Houston, Texas, Nov 29, 2019 / 12:02 pm (CNA).- “We are many parts, but we are all one body,” says the refrain of a popular ’80s Church hymn, based on the words of 1 Cor. 12:12.
While we are one body in Christ, if you happen to be a Catholic saint, the many parts of your own body might be spread out all over the world.
Take, for example, St. Catherine of Siena.
A young and renowned third-order Dominican during the Middle Ages, she led an intense life of prayer and penance and is said to have single-handedly ended the Avignon exile of the successors of Peter in the 14th century.
When she died in Rome, her hometown of Siena, Italy, wanted her body. Realizing they would probably get caught if they took her whole corpse, the Siena thieves decided that it would be safer if they just took her head.
When they were stopped on their way out by guards outside of Rome, they said a quick prayer, asking for St. Catherine of Siena’s intercession. The guards opened the bag and did not find the dead head of St. Catherine, but a bag full of rose petals. Once the thieves were back in Siena, Catherine’s head re-materialized, one of the many miracles attributed to the saint.
The head of St. Catherine of Siena was placed in a reliquary in the Basilica of St. Dominic in Siena, where it can still be venerated today, along with her thumb. Her body remains in Rome, her foot is venerated in Venice.
From the Shroud of Turin, or the finger of St. Thomas, to the miraculous blood of St. Januarius, or the brain of St. John Bosco, the Catholic Church keeps and venerates many curious but nevertheless holy artifacts, known as relics, from Jesus and the saints.
To the outsider, the tradition of venerating relics (particularly of the corporeal persuasion) may seem like an outlandishly morbid practice.
But the roots of the tradition pre-date Jesus, and the practice is based in Scripture and centuries of Church teaching.
While it’s one of the most fascinating traditions of the Church, it can also be one of the most misunderstood.
Father Carlos Martins, CC, is a Custos Reliquiarum, which is an ecclesiastically appointed Curate of Relics with the authority to issue relics.
He is a member of Companions of the Cross, and the head of Treasures of the Church, a ministry that aims to give people an experience of the living God through an encounter with the relics of his saints in the form of an exposition. The ministry brings expositions of various relics throughout North America by invitation.
In the following interview with CNA, Fr. Martins answers questions and dispels some common misunderstandings about the tradition of relics.
First of all, what is a relic?
Relics are physical objects that have a direct association with the saints or with Our Lord. They are usually broken down into three classes:
First class relics are the body or fragments of the body of a saint, such as pieces of bone or flesh.
Second class relics are something that a saint personally owned, such as a shirt or book (or fragments of those items).
Third class relics are those items that a saint touched or that have been touched to a first, second, or another third class relic of a saint.
The word relic means “a fragment” or “remnant of a thing that once was but now is no longer.” Thus, we find in antique shops “Civil War relics” or “Relics of the French Revolution.” Obviously, we are not talking about these kinds of relics but rather sacred relics.
Where did the Catholic tradition of venerating saints’ relics come from?
Scripture teaches that God acts through relics, especially in terms of healing. In fact, when surveying what Scripture has to say about sacred relics, one is left with the idea that healing is what relics “do.”
When the corpse of a man was touched to the bones of the prophet Elisha the man came back to life and rose to his feet (2 Kings 13:20-21).
A woman was healed of her hemorrhage simply by touching the hem of Jesus’ cloak (Matthew 9:20-22).
The signs and wonders worked by the Apostles were so great that people would line the streets with the sick so that when Peter walked by at least his shadow might ‘touch’ them (Acts 5:12-15).
When handkerchiefs or aprons that had been touched to Paul were applied to the sick, the people were healed and evil spirits were driven out of them (Acts 19:11-12).
In each of these instances God has brought about a healing using a material object. The vehicle for the healing was the touching of that object. It is very important to note, however, that the cause of the healing is God; the relics are a means through which He acts. In other words, relics are not magic. They do not contain a power that is their own; a power separate from God.
Any good that comes about through a relic is God’s doing. But the fact that God chooses to use the relics of saints to work healing and miracles tells us that He wants to draw our attention to the saints as “models and intercessors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 828).
When did the veneration of relics begin?
