Why Is Transgender(ism ?) Homosexuality Not A Mental Disorder

[Socrates]

So you're against physical surgery when it's for psychological reasons and to improve life function, as in the case of transexuals. But you don't have a problem with physical surgery as long as there is a physical imperative. OK. But breast reconstruction is done for psychological reasons and to improve life function. Yes, you could say it's only to restore what was already there. But the concept of altering and changing the body in response to natural illness, imperfect physical/psychological development and need is the same. It's simply some see the alteration of physical aspects (or certain changes) as a mistake.  But if it allows the person to live, function and it manages a potential developmental /hormonal problem (even if not physically obvious) then I'm not convinced it should be denied. It seems many counsellors, psychiatrists and surgeons agree with that as well. If this wasn't the case then it wouldn't be a sanctioned treatment. To call such a treatment mutilation is really an affront to the definition of the term (and practices that have gone on in the past which are mutilation) and the work the professionals do. Is cosmetic surgery mutilation? Is circumcision mutilation? Is taking organ donation or life support a subversion of the natural order? Is getting fat and smoking an affront to God?

 

 

I'd say most boob jobs and other cosmetic surgery, unless done to correct an actual deformity or serious defect, would be sinful.  Just because something is common and socially accepted, doesn't make it morally right.

 

However, "sex change" operations are much more serious, as they completely destroy/remove healthy organs important to a person's integrity, with no necessitating medical reason (such as removing a cancerous organ to save the life of the rest of the body).

 

As many people get these operations late in life, after having been married, fathered children, etc., I don't think they really qualify as necessary life-saving procedures.

 

As someone cited earlier, suicide rates among "transsexuals" remain high post-operation, and also, the high doses of artificial hormones are not healthy and pose a cancer risk.

It's not the magic cure it's made out to be.

 

Saying such operations are not mutilation by the Catholic definition because they're regarded as "surgery" is a non-argument.  Abortion is also considered surgery by its practitioners, but this does not mean it is also the murder of an unborn child.

The fact that something requires technical skill does not make it morally right.

 

As "sex-change" operations bring in big bucks, it's not strange that some surgeons would promote them.

[Socrates]

 I have been searching for more information on this, mainly, when exactly did the Church start to say hey woa, homosexuality is wrong.

 

 I came across a paper that was published and some how made it to the net, http://www.scribd.com/doc/188478/Early-church-Current-church-on-Homosexuality, 

 

who ever the person is that wrote it, did a really good job at composing this paper,  at least to me, I found it easy to read,

 

so I guess I would like to challenge someone to find an equally well composed article on why homosexuality is wrong, or better yet examples of how Christ expressed it is wrong, since in this article the person seems to suggest that though others in scripture have condemned  Christ did not, though I will say I think the person is misunderstanding scripture when he is quoting where John states being the beloved disciple .  The author of the paper did not seem to suggest a homosexual relationship merely that there was this love between the two. I don't know if the author misunderstood or not but I think the author could have attempted to explain what that meant to him.

 

I keep bouncing back and forth, with all of this because for me it is rather confusing, it is okay to " love someone " in a non sexual manner, heterosexuals are obviously created to procreate ( cant argue that ) but at some point in time someone decided to declare homosexual relations and or love to be immoral, be it states of the past or the church, natural law comes into play, and no one can come close to figuring out if it is a mental disorder, but we can send machines to the deepest parts of the oceans and to other planets, and with a space telescope we can peek into the depths of space.

 

Science appears to be crackn things left n right, even human biology and what does what, but no one dare step over a line any more to say one way or another yes it is a mental disorder or no it isn't and here is why.

 

 

The thing is, for myself an those of us here who are heterosexual, we are not switching sides, but when we are challenged to one day confront someone who is a homosexual, or transgender, that he or she should reconsider their way of life, and perhaps even become a Roman Catholic,  how does one do that , with conflicting messages all over the place. Or at some point do we just stop debating this, let the dice and cards go as they may, and in the end let God figure it out.

 

Are we at a point in society where as Christians we shouldn't even go near this anymore ? At what point do we stop fighting things such as gay marriage, homosexuality , and merely pray and let God handle things. ?

 

The Church has been teaching that homosexual activity is sinful since the very beginning.  It wasn't something that someone suddenly invented at some later time.

 

Though people now go through pretzel-lie contortions of logic to try to claim they really say otherwise, the epistles of St. Paul (considered by the Church to be inspired and infallible Scripture) clearly declare homosexual activity to be sinful multiple times.

