A Year’s Worth of Heady Reflection on WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A (transgender) WOMAN

I have spent far too long trying to explain myself to myself and others, and it is time for that to come to an end. This post is the last vulnerable moment of crafting words around something that cannot be put into words.

Since it’s something that cannot be put into words, everything that follows will be absolute blather. Hopefully it’ll be blather that resonates.

In reflecting on the last year, I’ve spent much time thinking about how my relationships have developed – how the coming out process affected my friends and either tied me closer to or distanced me from them.

One thing stands out in particular: how over the last year I’ve spent so much insecure energy talking and explaining things to people that are more or less irrelevant. Obviously this came from my very human desire to be understood and loved, and who can blame me for that? My friends and acquaintances should see it as a sign of love that I so earnestly want to connect myself to them, even if it’s through clumsy didactic conversations where I preach to them for an hour about transgender science and the like.

The truth is that the only way to know and be known, to love and be loved, is to live and let live. I’ve spent so much time trying to put everything back into a neat box for everyone that I’ve become hypocritical. I’d talk about being a girl while still too afraid to be one. I’d gab on about some theoretical bullcrap to artificially “show my heart” to people, when the only thing necessary was to be myself.

I’ve had a lot of people ask me what I think it means to be a woman, to be a girl, to be female, to be transgender. I think I have something of an answer now.

(Pardon the philosophical trappings of this explanation. If a bush can’t be uprooted directly, you dig all around it to loosen the roots. Similarly, if you’re talking about something like God or gender that is too deep to measure with a pole, you instead measure everything near it that is measurable. Also, in our society we mostly understand things when they’re put analytically. I suppose I could try to put all this in a poem, and while it’d probably be more accurate, it’d also be less comprehensible.)

Being a woman is being an embodied woman. It is being a human person with a particular relationship to your body and its physical instantiation. The thing is this is something that can’t be further defined. It is what it is. There is no way for me to explain what it means for me to experience my life as an embodied girl when my body is ostensibly masculine. There are simply not words to convey how this might be true or what it could possibly be like. The only real proof is in the pudding, and the only way this truth is knowable is through my life. Not through my actions or my femininity – which will nevertheless always be judged, but through my being, that incalculable thing that just comes from my existence.

If I cannot make a neat statement saying what woman is, all I can do is say what she isn’t. This is what I think I’ve learned and experienced.

Woman is not a set of parts. You cannot break a woman down into components and say “aha, here is what made her a woman.” A woman is primarily she, a person, a being who encompasses all those component parts. The component parts never encompass her.

Woman is not the “feminine human.” Regardless even of how culturally relative the terms “masculine” and “feminine” are, a woman is not simply a feminine human. If a man is incredibly feminine, he is a feminine man, not a woman. Perhaps femininity naturally flows from the woman’s experience of embodiment, or perhaps it is entirely culturally conditioned. Either way, femininity is not the source of womanhood, although womanhood is often the source of femininity.

Woman is not a child-bearing machineThis here is my biggest problem with the view of gender common to many fellow Catholics which has dominated much of Western history in one form or another. Woman is not a field in need of planting. She is not a certain kind of real estate, nor is she “that which can be impregnated and bear children.” She is not land to be colonized. The woman who is born without a womb is still woman. The woman who is infertile is still woman. Woman even irrelevant of man is still woman. She is a good in of herself, not only good relative to men and children.

Relatedly, woman is not that which is “other” to man. In our male-dominated history, woman is always seen as that which is auxiliary to man. Woman is not defined by what a man does – she is not by definition that which is different than man. Man is not the standard by which woman is judged and known; woman is her own standard for her own nature. Perhaps to men women are those who are simply not men. However, for woman, to be a woman is simply to be a woman. This is what it is at the core of her being once all the social conditioning is left behind. In her acceptance of this world’s false standards of beauty woman is often complicit in allowing herself to be only that which is other to man – man’s object. However, insofar as she finds genuine self-esteem, she is being woman according to woman and not to man. She is allowing herself the freedom to simply be.

What then is woman? Woman is woman. This is what I think the Church means when it says gender is essential. Something that is essential is that which cannot be reduced down any further. Any attempt to quantify woman and break her into component parts and say THERE is woman is denying this and saying that a woman is a mere accident of add-ons to the human person. In this case “woman” is no longer “WHO SHE IS” but “what kind of thing she RESEMBLES.”

The Church’s actual working theology and pastoral policies are often at odds with this core belief that gender is essential. The view of women as child-bearing machines who’s identity and value comes from their function is not only a very androcentric view, but is opposed to the sense of human dignity from which the gender-essentialist philosophy should flow. Some people are against gender essentialism because they believe it is precisely what allows for these degrading ideas about woman within the Church. While the Church has an essentialist view at its core, all the practices that have harmed woman have come from some form from deviating from essentialism and trying to define her by parts, function, or relative to man.

So what is woman? Woman is woman. And when I say “I too am woman,” I am asserting nothing more than that I AM. There is no proof except in that I can continue to live as I AM, and there is the possibility that in the accidents of womanhood that flow from what I firmly believe is the essence, that others will think they “spot” the woman through these simulacrum. But none of this is important. If I am a girl, all I need to do is be, and the rest is history. There is no checklist of “girlish accomplishments” that must be done, or any proof that needs to be written, or any way of expressing that needs to come true. Anything that is accomplished or written or expressed can never encompass my gender – rather my gender encompasses these things.

I will have the extreme audacity to say “I am a girl.” I cannot prove it to you. I cannot make you comfortable with it. I cannot show you a girl-identifying birthmark that identifies me to you. All I can do is exist, and all I ask is that I’m given room in this world to do so.

Virgin mary mosaic made of images of women from around the world

41 thoughts on “A Year’s Worth of Heady Reflection on WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A (transgender) WOMAN

  1. I must say, I’m not quite sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that woman is (in programming terms) a primitive, much as blue cannot be defined except by saying that it is what blue is, or 1 = 1 is true and can’t be broken down any further? The issue I have with that is, what allows you to know the difference between woman and man? Surely it leaves open the possibility that there could be a woman who has a masculine body and a masculine mind, and is perfectly happy with both those things and is thus indistinguishable from a man? I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say here, but it seems to follow logically.

    Also, I disagree with the notion that woman is woman independent of man. It’s not that woman is that which is not man, but neither is black that which is not white. Without borders, a definite thing cannot exist, and borders cannot exist in isolation. Individuality cannot exist without relationship. A colour cannot exist without other colours to give it a separate existence. It is not that blue has to be defined in opposition to green, but that green allows us to determine blue. Woman does not exist as the negation of man, but without man, woman cannot exist (and vice versa).

    • I’m not saying that the borders are irrelevant, and certainly the ideas of “man” and “woman” are pretty inextricably bound, but if “woman” is defined by “man,” it is only insofar as “man” is also defined by “woman.” What is certain is that man is not the “perfect” human whereby woman defines herself simply in contrast. I would argue that man and woman would still be man and woman even if they had no contact with and/or need of each other. That doesn’t mean that we don’t define something PRACTICALLY SPEAKING through contrast. White is white is white, but we notice it’s whiteness relative to black, and there is definitely a certain inextricable connection between black and white, but white isn’t SIMPLY that-which-is-not-black. If it is, then what is to say that black isn’t simply that-which-is-not-white, in which case we’re caught in a meaningless circle? What I’m certain of is that IF woman is that-which-is-not-man, then it is only in the same sense that man is that-which-is-not-woman, in which case it’s almost useless as a robust definition of what man and woman are since we get pulled into an endless regression.

  2. I want to read this several times and absorb it, but even on first read, even as a woman born in a female body, I wanted several times to cheer. “Woman irrelevant of man is still woman” and “There is no checklist of ‘girlish accomplishments’ that must be done” were particularly striking for me. ❤ sister.

