R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Being gay is determined by one’s spirituality. It’s the spirit one is under, and not anything innate. We are spiritual beings, and not sexual beings.
- Status
R
RandomRhino
Guest
What in the world are you talking about?!
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
That something is in the head does not mean it is not biological; a number of psychological conditions can be caused by a hormonal imbalance (especially women with really bad PMS being incorrectly diagnosed as Bipolar).
It’s impossible to accurately gauge it due to the number who never seek treatment of any kind due to societal pressure, the number who don’t seek treatment due to lack of information, those who lack the resources to pursue it, those who are afraid of things going wrong, etc.
That’s a non sequitur
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Just that according to Catholicism, we are spiritual beings. In this light, it stands to reason that many of our character traits are produced at the spiritual realm, and less innate, as psychologists attest to. After spending a large amount of time studying personality, this is my conclusion.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Please explain how? I’m confused.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
It doesn’t logically follow that since we are spiritual beings sexuality is determined by one’s spirit. Also I am unsure what you mean by “spiritual beings” given man’s hylomorphic nature.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Spiritual beings because we are temples of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Holy Spirit has a deep spiritual influence on us. However, we often forget about the evil spiritual influence of Satan, and the degree that who we are is a spiritual phenomena.
C
Catolico65
Guest
You have taken that statement completely out of context. I would ask you to refrain doing that in the name of the Holy Spirit.
C
Catolico65
Guest
Sterilization and sex change operations are prohibited in the catholic Church, so there is no therapeutic benefit in the eyes of the Church as was suggested. The referencfe in the Catechism “Cf. DS 3722” refers to “Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church” by Denzinger.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Section 3722 refers to “The Right to Marriage, and Sterilization” in the new numbering system. Here it is in the older number system, it states:
*
2245 Finally, that pernicious practice should be condemned which is closely related to the natural right of man to enter into matrimony, and also in a real way pertains to the good of the offspring. For there are those who, overly solicitous about the ends of eugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health and vigor of the future offspring—which certainly is not contrary to right reason—but also place eugenics before every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom, according to the norms and conjectures of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty through the operation of physicians; and this they propose not as a severe penalty for a crime committed, to be sought by public authority, nor to ward off future crimes of the guilt, * but, contrary to every right and claim, by arrogating this power to the civil magistrates, which they never had and can never have legitimately.
Whoever so act completely forget that the family is more sacred than the state, and that men are generated primarily not for earth and for time, but for heaven and eternity. And, surely, it is not right that men, in other respects capable of matrimony, who according to conjecture, though every care and diligence be applied, will generate only defective offspring, be for this reason burdened with a serious sin if they contract marriage, although sometimes they ought to be dissuaded from matrimony.
2246 In fact, public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, they can never directly do harm to, or in any way affect the integrity of the body, where no crime has taken place, and no cause for serious punishment is at hand, either for reasons of eugenics, or any other purpose. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same, when, inquiring whether human judges have the power to inflict some evil on man to ward off future evils, concedes this to be correct with reference to certain other evils, but rightly and worthily denies it with regard to injuring the body: “Never ought anyone, according to human judgment, to be punished when without guilt, by a penalty of flogging to death, or of mutilation, or of beating.”*
For those who wish to verify the correct source in the recent numbering system, here it is in Spanish, no English version can be found online:
es.catholic.net/biblioteca/libro.phtml?consecutivo=218&capitulo=2836
As further proof of the Vatican’s stance against sex change surgery below is an article where they say they will not recognize it. In other words their is no such thing as therapeutic sex change surgery recognized by the Catholic Church.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=33494
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Section 3722 refers to “The Right to Marriage, and Sterilization” in the new numbering system. Here it is in the older number system, it states:
*
2245 Finally, that pernicious practice should be condemned which is closely related to the natural right of man to enter into matrimony, and also in a real way pertains to the good of the offspring. For there are those who, overly solicitous about the ends of eugenics, not only give certain salutary counsels for more certainly procuring the health and vigor of the future offspring—which certainly is not contrary to right reason—but also place eugenics before every other end of a higher order; and by public authority wish to prohibit from marriage all those from whom, according to the norms and conjectures of their science, they think that a defective and corrupt offspring will be generated because of hereditary transmission, even if these same persons are naturally fitted for entering upon matrimony. Why, they even wish such persons even against their will to be deprived by law of that natural faculty through the operation of physicians; and this they propose not as a severe penalty for a crime committed, to be sought by public authority, nor to ward off future crimes of the guilt, * but, contrary to every right and claim, by arrogating this power to the civil magistrates, which they never had and can never have legitimately.
