Are transgendered people allowed to get married or be in relationships?

[1ke]

Its a bit difficult due to the very nature of the subject. Most transsexuals, particularly after surgery, want to be identified as they are living. This means that they tend not to publicly announce that they are transsexual and they seek to avoid controversy. So news articles about marriages involving a transsexual are fairly non-existent.

The exception would be court challenges and individuals who are in the public light. One example would be Jacqueline-Charlotte Dufresnoy, the French entertainer who sometimes used the stage name Coccinelle. She was married in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris in 1960
zagria.blogspot.com/2009/03/jacqueline-charlotte-dufresnoy-1931.html

Otherwise, reports tend to be anecdotal. Here at CAF we used to have a member who stated she had married in the Church and had her baptismal record corrected. But both of those things happened in the 1990s, before the secret Vatican document was issued.

This is not evidence that the Church “allowed” transsexuals to marry. It is, at most, an article that confirms that an individual priest somewhere in France is quite confused regarding many church teachings, including the most fundamental: baptism. The article says she was allowed to marry after she was ‘baptized again’ as Jacqueline. This indicates to me something VERY fishy. Baptism can never be repeated. It is quite possible someone altered sacramental records, which is another forbidden item.

On the whole, I think that the newness of the whole idea of “sex change” in 1960 had someone confused or bamboozled.

Individual cases of where someone may have pulled something over on a priest, or a priest on their own accord did something that was clearly not in line with the Church’s teaching, is not (IMHO) evidence that “the Church” allowed anything of the sort.

And I’m pretty skeptical of a blog posting as a source of reliable information.

 

[Dale_M]

Individual cases of where someone may have pulled something over on a priest, or a priest on their own accord did something that was clearly not in line with the Church’s teaching, is not (IMHO) evidence that “the Church” allowed anything of the sort.

And I’m pretty skeptical of a blog posting as a source of reliable information.

I can appreciate skepticism about a blog posting, but I used it because it did cite a number of sources.

As for Church teaching, I don’t think there is one regarding transsexualism. Hence the need for the secret document which was distributed a decade ago. A policy was suddenly necessary, as I recall, because an Italian priest had gotten a sex change, so a policy was quickly created. If there is an official Church teaching on transsexualism, could you please cite it?

The matter of transsexualism is difficult. It poses challenges to the notion of discrete sexes and it bumps up against the Catholic position that men and women have different spiritual natures. However, intersex conditions pose the same challenges and the physical existence of such conditions is unquestionable.

Much is not understood about transsexualism, particularly regarding its causes. There have been several studies during the past decade which suggest physical causes to the condition. I don’t think those studies are conclusive, but they do raise real questions.

I suspect the unsettled understanding of transsexualism, and intersex conditions, are the reason the Church has not issued a public statement on these matters. The area is gray and will take time to sort things out.

 

[OraLabora]

Baptism can never be repeated. It is quite possible someone altered sacramental records, which is another forbidden item…

I suspect a translation issue here. Assuming the original was written in French, I suspect the author simply meant legal name change. My mother tongue is French and we usually use the term “rebaptiser” colloquially to simply mean changing something’s name, whether an object, a place name or a person.

It’s rarely used in a sacramental context in popular conversation because re-baptism is rare and would be limited to cases of invalidly baptized seeking admission to the Church or correction of an invalid baptism because of error in the original baptism.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is a good example of where do we draw the line with marriage. Obviously it should be between a man and a woman, not a fake man/fake woman, man/man, woman/woman, brother /brother, sister/sister, ad nauseum.

 

[livingwordunity]

Well its not just getting things ‘removed’. They actually construct the guy female genitalia. So technically he does have girl parts after the surgery. So in this case, would this mean that marriage would be allowed because he is now a female and able to consummate the marriage with his husband?

No matter the surgical costume, a man is forever a man physically and spiritually since he will always have male DNA and since he was assigned his maleness from eternity by God.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

No matter the surgical costume, a man is forever a man physically and spiritually since he will always have male DNA and since he was assigned his maleness from eternity by God.

Actually, the sperm decides the gender, not God.

I’m not saying God doesn’t have the power to, but I’m pretty sure he lets nature do it. (the sperm).

But that has nothing to do with how the person will feel mentally either.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

They are not actual girl parts. They are fake girl parts.

Well, yes obviously. Like play dough, you can make any shape you want. That doesn’t mean that’s what it really is, but you can pretend right?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Actually, the sperm decides the gender, not God.

