Sex Changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
I was watching this documentary on Sex changes and I wondered what the Catholic Churches postion on this was? And why? Thanks and God bless.
 
Having a sex change is a mortal sin. “Male and female he created them”.
 
The Church does not recognize sex change. Unfortunately, the exact policy is secret although it has been widely reported that baptismal certificates are not to be altered and the sacraments of marriage and holy orders are to be denied to transsexuals.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=19829
 
It seems like common sense to me… male at birth, male at death… we don’t have the “luxury” of being able to change who we are on a whim. The documents on “life” (Evangellium Vitae, Humanae Vitae, etc.) are good resources when trying to understand the Church’s position on matters of sex and gender. Its a lot more clear than you might think.

As far as the “secret” document goes. The document is on the proper application of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality in regards to specific questions in religious orders, right? The document isn’t really for anyone but the superiors of religious orders, because the admittance of people into (or the expulsion of people out of) their orders it is their arena, not anyone elses. Because of this, I think the document is rightly kept “secret”… at least from those who would try to use it to launch an attack against Church teachings.

In any case, we can know what the teachings of the Church are on sexuality by reading the appropriate encyclicals, the catechism, etc. A conclusion about the morality of sex-changes can be made from the positive description of human sexuality in these documents.

… and there’s my :twocents: :rolleyes:.

God bless,

Agricola
 
40.png
Agricola:
It seems like common sense to me… male at birth, male at death… we don’t have the “luxury” of being able to change who we are on a whim.
Click to expand...
I think it is more complicated than that. Transsexualism doesn’t seem to be a whim, but a deep-seated and persistent cross-gender identification. The ICD-10 definition requires “transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years”. symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0405e.htm
The documents on “life” (Evangellium Vitae, Humanae Vitae, etc.) are good resources when trying to understand the Church’s position on matters of sex and gender. Its a lot more clear than you might think.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to put you on the spot, and I don’t know how much this matters to you, but would you be willing point out the passages you refer to?
As far as the “secret” document goes. The document is on the proper application of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality in regards to specific questions in religious orders, right?
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a good question. I don’t think its scope was restricted to religious orders, but more global. After all, reports mention baptismal certificates and the sacrament of marriage.

I don’t know…this issue bothers me. I wonder if the Church really had a good understanding of the science before it issued that policy a couple years ago. I am willing to discuss this topic again but can understand why others don’t want the headache. 🙂
 
tom.wineman said:
Sex change operations are cosmetic surgery.
Click to expand...

Hardly. They require all sorts of behavioral examination periods, cross dressing trial periods, hormonal therapies, and include several “stages” of making the change. The physical change is very last, in case the patient decides to back at at any point prior it is not permanent.

Jimmy Akin’s blog has some good info on how the Church defines sex/gender, and points out that no final conclusion has yet been reached. I’m not feeling motivated to look for it at the moment. maybe tonight…
 
The Church teaches that non-medically necessary sterilization is a mortal sin, so sex change surgery would therefore be a mortal sin under that heading if nothing else. No man who has surgery to become a “woman” is able to reproduce naturally, and I would imagine the same holding true for a woman becoming a “man.” Surely in such surgery the testes and ovaries are removed? :confused:
 
40.png
vluvski:
Hardly. They require all sorts of behavioral examination periods, cross dressing trial periods, hormonal therapies, and include several “stages” of making the change. The physical change is very last, in case the patient decides to back at at any point prior it is not permanent.

Jimmy Akin’s blog has some good info on how the Church defines sex/gender, and points out that no final conclusion has yet been reached. I’m not feeling motivated to look for it at the moment. maybe tonight…
Click to expand...
It is all in the mind. The surgery is cosmetic. Surgery never has change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. A changed man has never became pregnant nor a changed woman ever got a real woman pregnant.
Nor have the genes been changed. It is all a mental aberration. There are people that believe they are collie dogs but so far they haven’t resorted to surgery.
Let’s hear it directly from Jimmy Akin.
 
tom.wineman said:
It is all in the mind. The surgery is cosmetic. Surgery never has change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. A changed man has never became pregnant nor a changed woman ever got a real woman pregnant.
Nor have the genes been changed. It is all a mental aberration. There are people that believe they are collie dogs but so far they haven’t resorted to surgery.
Let’s hear it directly from Jimmy Akin.
Click to expand...

No, it is much worse than simple cosmetic surgery. This surgery not only changes one’s appearance but attacks the function of the sexual organs. It is essentially mutilation which results in loss of function of certain aspects of the body.
 
