Will the Catholic Church Accept its First Openly Transgender Nun?

[Xenguy]

Will the Catholic Church Accept its First Openly Transgender Nun?
MITCH KELLAWAY- JULY 15, 2014

"In the two years since Tia Michelle Pesando says she first heard God calling her, she's not only devoted herself to the Roman Catholic Church, but to opening the religion's doors to other transgender people of faith."

More: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/07/15/will-catholic-church-accept-its-first-openly-transgender-nun

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[LoriLorenz]

You know, this topic has actually been floating around in my head the last few days.

As a by-birth female, I has felt called to religious life for a long time, and even applied to a community that is accepting of my other disabling aspects (I'm deaf and have severe back issues among other things). Right now I'm not consecrated in any way and not journeying with them because it was mutually decided I should finish my master's degree, after which my back decided to go on strike and cause me horrific levels of pain. 

So here I am, with so much time for thinking and such it's ridiculous. I'm looking over a lot of things and one that's been cropping up is gender identity, which then leads - of course - to ok, if I'm trans.... will I be allowed to be a nun OR a priest?

So the silly version of the question popped into my head of "Priest, Nun, or None?"

I has worn costume (on Hallowe'en) as a Nun, maybe next I'll go as a priest...

[Rina]

You know, this topic has actually been floating around in my head the last few days.

As a by-birth female, I has felt called to religious life for a long time, and even applied to a community that is accepting of my other disabling aspects (I'm deaf and have severe back issues among other things). Right now I'm not consecrated in any way and not journeying with them because it was mutually decided I should finish my master's degree, after which my back decided to go on strike and cause me horrific levels of pain. 

So here I am, with so much time for thinking and such it's ridiculous. I'm looking over a lot of things and one that's been cropping up is gender identity, which then leads - of course - to ok, if I'm trans.... will I be allowed to be a nun OR a priest?

So the silly version of the question popped into my head of "Priest, Nun, or None?"

I has worn costume (on Hallowe'en) as a Nun, maybe next I'll go as a priest...

A document was released sub secretum (under secret - just a fancy term for "confidential", which in Rome generally means "unofficial", since such documents are usually leaked...) a decade ago, which despite being based on bad science (Paul McHugh) constitutes the current discipline of the Church. It only deals with SRS, but realistically, the discipline would also cover those who get HRT or probably, those who identify as trans even without treatment of any kind.

The document is as everything else from the Vatican full of churchspeak, which makes some of it seem less sympathetic than it is (Rome needs to realize this sooner or later - I think pope Francis may be getting it). Parts of it are also visibly affected by the "input" of Paul McHugh, and those parts can simply be overlooked since they're not within the domain of faith and morals, and based on garbage non-science. The disciplinary decisions do however remain, based on bad science or not. The document:

• Establishes that SRS can be morally licit in "extreme cases", which basically means "as a last resort", which should be understood as "if you got a proper letter of referral". HRT isn't mentioned, but since it is a prerequisite for SRS in most cases, one should conclude that it's equally permissible. The Catechism also establishes that any changes to the body that are done for "strictly therapeutical reasons" (or something like that) are moral, which would also cover any procedure related to being trans.
• Contains some guidelines for when situations arise with already-ordained priests or already-consecrated religious who turn out to be trans.
• Concludes that someone who has undergone SRS (which, again, probably even covers those who are trans but not receiving treatment) are barred from marriage and ordination. I don't think this is meant as anything negative, but as a "we don't know what these people are at this time, so we'll just safeguard against invalid marriage and (especially) ordination". Trans women have been allowed to marry men before this document, and those marriages have not been ruled invalid to my knowledge. I believe marriage will be permitted again at a later point, when science becomes too conclusive to ignore. Since the determination of gender is not a matter of theology, but of science, which the Church generally respects with some delay, I am sure it will be changed. For trans men, there is however a problem with current-day surgeries, that potency is impossible. Fertility is not a requirement for valid marriage in the Church, but potency, defined as ability to have penis-in-vagina sex to completion, is. As for ordination, the Church has always been kind of paranoid about preventing invalid ordinations, and would rather turn away a hundred good priests than ordain one invalidly. I see fewer possibilities there. However, becoming an un-ordained monk or nun, I think will be possible at some point. I do however think it may take decades before any of this becomes possible (again - remember that baptism certificates were indeed changed after SRS for some time).
• Concludes that marriages where one party turns out to be trans (as in, untransitioned and wanting to transition) are valid, unless the condition predates the marriage. Since trans* is now commonly considered congenital, I think such a marriage would be annulled upon request in all cases. A marriage is however always presumed valid until one or both parties ask for such an assessment, so there is nothing hindering a couple where one part transitions to remain married.