    • I’m glad you liked it! ❤ The thing is I only have my own experience of what it's like to be a woman, and that experience is probably very different than yours since my relationship with my body is… unique. However, the feelings and knowledge that prompted this post are so overpowering that it's hard for me to think I'm completely wrong.

  3. Pingback: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A (transgender) WOMAN | TogetherStyle

  4. 1. I’m not really sure if there’s any real clarity put out here, if you’re simply just going to say “woman are” and I definitely don’t see how it’s a logical next step to simply exist and say “I am a woman”. That’s really really vague. Men are also. So are dogs. I can understand the urge not to reduce the woman to either parts or a function, but I would almost say that this itself is also a reduction. You are not clarifying in your definition, in fact you’re not really saying anything at all.

    2. While reducing persons to their functions is wrong, you seem to think that connecting womanhood to motherhood takes part in this. You yourself then are buying into the disrespectful functionalism of what you think Western thought has applied to women. You have reduced woman to a “what”, a thing. Motherhood is not about a function, it’s about a relation. And here’s where your new metaphysics of womanhood, pitted against the “errors of past ages”, falls pretty damn short. You equate function with relation. The human person cannot be understand simply as it’s own existing entity. To be a person is to be in relation to other persons. There is no I without a Thou. Like the Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are distinguished not by metaphysical, essential differences, nor functional ones, but by relational ones (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit not Three Individual Existing Beings or The Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier). So in regards to identity, to the self, I would say relational realities are the most primary, not being, and not function.

    Sexuality is perhaps the deepest aspect of human personhood. Womanhood does not make sense on its own. Manhood does not make sense on its own. The sexual organs of both do not make sense on their own. Nobody makes sense on their own. That is not what is means to be a person, a self. So, to aim at definitions of womanhood that are intrinsically connected to men, to children, to being a spouse or a mother makes a lot of sense in this framework.

    As persons, as sexes, we are oriented toward the other, and the fullest expression of our identity is not to claim for ourselves our own ontology, existence on our own terms, but to give of the self. I think Jesus makes this very explicit.

    3. So, given some of my points, I’m sure that this next year will be yet another time of heady thought about what it means to be a woman. Our personhood, our identity, and our sexuality are deep mysteries. Let no one say they have, after a years thought, produced answers that millenia of Western thought have failed at.

    • 1. You’re responding to this post as if I’m making a positive statement about gender when the whole point is that there isn’t a clear answer to what “makes” a person a certain gender, but we can at least clear the table of certain false positive definitions. It’s a “negative” approach to gender anthropology, similar to the “negative theology” wherein we approach the issue of God first from what we know He ISN’T before we approach what He IS.

      2. It isn’t wrong to connect womanhood to MOTHERHOOD, but motherhood is a much larger thing than merely possessing a womb. As you say, motherhood is a relationship. Even women who have had hysterectomies can participate in motherhood. I agree that gender is inherently relational – I think I have an earlier post where I say just that. When I say that woman isn’t that-which-is-other-to-man, I don’t mean that woman has no relation to man or child, but that woman shouldn’t primarily be seen as an accessory/auxiliary to men.

      3. I appreciate your points and I think we agree much more than you think. What I don’t appreciate is your combative tone.

      • *2. Most importantly woman doesn’t derive her VALUE from her role or relationship. She has INHERENT worth such that her mere existence is good/worthwhile in the eyes of God. Even if all men and children were to die tomorrow and there was only one woman left on the Earth, she would still be a woman and she would still have worth.

        • 1. Your conclusion sounded fairly positive to me: woman is woman. Which either begging the question, or proposing some sort of pseudo-Cartesian or even Nietzschean suggestion that the I is foremost in determining or proving its own ontology. Shouldn’t you simply admit that after a year’s worth of thought… all you know is that there definitely is such a thing as womanhood, that women are valuable and good and have inherent dignity? And that other than that you’re unsure. But you’ve attached a lot of “positive” corollaries to this…

          .2. If a woman was the sole survivor on earth, she would be incomplete, she would be lacking. As would a man, or any person. She would be good, she would have “worth” in a sense, but it would make no difference. Worth what to whom? Valuable to whom? You cannot understand a man, a woman, the human person apart from other persons, apart from a communio, apart from the dynamic of communal love. Your method is very reductionistic; to understand a woman solely in and of herself and her own value to herself is already to cut out necessary components to being a self altogether. Which a clue to why you’ve apparently come up so empty handed in doing so. Woman was never meant to be alone (as well as man).

          To be a person, and if gender has anything to do with who you are than clearly it is included in this, is to be in relationship. Who you are is who you’re related to. That’s the foremost principle in modern Catholic anthropology. The human person is not complete as an individual entity, the human person makes no sense understood solely as an individual.

          I’m bringing this up because I fear that many of your presuppositions to this question hold ethical and anthropological assumptions brought about by modern and postmodern philosophy, both of which deviate from Catholic theology first and foremost over the “Copernican Revolution” in the idea of the self (cf. Kant or Descartes), which affects ethics, anthropology, epistemology, metaphysics – the whole deal. This makes a lot of sense when you consider the modern discomfort with the understanding of marriage in the past, the idea of woman needing man, or service, or man himself needing community… Do you get the idea? That’s not to say that the notions of gender in the past weren’t flawed, but it is to say that the lens so much of thoughts views the past in is already holding conceptions at odds with Catholic theology.

          So for example, I think it makes sense that a woman was seen as “needing a man”, especially in light of Genesis. Neither man nor woman is complete as an individual: it is good for man to be alone. It is not an offense against the dignity of woman in herself, but in fact the only possible expression of it. Each person needs other persons. The human person needs community, needs authority, needs to be in a relationship of love (which includes service), and above all of course needs God. This makes even more sense if you understand that gender and sex and marriage are an icon of mankind’s relationship to God… think of Ephesians 5.

          I hope this isn’t too rambling, please let me know if I can clarify. My main point is that neither man nor woman, nor the human person in general can be considered fully when they are considered simply in themselves – if we are to respect their dignity as persons. Don’t reduce a woman to a “what”, to a “thing”. She is a who, and a “who” needs other “who’s”.

        • Also, we need to remember that the self, and gender, is a gift. It is not a pre-existing reality, it’s a gift given by God. It’s not something we create for ourselves, or just simply exist as, it’s something we receive. And so, if we’re to follow the logic of John Paul II’s “law of the gift”, we can only understand ourselves, and indeed who we are as man or woman, when we give. Not when we, at the expense of everything else, claim ourselves for ourselves in some sort of will to power. But when we humble ourselves and accept ourselves as a gift from God.

        • Again, I agree that gender is inherently relational. I’ll probably eventually write a post on precisely this subject.

          If a woman were alone on Earth without men or children, all her value, function,etc, would remain intact because she is still in relationship with GOD. I don’t think gender is just a gift for each other, but also for ourselves and for God Himself. God made us for Himself, and I think gender is part of what He delights of in us.

          So going along this relational line of thinking (ala Theology of the Body), the issue of transgenderism could be broken down in the following way. Modern sociology uses the terms “gender identity,” “gender expression,” and “gender” to mean specific things:
          – gender identity – one’s sense of belonging to a gender
          – gender expression – one’s social behavior (or sometimes act/actions of gender-typical behavior)
          – gender – depending on who you talk to, either the social construction of male and female, or the summation of what makes a person a man or woman as a person.

          I translate (and modify) these terms into relational ideas with theological content. In this line of thinking,
          GENDER EXPRESSION would be one’s gendered relationship with others
          GENDER IDENTITY would be one’s gendered relationship with oneself.
          GENDER would be one’s objective gender, which I think should be defined as one’s gendered relationship with God (i.e. one’s gender in the eyes of God).
          The question of transgenderism is then whether my gender – my true gendered self as seen by God – corresponds with the gendered reality as people outside of me assume it is, or with my gender identity.