 

Jesus Christ mostly preached to the Jews, who already considered homosexuality a sin and an abomination.  If the Law of Moses was wrong on this matter, Jesus could have easily said so, yet He did not, and neither did any of His Apostles.

 

Homosexual activity is also condemned in the Didache, a list of moral rules from the early Church which is as old as the Gospels. and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have consistently upheld this moral teaching.

 

Here's couple short articles from Catholic Answers on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

 

 

You don't have to debate this subject 24-7, nor be a jerk about it, but truth and charity demand that we speak the truth on this issue when necessary, and oppose immoral legislation and agendas when we have the opportunity to do so.   Acting as though we are perfectly ok with gravely immoral things does no one any favors.

[superblue]

The Church has been teaching that homosexual activity is sinful since the very beginning.  It wasn't something that someone suddenly invented at some later time.

 

Though people now go through pretzel-lie contortions of logic to try to claim they really say otherwise, the epistles of St. Paul (considered by the Church to be inspired and infallible Scripture) clearly declare homosexual activity to be sinful multiple times.

 

* True, but the topic at hand is the mental disorder of it, what no one of that time ever questioned was , is this a mental disorder, and the church does have leeway with mental disorders ( culpability ) and sin,  the disorder may not excuse the sin , but it can lesson the culpability of it. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ mostly preached to the Jews, who already considered homosexuality a sin and an abomination.  If the Law of Moses was wrong on this matter, Jesus could have easily said so, yet He did not, and neither did any of His Apostles.

 

* I know, and true, but what is also true is that when Christ taught, He taught in parables ; He could have made life easier and being God knowing what problems were to arise, could have easily said to every one , hey right now we all know homosexuality is a sin, but in the future, people are going to be insane so I have to spell some things out, an I need someone to write this down. *

 

Homosexual activity is also condemned in the Didache, a list of moral rules from the early Church which is as old as the Gospels. and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have consistently upheld this moral teaching.

 

* It is so simple to condemn and fear things we do not understand, the only thing I know for certain is the Church is not flat out calling homosexuality a mental disorder, nor does the Church have any answer as to why people are homosexual ( IF it is not a choice by the person ) *  So then try an explain how if someone is naturally born a homosexual how then does it make common sense to label something that is naturally occurring and is not a mental a defect , a sin ? *   More over how is it different from those days, when people who were BORN with a deformity were labeled sinners due to the sins of their parents, and to those people at that time, that was an acceptable way of thinking *

 

Here's couple short articles from Catholic Answers on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

 

* I don't go to CAF any more, all they do is beat people over the head who dare debate such things with scripture quotes, things from Vatican I an II, quote how perfect in knowledge the church is and damn you if you say other wise, CAF is the most closed minded forum on the Internet. and I wouldn't ask any one on CAF for the simplest instructions or answers to anything. *

 

 

You don't have to debate this subject 24-7, * I don't I am rarely on this thread any more, I meant society in general and Catholics in general and I am taking this answer to be in general for Catholics in nature * nor be a jerk about it,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but truth and charity demand that we speak the truth on this issue when necessary, and oppose immoral legislation and agendas when we have the opportunity to do so.   Acting as though we are perfectly ok with gravely immoral things does no one any favors.

 

 * here is the thing, I am not okay with homosexuals wanting to have children, simple answer, if God wanted homosexuals to reproduce He would have worked it to be, and I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to label themselves as " married " since the act and word is a Religious meaning something which politicians are always avoiding of saying, at the same time, I do not think anyone honestly knows the truth about this, we think it is wrong, but we don't know why. we have zero proof why homosexuality is wrong other than claiming sexual reproduction as some sacred responsibility to reproduce when there is no promise that those marrying and reproduce will even be of the Catholic faith to begin with or  more over might even produce an offspring that becomes the next jack the ripper. So claiming reproduction is really a weak argument, because homosexuals cant reproduce , it would be like saying because I cant walk, there for I am a sinner, or if a heterosexual couples marries, yet for what ever reason the man or woman can not reproduce, how come then they are not considered sinners if we are only focusing on REPRODUCTION not the sacrament of marriage itself ( two separate things I am getting at so don't get lost ).   Homosexuals can not take away anything from the Sacrament of Marriage, they can not pretend to have a " wedding " and that in turn is the exact same  thing as a heterosexual wedding in the Sacrament in the Catholic Church,  it would be like me taking a round rock, painting it red, and calling it an apple and then trying to sell it to someone, I say it is an apple, but we all no it isn't, and thusly no one is going to buy it.