Whoever so act completely forget that the family is more sacred than the state, and that men are generated primarily not for earth and for time, but for heaven and eternity. And, surely, it is not right that men, in other respects capable of matrimony, who according to conjecture, though every care and diligence be applied, will generate only defective offspring, be for this reason burdened with a serious sin if they contract marriage, although sometimes they ought to be dissuaded from matrimony.
2246 In fact, public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, they can never directly do harm to, or in any way affect the integrity of the body, where no crime has taken place, and no cause for serious punishment is at hand, either for reasons of eugenics, or any other purpose. St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same, when, inquiring whether human judges have the power to inflict some evil on man to ward off future evils, concedes this to be correct with reference to certain other evils, but rightly and worthily denies it with regard to injuring the body: “Never ought anyone, according to human judgment, to be punished when without guilt, by a penalty of flogging to death, or of mutilation, or of beating.”*
For those who wish to verify the correct source in the recent numbering system, here it is in Spanish, no English version can be found online:
es.catholic.net/biblioteca/libro.phtml?consecutivo=218&capitulo=2836
As further proof of the Vatican’s stance against sex change surgery below is an article where they say they will not recognize it. In other words their is no such thing as therapeutic sex change surgery recognized by the Catholic Church.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=33494
S
SMGS127
Guest
2245 discusses eugenics and is irrelevant to the topic.
2246 discusses forcible mutilation by the government, not therapeutic surgery freely chosen by the patient by doctor’s recommendation, and is also irrelevant.
Your article discusses the Catholic News Service article I linked earlier which can be found here:
ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender
…and which says:
I trust something directly from the CDF over your personal interpretation of a eugenics passage in the Catechism.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Not for you or me. Everyone does not see it the same, Pilgrim. We have some funny ideas of what constitutes masculinity in this country.
P
pnewton
Guest
If you read what I wrote, you will note that I am well aware of that. However, it still holds that studies based on the feelings of people who have psychological ailments are more subjective than studies of can cancer growth in chemotherapy. If even the most objective science can be affected by the observer, than we must accept that subjective studies are very vulnerable to outcome based observations. Evidence from the social sciences are not as significant. It takes a lot more to support for a new idea to be accepted. Any quick acceptance is a sign that politics has usurped science.
C
Catolico65
Guest
With all due respect the article you quoted is not the official document, but rather an interpretation from a non religious reporter for the periodical “Our Sunday visitor” published in the “National Catholic Reporter”. Based on my research the opinion is not based on Catholic dogma. For example, the following comment by Norton:
An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the patient’s internal turmoil.*
appears to be based on a poor interpretation based on the original document used by the Vatican entitled “Transexuality and the Canonical Order” by Father Navarre:
docs.google.com/file/d/0B5MCZqcy5eWjVDYwME11N2M0V2M/edit
Furthermore, given other opinions by religious in the Church, as opposed to a lay reporter, it is clear that the church does not support therapeutic sex change operations. Here are some examples:
“Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.” - Fr. William P. Saunders 2005 catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-The-Morality-of-Sex-Change-Operations,1997?sub_id=1997
*If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work. * - Pope Benedict 2008 vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081222_curia-romana_en.html
C
Coatimundi
Guest
That isn’t quite right. It is a news article written for the Catholic News Service, and which, many years later, was republished by the National Catholic Reporter. The original artiicle may have been to the basis for the EWTN article which you cited in post #423.
