Catholic Sexual Morality

[JimG]

I would like it to explain how complementarianism makes sense with more than two genders, because I don’t understand how it does but I trust the Church to teach the truth.

There are only two sexes: male and female. For purposes of marriage in the Catholic Church, for example, there must be one woman and one man, and they must be capable of sexual intercourse. That’s pretty straightforward.

There can be and are genetic or physical abnormalities affecting human beings. Persons with Down syndrome, for example are not less human because they have a genetic abnormality. They are God’s children too. I’m certainly no expert on genetic or physical anomalies relating to sex, but they do appear to be rather rare, and they do not change the fact that there are only two sexes.

I have to note that just because human beings come in male and female varieties does not mean that men and women are two distinct species! Of course not. We are all human beings created in the image of God, (keeping in mind that God is pure Spirit.)

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Jim, I am not saying men and women are different species. I am saying humans display more than two neatly defined genders. If we are going to simply label part of humanity disfunctional without any further commentary then I feel we do ourselve a disservice. The teachings on marriage are based, in part, on the premise of binary gender, but if that premise is not met, what then? I have not been able to verify any Church teaching specifically dealing with this, and the lay commentary seems to be based on denying or minimizing the existence of these people. I find that unsatisfactory. I think we are indeed all a part of God’s plan, and non-binary gender does not necessarily conflict with Scripture. Gender is complex, why shouldn’t it be? And why would we expect God to abhor complexity, why should we shy from it?

I guess although I find simplicity comforting, I also find it somewhat… dishonest.

 

[JimG]

Jim, I am not saying men and women are different species. I am saying humans display more than two neatly defined genders. If we are going to simply label part of humanity disfunctional without any further commentary then I feel we do ourselve a disservice. The teachings on marriage are based, in part, on the premise of binary gender, but if that premise is not met, what then? I have not been able to verify any Church teaching specifically dealing with this, and the lay commentary seems to be based on denying or minimizing the existence of these people. I find that unsatisfactory. I think we are indeed all a part of God’s plan, and non-binary gender does not necessarily conflict with Scripture. Gender is complex, why shouldn’t it be? And why would we expect God to abhor complexity, why should we shy from it?

I guess although I find simplicity comforting, I also find it somewhat… dishonest.

All I can say that all of Catholic marriage law is based upon the existence of man and woman. I don’t think the existence of a small variety of genetic abnormalities means that there are more than two sexes. It would seem to be a moot point for marriage in any case, if it means that those affected are not able to engage in conjugal relations. Permanent, and antecedent impotence on the part of either party would be an impediment to marriage.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

All I can say that all of Catholic marriage law is based upon the existence of man and woman. I don’t think the existence of a small variety of genetic abnormalities means that there are more than two sexes. It would seem to be a moot point for marriage in any case, if it means that those affected are not able to engage in conjugal relations. Permanent, and antecedent impotence on the part of either party would be an impediment to marriage.

Out of curiosity, how is impotence defined in women?

 

[JimG]

Out of curiosity, how is impotence defined in women?

I believe that it is defined the same for both sexes: inability to complete the marital act. In other words, the marriage could never be consummated. Temporary, curable, or partial impotence is not an impediment to marriage, nor would it be an impediment if it occurred after the marriage was already validly contracted. And impotence is often treatable, so I imagine the instances if this impediment arising are relatively few.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Could you please tell me where the Church identified intersex or hermaphroditism as a physical deformity?

Also, intersex individuals are just one example of gender diversity, but I don’t intend to imply that the examples I’ve forward are by any means exhaustive.

I cannot find any Catholic Church documents that specifically focus on intersex (hermaphroditism).

The logical conclusion is that it is a physical disability covered in detail in the Pastoral Statement of U.S. Catholic Bishops on People with Disabilities

ncpd.org/views-news-policy/policy/church/bishops/pastoral

Since intersex individuals comprise a minute fraction of society maybe a better example of what you call “gender diversity” is called for…so we can continue this discussion.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I believe that it is defined the same for both sexes: inability to complete the marital act. In other words, the marriage could never be consummated. Temporary, curable, or partial impotence is not an impediment to marriage, nor would it be an impediment if it occurred after the marriage was already validly contracted. And impotence is often treatable, so I imagine the instances if this impediment arising are relatively few.

