Doctrine on transgender

[SMGS127]

As to what smgs127 says. I have doing internet research to find the document you mentionand iI can’t find it. What I did find is that the congregation for doctrine of faith did say is that in a nutshell in the eyes of the church sex change operations do not actually change the sex of the person. Nothing else beyond that. Would be the case that the churchade that particular statement and then it was developed by other theologists?

No, the document was written by the Vatican and sent down as official policy to United States Bishops. This is not the work of theologians but rather a top-down policy informing Bishops of what they can and cannot accept in their parishes. We can only speculate as to why it was sent sub secretum instead of publicized.

Also, if you look at some of the discussions on here (and on the thread in the Radio section), no one here argues that someone’s sex can be changed. Gender immutability (and permanence) are ABSOLUTELY Catholic doctrine. What some are arguing is that, like how the Church teaches with intersex individuals, original sin could potentially corrupt one’s proper development in utero, leading to biological errors, much like what occurs in intersex individuals, people with congenitally missing limbs or organs, babies who die from SIDS because they are missing key enzymes their body can’t produce properly, etc. Therefore, a transgender person could have a neurological structure of one gender and a reproductive structure of one gender. This theory is supported by current medical research.

However, what we DON’T have is doctrine by the Vatican detailing whether the identity can be deferred to in such a person [who has a brain structure of one sex but a reproductive system of another] as it currently is with intersex and/or hermaphroditic individuals. And to be honest, the deference to identity with intersex individuals is not doctrine but rather non-definitive policy as well.

It’s just a huge mess that we haven’t had solidified for us by the Vatican yet. As said before in this thread, I suspect it’s because they want full medical research to come out first before they make any such doctrine. As I said, they don’t want to be rash.

 

[april32010]

22 posts and all we have to show for it is third hand at best statements on canon law,and an internet post about a gnostic church policy

 

[TStokes]

What about those born half/half what would they do? What is right/wrong for them?

 

[SMGS127]

What about those born half/half what would they do? What is right/wrong for them?

Are you talking about hermaphrodites (born with genitalia of both sexes)? Those cases should almost always be deferred to identity due to significant ambiguity.

 

[TStokes]

Are you talking about hermaphrodites (born with genitalia of both sexes)? Those cases should almost always be deferred to identity due to significant ambiguity.

Ah ok I learned here I need to buy a dictionary

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I didn’t say that a transgender person portrays themselves as a hybrid. I said that a transgender person, objectively speaking, IS a hybrid. Any person will portray his/herself in accordance with their mind gender. But in case of a transsexual mind gender does not match body gender – hence, a hybrid. And the existence of such hybrid cannot be accommodated in Catholic framework. It’s not male, it’s not female, it’s neither.

That’s the problem.

Of course I agree with all that. I’m pointing out that catholic theology has a serious problem with accounting for such mismatch: it lacks ontological framework to describe an intersex disorder, because it does not account for existence of male/female hybrids.

Therefore, it views an MTF transsexual as a male with a mental disorder who mistakenly believes that he is a female.

She’s essentially arguing that the Church forbids SRS, and lack of SRS can lead to suicide. So she chose SRS and left the church.

You say that catholic theology has a problem with the existence transgenders, which frankly, as SMGS shows doesn’t exist. Catholic theology is quote capable of accounting for Transgenders.

 

[Coatimundi]

I cut it because writing the entire thing was going to take me too long

Yeah… I thought about only quoting the sentence you cited. I decided to put in the whole section just to avoid any questions about selective editing. Using the whole section also has the benefit of putting the sentence you quoted into context.

Notice the section is under “bodily integrity” and both articles cover many things outside something being done unwillingly to someone.

I agree there are two sections under the heading of “bodily integrity.” However, both sections deal exclusively with actions performed against the will of the recipient. I have already quoted the first section. Here is the second section:

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

The point of the section is respect for bodily integrity. I don’t see how can you argue that sex change is done for medical reason as again the word strict medical reasons leaves out coetic pprocedures and let’s face sex change operations is a cosmetically procedures.

Sex change operations are not done without first undergoing extensive psychological counseling and months of treatment by a physician. The procedure is not given medical permission without a thorough assessment and a conclusion that the only way to protect the health and well-being of the individual is to undergo that surgery.

As to what smgs127 says. I have been doing internet research to find the document you mention and i can’t find it. What I did find is that the congregation for doctrine of faith did say is that in a nutshell in the eyes of the church sex change operations do not actually change the sex of the person. Nothing else beyond that. Would be the case that the church made that particular statement and then it was developed by other theologists? That is not uncommon and it may very well be that.

You may be right. I am a little uncomfortable about accepting the news article at face value. On the other hand, Catholic News Service (the original source for the article) is a reliable news outlet (I wouldn’t make the same claim for the National Catholic Reporter.) However, the article says that the document originated with the doctrinal congregation, and I can’t imagine Cardinal Ratzinger letting something like that be distributed to all the bishops without his approval.

 

[thistle]

What is the Church’s doctrine on transgenderism? Is it like homosexual urges, something to be resisted, or is it allowable? Should transgenders change their gender to match their percieved gender?

religioustolerance.org/transsexu15.htm

 

[april32010]

religioustolerance.org/transsexu15.htm

this is not a statement on Church doctrine

 

[weller2]

You say that catholic theology has a problem with the existence transgenders, which frankly, as SMGS shows doesn’t exist.

I would be very happy if what SMGS is saying was true, alas, she has been unable to provide authoritative statements proving that her position is indeed supported by the institutional Church.