All I see is homosexuals wanting something they honestly can not have, a valid marriage like Catholics do, and Children, like heterosexuals do. On top of that they want the legal rights our country provides to heterosexuals. Big whoop to that.

 

So exactly what is the mastermind agenda homosexuals have ? To destroy Catholicism ? to destroy the sacrament of Marriage ? cause they cant, the only agenda out there is politically by a party to use a piece of the population towards their political agenda. But the homosexual community cant see that. 

 

If homosexuals want to live together, fine, but I think they need to get things straight, they cant reproduce, so that means they cant have kids ever, and adoption is not a loop hole, They need to come up with another label instead of marriage because that is reserved for those of a Religion or heterosexuals,, same as how we can no longer say gay or fag, which respectively meant happy or a bundle of sticks or a cig. So I cant be gay any more and have a fag after dinner.  But to say it is wrong because Christ taught in parables and never addressed it, but Paul did, but no one has any reason medical or scientific why they are homosexual is to me not a good enough reason to label them sinners.

 

How are we as a people to educate others, when the facts we have on the matter only hold up if one only keeps repeating reproduction , natural law, the sacrament of marriage. More over if people who have SSA are seeking therapy, to form a heterosexual life, where is the information on the success rate of that, and why it is successful.

 

[superblue]

so if it isn't a mental disorder, is it then something satan concocted ?

 

it has to be something, either it is something satan got over on God for a long time now, or it is a mental disorder, or is it a mental disorder that satan invented.

 

 

 no answers , I just hope I am not ever charged with trying to convince a homosexual why he or she shouldn't be cause I do not think I could give em an honest answer other than being a mocking bird an quoting what the Church says and be like go take it up with the Pope or God, or someone else.

 

 

peace out girl scout

[Socrates]

 

blah, blah . . .

 

Your post is too long and unfocused to reply to everything said, but here's a few basic replies:

 

1)  The Church is not a psychiatric association, and does not keep a list of "mental disorders" (however one chooses to define that term).  The Church does teach that homosexual tendencies are "objectively disordered," which means they are contrary to the right ordering of human sexuality.  The catechism says "its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."  Whether the "root cause" of homosexual tendencies is psychological, biological, spiritual, or some combination thereof is not completely known nor relevant.  The ultimate root cause of all disordered tendencies is original sin.

The bottom line is that such tendencies are disordered, and it is wrong to act on them.

 

2)  We don't have direct quotes from Jesus on every single sin.  As Catholics, we also believe in Scripture and Tradition, which both clearly teach that homosexual acts are immoral.  This teaching was never even controversial in Christian circles until a few decades ago.

 

3)  The articles I gave you were tracts from professional Catholic apologists, not postings on CAF's forum.  They give some basic arguments, as well as relevant citations from the Bible and other early Christian writings.  Dismissing or refusing to read these because you have personal issues with people on their message board is stupid and childish.

 

Frankly, if neither the Bible, the Catechism, nor Church Fathers are authoritative enough for you on the matter of Church teaching, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not that no one's giving any answers; it seems they're not the answers you want to hear.

 

4)  The issue isn't that homosexuals can't have children (I've know some who have had kids before "coming out"), as if it were an issue of infertility.  The acts themselves are a misuse of the sex organs in a way that has nothing to do with their proper purpose of intercourse between man and woman, which is open to life.  It's for similar purposes that masturbation and contraception are considered sinful (though if I recall, you disagree with the Church on those issues as well).  If you're really interested, you might study up on St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body, but the main point is the Church considers human sexuality to be sacred, as its related to the creation of new human life, and not to be misused and abused.

 

Here's a couple more official Church documents on related matters, if you're interested:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

[superblue]

Your post is too long and unfocused to reply to everything said, but here's a few basic replies:

 

1)  The Church is not a psychiatric association, and does not keep a list of "mental disorders" (however one chooses to define that term).  The Church does teach that homosexual tendencies are "objectively disordered," which means they are contrary to the right ordering of human sexuality.  The catechism says "its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."  Whether the "root cause" of homosexual tendencies is psychological, biological, spiritual, or some combination thereof is not completely known nor relevant.  The ultimate root cause of all disordered tendencies is original sin.

The bottom line is that such tendencies are disordered, and it is wrong to act on them.

 

2)  We don't have direct quotes from Jesus on every single sin.  As Catholics, we also believe in Scripture and Tradition, which both clearly teach that homosexual acts are immoral.  This teaching was never even controversial in Christian circles until a few decades ago.