If a woman survived injuries or illness that left her incapable of giving birth, would she be considered impotent, or otherwise unfit for marriage?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I cannot find any Catholic Church documents that specifically focus on intersex (hermaphroditism).

The logical conclusion is that it is a physical disability covered in detail in the Pastoral Statement of U.S. Catholic Bishops on People with Disabilities

ncpd.org/views-news-policy/policy/church/bishops/pastoral

Since intersex individuals comprise a minute fraction of society maybe a better example of what you call “gender diversity” is called for…so we can continue this discussion.

Beyond intersex people there are transgendered on a physiological level (the example I used before was someone with a female body with a masculinized brain).

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

If a woman survived injuries or illness that left her incapable of giving birth, would she be considered impotent, or otherwise unfit for marriage?

Women who are post-menopausal and even quite elderly are able to validly enter into a sacramental marriage. The Rite of Marriage explicitly states that the “willingness to accept children” question may be omitted if the couple is of advanced age.

 

[Rau]

If a woman survived injuries or illness that left her incapable of giving birth, would she be considered impotent, or otherwise unfit for marriage?

No. Impotence is an inability to complete conjugal sex. A woman with no vagina would be such. A man incapable of erection would be such.

Sterility is not an impediment to marriage. An inability to carry a child to term or give birth is not an impediment.

 

[Abu]

Crow_and_dove #42
The teachings on marriage are based, in part, on the premise of binary gender, but if that premise is not met, what then? I have not been able to verify any Church teaching specifically dealing with this, and the lay commentary seems to be based on denying or minimizing the existence of these people. I find that unsatisfactory.
I guess although I find simplicity comforting, I also find it somewhat… dishonest.

Simply ignoring “Church teaching” includes ignoring Christ’s teaching and the history of creation. Male and female are not a mere “premise” – an assumption – they are the specific design of God. The red herring of “lay commentary” for other than male and female ignores history. The only thing dishonest would be a denial of the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the results from that which are the warp and woof of the troubles for mankind.

**CCC #400: **
“The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.”

CCC #401:
“After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288”
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

Thus the brokenness of humanity results in the evident aberrations which do occur. Aberrations are not normality and cannot be accepted as such.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Beyond intersex people there are transgendered on a physiological level (the example I used before was someone with a female body with a masculinized brain).

Yes, I read that and was very confused. But since it was directed to another I didn’t want to comment.

So help me out here, please…if two brains were sitting on the lab table I suppose a brain surgeon could tell the masculine from the feminine. But how could he tell if the femal brain was “masculinized”???

 

[clem456]

Jim, I am not saying men and women are different species. I am saying humans display more than two neatly defined genders. If we are going to simply label part of humanity disfunctional without any further commentary then I feel we do ourselve a disservice. The teachings on marriage are based, in part, on the premise of binary gender, but if that premise is not met, what then? I have not been able to verify any Church teaching specifically dealing with this, and the lay commentary seems to be based on denying or minimizing the existence of these people. I find that unsatisfactory. I think we are indeed all a part of God’s plan, and non-binary gender does not necessarily conflict with Scripture. Gender is complex, why shouldn’t it be? And why would we expect God to abhor complexity, why should we shy from it?

I guess although I find simplicity comforting, I also find it somewhat… dishonest.

This is why I asked about some specific scientific feedback. None of us are scientists here, and I have never heard the proposition that the unusual situations we are describing delineate humanity into more than 2 genders.

One thing is for sure, the union of a man and woman is a sacrament, a sign of a deeper reality. A sacrament affects (or “makes real”) what it signifies. In other words, if the sacrament points to the huge “mysterion” of God’s fecund love, it also is ordered to that fecundity. The union of a man and woman brings about and makes real what it signifies. So in other words, complementarity must necessarily require a man and woman, because without a man and woman, there can be no fecundity.
(Please note I am saying nothing about the unusual situations you are concerned about, I am simply pointing to self evident realities, and noticing they are good.)

I am posting here because I am too excited about learning more to wait for RCIA! I will of course take anything I learn on an Internet forum with a grain of salt, but I can’t imagine anything could be said to dissuade me from trying to follow Christ and join His Church. Thank you for your kind words. I hope my RCIA classes also reflect the complexity of such personal and significant matters.