I’m not saying God doesn’t have the power to, but I’m pretty sure he lets nature do it. (the sperm).

But that has nothing to do with how the person will feel mentally either.

Isn’t saying ‘God lets nature do it’ the same as saying ‘God lets God do it’?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Isn’t saying ‘God lets nature do it’ the same as saying ‘God lets God do it’?

He designed the sperm to choose the Gender, so yes I guess it could be looked at in the same light, but not the same as HIM choosing the gender rather than the sperm.

We know sperm chooses gender, that is how God decided it to be.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

He designed the sperm to choose the Gender, so yes I guess it could be looked at in the same light, but not the same as HIM choosing the gender rather than the sperm.

We know sperm chooses gender, that is how God decided it to be.

How do the sperm choose? Doesn’t choosing require intelligence?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

How do the sperm choose? Doesn’t choosing require intelligence?

Take a biology class.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Take a biology class.

Does that mean you don’t know?

I propose that sperm can’t make the choice that you suggest they do, because they have no conscienceness and no free will. Both are required to make a choice.

 

[cjmclark]

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Does that mean you don’t know?

I propose that sperm can’t make the choice that you suggest they do, because they have no conscienceness and no free will. Both are required to make a choice.

You apparently do not think that gender is determined by sperm which means I suggest you take a biology class.

Why would you compare sperm to a human being who makes conscious choices?

Do you even know what sperm is?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

No, it means you don’t know.

You apparently do not think that gender is determined by sperm which means I suggest you take a biology class.

It appears you have changed what you are saying.

It was “sperm chooses gender”. Now “it is that gender is determined by sperm.”

Those are two different statements.

If there is no way for something to choose, no choice can be made. Sperm do not have the faculties to make a choice, to choose.

Perhaps God has a greater role than you are willing to admit?

 

[LittleSoldier]

That is why I said they would need very careful examination. They may not be mentally able to contract marriage.

Correct.

How you “feel” is not relevant. That can be deceptive, disordered. Clearly it is deceptive, the person is a male or female biologically. If they “feel” they are not, they are deceived. This is a mental issue, it needs help. If it has a biological component, such as hormone issues, it still may preclude that person marrying. We do not know the origins of some of these disorders, they are a result of a fallen world. We must be charitable and compassionate, but the truth remains the truth. They are biologically the sex they were born as. They are not a different sex.

So, such a person may not be a candidate for marriage.

I do believe you are correct.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

It appears you have changed what you are saying.

It was “sperm chooses gender”. Now “it is that gender is determined by sperm.”

Those are two different statements.

If there is no way for something to choose, no choice can be made. Sperm do not have the faculties to make a choice, to choose.

Perhaps God has a greater role than you are willing to admit?

Well I’m glad we got that cleared up.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

He designed the sperm to choose the Gender, so yes I guess it could be looked at in the same light, but not the same as HIM choosing the gender rather than the sperm.

We know sperm chooses gender, that is how God decided it to be.

Sperm either carries an X or a Y chromosome, the first one to get inside the egg wins and the chromosome the sperm carries decides sex. There is a rare syndrome called CAIS where the cells do not absorb the androgens, the body converts excess androgens to estrogens cause (mostly) normal female development.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is apparently so. The church has more tolerance towards difference in gender roles than you might think.

I think the deeper issue is the church’s stand on those born with ambiguous genitalia. To be consistent, I would think that repair would have to move towards genetic gender.

That is a good point. It’s my understanding that when this anomaly is discovered (I think it’s usually obvious at birth, although not always and I’m certainly no expert in this field) the physician and parents make a decision as to which gender the child will be and surgery follows. Unfortunately, physicians and parents can be wrong.

I’ve also heard of some horrible cases when, during circumcision, the physician’s hand slips. I read of one case in which the boy was surgically treated to become a “girl.” I have no idea where I read this and so I can’t provide a reference, although I’m fairly certain this happened many years ago. The treatment today would probably be different and the child allowed to continue to live as a boy.

Some people have very heavy crosses to carry.

 

[chevalier]

Depends. If their real gender is a man, then they can still get married to a woman. They will never be treated as a woman.

I’m not sure though how the Church would treat such a case if there was sex-change surgery. I mean, they will still be treated as with their real gender, but I don’t know if for example a man had his parts removed, if he will be allowed to marry.

The last one’s easy. A man with his male parts removed is impotent (a fortiori), therefore incapable of marriage.

A post-surgical transgendered female no longer able to have sexual intercourse as a woman would also be impotent.

Incapability of intercourse means inapacity to marry.