 

[april32010]

I would be very happy if what SMGS is saying was true, alas, she has been unable to provide authoritative statements proving that her position is indeed supported by the institutional Church.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I would be very happy if what SMGS is saying was true, alas, she has been unable to provide authoritative statements proving that her position is indeed supported by the institutional Church.

There has been no authoritative statements on the matter by the church from what I understand. Until there is we can only use our reason to think on the matter. And I am very sure that the Church won’t just say that transgenders can’t exist do to them being hybrids. Personally I hope the church decides something like what SMGS says since it makes sense within the framework of catholic theology. Anyway I digress. Thanks for the help and God bless.

 

[marymary1975]

Yeah…

You may be right. I am a little uncomfortable about accepting the news article at face value. On the other hand, Catholic News Service (the original source for the article) is a reliable news outlet (I wouldn’t make the same claim for the National Catholic Reporter.) However, the article says that the document originated with the doctrinal congregation, and I can’t imagine Cardinal Ratzinger letting something like that be distributed to all the bishops without his approval.

I am in total agreement with you on this. To be an official document of the church it had to be signed by cardinal ratzinger. What called my attention is that the suggestion was that is like an under ground docent which cardinal ratzinger would never did. Maybe someone else but with cardinal ratzinger I cannot believe he sent an underground document. Now what he did sign was the statement I mentioned.

 

[marymary1975]

Yeah…

You may be right. I am a little uncomfortable about accepting the news article at face value. On the other hand, Catholic News Service (the original source for the article) is a reliable news outlet (I wouldn’t make the same claim for the National Catholic Reporter.) However, the article says that the document originated with the doctrinal congregation, and I can’t imagine Cardinal Ratzinger letting something like that be distributed to all the bishops without his approval.

I am in total agreement with you on this. To be an official document of the church it had to be signed by cardinal ratzinger. What called my attention is that the suggestion was that is like an under ground document which cardinal ratzinger would never did. Maybe someone else but with cardinal ratzinger I cannot believe he sent an underground document. Now what he did sign was the statement I mentioned. I did search a lot and even according to the site of the congregation for the doctrine of faith the only statement was that one on 2000 and anything that is officially published by them is always listed. They don’t really work like sending underground documents and then hiding them little less under ratzinget which is what makes me suspicious. And then what you do find is new articles making reference to the so called policy and the diverse articles can’t even agree as to produces the policy. That is what makes me think that is highly likely that the only document actually published by the Vatican was the statement signed by ratzinger and that after that bishops and priests elaborated on them and that is how it became an underground document. But as to the policy being and official docent of the Vatican looks very fishy.

 

[marymary1975]

Yeah… I thought about only quoting the sentence you cited. I decided to put in the whole section just to avoid any questions about selective editing. Using the whole section also has the benefit of putting the sentence you quoted into context.

I agree there are two sections under the heading of “bodily integrity.” However, both sections deal exclusively with actions performed against the will of the recipient. I have already quoted the first section. Here is the second section:

2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormento/I]

Sex change operations are not done without first undergoing extensive psychological counseling and months of treatment by a physician. The procedure is not given medical permission without a thorough assessment and a conclusion that the only way to protect the health and well-being of the individual is to undergo that surgery.

You may be right. I am a little uncomfortable abou.

My problem with your position on that (and just to mentioned that I have gotten that from speaking with several priests) is that then that means that things like self mutilation (people who cut themselves with knifes) masochism and sadism would be permissible under the catholic church. Again every priest I have spoken has told me that bodily integrity involves voluntary acts and from there is where self mutilation, s & m acts and many other disorders are against moral law. Maybe we should consult with abprieat again but I am telling you what you are suggesting is not what I have been told by priests.

As to your second point, still the procedures are cosmetic. The fact that there is counseling by a physician doesn’t change that the procedure is merely cosmetic and the CCC explicitly excludes cosmetic procedures.

 

[thistle]

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

 

[Kamaduck]

CCC 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

I think it can be argued that SRS is for therapeutic medical reasons if it successfully brings people relief and keeps them from committing suicide. In addition, there are many transgender people who have not and do not intend to have surgery.

Do you know whether the quoted passage is mainly about tyranny and terror, or does this apply to people willingly altering their appearances, too?

 

[SMGS127]

I think it can be argued that SRS is for therapeutic medical reasons if it successfully brings people relief and keeps them from committing suicide. In addition, there are many transgender people who have not and do not intend to have surgery.

Do you know whether the quoted passage is mainly about tyranny and terror, or does this apply to people willingly altering their appearances, too?

Not to mention, the document from the Vatican explicitly allows for the surgery in extreme cases where there is no other way to cure the patient’s turmoil. So it is highly suspect that CCC 2297 applies at all to the situation.

 

[april32010]

Not to mention, the document from the Vatican explicitly allows for the surgery in extreme cases where there is no other way to cure the patient’s turmoil. So it is highly suspect that CCC 2297 applies at all to the situation.

what is suspect is an alleged document could supersede the CCC .if it exists ,(which remains to be proven) it can’t supersede the CCC

 

[SMGS127]

what is suspect is an alleged document could supersede the CCC .if it exists ,(which remains to be proven) it can’t supersede the CCC

It wouldn’t be superseding the CCC. The CCC does not address transgender issues, nor does it address the issue of surgery. Even the one section on forcibly mutilating prisoners lists exemptions for therapeutic surgery, which the document itself lists as the only reason the surgery could be morally licit.

I also find it suspect that a then-heavily publicized document in Catholic circles would draw literally no comment from Cardinal Ratzinger if he had no knowledge of it whatsoever, especially not if (as people here seem to argue) it directly countered Catholic doctrine. I would imagine that if the document were fake, Cardinal Ratzinger would not take a blatant risk of allowing it to be perpetuated as from the Vatican.