Church teaching regarding transgenderism?

[Ad_Orientem]

This is not Wikipedia. Please offer an opinion on the content.

Runningdude, the OP asked for Church teaching, not opinions. Since the post in question said “the Church teaches,” we have a right to proof that the Church in fact teaches it. It would be different if he simply said, “In my opinion…”

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I am looking, because I remember it surprised me when I read it, too. The Church teaching is

CCC 2297 …Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

The extreme condition under which genital amputation would be tolerable is the situation where a patient is known to be self-harming and is at a high risk of suicide or great physical self-harm if the surgery was not done.

Thanks for the reference. I note, however, that this is your interpretation of the CCC. Without further proof, I do not accept that “strictly therapeutic medical reasons” justifies the situation in question. If suicidal tendencies justifies otherwise immoral acts, how far are you going to take that? It starts to get into “end justifies the means” morality, which the CCC denies the validity of (1753).

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks for the reference. I note, however, that this is your interpretation of the CCC. Without further proof, I do not accept that “strictly therapeutic medical reasons” justifies the situation in question. If suicidal tendencies justifies otherwise immoral acts, how far are you going to take that? It starts to get into “end justifies the means” morality, which the CCC denies the validity of (1753).

OK, I found it. It was a piece put out by the Catholic New Service in 2003, citing an internal document concerning transgender issues, sent in 2000 to the bishops by the Vatican:

"*The Vatican document’s specific points include:

– 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.

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*."

ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender

IOW, the physician would be morally bound to consider whether the research shows that such an extreme treatment truly changes the risk of suicide, self-harm, or other forms of dire suffering from a medical standpoint. This isn’t a case of “oh, I want a sex change, so I’m going to threaten to kill myself.” The physician is morally bound to consider as a scientist whether or not the surgery is likely to help the dire symptoms the patient is experiencing.

It is much like the circumstances if a person had a mental disturbance concerning a different body part. It would only be considered at all in a very extreme circumstance.

 

[EasterJoy]

(cont)

From what I gather, the concern among ethicists isn’t so much what you are suggesting–that is, that this is some sort of a slippery slope towards moral permissiveness–as it is that sex reassignments will someday be seen as the contemporary version of the lobotomy–a draconian solution that does not offer a cure for the dysphoria, but only something that makes the conflict between the patient’s perceived gender and their true gender less obvious to the patient. Lobotomy was another drastic medical procedure done for what was believed to be a sufficiently serious reason. Some patients were immediately cured of suicidal tendencies after having that procedure done, so in that sense it “worked”. With others, though, a mentally ill and sometimes even a very difficult person was robbed of their emotions and even their higher thinking skills simply in order to make them manageable for everyone else. When Thorazine was invented and it was realized that the surgery was being done indiscriminately, it fell out of favor. It is sometimes done even to this day, though.

That is what I think is in play here–that is, what is wanted is not a surgical capitulation to a disorder, but rather a satisfactory treatment for it. Cures of this affliction are difficult to come by, at present. What people are clamoring for instead is for everyone to pretend that there is no conflict between the unalterable truth and the patient’s self-perception. Now that is a slippery slope!

 

[Ad_Orientem]

OK, I found it. …

Thank you, this is helpful. Since we don’t have the document itself, it is hard to evaluate its contents, and frankly, I don’t trust the NCR (which tends to be liberal) to paraphrase accurately what the document says.

It does seem that “extreme cases” may be backed by a CDF document, and if so, that definitely carries some weight; but I don’t think this qualifies as “Church teaching,” especially since it is not public, and it sounds more like “findings” rather than doctrinal assertions. Until there is public teaching on it, we won’t know.

…From what I gather…

Excellent points.

 

[deeds]

What is Church teaching regarding how far one can go with transgenderism? Please pardon any ignorance I have on the matter - I admit I don’t know very much. I’m specifically interested in the finer points of female to male. For example, is it wrong to have a voluntary mastectomy and have hormone treatment? Thank you for your patience.

I hope you find your answer.