Lastly, as for the definitions of marriage and ordination, where marriage is only heterosexual and ordination only done on males, I don't think those will change. In the Church, marriage is not really "two people who love each other", as in society in general. It is "two people with permission to [naturally] reproduce", and about property and offspring more than love. For that reason, the ability to naturally reproduce (in theory - as mentioned, fertility is not a requirement) is a requirement. The problem with changing this, is that even the pope does not have authority to do it; it is defined as dogma.

I can however foresee the acceptance of gay unions, since there isn't really a prohibition against it which is strictly dogma. There are also very old precedents, back to the middle ages, of same-sexed couples (presumed chaste, but I'm quite sure they not always were) being blessed as "siblings", and allowed to live together. As such, "civil unions" wouldn't really be a new thing in the Church.

I'm not really ready for a detailed discussion about Catholic marriage, however, but I figured it was worth mentioning - I for one am not against gay civil marriage (I often argue in support of it on Catholic online forums), but as someone with a degree in theology, I simply cannot see gay marriage ever happening in the Church.

By the way, even if you were not to be allowed into religious life of one kind or another, there is nothing hindering you from entering confraternities, like those of the Brown Scapular or the Rosary. Of course this is a purely individual thing, promising to pray daily and other things. Some third orders may also be open for you, where you live on your own but follow their rule, pray the Hours and so on. So even if you were not to be allowed to enter religious life "fully", there are options. I wish you the best of luck

[Bellatrix]

I work for a Christian charity who help homeless people and the attitude towards LGBT but trans specifically is prehistoric! I have to meet my manager on Wednesday where I plan to tell her and while im sure she will be perfectly accepting some of the support workers will struggle with it.

It all boils down to interpretations of the bible, some take it as is and take everything at face value, others look beyond the literal interpretation to find the meaning of the words as opposed to their face value. The former are dinosaurs when it comes to this kind of stuff, the latter are far more enlightened.

[Rina]

I work for a Christian charity who help homeless people and the attitude towards LGBT but trans specifically is prehistoric! I have to meet my manager on Wednesday where I plan to tell her and while im sure she will be perfectly accepting some of the support workers will struggle with it.

It all boils down to interpretations of the bible, some take it as is and take everything at face value, others look beyond the literal interpretation to find the meaning of the words as opposed to their face value. The former are dinosaurs when it comes to this kind of stuff, the latter are far more enlightened.

Biblical literalism is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. The sad thing is that it's actually a modern phenomenon, not gaining prominence until after the Enlightenment. The early Church Fathers readily aknowledged that much of Scripture was metaphoric. St. Augustine even described a literal interpretation of Genesis as "idiotic"!

[LoriLorenz]

Thank you for the enlightening information, Rina! I will have to look up this document and read it myself. (Not that I don't believe you, but my minds own curiosity, as it were.) Do you have the name of that doc so I'm not going batty trying to find it? Or is it so sub-secretum that it won't be found?

Something that intrigues me very much is the aspect of "Potency", since I certainly am NOT potent. I have ovaries, and as such have breasts, but not having a uterus I cannot carry a child, and indeed having sex to its fulfilment is not possible as the penis can't get IN properly (I have tested this, for sure).

So this document basically would invalidate me from marriage as well...

Much to consider, but I'll hang on to Matthew 19:12!!!

[Rina]

I'm sorry I forgot to link the article - you can find it here:

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

I also wrote a longer comment on it here:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,171318.msg1497122.html#msg1497122

The document itself is not published, but it was reported widely at the time of the leak, however most sites have deleted old articles and/or restructured since then. The article from NCR is a cached version from CNS. Most people I've spoken to see the information as reliable, and it fits well with how most dioceses handle trans people; we're not allowed to marry or be ordained, but we remain in good standing and can receive Communion and Confession. Sadly, parishioners and individual clerics are often a bigger problem than the Church.

As for potency, for a man it is defined as (forgive my bluntness here) "ability to ejaculate inside a vagina", and for a woman it's defined as "ability to be [vaginally] ejaculated in". Basically, the spouses need to be able to have (and indeed need to have - lack of consummation is grounds for anullment, if one of the parties request it) penis-in-vagina sex to completion at minimum one time after they've become married. Whether the impotence is physiological or psychological is not relevant. Not having reproductive organs does not matter, neither does being menopausal. Infertility does not equal impotency.