Good for you! It seems you have already been studying Catholicism. Most Catholics have never even heard the word complementary, and here we are having an in depth discussion about Catholic sexual philosophy. You will make a good solid Catholic.

Are you in RCIA yet, or entering soon? What does your sponsor say about all this?

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I am meeting with a Deacon on Sunday, we will discuss my interest in the Church and hopefully he will point me towards additional resources. I notice a lot of RCIA classes seem to start I’m the fall so I may have to wait a bit.

 

[MJJean]

Beyond intersex people there are transgendered on a physiological level (the example I used before was someone with a female body with a masculinized brain).

You might find an old thread of mine interesting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=916684

From what I know, and I am still learning, a transgendered person is supposed to accept their condition and not alter their body, which is God’s creation. If the person feels called to the vocation of marriage, and is capable of conjugal relations, they may marry if they find a spouse. If not, they are supposed to remain chaste like everyone else.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Yes, I read that and was very confused. But since it was directed to another I didn’t want to comment.

So help me out here, please…if two brains were sitting on the lab table I suppose a brain surgeon could tell the masculine from the feminine. But how could he tell if the femal brain was “masculinized”???

If I understand it correctly, it is when atypical sex differentiation causes a brain in, say, a female body to develope the way a male brain would. I should emphasize that neuroscience is not my strong suit, but here is some more detailed information:
m.brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3132

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If I understand it correctly, it is when atypical sex differentiation causes a brain in, say, a female body to develope the way a male brain would. I should emphasize that neuroscience is not my strong suit, but here is some more detailed information:
m.brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3132

Like you, neuroscience is not my strong suit but I can read a scientific paper. What I turn to is the conclusions since most of the jargon is over my head. This paper uses the terms: “We propose”, “at least partly a marker” and my favorite…“may”.

I could be going about this the wrong way but I usually discount these studies unless I see terms like: “conclusive results”, “…objective tests have proven positively…” and peer reviews that agree with the author’s conclusions.

This study appears to be another attempt to find a physical excuse for Transsexuality .

 

[Crow_and_dove]

You might find an old thread of mine interesting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=916684

From what I know, and I am still learning, a transgendered person is supposed to accept their condition and not alter their body, which is God’s creation. If the person feels called to the vocation of marriage, and is capable of conjugal relations, they may marry if they find a spouse. If not, they are supposed to remain chaste like everyone else.

It is very interesting! I do think acceptance is key, which is why I find it strange that some have suggested surgery is acceptable for intersex people.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Like you, neuroscience is not my strong suit but I can read a scientific paper. What I turn to is the conclusions since most of the jargon is over my head. This paper uses the terms: “We propose”, “at least partly a marker” and my favorite…“may”.

I could be going about this the wrong way but I usually discount these studies unless I see terms like: “conclusive results”, “…objective tests have proven positively…” and peer reviews that agree with the author’s conclusions.

This study appears to be another attempt to find a physical excuse for Transsexuality .

This is largely new ground for science, and as such it would be irresponsible to claim “conclusive results”, even if that’s what we all prefer. I do think this raises interesting questions about our understanding of gender. Note that I say “questions”, not “answers”.

On the other hand, science does show that not everyone is 100% biologically male or female. Maybe the Catholic view is that these instances are disorders of some kind, but I’m not sure scientific data agrees - unusual is not the same disordered or dysfunctional. So I am trying to understand how to process this. There are more options than two polar genders, and complementarianism could still be functional while acknowledging that - in the sense that people complement each other. I complement my coworkers, my sisters, my spouse, etc. - the implication of “roles” however, might conflict with this understanding. However it doesn’t conflict with Scripture any more than heleocentrism does.

 

[ShanPO]

No, I mean if people people are naturally born of indeterminate gender or with traits of both, such as, but not limited to, intersex individuals.

I don’t know if this has been answered or not, but I’ll go with this. Gender is how one “feels” they were created. Masculine, femine, canine, feline…whatever. Sex is the equipment with which they were born. I have a penis, therefore I am male. The fact that I am attracted to women and have been married would denote that my gender is masculine or more male leaning. There are only 2 sexes, male and female.

I think you’re hearing gender and thinking sex. There are only 2 sexes, male and female, but there are probably as many genders as there are people under the sun.