J
JamesCaruso
Guest
The article says that the Church is satisfied with the physical determination of sex, so that if a man underwent an operation to become physically like a woman, he would remain a man in the eyes of the Church. This is how I have always viewed it as well.ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender
Yes, I realize the link source is oftentimes heterodox, but if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the article was originally written by CNS, which is orthodox.
This is the only official policy in the Church, and it is only binding on bishops as a sub secretum document. It says that, in rare cases where there is a medical probability that surgery can cure someone’s “internal turmoil,” surgery can be morally licit. Interestingly, it says nothing at all about HRT, but I guess that is not really an issue a bishop would deal with. Also, post-operative transgender individuals currently cannot have their baptismal certificates changed (though a notation can be made) or enter into a Church vocation that requires a Sacrament of Vocation. Also, an operation is not viewed as changing one’s sex.
Unfortunately, I think many in the Church, even high-up, confuse transsexuality (a person has an innate sense of themselves for their entire conscious lives as one gender; that gender does not match their genitalia) with genderqueer/gender spectrum theory, which argues that one has a “fluidity” to their gender and that there is no gender binary. Transsexuality can be compatible with the Church. Gender spectrum theory absolutely cannot.
Also, considering that genitalia determination occurs after one’s gender is given by God (as gender is a permanent concept, present from the moment of ensoulment at conception), and that soon, parents will be able to decide pre-natally what genitalia their children have, I don’t see how a policy that focuses on genitalia as the determination of gender can even be compatible with Church teaching. You’d either have to argue that parents can change the gender of their children (they can’t) or that ensoulment happens when genitalia are differentiated (it doesn’t). This is, of course, not to say that one’s identity should be the deciding factor on one’s gender. I take no position on how one’s gender should be theologically determined. I just don’t see how genitalia can be used as such in a fallen world stained by birth defects from original sin.
The part where it says that a person can have the sex change operation if there is a medical probability that it can cure their internal turmoil is followed by the statement: “But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.” And so, it tends to leave one right back where we started from.
In my own opinion, I believe that a man who has a sex change operation remains a man, albeit one with a disfigured body. If I were victim of being a man who felt like a woman, I think (but I can’t know) I would choose to consider myself a man, apart from my feelings to the contrary. In that way I would picture myself a man with feminine feelings, not a female trapped inside a man’s body. There is a difference, is there not, between feeling like a women and believing oneself to be a women?
OTOH, I have seen a person with bipolar disorder where the feeling, irrational as it was, was so strong, it overwhelmed the intellect. The person felt so strongly that someone was going to break into the house and murder them that reasoning with them proved futile. I am not suggesting that transgender persons are psychotic, but is it the same in the sense of feelings overriding intellect, i.e., I feel so strongly that I am a woman, therefore, I must be a woman?
BTW, thank you for the article.