veritasluxmea Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Thank you for answering my questions CB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 People can read the provision, so how is it deception? The key words in the last part of that section are 'performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons' and 'performed on innocent persons'. . . . "Strictly therapeutic medical reasons" means things such as amputating a cancerous or infected organ for the purpose of saving the rest of that person's body, and life. "Therapeutic" in the (true) medical sense, not the touchy-feely "makes me feel good" sense. The entire problem with our contemporary attitude is that we make subjective personal feelings and will, rather than objective reality, the basis of morality. Dangerous ground indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 On another note, this really made me think: One of the common arguments gay rights advocates [make is] that God made them that way and to be against gay behavior is to go against God who made them this way. But now when transgender issues are at the forefront we're told that it turns out that God does indeed make mistakes and that people have to rectify God's mistakes with some surgeries and hormones. And we should recognize that.So which is it?Mind you, I think both of their arguments are flawed but it's interesting to note how God's nature changes depending on what people want. (via creativeminorityreport. Edited for brevity.) So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 If Bruce Jenner thought himself to be Bruce Lee or Bruce Wayne how much would that change the variable? Batman Identity Disorder (BID). Or so the docs at Arkham tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 "Strictly therapeutic medical reasons" means things such as amputating a cancerous or infected organ for the purpose of saving the rest of that person's body, and life. "Therapeutic" in the (true) medical sense, not the touchy-feely "makes me feel good" sense. The entire problem with our contemporary attitude is that we make subjective personal feelings and will, rather than objective reality, the basis of morality. Dangerous ground indeed. I would cautiously argue that in the case of someone being truly disphoric, living as the opposite sex or making some changes might actually be therapeutic to the point where they could mentally live with themselves again until they are able to work through their issues or just even live a semi regular life again. Mental illness usually is a lifetime struggle, at least in my limited experience. I do agree, however, that such operations or living the lifestyle don't truly make them the opposite gender. The brain doesn't make someone male or female, your genitalia, determined by your chromosomes, do. (I'm willing to read credited research on the subject but I haven't found anything so far that actually points to it being otherwise.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) It's in English. I'm sure most people who read it can see what it says. You could have easily used Catholic ethics material to make a case, but you instead decided to argue that it all hinges on the CCC and an opinion piece from a priest. I busted you out on that and you can't concede it was lame, OK.p.s the tag is old and it doesn't bother me, meh It made a couple of people with control anxiety happy at the time, good for them. I'm still a humble novice in real life A phatmass phishy interdict doesn't impact that, so don't stress Yes its in English, however it condemns voluntarily and involuntary amputation, mutilation and sterilization. It makes clear in plain English that surgery to remove a body part is only moral if it is physical necessary for the health of the person. The human body is made in the image of God, and it is the temple of God. What you justify is a sort of iconoclastism. Edited June 7, 2015 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 LOL and how are you going to enforce that? Pull down their pantaloons and check their genetals? Now I've got a certain scene from the first "Crocodile Dundee" movie stuck in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 CCC 2297 doesn't really fit to this situation. That covers violence used by the state, or others, such as torture or punishment for moral crimes, guilt etc. It goes on to reference procedures that are done in the same manner, that would be things like forced abortions, torture, cutting off hands for moral crimes etc. It has little, if anything, to do with transsexuals. I think the priest was very flexible with their use of that provision. There are Catholic bioethics orgs, as mentioned above, with people who at least invest time and knowledge into these sorts of issues. If we take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, it implies that capital punishment and murder are wrong but suicide is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) If we take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, it implies that capital punishment and murder are wrong but suicide is not. CCC 2297 isn't supposed to deal with everything. It deals with violence and is explicit. Torture, forced procedures, terrorism etc are outlined there. Cutting off limbs as punishments, setting bombs or forcing an abortion because of state policy would come under this, as examples. Suicide is dealt with by CCC 2280 to 2283. Capital punishment is dealt with elsewhere too. Edited June 7, 2015 by Benedictus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 "Strictly therapeutic medical reasons" means things such as amputating a cancerous or infected organ for the purpose of saving the rest of that person's body, and life. "Therapeutic" in the (true) medical sense, not the touchy-feely "makes me feel good" sense. The entire problem with our contemporary attitude is that we make subjective personal feelings and will, rather than objective reality, the basis of morality. Dangerous ground indeed. So a qualified doctor doesn't get to decide what are strictly therapeutic medical reasons? The CCC doesn't define it the way you're saying. They could have said 'medical procedures the church deems necessary'. But it didn't. I don't think there's anything touchy feely about transsexual surgery. It's hardly a warm hug.