First I went to the Catechism and I found this:
**2275 **“One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.” **"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.

I added the bolding…and I wondered, could this section of the Catechism apply to this situation? Would not a sex change operation be an attempt to influence as it is described above?

I’m afraid I don’t know enough about biology or medicine to answer this question…anyone?
 
Hmmm…

I don’t mean to over simplify this, but this line came up in a discussion on this topic:

“God does not make mistakes when creating his children.” (repeated later as just “God doesn’t make mistakes”)

In a way, that says it all for me. God did not make a mistake in creating me male, or in creating someone else female. Someone who sees themselves as being the wrong gender may be afflicted in a similar fashion to those who have SSA. Our (American, especially) culture does indulge and feed into these feelings, though (as well as negative backlashes against people suffering from these afflictions), and may lead to people taking drastic action which severely alters their body in an attempt to “correct” what they see as a “mistake”.
 
I think a few points made above have been especially on target.

First, regarding the morality of the “gender reassignment” itself, this would constitute both sterilization and genital mutilation, both of which are immoral.

Second, I used the term gender reassignment because such operations have no power whatsoever to change an individual’s sex, as has also been noted above. Sex is determined by chromosomes, not the genetic expression that gives rise to body parts and features. Thus, every human with at least one Y chromosome is male, no matter how many Xs (some disorders/abnormalities result in more than two sex chromosomes) or what kind of genitalia develop. Similarly, every human without a Y chromosome is female. That is his/her sex. Surgeries that add or remove body parts do nothing to change this.

A man who mutilates his genitalia remains a man, and as such cannot possibly enter into marriage with another man. It’s an ontological impossiblity. Similarly, I would think the psychological instability which resulted in a man disfiguring his sex organs should be a reasonable impediment to orders.
 
Guar Fan:
I think it is more complicated than that. Transsexualism doesn’t seem to be a whim, but a deep-seated and persistent cross-gender identification. The ICD-10 definition requires “transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years”.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what the definition of “transsexualism” happens to be, it cannot be said that the decission to have your nether regions altered is made on more than a want, a desire. No one ever needed the surgery. Since there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to my meaning… here it is: Whether or not they want to change their “sexual identity”, they can’t. It is not within their power. You can make alterations to your body, but you can’t rip the Y chromosome from the heart of every cell… and that’s what makes you male. Neither can you modify the “flavour” of your soul. If you were created male… I’m sorry, but that’s what you’ll remain.
Guar Fan:
I don’t want to put you on the spot, and I don’t know how much this matters to you, but would you be willing point out the passages you refer to?
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about putting me on the spot. I was making a general reference to the entire documents. To get a clear picture of sexual morality, read the encyclicals… and the catechism. An understanding of human sexuality as a whole would would make it easier to come to conclusions about certain aspects of it… like the morality of transsexualism for example.
Guar Fan:
Well, that’s a good question. I don’t think its scope was restricted to religious orders, but more global. After all, reports mention baptismal certificates and the sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
True enough. I haven’t actually seen this document (it being secret and all :p), so I can’t say.
Guar Fan:
I don’t know…this issue bothers me. I wonder if the Church really had a good understanding of the science before it issued that policy a couple years ago. I am willing to discuss this topic again but can understand why others don’t want the headache. 🙂
Click to expand...
I think the Church probably had a pretty good idea of the necessary science. Y + any number of Xs = male… any number of Xs without a Y = female. The desire to be of a different sex than you are is disordered. The “experts” on the website you referenced even call it that. Science doesn’t vindicate those who chose self-mutilation as an answer to their GID.

The issue bothers me too. The sex of an individual is so integral to their personality. I can understand how having a disorder like this would be very trying to say the least. No amount of accomodation will help them solve their problems though. It is a battle that needs to be fought were it originated. In their bodies. When it is fought, I hope that the individuals afflicted with GID will fight for the side of truth, win out over their disorder, and come to accept who they are and the way that God made them.

Peace and God bless,

Agricola
 
40.png
Agricola:
No one ever needed the surgery. Since there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to my meaning… here it is: Whether or not they want to change their “sexual identity”, they can’t. It is not within their power. You can make alterations to your body, but you can’t rip the Y chromosome from the heart of every cell… and that’s what makes you male.
Click to expand...
No, I really think its more complicated than that. Gender identity seems to be hardwired into the brain before birth, and genes not on the Y chromosome seem to play a part. world-science.net/exclusives/050511_transfrm.htm
A person can have male genitals yet have female brain structures. jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034
To get a clear picture of sexual morality, read the encyclicals… and the catechism. An understanding of human sexuality as a whole would would make it easier to come to conclusions about certain aspects of it… like the morality of transsexualism for example.
Click to expand...
I had hoped to avoid reading an entire encyclical - those things tend to be rather dry and dense reading. But you are right, getting a broad sense of the Church’s viewpoint is a good idea.
I think the Church probably had a pretty good idea of the necessary science. Y + any number of Xs = male… any number of Xs without a Y = female.
Click to expand...
The idea of chromosome based gender is an appealing one. I think most folks intuitively go for it. But there is so much we don’t know about genes and how they affect our body. And what little we have learned so far suggests that our bodies are shaped by more than what is on the X and Y chromosome.

