I
Irishgal49
Guest
So if a man has a sex change operation and then became Catholic, had a change of heart he couldn’t marry…because they cannot have procreative sex. I wonder if he could become a priest.
Lorrie
Are transgendered people allowed to get married or be in relationships?
- Status
Lorrie
T
thistle
Guest
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
No, he can’t, it’s the rules.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
It’s wild that the church has all these weird scenarios they have to make rulings on, this world is sure complex.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
You previously stated that something was ‘disrupted’ during development that caused the problem.
I sense a contradiction. Either something is wrong that needs to be fixed, or there is nothing wrong, and nothing needs to be fixed. What I understand you to now say is that there was nothing wrong with development, but that something needed to be done about it anyway. Isn’t that a contradiction? How can nothing be ‘wrong’, and there still be a need for a drastic action to fix it?
I am also perplexed by your transition from the term ‘reassignment’, that you used on multiple occasions, which seems clear and accurate, to a term of ‘confirmation’. Have you looked up the definition of ‘confirmation’? It means to seek to verify what is accurate. It is an act of oberservation, not an act to change something. When something is verified, it is looked at and left as it was. ‘Reassignment’ is an act of changing. Something is different afterwards than what existed before. Why would one use a word that seems to be selected to cloud the act rather than clearly describe it? What was actually done was an act of ‘changing’, right? There was not a verification of the way things are, there was a change to something different?
You seem to have gone back to indicating something is wrong that needs to be fixed, and that it is brain related. I am so confused!
I do appreciate your time. However, I will understand better if your positions remain consistent, and you select words for their precise meanings and avoid using words that seem selected for justifying something rather than being true. Words have meaning. When those meanings are not kept, communication and understanding of what is real, suffers.
And, for what it is worth, I agree with another poster who conveyed that yours is not an easy cross to bear.
Dan
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
O
OraLabora
Guest
FWIW I think there is something wrong. The problem though, is that in our society, and to a large extent in our Church, mental issues are a great taboo. Even more so when the issue touches sexuality.
I have a hereditary condition called hemochromatosis. It made me very ill until it was diagnosed; many of the symptoms appeared vague and disconnected. Some were quite debilitating. When I was diagnosed (by my own wife, a family physician), and put on the road to treatment I got much better though I have to undergo treatments every 2-3 months for the rest of my life. People (and doctors) did think I was funny in the head, and just a hypochondriac, until I was finally diagnosed. There was in fact something physically wrong, I was slowly being poisoned by iron overload. Now that I have a physical condition with a known diagnosis, nobody thinks twice about it.
But take the case of the transgendered. On top of the issue being poorly understood, they have to deal with this double taboo: it’s a head thing, and on top of that, it touches sexuality.
I guess our consciousness and mind are at the very heart of our souls; there must be some explanation why a physical illness from the neck down is treated with sympathy, but a mental illness is viewed with great suspicion unless it’s something very obvious like a brain tumour.
You have to understand that the transgendered are just trying to find a path for themselves that allow them to lead relatively well-adjusted lives; this does not make them evil, and does not make them specifically any worse a sinner than the rest of us; the same goes for doctors who adhere to rigid standards of care. They are trying to do the best with the training they have been given. Given that the Church hasn’t clearly at least publicly pronounced herself on the issue, it’s clear that the doctrine isn’t yet adjusted to the scientific reality because that reality is still poorly understood. It therefore makes no sense to me to try to cook up our own interpretations of what the doctrine should be; by so doing we end up inadvertently fomenting prejudice against the transgendered.
The Church does have certain definitions about what marriage is and what makes a marriage valid. That definition has as its core a commitment between a genetic male and a genetic female who are capable of completing the act of sexual intercourse in a normal fashion, and it’s a definition based not on love but on its own physiological and procreative reality. That was the subject that the OP wanted to have answered, and I think the thread has in fact, answered it.
Beyond that there is no real need to argue against those who have, with no ill intent and to the best of their abilities, made a hugely significant life choice that may not appeal to our sensibilities. I am pretty sure that the decision Theresa Frances took was not taken lightly; and it does sound like it’s made her feel better in the end.
We live in an imperfect and as was pointed out, messy world. It isn’t always possible to have a perfect outcome especially in areas where both the science and doctrine aren’t clearly defined. I think we have to respect the choices that the transgendered make, and leave it at that, and not try to reduce the issue of major disorders to one of a simple black-and-white choice between right and sin.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
I feel that much of what you way is very wise. I do have a question. What does “respect the choices that the transgendered make” mean? How do you show respect for a choice? Does one just agree that it was the correct thing to do? Does one just abstain from questioning the rational behind it?
I believe that true respect involves, first, understanding, and secondly granting the respect that is due. During this discussion, I have sought to analyze and understand. If it is disrespectful to seek a deeper understanding, how does one show proper respect for somehting one does not understand? Part of understanding something is questioning what appears inconsistent. If consistency truly prevails, it will show itself. I have appreciated Theresa Frances staying with me and attempting to explain. If my posts have been disrespectful, I apologize. I believed that my questions and suggestions were consistent with an honest search for what is real and what is true.
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
And how would one ‘fix’ this?
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
Highly doubt it. Could you imagine the controversy that this would cause? I don’t think the church needs any more of that right now.