I am indeed barred from marriage as well, but to me it doesn't matter much - I am not interested in marrying a man anyways. I am sexually attracted to them, but not emotionally, so I just can't see myself in a lifelong relationship to one. Were I to end up in a long-term relationship, it would most probably be with a woman, and that will not be recognized as a Catholic marriage even if the Church changed my baptismal record. But for me, a civil union would suffice, as long as it gives the same rights with regards to inheritance, power of attourney, taxes and so on. I would of course also be very happy if the Church recognized (or at least tolerated) such unions - I'm starting to think that could happen sooner or later.

And yes, hanging on to Matt 19:12 is a good thing . Also remember that the first Gentile convert was indeed a eunuch! It speaks volumes, since eunuchs were excluded from the Jewish people; letting a eunuch be baptized was therefore a very radical decision at the time.

Edit: The potency requirements are part of Canon Law, by the way, which is of course public:

Can.  1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

The exact definition of "impotency" is found in different annulment-related verdicts and dubia, theological theses with hilariously too much details for being centuries old, and so on. But the basic definition is what I wrote above.

[LoriLorenz]

Thank you Rina, the extra info was again enlightening. Sad to say the NCR link leads to "server not found"  I guess it's a secret again!

[Rina]

Thank you Rina, the extra info was again enlightening. Sad to say the NCR link leads to "server not found"  I guess it's a secret again!

Strange, it works when I click it. Could the server just have been down or something when you tried?

[Devlyn]

The link is working for me.

[LoriLorenz]

Ah, yes, working now... Must have been server side as you said. Or maybe it didn't like the Canadian peeking at it. 

[Katerinah1947]

Ah, yes, working now... Must have been server side as you said. Or maybe it didn't like the Canadian peeking at it. 

Your Lily Tomlin Quote is interesting to me, for God did talk to me more than once, and I am supposedly most not Schizophrenic. That was determined by a Psychatrist and a Ph.D psychologist.
As far as I am concerned, I am most Catholic, but my view of this is entirely centered on God, not mere people. Even Augustine, who is not infallible. Look up his decisions then on Limbo and Hell for unbaptized children. Being Catholic and transgendered, you have more direct acccess to God, from others or from Him directly, then the rest of the unaffected population.
It is actually hard and I am told dangerous for me to say, that I am mystical by any definiton of the term. Yet, I am also quite a mtf, type of transgendered person, and that is also dangerous. Imagine how dangerous it is for me to say, that I am in a mystical marriage to GTF? Yet, each of those is true, and with people like you, I share that, for your benifit.
I also share a lot more, if needed. So, being scientific for some reason, and being in upper level research in semiconductors for some reason, my thinking is primarily scientific. God to me, falls under the strict definition of Science, and no one in my scientific circle was ever used with confidence, unless they thought there was the possiblity that a God exists out there, who is responsible for all we see.
To me, with proofs, in my reality, God is totally Real by proof. That will take much explaining.
To me though as impossible as it seems with the above statement, my marriage proposale delivered to me, for which I EVENTUALLY, said YES!, to is faith item to some extent.
Also, when the Psychologist nailed me, and my disavowing being a mystic, (during the required counseling to transition), she practically commanded me to admit, accept and deal with the fact that I am also what she called a medical mystic.
For the mystical part, she proved to me I was one on two occasions, during the five sessions I went to for the Medicare requirements to get female hormones, now totally legally from them. I can also get surgery from Medicare if any doctor accepts that, in the future, not that money is my primary issue. It is being right with God, that is my primary issue.
I guess that I am trying to give you a hint, that God and being transgendered, may not be an issue. Two of us, have had contact with Him, on this issue. I was proposed to as a girl, when in fact I had a male body. I was propeosed to, I did not chase, I did not, I never ever expected that encounter, and later I was told to get a Spiiritual Director, to check out that statement and others. He, by a fleece test, proved to himself and I that I was then forced to accept, my marriage, among other things. My marriage to GTF.
I don't expect this will last long on this site, and no I don't know all the rules yet of what I am restricted to not saying. However, if this really happened, I sure hope someday it will be proved to the Catholic Church, the largest in the World, the oldest in the world, so that they can know how God thinks of us transgendered.
...Katerina.

[Tessa James]

I doubt it.  For those enamored by the "brides of christ" (as nuns have called themselves) I can dredge up bilious memories of a catholic grade school education that featured beatings of children to supposedly demonstrate god's love and discipline.  Those kinds of corporal punishment are now illegal but I will not readily forsake common sense for the voices in someones head. 

[LoriLorenz]

I doubt it.  For those enamored by the "brides of christ" (as nuns have called themselves) I can dredge up bilious memories of a catholic grade school education that featured beatings of children to supposedly demonstrate god's love and discipline.  Those kinds of corporal punishment are now illegal but I will not readily forsake common sense for the voices in someones head.