I think the Church has prematurely taken a position on transsexualism. I suppose the leadership was feeling some pressure to decide a policy to deal with situations. And I hope that they willreconsider their position as our scientific understanding increases. But I will definitely try to read through Evangellium Vitae and * Humanae Vitae*.

Merry Christmas, Agricola! And to everyone reading this, as well. 🙂
 
That is a great segway to this Jimmy Akin blog about intersexed marriages. He explains the possible ways to define human sex.

Intersexed Marriages and Sex identity
Jimmy Akin:
At this point moral theologians have not yet figured out how to resolve these ambiguous cases. The correct strategy is debatable and may depend on the facts of a specific case. Here are some of the options:
  1. If the individual appears to have functional anatomy, go with the anatomy rather than the genetics. In other words, treat XX males as males and XY females as females.
  2. If an individual lacks functional anatomy, go with genetics and use reconstructive surgery to help the person out. I.e., if someone is genetically male then help him surgically to have the appropriate anatomy. If someone is genetically female then help her surgically to hav the appropriate anatomy.
  3. If an individual has two sets of anatomy (whole or partial) then go with genetics and use surgery to correct the anatomical situation.
  4. If someone has a defective chromosome pattern (X, Y, XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.) then treat the person as whatever their anatomy would indicate.
  5. Treat genetics as the ultimate determiner of sex. In the case of an XX male, use surgery to supply female anatomy. In the case of an XY female, do the same to supply male anatomy. In the case of a defective chromosome pattern, use the presence of a Y chromosome as a determiner of maleness, so X and XXX and XXXX individuals are female and Y, XXY, and XYY individuals are male. Use surgery to correct any problems that exist.
As you can see, these alternatives are not all exclusive of the others, though some are (e.g., 4 and 5 are directly in opposition).
Click to expand...
 
What about people who were born with both sets of genetalia. The doctors were supposed to make the decision whether it was to be a boy or girl and made necessary adjustments. What if the doctors made a mistake? Could a reassignment to correct what the doctors had done be ok in everyone’s opinion?
 
Montie Claunch:
I was watching this documentary on Sex changes and I wondered what the Catholic Churches postion on this was? And why? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...

Does the CC even have a position ?​

Thanks for asking this 🙂 - I’ve wondered about this for a long time ##
 
Please read the Jimmy Akin blog, folks. It answers a lot of these questions.
 
40.png
CatholicSam:
The Church teaches that non-medically necessary sterilization is a mortal sin, so sex change surgery would therefore be a mortal sin under that heading if nothing else. No man who has surgery to become a “woman” is able to reproduce naturally, and I would imagine the same holding true for a woman becoming a “man.” Surely in such surgery the testes and ovaries are removed? :confused:
Click to expand...

That raises some awkward questions - for example, how is that to be reconciled with the practice, abolished only in 1878, of castrating boys so as to keep their voices unbroken ? This is something that was allowed to go on for the best part of three hundred years - the Popes can hardly have been ignorant of it: these are members of the choir of the Sistine Chapel we’re talking about, in the first instance. Many *castrati *went on to gain international fame as opera-singers. If that is immoral - there seem to be these possibilities:​

  • the Popes were tolerating something mortally sinful
  • they were tolerating systematic child-abuse
  • they were negligent
  • they did not know this was wrong.
None of these possibilities is a happy one: though my sympathies are less with the Popes than with those who were treated in this way.

I wouldn’t mind betting a tidy sum that if we were living in the eighteenth century, some Catholics would be defending this practice. Indeed, one needn’t even speculate: for this practice *was *defended by theologians, St.Alphonsus Liguori among them: Lord knows how. AFAIK, the current teaching, prohibiting mutilation of the body except in grave circumstances, goes back to Pius XII.

What is the value of an infallibility which leaves Popes ignorant that treating the young like this is evil ? Pius V condemned bull-fighting, without being infallible - why could his later successors not condemn this ? ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top