It was present from the earliest days of Christianity, during the Apostolic age itself. The following is an account written by the Church in Smyrna (modern day Izmir, Turkey) when its bishop, St. Polycarp was burned alive:
“We adore Christ, because He is the Son of God, but the martyrs we love as disciples and imitators of the Lord. So we buried in a becoming place Polycarp’s remains, which are more precious to us than the costliest diamonds, and which we esteem more highly than gold.” (Acts of St. Polycarp, composed approx. 156 AD)
Polycarp was a significant figure. He was converted by John the Apostle, who had baptized him and subsequently ordained him a bishop. Thus we see that from its outset the Church practiced devotion to the remains of the martyrs.
What is the spiritual significance of relics?
I think that St. Jerome put it best when he said:
“We do not worship relics, we do not adore them, for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the creator. But we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore him whose martyrs they are.” (Ad Riparium, i, P.L., XXII, 907).
We venerate relics only for the sake of worshiping God.
When we collect relics from the body of a saint, what part of the body do we use?
Any part of the saint’s body is sacred and can be placed in a reliquary. Any and every bone may be used. In addition, flesh, hair, and sometimes blood, are also used. Sometimes everything from the tomb is dispersed from it. Sometimes a tomb is preserved.
At what point in the canonization process are items or body parts considered official relics by the Church?
Before the beatification takes place, there is a formal rite whereby the relics are identified and moved (the official word is “translated”) into a church, a chapel, or an oratory. Put simply, the grave is exhumed and the mortal remains are retrieved.
Only the Church has the juridical power to formally recognize the sanctity of an individual. When the Church does this – through beatification and canonization – their relics receive the canonical recognition as being sacred relics.
There is an importance difference between beatification and canonization. Beatification is the declaration by the Church that there is strong evidence that the person in question is among the blessed in heaven. Nevertheless, beatification permits only local devotion. That is, devotion in the country in which the individual lived and died. When Mother Teresa was beatified, for instance, only in India and in her native Albania was her devotion permitted. Her Mass could not be celebrated, for example, in the United States, nor could her relics be placed within its altars.
Whereas beatification permits local devotion, canonization, on the other hand, mandates universal devotion. It grants to the canonized individual the rights of devotion throughout the universal Church.
The Church allows saints’ body parts to be scattered for relics, but forbids the scattering of ashes of the deceased who are cremated. Why is that?
Every person has a right to a burial. This means that the community has a duty to bury the dead.
Every human society and culture throughout time has felt this duty. The dead have always been buried, and archaeology has never discovered a human community that did not practice this. One could rightly say, therefore, that burying the dead forms part of our human cultural DNA.
The theological term for this instinct is natural law. Nature has imprinted a law within the human heart that manifests itself in the practice of burying the dead as a final act of love and devotion, or at least an act of respect and propriety.
It should be no surprise, then, that the Church lists as one of the corporal works of mercy burying the dead. Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.
There is flexibility in the kind of burial. Remains may be buried in the ground, in the sea, or above ground within, for example, a cave or columbarium. The point is that a burial occurs within a single place, such that it can be said that the person “occupies” the place as a final location of rest. The human heart longs for this. We see people arriving at graves and speaking to the grave as if they were speaking to the deceased. And they do so differently than they might speak to the dead at home. At the grave, they speak to the dead as if they are in a place.
For this reason, among others, the Church has always taught not only that it is completely beneath the dignity of human body to have its remains “scattered,” but also completely beneath basic human sensibilities. People need a place to encounter and meet the dead in their physicality.
Nevertheless, the saints, as members of the body of Christ, have a right to have their remains venerated. And this right, flowing from their dignity as members of the Body of Christ, supersedes their right to have their remains remain in burial.
What is the proper way to keep relics? Are lay Catholics allowed to have first class relics in their homes?
Relics are very precious. They are not something that was alive at one time and is now dead. In the case of first class relics, we are talking about flesh that is awaiting the general resurrection, where the soul of a saint will be reunited with his physical remains.
As such, the way we treat relics is of the utmost importance. Ideally, relics should be kept in a Church or chapel where they can be made available for public veneration.
The highest honor the Church can give to a relic is to place it within an altar, where the Mass may be celebrated over it. This practice dates from the earliest centuries of the Church. In fact, the sepulchers of the martyrs were the most prized altars for the liturgy.
As an alternative to encasing them within altars, they may be installed within a devotional niche where people may venerate them. Such shrines are important as they afford people a deeper experience of intimacy with the saint.
The Church does not forbid the possession of relics by lay persons. They may even keep them in their homes. However, because of the many abuses that have been committed concerning relics, the Church will no longer issue relics to individuals – not even to clergy.