          I’m not making my assumptions in an atheistic existentialist void. I do not believe I define myself. God defines me. However, through a combination of constant prayer and thinking, I’ve personally come to the conviction that my gender as God sees and loves it corresponds with my gender identity. I’ll leave the prayer-inspired side of that discernment out since it’s personal, but on the intellectual side it seems pretty apparent to me that God’s relationship with me insofar as it is a gendered relationship is first and foremost to me as a PERSON – which to me seems pretty inextractable from my gender identity – and then only secondarily (or rather in part) a relationship with my reproductive potential.

          I’m sorry if this post seemed aloof or pretentious. I certainly didn’t write it to be so. As a philosophy major I learned a long time ago that I shouldn’t fill my writing with disclaimers like “this is only my opinion” or “this is what I’ve come to believe” because such subjectivity is implied by the mere fact that I am a limited human being writing from my own experience and with my own intellectual journey/history.

          This is the problem with the internetz. Communication NEVER works 100%. But I guess that’s a general human problem.

    • Hi,
      Did you really say this:
      Let no one say they have, after a years thought, produced answers that millenia of Western thought have failed at.?
      So, when I have done research and produced and answer no one else has, I am wrong? That will be the day. Do you know how many groups have paid me continuously for just that type of service. How can you make such and erroneous statement, and not be embarassed, nor correct it?
      And to now be kind, your description of the Trinity are not quite accurate. Each of them is different from the other. Thier combined or individual job is God. The Father existed independent of Jesus or The Holy Spirit, once upon a time. That is written and as such is beyond contestation.
      She is simply saying, I am a woman. How hard is that to understand, when before you hopefully is a comparison for you to use in that research. You have others. I would no use yourself as a test subject, in your case as you do not seem anything but subjective. Ask women if they are women and ask men if they are men. In each case ask them how they know this, but never ever let them know why you are asking this question, otherwise your answer will be in the question somewhere.
      It is totally logical to say that something is and I am one of those that are that. Please, you hopefully are not one of those supposedly intelligent people who only have a high I Q and absolutely no understanding. I have worked with one of those, and his only point was to seem important. As the point narrowed down to the actual subject, he refused to continue. Eventually everyone but him recognized this in him.
      Her points are clear. Her logic is serene. Try again please, or troll again if that is your role in life. If however you just responded without understanding, there is a world of information out there, not to spoon feed you, but to allow you to enter into the world of auto-didacticism, the teachinf of yourself by yourself.
      Being a male, to reverse this, is the sense that you are a male, and it is inherant to the person, and only accessible by that person, but SEEMS to carry the same weight as existence. How do you know you exist? Do you exist? How do you know God exists? Does God exist?
      You know you exist because you say you exist, it is inherent.
      You exist because you exist.
      By His presence, is how you know God exists.
      You either know this or you do not, but if you do not know it, that can change.
      Also you can change and try and first understand what she said, which you did not do. Paraphrased she has said: Just being me, and others allowing me to be me, is the clearest proof to any person of good will, that what I say is true, but others have scared me out of doing that, by couched or not, Troll like coments.

      Seriously put-out,
      kate1947

      • Dear Kate1947:

        It would definitely be pretty arrogant to presume than in a single year’s worth of thought you have trumped or undermined all previous thought about the same subject. I myself would never, ever claim to contradict the entire summation of Western thought after just a year’s worth of research – even if I thought I was right.

        God is not a “job”. Also, it is definitely wrong (and completely contrary to almost all Christian anthropology, regardless of denomination) to say that the Father pre-exists the Son and the Holy Spirit, or created them, or that there was a time when God was not a Trinity. Definitely wrong.

        I think, especially even in what he’s admitted, that it is hard to understand “I am a woman”. It’s definitely also hard to understand a male-bodied person saying that they are a woman. Cut the world some slack, even if that’s totally right. This is an extremely complicated issue.

        I could say I am any number of things. That doesn’t mean it’s reality. I could say I am an animal, or a geometric object and that you just have to believe me. That doesn’t mean it’s reality, and it also doesn’t give anybody any reason to go with that.

        • Hi,
          Wow these comments are nicer. I AM NEITHER A THEOLOGIAN, NOR A PHILOSOPHER, so some of what say I cannot comment on, as all things like this are wrapped up in months or years of work, to establish concepts. I had an electrical engineering background and quite know that, but also my first and actually all my favorite jobs were in Advanced Interdisciplinary Research and as such Practical Philosophy was used and applied. I learned that from others.
          One a few to many times, I indeed have engaged in what years of work said was true and in fact like Phlogiston, one experiment of mine showed them they were wrong. Similarly Michelson and Morely just had to accept their experimental evidence that the speed of light was constant, and then what Einstein later worked on would have happened sooner.
          Is that what you meant? And yes arrogance is the first learned thing to be eliminated in all work. I has no place in any work.
          God, as I try and work out my approved by the Spiritual Director of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, is ever bit what God is, separate from His and Their individual personalities. Jesus talks of this to Faustina, when He was personalble with her one day. He told her, that when He is God, He is something else.
          My issue is I was told, that in encounters with God over a period of two years I have to believe that now. The job of God, fits as when they are personable they are very personable. Even Mary is like that.
          The church tells us that Jesus was Begotten. The Creed says that. How can you ever say this, which is different from what you said, but is slightly and hopefully shorter.
          I am trinitarian, in a way that all humans are trinitarian, but also like the Bible and the Church claims God was like also, once upon a time. Once upon a time, Jesus was not begotten and The Holy Spirit was not sent. In humans, it is not possible to beget, like God did from His own parts and no others, a son. Niether is it possible to send out The Spirit, from God’s own component parts. It is not, for most people. (I will not explain that here yet.)
          You say rightly, that it hard. It is. You say though wrongly he, for she is not a he, except to the uniformed, or dogmatic, or to those who do not do all of their own work in their thought processes, typically. Separating yourself from the thoughts and words of others, can you say you know what it is like to be transgendered from your personal experience? Slipping over to the you of you, I am guessing you are male by the way you write. Internally without listening to others, are you male? No matter what your answer is do you have a sense of your gender?
          I am going to hope, your answer was, that you do have a sense of your gender and you know what it is. If that is true, how did you determine it. For all the people I have ever worked with, they know, and there is absolutely no body part that lets them know what their gender is. They just know.
          The fact that this is compicated does not mean, like God commands us in Genesis to do, to not try and figure this out. Roughly there is fifty years of research done on the issue SHE, has stated. Interlacing ideas, God said we are to subdue the earth in Genesis. That is a Command by God to do science. In Romans 13: 1-5, The Holy Spirit or Jesus or what Paul had learned in his encounter with Christ, said to all people like you, I , and the whole Catholic Church, that laws for Civilians are made by God. We are to follow those, and in context it is meant we are to follow those laws of Good Governments, not the ones illegally taken over by such as Hitler. If the church had followed those laws also, as it says there to do, then the pedophile thing could not have happened in America, as each of them would have been turned over to the civilian authorities at their first occurance. There is a clue there. Do you see it?
          Back to the idea of complicated. At first, Gender Dysphoria, is extremely complicated and hard to understand. Yet with time and seeing both sides of the issue, it is less so.
          Remember Limbo doesn’t exist anymore. What does that tell you? It should tell you a lot. Also, even Saint Augustine once said all unbaptized babies are going to Hell, but a lesser Hell than those who were baptized and later sinned horribly. What does that tell you?
          The church did The Inquisition. Jesus Loves. In Mark 9: 38-42 Jesus was talking to the then Bishops of His time and He told them to not make angry those who know less than you do. That forbade, and did forbid the Inquistion always. What does that tell you?
          Now, to handle just one issue that should be hard for you to handle that I mentioned. After my first big God Encounter, as there were two very Big God encounters, I knew things after that, and have no knowledge of how that information got into me. I don’t remember a classroom. I don’t remember conversations. Yet, I knew things. After the second Big God Encounter, but before I was actually told I was supposed to talk about those encounters, I told a priest what happened. What followed is, I was commanded to get a Spiritual Director to sort those out. The Spiritual Director did sort those things out, and said these words, forever removing my ability to say otherwise about things God showed me. “I do this for a living. This is The Holy Spirit.”
          Now, like all humans, I resisted that a little, because I didn’t understand yet, (probably, but the reasons may be a whole lot more than is necessary here.)
          Yet I instantly accepted that proclimation, as it came from a priest after a totally successful Fleece Type of test. In 6 more years, I wouldfinally understand why what he did was totally correct. It took me six more years. Yes, your issue of not being able to handle the concept of transgender is hard and does take awhile.
          It seems though as you are most up to that task. So, far fifty years of science is out there on this subject. You don’t have to agree with them. It is there though and it should help to handle being a guy in a girls body and being a woman in a mans body, and everything in between. Even Medicare last May in 2014, looked over the evidence and changed their policies medically to what she this girl is saying. They did that because the information of old, was incomplete and inconclusive. It is anything but that now.

