The stance of the Catholic Church on medical treatment of transsexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saya
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Saya

Guest
Hi, could you please explain to me in detail what is the official stance of the Church on this topic? I know that it does not recognise the transsexual identity and considers people to be the gender/sex they were assigned at birth. However, despite reading various documents I couldn’t find any specific information on whether the hormonal therapy, various surgeries and social transition (living as the gender one identifies as, changing the legal name, sex marker etc.) are considered to be sins. When (official) Catholic sources talk about those they tend to be very vague and avoid taking a firm stance. Maybe I simply couldn’t find the right ones. Could you please help me out here? Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read it. It doesn’t talk about any of the things I’m asking about.
 
Saya said:
it does not recognise the transsexual identity and considers people to be the gender/sex they were assigned at birth.
Click to expand...
No. The church passes no judgement on the accuracy of birth certificates, other than to presume them correct. But the Church views a person’s biologically manifest sex (assuming that is unambiguous) to be “their sex”.

Having said that, the causes of gender dysphoria are not understood. We should all be highly cautious about irreversible treatments that harm the body.
 
Last edited:
I know. But even if a trans person changes their birth certificate they are the sex they were assigned at birth according to the Church from the “theological” point of view. I know little is known about the exact causes etc. but is there really no official stance on morality of various aspects of the current medical treatment of this condition?
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Saya:
the gender/sex they were assigned at birth.
Click to expand...
There no such thing as “sex that was assigned at birth”, it’s a total fabrication. We’re born and our sex is recognized.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Sex isn’t “assigned.” It’s observed.
 
Saya said:
they are the sex they were assigned at birth
Click to expand...
What is this fixation with “assigned at birth” as though that process were some arbitrary exercise such as assigning a social security number? The church understands sex to be properly portrayed by biology (absent manifest ambiguity).

I presume sex re-assignment surgery is considered a mutilation. Whether there are any circumstances where it would not be so regarded - I do not know.
 
I am less concerned on the sinful inclination of the one who suffers from various forms of gender confusion and more concerned for the number of people who think that they are helping them, but are only causing further physical and spiritual harm.

Peace
 
Could you please clarify one thing? You said that the Church won’t ever question the accuracy of someone’s birth certificate. But if the Church knows that someone is trans and has had their birth certificate adjusted, then it surely won’t recognise the new version, right? At least st when it comes to religious matters, church law etc. That’s how I understand it. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Could we stop arguing semantics here? In trans communities they usually refer to biological sex as the sex “assigned at birth”. We all know what we mean, can we discuss the topic of the thread?
 
tuffsmurf said:
In trans communities they usually refer to biological sex as the sex “assigned at birth”.
Click to expand...
Do they? In that case, they are misusing the English language. That’s not a good precedent for us to follow.
 
Rau said:
We should all be highly cautious about irreversible treatments that harm the body.
Click to expand...
A lot of medical treatments harm the body. What we need to know is whether they help more than they harm. If someone has cancer and is getting chemotherapy, they’re basically taking poison. The hope is that this will kill the cancer before the side effects of the chemo become intolerable and causes more harm to the patient than it’s worth. And for a lot of medications, it’s difficult to tell what the long term side effects will be and whether they will cause lasting damage. So patients have to ask themselves whether the benefits outweigh the risks. In the case of transgender people, I’m sure they and their doctors must decide whether the benefits of hormones and surgery in terms of quality of life and better mental health outweigh their risks.
 
Last edited:
That’s the point of view of medicine. What I’d like to know is what the church thinks of the current standards of treatment. Whether those practices are acceptable or sinful etc. For example doctors say that masturbation can be healthy but the Church thinks its sinful in all circumstances. Maybe it’s the same in this case.
 
Last edited:
The reason is because it’s is a very new psychiatric condition (or social construct, the jury is still out).

There’s also the fact that “transgender/transexuality” doesn’t really have a firm definition, and a lot of behaviors and symptoms are currently being clumped under this label.

However, the Church forbids the destruction of healthy body parts.
 
So it’s against SRS, breast removal and maybe voice surgery and as of today is unsure about other aspects of the treatment?
 
tuffsmurf said:
Could we stop arguing semantics here?
Click to expand...
It’s not possible to have a meaningful conversation or to arrive at rational conclusions without proper definitions of terms, so perhaps not.
tuffsmurf said:
In trans communities they usually refer to biological sex as the sex “assigned at birth”.
Click to expand...
If they usually use absurd fabrications in their reasoning then it’s absolutely necessary to address that up front.
tuffsmurf said:
We all know what we mean,…
Click to expand...
The only thing we can know is what they say, and in this case what they say, that sex is assigned at birth, is manifestly and absurdly false.

However, in my judgement the OP has responded adequately to this point.

I imagine that such grave self-mutilation would be treated in moral theology in the same way that any other grave self-mutilation would be treated.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
A lot of medical treatments harm the body.
Click to expand...
In most cases, they do so indirectly. Most medical treatments are not directed at healthy tissue that they then harm irreversibly.
Thorolfr said:
I’m sure they and their doctors must decide whether the benefits of hormones and surgery in terms of quality of life and better mental health outweigh their risks.
Click to expand...
You would hope do. There have been some cases of regret. We need to be very cautious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top