What Catholicism really says about transgender people

[peky]

Please serious comments only folks, no jokes either, AND the person who wrote the commentary posted below does not identifies herself or himself in the webside, which is listed below


There are lots of sites that cater to transgender Christians in general, but because most denominations are so focused on the Bible, that's where their focus is. If you're Christian but not Catholic, there are tons of books and websites explaining the meanings behind the passages that are usually brought up to show how sinful being gay or transgender is. My favorite is godhatesshrimp.com, which brings up a general inconsistency in Protestantism: if it's all about the Bible ("sola scriptura"), with every person interpreting it individually, then 1) why is your interpretation any better than mine (or vice versa), and 2) why is it that homosexual acts are not OK (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) while, just a few chapters away, there's a passage forbidding the eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12), but no one gives that a second thought?

But since Catholics have the Vatican to interpret the Bible, we have a different set of rules. When people ask us why homosexual acts aren't OK but eating shellfish is, we say, "Because the prohibition of homosexuality is part of a general principle that sex is for procreation." The only thing I have seen for Catholics is Dignity USA, which wishes to reform the Catholic Church to be more open to people in alternative sexual and gender-based lifestyles. If you're all right with being a lax Catholic, then that site may be fine for you. However, I vehemently disagree with their philosophy, as liberalizing a religion makes it too much like the secular world, which many of us seek to escape through religion.

If you're as interested in being a good Catholic as I am, you'll want a way to reconcile your gender identity with the teachings of the Catholic Church. (I started a page on what the Bible says, but I abandoned this project because it's possibly to make a case for anything using the Bible alone.) The short answer is: It's not a sin to be female in a male body (or the reverse), since you were born that way. Even many transgender people will admit that the Church doesn't say much on the subject. However, any form of transitioning and any sexual activity with anyone, male or female, is considered sin. So, you have to present as your birth sex and be celibate.

This is not explicitly written in the Bible or the Catechism; rather, I had to infer it from six pieces of evidence, about which I will go into detail.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/qg/girlinside123/catholic/trans.html

[Anatta]

Kia Ora,

"Let those without 'sin' cast the first stone !"

Quote :

A castrato (Italian, plural: castrati) is a man with a singing voice equivalent to that of a soprano, mezzo-soprano, or contralto. The voice is produced by castration of the singer before puberty, or it occurs in one who, because of an endocrinological condition, never reaches sexual maturity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcccast.htm

Metta Zenda

[summer710]

Thanks Peky for your post and link.

I am an orthodox Roman Catholic...I'm also a transgender MTF.   I am as God created me.  I have accepted the life presented to me, celibacy and all.



- S

[spacial]

I don't have a lot to contribute to this topic, myself, since most of my understanding is from that of an observer. But I will follow it and look forward to further contributions.

[Penny Gurl]

Thank you for your post.  I was raised Roman Catholic and as far as religions go I align towards them more then " Christians." I personally don't fallow the faith anymore but my family still does and I think the points you made may help with their understanding of the faith and being transgender.

[Miharu Barbie]

Is there a lot of ambiguity in the following news report?  I leave the interpretation up to those more familiar with Church doctrine than I.  As a lay employee of the Catholic Church, I claim no special awareness of what goes on in the hearts and minds of Church leaders.

Hugs,
Miharu

Jan-14-2003

Vatican says 'sex-change' operation
does not change person's gender

By John Norton Catholic News Service


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal
congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document
concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's
gender in the eyes of the church.

Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex
listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have
undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be
ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a
source familiar with the text.

The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under
secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide
guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear
that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the
congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as
well.

"The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so
superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If
the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains
female," said the source.

Post modified to conform to Copyright Laws

[Brightest After Dawn]

For me Christianity is about spirituality, union with the Divine, love, compassion, connectedness. It isn't about texts, or dogmas, or "thou shalt believe x's", though beliefs might come into it, they are merely the starting point for the experience that is the heart of it, and probably all spirituality (when practiced properly, at least in my opinion). I can understand that from an historical and literal point of view, early ("orthodox") Christians may not have held beliefs similar to my own, but I have no problem finding spirituality in the teachings of Jesus, and the experience of the Holy Spirit, just as they did. I believe the Divine speaks to us in different ways over the generations, but the essence, the humanity, the upliftingless of the experience is the same. And that it comes from the same source.