These abuses included failing to give them proper devotion (neglect), careless mistreatment of them, discarding them, and in some cases, even selling them. The abuses were not necessarily committed by the person to whom the Church had originally bequeathed the relics. But when such persons became deceased, and the relics were passed on by inheritance, they were often subject to great vulnerability. With the eclipse of the Christian culture in the western world, faith can no longer be taken for granted, even among the children of the most devout people.
Thus, to protect relics, the Church only issues them to Churches, chapels, and oratories.
How important is the authenticity of the relic? How does the Church go about determining authenticity of very old relics from the beginning of the Church?
The authenticity is critically important.
But for the ancient saints, determining identity is much easier than you might think. It was tradition to build a church over top of a saint’s grave. That is why St. Peter’s Basilica is where it is, or why St. Paul Outside the Walls is there. Both encompass the tomb for the saint, which is located directly beneath the altar.
Modern archaeology has only affirmed what the ancient tradition has believed.
…
This article was originally published on CNA Aug. 11, 2017.
[…]
In any case most of the baptised, or those who took vows for the Kingdom rarely get even the Hope for everlasting life God offers to His beloveds in the Paradise, where each man and women enjoy invisible God’s (spousal) Love through opposite sex, who are effectively visible Body of God. Thus how among the n number of ways a sinner can remain in original sin is exposed by this monk and merely display that all humans ending up in eternal death are similarly living up by God’s Fatherly Mercy (not Love), which effectively also nurture potential saints through their life into adults suitable for paradise. May God uses this aspiring person’s efforts to exhibit a miracle there by this person might get a wee hint what God meant when He hints of everlasting bodily life for saints.
The confusion seems to enter into the article about confusion:
(quote) “by allowing a female monk”
There is no such thing as “a female monk”, there is either “a female nun” or more correctly “a nun” or “a male monk” or simply “monk”. Monks mean “man”, “nun” means woman. Hence, a woman cannot be a monk, she can only be a nun – in the Church at least.
Good show.
The fact that the Diocese of Lexington published a statement referring to this individual, a female, as “he” and “Brother” shows where the true confusion lies. The current pontiff’s public declarations of the demonic nature of gender ideology, if not merely a sop thrown to Backwardists, seem worth heeding.
“Risk”?
They succeeded.
I believe what this misguided woman is doing is morally wrong. As a Catholic publication you should know that a diocesan hermit is not a monk. We excuse secular news when they get this stuff wrong but for a Catholic news source one then wonders what else about this story is factual or sensationalized. In other words don’t make it worse than it is and further confuse and already confused Faithful!
It’s a valid question—can a transgender person become a consecrated hermit? Not a question we would have even asked 10 years ago.
He is NOT a monk or member of a specie religious Order while he did receive formation from a Benedictine Abbey. He was NOT a monk of that community! He is a hermit of the Diocese to which he resides and it is that Diocese that he was from that Diocese that received and professed as a hermit. “A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living under his direction. Can. 604 §1.”
HE is a she.
“He” is not a he. “He” is a she. A female, XX chromosomes and all that.
First off, we all have to reference that Christian Matson is a self-professed hermit. A hermit is a person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence; a recluse. There is a big difference between the type of hermit Ms. Matson professes (work in the arts and to live a life of contemplation in a private hermitage), to that of Saint Benedict who professed his life to the Word of God and Prayer.
I am a Benedictine Oblate in Missouri and we just call this type of discussions as Hog-Wash. I am not ignorant to the spin about Dignitas Infinita and I understand the narrative being argued but this person has done nothing to change or alter her sexuality I find only a mental defect for which we should pray for this person.
No! Webster: A hermit is a person living in solitude as a religious discipline. The only concern would be what dicipline is being applied? Is she doomed for Hell? Can her gender transition be reversed, like a vasectomy? Does her family still love and support her/him? We know that current dogma rejects women from ordination, but a celibate trans Nun?
God raise up all exhiled hermits from the ashes of abnormality.
The Church should not put her imprimatur behind social psychosis.
The greater scandal is generated by Bishop Stowe, a successor of the Apostles, for allowing and promoting this diabolical disorientation.
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” (2 Cor 11:13)
You hit the bullseye, Maggie!
Thank you for the affirmation, DeaconEdwardPeitler. I’d love to hear one of your homilies. I’d be willing to bet you give the kind we sorely need to start hearing again in our parishes.