Not to minimalize your childhood memories, but corporal punishment was the norm at one point, where we know far better today. I could dredge out stories from several "brides of Christ" that I have spoken to personally that indicate the total opposite of this sad reality. I can also point to the myriad of government documentation (in Canada at least) that indicates that many religious who served in Residential Schools (First Nations or Native Americans depending on your location) That show that most religious communities serving in these schools were acting under Government direction.I do understand your point, believe me. I come from a section of the population whose history is splattered with school abuse, I am simply also aware of the history and reasoning behind much of it.

Katerina, Thank you for your words. You have a unique perspective on the world for certain! My own road may or may not follow the standard path, I am still discorvering and praying about this all.

[Katerinah1947]

Not to minimalize your childhood memories, but corporal punishment was the norm at one point, where we know far better today. I could dredge out stories from several "brides of Christ" that I have spoken to personally that indicate the total opposite of this sad reality. I can also point to the myriad of government documentation (in Canada at least) that indicates that many religious who served in Residential Schools (First Nations or Native Americans depending on your location) That show that most religious communities serving in these schools were acting under Government direction.I do understand your point, believe me. I come from a section of the population whose history is splattered with school abuse, I am simply also aware of the history and reasoning behind much of it.

Katerina, Thank you for your words. You have a unique perspective on the world for certain! My own road may or may not follow the standard path, I am still discorvering and praying about this all.

Hi,
Consider in your prayers: https://catholictrans.wordpress.com 
That is the web site of a girl trying to figure out with and from God, if she could transition. In among other things that are there, she would not if God disaproved, and one of her issues she and I discussed offline as she requested that of me, is whether or not she was really a female inside, in God's view of things. She is, but you can read the things there and maybe it will help, maybe it will not, to know what to do, from what is true really.
I did not say it, but in my case, God, specifically God The Father, outed me to me female wise, and it still took me six years more to figure it all out, and transition.
I have no idea why it took so long for me to transition, when all the clues were there at age five, sixty two years ago. However when I finally transitioned a litte, out of no other options anymore, within a month Obama told the Medicare folks to review their findings on Trangender surgery and maybe the whole issue. The did, found out they were wrong because not enough infomation existed the last time they looked at including trangenger medicine and proceedures twenty or thirty years ago. Then the Federal Government changed their rules on surgery seven months later, just in time for me to use tham.
Then they added sanity legality and honor to it in my mind. Then they added more to my life, to stand up to the world in other areas similar to being different gender wise than others. The Psyhologist said I am transgendered, but also unexpectedly she proved my marriage to God, was true in a way, and she proved I am a medical mystic, what ever that means.  She wrote a paper protecting me she said, from the rest of the world to use to keep them legally from saying otherwise ever.  I now have that, and  the changes in my life are more than profound.
In timing, that timing, just in time,  now I can say what I am in all ways, and only TROLLS, can but say otherwise harmlessly, except to my emotions which some of the time are still damaged by them, briefly, some of the time.
The decision to or not to transition is yours.
...Katerina.

[Zoetrope]

I do feel uneasy about returning to Church for Holy Communion ... I haven't been since before I began transitioning.

It would mean an awful lot to receive communion as the new me. I prayed long and hard for guidance as to whether I should or should not transition, to begin with. The result was that, the door was thrown open for me to do so ...

I just feel uneasy about going. I'm sure its all in my own head. I have the irrational thought that I would be refused communion, and that *would* upset me. Its making me avoidant of the issue. Even though I do know better.

Hrm :~s

[Joelene9]

  In Ephesians 5:22-33, the Church is compared as a bride to Jesus as well. Christ and His Bride is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. An old joke during the 1980's said by a Catholic Brothers' comedy troup and from Ann Landers herself was: "What do you call a nun who was a boy? A transister."

  Joelene

[LoriLorenz]

I do feel uneasy about returning to Church for Holy Communion ... I haven't been since before I began transitioning.

It would mean an awful lot to receive communion as the new me. I prayed long and hard for guidance as to whether I should or should not transition, to begin with. The result was that, the door was thrown open for me to do so ...

I just feel uneasy about going. I'm sure its all in my own head. I have the irrational thought that I would be refused communion, and that *would* upset me. Its making me avoidant of the issue. Even though I do know better.

Hrm :~s

Having studied this extensively at the Master's level, I can unequivocally say that you would not be refused communion. You have every right to receive it, unless you are in mortal sin. Since the Church does not consider being trans as a mortal sin, a priest or eucharistic minister has no grounds under which to refuse you the Body of Christ based on that.. If they do, then you have every right to go to their superiors and get them reprimanded! (You also have every right to immediately go to another server and receive from them.)

Joelene! BAHAHA! I'm a transister then!