Clear definition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
With arguments over the bathroom situation in North Carolina, I was wondering if bishops will start speaking about the issue. As far as I know the Church hasn’t said that everybody born with definite male or female genitalia is definitely that gender. That there are only two genders is a Catholic teachings. But there are some people who are born ambiguously. I am not sure if it is possible for someone to be born with a functioning uterus and male reproductive parts. If not, I think that the ability to reproduce as a male or as a female would be the standard to deciding which gender the person is. There is also genes. I’ve read that forensics can tell is someones blood or skin sample is a man or woman. I don’t think that gender reassignment can change this. However, with the doctrine about female priests, there HAS to be some biological way that can show what gender a person is. Can anyone else shine some light on this for us?
 
this is an important question because we have to know that our priests are true males, and for that what is the definition of a biological male
 
It seems to me that in order to protect the priesthood, we would have to say that nobody can be born with only male body parts and not be a true male. Those who are ambiguous cannot consequently be priests
 
I’d imagine that the intense vetting of formational candidates since 2001, would prevent a “trans man” (born female) from achieving ordination. There would be too much of a paper trail.

ICXC NIKA
 
thinkandmull said:
With arguments over the bathroom situation in North Carolina, I was wondering if bishops will start speaking about the issue. As far as I know the Church hasn’t said that everybody born with definite male or female genitalia is definitely that gender. That there are only two genders is a Catholic teachings. But there are some people who are born ambiguously. I am not sure if it is possible for someone to be born with a functioning uterus and male reproductive parts. If not, I think that the ability to reproduce as a male or as a female would be the standard to deciding which gender the person is. There is also genes. I’ve read that forensics can tell is someones blood or skin sample is a man or woman. I don’t think that gender reassignment can change this. However, with the doctrine about female priests, there HAS to be some biological way that can show what gender a person is. Can anyone else shine some light on this for us?
Click to expand...
Synod of Bishops 2015:

Today, a very important cultural challenge is posed by “gender” ideology which denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without gender differences, thereby removing the anthropological foundation of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative guidelines which promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, which can also change over time. According to our faith, the difference between the sexes bears in itself the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). “This tells us that it is not man alone who is the image of God or woman alone who is the image of God, but man and woman as a couple who are the image of God. …] We can say that without the mutual enrichment of this relationship — in thought and in action, in affection and in work, as well as in faith — the two cannot even understand the depth of what it means to be man and woman. Modern contemporary culture has opened new spaces, new forms of freedom and new depths in order to enrich the understanding of this difference. But it has also introduced many doubts and much skepticism. …] The removal of the difference …] is the problem, not the solution” (Francis, General Audience, 15 April 2015).

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20151026_relazione-finale-xiv-assemblea_en.html
 
This is not an issue of a true man becoming a woman. We all know that is wrong.
 
From the ewtn article cited it seems that science cant tell us about true and perfect hermaphrodites. So these poor people can’t be priests or get married.
 
thinkandmull said:
This is not an issue of a true man becoming a woman. We all know that is wrong.
Click to expand...
There are not simply two physical categories of male and female described by the Church, but also “eunuchs who have been so from birth” and “eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men”. (See Catechism 1618 below). Ambiguous will either be functional or not as either male or female. About the hermaphrodite: “There are no documented cases in which both types of gonadal tissue function”. – Fertility and Sterility 90 (5): 2016.e7–10.

Catechism
1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."115​
 
In the beginning God created man and woman. If someone was born with both functioning genitalia and glands, it would be called the Great Satan by islam. I think we Christians believe this is biologically impossible…?
 
thinkandmull said:
Eunuchs don’t have genitals at all, not both
Click to expand...
Yes, you are excluding Hermaphrodies because they have both genitals, but of course only one is functional if any.

Eunuchs are castrated, so have genitals. Ambiguous genitals are also genitals, and these can be considered to be eunuchs also (from birth).
 
thinkandmull said:
In the beginning God created man and woman. If someone was born with both functioning genitalia and glands, it would be called the Great Satan by islam. I think we Christians believe this is biologically impossible…?
Click to expand...
There are real examples of true hermaphrodites. There are at least eleven scientifically reported true hermaphrodite cases of fertility. - Modern Pathology 15 (10): 1013–9
 
thinkandmull said:
“of fertility” means one of the genitals functions only?
Click to expand...
Only one works effectively. For male function there must be viable sperm and response to testosterone for coitus. For female function the ovary must produce ovum.
 
thinkandmull said:
Why does God let the devil do this?
Click to expand...
Why are our bodies created with imperfections?

The causes are that the person has:
  • the chromosomes of a woman XX, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male.
  • the chromosomes of a man XY, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female.
  • XX, XY, or both chromosomes with both ovarian and testicular tissue which may be in the same gonad (an ovotestis), or one ovary and one testis.
  • incorrect development: 45, XO (only one X chromosome), and 47, XXY, or 47, XXX which is an extra sex chromosome, X or a Y, so there may be problems with sex hormone levels, sexual development, or numbers of sex chromosomes.
 
thinkandmull said:
Why does God let the devil do this?
Click to expand...
Rather, in a world full of human birth-defects, why should we expect sexuality, alone, to be free of them?

Sexuality is a body-function and system like any other. For there to be “defects” in it is no more “demonic” than instances where someone is born blind, or without hands.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Rather, in a world full of human birth-defects, why should we expect sexuality, alone, to be free of them?

Sexuality is a body-function and system like any other. For there to be “defects” in it is no more “demonic” than instances where someone is born blind, or without hands.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I understand both arguments, but I do have to say, while we were growing up going to catholic school, I remember seeing old posters that read “God dont make no junk”, it was obviously aimed at kids to make them feel better about themselves, even if they were born with some kind of defect, but we were also taught human birth was a very special thing to God and he is personally involved in each and every persons birth, so in this case, it is kind of strange human reproduction seems to be akin to a mass production line, but when people are born with these defects, we are just told, God made them that way for a reason.
 
mikekle said:
I understand both arguments, but I do have to say, while we were growing up going to catholic school, I remember seeing old posters that read “God dont make no junk”, it was obviously aimed at kids to make them feel better about themselves, even if they were born with some kind of defect, but we were also taught human birth was a very special thing to God and he is personally involved in each and every persons birth, so in this case, it is kind of strange human reproduction seems to be akin to a mass production line, but when people are born with these defects, we are just told, God made them that way for a reason.
Click to expand...
God decreed the mass-production line, just as He decreed the larger biological process (no E-word here) that led to that line.

Even in the absence of overt defects, our bodies are full of vestiges from the animal past, as well as structural deficiencies that are hidden under the skin but will ultimately play a part in our decline and death. The Human Body we know and love is not an eternal perfection, but s mechanism for holding and living life in a temporal environment.

The issue of birth defects is a mystery that professional philosophers have choked on, but given that God for His reasons allows them in the head, eyes, limbs, etc; there is no reason whatever to expect sexuality to be any different.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top