Maggie, there is one online that a parishioner of a parish I was once a member of put there with my permission. If you Google: “Every day is Newtown in America”, you should be able to access it. God bless.
Deacon Edward, I read your fine homily, and it is indeed the kind we should be hearing more often from our American pulpits! It tackles in a unique way the toughest moral issue of our culture today, which tragically we hear so little about.
(Indeed, we hear the least about the most important and toughest moral issues!)
I urge other readers to google and read “Every Day is Newtown in America” by Deacon Ed Peitler
In the Seattle area the only person in the car was ticketed for driving in the high-occupancy-vehicle lane. With him was his dog. The driver explained to the judge that “my dog identifies as a person.”
It is farce to propose this individual posing as a man “raises the danger of scandal”, it is scandalous. The issue is that the Church is put in the position of supporting the position that rejects God’s creation. She has lived her life denying herself. That which motivates this denial is deeply sad – sad for her and her confusion to live a lie while posing as a hermit.
Those that support her position are unworthy of any position of authority and are in a state of rebellion and apostasy. Either they repent or they should be removed.
Love your neighbor.
That Stowe does not recognize the serious mental disorder going on here is disturbing – as a pastoral care issue. He compounds the pastoral malpractice by affirming it as edifying. I can excuse the confused hermit, but the bishop’s behavior has done far more damage to the Church and society – and struggling gender dysphoric individuals – than the hermit ever could. Stowe is more interested in grand-standing and virtue signaling to the progressive wing than he is in the pastoral care of the hermit and others who are afflicted with this disorder. Shame on Stowe.
Spot on. But in regards to the individual claiming to be a hermit…one does not go looking for the limelight with public declarations while simultaneously declaring their vocation to solitude.
This issue can be resolved in a fairly concise manner:
1. Stop referring to a woman as “he.” She is not a monk.
2. Laicize her immediately and impose harsh discipline on the monastery leaders who supported this fraud.
So much could be said but lets keep it simple.
Bishop Stowe facilitated this conundrum. The lack of prudence exhibited by him in this situation and others is grounds for “reassignment.”
And the individual ostensibly desiring to grow in intimacy with the Lord in “solitude” as a “hermit” has a genius for turning the hermitage into center stage enjoying the limelight.
Clerical incompetency and malicious fraudulence have met.
When do we wake up?
They’re all frauds- the hermit and the hermit’s woke bishop. The hermit should shut up, return to the hermitage and take Stowe with him
The hermit is no hermit and apparently there is no hermitage. The individual need return to the closet and be still. They are in an act of public scandal and scaring the horses.
Can we agree, James, that the ersatz hermit should just shut up?
That Stowe would take this person in, is no suprise, and this person knew this when applying to Stowe to be a recognized hermit.
That neither Stowe or this person have a clue about the true hermit life is no suprise, either…both Stowe’s trumpeting of the existence of the hermit, and this person’s own self-publicity show this only a stunt for both…a hermit leads a hidden life.
My question is also one of finances, and if this person self-supporting, in which case, outside official diocean recognition, they could call themselves a Zen elephant, giraffe, or Catholic hermit to their heart’s content.
But if Stowe is using diocese funding to support his own pro-gay agenda via this person, both should be hung out to dry…
That the article focuses only on experts opining that an officially diocese recognized transexual hermit is a scandal, is like an article focusing on experts telling me that night is dark and here are the assorted grades of dark…..oh, really?
Bishop Stowe has long been a staunch advocate for homosexuality, transgenderism, and many things contrary to the Catholic faith. His churches fly gay pride flags, etc.
He also wades into politics, precisely in the manner you would expect. From America Magazine:
“In a strongly worded newspaper column, a Kentucky bishop urged Catholics to consider the church’s full teaching on life and to resist temptations to align themselves with the “Make America Great Again” movement started by President Trump.”
He was upset that during the March for Life, somebody wore a red MAGA baseball cap.
Bishop Stowe also publicly castigated the young man who the media tried to crucify for “smirking” in the face of a Native American drum beater. That kid later won a 200 million dollar lawsuit against CNN for defaming him. I wonder why the good bishop was not sued as well.
Other Stowe headlines “Bishop John Stowe: LGBTQ community an example of “unselfish love.” Stowe gives the headline address at meetings of James Martin’s “Outreach” organization.