Science advances not by blind dogma, but by experimentation, buy questioning assumptions. To not treat spirituality in the same way is, in my eyes, to trivialize it. As Madeline L'Engle said "my religion is subject to change on a moment's notice. How dare I close myself off to God's revelations?" (sorry, don't remember her exact words, but that is it in a nutshell and I agree with it)

Just because a text speaks against something, or a Church (capital C) or institution, doesn't mean you can't be inspired by the same source and come to a very different conclusion...without invalidating the power of that source! (I think consistency and contradiction in religion is overstressed by a lot of people who claim to adhere to certain faiths...treating it too much as a dry, technical matter than the living experience it is.) So I don't have any problem admitting that historically (or even currently) most types of Christianity speak against "people like us" while still believing in God, after a fashion.

Mind you, my beliefs are very un-stereotypical, and many more conservative Christians would certainly not consider me one of them. That's totally fine. By their definition, I might not be. Words and labels aren't important to me, in general. But my spirituality comes from some of the same places they hold dear, and I feel it's very real and authentic (just as real as theirs, which I am by no means dismissing).

[peky]

For me Christianity is about spirituality, union with the Divine, love, compassion, connectedness. It isn't about texts, or dogmas, or "thou shalt believe x's", though beliefs might come into it, they are merely the starting point for the experience that is the heart of it, and probably all spirituality (when practiced properly, at least in my opinion). I can understand that from an historical and literal point of view, early ("orthodox") Christians may not have held beliefs similar to my own, but I have no problem finding spirituality in the teachings of Jesus, and the experience of the Holy Spirit, just as they did. I believe the Divine speaks to us in different ways over the generations, but the essence, the humanity, the upliftingless of the experience is the same. And that it comes from the same source.

Science advances not by blind dogma, but by experimentation, buy questioning assumptions. To not treat spirituality in the same way is, in my eyes, to trivialize it. As Madeline L'Engle said "my religion is subject to change on a moment's notice. How dare I close myself off to God's revelations?" (sorry, don't remember her exact words, but that is it in a nutshell and I agree with it)

Just because a text speaks against something, or a Church (capital C) or institution, doesn't mean you can't be inspired by the same source and come to a very different conclusion...without invalidating the power of that source! (I think consistency and contradiction in religion is overstressed by a lot of people who claim to adhere to certain faiths...treating it too much as a dry, technical matter than the living experience it is.) So I don't have any problem admitting that historically (or even currently) most types of Christianity speak against "people like us" while still believing in God, after a fashion.

Mind you, my beliefs are very un-stereotypical, and many more conservative Christians would certainly not consider me one of them. That's totally fine. By their definition, I might not be. Words and labels aren't important to me, in general. But my spirituality comes from some of the same places they hold dear, and I feel it's very real and authentic (just as real as theirs, which I am by no means dismissing).

Religions thrive in tradtion and dogma. Revelations are revolutionary and thus a real and present threat to established religion institutions.

[Mohini]

I was also born and raised Catholic, and I still somewhat consider myself culturally Christian (I am now a practising Hindu). To me personally, there is a big difference between Catholicism (the theological spiritual tradition) and the Catholic Church (the institution representing the tradition), and even the Vatican.

While the Vatican endorses a particular view in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic doctrine and beliefs have changed and evolved over the centuries. After all, it is two millennia old. For example, the development of the doctrine of Mariology, Christology, the changing views of race and conquests, science, clerical celibacy in the Roman rite while marriage in the other (ex. Syriac) rites, etc.

Not only that, but on the local level, there are many gays and lesbians who have boyfriends or girlfriends and also attend Mass without blinking their eyes. They consider themselves Catholic in culture and belief, regardless of what the institutionalised Vatican says! Even many Catholics divorce, gamble, get drunk, use contraceptive methods, etc.

I would really doubt that Jesus cares about who we are as much as what we do in life. Faith without works is dead! I suppose that the reason of the institutionalisation of Catholicism is to keep the apostolic succession alive, but Catholics should never feel that they necessarily need to bend on hand and foot to the bishops and cardinals.

For me, the basis of Christian spirituality is to live a sacramental life, in which Christ is the centre and spiritualises one's practice and expression. It's this appointed legalism that made me attend Anglican High-Church Masses instead for those once-in-a-year holy days.

[Catherine Sarah]

"The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so
superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If
the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains
female," said the source.[/i]

Post modified to conform to Copyright Laws

WOW!!! What a bomb shell this little declaration turns out to be.