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Yes its in English, however it condemns voluntarily and involuntary amputation, mutilation and sterilization. It makes clear in plain English that surgery to remove a body part is only moral if it is physical necessary for the health of the person. The human body is made in the image of God, and it is the temple of God. What you justify is a sort of iconoclastism. ''2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.'' It doesn't say only physical reasons. It doesn't make the distinction either between voluntary and involuntary as you say. It merely says the persons having such procedures performed on them are innocent persons. So such people receiving such interventions aren't morally or temporally culpable? Obviously the target of the provision is those doing the amputating or surgery without good cause. The dispute, at the core, is whether something is done for strictly therapeutic medical reasons or not. Most medical professionals think it is justified but many Catholic theologians disagree. But who decides what's medically therapeutic, a theologian or a doctor? They could make a provision in the CCC dealing with transsexual issues more clearly. They church could say only medical procedures the Catholic church agress with. But they haven't.p.s don't confuse 2297 with 2298. The latter is the Church saying sorry for endorsing torture and other cruel practices in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 1. Any sterilization which of itself, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical Magisterium, especially of Pius XII1. Therefore, notwithstanding any subjectively right intention of those whose actions are prompted by the care or prevention of physical or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as a result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden according to the doctrine of the Church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an even graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible. Neither can any mandate of public authority, which would seek to impose direct sterilization as necessary for the common good, be invoked, for such sterilization damages the dignity and inviolability of the human person2. Likewise, neither can one invoke the principle of totality in this case, in virtue of which principal interference with organs is justified for the greater good of the person; sterility intended in itself is not oriented to the integral good of the person as rightly pursued “the proper order of goods being preserved”3 inasmuch as it damages the ethical good of the person, which is the highest good, since it deliberately deprives foreseen and freely chosen sexual activity of an essential element. Thus article 20 of the medical-ethics code promulgated by the conference in 1971 faithfully reflects the doctrine which is to be held, and its observance should be urged. 2. The Congregation, while it confirms this traditional doctrine of the Church, is not unaware of the dissent against this teaching from many theologians. The Congregation, however, denies that doctrinal significance can be attributed to this fact as such, so as to constitute a “theological source” which the faithful might invoke and thereby abandon the authentic Magisterium, and follow the opinions of private theologians which dissent from it4. 3. Insofar as the management of Catholic hospitals is concerned: a) Any cooperation which involves the approval or consent of the hospitals to actions which are in themselves, that is, by their nature and condition, directed to a contraceptive end, namely, in order that the natural effects of sexual actions deliberately performed by the sterilized subject be impeded, is absolutely forbidden. For the official approbation of direct sterilization and, a fortiori, its management and execution in accord with hospital regulations, is a matter which, in the objective order, is by its very nature (or intrinsically) evil. The Catholic hospital cannot cooperate with this for any reason. Any cooperation so supplied is totally unbecoming the mission entrusted to this type of institution and would be contrary to the necessary proclamation and defense of the moral order. -Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Sex changes, makes one sterile and deprives one of the power of reproducing. Therefore the immediate effect a 'sex change' makes the subject incapable of procreation and is therefor sterilization. Sterilizations are forbidden because the action renders the subject incapable of reproducing, not just because it can be used as a contraceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 We take care of a young person who was put on the street after their parents found out they self identified as transgendered. First thing I asked, is if they wanted to be called he or she. I don't agree with gender dysmorphia, but that doesn't mean I want a kid on the street because they think differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 So a qualified doctor doesn't get to decide what are strictly therapeutic medical reasons? The CCC doesn't define it the way you're saying. They could have said 'medical procedures the church deems necessary'. But it didn't. "Qualified doctors" have also sometimes decided that getting an abortion (killing an unborn child) is necessary to preserve the "mental health" of the mother, and such, so I'm unimpressed by that argument. We were discussing cases where the organs are perfectly healthy and there's nothing wrong with them other than that the person wants them removed/changed. Your weak sophistry isn't fooling anyone, so perhaps you should stop wasting your time. I don't think there's anything touchy feely about transsexual surgery. It's hardly a warm hug.. Warm hugs are good. Castration and genital mutilation are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 "Qualified doctors" have also sometimes decided that getting an abortion (killing an unborn child) is necessary to preserve the "mental health" of the mother, and such, so I'm unimpressed by that argument. We were discussing cases where the organs are perfectly healthy and there's nothing wrong with them other than that the person wants them removed/changed. Your weak sophistry isn't fooling anyone, so perhaps you should stop wasting your time. Time spent on matters of God, as with acts of mercy and charity, are never a waste of time, however pointless they seem to other people. Love is not rude, but kind and patient. Prayers and blessings to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now