You cannot expect such a bishop to uphold Catholic teaching in any way. After years of telling Catholics to do exactly what Pope Francis says, now he ignores Pope Franci’s latest document.
I have a feeling that this woman is quilty of having committed a grave sin of deception. It’s not clear if this current Bishop was the one who granted her permission to become a hermit or a predecessor, but clearly there was deception. It’s one thing if she was living as a self proclaimed hermit, but quite another if she is indeed a hermit living as a diocesan hermit under the supervision and direction of the bishop. In the former case she could well be a mentally ill person who is living in a delusional world. In the latter she would be a woman who has deliberately deceived a bishop over an extended period of time (it takes a matter of years to achieve this status) in order to become something she wasn’t. This is a sin which must be dealt with. Now that it is a public matter, a very clear public statement from the bishop is needed.
Bishop Stowe’s response is what should be expected of him. Pope Francis described the problem with such bishops a few days ago.
….”This wicked serpent, like an unclean torrent, pours into men of depraved minds and corrupt hearts the poison of his malice, the spirit of lying, impiety and blasphemy, and the deadly breath of impurity. These crafty enemies of mankind have filled to overflowing with gall and wormwood the Church, which is the Bride of the Lamb without spot; they have laid profane hands upon here most sacred treasures. Make haste, therefore, O invincible Prince, to help the people of God against the inroads of the lost spirits and grant us victory. Amen” From the Saint Michael the Archangel prayer. In Deliverance Prayers, Fr Chad Ripperger.
Fairly concise, Fraud? Webster: “Fraud is the wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”. Laisize her? You could give “her” the maximum. She should be sent to jail. Forget her parents.
Will we ever understand one another? Walk in her/his shoes.
Your are already a pretty bad hermit if you seek some sort of public approval of your lifestyle. Be a child of God or not. This is a mockery.
I once wrote here about my “vision” of the reversed sock i.e. how currently the evil is labouring over the Church trying to “reverse” it so to speak, presenting the wrong side as right etc., something along the lines of Bosch’s paintings. Here I see that “reversed sock” again: the twist is trying to pose as a norm – once this new norm is accepted all the Church must be reversed accordingly.
The story with “a trans-hermit” made me recall another story of so-called “elder-virgin” Dosiphey which happened in 18c. Russia which is the direct opposite to what is being discussed.
Dosipheya, a daughter of very wealthy parents, was brought up in a convent by her grandmother who was a nun. When her grandmother became a hermit, the young woman was taken back home. She did not like being in the world and wanted to be a nun but her parents were adamantly against it, wanting her to marry. She ran away to Moscow with an intention to enter a convent but was recognized so she dressed in a male peasant dress. Because she was tall and somewhat masculine looking, she was accepted to the male monastery as a novice with the name Dosiphey” (a male form of her name). Unfortunately, in a while she was recognized again by some visitors of the monastery so she ran away to Kiev.
There she settled in a cave in a proximity of a male monastery. Everyone thought she was a male ascetic. With years she became known as one who can read hearts and discern the souls and people would stream to the hermit for advice. She spoke to people but never showed her face. Her fame was so big that even the Empress visited her and by her order “Dosiphey”was clothed as a monk (I presume the empress also thought Dosiphea was a man). She became an official hermit in the monastery. At some point Dosiphea was visited by her own sister who did not recognize her and gave her the advice not to look for those who hid themselves for the sake of God.
Her death was holy; she asked forgiveness from each of brethren in the monastery and was found dead the next day kneeling before icons. In her hand was found a note in which she stated that her body is prepared for the burial so it should be buried as it is. She died in her fifties.
She was venerated as the blessed (a monk) by the brethren and many others. When her sister visited the monastery again, she recognized her sister in the portrait of the blessed Dosiphey. This is how her story became known.
This story shed some light on the “reversed sock” of a trans-hermit. Dosiphea, a woman, chose to pose as a man because there was no other way to hide herself and to have safety living in a cave. She lived in a total obscurity, being dead to the world even more than the regular monks.
Seems like she began her career as a hermit by lying about her real sex. Not a good way to start the religious life. Then announces her status which causes further scandal. Shame on the Bishop for acting like all of this is OK.
Ah, these people, they claim to want natural and are hysterical about the way that humans have harmed this poor planet – but no problem disregarding or mutilating the way that God naturally made them.
All the other animals seem to figure this one out, quite naturally!
Bishop John Stowe.
Religion News Service.
No need to read further.