          I don’t really know why I am going to say this yet,
          With much love,
          …kate1947.

        • No, that’s pretty clearly against almost all Catholic theology. This was stressed especially at the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus (which even most Protestant denominations accept). All the members of the Trinity have always been co-existent. When we say Jesus is begotten we’re not saying there was a time when He was not, we’re reinforcing that He is the Son of the Father and stands in complete relativity to Him. You’re advocating for a heresy like subordinationism, which is that the Father created the Son and the Holy Spirit. It’s hard to get right, I know. Once again, being God is not a function or a job but the act of existing.

          There is a difference, on an existential level, between Jesus’ humanity and Divinity, however. Which is likely what He means in your reference to St. Faustina.

          Of course I don’t know what it’s like to be transgendered. Yes I am male, and I’m pretty comfortable in that on my own terms.

          I agree, it doesn’t mean not to try and figure it out. But it does mean we shouldn’t be too quick to say we’ve got the answer, and especially it means we shouldn’t be too quick to act on our own conclusions. I’m sure there is science about this – the author of this article is not writing about scientific facts, he’s writing about philosophical and existential questions. I’d just like to challenge some of his presuppositions.

          I am happy that you have had encounters with God. How very right that you knew things from these encounters that you couldn’t have learned in a classroom, that is so often how grace works in our lives.

    • If I humble myself and accept myself as a gift from God, other than God and what He lets me know of myself, who else, you, John Paul, who can tell me who I am or who you are?
      When the Catholic Church said, you cannot change a person’s gender, they are right by the evidence, but they don’t really understand yet how right they are, nor what they are truly saying. If I am a girl, no matter what you do surgically or not, I remain a girl. Even if I am born into a male’s body, and even if I have no alterations to that male body, I and the church are actually saying that.
      Yet to not want to believe that and say that the doctor’s statement of male or female on a birth certificate is infallible, is not correct.
      A famous case for intance took place many years ago. A girl presents herself to the doctor. She rougly is a teen age girl. It is said, the only thing she really liked about herself, is that she is feminine. She liked her feminity. This would quickly end, when she committed suicide later. Quickly I hope all the medical profession had heard of this and I hope changed their way of verbally handling a very sensitive issue, what happened to her is, her doctor told her she was not female, she was a male, and that is why she did not have periods. The condition today is called CAIS.
      What prompted her to see the doctor in the first place, was her lack of a menstual cycle when all of the other girls her age, had had them already. Her birth certificate says female. Her doctor told her though she is genetically a man, she is XY. That was his findings and it is true for some women. CAIS, was her situation. So what do you call her, a genetic male, or what she calls herself prior to being called male, by the doctor. And, if you want to say, the birth certificate is always correct, as the Catholic Church says, there are other types of conditions, where switches take place later in life.
      I love in a way, what the church actually says, it is correct but they in no way understand their own written words.
      …Kate again.

      • The reality of our selves is not limited to just you and God, and I’m sure the people around you and especially the Church and popes like John Paul have quite a bit to add. The Church also deals with the generalities of personhood and sex in her theology, which most particularly in moments of confusion I myself would try to stick with.

        Once again, cut the Church some slack. The Church is speaking using the terms and principles that are the norms and that She has already discovered. It’s not surprising that anybody is confused by the transgender issue, it’s possibly one of the most confusing subjects there is.

        • Dear Anonymous,
          As time goes by with you, I am worried that I gave you an emotional response out of hurt and fear, only. Today, I am reviewing these last words of yours:

          The reality of our selves is not limited to just you and God, and I’m sure the people around you and especially the Church and popes like John Paul have quite a bit to add. The Church also deals with the generalities of personhood and sex in her theology, which most particularly in moments of confusion I myself would try to stick with.

          Once again, cut the Church some slack. The Church is speaking using the terms and principles that are the norms and that She has already discovered. It’s not surprising that anybody is confused by the transgender issue, it’s possibly one of the most confusing subjects there is.

          In review of sentence number one, to me this is quite ambiguous and can mean not what you said, but what I thought you said there, which is this. No matter what God says about your relaity, in even Mary’s case and even in Abraham’s case, among others like them, the church and popes can change that reality, with their words, and thoughts.

          In review of the second sentence, the abiguity to me is still there. I replied to this thought: ‘If you are confused on an issue the church speaks of, then do what the church says, because I do that and it works for me, so it also has to work for you, as I am the reference for Catholic truth and action, and as such, i am not to be contested with, I am only capable of being correct, and you are only capable of doing what God wants in your situation, which is also what I want you to do.’ Wow, that sounds to me at first as it is totally correct. I even remember when Faustina did not do something Jesus wanted her to do, and then Jesus asked her about not follwining His request. She answered, and the answer seemed to me, to be the correct answer, and that pleased Jesus and He told her of this. She did not do what Jesus had asked her to do, because she was forbidden by her authorities to do so.
          Yes, the church says that I am not supposed to be transgendered and that I am merely mentally ill. She, as you call the Pope’s non-infallible declaration, the church has spoken on this issue, and as such you say this is beyond contestation. More rightly you might have thought that, no matter what happens to the individual personally, the should always follow what the church says. You are most correct in that. You are. You are. I am to choose death over giving in to being transgendered, and I do, and it might happen actually, as that is my prayer that still stands with God. I want to be dead, rather than wrong. Yes that is me. Yes it is so, and yes you may one day find out that prayer was granted to me, that God has killed me, rather than let me disobey this item, Catholic Wise.
          Actually, that is always a concern of mine, yet there is always totality, if you will allow that concept with God. All things God says are true Simultaneously. Always. Please tell me you understand that. Do not if you do not. But if you do, then fine.
          Yes, I am transendered. Yes, I disobey because I can find no other option, not even death, to handle being transgendered. I do whatever is the minimum I can, non religiously, (Remember Romans 13;1-5). The non religious laws in America, say that to be more well, I have to do certain things, medically. I do those. I feel much better. I actually feel healthy, though I have never actually been such technically. Mentally, I have never been able to access my memories of my childhood. Now I can. From about the age of 12, down to being 5 and less, I had no memory of my youth. None almost. Almost none. One psychiatrist heard of this, while I was in his office for someone else, once. His name was Dr Simon, and he then worked in Los Altos California. For what ever reason, and I was not the patient, he decided to let me know something of my predicament.
          It was this: “Something horrible happened to you. It is almost impossible to reach without hypnotism. I always tell my patients to let it be, because to actually find out that, will not give them any peace and it may hurt them. One of my patients disagreed with me. He instead found out, through regressive hypnotism. He was not better off for knowing” If I read his body language and words properly, he was sad and angry that this man hurt himself, by finding out. He was.
          Yet, only pleasant memories are there, it is just that I was always a girl then to me, but everyone convinced me that I should be otherwise. I believed and followed them. My memory each day, improves. I learn new things, as I just realize they were wrong to me, I was somehow against all known logic and reason then, actually genderwise female, in a boy’s body, and none of us knew it back then.
          That is an indication for you, like the Inquistion, and Limbo among others, that the church is not infallible on everything. It is not. Yes, I let them tell me what to do. I also do not fight them and cannot fight them. That is God’s job. Oops! Sorry! I do not mean that to be anything other than my experience. God’s job is either to show all of you, that I and other’s like me are wrong, or like the Inquistion to correct the church’s actions, later. So, I do not go to Comminion, and for you and others, I would like to.
          On the first sentence, are you saying give in to the church because she like in the Inquistion, Gallileo, Joan of Arc, that she (everything any priests says, but certainly everything the pope says) is always right?, Always? Are you then just adding information to show how ridiculously wrong my assertions are? Are you then trying to nicely say, I am wrong and my error is quite understandable, as the issue is difficult for all of us, even me, …Kate. is for real?
          I wanted to go over your statements again, to see if I misunderstood you.
          Have I?
          …Katerina.

