Trandgender Navy Seal

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There's a man who works at my local post office who is about 2/3 of the way finished with a sex change. It's still obvious he's a man. Last week I answered one of his questions, "Yes, ma'am" and felt it was wrong.

 

Is it a sin to engage in transsexual behaviors? If it is, are we wrong to "play along"? I know it's polite to do so, but spiritually speaking... (If it is wrong, I'll avoid the whole issue by just not using any gendered pronouns at all.)

 

I have a feeling someone acting like an authority on this issue will chime in and say it's a sin to accept the person for who she/he is. I doubt the Church has an actual position on this. I'd call the person what he or she prefers to go by. It's hard enough for the person as it is. 

Edited June 5, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Gabriela]

I have a feeling someone acting like an authority on this issue will chime in and say it's a sin to accept the person for who she/he is. I doubt the Church has an actual position on this. I'd call the person what he or she prefers to go by. It's hard enough for the person as it is. 

 

Well, the Bible certainly has a position on it.

 

"A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God." —Deuteronomy 22:5

 

But then, the Catholic Church tossed out a lot of OT stuff. So I'm wondering if this went with it, or if we kept it.

[photosynthesis]

There was a document only released to clergy that stated that there are cases where a sex change operation can be permissible.  It was not publicly released, but you can read a synopsis here:

 

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender

 

It basically says that those who have sex changes are still the sex they were born with according to canon law, but there are some cases where it is allowed.

 

Well, the Bible certainly has a position on it.

 

"A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God." —Deuteronomy 22:5

 

But then, the Catholic Church tossed out a lot of OT stuff. So I'm wondering if this went with it, or if we kept it.

 

Does that mean I have to go to confession for watching Monty Python for hours at a time?

[Gabriela]

Does that mean I have to go to confession for watching Monty Python for hours at a time?

 

I think this is why actors got such a bad rap in olden times.

[Gabriela]

There was a document only released to clergy that stated that there are cases where a sex change operation can be permissible.  It was not publicly released, but you can read a synopsis here:

 

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender

 

That article says the document contains this:

 

"An analysis of the moral licitness of "sex-change" operations. It concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will "cure" the patient's internal turmoil."

 

I don't understand. In having a sex change, (usually) healthy reproductive organs are destroyed and replaced with useless reproductive organs. Which essentially means that the person is sterilized. And sterilization is forbidden.

 

So... how? Is sterilization sometimes permitted? When?

[HisChildForever]

There's a man who works at my local post office who is about 2/3 of the way finished with a sex change. It's still obvious he's a man. Last week I answered one of his questions, "Yes, ma'am" and felt it was wrong.

 

Is it a sin to engage in transsexual behaviors? If it is, are we wrong to "play along"? I know it's polite to do so, but spiritually speaking... (If it is wrong, I'll avoid the whole issue by just not using any gendered pronouns at all.)

 

Just treat them with love and compassion.

[Gabriela]

Just treat them with love and compassion.

 

Obviously. But what about the pronouns?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Well, the Bible certainly has a position on it.

 

"A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God." —Deuteronomy 22:5

 

But then, the Catholic Church tossed out a lot of OT stuff. So I'm wondering if this went with it, or if we kept it.

 

 

Ah, but this is a surgical procedure. The Bible might not be the best text to understand such a situation because the writers didn't have an understanding of these operations. That being said, I don't believe the Church allows for it (if it does, it's in particular cases). However, that doesn't mean that the Church advocates a denial of this person's new identity. If the person is technically a female now and wants to be acknowledged as such, it might do more harm than good to refuse to accept this individual's new identity. 

 

With all that said, I could be wrong from a theological perspective.

Edited June 5, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

 

Well, the Bible certainly has a position on it.
 
"A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God." —Deuteronomy 22:5
 
But then, the Catholic Church tossed out a lot of OT stuff. So I'm wondering if this went with it, or if we kept it.

That is the verse used as justification for St. Joam of Arc;s execution :D

[CatherineM]

It is permissible when the person was born with indeterminate gender or both genders. These are treated as correcting congenital birth defects.