You may be be correct about the poor translation. Fr Navarrete (who was made a cardinal before his death) states upfront that his paper will not address the issues of morality or lawfulness of sex-change surgery. His analysis is only regarding canon law. as it relates to marriage, holy orders, and the religious life.
However, I would note that the paper by Fr. Navarrete is not likely to be the CDF document which was distributed sub secretum. The fact that is was published in a theological journal indicates that the paper was not secret. But, the paper was written the person who was reported to be the primary author of the sub secretum document. In addition, this paper was published a few years before the document was issued. Because of those two things, I think the paper deserves to be studied closely.
C
Catolico65
Guest
With all due respect my friend you appear to be just a little confused.
First, the author of the article that claims the Church says there may be some benefit for therapeutic sex change operations does not work for the NCR. Nonetheless, this issue is of secondary importance. The real issue is the interpretation of the Bishops document.
Regarding your claim that I said the Navarrete article is the referenced document issues by the Bishops, I never stated that. What I stated was that the **original document ** used as a reference for the Bishop’s letter and cited in NCR article is the document that Navarrete prepared. Given that there is **nothing **in the Navarrete that speaks about the supposed therapeutic benefits of sex change surgery and the CC’s clear stance on this matter we should be able to assume with confidence that the lay reporter made an interpretation error in the NCR article. Paz.
K
Karrtel
Guest
In 2013, Mclemore did a propaganda gay song called ‘I can’t change even if I wanted to.’ That song was praised as it implied gays and lesbians are born this way. Imagine if he did a song about that with regard to drugs, drunkards or alcoholics because the same lyrics can be for that.
1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation, yet most feminists are not condemning genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and genitals mutilated. Ted W. Lieu who sponsored the California law is against therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight as California law banned it for minors. Don’t be surprised if in future, Ted W. Lieu or those like him would ban therapy altogether for gays/lesbianism and the 2012 law is first step. Ted W. Lieu is likely an apologist for sex changes and Ted W. Lieu sees nothing wrong with giving a kid hormones to make them fake opposite sex members.
Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. But any behavior including sexual can be learned. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bedwetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerreth Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile though he was married to a woman. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such. APA uses a different defintion of what homosexual and heterosexual is. A person who has same sex relations with a young boy would be a homosexual pedofile because of his sexual conduct. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Homosexual groups will use the mantra societal attitudes but it’s more complicated. People who have suffered sex abuse (which many gays and lesbians have) in youth often have problems in adulthood and this includes suicides.
It must be called mutilation with dangerous hormones. Most transexuals were sexually abused in childhood which messed up their minds. I’m against sex changes for same reason as oppose trying to make a White person Black or viceversa because they think theyre another race, it doesn’t take an expert to know that hormone shots + the maiming surgery damages body. If they knew how to change skin color, they would be making justifications for changing color of people who think they are of other race as they now do for sex changes. Transexuals have antisocial personalities because the hormone shots damage mind. The lifetime of hormone shots are linked to cancer.
1 would hope that feminists would oppose the mutilation, yet most feminists are not condemning genital and breast mutilation as what happened to Chastity where her healthy breasts were mutilated, dangerous hormone shots and genitals mutilated. Ted W. Lieu who sponsored the California law is against therapy for gays and lesbians who want to be straight as California law banned it for minors. Don’t be surprised if in future, Ted W. Lieu or those like him would ban therapy altogether for gays/lesbianism and the 2012 law is first step. Ted W. Lieu is likely an apologist for sex changes and Ted W. Lieu sees nothing wrong with giving a kid hormones to make them fake opposite sex members.
Those denying link between childhood sex abuse and adult gay/lesbian behaviors are usually gay, lesbian or a sympathizer. But any behavior including sexual can be learned. Sex abuse in youth can cause people to behave in ways. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bedwetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gays with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.