  5. Hi,
    Are you saying that I said, that at one time Jesus, never existed?
    As a corollary, are you saying that I said at one time The Holy Spirit never existed?

    I am not sure that what I am now going to say to you is legal yet, church wise. But here goes. One night I had this to figure out. The setting is this. I had just come from that Spiritual Advisor I mentioned. He said what He said. I have till this day, some problem with his pronouncement. How is it, he said This is The Holy Spirit? I do not even till this day understand that issue.
    When I got home that night, The, not a version of The, but The Holy Spirit “visited me.” I did not understand that. The encounter made sense in context and totally made sense to me. What never did though, is why it was The Holy Spirit, rather than a version of Him. I expected not The Holy Spirit, but a version. I expected there to be some reference to the source of my having to go to the Spiritual Director, in The First Place.
    When God, was presented to me, in my first Major God experience, it was all three of them together. Each was near but separate from the other, by a smallish amount. I knew exactly what I was looking at, and the reasons this happend don’t count here.
    One day Jesus talks to me, using very much His personal voice. He did that twice. Never once did I think He was not separate. In that same conversation and time frame God The Father also spoke to me, in the same place. Also I never ever felt the presence of the other ones, during that conversation. I will leave The Holy Spirit out of this for now, because that is too complex yet simple to handle just yet.
    The purpose of the above interactions was very much to guide another person, not I. Yet, it confused me, how I could know their personal voices, like I would know yours if we talked to each other much.
    I was asked a question for God The Father. Gabriel I was told later asked this, as I could not understand how or why this stranger to me is talking, when it is God The Father who just approached me, above a thin layer of clouds, above a thicker layer of clouds which had been pushed aside somehow, also they were piled up at the edges. Eventually I understood how the question could come through Gabriel, and still actually be God The Father only, that I am interfacing with.
    The next part I do not understand, and in trying to I hoped I learned something about God, but, but, but, and then some, I have not asked anyone to see if my thoughts are right.
    After I had to accept not only the question put to me, but everything in the last year, as being God, but that night expecting nothing fear actually gripped me. The Holy Spirit, not a version of The Holy Spirit interfaced with me, while to me the only thing that made sense, would be for a God The Father version, with hints and overtones of God The Father, to have interfaced with me.
    How is it, that when this whole issue was about God The Father, and the question He had posed to me is one of the issues I presented to that Spiritual Director, how is it The Holy Spirit interfaced with me, and not a version of Him?
    Later while trying to understand this discrepancy, I chanced upon a possible solution. They are separate and equal and ideantical God wise, power wise. Indistinguisable are they to me, in all ways, from each other. I even had to use logic to tell them apart, as there were feelings associated with this, but none of those feelings had individuals in it, like Jesus who was on the left, God The Father who was in the middle, and The Holy Spirit who was on the right. In that scene in that presentation, either blocked from me or not, I did not know who was who. I used sit here on my right side, to figure out who was who.
    Do you see my dilema. In trying to resolve this, and so far with no checks, I came up with this. Sure God once upon a time, maybe now please if this is impossible I don’t know it yet and will allow total corrections to what I am wrong on, ALWAYS!,,, Even though they are separate, I figured the way Jesus talked about The Holy spirit defending Him and even the way He talked about His Father, as being complete, that they all were complete like we are complete, in a way that so far I don’t think I have surity that I have been able to give to you yet. I wrote the words, they just didn’t seem to be understood. Those words were, we are all trintarian in a way. The way is not supernatural or in was of divinity, but in ways of just being normally human and we have no problems what so ever being that. In fact if any of our own personal three-ness were gone. We would miss that.
    Is that how you understand yourself? If it is not, until you do, what I said earlier about God is never going to be understood, instead a version that is not mine, will be used by accident only hopefully. Jesus always existed, The Holy Spirit also always existed, God The Father also always existed. Until you know or understand your internal trinitarian makeup, test it, and find out that it is either provably false to you, or provably true to you, you will never understand my descrition to handle that problem of mine.
    Please respond if you wish.

    On her.
    She did say it seems, that it only took her a year to finally make her decision.
    However virtully no one like her, ever makes that decision in a year.
    What by the way, is the years of Thinking that transgender disagrees with, that you mentioned?
    Or how is transgendered in any way, not true but something else really?

      • I tell my wife you are not a Lesbian you are married to a MTF Transsexual essentially a man that looks, thinks and lives as a woman. Sometimes the constant tension is over whelming. I tell her there is no peace if I don’t and no peace if I do. Just better if I do.
        Vios con dios
        Sheri

        • So you seem very upset over her reactions. Internally if you are a woman, and she is in love with you internally, the real you, no matter how it happened that she fell in love with you, she is in love.
          She does not have to be a lesbian to fall in love with a woman, especially when women do it all the time, unknowingly. It happens on TV typically to both men and women. That is how they make movies interesting to men and women. Men fall in love in the movies not only because the girls are pretty, but they talk and like the things guys do. Similarly the same thing happens to women. Women fall in love with guys that get-them, that understand them, that act like them, but they have male bodies.
          A case in point is an old TV show, called medicine woman. The male star was asked how he liked playing opposite, the gorgeous woman who was the star of the show. He said something, then he was asked at one point how he liked his role. He said he gets tired of playing, Mr. Mom. He is quite the hunk by the way.
          I can vouch for all of this, being a normally handsome man. (I didn’t pick it. That was picked for me.). I also am quite transgendered, but for a variety of reasons, fought it hard for years and years and years. I acted male, and that is key. The male unbeknown to me, is my idea of a male. I did not know it at the time. I was male, like I hoped would happen if everyone was right, and as the years passed, I had people who raved over me, both male and female. The women of course raved over me as a possible husband. The men raved over me, as the perfect male friend, and I am even proven in Combat. Bad men hated me. So what? They were supposed to, or change. Bad women would like to turn me and have me. So what? I never took the bait for long. After finally being outed to myself and no where to turn but to the truth, I looked back and wondered and wondered why the women and men reacted to me, in the ways they did. IT IS BECAUSE, I WAS A MADE UP FIGURE. I was who I made myself to be male wise. I was MY IDEA, of a guy.
          So maybe that covers why your wife liked you in the first place. It may also be why she might like you forever.
          On the other hand, I do and have worked with people with mental problems, but ususally before I underswtand them. One woman, in her fifties, had the girl in her at age 10 totally in love with me. She has dissasociative personality disorder. The old term is Multiple Personalities. I was only dealing with the young girl who conatantly wanted to marry me. This is and was a total straight person, her, and actually a searching person in transition, me, for my end sexuality. As the realationship went along physically, I really enjoyed the kissing part, as my body was then pretty much feminized, but not totally. And, as with all little children, I tried slowly to let her know why this could never work. Eventually I was succesful at that, but realized we had a lesbian for me, relationship. It really was for her also, only my body fooled her, into never knowing that. I am very happy she never had to deal with the fact, that she was with a girl mentally.
          If you love this woman, you must let her deal with you now, as you are. If she can handle you being female, fine. If she can’t you know what you have to do, in love. You have to love her, by doing what she needs to do, and to put her needs above your wants, and your needs. Actually the definition of love I use is this: “Doing the Will of the one you love.”
          kate1947

