The Church’s stance is that we have to consider the circumstances of each person’s condition with prudence and love. The easiest path for such a person would be one of the various celabate vocations, especially since, if I recall correctly, usually such people are infertile, nor want to give a genetic defect to their children. Sometimes they are impotent too, which would make a sexual relationship very difficult if not impossible.
I am not aware of the impotence issue for those with male genitalia. Are you able to support your assertion with a medical reference?
It seems difficult to assert before the case that celibacy is the easiest path for all such persons. It certainly might seem that way for medical superintendents or Catholics of a traditional view. However, as with Katie in the video it is clear she yearns for marriage and she has found a man who understands she is infertile. Adoption is always an option.
One thing we can say definitely though: that these people’s condition in no way has us doubt that human nature is essentially divided into two sexes. This is an illness, not another possibility inherent in human nature (and we don’t need the Church to tell us this either).
Not sure about the merits of an illness approach.
When does a sexual genetic mutation become an illness or a helpful reserve adaptive response in a large gene pool in case of a radically changing environment. For all we know the conception of Jesus may have been due to Mary having one ovary and one testes.
I suppose if a genetic change causes sterility that might suggest illness but even that is not finally conclusive. If such a sterile genetic mutation were to attach to some form of moral or intellectual genius of benefit to the race sterility might not be an indicator of illness.
Even pregnancy is treated as an illness medically so it seems the term illness is not as clear cut as we think.
Anways your point of there only being two sexes doesn’t practically seem to lead anywhere re these biologically based issues and persons discussed here.The usual Catholic concerns in this area are sexual acts, marriage and sexual reassignment procedures.
If we take Katie as an example in the Oprah video.
I see no moral reason why she should not marry or have sex with males even if she is chromosomal XY. She has a God given vagina after all!
On the other hand, had she at a younger age decided she felt she was a male (which in many ways she was having had testes at birth and being XY) I also see no problem with her having sexual reassignment surgery and marrying a girl. That could not easily be said to be mutilation rather than restoration given she is already sterile, the undescended testicles were removed for health reasons.
While the percentage of the population with these now well biologically identified issues is less than 1% it is more significant than past realised because in the past we did not have scientific procedures for identifying them unless gross morphological evidence presented (ie hermaphroditism).
Intelligent people will therefore rightly wonder whether there is also an as yet unrecognised stronger biological causality component behind homosexual sex drive and internal feelings of sexual identity at odds with one’s visible genitalia in a greater percentage of people than heretofore recognized.
.
But, of course, none of what I said rejects adoption though.