If a person has homosexual activities with a young boy, then they are a homosexual pedofile. Jerreth Sandusky is a homosexual pedofile though he was married to a woman. But homosexual groups say that he is not gay when his conduct defines him as such. APA uses a different defintion of what homosexual and heterosexual is. A person who has same sex relations with a young boy would be a homosexual pedofile because of his sexual conduct. Many gays and lesbians who commit suicide do so because they often were childhood sex abuse victims and have other copathologies such as antisocial conduct, drugs, etc. Homosexual groups will use the mantra societal attitudes but it’s more complicated. People who have suffered sex abuse (which many gays and lesbians have) in youth often have problems in adulthood and this includes suicides.
C
Coatimundi
Guest
There does some to be some confusion, so let us clear it up. The author of the article which was re-published by NCR does not work for them. I never said he did. However, he does work for the Catholic News Service, which is whom he wrote the article for (many years before the NCR re-published it.) Please re-read it, if you doubt me.
ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender
There is no evidence to support your claim that the article written by John Norton was based upon Fr. Navarrete’s paper. Norton’s article says it was based upon the Vatican document. Norton’s article only mentions Navarrete’s paper in a single sentence.
The logic in your argument is faulty. The news article written by John Nortion was based upon the Vatican document, not upon Navarrete’s paper.
As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not have a clear stance on the therapeutic nature of sex change surgery. The sub secretum document apparently was issued to address some canonical issues posed by such surgery. Fr.Navarrete’s theological paper addressed similar topics. If the Catholic Church has a clear stance on the therapeutic nature of sex change surgery, please provide an authoritative reference to it, because neither the Vatican document nor Navarrete’s theological paper, dealt with that topic.
C
Catolico65
Guest
You are once again confused, I never made such claim.
What I stated was that the Bishop’s pastoral letter was based on Nvarrete’s document.
You are confused my friend. The Catholic Church’s stance is clear on therapeutic sex change not only form Pope Benedict’s statement but also Fr. William P. Saunders’ article that I posted. Given that John Norton, no matter who he works for, is a lay person with no Church authority it is clear his opinion is of little importance.
I would ask you kindly in the future to not make any claims that the CC has no official stance on therapeutic sex change as it is not charitable given the references that I have posted. Paz,
C
Coatimundi
Guest
You also made the claim that Norton’s article was based upon Navarrete’s paper. To quote: “What I stated was that the original document used as a reference for the Bishop’s letter and cited in NCR article is the document that Navarrete prepared”
(underlining mine)
You repeated that false statement later in the same post. To quote: “Given that there is nothing in the Navarrete that speaks about the supposed therapeutic benefits of sex change surgery and the CC clear stance on this matter we should be able to assume with confidence that the lay reporter made an interpretation error in the NCR article.”
(underlining mine)
Pope Benedict’s statement did not deal with the therapeutic nature of sex change surgery. What he did say is that we, as humans, do not have right to pick and choose our genders. He specifically rejects the notion that gender exists in a multitude of shades, much as in the recent Facebook decision to allow 50+ gender choices. Pope Benedict emphasized the binary of male and female. What he said was that our culture does not allow us to create a gender identify separate from what God has given us. Pope Benedict did not address whether a biological basis for transsexuality exists, or whether surgery to correct such a biological error should be permitted.
As for Fr. Saunder’s article, I have a great deal of respect for the author. He has been a priest for many years, he is generally well-informed, and has written much for the lay public. He seems a compassionate man. However, the visceral disgust he feels for the topic of sex change surgery is hard to miss. I think that clouds his analysis, and we can discuss that in a separate exchange if you like. I think it doing so would promote a clear discussion of his article.
For the reasons I have explained, I disagree with your claim that the Church has an official stance on therapeutic sex change.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
**Catholics have pretty much always believed that people are naturally attracted to drugs and alcohol. It’s called original sin.
Why is it so terrible to admit that people are also naturally sexually attracted to people of the same sex?
(I’m not saying everyone is, just as not everyone likes alcohol.)
- Status