Peace my friends
I have read many comments that condemn this woman and the Bishop for not casting the first stone. John 8:1-11 What did Jesus say: Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” 11 “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.” Adultery v Posing as a male – Again, strong comments here.
Do you even know any folks that are transgender? I worked at the Outpatient Pharmacy of The Christ Hospital for years. We had a Doctor in the Medical Office Building that did gender reassignment procedures. Sorry, I did not know any female transitioning to male patients. I did know many male patients transitioning to female. There was not one of these patients that was doing this because it was a fad or popular, these were people trapped in a male body that did not have one male trait.
This should break your heart not bring out condemnation. Go on, throw the first stone you hypocrites. Maybe you should read Matthew 25:31-46 to find out what it takes to stay out of Hell.
I find your statement to be a good example of the ideology of the “nice party”, in the Church and in the world. Let us establish some clarity here. (And yes, I knew a transsexual, a biological woman who acquired a male body but it does not matter; why will be said later.)
You wrote: “I have read many comments that condemn this woman and the Bishop for not casting the first stone.”
What is “casting first stone”? – It is to punish for a sin. The woman in your example was about to be punished according to the Jewish law. Our Lord did not interfere until those whose aim was to catch Him on a violation of the law, addressed him. He then asked one who has never sinned to throw the first stone, beginning the execution which would lead to death.
Note that Jesus did not say “she did not sin, drop the stones”. Furthermore, he confirmed she sinned via saying “go and sin no more”. Did Jesus “cast the first stone” via saying that she was sinning = saying the truth? Obviously not. Then, analogically, the commentators here are also not casting a stone but are stating the truth, namely that the Church cannot accept untruth i.e. treating a biological woman as a man. The removal of “the female hermit monk” from the male religious organization and putting her into an appropriate one (female or unisex) would not be a punishment but a restoration of the truth.
You asked: “Do you even know any folks that are transgender?”
Your question is not really relevant because here we are discussing a basic (primitive even) objective truth, that a man cannot be a female and vice versa. The fact that some know transgender people and some do not cannot change this truth – it can only influence the degree of compassion for a human suffering – or may not, if the transgender people whom one knows are obnoxious, just it is the case with any kind of people.
The truth is that hormones and surgery cannot make a man into a woman and vice versa because an appearance does not make them such. A woman who had a double mastectomy b.o. of breast cancer does not become a man; a man who lost his penis due to an accident or developed breasts b.o. a hormonal imbalance or medical treatment does not become a woman. From here follows that the true mercy would be to state to the transgenders the truth i.e.:
“No surgery will ever make you a man (or a woman). You will get an artificial body which has to be supported and maintained via various damaging drugs. If now you are a woman who thinks that she is a man trapped in the female body, after the surgeries you will be a woman literally trapped in the fake of the male body – so you are exchanging a real sex/gender and a real body for a fake sex/gender and a fake body. Hence, what if we try first to do thorough psychotherapy and find out what in your psyche makes you feel this way.”
My study of human psychology (including psychoanalysis) enables me to recognize in many transgenders, who seek to change their bodies, the symptoms which are exhibited by people who suffer borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bulimia/anorexia depression and so on. Very often it is one unhappy boiling mix of pain and self-loathing which simply takes different (available) forms. More often than not this self-loathing stems from early trauma, abuse, toxic family environments and so on – children in such families feel they are not acceptable so they are ready to do anything to be accepted (including self-mutilation, psychological and physical).
My opinion is also informed by the sci-data which shows higher than average incidence of abuse/other troubles in the families of transgenders, and also of emotional incest. I was astonished when one of such people, a biological woman, confessed that although she mentioned anorexia/anxiety, depression etc. and those symptoms were never paid attention to during her interview which led her to mastectomy. “A psychologist” couldn’t care less. Surely, they would say “they wished good to the young woman” (who is now detransitioning). It is well-known now that those who “assess” such people simply usher them towards “a treatment”.
How could it be than that those who say they are so compassionate to the transgenders are in reality do not bother to propose the much less damaging option which will most likely allow them to avoid the surgery, first? – Most likely because they are deluded as a result of believing that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man. In that, informed by the lie (or a delusion) system of values, those who try to prevent irreversible damage are “unkind” and so on. This is why you see those who hold on to the objective truth “man is man, woman is woman” as “stone-throwers”. Our refusal to accept the lie threatens your “nice” i.e. purely narcissistic, system.