        • Grazie!
          I understand completely thank you for your kind thoughts. Time should remedy this situation. Youvare in my prayers and thoughts.
          Sheri Rossi

  6. Dear Sheri,
    I love the idea of people praying for me, but it is illegal, no one is allowed to pray for me, even I am not allowed to pray for me, that I know of. The thought is lovely though.
    Let me explain, a little. Once upon a time, for no reason what so ever that I can recall, I started to pick random people to pray for. Then one day, I came across, or dreamt in a way that seemed real to me, of a girl Jesus just finished telling her, to not pray for herself anymore. He instructed her to pray for others only.
    One day, she asked Jesus for some indication that her prayers were working. It came, but she did not expect the day or the method of His informing her:
    She awoke, and went downstairs at her father’s house. On the table was the paper. The headlnes were about an infamous person, who was hung by the neck until dead. It went like this, sort of as I can not remember this story word for word now.
    So and so, is led up the stairs to the hanging platform. The crowd is gathered all around. He curses them, and is in no way impressed but is most disdainful of everyone there. Even the priest at the top of the gallows, he has no respect for. The authorities, put him under the hang-man’s noose. A struggle starts. He gets away. Running he dashes to the priest, kneels down and kisses the five wounds of Jesus, on the cross the priest had. He then became totally calm and peaceful. Led without struggle now, he let them hang him.
    She said, to keep from crying, she rushed back up the stairs. This is the man she was praying for at the time.
    I have never been able to find that story again, but it is how I lead my life, and it is how God has me act.
    Here is another story like that, in Japan and the year of this I do not know. A man probably in a night vision or a dream appears to a monk. The monk asks him who he is. “I have been given 600 years in Purgatory for the things I have done.” It may have been 700 years. I don’t remember precisely. The next morning at breakfast the monk mentions this, to the other monks. They decide to pray for him.
    Two weeks later the man returns to the same monk. His condition has not changed at all. He is still in agony. It is seen all over his face, and slightly around him. The monks still decide to pray for this man. In two or three days, the man returns. His face is not in agony anymore.
    As others had tried to figure out things, the only thing these monks did that was different, is they at some point in their lives, committed themselves to saying a daily rosary.
    Another story involving me is this. One day, I asked God for an old tool I had been given. I asked if I could see a man’s heart. I was shown his heart. I was pleased worried and confused. Why does a part of his heart look like it is damaged. (Now knowing God, if my request was granted there is going to be a reason for that.). I then approached this man, he is a priest, and I revealed some things to him, not about his heart though. I revealed some other things to him.
    One day, with this man’s heart still bothering me, I started to do things to see if it was my task, like those priests or like that girl that I may have only dreamed of, to repair. One day, I am walking in the back of the church during Mass, and his heart reached out to me, with something that is almost impossible for me to describe visually. Clear in the back of the church, the opening to God hole in his heart, had a living membrand shroud over it, that ended in a round opening so thin and so delicate, that no one would ever notice the call to God, but would be drawn to the opening eventually, and that opening in his heart, is an entrance to God. It is a gate to heaven.
    I noticed this. I was done I thought but there was more. He did not know that without his Knowledge, like the girl in my dream, or me now, he was fixed, the damage was repaired, God took care of him, without his ever being made aware of it yet.
    He would have never been made aware of it, had he not asked me to do something for him. I hated it. It was wrong. I knew it was wrong, for him. It is his job to pray for others, it is not his to ask for prayers. Other priests, some of them can ask for prayers, this man cannot.
    It took more than once, and I had to reveal to him much, but eventually he was told, by me, but hopefully really by God: “For you, you are not to pray for yourself anymore. You are to pray for others from now on.”
    I hope you understand. Pray for yourself, until otherwise instructed not to. Pray for everyone, and if you can remember this: Free is implied. It is not explicitly stated in the Bible, that I am aware of. Yet each item that God talks about, is a command, which we are to embrace love and try to do. Mary’s requests are every bit similar to God’s requests. She one day, asked all of human kind, to do one thing, to pray the Rosary daily. Five decades. Jesus in the Bible says, we are not to let anyone ever know if we do that. That like all prayers are not to be done for others to see, and what we do in private, He, Jesus says, His Father will reward us in public for.
    I did look to see if Mary ever took that back. I have never ever seen her do that. So, this rather long winded response, for which I am a little upset giving, is nothing more than to honor what I am asked by God to do. Not let anyone pray for me ever, as even if they do, those prayers go back to the one giving those prayers, or they go to someone else.
    …Katerina, in love, for you.
    aka …kate1947.

    • Dear Sheri Rossi,
      I just bumped into a seminarian an hour ago. He totally confirmed my story about the woman who was told by Jesus not to pray for herself anymore. He told me that is a true story. He gave me her name. And, he gave me what she did not need to know, and that was the non paper account of what happened. The paper account, just as she reported it, is the version I remember.
      I hope this helps you with your wonderful offer, to know a little more securely, that maybe what I said is true, in God’s eyes.
      …Katerina.

    • I use this and other books as my guide to prayer the letter to the Ephesians which is part of the New Testament Ephesians 6:10 – 20. You have heard it, it is The Armor of God. Paul states to them being Christians to put on the Armor of God. Pray in the Spirit of God on all ocassions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints (believers). Then he went futher on to tell them to pray for himself because during the writing of this letter he was incarcirated.
      Its ok to pray for each other. I view this the same a St. Augustine from the church of Egypt we are part of two Kingdoms the earthly flesh and blood Kingdom and the present through eternity with God Kingdom. I embrace both and live in both.
      Thanks be to God, we can enjoy our sister hood under God in both kingdoms.
      God bless you!
      Sheri

      • Dear Sheri/Gary/Sheri, but Sheri really,
        I don’t know how to respond. There are tears, my heart is something that I can not know. How wonderful it is to be sweet to me. I will accept your love. I do…..
        Since you are in touch with God personally, I hope, as all transgendered are capable of. If in fact God The Father over rules me, I always welcome and accept that, after of course an amount of time goes by. It always takes me awhile to accept a correction, emotionally. And, even if the contact you have is not as certain as that, if you are convinced you are right, then continue on.
        One night a month ago, I asked God, if my status had changed with Him, concerning my being prayed for. I asked this, because two people forced prayers upon me, against my statements. My status then has not changed. What I did not say, is this. If you have anything from me, it is not really from me. It is through me. So, please thank the giver of any gift you have been given, and that is not I. It is God.
        Thank your God, and His Father, and the silent giver of many gifts The Holy Spirit, for what you have been given, not me, not I, for I have the pleasure of seeing health return to those hurt and opreessed by another. Please also, never forget Mary, and to thank her, for many gifts come from her.
        Seeing. That is my gift, from God. It is one of the main reasons I love Him. I get to see His work, as through me He LOVES, AND IN SO DOING, you have been Loved by Him. Anna, another sweet and amazingly pure, beautiful girl to me, similarly has been Loved by God, hopefully like you. She also was requested to give Glory to God, not to me, ever.
        As a side subject, you do know that Glory is really ‘giving credit where credit is due’. You do know that don’t you? I say you do, so what is it I gave you, that God has not given me? What makes you think, in your case He did not select the perfect tool, and have The Holy Spirit, remind me of things I once was given to share with you, for your Sanctification, as Anna calls it? Did I make me? Did I animate me? Did I even love me? I did none of the last three items mentioned.
        Yet, with all that is said above, and again my request that you do my will on this, that you love me, even if you do not understand this, unless God directly to you, countermands my words somehow, then pleaase love me, do my will, as I do God’s Will, on this issue. I do not pray for myself. I pray for others, only.
        Extremely pleased am I, that you have been Loved by God, so perfectly that you wish to thank me. I wish for you to take all of that, and merely thank God for being……………………………………GOD, to you!
        …With The Father’s Love for one of His Children, Katerina.