So; am I to assume the operative word in this declaration is "personality?"  Meaning, "personality" defines the gender?

If not; then what; defines the gender?   And please. Lets not jump to conclusions or make assumptions. It's waaaaayyyy too important to do that. What defines the 'gender' in this specific case?

Let me get this straight!! I can modify anything I like that I present with physically and it doesn't change my "personality", then I retain that perceived "personality" And that's from Rome itself? WOW

Essentially; I've since recordable memory, always considered myself female with prolapsed genitalia.  Thus; if I was female then, I'm still female now.

Here's the bombshell. So my previously sanctioned Catholic marriage was an abomination. Essentially, according to this "Vatican" statement, I was in a lesbian marriage., blessed and sanctioned by Rome itself.

Huggs
Catherine

[JoanneL]

I do what my conscience feels

[Susan]

"The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so
superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If
the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains
female," said the source.

But the issue is that I was never male, only my exterior was. My eternal soul is and has always been female. The surgery is simply to make the exterior match the interior, not to change who I am and who I always will be. The Vatican should have no problems coming to terms and recognizing this basic fact. As I told one of my best friends when I came out to him, it's not about sex, it's about gender.

[Carrie Liz]

Yeah... reconciling faith and ->-bleeped-<- can be a very tough one. I'm a Christian myself, and was even a Religion / Christian Education double-major in college, and now suddenly I'm doing something that the church which I was a devout member of would consider to be an absolute abomination, and those same people that I felt so close to would probably ban me and do one of those "pray for Charlie to find his way" things.

All I know, is that God gave me this body, and this gender identity, for a reason. And although I have had a very hard time personally realizing that it's still okay, that I can pray to Him even though I myself am having a hard time reconciling ->-bleeped-<- and my relationship with God. And He has not stopped listening just because I've finally decided to embrace my internal gender identity. I even asked Him in prayer to please accept me as a daughter. And I feel that He has by no means stopped listening.

I guess what keeps me going spiritually is the following verse: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." THAT rings true to me, that God does not care what gender we are, any more than He cares about our nationality or our life circumstances, for we are all one in Christ. And I really feel like that is what the God I personally know would say.

So I guess I just have to trust that the God that I have come to know through prayer and my own personal Bible study is indeed the true God, and that He is infallible, and that some of the things the church claims to be true are just coming from fallible, weak, biased human beings. I don't know. Maybe I'm giving up everything in order to do this. Maybe I am going against my religion. But I do know that I can no longer keep pretending to be someone that I'm not. And the God that I know, if He was loving enough to sacrifice His only Son to save my soul, surely is loving enough to understand this.

Anyway, that's how I've dealt with the "guilt" feelings. It's tough sometimes, admittedly. But I guess sometimes we just have to take a leap of faith and do what we know in our hearts is right, even if it goes against everything that the establishment of our religion says is wrong. This is one such case. And you know, if you ask me, it doesn't take much faith to just blindly listen to absolutely everything that a certain religion says, and follow it completely 100%. It takes a LOT of faith to stand up for something that you believe in even though it goes against the widely-preached teachings.

[dejan160]

I will try to explain this a bit better then you did The Christianity, in general, accepts the transsexuality and homosexuality as choices we make in the early childhood and they believe it is a choice against the human nature and therefore it is a sin. The Christianity doesn't prohibit sinning as long as you learn from your behaviour and change. So being gay/ transsexual is not a sin as long as you learn from it and you change. The Christianity believes that through the love of Jesus and through psychotherapy one can change and become "normal". Once the Christian church accepts the homosexuality and transsexulity as inborn behaviours they will dismiss the possibility of choice and therefore the classification of homosexuality and transsexuality as sins. It is a matter of time and a matter of convincing Vatican that it is inborn and not a choice we make.

[big kim]

I don't give a rat's ass what they think,I think child abuse is a grater sin

[kira21 ♡♡♡]

Surely you can't tell whether it's right or wrong then if u need the Vatican to interpret.  Anything could mean  anything and one pope can decide whether something is right or not.  Now we have a new pope things that weren't sins will suddenly somehow become wrong in the eyes of God and others will suddenly become ok according to the new interpretation.  You highlight the invalidity of interpreting scripts personally in your posting but the same inconsistencies are present even when it is being interpreted by multiple others such as the number of popes we have had.