Would be interesting to hear the life story of the priest " once upon a time I was a woman… "
T
Theresa_Frances
Guest
I understand the point you are making, and I agree that the terminology I referenced if taken in a literal sense and logical progression tends to add more confusion to the issue rather than clarify it. I have been personally dealing with these terms and concepts for over 9 years and some do tend to be used interchangeably from a familiarity standpoint, and I see where that could be misleading and confusing. When I referred to the brain structure not being masculinized as not being wrong, I meant it was not a mistake in the sense that God made a mistake, (which is impossible for Him as a perfect Being) but something that happened in nature. Literally though, yes something did go wrong. To correct the situation at the point in my life that it was addressed wasn’t possible by correcting the brain structure, so hormone therapy and “corrective surgery” were offerred as a solution. In making that choice, I was attempting to bring the mental and physical aspects of my life into congruence. My surgeon referred to it as physically confirming the mental realization of me fitting into society as female rather than male. I do see the point you are making in reference to the exact meaning of “confirm”, and I also see where it confuses the issue. With reference to two wrongs not making a right, that would be based on concluding that addressing the issue by the transition process and surgery as being wrong. My family and I struggled with that decision and ultimately decided to go ahead with it. I understand the decision to proceed as we did as being perceived as a drastic measure. I have mentioned before how I was totally frightened when I first learned of other individuals who dealt with a similar issue. Part of my fear was based on the sensationalistic manner in which it was portrayed by tabloid type journalism. In therapy, I gained a different understanding. Although the original question in this thread was related to marriage, I responded to a post that attributed the condition as being related to the environment in which a person was raised. In my case, my brothers and I were raised by loving parents. Their first priority was to teach us the resposibilities of our faith, to respect authority, and to apply ourselves to our school work. I had wanted to point out that with so many variables it wasn’t always a case of attributing this type of issue to one cause. I do thank you for the respectful manner in whch you have offered your criticism. I apologize for not being as clear as I should have, and hope I have been able to clarify misunderstandings and provide more understanding of the manifestation of the issue.
Terri
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger: The body developed according to the basic genetic XX or XY pattern, but something interfered with the brain’s proper development, possibly very early. That is the problem that may be licitly fixed.
I don’t know if a licit fix has been determined yet. For the sake of explanation, I proposed an illicit ‘fix’, a frontal lobotomy. But even that is not addressing what is really broken, and only attempts to mask the problem (provide relief) by breaking something else that is not broken.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Terri,
Thank you for your response and your efforts to increase my understanding. I found it largely rational and you have my utmost respect.
Thank you for your response and your efforts to increase my understanding. I found it largely rational and you have my utmost respect.
I concur. God does not make mistakes. God does allow things to go ‘naturally’ wrong in this world, according to His perfect plans and for our ultimate benefit. It is a great challenge (and responsibility) to determine how one responds to these events, and I believe our responses are key to our journey to (or away from) God in heaven.
I understand. I still cringe at the words ‘solution’ and ‘correct’, because the procedures you endured do neither of those things. I can only infer that there is still much ‘incongruence’ that exists, perhaps even more than what what existed initially. I wish you the best, that is, that you keep your focus on God and His plan for you such that you ultimately join Him in heaven.
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
A lobotomy? Geez! I feel bad for transgendered people…
Must be so hard.
I pray God gives each one of them strength.
C
Cherry5
Guest
Dan Grelinger; said:
J
Jimmygill88
Guest
What about hermaphrodites (rare I know) many have had their gender assigned at birth some quite wrongly. Some ‘boys’ have gone on to conceive children (quite naturally as womb and ovaries were intact) so after gender reassignment from whom do they seek advice about marriage? Some Nations would not allow a fresh birth certificate to be issued effectively barring them from a marriage which should be straightforward. This blanket NO! on transgender issues is ignoring a small but significant group and I suggest each case should be dealt with on it’s merits. There’s empirical research that the brain of male to female transsexual people more like that of a woman than a man. So it depends what is classed as a primary sex organ…the penis or the cerebrum
T
tonyinatl66
Guest
As we learn more about things, the CC attitude changes over time. We are learning more and more about gender identity. Transgendered people are just that, neither completely male nor completely female. It is a broad term that covers many terms and sexual identities. What does it mean when someone is born with some male sexual organs and some female sexual organs? Most females are born with two X chromosomes, and males with an X and a Y chromosome. What does it mean when God lets someone be born with a XXY sex chromosome? Or when they are born with YYX sex chromosomes? The CC did not until recently recogonize interracial marriage.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
An acceptable solution is one that is a licit action. That is the basis of Christian morality. If the action itself, held apart from the motivation (intent) is licit, then combined with good intent and proper circumstance, the act is moral.
I am aware of no cure. And there are thousands of diseases that have no cure today. In the absence of any licit solutions, my recommendation would be consistent across all maladies that do not yet have a cure.
For an example, it is nearly possible today for a person afflicted with an organ disease, to have created a human clone, carried to near full term by a surrugate, for the purpose of producing the needed organ. Of course, the ‘carrier’ of the organ would be destroyed in the process of harvesting their desired organ, but the person with the diseased organ is cured.
This is illicit. Do you still stand by your statement that God would accept ‘any choice’ that a diseased person made in order to alleviate their suffering? Or do you really only mean ‘some choices, if they are licit’?
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Source please? I believe that to be absolutely false.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
The Church has never disallowed interracial marriage. Does the Church even recognizes the concept of race?
- Status