      • Hi again Sheri,
        That was my instant response. I have read your thoughtful response again, I feel this. To take anything in part, is sometimes perfect, and sometimes not.
        It is like the idea of “Thou shall not kill” If God said that, then why does He say also to kill? It is because he never said: Thou shalt never kill a human, rather He said: kill no one, I tell you not to kill. Later the idea of killing or not, in the world of people who are not Christian is also brought up, in Romans 13 1-5. After reading not only that civilian laws of all governments allow for killing of some individuals, but that God makes those laws also, killing as it is most often translated, is not killing as we traditionally think of that word usage in America. The more familiar idea, is thou shall not murder.

        You wrote: “Pray in the Spirit of God on all ocassions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints (believers).”
        That is there. If Paul as you know, spoke not on his own accord but otherwise, then this command really, if from God.

        Technically beliveing in God, does not apply to me. It does not. I don’t believe in God, becauase I know He is Real. And if I am right, therefore, that passage is not talking about me now. It is talking about me in the years prior to the year 2000, when then I did not even know, if the idea of a God, was anything more than a possibility. I did not before that year, or so. From about 2000 till about the year 2007, in the fall, I had no faith in God, because God was then, is now, and always IS GOD, and I knew it. To be honest, then and now, I do not believe in God. I do not. I know He is Real. I do not believe He is Real. I know that.
        Now, a question for you. If God is so pleased with faith, and I had no faith what so ever in those years, as I had fact and not faith, what might God do in that circumstance? What?

        You also wrote, and thank-you, “Then he went futher on to tell them to pray for himself because during the writing of this letter he was incarcirated.”
        Paul was in trouble, and he was never given any feelings or ideas from The Holy Spirit, or God, that he was not to pray, like even Jesus did to His Father. He was not. I was and am.

        Yes one day, after finally feeling the effects of fact, over no faith at all, God added a faith item. In faith only, (almost, it is greater now, the reality of it all.), I had to believe in that for years. It took seven years, before that faith item was even believed enough by me, to not wonder sometimes, although. Although for some reason, on that faith item, I also knew it was always true. I did.

        Now, my experiences on God with faith is, what He said Biblically, is so. Also, I have never ever seen God give the identical gift to two people in history ever. He may have. I just have never seen nor experienced this. Abraham is said to have never doubted. Now my faith is similar to that, so who do you think, is helping me on that, from God, if and only if my faith in that item is similar to Abraham’s????? Yes, although I have never ever felt him, Abraham, he may have been assigned by God, to help me with that item. For some reasson, actually I always KNEW, it was true. I did.

        Darling,
        I am past my limit almost, I just wanted to answer using your words to make you know, I did not, nor would ever (I hope), not reply to your thoughts and words, as they are.
        …Kate/Curt.

  7. Hi Sheri,
    I actually am still perplexed, a little, and love the idea of being pra😊😊yed for. We all
    I hope live in two kingdoms, it is a sweet wonderful and loving idea.

    • Kate,

      A very good read Is called (The City of God) by St. Augustine his thoughts in the 1500’s
      created much of the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church today. His contimplations carved the creeds that we all hold true. The City of God puts into perspective our lives on this ball called earth.

      Vios con dios!

      Sheri

      • Okay. Hi Gary,
        Thank you for your idea on the book. Remember please that not only is Saint Augustine not God, he is also fallible in all things, EXCEPT: What God tells Him personally, and/or what he quotes directly out of scripture.
        (Even some of that God says if untrue such as what two of Jobs freinds said, and what the Devil says. Both those sets of words are in the Bible, yet the Bible tells us how to deal with that. We are not to believe what Job’s two friends said about God. The third friend was not censored by God, only tow of them were. Jesus also said the Devil is a liar, so every quotation that is attested to him, is either false or is presumed to be false.)
        It is a mistake, but a common Catholic one to presume every word and proclamation that comes out of the mouth of a saint, is as accurate as though it came from God Himself. Augustine never actually met God on Earth, that I know of. Yes, a conversation with God is almost identical to meeting Him. Angels though are a different sort of accurate communication, the words are there, the feelings are not, that I know of. Augustine said all unbaptized babies are going to a lesser Hell, but still Hell. That position has been reversed by the Catholic Church. The point of telling you this historical fact, that you can look up for yourself now, is to show you that not every word and thought that comes out of the mouth of Augustine, is infallible. So, to use him, and an infallible reference, before using and infallible reference on the same subject, is wrong logically, and is wrong theologically…..normally.
        I say wrong because, if a theologian reads the Bible correctly, and a subject is covered in that book by God, then eveything any one says to the contrary is wrong, even saints.

        For you, my assignment today from God was to go to weekday Mass and offer up the total Mass for a person, God had impressed upon my mind and heart I think, the night before. I am to get and take no benifit what so ever from that. I did not.
        During Mass, I learned something. Before Mass I said hello to a person, the Holy Spirit wanted me to say hello to. I was prevented from saying hello to another person. I wondered why. As the Mass was ending I was given another assignment. I was to pray in a certain way, for the woman I was not allowed to say hello to. Then,,,,,
        the unforgivable (except in this case) happened. I told her what my assignment was. I am never allowed to do that, when it concerns prayers only. She is to get one Divine Mercy, started already, One Rosary and One Mass said for her. Stunned. Stunned I am wondering why I am saying this. A woman with her leaves, and the conversation gets more detailed. Her husband comes over and I am asked not to bring him up to speed totally, but just go on. As I am talking, the point of them not being allowed to pray for me came up…….”Padre Pio was like that.” Mike blurted out, while I continued on in joy, but finished my thought. I was later told, that he was not even allowed to pray for his family. I can pray for mine, and do so and have done so.
        Where is it you are hung up on this idea? Even if it is remotely possible only in your mind, do not defer to fear, and pray out of your fear of being wrong, in my case. Love God. God, Jesus said this. Love consists of this, not that you have loved, but that you have been loved. Jesus described His purpose on earth, also in this way: “I have come to do my Father’s Will.” He also, other than once never ever did His Own Will on earth, except once, when His Father asked Him what He wanted to do, on the subject of His body. Then it seems He did His Father’s Will in all thngs again. So, please see the connection between love now, and doing God’s Will. Love not as we define it, but as God defines it, is Doing The Will of The One you Love.
        I am getting assurances, that I am not wrong on this. I am. If I am not wrong on this, please defer to God, and no You Never Ever have to do, what God Wants you to do. You do not, and I cannot prove to you except by the last years events on this in my life and even this morning’s unexpected conversation, that it seems to be true in my case, and that is the reality I live.
        Yes, you will never be in error with God on this issue, if you are wrong to me. I will be dissapointed. If God somehow slowly makes you think that maybe you are wrong on this, (That is The Holy Spirit when it comes to you like that.), then you and Him have an issue and the issue is still not with me. Are you being told by God, that I am wrong on this. If so, I am wrong?
        And yes, Anna has my permissions to give you my personal email, so we can talk off line, always. So, of you want it, email the adminisitrator of this site.
        I am afraid we are slightly off the beautiful topic of Anna’s thoughts and journey. I am so waiting for her to write the article on how our ideanties are quite realtional, but with God really. I have no ideas on what she will write really. Yet, in my life and in the lives of others, it is all relational, and that relational set of acts and interacts may indeed by each of our realities, FOREVER, and I do mean only the good ones, of love and LOVE.
        I MAY BE AND SOUND WIERD TO YOU, BUT CORRELATION AFTER CORRELATION AND SOMETIMES PROOFS ARE IN ALL THAT I DO AND THAT MAKES MY REALITY. In a private email, you can be made aware of these things if you wish. Ask yourself this to interest yourself. If I am what I say I am, prayer wise, then what might it meant?
        …Katerina/ P… Heimberg.