[Ash Wednesday]

TRANSGENDER WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT CAPTURED TEH BIN LADINZ butheyretiredbeforethatactuallyhappened.

[Clare Brigid]

There's a man who works at my local post office who is about 2/3 of the way finished with a sex change. It's still obvious he's a man. Last week I answered one of his questions, "Yes, ma'am" and felt it was wrong.

 

Curiosing, about 10 years ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, when he was Archbishop of LaCrosse, WI, received the religious vows of Sr. Julie Green, who had founded an association of the faithful called Franciscan Servants of Jesus.  Sr. Julie Green is a transwoman, and this was known to Cardinal Burke.  He obtained permission from the Vatican before receiving her vows.

 

During the ensuing controversy, he stood fast.  He also referred to Sr. Julie by her female name.  He certainly did not call her Joel (her birth name).  He also referred to her with feminine pronouns.  An article describing the controversy, and quoting Cardinal Burke, is here:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1200411/posts

 

I think Cardinal Burke is a good example to follow, don't you?  I don't think you have to worry about this issue at all.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Curiosing, about 10 years ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, when he was Archbishop of LaCrosse, WI, received the religious vows of Sr. Julie Green, who had founded an association of the faithful called Franciscan Servants of Jesus.  Sr. Julie Green is a transwoman, and this was known to Cardinal Burke.  He obtained permission from the Vatican before receiving her vows.

 

During the ensuing controversy, he stood fast.  He also referred to Sr. Julie by her female name.  He certainly did not call her Joel (her birth name).  He also referred to her with feminine pronouns.  An article describing the controversy, and quoting Cardinal Burke, is here:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1200411/posts

 

I think Cardinal Burke is a good example to follow, don't you?  I don't think you have to worry about this issue at all.

 

Yeah I don't think I can buy that article. For one, if this actually happened there would be more then 2 articles written less then 2 years after the fact. Two, I can't find any trace of this community, news article nothing reference or anything- save the wiki article that said they were suppressed by Cardinal Burke in 2003 (a year after the article you are quoting- 2 years after the supposed vows). It seems more like a blog writer with an agenda.  

 

Even IF Cardinal Burke had done this, from the article you originally posted, persons who have gone through this type of operation are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Holy Orders. Even as awesome as Cardinal Burke is, he couldn't go rouge and just do the vows. And I highly doubt he actually would do something like this.  

[Clare Brigid]

Yeah I don't think I can buy that article. For one, if this actually happened there would be more then 2 articles written less then 2 years after the fact. Two, I can't find any trace of this community, news article nothing reference or anything- save the wiki article that said they were suppressed by Cardinal Burke in 2003 (a year after the article you are quoting- 2 years after the supposed vows). It seems more like a blog writer with an agenda.  

 

Even IF Cardinal Burke had done this, from the article you originally posted, persons who have gone through this type of operation are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Holy Orders. Even as amesome as Cardinal Burke is, he couldn't go rouge and just do the vows. And I highly doubt he actually would do something like this.  

 

It specifically says that he obtained permission from the Vatican beforehand.

 

So the account and even the quotes from Cardinal Burke are fabricated, in your opinion?    I think that is extremely unlikely.  In any case, I've seen references to this situation in other articles and on blogs, mostly from traditionalists who accuse Cardinal Burke of not being traditional enough.

 

Rather than make an accusation of fabrication -- which, by the way, is an extremely serious thing to do -- perhaps you might take it at face value and think about why Cardinal Burke acted as he did.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Yes I think it is fabricated. I see no reliable siting when I search this morning. All I saw were blogs and opinion pieces that weren't even from credible sources. If I saw CNA post something about these vows, I might perk up and be less skeptical. Besides the dates as previously mentioned. 

 

Rather than make an accusation of fabrication -- which, by the way, is an extremely serious thing to do -- perhaps you might take it at face value and think about why Cardinal Burke acted as he did.

 

It's on the Internet, so it must be true. ;)