why would anyone want to redefine what “gender” is and why was this redefinition so wholeheartedly embraced in the 1970s?

If a person doesn’t want to be brainwashed by today’s Zeitgeist, they must live always and intensely the “real”, without precluding, negating, or forgetting all the factors of the “real.”

I hope that’s not what you heard me say, because I certainly never meant to say any such thing. The things you’re describing as male and female characteristics are not essential, but accidental, to human nature (to use the philosophical approach Aristotle/Aquinas would use, and which the Church would tend to use). The characteristics you describe, and which we generally associate with masculinity and femininity, are partly innate, but are also partly socially determined. But in themselves they are inadequate in defining the nature of humanity and sexuality — we’re more than the sum of our characteristics (or our flaws, for that matter).

If you really want to get a better understanding of the Church’s teaching on human nature and sex, especially how the male/female component plays into that, I would recommend that you read Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Letter “On the Dignity of Women”, particularly Part III, “The Image and Likeness of God”. It’s pretty accessible, and it will give you a taste of what is called “the Theology of the Body”, which is a very sophisticated theological inquiry into human nature and sexuality.

Our idea of self-reflection is a searching rational inquiry into our true nature. What you’re describing is pure fideism, faith separated from reason, which the Church has always rejected. (By the way, you can see a good example of fideism in Evelyn Waugh’s depiction of Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited, particularly his laughable approach to being catechized — Google it, I think it’s pretty funny, and I’m not a big Brideshead fan).

We believe that we can discover a truth embedded in our nature, something that was created by another (i.e., God), and which is knowable by reason. In other words, when we do this inquiry, we believe that there’s a truth there that I can find. At the same time, we reject pure subjectivism, which is the favored approach of modernity (beginning with Descartes), in which I search for something that I create myself — with that approach, I might as well just look in a mirror and see myself. Not very instructive.

Fortunately for us, we also believe that the Church has been given to us as a guide to this truth, and we can trust her to teach us the truth. Of course, we also believe that human nature can best be known with the aid of faith and prayer, particularly by contemplating Jesus, the God-Man.

You can say the same for the physics community when Einstein proposed his novel theories of energy and relativity and even in the development of quantum theory.

I may be referring to something entirely different from what you are saying, please correct me if I am of the wrong understanding. From what you said, men and women have two different genders. Basically men, in order to be classified as men, but be strong, dominant, and protective, while women must be more fragile, submissive, and more affectionate/compassionate. This is what I see with the Church’s position of gender identity. What I am proposing is that this classification is inaccurate because people (whether man or woman) have different personalities, attitudes, and traits. A woman can be strong-willed, while a man can be compassionate. The traditional notion of gender roles is inaccurate and are expressed in this way in the Church’s position.

Additionally, what you are saying is that we, as people, do have to constantly reflect on our lives and our nature. BUT, people who do this will always arrive at the Church’s teachings as the end result of their reflections, not their own convictions. Or at least, if we don’t end with the Church’s teachings, then our self-reflection is flawed. If we must conform ourselves to a teaching of the Church to be liberated and be with God, how exactly is that faith? Faith is trusting in the complete unknown whether it leads to a “good” or “bad” end. If we follow a set guidebook (both physical and spiritual) to get to heaven, how does that strengthen faith at all? It only strengthens dependence on a BELIEF that the guidebook is absolutely correct.

Really, nobody — and certainly no leading philosopher — doubted the inherent nature of human sexuality as male and female until the invention of “gender theory” over the last few decades. Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Hume, Descartes, Kant — they all would have viewed it as a very strange notion. Plus, “gender theory” is hardly universally accepted among philosophers. The irony is that “gender theory” proposes its own universal definition of human nature — just one that entails a flexible gender identity or expression and self-defined rules of sexual morality.

Once again, the key sentence in the Holy Father’s reflection is this: “They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.” We believe that we are made for a purpose, with an intrinsic nature that is not subject to personal revision. This belief in an objective human nature is at the heart of the teachings of the Church. It is also, I might add, necessary for any coherent notion of universal human rights.

The Church certainly does not reject “self-reflection and introspection” — it’s a fundamental obligation. The difference, I suspect, is that we believe that the challenge is to reflect upon our nature, to accept it, and then to conform our conduct to the necessary moral consequences of that nature.

“The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. ”

This explanation still does not get to the heart of the issue. It’s merely stating that gender is subjected to sexual difference/identity (i.e. male or female). How do we know our nature? This quote essentially states that according to the Bible, men and women have different sexual natures (male and female) and that their gender (attitudinal/behavioral attributes) are defined by their sexual natures. It, and the Church’s teachings do not emphasize self-reflection and introspection at all. You have to conform yourself to a book’s interpretation. There is no thought about your true nature. How can one book and Church teaching define every person’s true nature?