        • Hi Sheri,
          ~In God’s world and of God’s world now I will talk to you. Have you missed it, that I have been blessed by Mary herself, with not only the essense of God, which Augustine had not seen yet, but also with the essence of Jesus Himself? Are you really unaware of this?~
          Not in God’s mind or world now, but in your world and mine now, ~but I live in both worlds and only wish to be on one. Even then like Mary, I will love occasionally in this world also.~ Deferring to God The Father, like Jesus did, I am here only because He wants me to be here for some reason or another. Please do not think, I cannot love you and be here, but also ~Do not think ever that I have not seen God, the trinity as you call them, up front, close, and very very very personal. Do not think this does nor hurt, to be absent intimately with God. It does.~ Yet, that job, that sacrifice as Augustine puts it, is for ~God really, because of his (no capitalization error here…) love, admiration, like, love~ of you and everyone else ~singly and collectively and simultaneously.~
          I love Him, personally and as such I cannot ever wish to not only ~please him, but be plesed by him. Augustine was not gifted like I am by Mary, and no I cannot tell you why for sure. It was a gift, and that is all I was told, beforehand. Beforehand as I resisted this~ Abnormal thing, to be called by something of God, to go in faith to somewhere on faith alone, almost. ~beforehand maybe until I struggled so much with the task I was assigned to do, when I asked why one day. I was given an answer. A GIFT.~
          Yet dear, you seem to miss my truth and all I know of. It is I have seen God, and He did not stun me. I just observed objectively, and knew what I was probably seeing. Later, it was proved by the church to be true in my case. ~Although I am totally uncertain, these seemed like wedding gifts, later. God gave, Jesus gave, Mary gave, and yes The Holy Spirit gave: “””Think of the end to Silent Night””” That command came to me, from Him. They all gave, and now I say there were wedding presents, before the wedding took place. I love those gifts. I love those givers of the gifts, and then I had no idea. I did not.~ Seven or so years later this makes sense, but ask yourself this, if Augustine never saw God, and I did, are any of his statements more accurate than mine, concerning God.
          Yes, I have seen the Devil. Yes I have dealt with him. Yes he mimiced Jesus. Yes he acted similarly to Michael The Archangel. Yes, I spent years getting rid of demons talking to me with the church’s help. ~Yes God one day had Gabriel ask a question to me. Yes it took years to stop being so in-love with God The Father, that I could sound normal. Yes Jesus handed me off beforehand. Yes I had no idea. Yes Mary handed me off. Both of them owned me, and had they not handed me off, I could never have been asked that question.~
          Are you missing all that, when I respond. ~Part of me now, my emotions are almost identical to God The Father now.~ Yes, that should be impossible for you to believe. It may be. I may have out of LOVE, wasted my time. ~I and He are one, in a way. We are.~
          I have offered you off line and now online, the above. Now, when I ask you again to honor, God’s wishes as I HONOR THEM, know this, there is much behind my words and feelings that is every bit connected directly to God, some of the time.
          I know all that Augustine knows, except about Angels. I know almost, but not quite nothing about Angels. ~You do know that god never gives the same gift twice to anyone. It is either yours for infinity and beyond, in my experiences so far, or is someone else’s. No two people have the same gift of knowldege or contact with God. Augustine seems to have contact with angels, like the one on the beach who told him, he would not be able to understand God. I on the other hand do know God, and do understand what I need to, to interface with Him, and Jesus, and Mary, and The Holy Spirit on a personal, family way. I do that. It is my life.~ That is my reality, and the psychologists say: I am not nuts.
          If I was nuts, this would be easier for you to handle. You would dismiss it. Some days, when I am probably being tested, I too think it would be easier on me, you, the church now, if I were indeed nuts.
          ~I also know that as nice as Sirac seems, it is merely a discussion of what was believed to be true at the time, and if you look at Proverbs 8, the read the first sentence of Proverbs 9, you can see one of the changes that take place between being told by one who God has talked to personally, after after years and years what is believed to be true later.~ There in Sirac, wisdom is a characteristic. A feature. In proverbs 8, with the certainty of her gender said in Proverbs 9, the characteristic in Sirac is said to be a female, not a characteristic. and no, you cannot tell me what is written by others, and no you cannot tell me what you have been taught, you can however read it yourself, and then decide, if ever you can call the first person account, something else later. And no, Jesus was not created or made, so no Jesus is not that Wisdom in Prover~ s 8. Yes, I was assigned help in this years ago. At the end of that help, a name entered my myself. Jerome. Jerome. Jerome. I became aware of that name. From my science and religious background, I had and did have zero ideas on why this name came up, repeatedly.
          I looked that name up, as well as another time I looked up Agatha. When I found out who Jerome was then it started to make sense. It all did. On Agatha one day, that was for another man, not myself. The name came anyway, and for him it makes sense. His body is rebuilt constanlty so he can be amazing.~
          I am telling you all this, because you seemed to have missed the point from me. If I ask you to kindly not pray for me, because God says you don’t need to, it is God you are disagreeing with, not I. Nor am I uneducted by God in ways you seem to think, I am not.
          Oh by the way, you present verbally to me as a male still, but that will not always be the case unless God Wills that exception in you, for Him and the World, for their benifit. I mentally am anything but male, and I was not when asked ~That question.~ If you have transitioned using hormones, then you are the exception and there are those types in natually born in female bodies, with male sounding minds. If you have not talken hormones, and you intend to, to get rid of the horrors of dysphoria, then you will change, in the way you talk, think, feel without your ever tyrying to do so. You just have to adjust to the changes as seemlessly as you can. Again, if you have not and are going to take hormones, you will like the mental changes, you will, and I am more that too tired to recall them now.
          …With the Love of God The Father for you, and everyone, Katerina, aka Kate, aka Katie, aka Me.

        • They all gave, except God The Father. I have no recollection of Him, beforehand giving me….~No, I am wrong. I felt Him (He was capitalized back then always) not, and that was his gift to me then. I had no clue. I had none. Certain I was that He who then I dealt with freqeuntly in feelings back then, was anything but interested in me that way. That was not really a gift though, it is just the way it is supposed to be done. Cleared I was from everything standing in the way of that question, prepared I was for totally understanding that question. Totally.~ That is why I know so much today, but also I am forgettingh much of this rapidly, seven years later. In HIs not giving me a gift, except always keeping ~his thoughts and emotions in check~ I still had no clue, this perfect question would ever be asked, and ~I was so stunned that I stammered. All these more beautiful girls, and he picked me…..~ That is one indication of how perfectly ~He proposed~
          …Kate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s