 

3)  The articles I gave you were tracts from professional Catholic apologists, not postings on CAF's forum.  They give some basic arguments, as well as relevant citations from the Bible and other early Christian writings.  Dismissing or refusing to read these because you have personal issues with people on their message board is stupid and childish.

 

Frankly, if neither the Bible, the Catechism, nor Church Fathers are authoritative enough for you on the matter of Church teaching, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not that no one's giving any answers; it seems they're not the answers you want to hear.

 

4)  The issue isn't that homosexuals can't have children (I've know some who have had kids before "coming out"), as if it were an issue of infertility.  The acts themselves are a misuse of the sex organs in a way that has nothing to do with their proper purpose of intercourse between man and woman, which is open to life.  It's for similar purposes that masturbation and contraception are considered sinful (though if I recall, you disagree with the Church on those issues as well).  If you're really interested, you might study up on St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body, but the main point is the Church considers human sexuality to be sacred, as its related to the creation of new human life, and not to be misused and abused.

 

Here's a couple more official Church documents on related matters, if you're interested:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

 

 

 

 

blah blah if you don't have the time to read neither do I.

 

peace out girl scout.

[Socrates]

blah blah if you don't have the time to read neither do I.

 

peace out girl scout.

 

I read it; I just saw no need to repost a ginormous block of text (which included a lot of my own words), especially when you can read it on the same page.

 

Peace out yourself, brownie scout.

[MIKolbe]

[Clare Brigid]

Reviving a thread to post a highly relevant report.  Pope Francis arranged a meeting with this trans man (female-to-male transsexual) last Saturday:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/living/pope-transgender-man/index.html

[superblue]

I actually saw that too, I am not rereading all my posts on the subject,  last few bits I glanced over seems the subject just went into rants and zingers ....

 

 

It is a tough subject that people try to label and then say boom case closed, and it isn't that simple and it is good to have news like this reaching the public it awakens society to start seeing each other through the eyes of Christ.

 

 

 

 

side note,

 

Meetings with the Pope as with this, the Vatican never publishes such meetings and things that were said for obvious reasons and probably a simple enough reason that the only people who know what said is the Pope and whom ever else was in the room,  with this particular article, I am wondering if civilians who meet the Pope for a private meeting have to sign any kind of privacy disclosure stating they wont disclose what was said in the meeting , or if it is just common knowledge to not publicize what was said in such a meeting,  I would include politicians and dignitaries but it seems common practice and knowledge that never takes place as political private meetings are not publicized.

[Winchester]

The APA is as much a political organization as it is a medical one.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

Good for Pope Francis. Sadly though I fear this will turn into a crap storm because of remarks like this,"But if this Pope has a long life, which all of his followers hope," Neria says, "I think things will change."

Since I've come back to the Church I have viewed the Church and her doctrines in a different way. Knowing now that the Church is Christ's mystical body I no longer view Christ and His Church as separate entities. His commandments and His likes and dislikes are shown in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To ask to have those changed would be to ask Jesus to change who He is, which is impossible, because He is God. Plus if I want a genuine and authentic relationship with Christ then why would I want Him to change who He is just so I can feel comfortable?

Anyway just rambling. Commence "how dare Pope Francis" and "I can't wait for doctrine changes" etc etc.

[Clare Brigid]

There is no defined teaching yet on the moral permissibility of medical treatment for transsexualism.

 

What needs to change is the malice -- largely rooted in ignorance -- suffered by this man.  Pope Francis chose to assess matters for himself. 

 

As a trans woman, I am developing a deep love for this Pope and hope for responsible and just teaching on this issue when the Church does see fit to state it.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Clare Brigid

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

There is no defined teaching yet on the moral permissibility of medical treatment for transsexualism.

What needs to change is the malice -- largely rooted in ignorance -- suffered by this man. Pope Francis chose to assess matters for himself.

As a trans woman, I am developing a deep love for this Pope and hope for responsible and just teaching on this issue when the Church does see fit to state it.

While there is no defined teaching which specifically deals with transgender issues, I believe the current defined teachings do not leave any room for any permissions regarding gender reassignment surgeries or procedures. Edited January 31, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[ChristianGirlForever]

There is no defined teaching yet on the moral permissibility of medical treatment for transsexualism.

What needs to change is the malice -- largely rooted in ignorance -- suffered by this man. Pope Francis chose to assess matters for himself.

As a trans woman, I am developing a deep love for this Pope and hope for responsible and just teaching on this issue when the Church does see fit to state it.

There may not be an official teaching yet, but there will be. We aren't supposed to mutilate our bodies, nor should we deny the gender we were given by God at birth. (I am not referring to hemaphrodites, by the way.)